MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Co-production of ethanol and cellulose nanocrystals through self-cycling fermentation of wood pulp hydrolysate

2021· article· en· W3138250341 on OpenAlexafffund
Jie Wang, Michael Chae, Dawit Beyene, Dominic Sauvageau, David C. Bressler

Bibliographic record

VenueBioresource Technology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiofuel production and bioconversion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaBioFuelNet Canada
KeywordsCellulosic ethanolEthanol fuelFermentationCelluloseRaw materialPulp and paper industryHydrolysateHydrolysisChemistryPulp (tooth)EthanolEnzymatic hydrolysisEthanol fermentationFood scienceBiochemistryOrganic chemistryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A promising approach to help offset production costs for the cellulosic ethanol industry is to improve ethanol productivity while simultaneously generating value-added by-products. This study reports integration of an advanced fermentation approach (self-cycling fermentation) with the production of cellulose nanocrystals. Specifically, wood pulp was enzymatically hydrolyzed to yield dissolved sugars, which were fed to a self-cycling fermentation system for ethanol production, and residual solids were used for cellulose nanocrystals production via acid hydrolysis. Self-cycling fermentation achieved stable ethanol production for 10 cycles with significantly greater productivity than batch operation: ethanol volumetric productivity increased by 63-95% and annual ethanol productivity by 96 ± 5%. Additionally, the enzyme hydrolysis approach employed did not impede ethanol fermentation, and the cellulose nanocrystals generated displayed properties consistent with previous studies. Taken together, these results highlight the potential of this co-production strategy to produce both cellulosic ethanol and cellulose nanocrystals from a single feedstock.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.494

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioresource TechnologySame topicBiofuel production and bioconversionFrench-language works237,207