Mechanistic studies on the formation of 5-hydroxymethylfurfural from the sugars fructose and glucose
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In recent years the transformations of fructose and glucose to the platform chemical 5-hydroxymethylfurfural (5-HMF) have been studied extensively, and a variety of mechanisms have been proposed. This review summarizes the varied mechanisms proposed and methods used to study the dehydration of biomass, such as fructose and glucose, to give 5-hydroxymethylfurfural. For fructose dehydration, two main mechanisms have been suggested including a cyclic and an acyclic pathway, of which the cyclic pathway dominates. The conversion of glucose to 5-HMF can proceed either through initial isomerization to fructose or a direct dehydration. For glucose to fructose isomerization, two main reaction pathways have been proposed (1,2-hydride shift and enolization). This review discusses the mechanisms that have been determined based on the evidence from experiments and/or calculations, and briefly introduces the techniques frequently used in such mechanistic studies. Mechanisms in this field are strongly dependent on the nature of the solvent and the catalyst used, so it is important that researchers have a general idea about the existing mechanisms, and the methods and techniques used for investigation, before pursuing their own mechanistic studies.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".