MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3188990170 · doi:10.1002/bbb.2273

Production and separation of acetic acid from pyrolysis oil of lignocellulosic biomass: a review

2021· review· en· W3188990170 on OpenAlexaff
Tahereh Sarchami, Neha Batta, Franco Berruti

Bibliographic record

VenueBiofuels Bioproducts and Biorefining · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcetic acidLignocellulosic biomassPyrolysisBiomass (ecology)Pulp and paper industryRaw materialChemistryBiofuelValue addedOrganic chemistryWaste managementLigninAgronomyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Bio‐oil from lignocellulosic biomass pyrolysis is a promising feedstock as a precursor for the production of transportation fuels and value‐added chemicals. The presence of significant concentrations of oxygen, water, and acids makes it difficult to use bio‐oil directly as a transportation fuel without costly upgrading. The acidity of pyrolysis liquids is mainly derived from volatile acids, such as acetic acid, causing chemical instability and corrosion. The extraction of acids from bio‐oil can therefore offer strategies for improved applications and economic value. Moreover, acetic acid is a valuable reagent and the building block for several commercially important chemicals. This review presents the results of important research related to the production of bio‐oil‐derived acetic acid. The discussion is intended to summarize the effect of biomass type and pretreatment method, pyrolysis processing conditions, and separation techniques on acetic acid production via pyrolysis. On this basis, acetic acid characterization techniques are also presented along with an overview of acetic acid applications and economic considerations. © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations81
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiofuels Bioproducts and BiorefiningSame topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207