Syngas Fermentation for the Production of Bio-Based Polymers: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasing environmental awareness among the general public and legislators has driven this modern era to seek alternatives to fossil-derived products such as fuel and plastics. Addressing environmental issues through bio-based products driven from microbial fermentation of synthetic gas (syngas) could be a future endeavor, as this could result in both fuel and plastic in the form of bioethanol and polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA). Abundant availability in the form of cellulosic, lignocellulosic, and other organic and inorganic wastes presents syngas catalysis as an interesting topic for commercialization. Fascination with syngas fermentation is trending, as it addresses the limitations of conventional technologies like direct biochemical conversion and Fischer-Tropsch's method for the utilization of lignocellulosic biomass. A plethora of microbial strains is available for syngas fermentation and PHA production, which could be exploited either in an axenic form or in a mixed culture. These microbes constitute diverse biochemical pathways supported by the activity of hydrogenase and carbon monoxide dehydrogenase (CODH), thus resulting in product diversity. There are always possibilities of enzymatic regulation and/or gene tailoring to enhance the process's effectiveness. PHA productivity drags the techno-economical perspective of syngas fermentation, and this is further influenced by syngas impurities, gas-liquid mass transfer (GLMT), substrate or product inhibition, downstream processing, etc. Product variation and valorization could improve the economical perspective and positively impact commercial sustainability. Moreover, choices of single-stage or multi-stage fermentation processes upon product specification followed by microbial selection could be perceptively optimized.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
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".