Influence of Mixing Regime on Enzymatic Saccharification of Steam-Exploded Softwood Chips
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an attempt to elucidate the effect of reduced mixing on the enzymatic hydrolysis of lignocellulosic feedstocks, a pretreated softwood substrate was hydrolyzed under various mixing regimes using a commercial cellulase mixture. The substrate was generated by SO 2 -catalyzed steam explosion of Douglas fir wood chips followed by alkali-peroxide treatment to remove lignin. Three mixing regimes were tested; continuous mixing at low (25 rpm) and high (150 rpm) speeds, and mixing at low-speed interspersed with 5-min intervals of high-speed agitation at 150 rpm. At both substrate concentrations (7.5 and 10% [w/w]), the mixed-speed mixing was able to produce sufficiently high conversion rates and yields (93% after 96 h), close or slightly better than those obtained under vigorous mixing (150 rpm). The low-speed shaking produced appreciably lower conversion yields at both levels of substrate concentration. Therefore, the mixed-speed regime may be a viable process option, because it does not seem to have an adverse impact on the cellulose conversion yield and can be an effective means of reducing the mixing energy requirements of an enzymatic hydrolysis process.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".