Experimental, equilibrium modelling, and column design for the reactive separation of biomass‐derived 2‐furoic acid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Electrochemical conversion of biomass to value‐added chemicals has gained impetus in recent years. Herein, we present a methodology for recovering biomass‐derived 2‐furoic acid from the dilute aqueous stream by reactive extraction. The reactive extraction was performed using a chemical extractant, trioctylamine (TOA), with diluents (octanol, chloroform, and diethyl ether). Equilibrium parameters influencing the recovery of 2‐furoic acid were evaluated. Using TOA in various diluents, the 2‐furoic acid was recovered with 85%–99% efficiency. A 1:1 complex of the 2‐furoic acid—TOA was formed in the organic phase, and the experimental equilibrium complexation constant was compared with that obtained from the relative basicity and Langmuir models. The equilibrium parameters were used for column design to estimate the solvent to feed ratio (S/F) and the number of theoretical stages (NTS). The NTS required is 12 to attain 99% recovery of 2‐furoic acid in counter‐current extraction. The present study sheds light on the reactive extraction process adopted for process intensification with electrochemical conversion, paving the way for the commercialization of valuable products obtained from biomass.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".