Modelling and dynamic simulation to produce fermentable sugars from lignocellulosic substrates through dilute acid hydrolysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This research paper presents a comprehensive investigation aimed at enhancing the 2G bioethanol production process through the implementation of a dynamic process simulator. The simulator, developed using the Julia programming language, enables the prediction of acid hydrolysis behaviour by manipulating critical variables, including liquid–solid ratio (LSR), acid concentration (CA), and processing time (t). Through meticulous simulations and subsequent experimental validation, optimal operating conditions were revealed, with an H2SO4 concentration of 2% v/v, a LSR of 4% v/w, and 60‐min processing time at 121.1°C. This configuration led to remarkable outcomes, including a xylose concentration of 47.45 g L−1 and an 87.4% hemicellulose removal percentage. Moreover, the simulator unveiled the adverse influence of low LSR values on xylose production and the generation of degradation products. The recalibration of kinetic parameters, guided by experimental data, further fine‐tuned the simulator's predictive accuracy. Overall, this study underscores the potential of the simulator in optimizing various raw materials and presents a promising avenue for advancing 2G bioethanol industry practices.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".