Bioethanol production from edible insect excreta: a case study on frass from house crickets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
House crickets are among the most promising edible insect species for inclusion in future agri-food systems. Their appeal stems from environmentally sustainable rearing practices, a high nutritional value, and a long history of traditional use as food. Additionally, their rearing produces a byproduct known as frass, which holds potential as a valuable biomaterial. The utilization of house cricket frass as a substrate for bioethanol production was explored. Frass was digested with cellulases at 10% enzyme/dry matter of substrate, 50°C, pH=5, 48 h. This hydrolysis was combined with different treatments, like acidic (1% sulfuric acid) and alkaline (1% sodium hydroxide), and compared to protease treatment (50°C, pH=6.8, 24 h). The production of sugar and free amino proteins reached 30 and 5 g/L, respectively. Several yeast strains, isolated and identified from various organic waste sources, were tested. The fermentation was performed with Saccharomyces cerevisiae for 48 h with frass hydrolysate, pretreated with sulfuric acid, and digested with proteases and cellulases. The addition of molasses at 0‒60 g/L was considered. Sugar consumption exceeded 80%, with ethanol concentrations reaching 12.56 g/L without molasses and 30.57 g/L with the addition of molasses. Cricket frass was utilized as a substrate for bioethanol production, and the process was significantly enhanced by supplementing it with sugar beet molasses.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".