MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414532386 · doi:10.1002/cctc.202501299

Two‐Step Synthesis of 2,5‐Furandicarboxylic Acid Through Biomass‐Derived 5‐(Hydroxymethyl)furfural in a Green Isopropanol–Water Solvent System

2025· article· en· W4414532386 on OpenAlexafffund
Surabhi Pandey, Cora Sofía Lecona‐Vargas, Valérie Orsat, Marie‐Josée Dumont

Bibliographic record

VenueChemCatChem · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCatalysis for Biomass Conversion
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalMcGill University
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaMinistère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation
KeywordsCatalysisOxidizing agentYield (engineering)LactoseSolventGreen chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study presents a one‐pot, two‐step process for synthesizing 2,5‐furandicarboxylic acid (FDCA) from whey permeate powder (WPP) using a green isopropanol–water solvent system. WPP, a cheese industry byproduct produced in large quantities, was chosen over glucose, fructose, or lactose due to its high biochemical oxygen demand and disposal challenges. In the first step, 5‐(hydroxymethyl)furfural (HMF) was produced from WPP, with process optimization via Box–Behnken design. Among various catalysts tested, a combination of AlCl 3 and FeCl 3 (6:1 weight ratio) was most effective, yielding 51.8% HMF under optimal conditions: 36.6 mg catalyst, 139.7 °C, and 1.48 h. Crude HMF was isolated via rotary evaporation with a 41.3% yield. In the second step, a non‐precious Cu─Fe─O catalyst was synthesized for oxidizing HMF to FDCA. Using pure HMF (1 wt%), the optimized conditions—2.8 equiv NaOH, 159.5 °C, and 5.7 h—achieved a 49.3% FDCA yield. Integration with WPP‐derived HMF (0.5 wt%) produced a 60.8% FDCA yield. Catalyst reuse studies showed consistent performance over four cycles without significant yield loss.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemCatChemSame topicCatalysis for Biomass ConversionFrench-language works237,207