Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38516536›Full record

ArticleFuel (London, England)2019

Determination of physicochemical properties of petroleum derivatives and biodiesel using GC/MS and chemometric methods with uncertainty estimation.

Werickson Fortunato de Carvalho Rocha, David A Sheen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Fuel (London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Werickson Fortunato de Carvalho RochaNational Institute of Metrology, Quality, and Technology-INMETRO, Division of Chemical Metrology, 25250-020 Duque de Caxias, RJ, Brazil.
David A SheenChemical Sciences Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, USA.

Funding

Intramural NIST DOC 9999-NIST
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The physicochemical properties of a substance, such as a fuel, can vary significantly with composition. Determining these properties with ASTM standard methods is both expensive and time-consuming, which has led to a desire to use chemometric modeling as an alternative. In this study, we compare the accuracy and robustness of two chemometric models, partial least squares (PLS) regression and support vector machine (SVM) with uncertainty estimation to determine how the physicochemical properties depend on the composition. A set of hydrocarbon mixtures, including crude oil, oil, gasoline, and biofuel/biodiesel, were collected. GC-MS data were taken, and physicochemical properties were measured for these mixtures using ASTM standard methods. PLS and SVM were used to develop predictive models of the physicochemical properties. Uncertainty in the estimated property values was estimated using a bootstrapping technique. With this uncertainty estimate, it is possible to assess the trustworthiness of any prediction, which ensures that the chemometric models can be applied for general purposes. SVM was found to be generally better for predicting the physicochemical properties, although we expect that with a more comprehensive data set the performance of the PLS models can be improved. We show in this work that PLS and SVM can be used to generate a predictive model of physicochemical properties based on GC-MS data. Combined with uncertainty analysis, these models provide robust predictions that can be used for regulatory, economic, and safety purposes.

Indexed as

bootstrapfuelpartial least squaresphysical-chemical propertiessupport vector machineUncertainty analysis

Identifiers

PMID38516536
PMCPMC10956500

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.