Now showing 1 - 10 of 21
  • Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    Item type:Publication,
    Application of baby corn husk as a biological sustainable feedstock for the production of cellulase and xylanase by Lentinus squarrosulus Mont.
    (2023-02-01)
    Vichitraka, Asanee
    ;
    ;
    Tantratian, Sumate
    ;
    ;
    In an effort to use baby corn husk (BCH) as a sustainable feedstock for cellulase and xylanase production by the Lentinus squarrosulus Mont. isolate LS-YA (LSM-LS-YA), a suitable pretreatment method and fermentation strategies were developed. BCH pretreated with 1 M sodium hydroxide for 90 min, an alkaline pretreatment, exemplified an appropriate pretreatment method. In a 10-L external Venturi injector bioreactor, the highest cellulase and xylanase production was 4.12 ± 0.36 unit/mL and 6.15 ± 0.36 unit/mL, respectively, when 1 g/L diammonium hydrogen phosphate was used as the nitrogen source and the aeration rate was controlled at 0.2 vvm. This study provides an informative perspective on the production of cellulase and xylanase from agricultural lignocellulosic materials, which could reduce agricultural waste while supporting a zero-waste circular economy, and this fermentation process would be applicable to larger-scale production.
  • Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    Item type:Publication,
    Analysis of the Pomelo Peel Essential Oils at Different Storage Durations Using a Visible and Near-Infrared Spectroscopic on Intact Fruit
    (2024-08-01) ;
    Duangchang, Jittra
    ;
    ; ;
    Shrestha, Bim Prasad
    Pomelo fruit pulp mainly is consumed fresh and with very little processing, and its peels are discarded as biological waste, which can cause the environmental problems. The peels contain several bioactive chemical compounds, especially essential oils (EOs). The content of a specific EO is important for the extraction process in industry and in research units such as breeding research. The explanation of the biosynthesis pathway for EO generation and change was included. The chemical bond vibration affected the prediction of EO constituents was comprehensively explained by regression coefficient plots and x-loading plots. Visible and near-infrared spectroscopy (VIS/NIRS) is a prominent rapid technique used for fruit quality assessment. This research work was focused on evaluating the use of VIS/NIRS to predict the composition of EOs found in the peel of the pomelo fruit (Citrus maxima (J. Burm.) Merr. cv Kao Nam Pueng) following storage. The composition of the peel oil was analyzed by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS) at storage durations of 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, 90, 105 and 120 days (at 10 °C and 70% relative humidity). The relationship between the NIR spectral data and the major EO components found in the peel, including nootkatone, geranial, β-phellandrene and limonene, were established using the raw spectral data in conjunction with partial least squares (PLS) regression. Preprocessing of the raw spectra was performed using multiplicative scatter correction (MSC) or second derivative preprocessing. The PLS model of nootkatone with full MSC had the highest correlation coefficient between the predicted and reference values (r = 0.82), with a standard error of prediction (SEP) of 0.11% and bias of 0.01%, while the models of geranial, β-phellandrene and limonene provided too low r values of 0.75, 0.75 and 0.67, respectively. The nootkatone model is only appropriate for use in screening and some other approximate calibrations, though this is the first report of the use of NIR spectroscopy on intact fruit measurement for its peel EO constituents during cold storage.
  • Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    Item type:Publication,
    Revealing the Power of Deep Learning in Quality Assessment of Mango and Mangosteen Purée Using NIR Spectral Data
    The quality control of fruit purée products such as mango and mangosteen is crucial for maintaining consumer satisfaction and meeting industry standards. Traditional destructive techniques for assessing key quality parameters like the soluble solid content (SSC) and titratable acidity (TA) are labor-intensive and time-consuming; prompting the need for rapid, nondestructive alternatives. This study investigated the use of deep learning (DL) models including Simple-CNN, AlexNet, EfficientNetB0, MobileNetV2, and ResNeXt for predicting SSC and TA in mango and mangosteen purée and compared their performance with the conventional chemometric method partial least squares regression (PLSR). Spectral data were preprocessed and evaluated using 10-fold cross-validation. For mango purée, the Simple-CNN model achieved the highest predictive accuracy for both SSC (coefficient of determination of cross-validation ((Formula presented.)) = 0.914, root mean square error of cross-validation (RMSE<inf>CV</inf>) = 0.688, the ratio of prediction to deviation of cross-validation (RPD<inf>CV</inf>) = 3.367) and TA ((Formula presented.) = 0.762, RMSE<inf>CV</inf> = 0.037, RPD<inf>CV</inf> = 2.864), demonstrating a statistically significant improvement over PLSR. For the mangosteen purée, AlexNet exhibited the best SSC prediction performance ((Formula presented.) = 0.702, RMSE<inf>CV</inf> = 0.471, RPD<inf>CV</inf> = 1.666), though the RPD<inf>CV</inf> values (<2.0) indicated limited applicability for precise quantification. TA prediction in mangosteen purée showed low variance in the reference values (standard deviation (SD) = 0.048), which may have restricted model performance. These results highlight the potential of DL for improving NIR-based quality evaluation of fruit purée, while also pointing to the need for further refinement to ensure interpretability, robustness, and practical deployment in industrial quality control.
  • Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    Item type:Publication,
    Integrating Vis-SWNIR spectrometer in a conveyor system for in-line measurement of dry matter content and soluble solids content of durian pulp
    (2021-11-01) ;
    Sharma, Sneha
    ;
    ;
    Leepaitoon, Kritsanaphon
    ;
    Chunsri, Rashphon
    The prediction of dry matter content (DMC) and soluble solids content (SSC) in durian pulp were performed using a small laboratory scale in-line visible and short wave near infrared (Vis-SWNIR) spectroscopic system. The fiber optic diode array spectrometer with a charged coupled device (CCD) detector in a wavelength range of 450−1000 nm was used for spectral data acquisition. The spectra of the sample were acquired on the moving conveyor belt in two different orientations, including scanning in the upright position of pulps collected in 2018 and the stable position by scanning on the side of the pulps collected in 2019. Partial least squares regression (PLSR) was used to establish the relationship between the spectra and observed DMC and SSC values using the different wavelength ranges, including 450−1000, 700−1000, and 800−1000 nm for the comparison. The results showed that the durian pulp should be scanned in the upright position at the center of the pulp. Moving average smoothing preprocessing combined with the standard normal variate (SNV) for DMC and multiple scatter correction (MSC) for SSC gave the best result. The suitable wavelength range for model development to predict the DMC and SSC was 700−1000 nm and 800−1000 nm, respectively. After comparing the results, the optimum model showed the coefficient of determination of calibration (R<inf>C</inf><sup>2</sup>), and prediction (R<inf>P</inf><sup>2</sup>), root mean square error of prediction (RMSEP), bias, and the ratio of performance to interquartile distance (RPIQ) of 0.88, 0.83, 4.32 %, 1.25 %, and 3.52 for DMC and 0.70, 0.70, 4.0 %, 0.4 %, and 2.2 for SSC prediction.
  • Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    Item type:Publication,
    Moisture content prediction in durian husk biomass via near infrared spectroscopy coupled with aquaphotomics and explainable machine learning
    (2025-12-15)
    Shrestha, Zenisha
    ;
    Shrestha, Bijendra
    ;
    ;
    Pun, Umed Kumar
    ;
    Bajracharya, Tri Ratna
    Accurate determination of moisture content is essential for energy efficiency and biomass management for fuel materials such as durian husk. Traditional methods of determining biomass moisture content are time-consuming and require specialized expertise, posing challenges for continuous monitoring. To address this limitation, this study applies Near Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRS) combined with machine learning models to rapidly and accurately assess moisture content. Both linear Partial Least Squares Regression (PLSR) and non-linear approaches were used, including Support Vector Machines (SVM), Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), and Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGB). The application of preprocessing techniques, notably the Savitzky-Golay second derivative (SD) and Standard Normal Variate (SNV), significantly augmented the predictive performance, highlighting the importance of data preprocessing in spectral analysis. Synthetic spectral augmentation using Gaussian noise revealed that while SVM and ANN exhibited near-perfect performance, SVM demonstrated quantifiable reliability. This study also demonstrates SVM as the most sensitive and reliable method for detecting and quantifying moisture content in durian husk. This research contributes novel insights to biomass analysis, highlighting the benefits of integrating NIRS and feasibility of explainable machine learning techniques to identify water related spectral parameters to advance aquaphotomics, thereby advancing rapid and accurate biomass characterization.
  • Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    Item type:Publication,
    Predicting biomass global warming potential with FT-NIR spectroscopy
    (2025-12-01)
    Gyawali, Prakash
    ;
    Shrestha, Bijendra
    ;
    ;
    Posom, Jetsada
    ;
    This research is to predict the global warming potential (GWP) of biomass by using Fourier transform near-infrared (FT-NIR) spectroscopy. A partial least squares regression model of 197 biomass chip samples was developed for predicting GWP of fast-growing trees and agricultural residues. The reference value of GWP of biomass sample was calculated by the method provided by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). After applying different spectral pretreatments and variable selection methods, the best model for predicting GWP was found using the 1st derivative spectrum pretreatment and covariance method (COVM) based variable selection. The results indicate GWP model exhibit good predictive capabilities, where the model can be usable with caution for any purpose including research, by achieving a coefficient of determination for prediction set (R<sup>2</sup><inf>P</inf>) of 0.86, and ratio of prediction to deviation (RPD) of 2.6. Additionally, the RMSEP of 0.00063 suggests a low prediction error. This pioneering approach presents a swift and efficient means to determine GWP, the complex functionality parameter, which reveals an optimal relationship model, showcasing its efficacy in a significant advancement in the assessment of biomass functionality related to climate change issue. Additionally, the further research is recommended to integrate FT-NIR data with thermogravimetric analyser to simulate of different thermal conversion of biomass type where different emission gases are generated and with gas chromatography–mass spectrometry for evaluation of concentration of the generated gases for further refine GWP predictions which providing more comprehensive insights and exact content of emission gases affect global warming to support the IPCC.
  • Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    Item type:Publication,
    NIR Spectroscopy as an Alternative to Thermogravimetric Analyzer for Biomass Proximate Analysis: Comparison of Chip and Ground Biomass Models
    (2024-02-01)
    Shrestha, Bijendra
    ;
    Posom, Jetsada
    ;
    ;
    Shrestha, Bim Prasad
    ;
    This study investigates the non-destructive analysis of proximate parameters (moisture content, MC; volatile matter, VM; fixed carbon, FC; ash content) in various chipped and ground biomass using a combination of destructive thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) and non-destructive near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) with partial least squares regression (PLSR). The thermogravimetric method determines proximate analysis data through TG and DTG curves, tracking biomass mass loss over time or temperature. NIRS scans chipped biomass in diffuse reflectance, and ground biomass in transflectance mode, covering the wavenumber range from 3595 to 12,489 cm<sup>−1</sup>. PLSR-based models (Full-PLSR, GA-PLSR, SPA-PLSR, MP PLSR 5-range method, and MP PLSR 3-range method) are developed and evaluated based on R<sup>2</sup>P, RMSEP, and RPD. MC and FC models for chip biomass exhibit satisfactory performance, making them cautiously applicable in various applications, including research. Optimal models for MC and FC in chip biomass, constructed using GA-PLSR with the second derivative and Full-PLSR with a constant offset, yield high R<sup>2</sup>P values (0.8654 and 0.8773), low RMSEP values (0.85% and 2.12%), and high RPD values (2.9 and 3.0), indicating applicative capabilities. Other parameters such as MC and FC in ground biomass, as well as VM and ash content in both chip and ground biomass, are found suitable for rough screening. Model sensitivity, assessed by calculating LOQ, indicates high sensitivity for VM in both chip and ground biomass and FC in chip biomass, as the calculated LOQ value is lower than the minimum reference values used during model development. However, for the remaining parameters, LOQ values surpass the established minimum reference value, suggesting limitations in predicting samples below the calibration range. Continuous model enhancement incorporating an ample number of representative biomass samples and consistent validation with unknown samples are imperative for ensuring accurate predictions.
  • Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    Item type:Publication,
    Effect of Environment Temperature and Relative Humidity on Thermal Emissivity: Study Case of Mango Fruit
    (2024-01-01) ;
    Sripinyowanich Jongyingcharoen, Jiraporn
    ;
    Junto, Apiwat
    ;
    ;
    Dachoupakan Sirisomboon, Cheewanun
    This research was to study the effect of the environment condition during image captured including temperature and relative humidity in the packaging house of the mango exporting factory and in the orchard on the emissivity of mango fruit. The result showed that in the controlled environment of the packaging house in factory, the emissivity was increased (the mango emitted more energy) when the surface temperature was lower and the emissivity of mango is 0.71-0.84 and in the uncontrolled environment of open-air packaging yard in the mango orchard, the different transpiration rates of mango effected mainly by ambient temperature and relative humidity make the morning condition emissivity of 0.44-0.66 and the afternoon condition of 0.72-0.98. There was the effect of the different measured positions on the fruits where the physiology was different and the fluctuated environment in the latter condition made the wide range of emissivity of mangoes. This indicated the shortcoming of thermal imaging of horticultural product if the correct emissivity varied and difficult to set in the thermal camera setting, hence the inaccurate thermogram to be obtained.
  • Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    Item type:Publication,
    Primary assessment of macronutrients in durian (CV Monthong) leaves using near infrared spectroscopy with wavelength selection
    (2024-01-05) ;
    Jaisue, Natthapon
    ;
    Worphet, Akarawhat
    ;
    Tawinteung, Nukoon
    ;
    Farmers would be able to regulate fertilization and produce quality durian if they knew the nutrient concentration in durian leaves. A long period of time for traditional nutritional content determination is needed. Therefore, near-infrared spectroscopy is a good method for nondestructive and quick nutrient content evaluation. The leaf sample matrices (fresh leaves, dried ground leaves, and dried ground leaf pellets) were scanned by Fourier transform near-infrared (FT-NIR) with a wavelength of 12,500–3,600 cm<sup>−1</sup>. Regression models were developed using partial least squares (PLS) with full wavelength, short wavelength, and selected wavelength by successive projections algorithm (SPA). In this study, the model for N and K concentration was acceptable and the prediction was considered good but for P content not had succeeded. As a result, the PLS-SPA model using fresh leaf samples for evaluating N content in durian leaves exhibited performance of r<sup>2</sup> = 0.852, SEP = 0.14%, RPD = 2.63 and bias = −0.020%. The PLS-SPA model using dried ground leaf samples for evaluating K content in durian leaves exhibited performance of r<sup>2</sup> = 0.820, SEP = 0.13%, RPD = 2.36 and bias = 0.006%. This research found that it is possible to apply NIR waves to predict N and K concentrations in durian leaves. It is not necessary to predict directly from the wavelengths associated with -N or -K bonds. Instead, NIR can measure them indirectly from the bonding of proteins, which are products formed by N and K. In addition, selecting the wavelength that is related to the value to be measured can produce results that are not significantly different from using full or short wavelengths. These models can assist farmers in rapidly predicting N and K content in durian leaves for immediate fertilizer adjustment.
  • Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    Item type:Publication,
    Author Correction: Predicting biomass global warming potential with FT-NIR spectroscopy (Scientific Reports, (2025), 15, 1, (33725), 10.1038/s41598-025-10584-z)
    (2026-12-01)
    Gyawali, Prakash
    ;
    Shrestha, Bijendra
    ;
    ;
    Posom, Jetsada
    ;
    Correction to: Scientific Reportshttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-10584-z, published online 30 September 2025 The original version of this Article contained errors. In the original version of this article, the climate-carbon effect value was not included as introduced in AR6. As a result, in the Materials and methods section, under the subheading ‘Estimation of global warming potential and emission of greenhouse gas (GHG)’, where: “Step 1: (CO<inf>2</inf>, CH<inf>4</inf>, N<inf>2</inf>O) emissions (kg) = Mass of Fuel (kg) × Carbon emission factor (kg TJ<sup>-1</sup>) × HHV (kg TJ<sup>-1</sup>) Step 2: Total GWP = (GWP of CO<inf>2</inf>×CO<inf>2</inf> emissions) +(GWP of CH<inf>4</inf>×CH<inf>4</inf> emissions) +(GWP of N<inf>2</inf>O×N<inf>2</inf>O emissions)” now reads: “Step 1: GHG (CO<inf>2</inf>, CH<inf>4</inf>, or N<inf>2</inf>O) emissions (kg) = Mass of Fuel (kg) × Specific GHG emission factor (kg TJ<sup>-1</sup>) × HHV (TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>) Step 2: Total GWP (kg CO<inf>2</inf>e) = (GWP of CO<inf>2</inf>×CO<inf>2</inf> emissions) + (GWP of CH<inf>4</inf>×CH<inf>4</inf> emissions) + (GWP of N<inf>2</inf>O×N<inf>2</inf>O emissions)” In addition, under the subheading ‘Model development and validation’, where: “The model was optimized by selecting wavenumbers through various variable selection methods, including the Correlation Method (CM), Variance Method (VM), Co-Variance Method (COVM), and Variable Importance Projection (VIP). The spectral data were pretreated using raw spectra, standard normal variate (SNV), as well as first derivative and second derivative transformations. The following spectra pretreatment methods: Standard Normal Variate (SNV) is for corrects scatter effects and baseline variations<sup>35</sup>,” now reads: “The model was optimized by selecting wavenumbers through various variable selection methods, including the Correlation Method (CM), Variance Method (VM), Co-Variance Method (COVM), and Variable Importance Projection (VIP). The following spectra pretreatment methods: Standard Normal Variate (SNV) is for correcting scatter effects and baseline variations<sup>35</sup>,” In addition, Equations 3, 4 and 6 contained typesetting errors. As a result, Equation 3: (Formula presented.) now reads, (Formula presented.) Equation 4: (Formula presented.) now reads: (Formula presented.) And Equation 6 (Formula presented.) now reads: (Formula presented.) Furthermore, under the Results section, subheading ‘Predicting performance of biomass GWP using PLSR’, where: “The model developed with CM (reduction of 1150 wavenumber of full range to 325 wavenumber) of 1st derivative spectra, gave best performance with R<sup>2</sup><inf>P</inf> was 0.87 (Table 4).” now reads: “The model developed with COVM (reduction of 1150 wavenumber of full range to 325 wavenumber) of 1st derivative spectra, gave the best performance with R<sup>2</sup><inf>P</inf> was 0.85 (Table 4).” Under the subheading ‘Prediction result of HHV using PLSR’, where: “This approach reduced the number of variables from 1150 to 365 wavenumbers, significantly enhancing the model’s performance (R<sup>2</sup><inf>C</inf> of 0.98 and R<sup>2</sup><inf>P</inf> of 0.87)” now reads: “This approach reduced the number of variables from 1150 to 365 wavenumbers, significantly enhancing the model’s performance (R<sup>2</sup><inf>C</inf> of 0.98 and R<sup>2</sup><inf>P</inf> of 0.86)” Under the subheading ‘Regression coefficient and x-loading of GWP model’, where: “Prominent peaks were identified and the bond vibration interpretation is shown in Table 7 and the vibration indicated by Workman and Weyer<sup>38</sup> at the wavenumbers in bold were not found or not related to biomass.” now reads: “Prominent peaks were identified, and the bond vibration interpretation is shown in Table 7, which was indicated by Workman and Weyer<sup>38</sup>.” Equation 8: GWP for CO<inf>2</inf>, or CH<inf>4</inf>, or N<inf>2</inf>O Emissions = (1×CO<inf>2</inf> Emission) or (29.8×CH<inf>4</inf> Emission) or (273×N<inf>2</inf>O Emission) = (1×112 HHV) for CO<inf>2</inf> Emission or (29.8×30 HHV) for CH<inf>4</inf> Emission or (273×4 HHV) for N<inf>2</inf>O Emission = 112.0×HHV for CO<inf>2</inf> Emission or 894.0×HHV for CH<inf>4</inf> Emission or 1092.0×HHV for N<inf>2</inf>O Emission and GWP total = 2098.0 (HHV, TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>) = 0.000002098 kJ kg<sup>-1</sup> = 0.000002098 Jg<sup>-1</sup> now reads: GWP for CO<inf>2</inf>, or CH<inf>4</inf>, or N<inf>2</inf>O Emissions = (1×CO<inf>2</inf> Emission) or (27.2×CH<inf>4</inf> Emission) or (273×N<inf>2</inf>O Emission) = (1×112 HHV) for CO<inf>2</inf> Emission or (27.2×30 HHV) for CH<inf>4</inf> Emission or (273×4 HHV) for N<inf>2</inf>O Emission = 112.0×HHV for CO<inf>2</inf> Emission or 816.0×HHV for CH<inf>4</inf> Emission or 1092.0×HHV for N<inf>2</inf>O Emission and GWP total (kg CO<inf>2</inf>e) = 2020.0 (HHV, TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>) = 0.000002020 kJ kg<sup>-1</sup> = 0.000002020 J g<sup>-1</sup> Moreover, Tables 1 and 3 have been corrected. Incorrect Table 1: Remarks IPCC guideline Calculation of CO<inf>2</inf> emission Higher Heating Value = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> CO<inf>2</inf> emission factor = 112 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup>, we can follow these steps: Convert HHV to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>: Since 1 TJ = 10<sup>12</sup> J, we need to convert the HHV from J kg<sup>-1</sup> to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>: HHV in TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> / 10<sup>12</sup> = 1.7932×10<sup>-3</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> CO<inf>2</inf> emission (kg) = Mass of fuel (kg) × CO<inf>2</inf> emission factor (kg TJ<sup>-1</sup>) × HHV (TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>) CO<inf>2</inf> emission (kg) = 1 kg × 112 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> × 0.017932 TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> Therefore, the CO<inf>2</inf> emission from stationary fuel combustion with an HHV of 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> and using the default CO<inf>2</inf> emission factor of 112 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> would be approximately 2.0083×10<sup>-3</sup> kg of CO<inf>2</inf> per kg of fuel. CO<inf>2</inf> emission factor: 112 kg dry matter TJ<sup>-1</sup> (typical for wood combustion) Calculation of CH<inf>4</inf> emission Hight Heating Value = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> CH<inf>4</inf> emission factor = 30 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> Convert HHV unit to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> 1 TJ= 10<sup>12</sup> J HHV from J kg<sup>-1</sup> to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>: HHV in TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> / 10<sup>12</sup> = 1,7932×10<sup>-5</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> CH<inf>4</inf> emission (kg) = Mass of Fuel (kg) × CH<inf>4</inf> emission factor (kg TJ<sup>-1</sup>) × HHV (TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>) CH<inf>4</inf> emission (kg) = 1 kg × 30 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> × 1,7932×10<sup>-5</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> CH<inf>4</inf> emission (kg) = 5.3796×10<sup>-4</sup> kg of CH<inf>4</inf> per kg of fuel CH<inf>4</inf> emission factor: 30 kg dry matter TJ<sup>-1</sup> Calculation of N<inf>2</inf>O emission Hight Heating Value = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> N<inf>2</inf>O emission factor = 4 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> Convert HHV unit to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> 1 TJ = 10<sup>12</sup> J HHV from J kg<sup>-1</sup> to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>: HHV in TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> / 10<sup>12</sup> = 1.7932 ×10<sup>-5</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> N<inf>2</inf>O emission (kg) = Mass of Fuel (kg) × N<inf>2</inf>O emission factor (kg TJ<sup>-1</sup>) × HHV (TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>) N<inf>2</inf>O emission (kg) = 1 kg × 4 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> × 1.7932×10<sup>-5</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> N<inf>2</inf>O emission (kg) = 7.1728×10<sup>-5</sup> kg of N<inf>2</inf>O per kg of fuel N<inf>2</inf>O emission factor 4 kg dry matter /TJ The concept of global warming potential (GWP) was introduced in IPCC –AR1 (Shine et al. 1990) to compare the greenhouse effects of different greenhouse gases relative to a reference gas, normally taken as carbon dioxide, under this definition, CO<inf>2</inf> would have a GWP value of 1. Total GWP = (GWP of CO<inf>2</inf>×CO<inf>2</inf> emissions)+(GWP of CH<inf>4</inf>×CH<inf>4</inf> emissions)+(GWP of N<inf>2</inf>O×N<inf>2</inf>O emissions) Total GWP =1×2.0083×10<sup>-3</sup>+29.8× 5.379 ×10<sup>-4</sup>+273×7.1728×10<sup>-5</sup> Total GWP=0.0376 kg CO<inf>2</inf>e This calculation is by 100 years based GWP of emission gases followed AR6 <sup>7</sup> Correct Table 1: Remarks IPCC guideline Calculation of CO<inf>2</inf> emission Higher Heating Value = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> CO<inf>2</inf> emission factor = 112 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup>, we can follow these steps: Convert HHV to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>: Since 1 TJ = 10<sup>12</sup> J, we need to convert the HHV from J kg<sup>-1</sup> to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>: HHV in TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> / 10<sup>12</sup> = 1.7932×10<sup>-5</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> CO<inf>2</inf> emission (kg) = Mass of fuel (kg) × CO<inf>2</inf> emission factor (kg TJ<sup>-1</sup>) × HHV (TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>) CO<inf>2</inf> emission (kg) = 1 kg × 112 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> × 1.7932 × 10<sup>-5</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> Therefore, the CO<inf>2</inf> emission from stationary fuel combustion with an HHV of 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> and using the default CO<inf>2</inf> emission factor of 112 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> would be approximately 2.0083 × 10<sup>-3</sup> kg of CO<inf>2</inf> per kg of fuel. CO<inf>2</inf> emission factor: 112 kg dry matter TJ<sup>-1</sup> (typical for wood combustion) Calculation of CH<inf>4</inf> emission Higher Heating Value = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> CH<inf>4</inf> emission factor = 30 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> Convert HHV unit to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> 1 TJ= 10<sup>12</sup> J HHV from J kg<sup>-1</sup> to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>: HHV in TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> / 10<sup>12</sup> = 1,7932×10<sup>-5</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> CH<inf>4</inf> emission (kg) = Mass of Fuel (kg) × CH<inf>4</inf> emission factor (kg TJ<sup>-1</sup>) × HHV (TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>) CH<inf>4</inf> emission (kg) = 1 kg × 30 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> × 1,7932×10<sup>-5</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> CH<inf>4</inf> emission (kg) = 5.3796×10<sup>-4</sup> kg of CH<inf>4</inf> per kg of fuel CH<inf>4</inf> emission factor: 30 kg dry matter TJ<sup>-1</sup> Calculation of N<inf>2</inf>O emission Higher Heating Value = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> N<inf>2</inf>O emission factor = 4 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> Convert HHV unit to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> 1 TJ = 10<sup>12</sup> J HHV from J kg<sup>-1</sup> to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>: HHV in TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> / 10<sup>12</sup> = 1.7932 × 10<sup>-5</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> N<inf>2</inf>O emission (kg) = Mass of Fuel (kg) × N<inf>2</inf>O emission factor (kg TJ<sup>-1</sup>) × HHV (TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>) N<inf>2</inf>O emission (kg) = 1 kg × 4 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> × 1.7932×10<sup>-5</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> N<inf>2</inf>O emission (kg) = 7.1728×10<sup>-5</sup> kg of N<inf>2</inf>O per kg of fuel N<inf>2</inf>O emission factor 4 kg dry matter /TJ<sup>-1</sup> The concept of global warming potential (GWP) was introduced in IPCC –AR1 (Shine et al. 1990) to compare the greenhouse effects of different greenhouse gases relative to a reference gas, normally taken as carbon dioxide, under this definition, CO<inf>2</inf> would have a GWP value of 1. Total GWP = (GWP of CO<inf>2</inf>×CO<inf>2</inf> emissions) + (GWP of CH<inf>4</inf>×CH<inf>4</inf> emissions) + (GWP of N<inf>2</inf>O×N<inf>2</inf>O emissions) Total GWP = 1×2.0083×10<sup>-3</sup>+ 27.2× 5.3796 × 10<sup>-4</sup>+ 273×7.1728×10<sup>-5</sup> Total GWP= 0.03622 kg CO<inf>2</inf>e This calculation is by 100 years based GWP of emission gases followed AR6 <sup>7</sup> Incorrect Table 3: Calibration set Prediction set Parameter Method NT NC Max Min Mean SD NP Max Min Mean SD GWP IPCC Guidelines 197 147 0.03905 0.03080 0.03564 0.00180 50 0.038943 0.033002 0.03577 0.00165 HHV (J g<sup>-1</sup>) Bomb Calorimeter 197 147 18616 16405 16976 910 50 17950 15268 17051 787 Correct Table 3: Parameter Method NT Calibration Set Prediction Set NC Max Min Mean SD NP Max Min Mean SD GWP (kg CO<inf>2</inf>e) IPCC Guidelines 197 147 0.03905 0.03080 0.03564 0.00180 50 0.038943 0.033002 0.03577 0.00165 HHV (J g<sup>-1</sup>) Bomb Calorimeter 197 147 18616 16405 15268 910 50 17950 16976 17051 787 Finally, the legends of Tables 4 and 7 have been updated: “Table 4: Prediction of GWP of biomass of fast-growing tree and agriculture residue by PLSR. N: Number of samples in calibration set, R<sup>2</sup><inf>c</inf>: coefficient of determination of calibration set, n: number of samples in prediction set, R<sup>2</sup><inf>p</inf>: coefficient of determination of prediction set, RPD: ratio of prediction to deviation, CM: correlation method, VM: variance method, COVM: co-variance method, VIP: variable. Significant values are in [bold].” now reads: “Table 4. Prediction of GWP of biomass of fast-growing tree and agriculture residue by PLSR. N: Number of samples in calibration set, R<sup>2</sup><inf>c</inf>: coefficient of determination of calibration set, n: number of samples in prediction set, R<sup>2</sup><inf>p</inf>: coefficient of determination of prediction set, RPD: ratio of prediction to deviation, CM: correlation method, VM: variance method, COVM: co-variance method, VIP: variable important projection, FstDev: 1<sup>st</sup> derivative, SecDev: 2<sup>nd</sup> derivative. Significant values are in [bold].” “Table 7. The function groups corresponding to the wavenumber shown in regression coefficient plot and x-loading plot of models for GWP and HHV. *1ν, fundamental stretching vibration; 2ν, 1st overtone of fundamental stretching vibration; 3ν, 2nd overtone of fundamental stretching vibration; 5ν, 4th overtone of fundamental stretching vibration; 1δ, fundamental bending (deformation) vibration; 3δ, 2nd overtone of fundamental bending (deformation) vibration; 1, symmetric stretching vibration; 2, bending vibration; 3, asymmetric stretching vibration; and + is combination. now reads: “Table 7. The function groups corresponding to the wavenumber shown in regression coefficient plot and x-loading plot of models for GWP and HHV. 1ν, fundamental stretching vibration; 2ν, 1st overtone of fundamental stretching vibration; 3ν, 2nd overtone of fundamental stretching vibration; 5ν, 4<sup>th</sup> overtone of fundamental stretching vibration; 1δ, fundamental bending (deformation) vibration; 3δ, 2nd overtone of fundamental bending (deformation) vibration; and + is combination.” The original version of this Article has been corrected.