Simultaneous Online Monitoring of Srb Activity and Corrosion Rate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The performance of a sulfide oxidase (SO) based biosensor for online monitoring of sulfate- reducing bacteria (SRB) activity was evaluated by correlating the electrochemical response of the biosensor to the biogenic sulfide concentration from a SRB-reactor. Facultative Actinomycete strain FR- 3 was used to produce the SO enzyme; the enzyme was immobilized on a graphite paste along with a co- factor 7, 7, 8, 8-tetracyanoquinodimethane (TCNQ) or 1, 1’-dimethylferrocene (DMF). The ferrocene-based biosensor responded linearly to aqueous sulfide concentration up to 180 mg/L [S-2 (mg/L) = 8.3× I (μA/cm2)]. When TCNQ was used as a co-factor, the biosensor responded linearly up to biogenic sulfide concentration of 15 mg/L [S-2 (mg/L) = 0.57 × I (μA/cm2)]. In order to determine the relationship between biogenic sulfide production and corrosion rate, a carbon steel electrode was immersed in the SRB reactor. The corrosion rate was monitored using the electrochemical polarization resistance technique. The corrosion rate peaked during the exponential growth phase of the bacteria and declined afterwards, probably due to the formation of a biofilm on the biosensor and electrode surface as well as an FeS layer on the surface of carbon steel.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".