Experimental determination of kinetic parameters of methanol biodegradation in biofilters packed with inert and organic materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND: Kinetic parameters used for modelling air biofilters are commonly determined by growing microorganisms in suspended cultures. However, they are not representative of phenomena occurring in a biofilm. There is need for new methods for calculating the true kinetics of pollutant degradation in an air biofilter. RESULTS: An experimental method for calculating the kinetic parameters of a microbial consortium which degrades methanol in an air treatment biofilter was developed. The kinetic parameters were calculated by taking biomass from biofilters packed with clay spheres or compost pellets. The kinetic runs were carried out in batch bioreactors at a constant temperature of 25 °C. The results obtained show that the maximum specific growth rate of microorganisms developed in the biofilter packed with clay spheres was twice as high as that packed with compost pellets; 0.233 h −1 for clay spheres and 0.129 h −1 for compost pellets. For both biofilters, the specific methanol biodegradation increased with methanol concentration in the biofilm, whereas carbon dioxide production was not a function of this parameter. CONCLUSION: Results show that for both biofilters, the Monod model fitted to the specific growth rate and the microbial consortium did not include any inhibition over the entire range of methanol concentrations tested. Copyright © 2009 Society of Chemical Industry
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".