Comparison of biodegradation kinetic parameters for naphthalene in batch and sand column systems by <i>pseudomonas putida</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Kinetic parameters for the degradation of naphthalene by Pseudomonas putida ( ATCC 17484) were estimated in both batch and column assays, in order to evaluate the role of flow and cell attachment on biodegradation rates. Suspended cells and cells attached to Ottawa sand were used under a variety of biomass levels, column flow‐rates, and substrate concentrations. In batch systems, degradation followed zero order kinetics across the entire concentration range, while the columns exhibited decreased rates at concentrations less than 100 (μg/L), describable by Michaelis‐Menten kinetics. This is reflected in elevated values of the half‐saturation constant, Ks, in columns. We offer the explanation that this may have resulted from reactive heterogeneity within the porous media, imposing a distribution of length‐scales for transfer of substrate to the cell surfaces. Well‐mixed batch systems are expected to have both shorter and more uniform transfer distances. When kinetic parameters obtained in batch system are used for prediction of degradation in columns, at least two factors—exposed reduction of exposed cell surface are a and heterogeneity of cell distribution—will likely reduce overall column degradation rates.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".