MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041250968 · doi:10.1002/cjce.22154

Growth optimization of <i>Synechococcus elongatus</i> PCC7942 in lab flasks and a 2‐D photobioreactor

2015· article· en· W2041250968 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
David Kuan, Sheldon J.B. Duff, Duško Pošarac, Xiaotao Bi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicAlgal biology and biofuel production
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsPhotobioreactorLight intensityGrowth rateLaboratory flaskBiomass (ecology)ChemistryAirliftPhotosynthesisCyanobacteriaVolumetric flow rateBacterial growthBotanyAnimal scienceChromatographyBioreactorBiologyBacteriaEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explored the effects of the major growth parameters for Synechococcus elongatus PCC7942 for the purpose of maximizing cell growth. Preliminary studies in shake flasks revealed that an optimization of components in BG‐11 growth medium resulted in no significant improvements for the specific growth rate and biomass concentration. However, an optimal temperature of 33 °C and light intensity of 120 μE/m2·s provided a maximum specific growth rate of 0.052 h‐1 and a maximum biomass concentration of 0.50 g/L. Further studies of light intensity, CO2 concentration, and gas flow rate in a 1 L airlift photobioreactor showed that air enriched with 5 % CO2 with a flow rate of 1 L/min, temperature of 33 °C, and light intensity of 6 μE/m2·s achieved a maximum in biomass concentration of 1.07 g/L with a specific growth rate of 0.026 h‐1. The specific growth rate and biomass concentration diminished when CO2 concentration and light intensity increased above 5 % and 120 μE/m2·s, respectively. CO2 absorption experiments also revealed that growth was significantly limited by CO2 when supplied with air, whereas 10 % CO2 lowered the pH and consequently reduced the specific growth rate. Application of a 12:12 hour light‐dark cycle resulted in a significant drop in biomass growth.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.171 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicAlgal biology and biofuel productionFrench-language works237,207