MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087745173 · doi:10.1080/09593330802028550

<i>BACILLUS THURINGIENSIS</i>FERMENTATION OF WASTEWATER AND WASTEWATER SLUDGE – PRESENCE AND CHARACTERIZATION OF CHITINASES

2008· article· en· W2087745173 on OpenAlexaff
Satinder Kaur Brar, M. Verma, R. D. Tyagi, José R. Lerma Valero, Rao Y. Surampalli

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Technology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicStudies on Chitinases and Chitosanases
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChitinaseHydrolysisWastewaterFermentationChemistryStarchFood scienceActivated sludgeBacillus thuringiensisPulp and paper industryWaste managementBacteriaBiologyBiochemistryEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the presence of chitinases in Bacillus thuringiensis ssp kurstaki HD-1 (Bt) fermented broths of wastewater sludge (non-hydrolyzed and hydrolyzed); starch industry wastewater and soyameal. Chitinase activity was absent in soyameal and present in others. Chitinase demonstrated peaks at pH 4.0 and temperatures 40 and 50 degrees C with higher activity between pH 4-5 and 10-11. The chitinase band on SDS-PAGE was found to be between 36 and 45 kDa for non-hydrolyzed (NH) and hydrolyzed sludge (TH) and starch industry wastewater. The chitinase profile during fermentation showed peaks at 15 and 30 h for non-hydrolyzed and hydrolyzed sludge and 15 and 24 h for starch industry wastewater. Chitinase retained 96-99 % activity after two weeks incubation at room temperature and pH 4. Bioassays with supplementation of Bt chitinases showed 1.2 fold increase in entomotoxicity of wastewater sludge and a small increase in starch industry wastewater. This study sheds light on production of Bt chitinases in alternative media which will have a long term effect on entomotoxicity of these formulations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental TechnologySame topicStudies on Chitinases and ChitosanasesFrench-language works237,207