Effects of manipulating cyclic duration and pH on fermentative hydrogen production in an anaerobic sequencing batch reactor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of cyclic duration and pH on biological hydrogen production were investigated in an anaerobic sequencing batch reactor. Experiments were conducted using cyclic duration of (4, 8, and 12 h) in combination with pH (4, 5, and 6) in a 3 × 3 factorial design, while hydraulic retention time and organic loading rate were maintained at 24 h and 10.3 g COD L(-1).d(-1), respectively. At pH 4, the effect of cyclic duration on hydrogen production was found to be insignificant. However, in runs with pH 5 and 6, a shorter cyclic duration of 4 h led to lower hydrogen productivity. The operational condition (pH 6, cyclic duration 12 h) induced higher hydrogen production rate of 2.3 ± 0.6 L H2/L reactor.d, whereas higher hydrogen yield of 2.2 ± 0.4 mol H2/mol sucrose was achieved at pH 5 and the same 12 h cyclic duration. The differences in hydrogen production were not statistically significant between 8 h and 12 h cyclic duration. Higher hydrogen production rates were associated with biomass (mixed liquor volatile suspended solids) concentration ranging from 8-13 g L(-1), but further increase in biomass growth was not accompanied by increased hydrogen production. Furthermore, a food-to-microorganism ratio of 0.84 was found to result in higher hydrogen production rate.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".