Mass transfer considerations in solid–liquid two‐phase partitioning bioreactors: a polymer selection guide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT BACKGROUND Selection of polymers for two‐phase partitioning bioreactors ( TPPBs ) has been focused primarily on predicting a polymer's affinity for the target molecule. Although the extent to which a polymer absorbs a solute is important, the rate of uptake/release must be sufficiently rapid such that a TPPB is not mass transfer limited. This work focused on developing a guide to identify combinations of polymer diffusivities and diffusional path lengths that will ensure a TPPB is not limited by substrate delivery. RESULTS TPPB systems limited by substrate delivery yielded linear growth, while biologically limited systems exhibited exponential growth. Release rates of phenol from various polymer phases increased as polymer diffusivity increased, or as diffusional path length (polymer bead size) decreased. A polymer selection guide was developed identifying combinations of polymer diffusivity and bead size that will ensure a TPPB is not mass transfer limited, for a desired maximum substrate consumption rate. CONCLUSION In selecting polymers for TPPB applications, solute affinity (extent of uptake) has been relatively well characterized using first principles methods, and the present work has now ‘completed the picture’ by providing a description of polymer transport properties (diffusivity and diffusional path length) to be able to generate a guide for selecting polymers. © 2015 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".