MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2176859527 · doi:10.1093/jee/98.6.1890

Starch Industry Wastewater-Based Stable Bacillus thuringiensis Liquid Formulations

2005· article· en· W2176859527 on OpenAlexafffund
Satinder Kaur Brar, M. Verma, R. D. Tyagi, José R. Lerma Valero, Rao Y. Surampalli

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Economic Entomology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersCanadian Forest ServiceNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSodium metabisulfiteSporeFermentationWastewaterFood scienceBacillus thuringiensisStarchSodiumBiologySorbitolChromatographyChemistryMicrobiologyBacteriaWaste managementOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Liquid formulations were developed from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)-fermented broths of starch industry wastewater (SIW) and of soya medium. Stability studies were carried out for 1 yr. Storage stability was tested by studying various physical and chemical (e.g., viscosity, particle size, corrosion, and suspendibility) and biological (e.g., microbial contamination, viable spores, and entomotoxicity) parameters at different pH levels and temperatures. Three suspending agents, sorbitol, sodium monophosphate, and sodium metabisulfite, were added to fermented broth in different concentrations. Sorbitol and sodium monophosphate in the ratio 3:1 was the best suspending agent combination for both formulations. Starch industry wastewater fermentation yielded cell and viable spore counts 10- and 4-fold greater than those from soya medium, respectively, and a 1.7-fold increase in entomotoxicity. However, both formulations started deteriorating at pH 6 and 6.5 and 40 and 50 degrees C. There were no signs of corrosion and microbial contamination in both types of 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 score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.462

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations29
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Economic EntomologySame topicInsect Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207