Electrical Stress-directed Evolution of Biocatalysts Community Sampled from A Sodic-saline Soil for Microbial Fuel Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anode-respiring bacteria (ARB) perform an unusual form of respiration in which their electron acceptor is a solid anode. The focus of this study was to characterize the electrical stress direct evolution of biocatalysts as a way of enriching the community with ARB for microbial fuel cell. The original microbial consortium was sampled from a sodic-saline bottom soil (Texcoco Lake). Interestingly, iron (III) reducing bacteria consortium in the sodic-saline bottom soil was 8500 ± 15 MPN/100 mL by the most probable number method, since microbial reduction of iron (III) is reported to be associated to anode-respiring capabilities. Cyclic voltammetry studies of electrochemical stressed biofilm-ARB were conducted at 28th and 135th days, and an irreversible electron transfer reaction was found possibly related to electron transfer reaction of the cytochrome. The electrochemical impedance spectroscopy results revealed that the resistance of the biofilm-ARB decreased with time (28th day-11.11 ω and 135th day- 5.5 ω ), possibly associated to the adaptability of electroactive biofilm on the graphite electrode surface. Confocal microscopy showed that the biofilms are active in nature and the biofilm-ARB attained ~40 μ m thickness at the 136th day. Electrical stressed-ARB gave a maximum power density of 79.4mW/m2, and unstressed-ARB gave a maximum power density of 41.0mW/m2 in a single-chamber microbial fuel cell (SCMFC). All these electrochemical experiments and evaluation suggest that the electrical-stress directed evolution of ARB community was associated to a more efficient extracellular electron transfer process in SCMFC.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".