MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2529849279 · doi:10.1002/cjce.22703

Prediction of Cu(II) biosorption performances on wild mushrooms <i>Lactarius piperatus</i> using Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) model

2016· article· en· W2529849279 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cerasella Indolean, Andrada Măicăneanu, Mircea Vasile Cristea

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFungal Biology and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiosorptionMushroomAdsorptionBiomass (ecology)CopperChemistryMatrix (chemical analysis)Nuclear chemistryPulp and paper industryBotanyEnvironmental engineeringFood scienceMathematicsBiologyChromatographyEnvironmental scienceEngineeringOrganic chemistryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This work investigates the possible usage of edible mushrooms as support for metabolic quantities of copper. Biosorption potential of natural and biodegradable matrix formed from wild Lactarius piperatus mushrooms, in suspension (LP) and alginate immobilized based beads (LPAB), was explored. The effects of biomass quantity, Cu(II) concentration, and temperature were assessed. LPAB showed better adsorption capacity (7.67 mg/g) by comparison to LP biosorbent (6.43 mg/g). Also, biosorption efficiencies up to 76 and 99 % for LP and LPAB (for the same quantity of biomass, 2 g), respectively, were obtained. Furthermore, a multilayer feed forward Artificial Neural Network (ANN) model was developed in order to predict the biosorption efficiency. The trained ANNs, for LP and LAPB biosorbents, showed good correlation (R = 0.998) between the predicted and experimental biosorption efficiency, associated to reduced mean relative errors and demonstrated that the ANN has a good generalization potential. 1–2 g of Lactarius piperatus mushroom, as powder or in alginate‐based beads containing Cu(II), could be used as a dietary supplement in order to supply the daily copper demand of the organism.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.651
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations13
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicFungal Biology and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207