Hydrodynamic Effects on Biofilms at the Biointerface Using a Microfluidic Electrochemical Cell: Case Study of <i>Pseudomonas sp.</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The anchoring biofilm layer is expected to exhibit a different response to environmental stresses than for portions in the bulk, due to the protection from other strata and the proximity to the attachment surface. The effect of hydrodynamic stress on surface-adhered biofilm layers was tested using a specially designed microfluidic bio flow cell with an embedded three-electrode detection system. In situ electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) measurements of biocapacitance and bioresistance of Pseudomonas sp. biofilms were conducted during the growth phase and under different shear flow conditions with verification by other surface sensitive techniques. Distinct, but reversible changes to the amount of biofilm and its structure at the attachment surface were observed during the application of elevated shear stress. In contrast, regular microscopy revealed permanent distortion to the biofilm bulk, in the form of streamers and ripples. Following the application of extreme shear stresses, complete removal of significant portions of biofilm outer layers occurred, but this did not change the measured quantity of biofilm at the electrode attachment surface. The structure of the remaining biofilm, however, appeared to be modified and susceptible to further changes following application of shear stress directly to the unprotected biofilm layers at the attachment surface.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".