Modelling of solid‐state fermentation over wide operational range for application in process optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The major drawbacks in large‐scale solid‐state fermentation processes are related to difficulty in controlling the medium temperature and moisture content, which are variables that directly affect microbial growth and product formation. Several mathematical models have been developed to describe these effects, although none has simultaneously considered distinct growth phases, growth restrictions caused by large temperature variations at several distinct moisture content conditions, and product formation pathways. In this manner, the objectives of this paper were to develop a mathematical model to represent the process under different operational conditions and a model‐based optimization procedure to investigate the effects of varying temperature profiles to maximize a (hemi) cellulolytic enzyme production during cultivation of Aspergillus niger under solid state fermentation. The proposed model correlates fungal growth with the CO2 production rates and with enzymatic production by the Luedeking‐Piret function. It was developed with data acquired in a laboratory‐scale column‐type bioreactor in controlled conditions of aeration, temperature, and inlet air relative humidity. The developed model accurately predicted the respiration profile responses at all temperatures, under the most productive moisture content conditions. Incubation of the culture with the optimized temperature profile improved the enzymatic production, compared to the estimated optimum static temperature. These findings demonstrate the usefulness of this model for the optimization of larger‐scale SSF processes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".