Kinetics of anaerobic methane oxidation coupled to denitrification in the membrane biofilm reactor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Anaerobic oxidation of methane coupled to denitrification (AOM‐D) in a membrane biofilm reactor (MBfR), a platform used for efficiently coupling gas delivery and biofilm development, has attracted attention in recent years due to the low cost and high availability of methane. However, experimental studies have shown that the nitrate‐removal flux in the CH 4 ‐based MBfR (<1.0 g N/m 2 ‐day) is about one order of magnitude smaller than that in the H 2 ‐based MBfR (1.1–6.7 g N/m 2 ‐day). A one‐dimensional multispecies biofilm model predicts that the nitrate‐removal flux in the CH 4 ‐based MBfR is limited to <1.7 g N/m 2 ‐day, consistent with the experimental studies reported in the literature. The model also determines the two major limiting factors for the nitrate‐removal flux: The methane half‐maximum‐rate concentration (K 2 ) and the specific maximum methane utilization rate of the AOM‐D syntrophic consortium (k max2 ), with k max2 being more important. Model simulations show that increasing k max2 to >3 g chemical oxygen demand (COD)/g cell‐day (from its current 1.8 g COD/g cell‐day) and developing a new membrane with doubled methane‐delivery capacity (D m ) could bring the nitrate‐removal flux to ≥4.0 g N/m 2 ‐day, which is close to the nitrate‐removal flux for the H 2 ‐based MBfR. Further increase of the maximum nitrate‐removal flux can be achieved when D m and k max2 increase together.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".