Usage of Oleic and Stearic Acids in Mixed Anaerobic Culture for Sulfate Reduction While Inhibiting Methanogenesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a mixed anaerobic biotreatment process, sulfate is converted into sulfide by sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB). Sulfidogens and methanogens in a mixed anaerobic culture can compete for electrons. Diverting a larger fraction of electrons into the sulfate-reduction process can inhibit methanogens and increase overall anaerobic digestion process efficiency. The purpose of this study was to examine the efficiency of SRB in the sulfate-reduction process in presence of two 18 carbon long-chain fatty acids (LCFAs), namely oleic acid (OA), and stearic acid (SA), under mesophilic conditions. Sulfate reduction was examined using glucose in a mixed mesophilic anaerobic culture at 37°C and neutral pH in the presence OA and SA. The control experiments with LCFAs plus sulfate and sulfate alone showed no improvement in sulfate reduction due to the addition of LCFAs (OA and SA), with sulfate reductions of 10% and 9% over 7 days, respectively. In control experiments with glucose and sulfate, sulfate reduction was around 32% over the same period. In experiments with glucose and sulfate, increasing OA concentrations resulted in an increase in electron flux to sulfidogenesis, while negatively impacting glucose degradation rates. Maximum sulfate reduction of 73% over 7 days was observed at the highest OA concentration of 1,000 mg/L, which is about a threefold improvement over the control. Despite methanogenic inhibition and diversion of electron flow toward sulfate reduction in the presence of OA, no H2 was detected. In contrast to OA, no significant increase in sulfate reduction was observed with increasing concentration of SA, up to the maximum tested concentration of 1,000 mg/L. In general, the findings indicate that OA can be effective in redirecting more electrons and thus improving sulfate reduction during the anaerobic treatment process.
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".