Effects of Turbulent Mixing and Orbitally Shaking on Cell Growth and Biomass Production in Active Fluids
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have previously reported the effects of mixing on bacterial growth. Mixing can be achieved with different methods and in diverse devices. However, the nature of the intimate contact (the main purpose of mixing) made between different substances in a mixing vessel is a strong function of the hydrodynamic that underlies the specific mixing method. This study aimed to compare the growth and biomass yield of cyanobacterium Synechosystis sp. CPCC 534 (as a microorganism model) obtained by three different mixing methods commonly used in life science labs and in the industry, i.e., turbulent stirring (TS), orbital shaking (OS), and simple molecular diffusion (MD). The results revealed that imposing mixing on the culture significantly improved the specific growth rate as well as biomass yield production in comparison with simple molecular diffusion. Mixing obtained by turbulent stirring proved to be more efficient than the one achieved by orbitally shaking, in the production of Chlorophylla (Chla) and phycocyanin (PC). The results of this study can help choosing the appropriate mixing method in life science research.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it