MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4363650595 · doi:10.3390/pr11041157

Mathematical Modeling of Microbial Electrolysis Cells for Enhanced Urban Wastewater Treatment and Hydrogen Generation

2023· article· en· W4363650595 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueProcesses · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicrobial Fuel Cells and Bioremediation
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of Canada
KeywordsWastewaterElectrolysisHydrogen productionMicrobial electrolysis cellRenewable energySewage treatmentWaste managementEnvironmental engineeringChemistryEnvironmental scienceHydrogenPulp and paper industryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conventional wastewater treatment plants (CWTPs) are intensive energy consumers. New technologies are emerging for wastewater treatment such as microbial electrolysis cells (MECs) that can simultaneously treat wastewater and generate hydrogen as a renewable energy source. Mathematical modeling of single and dual-chamber microbial electrolysis cells (SMEC and DMEC) has been developed based on microbial population growth in this study. The model outputs were validated successfully with previous works, and are then used for comparisons between the SMEC and DMEC regarding the hydrogen production rate (HPR). The results reveal that the daily HPR in DMEC is higher than in SMEC, with about 0.86 l H2 and 0.52 l H2, respectively, per 1 L of wastewater. Moreover, the results have been used to compare the HPR in water electrolysis (WE) processes and MECs. WE consume 51 kWh to generate 1 kg of hydrogen, while SMEC and DMEC require only 30 kWh and 24.5 kWh, respectively.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it