MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401221032 · doi:10.1002/bbb.2667

Optimization of process parameters and medium components for carbon monoxide bioconversion with <i>Clostridium autoethanogenum</i>

2024· article· en· W4401221032 on OpenAlexaff
Ademola Owoade, Ali Alshami, Richard Sparling, Stefan Bardal, David B. Levin

Bibliographic record

VenueBiofuels Bioproducts and Biorefining · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioconversionChemistryBiomass (ecology)Carbon monoxideEthanol fuelSyngasBiofuelAcetic acidEthanolYeast extractSubstrate (aquarium)Yield (engineering)ChromatographyChemical engineeringFood scienceBiochemistryFermentationBiotechnologyMaterials scienceCatalysisBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Clostridium autoethanogenum is a model microbe capable of converting carbon monoxide (CO) into bioethanol and useful biochemicals. Successful process optimization when using CO as the primary carbon source requires an understanding of the influence of process parameters and growth medium components on cell growth and end‐product formation. We conducted a full factorial analysis of the effects of CO total pressure, pH, yeast extract (YE), and cysteine concentrations on acetic acid, ethanol, and biomass production utilizing C. autoethanogenum with CO as the primary substrate. Maximum ethanol production of 0.71 g L –1 was obtained at a pH of 4.5, yeast extract concentration of 0.5 g L –1 , CO pressure of 1.8 atm, and cysteine concentration of 1.5 g L –1 . There was a tenfold enhancement when the pH was lowered from 6 to 4.5 and the YE concentration was reduced to 0.5 g L –1 . Response optimization using the reduced gradient algorithm confirmed these results. The information presented in this study could prove valuable for process engineering design by assisting with the selection of parameters that yield syngas blends specifically intended for increased ethanol production.

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 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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.548

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiofuels Bioproducts and BiorefiningSame topicAnaerobic Digestion and Biogas ProductionFrench-language works237,207