Methanogens’ Death Induced by Sulphide and its Kinetic Modelling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is aimed at investigating the poisoning effect of sulphide on methanogenic cultures. Using cultures enriched with either acetate or formate as a sole electron donor, sets of 1-week batch inhibition tests were performed to analyse the dynamic change of the living microorganism concentrations under the varied sulphide concentrations between zero and 400 mg-S L−1. In both cultures, the cellular decay was doubled when the cultures were placed in 100 mg-S L–1 of total sulphide. When the cultures were exposed to higher sulphide, higher specific decay rates were obtained. Because of the low correlations of the unionised sulphide concentrations to the specific decay rates, the total sulphide concentration was thought to be the dominant inhibition factor rather than its unionised form. To express the acceleration of cellular decay, a mathematical model was developed. Since the decay phenomena of both cultures were quite similar to each other, a culture-wide empirical formula was obtained to calculate the specific decay rate. In the model equation, the specific decay rate of the methanogenic cultures was linearly expressed with a coefficient of 0.30∙10−3 ± 0.05∙10−3 mg-S−1 L d−1 for sulphide concentration and a coefficient of 0.044 ± 0.013 d–1 for the inherent specific decay rate.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".