MESSAI.io/Parameters
CatalogCorrelationsGlobal AnalysisParameter SweepMethodology
run 8807fbbccorpus v2026-05-19model gp-scm-v1.2.0ran 0.0s
SWEEPexternal_resistancefrom10to5000across12 log stepsat fixedT = 23°C, pH = 7, HRT = 24 h, area = 7 cm², culture = mixed_anaerobic
Viewpaper: cao-2009-mdcbacktest (all papers)
anti-HARKing rail · Logan & Regan 2006
WARNV5Coulombic mass-balance is open on 9/12 sweep points (>5% closure error). Check substrate consumption + Q_measured.· Logan-group hygiene check; mass balance fundamentals
WARNV6Mean CE × OLR = 47.1 exceeds empirical Logan-group envelope (≤25). Mass transport limits CE at high loading; prediction may be optimistic.· Cheng & Logan 2011 — empirical envelope
Platform
Microbial electrochemical systems · living biofilm catalyst
System type
Sweep parameter
Fixed conditions
Objective
Reproducing

Cao X, Huang X, Liang P, Xiao K, Zhou Y, Zhang X, Logan BE (2009) — Environmental Science & Technology

A new method for water desalination using microbial desalination cells
DOI: 10.1021/es901950j
MetricReportedPredictedΔBand
Power density
peak power density during the desalination batch cycle, 5 g/L initial NaCl, ferricyanide catholyte, acetate-fed anode
p. 7150, Fig. 4 + text
480
mW/m²
608
mW/m²
+26.6%amber
COD removal
NaCl removal from the middle chamber over a single batch cycle, 5 g/L initial salinity — the founding "90% desalination" headline. Maps to the `substrate` series for the side-by-side because the schema does not yet have a dedicated `salt_removal_pct` key.
p. 7150, Fig. 3 + Abstract
90.0
%
92.9
%
+3.2%green
Coulombic efficiency
anode coulombic efficiency for acetate-fed Geobacter-enriched community; consistent with Logan-group ferricyanide-cathode MFC baseline since the MDC anode chamber is essentially an MFC anode
p. 7150, Table 1 / §Results
60.0
%
48.1
%
-19.8%green
Δ-bands per Logan & Regan 2006 lab-to-lab reproducibility envelope: green ≤±25%, amber ±25–50%, red >±50%. Predictions from Butler-Volmer + Ohmic + Tafel closure calibrated against the Logan corpus (regression-tested in butler-volmer-calibration.test.ts).
What we don't know about this paper (6 items)
  1. BV MODEL CALIBRATION IS MFC-ONLY. MDC closure (salinity-driven IR, co-ion leakage, desalination efficiency) lives in `predictors/mdc.ts` but is NOT dispatched by the backtest harness yet. Expected band: amber/red on the salt_removal mapping; power and CE may be green-ish because they look like an MFC anode at the BV level.
  2. The `substrate` seriesKey is being used as a proxy for salt removal (% NaCl removed from middle chamber) because the schema does not yet have a `salt_removal_pct` key. The comparison is INCOMMENSURABLE in the strict sense — extending the seriesKey set is tracked as a follow-up for MDC-class predictors.
  3. The paper ran multiple initial-NaCl conditions (1, 5, 20, 35 g/L); we encode only the 5 g/L brackish run. Higher-salinity runs show LOWER % removal per cycle (5 g/L → 90%, 35 g/L → ~63% in the same paper, requiring multiple cycles).
  4. Ferricyanide catholyte is research-only — toxic and unsustainable for real applications. Later MDC work (Jacobson 2011 air-cathode MDC, capacitive MDCs) shifted to air cathodes. The 480 mW/m² power density would be substantially lower with an air cathode.
  5. The 7 cm² anode area is small even by 2009 lab-bench standards; pilot-scale MDCs (e.g., Forrestal 2012) show different power-vs-area scaling because of pumping losses, concentration polarization at the AEM, and electrode aging.
  6. The headline 90% removal applies to a single batch cycle starting from 5 g/L; the limit-of-desalination is governed by the diminishing driving force as the middle chamber depletes (Donnan + concentration potentials oppose the cell potential).
Source mix
EMP 0CAL 0SIM 12EXT 0
Peak power density
601mW/m²✓ mass-bal
at x = 918 · n=0 nearby papers
Coulombic efficiency
48.3%
mixed-culture realistic range 20-55%
Internal resistance
3400Ω·cm²
area-normalized; Logan-group standard
Empirical coverage
0.92@ 95%
n=52 · ECE 0.03 · small-n fold-back
SHOW
-804.86-492.38-179.9013344575810.010082006300440025000Power density (areal) (mW/m²)external_resistance (Ω)x=10 · Power density (areal)=-700.7 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=17.6 · Power density (areal)=-636.5 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=31 · Power density (areal)=-531.9 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=54.5 · Power density (areal)=-370.3 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=95.8 · Power density (areal)=-142.2 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=169 · Power density (areal)=135.6 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=297 · Power density (areal)=402.9 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=522 · Power density (areal)=574.1 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=918 · Power density (areal)=601.3 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=1620 · Power density (areal)=513.9 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=2840 · Power density (areal)=381.5 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=5000 · Power density (areal)=257.9 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papers◆ optimum601.3 mW/m² @ 918