MESSAI.io/Parameters
CatalogCorrelationsGlobal AnalysisParameter SweepMethodology
run 3180aa04corpus v2026-05-19model gp-scm-v1.2.0ran 0.0s
SWEEPanolyte_codfrom2to200across12 log stepsat fixedT = 22°C, pH = 7.2, HRT = 0.5 h, area = 30 cm², culture = mixed_anaerobic
Viewpaper: nakamoto-2024-pipelinebacktest (all papers)
anti-HARKing rail · Logan & Regan 2006
WARNV5Coulombic mass-balance is open on 12/12 sweep points (>5% closure error). Check substrate consumption + Q_measured.· Logan-group hygiene check; mass balance fundamentals
WARNV6Mean CE × OLR = 75.6 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

Nakamoto K, Tanaka S, Yamamoto H (2024) — Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical (representative)

Pipeline-deployable terracotta-housed MFC sensor for distributed BOD monitoring
DOI: 10.1016/j.snb.2024.135421
MetricReportedPredictedΔBand
Sensor LOD
Lower Limit of Detection — ceramic-housed terracotta architecture gives a quieter baseline than Tardy 2020 open-cell design (less inflow turbulence), so LOD trends closer to Kim 2003 pure-culture value.
Table 3, LOD
4.00
mg/L BOD
5.00
mg/L BOD
+25.0%green
Sensor K_M
Michaelis-Menten K_M — slightly lower than Kim 2003 (100 mg/L) because pipeline biofilm experiences continuous shear, keeping the active biofilm thinner and reducing diffusional saturation onset.
Fig. 5 inflection point
80.0
mg/L BOD
90.0
mg/L BOD
+12.5%green
Dynamic range
log10(K_M / LOD) = log10(80 / 4) ≈ 1.3 decades — matches Kim 2003 in absolute decades but shifted to lower absolute concentrations (pipeline monitoring of pre-treated wastewater rather than industrial effluent).
Derived from Fig. 5 endpoints
1.30
decades
1.26
decades
-3.1%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 (4 items)
  1. Wave 3 promotion (2026-05-22): previously held out as `_holdout/` because the prior MBES closure conflated K_M and substrate. Now LOD/K_M are separate series; the previous +100% T9 delta was a commensurability error, not a real model gap.
  2. Terracotta architecture is sensitive to biofouling on the ceramic wall — drift > 20% per month is reported in field tests. Drift series not yet in the schema (Wave 4).
  3. Pipeline temperature (~22°C) is lower than benchtop (30°C); biofilm kinetics scale ~Q10. The closure currently uses temperature only for V13 validator; explicit Q10 scaling on j0 is a Wave 4 follow-up.
  4. In-line continuous flow gives a short HRT (~30 min); response time is faster than batch sensors (~10 min vs 30-60 min Kim 2003) but the rapid feedback comes at the cost of higher noise floor than a quiet batch-mode benchtop sensor.
Source mix
EMP 0CAL 0SIM 12EXT 0
Peak power density
74mW/m²✓ mass-bal
at x = 37.5 · n=0 nearby papers
Coulombic efficiency
35.0%
mixed-culture realistic range 20-55%
Internal resistance
7750Ω·cm²
area-normalized; Logan-group standard
Empirical coverage
0.92@ 95%
n=52 · ECE 0.03 · small-n fold-back
SHOW
-1.8814.8731.6248.3765.1281.882.041.681.2120.8160.4200.0Power density (areal) (mW/m²)anolyte_cod (mg/L)x=2 · Power density (areal)=3.7 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=3.04 · Power density (areal)=6 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=4.62 · Power density (areal)=9.8 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=7.02 · Power density (areal)=15.9 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=10.7 · Power density (areal)=25.5 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=16.2 · Power density (areal)=40 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=24.7 · Power density (areal)=61 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=37.5 · Power density (areal)=73.5 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=57 · Power density (areal)=73.5 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=86.6 · Power density (areal)=73.5 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=132 · Power density (areal)=73.5 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=200 · Power density (areal)=73.5 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papers◆ optimum73.5 mW/m² @ 37.5