MESSAI.io/Parameters
CatalogCorrelationsGlobal AnalysisParameter SweepMethodology
run 9c97e1f8corpus v2026-05-19model gp-scm-v1.2.0ran 0.0s
SWEEPanolyte_codfrom5to500across12 log stepsat fixedT = 25°C, pH = 7, HRT = 1 h, area = 25 cm², culture = mixed_anaerobic
Viewpaper: tardy-2020-bod-sensorbacktest (all papers)
anti-HARKing rail · Logan & Regan 2006
WARNV5Coulombic mass-balance is open on 8/12 sweep points (>5% closure error). Check substrate consumption + Q_measured.· Logan-group hygiene check; mass balance fundamentals
WARNV6Mean CE × OLR = 96.6 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

Tardy GM, Lóránt B, Gyalai-Korpos M, Bakos V, Simpson D, Goryanin I (2020) — Bioresource Technology / Bioelectrochemistry (representative)

Microbial Fuel Cell-based BOD sensor for high-sensitivity wastewater monitoring
DOI: 10.1016/j.bioelechem.2020.107638
MetricReportedPredictedΔBand
Sensor LOD
Lower Limit of Detection — lowest BOD5 concentration the sensor reliably distinguishes from baseline current. Set by mixed-community biofilm noise floor (3σ over the blank-signal baseline per IUPAC convention); higher than Kim 2003 LOD because the inoculum is real wastewater (noisier biofilm).
Table 2, LOD column
20.0
mg/L BOD5
20.0
mg/L BOD5
0.0%green
Sensor K_M
Michaelis-Menten saturation constant — analyte concentration at i_max/2. Mixed-community biofilm has slightly higher K_M than Kim 2003 pure-culture-like biofilm (broader substrate utilization spectrum); within the Seger 2016 ±50% envelope for whole-cell BOD biofilms.
Fig. 3 inflection point + Table 2
150
mg/L BOD5
150
mg/L BOD5
0.0%green
Dynamic range
log10(K_M / LOD) = log10(150 / 20) ≈ 0.88 decades. Narrower than Kim 2003 (1.3 decades) because the higher LOD compresses the usable range.
Derived from Fig. 3 endpoints
0.88
decades
0.88
decades
0.0%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 emitted a single conflated `substrate` value that couldn't be commensurably compared against Tardy's LOD (20 mg/L) vs Kim's K_M (100 mg/L). Now LOD and K_M are separate series; the +400% T9 delta dissolves to within-band when comparing like-to-like.
  2. The biofilmStabilityFactor=4× scaling that delivers the 20 mg/L LOD is a 2-anchor fit (Kim 2003 pristine LOD ≈ 5 mg/L → Tardy 2020 noisy LOD ≈ 20 mg/L). More LOD data points across the Kim→Tardy biofilm-noise spectrum would refine this; the current binary cliff at buffer_capacity_mM_per_pH=50 is a coarse approximation.
  3. BOD5 vs BOD: paper reports BOD5 (5-day biological oxygen demand); closure uses BOD ≈ 0.65 × COD as the standard conversion. Real-wastewater BOD/COD ratios vary.
  4. Mixed-community inoculum drifts over time; Tardy reports ~10-15% calibration drift per month. Response_time and drift series are not yet in the schema (Wave 4 follow-up).
Source mix
EMP 0CAL 0SIM 12EXT 0
Peak power density
453mW/m²✓ mass-bal
at x = 329 · n=0 nearby papers
Coulombic efficiency
35.0%
mixed-culture realistic range 20-55%
Internal resistance
850Ω·cm²
area-normalized; Logan-group standard
Empirical coverage
0.92@ 95%
n=52 · ECE 0.03 · small-n fold-back
SHOW
-26.7179.821862933995065.0104.0203.0302.0401.0500.0Power density (areal) (mW/m²)anolyte_cod (mg/L)x=5 · Power density (areal)=8.8 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=7.6 · Power density (areal)=14.4 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=11.6 · Power density (areal)=23.5 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=17.6 · Power density (areal)=38.2 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=26.7 · Power density (areal)=61.2 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=40.6 · Power density (areal)=96.5 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=61.6 · Power density (areal)=148.2 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=93.7 · Power density (areal)=219.3 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=142 · Power density (areal)=309 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=216 · Power density (areal)=410.5 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=329 · Power density (areal)=452.7 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=500 · Power density (areal)=452.7 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papers◆ optimum452.7 mW/m² @ 329