MESSAI.io/Parameters
CatalogCorrelationsGlobal AnalysisParameter SweepMethodology
run bc9e9340corpus v2026-05-19model gp-scm-v1.2.0ran 0.0s
SWEEPexternal_resistancefrom10to10000across12 log stepsat fixedT = 25°C, pH = 7, HRT = 48 h, area = 25 cm², culture = wastewater_inoculum
Viewpaper: yousif-2021-mdc-aqueousbacktest (all papers)
anti-HARKing rail · Logan & Regan 2006
WARNV5Coulombic mass-balance is open on 10/12 sweep points (>5% closure error). Check substrate consumption + Q_measured.· Logan-group hygiene check; mass balance fundamentals
Platform
Microbial electrochemical systems · living biofilm catalyst
System type
Sweep parameter
Fixed conditions
Objective
Reproducing

Yousif S, Hashim KS, Al-Mansori NJ, Al-Hashimi O (2021) — Journal of Engineering (Univ. Baghdad)

The Catholyte Effects on The Microbial Desalination Cell Performance
DOI: 10.31026/j.eng.2021.07.05
MetricReportedPredictedΔBand
Power density
3-chamber MDC, aqueous catholyte (non-ferricyanide), mid-salinity (~10 g/L NaCl), wastewater anolyte; peak power at MPP. Anchors the aqueous-catholyte regime against Cao 2009 ferricyanide (~480 mW/m²).
DB extraction (confidence 0.8, paperId cmcv87gmt00fv1yhihsyqc4zd): maxPowerDensity = 96.8 mW/m²
96.8
mW/m²
105
mW/m²
+8.5%green
Coulombic efficiency
3-chamber MDC Coulombic efficiency, aqueous catholyte, wastewater anolyte; CE is ~10× lower than the Cao 2009 ferricyanide control (~60%) because aqueous-cathode kinetics are much slower and more electron flux goes to crossover/HER side reactions.
DB extraction (confidence 0.8, paperId cmcv87gmt00fv1yhihsyqc4zd): coulombicEfficiency = 5.94%
5.94
%
5.80
%
-2.4%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. Promoted from Track 9 HOLDOUT to LOGAN_PRESETS calibration preset in Wave 3 (2026-05-22) after the catholyte-chemistry branch was added to `buildMDCSweep`. Source: local Supabase DB query (paperId cmcv87gmt00fv1yhihsyqc4zd, confidence 0.8 on both power and CE).
  2. The paper studied multiple catholytes (KMnO₄, K₃Fe(CN)₆, aqueous baseline). We encode the aqueous-baseline condition because it is the regime that falsified the original ferricyanide-only closure. KMnO₄ and K₃Fe(CN)₆ runs from the same paper would map to the existing ferricyanide-grade branch (`cathode_type: 'ferricyanide'`).
  3. Salt-removal anchor omitted (the paper does not report a single canonical salt-removal number for the aqueous-baseline run at 10 g/L — the headline numbers are power and CE). Cao 2009 + Mohan 2022 cover the salinity-saturation anchors instead.
  4. The 5.94% CE is anomalously low even for aqueous MDCs and reflects this specific reactor's slow PMP-mediated electron-transfer kinetics. We accept it as the literature-reported anchor; the closure CE multiplier (0.45× baseline 13%) lands at 5.85% (Δ=-1.5%, green ±25%).
Source mix
EMP 0CAL 0SIM 12EXT 0
Peak power density
105mW/m²✓ mass-bal
at x = 433 · n=0 nearby papers
Coulombic efficiency
5.8%
mixed-culture realistic range 20-55%
Internal resistance
5250Ω·cm²
area-normalized; Logan-group standard
Empirical coverage
0.92@ 95%
n=52 · ECE 0.03 · small-n fold-back
SHOW
-277.99-192.82-107.64-22.4662.7114810.0200840066004800210000Power density (areal) (mW/m²)external_resistance (Ω)x=10 · Power density (areal)=-249.6 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=18.7 · Power density (areal)=-210.5 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=35.1 · Power density (areal)=-149.8 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=65.8 · Power density (areal)=-68.2 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=123 · Power density (areal)=18.9 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=231 · Power density (areal)=83 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=433 · Power density (areal)=105.3 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=811 · Power density (areal)=93.2 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=1520 · Power density (areal)=67.9 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=2850 · Power density (areal)=44.2 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=5340 · Power density (areal)=27 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=10000 · Power density (areal)=15.8 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papers◆ optimum105.3 mW/m² @ 433