Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
In this study, ten spent edible fungus (SEF) with different compositional features were used for the maximum methanogenic potential (P) evaluation, and the prediction models including regression and kinetics based on this were developed separately. The results showed that the regression model with more chemical components had a good correlation with the P, and at least three chemical compositions could reach the threshold of sensitivity. The Cone model showed the best fitting effect on P in all kinetic models, which had higher R-square (>0.994) and lower error (1.004-5.672%). Meanwhile, the minimum digestive testing time (14 days) was determined by the evaluation of sensitivity via statistical indicators. It is concluded that the determination of the prediction model of P should be evaluated with the combination of statistical indicators and specific requirements.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.124052 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!