Yield modeling

Lactonic disaccharides (such as lactobiono-1,5-lactone) reacted with long-chain primary amines to yield model glycolipids of a new type (111,112). For the formation of JV-substituted aldonamides from aldonic acids and amines, A-V -dicylohexylcarbodiimide was employed as the condensing agent. However, no catalyst was needed in the case of the lactones. 

The coefficient of determination, R, of the LCO yield model is 0.96 for catalyst A and 0.94 for catalyst B. For the same feed and under the same processing conditions, catalyst B makes more LCO than catalyst A for most of the feeds tested. There are a few cases (the heaviest feeds in the study) with no statistical difference for LCO yield between both catalysts. LCO yield predicted from H-NMR spectra versus LCO yield measured by traditional gas chromatography for both catalysts are shown in Figure 12.13a and b. 

The coefficient of determination, R, of the dry gas yield model is 0.86 for catalyst A and 0.82 for the catalyst B. Based on the model, under the same operating conditions and for the same feed, catalyst B always makes more dry gas than catalyst A. Figure 12.16a and b shows dry gas yield predicted from H-NMR spectra versus dry gas yield measured by gas chromatography. For heavy aromatic feeds, shown by triangles, and feeds with high level of nickel and vanadium, indicated by squares, the model underpredicts dry gas yield. 

The coefficient of determination, R, of the wet gas yield model is 0.92. Figure 12.17a and b shows wet gas yield predicted from H-NMR spectra versus wet gas yield measured by chromatography. 

Similar features may be achieved with organic polymeric materials. Template imprinting of complementary cavities containing appropriate functional groups yields models of enzyme active sites [7.34, 7.35, 7.75]. They perform the synthesis of amino acids with enantioselectivity [7.76] or the esterolysis of activated esters by TSA imprinting [7.77]. 

Success in this type of modeling depends on the soundness of the interpolation methods used and the extensiveness of the data base. In addition, the data base must include substantial commercial data to confirm scale-up procedures, if needed. One example is a pyrolysis yield model for virgin gas oil and pretreated feedstocks (23). Feedstocks are classified by source and appropriate characterization parameters. 

At this point, the yield model can be used to represent the pyrolysis behavior of specific feedstocks. To generalize the model, the effect of feed properties must be incorporated. Naphthas are complex mixtures of hydrocarbons. Feed characterization is needed to condense a detailed naphtha description into a manageable set of parameters, which uniquely defines feed-dependent conversion and yield effects. 

The conversion and yield models, Equations 12 and 16, were generalized via the feed characterization parameters. 

It should be noted that the above results were obtained on endlinked systems [103, 104] yielding model networks. In this case the value of M, at the end of network formation is close to the number-average MM of the initial sample [105]. 

Sherman, K. (1991). Yields, models, and management of Large Marine Ecosystems. In Food Chains (Sherman, K., Alexander, L., and Gold, B., eds.). Westview Press, Boulder, CO. pp. 1—34. 

One of the most attractive features of the CoMFA and CoMFA-like methods is that, because of the nature of molecular field descriptors, these approaches yield models that are relatively easy to interpret in chemical terms. Famous CoMFA contour plots, which are obtained as a result of any successful CoMFA study, tell chemists in rather plain terms how the change in the compounds size or charge distribution as a result of chemical modification correlate with the binding constant or activity. These observations may immediately suggest to a chemist possible ways to modify molecules to increase their potencies. However as demonstrated in the next section, these predictions should be taken with caution only after sufficient work has been done to prove the statistical significance and predictive ability of the models. 

In the classical model of the chemostat, discussed in Chapter 1, it is assumed (following Monod [Mol Mo2]) that the nutrient uptake rate is proportional to the reproductive rate. The constant of proportionality, which converts units of nutrient to units of organism, is called the yield constant. As a consequence of the assumed constant value of the yield, the classical model is sometimes referred to as the constant-yield model. 

The purpose of this chapter is to give a complete global analysis of the variable-yield model. Essentially, we confirm that the variable-yield models make the same predictions - concerning the growth of a single population, and concerning the outcome of competition between two... 

The chapter proceeds as follows. In the next section the variable-yield model of single-population growth is derived and analyzed. In Section 3, the competition model is formulated and its equilibrium solutions identified. The conservation principle is introduced in Section 4 in order to reduce the dimension of the system of equations by one local stability properties of the equilibrium solutions are also determined. The global behavior of solutions of the reduced system is treated in Section 5, and the global behavior of solutions of the original competitive system is discussed in Section 6. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the main results. 

The conclusions of Theorem 6.1 correspond precisely to those of Theorem 5.1 of Chapter 1 and Theorem 3.2 of Chapter 2. In fact, following Grover [G2], a constant-yield model can be associated with (3.1) in such a way that both models give the same predictions (this is not proved in [G2]). Consider the case where both Ei and 2 exist. Omit from (3.1) the equations for Qj and substitute... 

The predictions of the variable-yield model (3.1) and the corresponding constant-yield model (7.1) are identical. Typical solutions of each model approach the corresponding equilibrium in a monotone fashion (see Proposition 5.3). 

In one respect, the variable-yield model has been a disappointment in the sense that it was hoped that the transient behavior of its solutions would better fit the transient behavior seen in experiments with certain algae [CNIJ. The experiments, described in [CM], involved the growth of a Chlamydomonas reinhardii population on a nitrogen substrate. Following a step increase in the dilution rate, damped oscillations were observed in cell numbers. Cunningham and Nisbet [CNl] note that the singlepopulation variable-yield model could not reproduce these oscillations without the introduction of time delays into the equations. See also the monograph [NG]. 

Similarly, our analysis of the variable-yield model in Chapter 8 is limited to two competing populations because we rely on the techniques of monotone dynamical systems theory. One would expect the main result of Chapter 8 to remain valid regardless of the number of competitors, just as it did for the simpler constant-yield model treated in Chapters 1 and 2. Perhaps the LaSalle corollary of Chapter 2 can be used to carry out such an extension, using arguments similar to those used in [AM] (described in Chapter 2). As noted in [NG], a structured model in which... 

G2] J. P. Grover (1992), Constant- and variable-yield models of population growth Responses to environmental variability and implications for competition, Journal of Theoretical Biology 158 409-28. 

SW3] H. Smith and P. Waltman (1994), Competition for a single limiting resource in continuous culture The variable-yield model, SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics 54 1113-31. 

---