Analytical modelling of bacterial migration and accumulation with rate-limited sorption in discrete fractures

An analytical model for bacterial accumulation in a discrete fractllre has been developed. The transport and accumlllation processes incorporate into the model include advection, dispersion, rate-limited adsorption, rate-limited desorption, irreversible adsorption, attachment, detachment, growth and first order decay botl1 in sorbed and aqueous phases. An analytical solution in Laplace space is derived and nlln1erically inverted. The model is implemented in the code BIOFRAC vvhich is written in Fortran 99. The model is derived for two phases, Phase I, where adsorption-desorption are dominant, and Phase II, where attachment-detachment are dominant. Phase I ends yvhen enollgh bacteria to fully cover the substratllm have accllillulated. The model for Phase I vvas verified by comparing to the Ogata-Banks solution and the model for Phase II was verified by comparing to a nonHomogenous version of the Ogata-Banks solution. After verification, a sensitiv"ity analysis on the inpllt parameters was performed. The sensitivity analysis was condllcted by varying one inpllt parameter vvhile all others were fixed and observing the impact on the shape of the clirve describing bacterial concentration verSllS time. Increasing fracture apertllre allovvs more transport and thus more accllffilliation, "Vvhich diminishes the dllration of Phase I. The larger the bacteria size, the faster the sllbstratum will be covered. Increasing adsorption rate, was observed to increase the dllration of Phase I. Contrary to the aSSllmption ofllniform biofilm thickness, the accllffilliation starts frOll1 the inlet, and the bacterial concentration in aqlleous phase moving towards the olitiet declines, sloyving the accumulation at the outlet. Increasing the desorption rate, redllces the dliration of Phase I, speeding IIp the accllmlilation. It was also observed that Phase II is of longer duration than Phase I. Increasing the attachment rate lengthens the accliffililation period. High rates of detachment speeds up the transport. The grovvth and decay rates have no significant effect on transport, althollgh increases the concentrations in both aqueous and sorbed phases are observed. Irreversible adsorption can stop accllillulation completely if the vallIes are high.

Using a Bayesian model for bankruptcy prediction : a comparative approach

The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of the choice of cut-off points, sampling procedures, and the business cycle on the accuracy of bankruptcy prediction models. Misclassification can result in erroneous predictions leading to prohibitive costs to firms, investors and the economy. To test the impact of the choice of cut-off points and sampling procedures, three bankruptcy prediction models are assessed- Bayesian, Hazard and Mixed Logit. A salient feature of the study is that the analysis includes both parametric and nonparametric bankruptcy prediction models. A sample of firms from Lynn M. LoPucki Bankruptcy Research Database in the U. S. was used to evaluate the relative performance of the three models. The choice of a cut-off point and sampling procedures were found to affect the rankings of the various models. In general, the results indicate that the empirical cut-off point estimated from the training sample resulted in the lowest misclassification costs for all three models. Although the Hazard and Mixed Logit models resulted in lower costs of misclassification in the randomly selected samples, the Mixed Logit model did not perform as well across varying business-cycles. In general, the Hazard model has the highest predictive power. However, the higher predictive power of the Bayesian model, when the ratio of the cost of Type I errors to the cost of Type II errors is high, is relatively consistent across all sampling methods. Such an advantage of the Bayesian model may make it more attractive in the current economic environment. This study extends recent research comparing the performance of bankruptcy prediction models by identifying under what conditions a model performs better. It also allays a range of user groups, including auditors, shareholders, employees, suppliers, rating agencies, and creditors' concerns with respect to assessing failure risk.