## 3 Results
### Data Evaluation and Selection from Primary Assessment and Testing  
The performance of the various test fractions in each pre-defined structural criterion was measured in the high-throughput screening test protocol. The data identified the eighteen fractions from the growth phases that met the desirable strength characteristics. The whole fermentation broth, pellet, and supernatant (subsequent aqueous and non-aqueous fractions) were compared to the positive and negative controls and against each other. The average of the overall measurements showed a mean value \(p\) value! 0.05 compared to the negative and positive controls indicated that the result was significant and supports the improvement in the strength characteristics. All scores obtained for each individual strength test were added to give an overall effect. Using this strategy, results showed that fractions a, b2, d, e, e1, and e2 performed significantly higher than the average performers (\(p\) value! 0.05). The final selection resulted in six candidate fractions that displayed the highest cumulative desirability co-efficient (80--90%) (Tables 2 and 3). Whole broth (a) & whole vegetative cells (non-aqueous) (b2) (obtained from the vegetative growth phase) showed maximum efficiency from the stationary phase. In addition, a second level of selection was introduced based on preliminary cost of manufacture (prototypes), which required the cost of the top performing fractions to be assessed. The results show that fraction (a) had the lowest cost of production. At this stage, it is not a direct comparison with the benchmark Permazyme product as the production process requires scaling and process optimisation for production. However, fraction (d) and (b2)'s cost of production was 2\(\times\) and 10\(\times\) greater, respectively. The cost equation is shown to further justify that cost, with time and performance is a primary measure in the criteria for final selection of the best performing fractions obtained from the various fermentation phases (i.e., batch 1 and batch 2) (Equation (2)). Thus, upon further analysis of this consortium for prototype testing, the whole broth (a) provided the best overall performance in contrast to (b2). Overall, the remaining best performing outlined in Tables 2 and 3 scored statistically higher than the rest and were selected as the main consortium and was further targeted at product prototype development for the envisioned structural applications. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline
**Components** & **Resistance to** & **Resistance to** & **Resistance to** & **Water** & **Cumulative** \\ **(Fractions)** & **Compression Load** & **Erosion** & **Abrasion** & **Absorption** & **Score** \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Desirability Co-Efficient (\%)**} \\ \hline b2 & 75 & 100 & 100 & 100 & 94\% \\ e2 & 50 & 100 & 100 & 100 & 88\% \\ e1 & 100 & 33 & 100 & 100 & 83\% \\ a & 75 & 50 & 100 & 100 & 81\% \\ b1 & 50 & 50 & 100 & 100 & 75\% \\ c2 & 100 & 50 & 100 & 33 & 71\% \\ e & 50 & 33 & 100 & 100 & 71\% \\ f & 50 & 33 & 100 & 100 & 71\% \\ f2 & 50 & 33 & 100 & 100 & 71\% \\ b & 25 & 50 & 100 & 100 & 69\% \\ a2 & 75 & 50 & 33 & 100 & 65\% \\ d1 & 25 & 33 & 100 & 100 & 65\% \\ a1 & 25 & 50 & 67 & 100 & 60\% \\ c & 25 & 50 & 100 & 67 & 60\% \\ c1 & 25 & 50 & 100 & 67 & 60\% \\ f1 & 25 & 67 & 100 & 33 & 56\% \\ d2 & 25 & 33 & 67 & 100 & 56\% \\ d & 50 & 33 & 33 & 100 & 54\% \\ \hline \end{tabular} Key: soil type i—dolerite a: fermentation broth in batch one, a1: aqueous fraction, a2: non-aqueous fraction, c: supernatant, c1: aqueous fraction, c2: non-aqueous fraction, d: fermentation broth in batch two, d1: aqueous fraction, d2: non-aqueous fraction, c2: non-aqueous fraction, d: fermentation broth in batch two, d1: aqueous fraction, d2: non-aqueous fraction, c: pellet (grows > 90% SE), e1: aqueous fraction, e2: non-aqueous fraction, f: supernatant, f1: aqueous fraction, f2: non-aqueous fraction.  
\end{table}