MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973862391 · doi:10.2134/jeq2008.0100

In‐Stream Bioreactor for Agricultural Nitrate Treatment

2009· article· en· W1973862391 on OpenAlexaffabout
W. D. Robertson, L. C. Merkley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Quality · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsToronto and Region Conservation AuthorityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWoodchipsTile drainageEnvironmental scienceNitrateDrainageEnvironmental engineeringHydrology (agriculture)DenitrificationBioreactorNitrogenPulp and paper industryChemistrySoil waterSoil scienceGeotechnical engineeringGeologyEcologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nitrate from agricultural activity contributes to nutrient loading in surface water bodies such as the Mississippi River. This study demonstrates a novel in-stream bioreactor that uses carbonaceous solids (woodchips) to promote denitrification of agricultural drainage. The reactor (40 m3) was trenched into the bottom of an existing agricultural drainage ditch in southern Ontario (Avon site), and flow was induced through the reactor by construction of a gravel riffle in the streambed. Over the first 1.5 yr of operation, mean influent NO3-N of 4.8 mg L(-1) was attenuated to 1.04 mg L(-1) at a mean reactor flow rate of 24 L min(-1). A series of flow-step tests, facilitated by an adjustable height outlet pipe, demonstrated that nitrate mass removal generally increased with increasing flow rate. When removal rates were not nitrate-limited, areal mass removal ranged from 11 mg N m(-2) h(-1) at 3 degrees C to 220 mg N m(-2) h(-1) at 14 degrees C (n = 27), exceeding rates reported for some surface-flow constructed wetlands in this climatic region by a factor of about 40. Over the course of the field trial, reactor flow rates decreased as a result of silt accumulation on top of the gravel infiltration gallery. Design modifications are currently being implemented to mitigate the effects of siltation. In-stream reactors have the potential to be scaled larger and could be more manageable than attempting to address nitrate loading from individual tile drains. They could also work well in combination with other nitrate control techniques.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations148
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental QualitySame topicSoil and Water Nutrient DynamicsFrench-language works237,207