MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990770318 · doi:10.2166/wst.2007.221

Impact of septic compounds and operational conditions on the microbiology of an activated sludge system

2007· article· en· W1990770318 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mary Ann Fitzsimmons, Sophie Deschênes, Michael G. Paice

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Science & Technology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen Removal
Canadian institutionsCégep de Rivière-du-Loup
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEffluentActivated sludgeNewsprintFlocculationChemistryPulp and paper industryMicroorganismSludge bulkingMicrobiologyBacteriaBiomass (ecology)Waste managementChromatographySewage treatmentEnvironmental engineeringEnvironmental scienceBiologyBiochemistryOrganic chemistryCelluloseEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In activated sludge (AS) biotreatment, septic compounds such as volatile organic acids and reduced sulphur compounds have been frequently cited as a major cause of Thiothrix and Type 021N filamentous bulking. These filaments are common in Canadian pulp and paper biotreatment systems, where they cause settling problems in secondary clarifiers. We conducted a 14-week study of a TMP/newsprint mill effluent to characterize the septic compounds entering the biotreatment, and to determine correlations with AS biomass characteristics and biotreatment operating parameters. A significant correlation was found between the sludge volume index, the abundance of Type 021N, and the propionic acid (PA) concentration in the primary clarified effluent. PA also induced a significant change in the flocculating bacteria size distribution determined by digital imaging. Consequently, the correlation observed between PA and Type 021N bulking is an indirect effect of inhibition of floc-forming microorganisms, giving a competitive advantage to filaments.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.894

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Science & TechnologySame topicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen RemovalFrench-language works237,207