Emissions of Chemical Compounds and Bioaerosols During the Secondary Treatment of Paper Mill Effluents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study identified and quantified the main chemical compounds--the substances responsible for the disagreeable odors--and the bioaerosols emitted during the biological treatment of paper mill effluents. It also identified the characteristics of the process that effects the generation or diffusion of these substances. All treatment stages were evaluated. Measuring sites were located as closely as possible to the potential emission sources. Measurements were taken in the summer in 11 paper mills during a 2- to 3-day period in each mill. Chemical compounds were evaluated by direct-reading instruments; bioaerosols were sampled by impaction and counted. Sulfur compounds, emitted into the air when the effluent or the sludge is stirred, had the highest concentrations; their presence was attributable to such things as kraft-type paper pulp. Next in concentration were the carbon and nitrogen oxides, ammonia, and some organic acids, produced by the action of microorganisms. These acids are found mainly in the sludge environment. Terpenes, which come from wood, are present at various locations in paper mills. Odor perception thresholds for most of these substances are much lower than those established to protect the health of workers. Significant concentrations of total bacteria, total molds, and endotoxins were measured at several sites. Gram-negative bacteria were high at only one site, whereas the mold Aspergillus fumigatus was occasionally present at low concentration. No actinomycetes bacteria were detected. The highest concentrations were measured where there was water or dust aerosolization. Emissions are therefore controlled by controlling the operations that lead to the dispersion of water and particles into the air.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Bench or experimental | low |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".