MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007286426 · doi:10.1080/09593330801987129

RECOVERY OF STRUVITE FROM STORED HUMAN URINE

2008· article· en· W2007286426 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth Tilley, James Atwater, D. S. Mavinic

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Technology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPhosphorus and nutrient management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStruviteUrineMagnesiumChemistryPhosphorusChromatographyPulp and paper industryBiochemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In previous work, synthetic urine was used as a readily available proxy for real urine for determining the factors which affect the recovery of struvite from urine. Based on these findings with synthetic urine, we recovered struvite from real urine and, thus, showed that a) the synthetic urine served as an adequate model for determining the processes which affect struvite precipitation, and b) high quality struvite can be recovered from real human urine. For urine solutions diluted up to four times, an average of 23% of phosphorus and 80% of magnesium was precipitated naturally; the remaining supernatant was then dosed with magnesium to recover the phosphorus still in solution. The struvite recovered was approximately 99% pure regardless of storage conditions although full strength urine was best for struvite recovery since it contains the greatest mass of harvestable phosphorus. We conclude that synthetic urine can be used as a proxy for real urine when investigating struvite recovery provided the synthetic mixture is consistent with the expected composition in the specific context.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.173 · 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

Citations59
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental TechnologySame topicPhosphorus and nutrient managementFrench-language works237,207