Can ATP be measured in soils treated with industrial oily waste?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Soil samples were collected from a field with a long‐term (10 yr) oily wastewater application history, containing 70 mg g –1 of oil and grease and an accumulation of heavy metals, and also from a short‐term (1 yr) wastewater application involving different rates of waste, tillage, and nitrogen (N) fertilization. Prior to ATP extraction, the soils were incubated at 22 °C and a water potential of –60 kPa for 21 d and 2 d for the long‐ and short‐term trials, respectively. The light emitted from the bioluminescence reaction was partly quenched in the extract of steam‐sterilized long‐term waste‐treated soil, and curvilinearly responded to the addition of ATP at concentrations higher than 4 ng ATP per assay in contrast to the linear response from the pure extractant and the extract of control soil. Calibration curves developed from the extracts of steam‐sterilized soils were used for calculating ATP in that given soil. ATP determined in the long‐term treated soil was as high as 3201 ng (g soil) –1 . Still, residual oil to ATP concentration ratio was about an order of magnitude higher in the long‐ than in the short‐term waste‐treated soil, reflecting the accumulation of recalcitrant material. In the short‐term treated soils, ATP ranged from 355 to 760 ng (g soil) –1 and responded to the rate of waste application, tillage, and fertilization. The use of ATP measurement has potential for assessing land management effects and developing tillage and fertilization recommendations for enhanced biodegradation of the oil waste.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".