Monitoring bioremediation in creosote-contaminated soils using chemical analysis and toxicity tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three soils with a history of creosote contamination (designated NB, TI and AC) were treated in bench-scale microcosms using conditions (nutrient amendment, moisture content and temperature) which had promoted mineralization of 14C-pyrene in a preliminary study. Bioremediation was monitored using the solid-phase Microtox test, seed germination and earthworm survival assays, SOS-chromotest, Toxi-chromotest and a red blood cell (RBC) haemolysis assay. Contaminant concentrations in the AC soil did not change after 150 days. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) concentrations decreased in the NB soil, and toxicity decreased overall according to the earthworm, seed germination and Microtox tests. Although total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs) in the TI soil were reduced following treatment, results of the earthworm, seed germination, RBC and Microtox tests suggested an initial increase in toxicity indicating that toxic intermediary metabolites may have formed during biodegradation. Toxicity testing results did not always correlate with contaminant concentrations, nor were the trends indicated by each test consistent for any one soil. Each test demonstrated a different capacity to detect reductions in soil contamination. Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology (2000) 24, 132–139.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".