MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022045238 · doi:10.1038/sj.jim.2900789

Monitoring bioremediation in creosote-contaminated soils using chemical analysis and toxicity tests

2000· article· en· W2022045238 on OpenAlexafffund
Theresa M. Phillips, D Liu, Alan G. Seech, H Lee, J. T. Trevors

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicrobial bioremediation and biosurfactants
Canadian institutionsBiorem Technologies (Canada)University of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBioremediationMicrocosmEnvironmental chemistryEarthwormCreosoteBiodegradationContaminationSoil contaminationEisenia andreiChemistryToxicityMineralization (soil science)BiostimulationSoil waterGerminationBioassayPyreneAcute toxicityBiologyHorticultureAgronomyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
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 score0.173
Threshold uncertainty score0.839

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations71
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Industrial Microbiology & BiotechnologySame topicMicrobial bioremediation and biosurfactantsFrench-language works237,207