MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030040315 · doi:10.2166/wst.2010.268

Effect of daylight on regrowth of bacteria in anaerobically digested sludge

2010· article· en· W2030040315 on OpenAlexaff
İrep Gözen, Banu Örmeci

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Science & Technology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Reuse
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDaylightBacteriaSalmonellaClostridium perfringensColiform bacteriaFood scienceFecal coliformPulp and paper industryChemistryBiologyMicrobiologyEnvironmental scienceEcologyWater quality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the regrowth of total coliform, Salmonella, and Clostridium perfringens in anaerobically digested sludge after centrifuge dewatering in the presence and absence of daylight. Sludge cake and centrate samples were collected from a treatment plant, and half of the samples was stored in daylight and the other half was stored in dark for three weeks. The bacteria levels in the cake and centrate samples were measured periodically throughout the storage period, and all three bacteria showed substantial regrowth. Presence of daylight increased the regrowth of Salmonella both in sludge cake and centrate, and increased the regrowth of total coliform in centrate. Salmonella exhibited the highest regrowth rate in cake among the three bacteria tested both in the presence and absence of light. Daylight did not appear to have a significant impact on the regrowth of Clostridium perfringens in cake and centrate, and on the regrowth of total coliform in cake. This might, however, be caused by the masking effect of the higher initial numbers of these bacteria in the samples. There is need for more research to thoroughly understand the effect of daylight on the regrowth of sludge bacteria.

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 score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.771

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 studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Science & TechnologySame topicWastewater Treatment and ReuseFrench-language works237,207