Evaluation of bacteriological indicators of disinfection for alkaline treated biosolids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A suite of methods was used to enumerate fecal coliforms, total culturable heterotrophs, Escherichia coli (E. coli), Clostridium perfringens endospores (C. perfringens), aerobic endospores, and Salmonella spp. in untreated municipal sludge and lime treated biosolids. Results of this work indicate that the fecal coliform methods used during this evaluation were not significantly different (α = 0.05). Similarly the E. coli methods were also shown to be not significantly different (α = 0.05). We also found that the fecal coliform and E. coli populations are more susceptible to lime treatment than other heterotrophic bacteria. Endospore forming bacteria were found to survive lime treatment while the numbers of other indicator organisms were significantly reduced. Finally, we showed that the density of aerobic endospores and their resistance to lime treatment was comparable to the densities and resistance of C. perfringens endospores in both Class A and B alkaline treated biosolids. Key words: biosolids, fecal coliform, salmonellae, Escherichia coli, Clostridium perfringens endospores, aerobic endospores, sludge, lime, disinfection.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".