Degradation of Phenolic Compounds in Creosote Treated Wood Waste by A Mixed Microbial Culture Augmented with Cellulolytic- Thermophilic Actinomaycets <i>Thermobifida fusca</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Creosote is used for preservation of railway ties and timbers, electric utility poles, marine and foundation piling, fences and garden furniture. Creosote-treated wood waste may cause potential contamination of soil and water if they are not disposed properly. Creosote contains over 300 organic compounds including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, phenolic compounds and heterocyclic organic compounds, many of which are toxic to human and can cause damage to kidney, liver, eyes and skin. The feasibility of using a composting technique inoculated with the cellulose degrading actinomycetesThermobifidafusca as a mesophilic/thermophilic bioremediation option to degrade phenolic compounds in creosote treated wood waste was evaluated. The temperature profile of bioremediation process clearly identified mesophilic and thermophilic phases in both experiments. Different degradation rates were observed in the mesophilic and thermophilic phases. Fluctuations of pH was observed in both experiment as the result of the breakdown of organic nitrogen to ammonium in the first week and the formation of organic acids and the loss of ammonium with the exhaust gases in the latter stage. The moisture content decreased in both trials because of the net loss of water with the exhaust gas. Both experiments achieved similar reductions in total carbon and TKN, volatile solids and phenolic compounds, cellulose and lignin indicating similar levels of microbial activities during the composting process. The stability and maturity of the final products were also similar. The inoculation of the cellulolytic-thermophilicactinomycetesThermobifidafusca did not manifest observable differences in degrading cellulose, lignin and phenolic compounds compared with the control.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".