MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054834062 · doi:10.1139/s03-061

Evaluation of the ability of chlorine to inactivate selected organisms from the biofilm of a drinking water distribution system simulator following a long-term wastewater cross-connection

2004· article· en· W2054834062 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shawn G. Gibbs, Mark C. Meckes, Christopher F. Green, Pasquale V. Scarpino

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Engineering and Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Treatment and Disinfection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWastewaterBiofilmChlorineEnvironmental scienceMicroorganismTap waterSewage treatmentChemistryPulp and paper industryEnvironmental engineeringEnvironmental chemistryBacteriaBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The drinking water distribution system simulator (DSS) from the U.S. EPA was operated with a direct cross-connection of 0.3% wastewater to system volume per day for 70 d. During the cross-connection, tap water, wastewater, and system discharge water were monitored to ensure that the wastewater cross-connection was the source of study organisms and that these organisms were present in the water column of the DSS. The effectiveness of free chlorine levels of 0, 1, 2, and 5 mg/L to inactivate microbes in biofilms on PVC and ductile iron coupons following a wastewater cross-connection was determined. A reduction in organisms occurred after 12 h for both non-chlorinated PVC and ductile iron coupons. This suggests that the study organisms were able to adhere to the biofilm, but were not able to remain in the biofilm. The study organisms were inactivated both in the biofilm and in the water column. Water column data showed that biofilm released culturable heterotrophs and endospores into the water column throughout the 72 h evaluation period at all chlorine levels evaluated. Key words: biofilm, chlorine, wastewater, drinking water, microorganisms, cross-connection.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.328
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations8
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Engineering and ScienceSame topicWater Treatment and DisinfectionFrench-language works237,207