MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Simulation of Nitrogen Transport in Soil Under Municipal Wastewater Application Using LEACHN<sup><b>1</b></sup>

2007· article· en· W2072365655 on OpenAlexaff
Sobhalatha P. Kunjikutty, Shiv O. Prasher, Ramanbhai M. Patel, Suzelle Barrington, Seung‐Hyun Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueJAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeachateWastewaterLysimeterEnvironmental scienceLeaching (pedology)NitrateDenitrificationEnvironmental engineeringGroundwaterPollutionNitrogenEnvironmental chemistrySoil waterChemistrySoil scienceEcologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: To reduce the risk of surface and ground water pollution from nitrate, and in so doing improve the quality of receiving waters, better management options for land application of wastewater must be explored. In order to determine proper and environmentally safe wastewater land application methods, different application scenarios were simulated in this study to determine the fate and transport of nitrogen in sand‐filled field lysimeters. The Leaching Estimation and CHemistry Model for Nutrients (LEACHN) model was used to assess alternative wastewater land application scenarios: applications of low‐, medium‐, or high‐N concentration wastewaters, at different rates (0.06, 0.19, 0.31, or 0.6 m3/m2/day), under continuous or intermittent application. In the simulations, the NO3−‐N levels decreased in the leachate with an increase in wastewater application rates, due to enhanced denitrification in the upper anoxic zone of the soil generated under high flow rates. With low‐N concentrated wastewater, under all tested flow rates, the NO3−‐N levels in the leachate were below the permissible limit. When medium‐N wastewater was applied, the NO3−‐N level in leachate from the highest flow rate was below the permissible limit. Therefore, wastewater with low‐N concentrations, about 10 and 0.5 mg/l NO3−‐N and NH4+‐N, may be continuously applied to soil at all tested flow rates, with minimal nitrate pollution problems. Medium and high‐N concentrated wastewaters increased nitrate levels in the leachate, as compared to their levels in the low‐N concentrated wastewater. It appears that while low‐N wastewater can be safely applied to land without much nitrate leaching problems, the application of medium and high‐N wastewater could pose nitrate pollution problems. The simulation with intermittent application of low‐, medium‐, and high‐N concentrated wastewater at different rates showed a 51‐89% greater reduction in NO3−‐N levels in the leachate, than for continuous application under all tested wastewater N‐levels and flow rates. Also, the levels of NO3−‐N in their leachates were below the permissible limit. Therefore, wastewater with high levels of nitrogenous compounds (up to 54 NO3‐N mg/l) could be treated through an intermittent application to land.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations10
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources AssociationSame topicSoil and Unsaturated FlowFrench-language works237,207