Effect of Pulsed Additions of Nutrients on Oil Biodegradation in Continuous-Flow Beach Microcosms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Bioremediation of oil-contaminated shorelines can be effected by providing sufficient quantities of certain rate-limiting nutrients, especially nitrogen and phosphorus. Although stoichiometry, based on the determination of optimal C:N:P ratios from batch oil-biodegradation experiments, traditionally has been the primary method for estimating required nutrient dosages, recent research suggests that nutrient uptake and microbial growth kinetics may be more important in determining the success of oil spill bioremediation. Because nutrient washout can be relatively rapid in intertidal environments, nutrient application strategies must consider the relative rates of nutrient washout and uptake by microorganisms. Because there may be significant differences between ammonium and nitrate with respect to both of these processes, a laboratory investigation of the performance of these two nitrogen sources was conducted in continuous-flow beach microcosm reactors. The behavior of these nutrients was compared under abiotic conditions to determine whether ammonium could be retained in oil-contaminated beaches longer than nitrate by ion exchange. Their ability to support oil biodegradation under continuous and intermittent feeding conditions also was compared. No differences between ammonium and nitrate could be detected based on either criterion, but faster oil biodegradation was observed under pulse-feeding conditions than when the nutrients were supplied continuously. The relatively poor performance of the continuously fed systems was attributed to nutrient limitation because the nutrient input rate was less than the nutrient demand rate.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".