MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115678028 · doi:10.1139/a10-007

A review on the removal of nitrogen oxides from polluted flow by bioreactors

2010· review· en· W2115678028 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hejingying Niu, Dennis Y.C. Leung

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Reviews · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicOdor and Emission Control Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioreactorData scrubbingNitrificationEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental chemistryDenitrificationSelective catalytic reductionNitrogen oxidePollutantWet scrubberNitrogenWaste managementCombustionNitrogen dioxideOzoneEnvironmental engineeringChemistryPulp and paper industryCatalysisNOxFlue gasEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are the main pollutants of nitrogen oxides (NOx) released during a combustion process. They induce harmful effects both to the environment and human health, such as the formation of acid rain, an increase of the tropospheric ozone, global warming, etc. Selective catalytic reduction, selective non-catalytic reduction, adsorption and scrubbing (absorption) are the conventional technologies used to control NOxemission from exhaust gas. The bioreactor appears superior to conventional technologies in terms of simplicity and economy in operation, low process energy requirements, and easy treatment of residual products. This paper reviews two biologically-based NOxremoval theories, i.e., nitrification and denitrification. The use of bacteria, fungi and microalgae are discussed and compared. The study indicates that the bioreactor is a promising technology that can be used to control NOxemitted during combustion processes.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations46
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental ReviewsSame topicOdor and Emission Control TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207