DENITRIFICATION OF AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE USING WOOD-BASED REACTORS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two denitrification reactor designs, utilizing alternate layers of fine and coarse wood particles, were monitoredfor their ability to achieve passive, maintenance-free nitrate removal in agricultural tile drainage. A lateral flow design wastested over a 26-month period on drainage from a cornfield in southern Ontario, and an upflow design was tested over a20-month period on drainage from a golf course, also in southern Ontario. At the cornfield site, flow through the reactoraveraged 7.7 L/min at an average influent NO3 concentration of 11.8 mg N/L, and removal averaged 3.9 mg N/L. At the golfcourse site, flow through the reactor averaged 7.8 L/min at an average influent NO3 concentration of 3.2 mg N/L, and removalaveraged 1.7 mg N/L. Areal removal rates averaged 2.5 g N/m2/d in the cornfield reactor and 0.95 g N/m2/d in the golf coursereactor, and are about an order of magnitude higher than rates reported for other passive treatment systems such asconstructed wetlands even though average operating temperatures were relatively low (7C to 9C). Mass balancecalculations indicate that carbon consumption from denitrification was <2% per year; thus, these reactors have the potentialto operate for a number of years without the need for media replenishment. Both reactors were successful in achievingmaintenance-free operation during all seasonal conditions, including unassisted startup after drought and freeze periods.Reactors such as these have the potential for a range of applications in agricultural settings because of their low cost andlow maintenance characteristics. They are most usefully applied in the treatment of base flows rather than peak flows andcan be readily used in combination with other treatment systems such as constructed wetlands.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".