Treatment of freshwater fish farm effluent using constructed wetlands: the role of plants and substrate
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Freshwater fish farm effluents have low nutrient concentrations but high flow rates, resulting in pollutant load, especially phosphorus (P), causing eutrophication. The feasibility was tested of a treatment combining, within a single constructed wetland, the contribution of macrophytes for reducing organic matter and nitrogen (N), with the high efficiency of steel slag and limestone for P removal. Twenty subsurface flow (SSF) basins of 280 L with different combinations of plants (Phragmites communis or Typha latifolia) and substrates (steel slag, limestone, gravel, peat) were fed with a reconstituted fish farm effluent in a greenhouse experiment. Pollutant removal was generally very good under all treatments. N and organic matter removal were correlated with plant biomass while P removal was better in substrates with steel slag and limestone. However, the high pH of the P-adsorbing substrate was detrimental to plant growth so that no combination of plants and substrates could maximise in one step the simultaneous removal of all evaluated pollutants. Therefore, the use of two sequential units is recommended, a first one consisting of a macrophyte planted basin using a neutral substrate to remove organic matter and N, followed by a second unplanted basin containing only a P-adsorbing substrate.
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.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 it