MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137651187 · doi:10.1139/s04-010

Cyanobacteria toxins and the current state of knowledge on water treatment options: a review

2004· review· en· W2137651187 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Clark Svrcek, Daniel W. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Engineering and Science · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCyanobacteriaCylindrospermopsinMicrocystinWater treatmentEnvironmental scienceHuman healthAlgal bloomAlgaeCyanotoxinBiochemical engineeringBiologyEnvironmental engineeringEcologyBacteriaEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cyanobacteria toxins have quickly risen in infamy as important water contaminants that threaten human health. This paper provides a broad overview of cyanobacteria toxins and the current state of knowledge about water treatment options to reduce these toxins. The first part of the paper focuses on cyanobacteria as organisms and their ability to produce a variety of toxins, the proposed or accepted regulatory guidelines for these toxins, and common detection techniques. Then a review is presented of the past 25 years worth of work on cyanobacteria toxin removal using both conventional and advanced water treatment processes and operations. The paper concludes by identifying directions for future research required to advance the abilities of utilities and water treatment plant designers to deal with these toxins while long-term, watershed management and surveillance plans are developed and implemented. As well, some suggestions are provided for immediate steps that a water utility facing cyanobacteria blooms could take to minimize human exposure to these toxins. Key words: cyanobacteria, blue-green algae, microcystin, cylindrospermopsin, cyanotoxins, water treatment, membrane filtration, advanced oxidation, UV photolysis, drinking water.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations300
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Engineering and ScienceSame topicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton DynamicsFrench-language works237,207