Short-Term Effects of Low pH on the Microfauna of an Activated Sludge Wastewater Treatment System
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
Abstract Optimum pH for biological (e.g., activated sludge) wastewater treatment is stated to lie between pH 6.5 and 8.0; however, the pH of processed effluent from thermomechanical pulp mills is closer to 4.5 and 5.5. Consequently, pH adjustment of effluent is required with associated costs. The ability of the microfaunal community (protozoa and metazoa) of activated sludge to survive at pH levels below 6.5 was evaluated with samples collected from Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Ltd. (Newfoundland, Canada). Effect of pH was examined at “high pH” (4.5, 5.5 and 6.5 control) and “low pH” (2.5, 3.5 and 6.5 control) under “summer” temperatures of 30°C and “winter” temperatures of 15°C, with impacts assessed after 1 h and 24 h exposure. Effect of pH was found to be temperature-dependent: pH levels down to 4.5 appeared to have little impact on microfaunal abundances at 30°C , but a number of microfauna were negatively affected at 15°C. Low pH levels of 2.5 and 3.5 were detrimental to the population densities of most microfauna. Adverse pH effects were more marked with increased exposure in some cases. An acid-neutralizing ability may be inherent in the activated sludge, as treatment pH increased over 24 h.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 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