MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138847999 · doi:10.2166/wqrj.2001.028

Short-Term Effects of Low pH on the Microfauna of an Activated Sludge Wastewater Treatment System

2001· article· en· W2138847999 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Damian D. Baldwin, Christine Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Quality Research Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen Removal
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersMemorial University of Newfoundland
KeywordsMicrofaunaEffluentActivated sludgeWastewaterSewage treatmentChemistryPulp and paper industryPopulationEnvironmental chemistryAnimal scienceEnvironmental engineeringEcologyBiologyEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations27
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Quality Research JournalSame topicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen RemovalFrench-language works237,207