Two step sequential treatment of pulp and paper mill effluent by <i>Cryptococcus albidus</i> and <i>Emericella nidulans</i> var. nidulans in 2L bioreactor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A number of studies had shown biological treatment of pulp and paper mill effluent. However, almost all the studies have focused on reduction in physical and chemical parameters. Toxicity analysis, though very important, has been neglected. Thus in this study genotoxicity along with colour and lignin content were studied. Treatment of effluent, generated at the pulping stage in pulp and a paper mill, was done using two fungal strains, Cryptococcus albidus and Emericella nidulans var. nidulans, in sequential manner in 2 L bioreactor. Two different treatments were given. In treatment (I) effluent was first treated by C. albidus (stage A) and this treated effluent was further treated by E. nidulans var. nidulans (stage B). In treatment (II) effluent was first treated by E. nidulans var. nidulans (stage C) and this treated effluent was further treated by C. albidus (stage D). Treatment (I) was more efficient than treatment (II) with 71%, 51%, 44% and 70% reduction in colour, lignin, COD and genotoxicity, respectively. Class distribution of comets also showed that treatment (I) was more efficient than treatment (II). Colour content showed very good correlation (r 2 = 0.99) with effluent toxicity. The effluent treatment process (I) can be scaled up for industrial use. © 2011 Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".