Nitrification monitoring in a biofilter treating pig manure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND: Nitrogen removal by organic biofilters treating pig manure is incomplete and has to be optimized. This could be achieved by promoting the activity of denitrifiers, this being the limiting factor for nitrogen removal in this kind of process. However, changing the operating conditions could impair nitrification; no data are currently available about the activity and distribution of nitrifiers in organic biofilters. A better knowledge of the process of colonization by nitrifiers is needed to determine their potential to oxidize ammonia and whether they share the same physical space as denitrifiers or not. RESULTS: Data showed that nitrifiers were principally localized near the surface and that a microbiological gradient, in terms of nitrifying activity, was present from top to bottom. Moreover, in each section studied, the potential nitrifying activity measured was always higher than the observed nitrifying activity. These results suggest that the biomass had the capacity to oxidize more ammonia and that these transformations occurred near the surface of the biofilter. However, nitrifying activities were not limited by environmental factors but rather by the concentration of ammonia supplied to the process. CONCLUSIONS: Because denitrifiers and nitrifiers share the same physical space in this kind of process, particular precautions will have to be taken to maintain nitrification, while modifying conditions to promote denitrifier activity. Copyright © 2007 Society of Chemical Industry
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".