Effectiveness of Compost Biofilters in Removal of Sediments from Construction Site Runoff
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The effectiveness of compost biofilters in removal of suspended sediments from stormwater runoff was evaluated. Field experiments were conducted in the summer of 2006 at the Guelph Turf Grass Institute, University of Guelph, to verify the sediment removal efficiency of the compost biofilter from synthetic stormwater runoff. The average sediment removal efficiency of 8-inch (20-cm) compost biofilters (socks) for 5, 10, and 15 rolls were 34, 48, and 60%, respectively. The average sediment removal efficiency for 18-inch (45-cm) socks for 5, 10, and 15 rolls were 69, 84, and 95%, respectively. The decrease in sediment removal efficiency of the biofilter over time was significant. The average sediment removal efficiency of 5 rolls of the 18-inch (45-cm) sock started to decrease gradually from 70 to 62, 58, 56, and 54% after 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 consecutive runs. Sediment removal efficiency of the biofilter for sediment particles in the size range of clay was found to be 30%, while for coarser particles such as fine silt and coarse silt was 50 and 80% removal efficiencies, respectively.
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".