Wastewater-grown duckweed may be safely used as fish feed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Duckweed has been used for the treatment of wastewater and as fish feed. A comparative study was carried out to determine (i) the efficacy of duckweed in treating hospital-based wastewater and (ii) the level of the microbial contamination of fish fed on wastewater-grown duckweed. There were two groups of ponds where fish farming was done. In one group of ponds (control ponds), duckweed that was grown using artificial fertilizer was used as fish feed; in another group (study ponds), wastewater-grown duckweed was used as fish feed. The faecal contamination of water, duckweed, and fish from study and control ponds were monitored by faecal coliform estimation. The presence of enteric pathogens among handlers, water, duckweed, and fish samples was also examined. It was observed that the faecal coliform counts of raw wastewater were 4.7 Log10 CFU/mL, which was reduced to <1 Log10 CFU/mL after treating with duckweed. There was no significant difference (P > 0.05) in faecal coliform counts in water collected from duckweed ponds and fish ponds of study and control areas. The wastewater-grown duckweed did not pose any health hazard to the handlers. These results demonstrated that the wastewater-treated duckweed may be safely used as fish feed.
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) | 0.004 | 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".