MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2204033690 · doi:10.5539/mas.v9n13p252

Removal of Cyanide-Contaminated Water by Vetiver Grasses

2015· article· en· W2204033690 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Piyada Wachirawongsakorn, Tongsai Jamnongkan, Mohd Talib Latif

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Applied Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCassava research and cyanide
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Council of Thailand
KeywordsEcotypePhytoremediationAnimal scienceSowingCyanideChemistryHorticultureBotanyBiologyEnvironmental chemistryHeavy metals

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vetiver grass and it usages have been widely investigated in many researches as the preferred plant species due to its known efficiency, low cost, the ease of availability and spread. This research aimed to use four different vetiver grass (Vetiveria zizanioides) ecotypes to remove cyanide (CN-)-contaminated water for improve its quality. Growth capability, tolerance and removal efficiency were evaluated. The results showed that the vetiver grass had a 100% survival rate for one month after planting. Songkhlar3 had the longest leaves, followed by Surat-Thani, Sri Lanka and Monto, respectively. Root lengths of all ecotypes showed no significant differences (p ≤ 0.05). All vetiver grass ecotypes could potentially purify CN--contaminated water at lower concentrations of ≤ 35 mg CN-/L. The Monto ecotype had the highest CN- removal efficiency at all CN- concentration levels, showing 100% CN- removal from the 5-45 mg CN-/L contaminated water samples within 2-5 weeks growth. The tolerance of vetiver grass to CN- was a more important factor than growth rate when selecting a vetiver grass ecotype for CN- phytoremediation.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Applied ScienceSame topicCassava research and cyanideFrench-language works237,207