MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2246012671 · doi:10.2166/wst.2001.0149

Explosive biodegradation in soil slurry batch reactors amended with exogenous microorganisms

2001· article· en· W2246012671 on OpenAlexaff
Chun Fang Shen, Jalal Hawari, Louise Paquet, Guy Ampleman, Sonia Thiboutot

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Science & Technology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicrobial bioremediation and biosurfactants
Canadian institutionsBiotechnology Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMethanogenesisBiodegradationMineralization (soil science)Environmental chemistryTrinitrotolueneAmendmentSlurryChemistryMicroorganismBioaugmentationSoil waterMicrobial consortiumWaste managementSoil contaminationBiostimulationAnaerobic digestionBioremediationPulp and paper industryEnvironmental scienceContaminationMethaneEnvironmental engineeringBacteriaNitrogenBiologyOrganic chemistryExplosive materialEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study explores the feasibility of biotreatment of 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT) and hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro- 1,3,5-triazine (RDX)-contaminated soils in slurry batch reactors. Radiorespirometric assays showed that anaerobic sludge was able to mineralize 59% RDX to CO2 although significant mineralization of TNT was not observed in all cases. TNT and RDX at concentrations higher than 50 and 100 mg/L respectively were inhibitory to methanogenesis (used as a bioindicator), however, methanogenesis recovered after TNT was transformed into less toxic triaminotoluene. Bioslurry batch reactors containing 40% of contaminated soil (2000 mg RDX and 1000 mg TNT/kg dry soil) were operated under various conditions. Both TNT and RDX were persistent to soil indigenous microbes. Degradation of both TNT and RDX was enhanced by the municipal sludge amendment, although degradation of RDX was only achieved under anaerobic conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.900

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Science & TechnologySame topicMicrobial bioremediation and biosurfactantsFrench-language works237,207