MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2277117031 · doi:10.14288/1.0063749

The treatment of wood leachate using constructed wetlands

2009· article· en· W2277117031 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin Frankowski

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConstructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeachateWetlandEnvironmental scienceWaste managementEngineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rainfall percolating through wood chip piles, hog fuel, and log storage areas will leach naturally-occurring chemicals from the wood. This leachate is often characterised by high carbon content, strong colour, and high concentrations of tannin and lignin, resin acids and phenolics. This can be very toxic to aquatic life, and has serious implications from an environmental discharge viewpoint. It can lead to regulatory problems for facilities operators. Research was conducted in a series of phases at a cedar processing site near Mission, British Columbia. It was determined that cedar leachate was amenable to biological treatment. Chemical and ecotoxicological characterization was performed, and combined with the data obtained from treatment screening trials, laboratory-scale constructed wetlands were designed and tested. These constructed wetlands were able to achieve a 90% reduction in toxicity and removal rates of >90% for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and 80% for chemical oxygen demand (COD). A pilot-scale program demonstrated that constructed wetlands were able to treat the cedar leachate under field conditions. Initial data obtained during winter operations produced removal rates for toxicity on the order of 50%. BOD and COD removal was slightly less. The system still needs to undergo optimization, but preliminary results indicate several factors which may yield significant improvements in system performance. Thus, it has been demonstrated that a wetland-based biological treatment process is potentially a practical and cost-effective treatment technique for wood leachate. Unit treatment costs are much lower than other technologies; effective physio-chemical treatment techniques are 10 - 30 times more expensive, conventional biological treatments at least 6 times. Also, many of the conventional biological systems have failed to demonstrate effective treatment performance for this type of wastewater. In addition to its cost-effective performance, this constructed wetlands system operates in a passive manner. It requires minimal operational attention and infrastructure. No chemical addition or by-products handling is needed. Possible applications include the collection and treatment of wood leachate from chip piles, wood waste landfills, and hog fuel piles, and the treatment of wood extractives in stormwater runoff from log yards, dryland sorts and staging areas. This system is ideally suited for those applications which require effective, economic treatment of fluctuating runoff loads containing a broad, and often changing, spectrum of contaminants.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.866
Threshold uncertainty score0.947

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.166 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicConstructed Wetlands for Wastewater TreatmentFrench-language works237,207