MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2318600706 · doi:10.2166/washdev.2014.122

Retrofitting arsenic-iron removal plants in rural Bangladesh for performance enhancement

2014· article· en· W2318600706 on OpenAlexaff
Ingrid M. Sorensen, Edward A. McBean, M. Muhibur Rahman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water Sanitation and Hygiene for Development · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicArsenic contamination and mitigation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArsenicAerationEnvironmental scienceBaffleArsenic contamination of groundwaterEnvironmental engineeringWaste managementScrapGroundwaterChemistryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a result of naturally occurring arsenic in groundwater, it is estimated that 42–60 million people in Bangladesh are exposed to arsenic at concentrations greater than the World Health Organization (WHO) guideline of 10 μg/L. Arsenic-Iron Removal Plants (AIRPs) are capable of removing 50–90% of arsenic from groundwater, but are frequently unable to meet the WHO guideline. The effectiveness of three design modifications intended to improve the performance of AIRPs is described: (1) the addition of scrap or locally available iron to the filtration media, (2) raising the intake pipe that connects the two tanks of the AIRP, and (3) introducing baffles to the aeration tank. Total arsenic, iron, phosphate, and dissolved oxygen were measured to determine the impact of each modification. The addition of iron media showed an increase in arsenic removal up to 13%, while raising the pipe intake accounted for a 3% increase in arsenic removal. The installation of both modifications to the same AIRP is expected to reduce the lifetime body burden from drinking water by one-half. The addition of baffles to the aeration tank showed no evidence of improving the arsenic removal capabilities of the AIRP.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score0.235

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water Sanitation and Hygiene for DevelopmentSame topicArsenic contamination and mitigationFrench-language works237,207