MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327134650 · doi:10.2166/wst.2014.407

Should activated sludge models consider influent seeding of nitrifiers? Field characterization of nitrifying bacteria

2014· article· en· W2327134650 on OpenAlexafffund
Shameem Jauffur, Siavash Isazadeh, Dominic Frigon

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Science & Technology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen Removal
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNitrifying bacteriaActivated sludgeNitrificationBioreactorAutotrophSeedingSewage treatmentPulp and paper industryWastewaterBiomass (ecology)Environmental engineeringEnvironmental scienceBiologyEnvironmental chemistryChemistryBacteriaEcologyBotanyAgronomyEngineeringNitrogen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study revealed the presence of nitrifying bacteria in influent municipal wastewaters reaching full-scale biological wastewater treatment plants. Respirometric assays showed that the influent nitrifiers were active following a 5- to 8-hour period of metabolic induction. Diversity analyses by pyrosequencing of functional gene PCR (polymerase chain reaction) amplicon suggested that the nitrifiers in the influent stream likely seeded activated sludge bioreactors since the most abundant operational taxonomic units in the influent and mixed liquor were the same. Based on the estimated seeding intensity of 0.3 g of nitrifiers per day per gram of nitrifiers already present, the absolute minimum solids retention time (SRT) was reduced by approximately 56% at 5 °C as compared to non-seeding conditions. This can have important repercussions on the design and sizing of bioreactors operating in cold climates and calls for a need to fine-tune process modelling by considering the contribution of autotrophic nitrifying biomass from municipal influent streams.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 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

Citations24
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Science & TechnologySame topicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen RemovalFrench-language works237,207