Microtox™ and Ceriodaphnia dubia toxicity of BKME with powdered activated carbon treatment™
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper compares treatment of bleached kraft pulp mill effluent (BKME) using activated sludge vs. PACT™, with respect to removal of toxicity as measured using two different assays: Microtox™ and Ceriodaphnia dubia. Both activated sludge and PACT TM treatment processes were operated over a range of solids and hydraulic retention times using BKME. Various doses of powdered activated carbon were applied in the PACT™ process. Activated sludge treatment is sufficient to remove nearly all detectable Microtox™ toxicity for bleached kraft pulp mill efflue nt with initial low to moderate toxicity. Based on the Microtox TM toxicity assay, PACT™ was found to slightly improve the toxicity level of highly toxic bleached kraft pulp mill effluent. The chronic Ceriodaphnia dubia toxicity assay was more sensitive than the Microtox TM assay in determining toxicity. Significant residual chronic toxicity towards Ceriodaphnia dubia remained in all bleached kraft pulp mill effluents, irrespective of the treatment process. Both activated sludge and PACT™ remove toxicity, but PACT™ effluents are more toxic. Powdered activated carbon alone shows chronic toxicity towards Ceriodaphnia dubia, probably due to physical ingestion of powdered activated carbon particles.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it