MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2408325049 · doi:10.1080/10934529.2016.1181433

The effect of acidic pH and presence of metals as parameters in establishing a sulfidogenic process in anaerobic reactor

2016· article· en· W2408325049 on OpenAlexaff
Bárbara Franco Vieira, P.T. Couto, Giselle Patrícia Sancinetti, Bernhard Klein, Dirk van Zyl, Renata Piacentini Rodriguez

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Science and Health Part A · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMine drainage and remediation techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnaerobic exerciseChemistryProcess (computing)Environmental chemistryInorganic chemistryComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The successful use of anaerobic reactors for bioremediation of acid mine drainage has been shown in systems with neutral pH. However, the choice of an efficient and suitable process for such wastewater must consider the capability of operating at acidic pH and in the presence of metals. This work studies the performance of an anaerobic batch reactor, under conditions of varying initial pH for its efficiencies in sulfate removal and metal precipitation from synthetic acid mine drainage. The chemical oxygen demand/sulfate (COD/SO4(2-)) ratio used was 1.00, with ethanol chosen as the only energy and carbon source. The initial pH of the synthetic drainage was progressively set from 7.0 to 4.0 to make it as close as possible to that of real acid mine drainage. Metals were also added starting with iron, zinc, and finally copper. The effectiveness of sulfate and COD removal from the synthetic acid mine drainage increased as the initial pH was reduced. The sulfate removal increased from 38.5 ± 3.7% to 52.2 ± 3%, while the removal of organic matter started at 91.7 ± 2.4% and ended at 99 ± 1%. These results indicate that the sulfate reducing bacteria (SRB) community adapted to lower pH values. The metal removal observed was 88 ± 7% for iron, 98.0 ± 0.5% for zinc and 99 ± 1% for copper. At this stage, an increase in the sulfate removal was observed, which reaches up to 82.2 ± 5.8%. The kinetic parameters for sulfate removal were 0.22 ± 0.04 h(-1) with Fe, 0.26 ± 0.04 h(-1) with Fe and Zn and 0.44 ± 0.04 h(-1) with Fe, Zn, and Cu.

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)0.005
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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations30
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Science and Health Part ASame topicMine drainage and remediation techniquesFrench-language works237,207