MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2417079183 · doi:10.2166/wst.2002.0512

Effect of solids retention time on floc structure

2002· article· en· W2417079183 on OpenAlexafffund
Steven N. Liss, Baoqiang Liao, Ian G. Droppo, D. Grant Allen, Gary G. Leppard

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Science & Technology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamics
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityMcMaster UniversityEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEnvironmental scanning electron microscopeExtracellular polymeric substanceScanning electron microscopeChemical engineeringTransmission electron microscopyChemistryMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Correlative microscopy was applied to study the influence of solids retention time on activated sludge floc structure. Conventional optical microscopy revealed flocs at lower SRTs (4 and 9 days) to be irregular in shape while flocs at higher SRTs (16 and 20 days) had a more spherical and compact structure. Flocs were examined by environmental scanning electron microscopy (ESEM) and by transmission electron microscopy (TEM) coupled with energy-dispersive spectroscopy (EDS). Distinctive differences in floc structure and the arrangement of EPS were revealed. Flocs from higher SRTs were less hydrated and were found to possess a dense EPS layer that covers much of the surface. Extracellular osmiophilic granules present in these flocs indicate that the cells at the higher SRT may produce more lipid-like material. This EPS layer appears to decrease the floc surface roughness and protects the interior cells from disruption by changes in the external environment. Sludge flocs at higher SRTs were found to be physically more stable than those at lower SRTs.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 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

Citations37
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Science & TechnologySame topicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamicsFrench-language works237,207