MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2612573296 · doi:10.2166/ws.2017.080

Evaluation of passive reduction of nitrate from greenhouse effluent by planted bioreactors

2017· article· en· W2612573296 on OpenAlexaff
Soheil Fatehi Pouladi, Bruce C. Anderson, Brent Wootton, Lloyd R. Rozema

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Science & Technology Water Supply · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen Removal
Canadian institutionsFleming CollegeQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNitrateBioreactorEffluentDenitrificationNutrientEnvironmental sciencePulp and paper industryGreenhouseEnvironmental engineeringAnoxic watersChemistryEnvironmental chemistryAgronomyNitrogenBiologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A number of pilot-scale gravel and wood-chip hybrid bioreactors planted with select species, together with unplanted units, were evaluated for their nutrient removal capabilities from the typical greenhouse effluent with high levels of nitrate and salts. Two levels of nutrient solution (high and low loading: HL/LL) were prepared to simulate the typical characteristics of the greenhouse effluent. The wood-chip bioreactor with Typha angustifolia exhibited the highest consistent nutrient treatment with an average nitrate reduction in the LL phase of 88.4% (28.2 g N m−3 media day−1) and phosphate reduction of 34.4%. The nitrate reduction in this bioreactor was the highest among the values reported in the literature. The near-complete denitrification developed provided a nitrate-limiting environment as evidenced by an average 21.5% sulfate reduction. The distinct increase in the outflow organic carbon (as BOD5) from the wood chips in the bioreactor planted with T. angustifolia appeared to be the key explanation for the efficient denitrification, while the other vegetated bioreactors resulted in 19.0%–36.5% nitrate reduction and low outflow BOD5 near the end of the experiment, indicating carbon limitation in these bioreactors.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.225 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Science & Technology Water SupplySame topicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen RemovalFrench-language works237,207