Recalcitrant Compounds Removal in Raw Leachate and Synthetic Effluents Using the White-Rot Fungus Bjerkandera adusta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recalcitrant compounds limit the efficiency of conventional biological processes for wastewater treatment, representing one of the major issues in the field. This study focused on the treatment of three effluents with White-Rot-Fungus (WRF) Bjerkandera adusta MUT 2295 in batch tests, with biomass cultivated in attached form on polyurethane foam cubes (PUFs) to test its efficiency in the removal of the target effluents’ recalcitrant fraction. Treatment efficiency of B. adusta was evaluated on landfill leachate (Canada) and two solutions containing synthetic recalcitrant compounds, which were prepared with tannic and humic acid. Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) and color removal, the production of manganese peroxidases, and the consumption of a co-substrate (glucose) were monitored during the experiment. Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD5) and fungal dry weight were measured at the beginning and at the end of the experiment. After co-substrate addition, effluent COD was 2300 ± 85, 2545 ± 84, and 2580 ± 95 (mg/L) in raw leachate and tannic and humic acids, respectively. COD removal of 48%, 61%, and 48% was obtained in raw leachate and in the synthetic effluents containing tannic and humic acids, respectively. Color removal of 49%, 25%, and 42% was detected in raw leachate and in tannic and humic acid solutions, respectively. COD and color removals were associated with the increase of fungal dry weight, which was observed in all the trials. These results encourage the use of the selected fungal strain to remove tannic acid, while further investigations are required to optimize leachate and humic acid bioremediation.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".