Microalgae and cyanobacteria modeling in water resource recovery facilities: A critical review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microalgal and cyanobacterial resource recovery systems could significantly advance nutrient recovery from wastewater by achieving effluent nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) levels below the current limit of technology. The successful implementation of phytoplankton, however, requires the formulation of process models that balance fidelity and simplicity to accurately simulate dynamic performance in response to environmental conditions. This work synthesizes the range of model structures that have been leveraged for algae and cyanobacteria modeling and core model features that are required to enable reliable process modeling in the context of water resource recovery facilities. Results from an extensive literature review of over 300 published phytoplankton models are presented, with particular attention to similarities with and differences from existing strategies to model chemotrophic wastewater treatment processes (e.g., via the Activated Sludge Models, ASMs). Building on published process models, the core requirements of a model structure for algal and cyanobacterial processes are presented, including detailed recommendations for the prediction of growth (under phototrophic, heterotrophic, and mixotrophic conditions), nutrient uptake, carbon uptake and storage, and respiration.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".