MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003331566 · doi:10.3808/jeil.201900020

Perspective for Emission and Control of Nitrous Gas in Biological Wastewater Treatment

2019· article· en· W3003331566 on OpenAlexafffund
Y. Q. Liu, Xiujuan Chen, H. F. Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Informatics Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen Removal
Canadian institutionsBank of CanadaUniversity of Regina
FundersUniversity of Regina
KeywordsNitrous oxideDenitrifying bacteriaDenitrificationNitrificationWastewaterGreenhouse gasSewage treatmentMethaneCarbon dioxideEnvironmental scienceNitriteEnvironmental chemistryChemistryEnvironmental engineeringNitrogenNitrateEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Being the third most significant anthropogenic greenhouse gas, nitrous gas (N2O) has 300-fold stronger effect than carbon dioxide (CO2) and 4 ~ 30-fold stronger effect than methane (CH4). In this study, the main sources and mechanisms of N2O emission from biological wastewater treatment were reviewed, and the possible mitigation strategies were discussed. Parameters including dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, organic carbon, and nitrite concentration have influences on the emission of N2O. The possible mitigation strategies were put forward by controlling these parameters in biological wastewater treatment and inducing modified technologies such as simultaneous nitrification-denitrification, denitrifying phosphorus removal, and aerobic granular sludge. In order to obtain a near-zero N2O emission, applying typical catalysts in the nitrification or denitrification tank to decompose N2O into harmless gas is recommended. Moreover, a method of developing photochemical processes to transform N2O could also be suggested.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Informatics LettersSame topicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen RemovalFrench-language works237,207