MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3137492370 · doi:10.13031/trans.14011

Effectiveness of Denitrifying Bioreactors on Water Pollutant Reduction from Agricultural Areas

2021· article· en· W3137492370 on OpenAlexaff
Laura E. Christianson, Richard A. Cooke, Christopher Hay, Matthew J. Helmers, Gary W. Feyereisen, Andry Ranaivoson, John McMaine, Rachel McDaniel, Timothy Rosen, William T. Pluer, Louis A. Schipper, Hannah Dougherty, Rhianna J. Robinson, Ian Layden, Stuart Irvine-Brown, Fabio Manca, Kris Dhaese, Victoria Nelissen, Mathis von Ahnen

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the ASABE · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen Removal
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersIowa Soybean AssociationU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsDenitrifying bacteriaEnvironmental sciencePollutantBioreactorAgricultureEnvironmental engineeringWater resource managementDenitrificationNitrogenChemistryEcologyBiologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Highlights Denitrifying woodchip bioreactors treat nitrate-N in a variety of applications and geographies. This review focuses on subsurface drainage bioreactors and bed-style designs (including in-ditch). Monitoring and reporting recommendations are provided to advance bioreactor science and engineering. Abstract. Denitrifying bioreactors enhance the natural process of denitrification in a practical way to treat nitrate-nitrogen (N) in a variety of N-laden water matrices. The design and construction of bioreactors for treatment of subsurface drainage in the U.S. is guided by USDA-NRCS Conservation Practice Standard 605. This review consolidates the state of the science for denitrifying bioreactors using case studies from across the globe with an emphasis on full-size bioreactor nitrate-N removal and cost-effectiveness. The focus is on bed-style bioreactors (including in-ditch modifications), although there is mention of denitrifying walls, which broaden the applicability of bioreactor technology in some areas. Subsurface drainage denitrifying bioreactors have been assessed as removing 20% to 40% of annual nitrate-N loss in the Midwest, and an evaluation across the peer-reviewed literature published over the past three years showed that bioreactors around the world have been generally consistent with that (N load reduction median: 46%; mean ±SD: 40% ±26%; n = 15). Reported N removal rates were on the order of 5.1 g N m-3 d-1 (median; mean ±SD: 7.2 ±9.6 g N m-3 d-1; n = 27). Subsurface drainage bioreactor installation costs have ranged from less than $5,000 to $27,000, with estimated cost efficiencies ranging from less than $2.50 kg-1 N year-1 to roughly $20 kg-1 N year-1 (although they can be as high as $48 kg-1 N year-1). A suggested monitoring setup is described primarily for the context of conservation practitioners and watershed groups for assessing annual nitrate-N load removal performance of subsurface drainage denitrifying bioreactors. Recommended minimum reporting measures for assessing and comparing annual N removal performance include: bioreactor dimensions and installation date; fill media size, porosity, and type; nitrate-N concentrations and water temperatures; bioreactor flow treatment details; basic drainage system and bioreactor design characteristics; and N removal rate and efficiency. Keywords: Groundwater, Nitrate, Nonpoint-source pollution, Subsurface drainage, Tile.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations71
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the ASABESame topicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen RemovalFrench-language works237,207