MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3194328386 · doi:10.2166/aqua.2021.060

Batch test to evaluate microbial disinfectant decay and the onset of nitrification

2021· article· en· W3194328386 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniel B. Scott, Michele I. Van Dyke, William B. Anderson, Patrick W. King, Peter M. Huck

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water Supply Research and Technology—AQUA · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Treatment and Disinfection
Canadian institutionsCurrent Water Technologies (Canada)University of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsChloramineDisinfectantNitrificationResidualChemistryChlorinePulp and paper industryEnvironmental scienceMathematicsAlgorithmEngineeringNitrogen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A batch test procedure was investigated to provide insight into the microbial contribution to disinfectant decay in drinking water distribution systems using chloramines. A modified method for determining the critical threshold residual (CTR), the intersection point on a semi-log plot between first-order total chlorine fitted decay curves before and after the breakpoint, was developed. Unlike the CTR as originally defined, initial sample conditions were retained rather than artificially raising the monochloramine concentrations. The CTR calculated with this modified method can more easily be applied to distribution system scenarios. In addition, four types of decay curves were identified and could distinguish differences in the microbial contribution to disinfectant residual decay. This study revealed that chloramine decay batch tests should be evaluated based on decay curve type, decay rates, and the CTR value, in addition to the microbial decay factor, which has been used alone in previous studies. The batch test approach and evaluation criteria established here can be used to predict conditions favorable for rapid chloramine decay and nitrification, and that monitoring and control strategies should be implemented.

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 categoriesnone
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 score0.327
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.270 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water Supply Research and Technology—AQUASame topicWater Treatment and DisinfectionFrench-language works237,207