Peer Review #1 of "Quantification of human enteric viruses as alternative indicators of fecal pollution to evaluate wastewater treatment processes (v0.1)"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the potential use and quantitation of human enteric viruses in municipal wastewater samples of Winnipeg (Manitoba, Canada) as alternative indicators of contamination and evaluated the processing stages of the wastewater treatment plant.During the fall 2019 and winter 2020 seasons, samples of raw sewage, activated sludge, effluents, and biosolids (sludge cake) were collected from the North End Sewage Treatment Plant (NESTP), which is the largest wastewater treatment plant in the City of Winnipeg.DNA (Adenovirus and crAssphage) and RNA enteric viruses (Pepper mild mottle virus, Norovirus genogroups GI and GII, Rotavirus Astrovirus, and Sapovirus) as well as the uidA gene found in Escherichia coli were targeted in the samples collected from the NESTP.Total nucleic acids from each wastewater treatment sample were extracted using a commercial spin-column kit.Enteric viruses were quantified in the extracted samples via quantitative PCR using TaqMan assays.Overall, the average gene copies assessed in the raw sewage were not significantly different (p-values ranged between 0.1023 and 0.9921) than the average gene copies assessed in the effluents for DNA and RNA viruses and uidA in terms of both volume and biomass.A significant reduction (p-value ≤ 0.0438) of Adenovirus and Noroviruses genogroups GI and GII was observed in activated sludge samples compared with those for raw sewage per volume.Higher GCNs of enteric viruses were observed in dewatered sludge samples compared to liquid samples in terms of volume (g of sample) and biomass (ng of nucleic acids).Enteric viruses found in gene copy numbers were at least one order of magnitude higher than the E. coli marker uidA, indicating that enteric viruses may survive the wastewater treatment process and viral-like particles are being released into the aquatic environment.Viruses such as Noroviruses genogroups GI and GII, and Rotavirus were detected during colder months.Our results suggest that Adenovirus, crAssphage, and Pepper mild mottle virus can be used
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 | 0.025 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.114 | 0.076 |
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".