MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Peer Review #2 of "Bioremediation of engine-oil contaminated soil using local residual organic matter (v0.1)"

2019· peer-review· en· W4241443393 on OpenAlexafffund
Kawina Robichaud, Miriam Lebeau, Sylvain Martineau, Marc Amyot, Nicolas Gruyer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicrobial bioremediation and biosurfactants
Canadian institutionsCenter for Northern StudiesUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaStrong
KeywordsBioremediationEnvironmental scienceResidualContaminationEnvironmental chemistryOrganic matterResidual oilPetroleum engineeringChemistryBiologyComputer scienceGeologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soil remediation industries continue to seek technologies to speed-up treatment and reduce operating costs.Some processes are energy intensive and, in some cases, transport can be the main source of carbon emissions.Residual fertilizing matter (RFM), such as organic residues, have the potential to be beneficial bioremediation agents.Following a circular economy framework, we investigated the feasibility of sourcing RFMs locally to reduce transport and assess possible bioremediation efficiency gains.RFMs were recruited within 100 km of the treatment site: ramial chipped wood (RCW), horse manure (MANR) and brewer spent grain (BSG).They were added to the land treatment unit's baseline fertilizer treatment (FERT, 'F') to measure if they improved the remediation efficiency of an engine oil-contaminated soil (7500 ± 100 mg kg -1 ).Results indicate that MANR-F was the only amendment more effective than FERT for petroleum hydrocarbons (PHC) reduction, while emitting the least CO 2 overall.RCW-F was equivalent to FERT but retained more moisture.Although BSG contributed the most nitrogen to the soil, BSG-F retained excessive moisture, emitted more VOCs, contained less soil O 2 , and was less effective than the baseline treatment.Significantly more of the C 16 -C 22 fraction was removed (63 ± 22%) than all other fractions (C 22 -C 28 , C 28 -C 34 , C 34 -C 40 ), which were equally removed.Microbial community-level physiological profiling (CLPP) was conducted with Biolog Ecoplates TM , and catabolic diversity differed between treatments (utilization rates of 31 carbon sources).MANR-F has the potential to increase PHC-remediation speed and efficiency compared to inorganic fertilizer alone.Other RFM promote moisture retention and diverse microbial catabolic activity.A variety of RFM are present across the globe and some can offer low-cost amendments to boost remediation efficiency, while reducing treatment time compared to traditional fertilizer-only methods.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.066
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.724

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.066
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2160.144

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.244 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMicrobial bioremediation and biosurfactants→French-language works237,207→