MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411791815 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2025-0018

Innovative and sustainable strategies for algal bloom mitigation and water quality enhancement

2025· article· en· W4411791815 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Xinming Huang, Tong Li, Xiaying Xin, Racliffe Weng Seng Lai, Fan Li, Kmy Leung

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsWater qualityAlgal bloomEnvironmental scienceBloomQuality (philosophy)Environmental economicsSustainable developmentEnvironmental engineeringEnvironmental resource managementNatural resource economicsEnvironmental planningBusinessWater resource managementEcologyOceanographyEconomicsGeologyPhytoplanktonNutrientBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Industrial activities increasingly release toxic pollutants into water bodies, threatening ecological and human health. Harmful algal blooms (HABs) are a critical concern, often resistant to traditional water treatment methods, highlighting the need for innovative, eco-friendly solutions. This study evaluates advanced materials, including layered Fe 3 O 4 @ZIF8, core-shell Fe 3 O 4 @ZIF8, FeCN, BiOBr, and CuBDC, to inhibit bloom-forming algae under visible and UV light. BiOBr demonstrated superior performance at low concentrations, effectively inactivating Microcystis aeruginosa. Chlorophyll pigment and phycobiliprotein content analysis revealed its mechanism of action. As a cost-effective and sustainable solution, BiOBr offers promise for mitigating HABs, protecting ecosystems, and enhancing water quality. This research highlights the transformative potential of novel materials in addressing global water pollution challenges.

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 score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicWater Quality Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207