MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7161853238 · doi:10.82308/2255

Endotoxins detection and control in drinking water systems

2007· dissertation· en· W7161853238 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Santiago. Parent Uribe

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIndoor Air Quality and Microbial Exposure
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLimulus amebocyte lysateRaw waterChlorineOzoneWater treatmentIngestion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Endotoxins are a constituent of the lipopolysaccharide (LPS) complexes present in the outer layer of the cell wall of most Gram-negative bacteria and some cyanobacteria. The ingestion by a typical adult of amounts exceeding 1,000 endotoxin units (EUs) can cause fever, diarrhoea, vomiting, acute respiratory illnesses, and lung inflammation. In contrast, much smaller doses may lead to protective immunity against allergic diseases. Endotoxins can be released in the air as well as in the water; previous studies have mainly focused on airborne endotoxins. Although many studies on endotoxins in raw and treated drinking waters have been performed, few have assessed seasonal variations and none have been conducted in Eastern Canada. Furthermore, a clear understanding of removal of endotoxins by various water treatment processes is still required. Two methods to measure the concentrations of endotoxin were used and compared, the Limulus Amebocyte Lysate test (LAL) and the recombinant Factor C test (rFC). Raw water samples were taken from various drinking water sources around the Island of Montreal. The effects of free chlorine, UV radiation, and ozone were studied in batch experiments on filtered water samples via typical dosages and fluences used in drinking water treatment facilities. Residual concentrations for free chlorine were 0.8 and 1.6 mg/L; ozone doses were 0.5 and 1 mg/L; UV fluences were 40 and 100 mWs/cm2. Detention times of 20 and 60 minutes were tested for chlorine and 5 and 20 minutes for ozone. Grab sampling from three drinking water treatment plants in the Montreal area was performed during the months of June and late August/September 2006 and January 2007. Processes at these plants include coagulation and flocculation, sand filtration, ozonation and disinfection by chlorine. To test the variation in endotoxin concentrations during a sand filter cycle, samples were withdrawn directly from a filter in one of the treatment plants studied. The filtration cycle, from one backwash to the next one, lasts 72 h. Samples were collected immediately before the backwash, at the beginning and at the end of the ripening period, at the beginning of the filtration cycle and 48 h later, which corresponds to a half cycle period. Of the two endotoxin detection methods used, LAL consistently gave slightly higher values compared to rFC; rFC also required more expensive hardware, but the method was less tedious and reagent costs were lower. Results presented, unless otherwise stated, were obtained with the rFC method. Endotoxin levels decreased in raw water samples between June and September. Concentrations ranged from 20 to 30 EU/mL in June, and decreased to 10 to 14 EU/mL in August and beyond. For the disinfection processes, the UV and free chlorine doses tested had little or no effect on the endotoxin concentrations, but ozone reduced the concentrations by up to 75%. Sand filtration and flocculation showed significant endotoxin removal efficiencies (50--60%). Levels remained around 5 EU/mL throughout the remaining treatment processes regardless of the influent concentration. Hence, endotoxin inactivation by free chlorine and UV does not occur with typical doses used in drinking water treatment plants; in contrast, flocculation and sand filtration, as well as ozonation, are much more effective.

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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIndoor Air Quality and Microbial ExposureFrench-language works237,207