MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W89729604 · doi:10.2166/wst.2001.0586

Abiotic factors affecting inactivation of pathogens in sludge

2001· article· en· W89729604 on OpenAlexaff
G. Bujoczek, R.S. Reiners, J.A. Glaszkiewicz

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Science & Technology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Reuse
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiosolidsLimeChemistryAnoxic watersIncubationFecal coliformActivated sludgeSalmonellaMicrobiologyFood sciencePulp and paper industryBacteriaEnvironmental chemistryWaste managementEnvironmental engineeringEnvironmental scienceSewage treatmentBiologyEcologyBiochemistryWater quality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pathogen inactivation tests on anaerobically digested and dewatered sludge consisted of long-term incubation/storage of a mixture of sludge solids and lime at various doses in closed containers at several temperature levels. The containers simulated anoxic conditions that would exist in a landfill or a sludge monofill. After rapid initial increase of pH, and due to containment of the sludge, the alkaline conditions prevailed during the remainder of the storage. This led to inactivation of pathogen indicators at doses much below those traditionally recommended for alkaline disinfection and production of biosolids, i.e. properly treated sludge. Fecal coliform and Salmonella bacteria were inactivated to the US EPA's class A levels at quicklime doses as low as 20 g CaO/kg TS or about 6 g CaO/kg of wet solids. The pH 12 lasted for the entire storage time in containers with lime doses at or above 120 g/kg TS, regardless of the incubation temperature. Such high pH allowed elimination of the spores of pathogenic Cl. perfringens bacteria from the solute.

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)0.000
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 score0.323
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations13
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Science & TechnologySame topicWastewater Treatment and ReuseFrench-language works237,207