Exploring the relationship between groundwater geochemical factors and denitrification potentials on a dairy farm in southeast Ireland

NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in the journal Ecological Engineering. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Ecological Engineering, volume 37, issue 9, September 2011, 1304-1313. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2011.03.025peer-reviewedNitrate (NO3−) loss from agriculture to shallow groundwater and transferral to sensitive aquatic ecosystems is of global concern. Denitrifying bioreactor technology, where a solid carbon (C) reactive media intercepts contaminated groundwater, has been successfully used to convert NO3− to di-nitrogen (N2) gas. One of the challenges of groundwater remediation research is how to track denitrification potential spatially and temporally within reactive media and subsoil. First, using δ15N/δ18O isotopes, eight wells were divided into indicative transformational processes of ‘nitrification’ or ‘denitrification’ wells. Then, using N2/argon (Ar) ratios these wells were divided into ‘low denitrification potential’ or high denitrification potential’ categories. Secondly, using falling head tests, the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) in each well was estimated, creating two groups of ‘slow’ (0.06 m day−1) and ‘fast’ (0.13 m day−1) wells, respectively. Thirdly, two ‘low denitrification potential’ wells (one fast and one slow) with high NO3− concentration were amended with woodchip to enhance denitrification. Water samples were retrieved from all wells using a low flow syringe to avoid de-gassing and analysed for N2/Ar ratio using membrane inlet mass spectrometry. Results showed that there was good agreement between isotope and chemical (N2/Ar ratio and dissolved organic C (DOC)) and physio-chemical (dissolved oxygen, temperature, conductivity and pH) parameters. To explain the spatial and temporal distribution of NO3− and other parameters on site, the development of predictive models using the available datasets for this field site was examined for NO3−, Cl−, N2/Ar and DOC. Initial statistical analysis was directed towards the testing of the effect of woodchip amendment. The analysis was formulated as a repeated measures analysis of the factorial structure for treatment and time. Nitrate concentrations were related to Ksat and water level (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.02, respectively), but did not respond to woodchip addition (p = 0.09). This non-destructive technique allows elucidation of denitrification potential over time and could be used in denitrifying bioreactor technology to assess denitrification hotspots in reactive media, while developing a NO3− spatial and temporal predictive model for bioreactor site specific conditions

Creation of standardized tools to evaluate reporting in health research: Population Reporting Of Gender, Race, Ethnicity &amp; Sex (PROGRES).

Despite increasing diversity in research recruitment, research finding reporting by gender, race, ethnicity, and sex has remained up to the discretion of authors. This study developped and piloted tools to standardize the inclusive reporting of gender, race, ethnicity, and sex in health research. A modified Delphi approach was used to develop standardized tools for the inclusive reporting of gender, race, ethnicity, and sex in health research. Health research, social epidemiology, sociology, and medical anthropology experts from 11 different universities participated in the Delphi process. The tools were pilot tested on 85 health research manuscripts in top health research journals to determine inter-rater reliability of the tools. The tools each spanned five dimensions for both sex and gender as well as race and ethnicity: Author inclusiveness, Participant inclusiveness, Nomenclature reporting, Descriptive reporting, and Outcomes reporting for each subpopulation. The sex and gender tool had a median score of 6 and a range of 1-15 out of 16 possible points. The percent agreement between reviewers piloting the sex and gender tool was 82%. The interrater reliability or average Cohens Kappa was 0.54 with a standard deviation of 0.33 demonstrating moderate agreement. The race and ethnicity tool had a median score of 1 and a range of 0-15 out of 16 possible points. Race and ethnicity were both reported in only 25.8% of studies evaluated. Most studies that reported race reported only the largest subgroups; White, Black, and Latinx. The percent agreement between reviewers piloting the race and ethnicity tool was 84 and average Cohens Kappa was 0.61 with a standard deviation of 0.38 demonstrating substantial agreement. While the overall dimension scores were low (indicating low inclusivity), the interrater reliability measures indicated moderate to substantial agreement for the respective tools. Efforts in recruitment alone will not provide more inclusive literature without improving reporting

Creation of standardized tools to evaluate reporting in health research: Population Reporting Of Gender, Race, Ethnicity & Sex (PROGRES)

Despite increasing diversity in research recruitment, research finding reporting by gender, race, ethnicity, and sex has remained up to the discretion of authors. This study developped and piloted tools to standardize the inclusive reporting of gender, race, ethnicity, and sex in health research. A modified Delphi approach was used to develop standardized tools for the inclusive reporting of gender, race, ethnicity, and sex in health research. Health research, social epidemiology, sociology, and medical anthropology experts from 11 different universities participated in the Delphi process. The tools were pilot tested on 85 health research manuscripts in top health research journals to determine inter-rater reliability of the tools. The tools each spanned five dimensions for both sex and gender as well as race and ethnicity: Author inclusiveness, Participant inclusiveness, Nomenclature reporting, Descriptive reporting, and Outcomes reporting for each subpopulation. The sex and gender tool had a median score of 6 and a range of 1–15 out of 16 possible points. The percent agreement between reviewers piloting the sex and gender tool was 82%. The interrater reliability or average Cohen’s Kappa was 0.54 with a standard deviation of 0.33 demonstrating moderate agreement. The race and ethnicity tool had a median score of 1 and a range of 0–15 out of 16 possible points. Race and ethnicity were both reported in only 25.8% of studies evaluated. Most studies that reported race reported only the largest subgroups; White, Black, and Latinx. The percent agreement between reviewers piloting the race and ethnicity tool was 84 and average Cohen’s Kappa was 0.61 with a standard deviation of 0.38 demonstrating substantial agreement. While the overall dimension scores were low (indicating low inclusivity), the interrater reliability measures indicated moderate to substantial agreement for the respective tools. Efforts in recruitment alone will not provide more inclusive literature without improving reporting