Finally had a chance to read the study.
Just bad, lazy "science".
1. Only did one trial for each method; why? You really drawing scientific conclusions without multiple tests
2. Why not just add a little DME to the water, to similate a typical wort? There's no reason to expect that wort is going to behave identically to pure water. Lazy to not at least make a simple wort.
3. Why not do a full, 60-minute boil? If you're doing an experiment related to brewing, why not actually, you know, simulate brewing conditions? Why not start our with water (or ideally, WORT) that's likely had almost all of its O2 driven off?
4. Why not study the use of pure O2, rather than just aerating? The author acknowledges as such:
The infusion of pressurized pure oxygen into wort is undoubtedly another effective means of raising the wort oxygen content. However, there are added costs associated with the use of pure oxygen, and there is some risk of toxicity to the yeast from over-oxygenating wort. Saturating wort with pure oxygen is likely to be toxic to the yeast. Thus, some means of monitoring the oxygen content of the wort or of controlling the amount of oxygen delivered to the wort would appear to be necessary. Testing the relative effectiveness of aerating with air versus pure oxygen would be a reasonable and useful addition to experiments presented here.
Not buying the argument that "well, you POSSIBLY could add too much O2" as being a reason not to use pure O2. Not much risk of that with a 30-second hit from an O2 canister.
In the end, what's the conclusion? You can sufficiently aerate (water) by shaking a carboy for five or ten minutes? Who the **** wants to shake a carboy for five or ten minutes?
Just a horribly flawed study. Doesn't actually test wort or brewing conditions. Intentionally excludes valid methods. Does not run multiple experiments. Inconclusive conclusion.
The only thing this study proves is that just because you include a graph does not make your paper any more valid.