COMPARATIVE STUDY OF FIVE FILTER TYPES FOR STORMWATER TREATMENT : USING A WHOLE EFFLUENT ASSESSMENT APPROACH TO EVALUATE FILTER PERFORMANCE
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The release of hazardous substances to the environment from industrial activities in Sweden is heavily restricted due to pieces of legislation such as the Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU). In the directive, the whole effluent assessment (WEA) methodology is included as a suitable approach to characterization of effluent waters. The use of WEA methods in the evaluation of treatments for complex effluent waters has great advantages when comparing to using chemical analysis of individual substances alone. In this comparative study the WEA methodology of combining toxicity testing with chemical analysis was applied to evaluate the performance, stability and safety of four stormwater filter types in comparison with the conventional filter material active carbon. The filter materials were the two sorbent filter materials pine bark and polonite; and the two combination filters pine bark/polonite (filtration through pine bark followed by filtration through polonite) and polonite/pine bark (filtration through polonite followed by filtration through pine bark). The stormwater treated in the study was sampled from two points at a metals manufacturing site in mid-Sweden. A preliminary analysis of the water showed high concentrations of heavy metals and in particular of Zn, with concentrations exceeding 36 mg/L. The stormwater pH was neutral (7.5) and suspended solids content was approximately 130 mg/l. Samples of the stormwater, corresponding to ten filter bed volumes, were filtered through a pilot-scale 250 ml filter columns with the four filters or activated carbon. The filtered water samples were analysed for Zn and pH. An aquatic ecotoxicity test battery was used to measure acute and chronic toxic effects of the untreated and treated stormwater samples. The test battery assessed luminescent bacteria acute toxicity (30-min Microtox® ISO 11348-3 using Vibrio fischeri), growth inhibition of the green unicellular algae Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata and genotoxicity with the bacterial umu assay using Salmonella typhimurium TA1535/pSK1002 (ISO 13829). The pine bark sorbent showed the highest average Zn removal efficiency of the single filter materials after activated carbon. The results from the stormwater filtration with combination materials were difficult to interpret. All filter types, except pine bark, increased pH of the treated waters > 9. Pine bark lowered the pH of the treated water below 5 even after filtration of 10 bed volumes of stormwater. Although pH of the treated waters was only adjusted for the Microtox test, there was a statistically significant positive correlation between the response of this test and the algal assay. Activated carbon showed the highest reduction of Zn contamination and toxicity of the treated waters. There was no significant correlation between the level of zinc contamination and toxic response of the treated waters. Although pine bark lowered pH significantly, in comparison to the other filter types, there was no significant correlation between the pH and the toxic response of the filtered waters.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».