MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W109164229 · doi:10.2175/106143008x390753

Effect of Sonication on UV Disinfectability of Primary Effluents

2009· article· en· W109164229 on OpenAlexaff
He Yong, Ramin Farnood, W.L. Cairns, Ted Mao

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Environment Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicUltrasound and Cavitation Phenomena
Canadian institutionsTrojan Technologies (Canada)University of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSonicationEffluentBreakageChemistryWastewaterIrradiationLog reductionPulp and paper industryChromatographyAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Environmental engineeringMaterials scienceEnvironmental scienceComposite materialPhysicsFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, the effect of sonication on the UV disinfection kinetics of primary effluents was investigated. Wastewater samples were collected from local municipal treatment plants and were sonicated with a 20-kHz ultrasound reactor at constant power but varying sonication times. Sonicated samples were irradiated using low-pressure UV light to obtain the UV dose-response curves (DRC). Results showed that sonication improved the UV disinfection of primary effluents by (1) increasing the initial slope of DRC (i.e., k1) and (2) decreasing the tailing level of the UV dose-response curve (i.e., beta). This improvement was confirmed to be caused by the breakage of large particles (> 60 microm) that are known to protect coliforms from UV photons. It also was found that the log reduction of the tailing level of DRC was directly proportional to the log reduction of the number of large particles (> 60 microm) present in the effluent sample. Although the number of large particles was proportional to the coliform count at high UV dosage, the proportionality constant varied from 0.05 to 0.25, depending on the sample.

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)0.003
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 score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.676

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations25
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Environment ResearchSame topicUltrasound and Cavitation PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207