MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1557829014 · doi:10.1515/sggw-2015-0003

Applying the coagulation and reverse osmosis for water recovery from evaporative water

2014· article· en· W1557829014 on OpenAlexaff
Magdalena M. Michel, Lidia Reczek, Tadeusz Siwiec, Piotr Rudnicki

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Warsaw University of Life Sciences – SGGW Land Reclamation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMembrane Separation Technologies
Canadian institutionsSemtech (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoagulationTurbidityReverse osmosisChemistryFiltration (mathematics)Raw waterWater treatmentChromatographyUltrafiltration (renal)SlurryPulp and paper industryMembraneEnvironmental engineeringEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Applying the coagulation and reverse osmosis for water recovery from evaporative water. Evaporative water from the concentration of yeast slurry is a potential raw material for water recovery. It is characterized by low pH (4.6-6.3), increased turbidity (3.65-13.7 NTU), and high content of total organic carbon (356-754 mg/L). Its treatment in the volume coagulation process using NaOH and coagulant PIX 111, was studied. Water turbidity was lowered to a value below 1 NTU, but coagulation did not allow for the removal of organic compounds. Coagulation was effective at temperatures of 20 and 40°C. Pretreatment of the feed water for RO included alkalization, coagulation, sedimentation, and 5 μm fine filtration (variant I), as well as single 5 μm fine filtration (variant II as a blank). In variant I the feed with improved properties was achieved. Membrane filtration allowed for effective desalination of evaporative water, 98 and 73% conductivity retention was obtained, depending on the method of the feed pre-treatment. The organic compounds were removed less efficiently, at 94 and 84%, respectively.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Warsaw University of Life Sciences – SGGW Land ReclamationSame topicMembrane Separation TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207