Traitement des eaux usées par coagulation-floculation avec recirculation des boues chimiques : Influence des réactifs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three series of tests were carried out at laboratory and pilot levels to examine the functions of reagents (coagulant, flocculant, sludge) involved in a coagulation-flocculation process with chemical sludge recycling. Results showed that the recycled sludge participates favourably in the process. The gains in efficiency are particularely significant for lower coagulant concentrations when flocculant concentration is not limitative. The pollutant removal increases with the sludge recycling load but seems reversible and dependent on coagulant concentration. Results also revealed the advantages of recycling sludge before injecting coagulant. To decrease the total chemical costs at a wastewater treatment plant, the strategy must focus on diminishing the coagulant concentration and increasing the flocculant concentration while maintaining a sufficient recycling sludge load to ensure gains in efficiency.Key words: recycling, sludge, preformed flocs, reagents, coagulation-flocculation, treatment, wastewater.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".