Oxidation of Aged Raw Landfill Leachate with O<sub>3</sub>Only and O<sub>3</sub>/H<sub>2</sub>O<sub>2</sub>: Treatment Efficiency and Molecular Size Distribution Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An aged raw landfill leachate was taken from the equalization storage tank at Clover Bar Landfill Leachate Treatment Plant, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. The average quality parameters of this leachate were: COD=1,090mg/L, BOD5=39mg/L, color=1,130 TCU, NH3-N=455mgN/L, alkalinity=4,030mg/L as CaCO3and pH=8.30. The major fraction of this leachate was large refractory organic compounds. Ozone (O3) only and O3 combined with hydrogen peroxide (O3/H2O2) were applied to treat this leachate, aiming at enhancing COD and color reduction and increasing its biodegradability (i.e., the ratio of BOD5/COD). All of the O3 only and O3/H2O2 oxidation experiments were performed in a gas washing bottle equipped with a fine bubble diffuser. The used ozone dose ranged from 1.2 to 12.5g O3/L leachate for O3 only treatment, and 1.8 to 13.8g O3/L leachate for O3/H2O2 treatment. H2O2 dose for O3/H2O2 treatment was 0.63g H2O2/L leachate. COD, BOD5, color, NH3-N, nitrite+nitrate, and alkalinity were measured before and after treatment. Meanwhile the molecular size distribution of the leachate, before and after treatment, was analyzed by using a high-performance liquid chromatograph (HPLC) with gel filtration column and UV detector at 254nm. The addition of H2O2 had an insignificant effect (at 5% significance level) on enhancing COD and color reduction. After oxidation, the maximum BOD5 increase was about 110% for O3/H2O2 treatment and about 141% for O3 only treatment at a used ozone dose of 3.6g O3/L leachate and 2.6g O3/L leachate for O3/H2O2 and O3 only, respectively. As the used ozone dose increased, NH3-N and alkalinity decreased considerably, and nitrite+nitrate increased accordingly. Treatment efficiency models, which describe the changes in COD, BOD5/COD, NH3-N, nitrite+nitrate, and alkalinity as functions of the used ozone dose, were developed. Statistically (at 5% significance level), the treatment efficiency models for both treatments are not different. According to the results of molecular size distribution analysis, no correlation was observed between the BOD5 increase and oxidation by-products’ formation.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".