MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990174800 · doi:10.1080/01919510108962020

Designing Ozone Bubble Columns: A Spreadsheet Approach to Axial Dispersion Model

2001· article· en· W1990174800 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueOzone Science and Engineering · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMinerals Flotation and Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBubbleDispersion (optics)OzoneColumn (typography)MechanicsMeteorologyEnvironmental scienceMathematicsGeometryPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract When designing ozone bubble columns, two major sources of uncertainties usually exist: (1) the measurement techniques and the estimation methods of the various operating parameters; and (2) the application of the pertinent design model. This paper presents a simple and easy-to-use, yet accurate and reliable design model for describing the performance of ozone bubble columns for water and wastewater treatment applications. This mode! is a modified non-isobaric steady-sate one-phase axial dispersion model (1P-ADM). The 1P-ADM is different from the complete axial dispersion model, or referred to as the two-phase axial dispersion model (2P-ADM), in its simple use for practical design and process control of full-scale contacting chambers. The 2P-ADM is represented by a system of two non-linear partial differential equations. In order to solve that system of equations, an elaborate numerical solving technique is needed. On the other hand, die 1P-ADM is composed of a single non-homogeneous linear second-order ordinary differential equation representing the liquid phase. Yet, this liquid-phase differential equation accounts for the countering effects of die gas bubbles' shrinkage and expansion caused by gas depletion and absorption and reduced liquid hydrostatic head. The differential equation was solved analytically by the method of variation of parameters. Expressing the 1P-ADM in terms of dimensionless operating parameters and with the available analytical solution of the differential equation, the model predictions of the dissolved and the gaseous ozone profiles along the column height were examined using a simple spreadsheet approach. Therefore, describing mat analytical solution in terms of a simple spreadsheet program facilitated obtaining the model predictions for any operating conditions represented by the model parameters entered into die spreadsheet program. Consequently, using die 1P-ADM for process design and/or on-line process control becomes very feasible. The 1P-ADM was initially tested to evaluate its predictions of the dissolved ozone profiles for water treatment conditions. The model provided excellent predictions of the dissolved ozone profiles along the bubble column for die counter-current and the co-current flow modes.

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.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.739
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.211 · 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