Treatment of kraft evaporator condensate using a thermophilic submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The feasibility of using a thermophilic submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactor (SAnMBR) for kraft evaporator condensate treatment was studied at 55+/-1 degrees C over 6.5 months. Under tested organic loading rate of 1-7 kg COD/m(3) day, a soluble COD removal efficiency of 85-97% was obtained. The methane production rate was 0.35+/-0.1 L methane/g COD and the produced biogas was of excellent fuel quality with 80-90% methane. A higher membrane fouling rate was related to the presence of a larger portion of fine colloidal particles (1-10 mum). The thermophilic SAnMBR was sensitive to the presence of toxic compounds in feed and unexpected pH probe failure (leading to a higher pH). Feed toxic shock caused sludge deflocculation and thus deteriorated membrane performance. Operating the reactor as a conventional anaerobic reactor to waste some of the fine flocs in treated effluent during the start-up process was an effective strategy to reduce membrane fouling. The experimental results from this study indicate that treatment of kraft evaporator condensate is feasible in terms of COD removal and biogas production using thermophilic SAnMBRs but pre-treatment may be needed to remove toxic sulfur compounds and membrane fouling caused by the large portion of fine particles may be a challenge.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".