MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W200395939 · doi:10.2175/106143007x221300

Catalytic Destruction of Chloramine to Nitrogen Using Chlorination and Activated Carbon—Case Study

2008· article· en· W200395939 on OpenAlexaff
Jan Kochany, Ewa Lipczyńska‐Kochany

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Environment Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Treatment and Disinfection
Canadian institutionsAmorfix (Canada)Conestoga College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChloramineChlorineChemistryAmmoniaActivated carbonCatalysisWater treatmentCarbon fibersNitrogenInorganic chemistryEnvironmental chemistryWaste managementOrganic chemistryAdsorptionMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper presents the results of laboratory and pilot studies on the removal of chloramine from potable water using chlorination with a less-than-breakpoint dosage of chlorine, followed by treatment with catalytic activated carbon. The effect of the chlorine-to-nitrogen ratio, temperature, and carbon contact time were investigated to optimize conditions for chloramines removal and minimize the production of ammonia. Results demonstrated that prechlorination of water, followed by treatment with catalytic activated carbon, can degrade monochloramine to nitrogen gas as a main product. For all chlorine-to-ammonia ratios studied, the observed rates of monochloramine removal were higher at a temperature of 20 degrees C than they were at 5 degrees C. Generation of ammonia was slightly higher at the lower temperature. However, at both temperatures, practically all monochloramine was destroyed, and only insignificant amounts of ammonia were formed when a chlorine-to-ammonia ratio of 7:1 was applied. The described method is simple and cost-effective, because it eliminates the requirement of removal of ammonia, typically formed during the treatment of chloramines with activated carbon.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.527
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Environment ResearchSame topicWater Treatment and DisinfectionFrench-language works237,207