MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005498414 · doi:10.1002/jctb.1451

Performance assessment of a UASB–anoxic–oxic system for the treatment of tomato‐processing wastes

2006· article· en· W2005498414 on OpenAlexaff
Alpesh Gohil, George Nakhla

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen Removal
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnoxic watersEffluentVolatile suspended solidsAlkalinityAnaerobic exerciseMixed liquor suspended solidsChemistryBiochemical oxygen demandTotal suspended solidsSuspended solidsPulp and paper industryDenitrificationChemical oxygen demandPhosphorusVolume (thermodynamics)Activated sludgeWastewaterOrganic matterEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental engineeringEnvironmental chemistryNitrogenBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB)–anoxic–oxic system was used to achieve biochemical oxygen demand, NH 4 and total suspended solids (TSS) criteria of 15, 1 and 15 mg dm −3 at 1.17 days of system hydraulic retention time during treatment of tomato‐processing waste. The incorporation of an anoxic tank was found to affect the improvement in sludge‐settling characteristics, as reflected by about 25–33% reduction in the sludge volume index, along with final effluent TSS and soluble biochemical oxygen demand concentrations of 13 and 9 mg dm −3 , respectively, which met the discharge criteria. Despite incomplete denitrification, sludge settleability was very good (sludge volume index < 60 cm 3 g −1 ) owing to reduction in volatile suspended solids/TSS ratio from 0.75 to 0.6 as a result of higher alkalinity in the UASB effluent. Also in this study, phosphorus release was observed in the anoxic tank, predominantly due to abundance of acetic acid in the UASB effluent. A phosphate release of 5.4 mg P dm −3 was observed in the anoxic tank with subsequent P uptake in the following aerobic stage. Copyright © 2006 Society of Chemical Industry

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chemical Technology & BiotechnologySame topicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen RemovalFrench-language works237,207