Interrelated Effects of Aeration and Mixed Liquor Fractions on Membrane Fouling for Submerged Membrane Bioreactor Processes in Wastewater Treatment
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interactions of mixed liquor fractions and their impacts on membrane fouling were examined at different sparging aeration intensities for submerged hollow-fiber membrane bioreactors (MBR) in wastewater treatment. The mixed liquor samples were fractioned by size into MLSS, colloids quantified by colloidal TOC, and dissolved solutes. The experimental results showed that their significance in membrane fouling was strongly related to aeration intensity. In the absence of sparging aeration, both MLSS and colloids contributed to membrane fouling which was further enhanced by their interactions. For the tested membrane module operated at the vigorous aeration intensity typically employed in practice, however, the deposition of colloids was identified as the most important mechanism controlling membrane fouling rates. In contrast, much fewer effects were exerted by MLSS: the overall fouling rates were increased initially, and then reduced with increasing concentration of MLSS. Thus, the aeration-induced turbulence should be considered for properly assessing the mixed liquor fouling potential for wastewater MBR processes. Finally, little difference in fouling rates was observed with the use of cyclic aeration mode as compared to continuous aeration mode.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it