MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016289530 · doi:10.1139/s06-010

Long-term prevention of organics dissolution from wastewater sludge treated with coal fly ash

2006· article· en· W2016289530 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dalibor Kuchař, Vratislav Bednařík, M. Vondruska, Yoshihiro Kojima, Maurice S. Onyango, Hitoki Matsuda

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Engineering and Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCoal and Its By-products
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeachateFly ashLeaching (pedology)Dissolved organic carbonEnvironmental scienceTotal organic carbonCoalEnvironmental chemistryWaste managementSewage treatmentWastewaterPulp and paper industryChemistryDissolutionDecompositionEnvironmental engineeringSoil waterSoil scienceOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study is concerned with stabilization of wastewater sludge mixed with coal fly ash and carbon black for a treatment period ranging from 28 d to 2.5 years. To evaluate the stabilization degree of treated sludge, the dissolved organic carbon (DOC) of leachate from the sludge was measured. Results demonstrated that after 28 d of treatment, the DOC of the leachate was reduced from 2320 to 86 mg/L, when sludge was mixed with 45 wt% coal fly ash and 3 wt% carbon black. The DOC of the leachate after 1 year was higher than that after 28 d of treatment, which might be caused by decomposition of organic materials in the initial sludge. However, there was no appreciable difference in DOC values between 1 and 2.5 years treatment. It was concluded that organic materials were prevented from leaching out from the sludge by hydration products formed by coal fly ash and by carbon black adsorption. Key words: coal fly ash, wastewater sludge, carbon black, dissolved organic carbon, long-term stabilization.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.346
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.155
Teacher spread0.150 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Engineering and ScienceSame topicCoal and Its By-productsFrench-language works237,207