MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018158260 · doi:10.5942/jawwa.2012.104.0006

Low‐pressure UV/Cl<sub>2</sub> for advanced oxidation of taste and odor

2011· article· en· W2018158260 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Water Works Association · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAdvanced oxidation water treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryOdorHydrogen peroxideTrihalomethaneChlorineGeosminPeroxideQuenching (fluorescence)RadicalUltravioletEnvironmental chemistryPhotochemistryOrganic chemistryFluorescenceMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ultraviolet (UV)‐based methods of advanced oxidation processes (AOPs), such as UV/hydrogen peroxide (H 2 O 2 ), can be used for removal of taste and odor contaminants in drinking water. However, significant disadvantages to UV/H 2 O 2 include incurred chemical costs associated with the addition of peroxide and quenching residual peroxide and the operational challenge of balancing peroxide quenching with secondary disinfection needs. Recent work has shown that H 2 O 2 can be replaced with chlorine (Cl2) for UV‐AOP and produce advantageous oxidation efficiencies for synthetic organic contaminants under certain conditions. This article uses modeling of the photochemistry of UV/H 2 O 2 and UV/Cl 2 to compare emerging and state‐of‐the‐art UV‐AOPs for control of the taste and odor‐inducing compounds geosmin and 2‐methylisoborneol. Although UV/H 2 O 2 has a decided advantage with respect to oxidation efficiency in surface waters at neutralto‐ basic pH, UV/C 12 can provide a cost‐effective AOP alternative, with a low risk of added trihalomethane and haloacetic acid formation in some surface waters.

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 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 score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.504

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.194 · 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