MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021235096 · doi:10.1080/09593330.2004.9619348

The Treatability Study of High Strength Pet Food Wastewater: A Continuous Flow Aerobic System Performance Evaluation

2004· article· en· W2021235096 on OpenAlexaff
Lei VIctor Liu, George Nakhla, A. Bassi

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Technology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality Monitoring Technologies
Canadian institutionsCustom Security Industries (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWastewaterEnvironmental scienceContinuous flowFlow (mathematics)Waste managementEnvironmental engineeringEngineeringMathematicsBiochemical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents continuous flow two stage activated sludge treatability studies for the treatment of pet food wastewaters characterized by oil & grease concentration of 50,000-66,000 mg l(-1), total COD & BOD concentrations of 100,000 mg l(-1) and 80,000 mg l(-1), respectively. A pre-treatment system, dissolved air flotation (DAF) achieved 97-99% reduction in oil and grease down to about 400-800 mg l(-1). The pilot experimental results showed that for the DAF pretreated effluent, 97% soluble COD removal efficiency can be achieved by using two stage conventional activated sludge system at a 6-7 days HRT and applied initial soluble COD to biomass ratio of 1.17 mg COD mg VSS. Meanwhile, the system achieved 99.9% soluble BOD removal. Analysis of system kinetics indicated that this particular wastewater is very difficult to biodegrade, with an extremely high half velocity constant "Ks" of 5800 mg l(-1). The research showed the potential applications of activated sludge systems for the treatment of high oil and grease wastewater.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental TechnologySame topicWater Quality Monitoring TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207