Ultrafiltration organic fouling control: Comparison of air‐sparging and coagulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Air‐sparging and coagulation/flocculation were compared as fouling control strategies during ultrafiltration of surface waters. Fouling was assessed following coagulation (0.5 and 15 mg/L alum) and surface shear stress representative of different air‐sparging conditions: continuous coarse bubble, intermittent coarse bubble, and large pulse bubble. Results indicated that 0.5 mg/L of alum reduced membrane fouling, especially for waters with higher concentrations of organic matter (> 4 mg/L dissolved organic carbon). A 15‐mg/L alum dose did not significantly improve membrane performance relative to the low dose. Air‐sparging reduced fouling, but the benefits were not additive in combination with coagulation. Potential cost savings were calculated based on longer permeation times made possible by reduced fouling, and the value associated with water produced relative to energy costs (air‐sparging) and chemical costs (coagulant). For the water investigated, 0.5 mg/L of alum or large pulse bubble air‐sparging was optimal for membrane fouling control.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".