MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025156709 · doi:10.1080/09593332808618860

COMBINING ULTRAFILTRATION PROCESS WITH COAGULATION PRETREATMENT FOR PULP MILL WASTEWATER TREATMENT

2007· article· en· W2025156709 on OpenAlexaff
Young-Ho Hong, Haibo Zhou, Richard G. Zytner

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Technology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMembrane Separation Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUltrafiltration (renal)Pulp and paper industryPaper millCoagulationWastewaterPulp (tooth)EffluentPulp millWaste managementSewage treatmentEnvironmental scienceProcess (computing)ChemistryEngineeringChromatographyComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ultrafiltration combined with coagulation pretreatment was used to treat two kraft pulp mill wastewaters from first-stage caustic extraction and alkaline bleaching operations, respectively. Both alum and ferric chloride were tested using standard jar apparatus at different dose, pH and ionic strength conditions. Ultrafiltration tests were conducted using a crossflow flat-sheet membrane apparatus operated in the constant transmembrane pressure mode to examine the effects of membrane material, crossflow velocity and transmembrane pressure in terms of permeate flux and treated effluent quality. The results showed that coagulation with both alum and ferric chloride greatly reduced the permeate flux decline rates. In comparison with alum, greater permeate fluxes were obtained with the use of ferric chloride. Among the process parameters examined, coagulant dose was identified as the most important factor affecting the permeate flux. In addition, colour and COD removals were achieved largely by coagulation for alkaline bleaching wastewater while by membrane filtration for caustic extraction wastewater, highlighting the different mechanisms underlying contaminant removal.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.276
Threshold uncertainty score0.898

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 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

Citations16
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental TechnologySame topicMembrane Separation TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207