MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035352868 · doi:10.1139/s04-017

Comparison of process options for treatment of water treatment residual streams

2004· article· en· W2035352868 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Engineering and Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Reuse
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSedimentationClarifierSettlingRaw waterWater treatmentWater qualityEnvironmental scienceSTREAMSDecantationUltrafiltration (renal)Pulp and paper industrySuspended solidsChemistryWastewaterEnvironmental engineeringSedimentChromatographyGeologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spent filter backwash water (SFBW) and clarifier sludge comprise the majority of the waste streams from conventional surface water treatment plants and collectively are referred to as composite residuals stream. Composite residuals streams can comprise up to 3–10% of the plant throughput and generally consist of concentrated metals (e.g., aluminum), colloidal material, natural organic matter (NOM), and pathogens (e.g., Giardia and Cryptosporidium). This research project evaluated the performance of four different treatment processes in terms of their capability of restoring this waste stream to a quality that was equal to or better than that of the source water quality. The unit operations evaluated were (i) gravity thickening, (ii) sedimentation with reflocculation, (iii) dissolved air flotation (DAF) with reflocculation, and (iv) ultrafiltration (UF). The water quality from the optimal trials met or exceeded the average raw water quality of the source water for all measured parameters with the exception of manganese. The optimal pH for sedimentation was determined to be 6.0 with no alum addition. The best coagulant dosage and recycle ratio for dissolved air flotation (DAF) were found to be 30 mg/L and 20%, respectively. The optimum settling time for thickening was determined to be 0.8–1.0 d, after which soluble metal concentrations began to increase because of re-solubilization. Ultrafiltration required no coagulant and yielded superior results to the other unit operations evaluated. Key words: filter backwash water, residual treatment, gravity thickening, sedimentation, dissolved air flotation, ultrafiltration.

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 score0.192
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.239 · 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