Treatment of synthetic kraft evaporator condensate using thermophilic and mesophilic membrane aerated biofilm reactors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A comparative study on the treatment of synthetic kraft evaporator condensate was conducted using thermophilic (55 degrees C) and mesophilic (30 degrees C) membrane aerated biofilm reactors (MABRs) and sequencing batch reactors (SBRs) for 8 months. Under tested conditions, a chemical oxygen demand (COD) removal efficiency of 80-95% was achieved with both thermophilic and mesophilic MABRs and SBRs. The COD removal efficiency of thermophilic MABR (80-90%) was slightly lower than that of the mesophilic MABR (85-95%) and the thermophilic SBR (90-95%). A significant amount (13-37%) of COD was stripped by conventional aeration in the SBRs, while stripping in MABRs was negligible. Simultaneous COD removal and denitrification were observed in the mesophilic MABR, while the thermophilic MABR contributed mainly for COD removal. Nitrification was not significant in both the thermophilic and mesophilic MABRs. The results suggest that treatment of kraft evaporator condensate is feasible with the use of both thermophilic and mesophilic MABRs in terms of COD removal with the advantages of negligible stripping.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".