Comparative study of biological nutrient removal (BNR) processes with sedimentation and membrane‐based separation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A membrane-enhanced biological phosphorus removal (MEBPR) process was operated in parallel with a conventional EBPR (CEBPR) process under challenging operating conditions to uncover fundamental differences in their ability to remove chemical oxygen demand (COD), nitrogen (N), and phosphorus (P) from municipal wastewater. Both systems exhibited the same potential to achieve excellent soluble-P removal when a favorable COD to P ratio was maintained in the influent. The MEBPR train generated a superior effluent quality when measured as total P. The CEBPR effluent contained significantly lower levels of nitrates due to the extra denitrification occurring in the sludge blanket of the secondary clarifier. The observed sludge yield in the MEBPR system was estimated to be between 0.23 and 0.28 g VSS/g COD, and this was 15% lower than the CEBPR sludge yield. When the influent volatile fatty acids (VFAs) became limiting, the CEBPR train exhibited better performance in the removal of soluble-P, due to the higher observed sludge yield and an overall greater denitrification activity that led to a more efficient use of VFAs in the anaerobic zone. After experiencing a severe deterioration of the biological P activity in both processes, the MEBPR train exhibited faster recovery than the CEBPR side. In this experimental work, it was demonstrated that an MEBPR process can sustain long-term satisfactory bio-P performance at HRTs as low as 7 h. However, the lower sludge yield and the reduced denitrification capacity are two important factors that impact the design of high rate membrane-assisted biological nutrient removal (BNR) processes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".