Comparative evaluation of mass transfer of oxygen in three activated sludge processes operating under uniform conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This investigation was conducted in three laboratory-scale activated sludge processes, namely, the conventional completely mixed activated sludge process (CMAS), the modified Ludzack-Ettinger process (MLE), and the University of Cape Town (UCT) process. These systems were operated under controlled conditions by feeding a uniform influent at a single 10-d solids retention time (SRT). The oxygen transfer parameters (KLaf, α, OTRf, and OTEf) determined indicated that the alpha (α) and oxygen transfer efficiency (OTEf) in processes where the enhanced biological phosphorus removal (EBPR) mechanism was active were higher than in the conventional completely mixed activated sludge (CMAS) process, where such a mechanism was absent. Thus, presenting a clear evidence of improved oxygen utilization in activated sludge processes containing unaerated, anoxic, and anaerobic selector zones. Key words: biological nutrient removal, completely mixed activated sludge process, oxygen uptake rate, oxygen transfer efficiency.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".