Impact of Seasonal Variation on Treatment of Swine Wastewater
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Swine wastewater (agricultural wastewater) is normally stored in a storage holding tank for a certain time before released to the other treatment units, such as anaerobic lagoon and aerobic wetland. One of the characteristics for this treatment approach is that all the processes are open systems that are generally more passive in design and operation. As a consequence, seasonal variability including temperature and precipitation can have substantial impact on treatment efficacy and effluent water quality. This paper examines seasonal impacts of temperature on swine wastewater quality and treatment efficacy at a farm in East Leicester, Nova Scotia, Canada. During warm temperatures denitrification was noticeable in the anaerobic conditions, which would reduce the TSS removal rate from 76.6% in moderate temperatures to 42.1% in the warmest period recorded. Rainfall improved final effluent water quality, although this was shown to be through dilution rather than improvement of treatment efficacy. Following precipitation events the contaminant removals were negatively impacted in the aerobic lagoon, as BOD5 removal decreased from 61.6% before rainfall to 41.5% after rainfall, TSS from 71.4% to 59.3%, VSS from 73.4% to 59.3%, TKN from 59.9% to 42.1%, and NH4+ -N from 51.3% to 41.6%. In comparison to the aerobic conditions, the removal rates were increased for anaerobic condition with the rainfall dilution (e.g., TSS from 18.2% to 34.3%), which lead to an overall treatment improvement for the entire system. Thus the case study data presented in this paper provides an assessment of the operational and design issues that are particularly relevant for passive treatment systems that are used in the agriculture industry.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".