Traitement des eaux usées par coagulation-floculation avec recirculation des boues chimiques : Performance générale et stabilité du procédé
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Six series of tests were carried out to have a better understanding of the stability and efficiency of a coagulation-flocculation process with chemical sludge recycling. The tests consisted in sequential sludge recycling in 100-L pilot reactors. Other tests were performed to examine the stability following wastewater loading variations. Results showed that stability was reached immediately during the first recycling sequences. Furthermore, to obtain improved results compared with those of a classical coagulation-flocculation process, the flocculant concentration must be increased according to the sludge recycling load. Results also revealed that recycling sludge does not absorb wastewater load variations. Consequently, the implementation of sludge recycling in a wastewater treatment plant would not cause effluent degradation or entail major changes in a normal plant operation routine. The predominant coagulation-flocculation mechanisms that explained the increase in efficiency, in comparison with the classical process, were identified as enmeshment and sweep flocculation. Finally, the recycled sludge produced were conditioned and dewatered in a fashion similar to that of a classical process.Key words: recycling, sludge, preformed flocs, coagulation-flocculation, treatment, wastewater, stability.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it