Effect of filter–separators on the clogging of leachate collection systems
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
This paper reports the results obtained after 6 years operation of nine mesocosm experiments that simulate the 50 cm of the drainage layer closest to the leachate collection pipe in a landfill. Five different design configurations were examined involving a 300 mm thick layer of coarse (38 mm) gravel. The designs differed in terms of the presence, nature, and location of a filter–separator layer either at the waste–gravel interface or partway through the gravel. A nonwoven geotextile filter–separator (GTF/S) is shown to reduce clogging of the gravel relative to the no filter–separator or woven GTF/S designs. Some clogging of the geotextiles is reported, with reductions in geotextile hydraulic conductivity of 23% for the woven GTF/S, 74%–89% for the nonwoven GTF/S, and 75%–94% for the nonwoven geotextile partway through the gravel. The clogged nonwoven geotextile filter–separator maintained a higher hydraulic conductivity than the extracted woven geotextile. Of the designs with a filter–separator between the waste and gravel, the granular filter–separator most effectively reduced clogging of the gravel but at the expense of leachate mounding above the sand once the sand layer clogs. The design with a nonwoven geotextile partway through the gravel (GTMF) provides better protection of the underlying gravel from clogging than other designs involving a geotextile.Key words: landfill, waste, leachate, clogging, biofilm, geotextile.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it