Performance comparison and pretreatment evaluation of three water treatment membrane pilot plants treating low turbidity water
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance of three different low-pressure water treatment membrane pilot plants was evaluated on a low-turbidity, low-colour water in British Columbia. All membrane units were hollow-fibre, hydrophilic membranes with nominal pore sizes of 0.01 to 0.2 µm. In addition to finished water quality, specific flux of each membrane was used to compare the performance of the three membrane units. The effect of feed pretreatment on the performance of the membranes and removal of disinfection byproduct (DBP) precursors was evaluated using chemical coagulation and powdered activated carbon (PAC) addition. Chemical coagulation proved to be very effective in removing DPB precursors and reducing the rate of membrane fouling. Powdered activated carbon addition, on the other hand, resulted in moderate removal of DBP precursors but increased the rate of membrane fouling. The nature and causes of membrane fouling as well as the impact of pretreatment methods on membrane fouling are discussed. Key words: ultrafiltration, microfiltration, coagulation, PAC, fouling, hollow fibre membranes, pretreatment, water treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".