An evaluation of MBR and conventional pretreatment for reverse osmosis for water reclamation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two wastewater polishing systems were compared in terms of their ability to protect downstream reverse osmosis (RO) processes. A conventional full-scale wastewater treatment system with primary and secondary treatment followed by rotating biological contactors (RBC) and sand filtration were compared in a side-by-side study with a pilot-scale membrane bioreactor (MBR). Effluent from the two pretreatment trains was sent to two identical RO pilot systems. The effluent water quality of the two systems was compared as well as the RO performance. The MBR pretreatment provided effluent with a turbidity (0.11 NTU) that was more than five times lower than that of the conventional system (0.58 NTU). The fouling rate of the RO system with MBR pretreatment was 50–67% of the value found for the RO system with conventional pretreatment and the difference in turbidity values was identified as the major source of this large difference. The RO effluent quality of both systems was excellent, with similar overall removals in both systems. The study emphasizes the importance of removing particulate matter for the prevention of RO fouling within water reclamation.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".