MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2271629052 · doi:10.2166/wst.2015.270

Sorption of microconstituents onto primary sludge

2015· article· en· W2271629052 on OpenAlexaff
Ying Zhu, Ronald L. Droste

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Science & Technology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAnalytical chemistry methods development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSorptionBisphenol AKineticsChemistryTriclosanEnvironmental chemistryWastewaterChemical engineeringChromatographyEnvironmental engineeringEnvironmental scienceWaste managementOrganic chemistryAdsorptionEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The presence of microconstituents (MCs) in the environment has become an emerging concern to scientists and engineers. Sorption is one of the important removal mechanisms for MCs in wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) since there is significant sludge production. The purpose of this study is to explore sorption kinetics and isotherms of MCs onto primary sludge. Three MCs, bisphenol-A (BPA), 17-α-ethinylestradiol (EE2) and triclosan (TCS), were chosen for this study. They are hydrophobic and have low vapor pressure, which makes sorption a potential removal mechanism. Both sorption kinetics and isotherm experiments were conducted using primary sludge collected from a local municipal WWTP. The time to equilibrium was around 7 h for all chosen MCs. A pseudo second-order rate model was better at describing the sorption rate than a pseudo first-order rate model. Linear sorption isotherm models were found to fit the experimental data, and the solid-liquid partitioning coefficients for BPA, EE2 and TCS were 81, 728 and 6,407 L/kg.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Science & TechnologySame topicAnalytical chemistry methods developmentFrench-language works237,207