The Treatment of High Concentration Dyeing Wastewater with Pulsed Current Electrocoagulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>In this study, a small pulsed current electrocoagulation device was used to treat high concentration dyeing wastewater from a specific dyeing mill, and the effects of the electrode materials, reaction time, voltage, pH value, and aeration on the results of the treatment were examined. The results showed that under the following operational conditions: electrode materials were iron electrodes, time period was 15 min, voltage was 120 V, and initial pH was approximately 6, the removal rates of the COD, ammonia nitrogen, and color were 79.45%, 23.89%, and 87.50%, respectively. On this basis, a pulsed current electrocoagulation device, with a handling capacity of 0.5 m<sup>3</sup>/h, was used to conduct a pilot plant test for a period of one month. The results showed that the effluent quality (COD 1217.4 mg/L and NH<sub>4</sub><sup>+</sup>-N 358.2 mg/L on average) of the high-concentration dyeing wastewater, whose COD and NH<sub>4</sub><sup>+</sup>-N concentrations were 5328 mg/L, 595 mg/L, respectively after the treatment of a pulsed current electrocoagulation reactor, was superior to the effluent quality (COD 1400 mg/L and NH<sub>4</sub><sup>+</sup>-N 450 mg/L) of the mill’s actual pre-treatment system (flocculation-anaerobic treatment-acidification), and fully reached the influent requirements of the subsequent aerobic treatment. The results of this study showed that pulsed current electrocoagulation reactors may be effectively used for the pre-treatment of high concentration dyeing wastewater due to the observed advantages, such as good treatment effects, small investment, and economical space occupation.</p>
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".