Membrane Aerated Biofilm Reactors for Thermomechanical Pulping Pressate Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A comparative study on the treatment of thermomechanical pulping (TMP) pressate between thermophilic (55 °C) and mesophilic (30 °C) membrane aerated biofilm reactors (MABRs) was conducted under different cycle lengths (CLs) for over 114 days. The performance of the MABRs was evaluated in terms of soluble chemical oxygen demand (COD) removal and biofilm detachment. With a total influent COD of 3,700–4,100 mg/L, the soluble COD removal efficiency of thermophilic MABR (40–65 %) was slightly lower than that of mesophilic MABR (50–80 %) under different CLs. The level of effluent suspended solids (ESS) in treated effluent of the thermophilic MABR was generally higher than that of the mesophilic MABR, suggesting a more significant biofilm detachment from membrane surfaces in the thermophilic MABR. The performance of COD removal improved at the time five to ten days after each significant biofilm detachment. The results suggest that MABR is a promising technology for TMP pressate treatment and biofilm thickness control is important for achieving better performance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".