MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2343509195 · doi:10.5539/enrr.v6n2p57

COD Removal of Edible Oil Content in Wastewater by Advanced Oxidation Process

2016· article· en· W2343509195 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aola Hussein Flamarz Tahir, Nagam Obeid Kariem, Shatha Abduljabbar Ibrahim

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Natural Resources Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryNuclear chemistryAqueous solutionWastewaterReagentEnvironmental engineeringOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Different Advanced Oxidation Processes (Photo Fenton process, Fenton process and H2O2/UV) were studied in order to reduce COD from oily compounds aqueous solution using batch system. To get the optimum condition, different variables were studied for each of these processes; such as pH, time, concentration of H2O2, concentration of oil, concentration of FeSO4·7H2O and temperature as parameters. It was found that the optimal pH value for the three processes was 3 and the optimal temperature was 30oC for Photo-Fenton and UV/H2O2 system and 20oC for Fenton process. Photo-Fenton process gave a maximum COD reduction of 80.59 % (COD from 2684 to 521 mg/l), Fenton gave 53.22 % (COD from 2587-1130) and the combination of UV/H2O2 gave a COD reduction of 22.69 % (COD from 2450 to 1894). The percentage of removal found was after the total reaction time (180 min.). The optimum chemical reagents for Photo-Fenton, Fenton and UV/H2O2 were as the following H2O2 = 800 mg/l, 1500 mg/l and 2000 mg/l, Fe2SO4·7H2O = 60 mg/l, 100 mg/l.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and Natural Resources ResearchSame topicWater Quality Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207