MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluation of Dechlorinating Chemicals for Spent Membrane Cleaning Solutions

2016· article· en· W2343702251 on OpenAlexaff
Jiyun Ko, Wayne J. Parker, Jun Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Environment Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExtraction and Separation Processes
Canadian institutionsRegional Municipality of DurhamUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSodium thiosulfateChemistryThiosulfateChlorineCalciumSodium sulfiteSulfiteInorganic chemistrySodium bisulfiteSodiumNuclear chemistryEnvironmental chemistryOrganic chemistrySulfur

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of dechlorinating chemicals for removal of chlorine from spent membrane cleaning solutions was investigated. Addition of calcium thiosulfate resulted in a decrease in pH at low dosages of calcium thiosulfate, but when higher dosages were used, the pH was not affected. Other dechlorinating agents (sodium bisulfite, sodium sulfite, and ascorbic acid) generated smaller pH declines than calcium thiosulfate. The declines in pH were observed after the dechlorination reaction was effectively complete and pH did not appear to influence the rate of dechlorination. The rate of dechlorination in spent cleaning solution was slower than that observed in clean water. Dechlorination with calcium thiosulfate resulted in the lowest half-life and reaction time. At lower doses (less than 565 mg/L), it was not possible to discriminate between the different dechlorinating agents. The times required for dechlorination were more sensitive to increases in dechlorination chemical dose at lower doses.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.191
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Environment ResearchSame topicExtraction and Separation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207