Effect of pH on performance of waste activated sludge fermentation coupling with denitrification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of different pH(5, 7, 9, unregulated) on performance of waste activated sludge(WAS) coupling with denitrification were investigated to study sludge dissolution, substances release, sludge reduction and denitrification performance. In the batch experiment controlling temperature at(30±1) ℃, NO2--N was added into the system. The results indicate that when pH=5, the concentrations of carbohydrate is much higher than that at other pH values and the highest occurs at the 18th day, and it is 648.9 mg/L; when pH=5 and 9, the concentration of protein is higher, and the highest occurred when pH=9 at the 15th day, and it is 701.5 mg/L; when pH=5, PO4 3--P concentration is always higher than that at pH 9, however, NH4 +-N concentration is higher at pH=9. The system at different pH all performed sludge reduction. In addition, the order of denitrification performance(from good to bad) is pH=9, pH=7, pH unregulated and pH=5 according to NO2--N accumulation. In general, the optimal pH of waste activated sludge fermentation coupling with denitrification is 9.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".