MBBR followed by microfiltration and reverse osmosis as a compact alternative for advanced treatment of a pesticide‐producing industry wastewater towards reuse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The treatment of a chemical industry wastewater with the goal of reuse was evaluated in a three‐step process. First, the industrial waste stream underwent biological treatment in a two‐stage moving‐bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) system, which allowed achieving average effluent chemical oxygen demand (COD), dissolved organic carbon (DOC), ammonium, total nitrogen (TN), and total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations of 45.5, 27.2, 1.0, 34.2, and 210 mg/L, respectively. Salt and TSS concentrations after the MBBR process were still not compatible with the requirements for effluent reuse and the silt density index (SDI 15 ) was found to be > 6.5, making a direct reverse osmosis (RO) application impractical. By employing microfiltration (MF) downstream of the biological treatment, no salt removal was observed, but the SDI 15 was reduced to around 2, enabling final RO application. Long‐term RO experiments conducted at different pressures (1.5–3.0 MPa) showed that biofouling became more severe under higher pressures, leading to the enhancement of the permeate flux drop. Rejection of DOC, TN, and salt by RO corresponded to 97.8 %, 89 %, and 99 %, respectively. The combined MBBR/MF/RO process allowed the production of a high‐quality effluent appropriate for direct reuse in the industry as feed water in cooling towers, steam boilers, and general industrial process activities.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".