MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimization of A<sup>2</sup>O BNR Processes Using ASM and EAWAG Bio‐P Models: Model Performance

2013· article· en· W2401117355 on OpenAlexaff
Walid El Shorbagy, Nawras N. Radif, Ronald L. Droste

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Environment Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen Removal
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEffluentAnoxic watersActivated sludge modelPhosphorusEnvironmental scienceBiomass (ecology)Environmental engineeringActivated sludgeSizingWastewaterPulp and paper industryChemistryEnvironmental chemistryEcologyEngineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the performance of an optimization model for a biological nutrient removal (BNR) system using the anaerobic-anoxic-oxic (A(2)O) process. The formulated model simulates removal of organics, nitrogen, and phosphorus using a reduced International Water Association (IWA) Activated Sludge Model #3 (ASM3) model and a Swiss Federal Institute for Environmental Science and Technology (EAWAG) Bio-P module. Optimal sizing is attained considering capital and operational costs. Process performance is evaluated against the effect of influent conditions, effluent limits, and selected parameters of various optimal solutions with the following results: an increase of influent temperature from 10 degrees C to 25 degrees C decreases the annual cost by about 8.5%, an increase of influent flow from 500 to 2500 m(3)/h triples the annual cost, the A(2)O BNR system is more sensitive to variations in influent ammonia than phosphorus concentration and the maximum growth rate of autotrophic biomass was the most sensitive kinetic parameter in the optimization model.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Environment ResearchSame topicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen RemovalFrench-language works237,207