MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2415944444 · doi:10.2166/ws.2016.093

Impact of operational parameters on biofiltration performance: organic carbon removal and effluent turbidity

2016· article· en· W2415944444 on OpenAlexaffabout
Vivek A. Nemani, Liz Taylor-Edmonds, Nicolás M. Peleato, Robert C. Andrews

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Science & Technology Water Supply · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Treatment and Disinfection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBackwashingBiofilterTurbidityTrihalomethaneEffluentDissolved organic carbonUltrafiltration (renal)Pulp and paper industryChemistryWater treatmentEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental engineeringCloggingEnvironmental chemistryChromatographyInlet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objectives of this pilot-scale study were to optimize backwash frequency and empty bed contact time (EBCT) of biofilters treating ozonated surface water from Lake Ontario. Performance was benchmarked in terms of the reduction of turbidity, dissolved organic carbon (DOC), disinfection by-product (DBP) precursors, and ultrafiltration foulants (biopolymers). Increasing the EBCT from 4 to 8 min resulted in a higher reduction of DOC (5%), trihalomethane (THM4) and haloacetic acid (HAA9) precursors (∼12%) without negatively impacting effluent turbidity (consistently below 0.4 NTU), while biopolymer removal remained unaffected (2%). The impact of varying backwash frequency (5, 10, and 25 day intervals) was also compared for biofilters operated at an EBCT of 4 min. Results showed no impact of extended run times (up to 25 days) on DOC or DBP precursor removal; however turbidity removal was affected beyond 15 days of operation. Backwashing biofilters at 10 vs 5 day intervals would result in a reduction of backwash water, energy consumption and amount to nearly $17,000 in savings for the utility.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Science & Technology Water SupplySame topicWater Treatment and DisinfectionFrench-language works237,207