Comparison of Nitrification Rates in Conventional and Membrane‐Assisted Biological Nutrient Removal Processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A membrane-assisted and a conventional activated sludge system, both operated in an enhanced biological phosphorus removal (EBPR) mode and under identical operating conditions, were studied to investigate the effect of the membrane solids-liquid separation on nitrification activity. Both the membrane EBPR (MEBPR) and conventional EBPR (CEBPR) processes achieved stable and complete removal of ammonium-nitrogen from the influent wastewater. However, when the intrinsic nitrification activity was assessed in offline batch tests, the CEBPR mixed liquor exhibited 15 to 75% greater nitrification potential than the MEBPR counterpart. These results were further validated by monitoring nitrification rates of conventional mixed liquor as it evolved toward a membrane mixed liquor. It was also demonstrated that the larger aerobic mass fraction of the MEBPR system could not be the only factor influencing the reduced intrinsic nitrification rate. The present study strongly suggests that the presence of a membrane solids-liquid separation per se may be sufficient to alter the nitrification kinetics of an EBPR mixed liquor and that this possibility should be considered in arriving at an appropriate process design.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".