Simultaneous regeneration of exhausted zeolite and nitrogen recovery using an air stripping method at alkaline pH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ammonium nitrogen recovery using natural zeolite from the permeates of anaerobic membrane bioreactors was investigated with batch and continuous experiments. Regeneration of exhausted zeolite was compared between mechanical shaking and air stripping, and experimental results showed the superiority of air stripping over the shaking. Liquid circulation and air flow rates were optimized in a continuous zeolite-packed column with a separate recovery system consisting of a regeneration chamber and a stripping column. The liquid circulation rate had significant effect neither on the regeneration efficiency (RE) nor the ammonia transfer efficiency (ATE), while the ATE significantly increased with increasing air flow rate. The effect of pH on ammonia recovery was also tested and the results showed that both RE and ATE significantly improved at alkaline pH. When pH increased from 9.5 to 12, the RE increased from 9.2% to 84% and the ATE increased from 54% to 92%. The results emphasized that the pH should be higher than 11 for efficient regeneration and recovery of ammonia. The preliminary economic analysis showed the superiority of the alkaline regeneration–air stripping process over the high pH regeneration and the conventional regeneration.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".