The Influence of Optic and Polarographic Dissolved Oxygen Sensors Estimating the Volumetric Oxygen Mass Transfer Coefficient (KLa)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aeration is usually the most energy intensive part of the wastewater treatment process. Optimizing the aeration system is essential for reducing energy costs. Field tests oriented to estimate parameters related to oxygen transfer are a common approach to compare aeration systems. The aim of this research is to assess the effect of dissolved oxygen probe lag on oxygen transfer parameter estimation. Experimental procedures regarding to process automation and control were applied to quantify dissolved oxygen probe lag. We have measured oxygen transfer in clean water, under a wide range of conditions (airflow rate, diffuser characteristics and diffuser density), with optic and polarographic sensors for dissolved oxygen measurement. The oxygen transfer was measured as per ASCE Standard procedures. Nonparametric statistical tests were used to compare the estimated volumetric mass transfer coefficient KLa with different sensors. According to the results, there is not significant influence of the probe lag (also known as time constant) or probe characteristics on the parameters used to assess oxygen transfer efficiency. This fact has great relevance in common practice of aerobic process for wastewater treatment because dissolved oxygen monitoring is used as an input for decision making related to the energy optimization in the aeration system. Findings from these tests contradict previous studies which claim that lag time in polarographic sensors for the dissolved oxygen measurement can bias estimate KLa.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".