MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2521226405 · doi:10.2166/wqrj.2008.005

Bench-Scale Evaluation of Sonication as a Pretreatment Process for Ultraviolet Disinfection of Wastewater

2008· article· en· W2521226405 on OpenAlexaff
Darrell Hai Nien Yong, W.L. Cairns, Ted Mao, Ramin Farnood

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Quality Research Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMembrane Separation Technologies
Canadian institutionsTrojan Technologies (Canada)University of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSonicationEffluentTrickling filterWastewaterChemistryUltravioletPulp and paper industryActivated sludgeSewage treatmentEnvironmental scienceChromatographyEnvironmental engineeringMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract It is generally known that sonication improves ultraviolet (UV) disinfection kinetics of municipal effluents by breaking large suspended particles. However, the feasibility of sonication as a pretreatment technology largely depends on wastewater quality and discharge requirements. The purpose of this study was to investigate the potential benefits of ultrasound for improving the UV disinfectability of various effluent types, including primary, activated sludge, and trickling filter effluents. It was found that the tailing level of the dose-response curve at high UV doses (>40 mJ/cm2) decreased with the increased sonication time. The reduction in the tailing level had a strong correlation with the decrease in the number concentration of large particles (<60 µm) such that 1 log reduction in the number concentration of large particles resulted in 1.4, 1.1, and 1.7 log reductions in the tailing level for primary, activated sludge, and trickling filter effluents, respectively. However, the improvement in the UV disinfectability due to sonication was partly offset by the reduction in the UV transmittance of the effluent.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.876

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.233
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Quality Research JournalSame topicMembrane Separation TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207