MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2564841529 · doi:10.20381/ruor-18253

The treatment of landfill leachate using an MFUF membrane system: Focusing on membrane fouling

2004· dissertation· en· W2564841529 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
S. Charles J. Banks

Bibliographic record

VenueuO Research (University of Ottawa) · 2004
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRecycling and Waste Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeachateMembrane foulingFoulingWaste managementMembraneEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental engineeringEngineeringCivil engineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Membrane systems are being used increasingly throughout the western world to treat landfill leachate as environmental regulations tighten. This work examined leachate filtration using a bench-scale MF/UF membrane system, focussing on surface fouling and constituent reductions at the Trail Road Landfill in Ottawa, Ontario. The study found that ultrafiltration membranes with a molecular weight cut-off of 10 KDa and below gave the best overall leachate treatment. A 1 KDa ultrafiltration membrane gave the highest percent removals overall of all the membranes tested, but had one of the lowest steady state fluxes ranging from 2 to 5 L/m2h. Carbonates such as calcite and dolomite were determined to be one of the main foulants/scalants. Iron sulphides or iron oxides tended to form a general coating over the membrane surface and may have been the base for a surface coating of mixed-element origins observed in spring 2003. The fouling type was generally thought to be cake filtration based on flux results and basic fouling determination equations. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.554
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueuO Research (University of Ottawa)Same topicRecycling and Waste Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207