The Effectiveness of Pretreatment Methods on COD and Ammonia Removal from Landfill Leachate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this experiment is to evaluate the effectiveness of different leachate pre-treatment options in terms of COD and ammonia removal. This research focused on the evaluation of physical-chemical methods for pre-treatment of leachate that would be effective and rapid in order to satisfy the requirements of the sewer discharge by-laws. The four pre-treatment options evaluated were: air stripping, chemical coagulation, electro-coagulation and advanced oxidation with sodium ferrate. Chemical coagulation reported the best COD removal rate at 43%, compared to 18% for both air stripping and electro-coagulation, and 20% for oxidation with sodium ferrate. On the other hand, air stripping was far superior to the other treatment options in terms of ammonia removal with 86%. Oxidation with sodium ferrate reached only 16%, while chemical coagulation and electro-coagulation removed less than 10%. When combined, air stripping and chemical coagulation removed up to 50% COD and 85% ammonia.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".