MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607087718 · doi:10.2166/wrd.2017.200

Optimized biological nitrogen removal of high-strength ammonium wastewater by activated sludge modeling

2017· article· en· W2607087718 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Abdelsalam Elawwad

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water Reuse and Desalination · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen Removal
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWastewaterActivated sludgeActivated sludge modelAmmoniumAlkalinityDenitrificationSewage treatmentEnvironmental scienceChemistryNitrogenEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Wastewater containing high ammonium concentrations is produced from various industrial activities. In this study, the author used a complex activated sludge model, improved by utilizing BioWin© (EnviroSim, Hamilton, Canada) simulation software, to gain understanding of the problem of instability in biological nitrogen removal (BNR). Specifically, the study focused on BNR in an industrial wastewater treatment plant that receives high-strength ammonium wastewater. Using the data obtained from a nine-day sampling campaign and routinely measured data, the model was successfully calibrated and validated, with modifications to the sensitive stoichiometric and kinetic parameters. Subsequently, the calibrated model was employed to study various operating conditions in order to optimize the BNR. These operating conditions include alkalinity addition, sludge retention time, and the COD/N ratio. The addition of a stripping step and modifications to the configuration of the aerators are suggested by the author to increase the COD/N ratio and therefore enhance denitrification. It was found that the calibrated model could successfully represent and optimize the treatment of the high-strength ammonium wastewater.

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)0.000
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations21
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water Reuse and DesalinationSame topicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen RemovalFrench-language works237,207