MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607918743 · doi:10.2166/wst.2017.242

Tailing propensity in the ultraviolet disinfection of trickling filter and activated sludge wastewater treatment processes

2017· article· en· W2607918743 on OpenAlexaff
Thiam C. Tan, Yaldah Azimi, Ramin Farnood

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Science & Technology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMinerals Flotation and Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrickling filterActivated sludgeWaste managementWastewaterSewage treatmentEnvironmental sciencePulp and paper industryChemistryEnvironmental engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, the effect of suspended flocs on the tailing of ultraviolet (UV) disinfection kinetics of secondary effluents was examined. To achieve this goal, final effluents produced in two processes for treating wastewater; namely, a trickling filter system and an activated sludge system, were collected and their UV disinfection were compared. Tailing of the UV dose response curve was controlled by the fraction of flocs that are both culturable and UV-resistant, referred to as the 'tailing propensity'. Using this parameter, the contribution of various floc size fractions in reducing the UV disinfection efficiency of wastewater samples was quantified. Activated sludge flocs larger than 125 μm exhibited as much as 35 times greater tailing propensity than smaller flocs in the range of 20-25 μm. Within a fixed size range, the tailing propensity of flocs generated in the trickling filter system was 3 to 8 times higher than that of activated sludge flocs, and this difference increased with the floc size. A mathematical model was developed to predict the UV disinfection of secondary effluents from suspended particle size distribution data. The model showed good agreement with experimental results.

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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations12
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Science & TechnologySame topicMinerals Flotation and Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207