MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2727060769 · doi:10.1016/j.eng.2017.03.021

Fluidized-Bed Bioreactor Applications for Biological Wastewater Treatment: A Review of Research and Developments

2017· review· en· W2727060769 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael J. Nelson, George Nakhla, Jesse Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen Removal
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWastewaterBioreactorEnvironmental scienceWaste managementSewage treatmentActivated sludgeFluidizationFluidized bedOrganic matterResidence time (fluid dynamics)Industrial wastewater treatmentMoving bed biofilm reactorEnvironmental engineeringPulp and paper industryChemistryEngineeringBiofilmBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wastewater treatment is a process that is vital to protecting both the environment and human health. At present, the most cost-effective way of treating wastewater is with biological treatment processes such as the activated sludge process, despite their long operating times. However, population increases have created a demand for more efficient means of wastewater treatment. Fluidization has been demonstrated to increase the efficiency of many processes in chemical and biochemical engineering, but it has not been widely used in large-scale wastewater treatment. At the University of Western Ontario, the circulating fluidized-bed bioreactor (CFBBR) was developed for treating wastewater. In this process, carrier particles develop a biofilm composed of bacteria and other microbes. The excellent mixing and mass transfer characteristics inherent to fluidization make this process very effective at treating both municipal and industrial wastewater. Studies of lab- and pilot-scale systems showed that the CFBBR can remove over 90% of the influent organic matter and 80% of the nitrogen, and produces less than one-third as much biological sludge as the activated sludge process. Due to its high efficiency, the CFBBR can also be used to treat wastewaters with high organic solid concentrations, which are more difficult to treat with conventional methods because they require longer residence times; the CFBBR can also be used to reduce the system size and footprint. In addition, it is much better at handling and recovering from dynamic loadings (i.e., varying influent volume and concentrations) than current systems. Overall, the CFBBR has been shown to be a very effective means of treating wastewater, and to be capable of treating larger volumes of wastewater using a smaller reactor volume and a shorter residence time. In addition, its compact design holds potential for more geographically localized and isolated wastewater treatment systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.191
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations144
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEngineeringSame topicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen RemovalFrench-language works237,207