MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2736459952 · doi:10.20381/ruor-9695

Use of anaerobic baffled reactors (ABR) operated with and without recycle for treatment of aircraft deicing fluid (ADF)

2004· article· en· W2736459952 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michelle Barriault

Bibliographic record

VenueuO Research (University of Ottawa) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSmart Materials for Construction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaste managementAnaerobic exerciseEnvironmental scienceProcess engineeringEngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deicing fluid, which is used to prevent ice formation and to remove ice from aircraft, is used in large quantities in Canada every winter. It has been reported that the application of aircraft deicing fluid (ADF) to planes can result in as much as 96% of the total glycol used being lost in the runoff. Since glycol has a very high chemical oxygen demand (COD), the resulting runoff will exert a high COD regardless of dilution. For this reason, it is desirable to treat the runoff before discharging it to a body of water. Successful treatment of ADF has already been achieved using Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) reactors, yet the treatment has been limited by the maximum flowrate attainable before substantial washout of biomass occurs. The particular flow characteristics within Anaerobic Baffled Reactor (ABR) which lead to long solids retention times (SRT) have been found, in the current study, to overcome the SRT limitations and have resulted in biomass accumulation which would require biomass wastage to maintain constant biomass concentration within ABR operated without recycle or with a 6:1 recycle ratio. (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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.168
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designObservational
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 topicSmart Materials for ConstructionFrench-language works237,207