Impact of supersaturation ratio on phosphorus recovery from synthetic anaerobic digester supernatant through a struvite crystallization fluidized bed reactor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past few decades, several technologies have been developed to recover phosphorus (P) as struvite from wastewater. Although these technologies have achieved reasonable P-removal efficiencies, these technologies are associated with several shortcomings such as high capital and operating costs, longer crystallization time and production of low-quality product. This study focussed on the development of an efficient technology by designing a new fluidized bed reactor (FBR) and determining its optimum operating conditions. The supersaturation ratio is the most important process parameter for struvite recovery. This study exerted effort to establish a range of supersaturation ratios in order to achieve optimum P-removal and recovery with a lesser amount of fine crystals produced. Bench-scale FBR used in this study was able to accomplish 90% P-removal with 18% P-recovery. P-removal efficiency was observed to be increasing with an increase in the initial supersaturation ratio up to a value of 6.5. On the other hand, an increase in the supersaturation ratio resulted in a lower P-recovery efficiency with an increase in fines production. The supersaturation ratio from 5.5 to 6.0 was found to be optimum for efficient operation of the reactor.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".