Nano-ozone bubbles for drinking water treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Safe drinking water is a key necessity, and ozonation is one of the common processes in drinking water preparation. The main drawbacks of using conventional ozone methods are the high-buoyancy-related low retention time and rapid decomposition of ozone eradicating residual ozone in water, which do not support prevention of regrowth of microorganisms in treated water. When ozone is delivered as nanobubbles, it increases the retention time due to the low-rising-velocity-related low buoyancy and increased higher specific area of nanobubbles compared to those of ordinary bubbles. The diffusion and concentration of ozone in the water are very important in the treatment process. Experimental results and theoretical calculations show that using nanobubbles leads to lower diffusion and higher ozone concentration compared to using ordinary bubbles. Decomposition of ozone in water generates oxygen where higher oxygen concentrations are obtained using nanobubbles. The oxygen formed during decomposition of ozone generates radicals that can oxidise pollutants. This paper summarises the methods of generating nanobubbles for drinking water treatment at the commercial scale and proposes a method of using ceramic diffusers in a treatment plant with increased efficiency. Moreover, the cost–benefit analysis presented highlights the benefits of using ozone as nanobubbles.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".