MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2909758149 · doi:10.1021/acs.iecr.8b05865

Method for Determining the Hydraulic-Retention Time and Operating Conditions of a Circulating-Fluidized-Bed Bioreactor with Composition Disturbances

2019· article· en· W2909758149 on OpenAlexaff
Junwen Luo, Jiangshan Liu, George Nakhla, Jesse Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen Removal
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsHydraulic retention timeEffluentCarbon fibersNitrogenCarbon sourceFluidized bedBioreactorEnvironmental scienceWastewaterConstant (computer programming)Process engineeringSewage treatmentComposition (language)Pulp and paper industryChemistryEnvironmental engineeringComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The circulating-fluidized-bed bioreactor (CFBBR) is a promising technique for biological-nutrient removal (BNR) from wastewater. A simulation-based method for determining the hydraulic-retention time (HRT) and operating conditions of a CFBBR is proposed. When a CFBBR operates under the constant HRT and the constant operating conditions obtained by the proposed method, the effluent can meet the water-quality criteria in cases with composition disturbances and implementation errors. To reduce the HRT, two ways of adding a carbon source are investigated: (i) increasing the minimum carbon–nitrogen ratio of the fluctuating influent and (ii) adding a constant amount of a carbon source. The relationships between the minimum carbon–nitrogen ratio (TCOD increment) and the minimum HRT are obtained. These relationships are helpful for guiding the addition of a carbon source. A case study of a pilot-scale CFBBR for BNR is used to illustrate this method.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry Research→Same topicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen Removal→French-language works237,207→