Application of Aerobic Granular Sludge (AGS) Technology for the Treatment of Pulp Mill Effluent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pulp and paper industry produces a significant amount of wastewater with toxic and recalcitrant compounds. Pulp and paper wastewater (PPW) requires a special treatment method that is diverse enough to deal with the complexities of this type of wastewater. The present study was aimed primarily at the removal of tannin/lignin from PPW using aerobic granular sludge (AGS) technology. Aerobic granules were cultivated in a sequencing batch reactor (SBR) with tannin/lignin present in the range of 50-200 mg/L. Granules were cultivated within 9 days of operation of the sequencing batch reactor (SBR), with SVI30 of 51.6 mL/g, achieving steady-state within the first three weeks of operation. On average, the COD removal efficiency for synthetic PPW was 90%. Tannin/lignin were removed up to 80% during the initial stages, but slowly decreased to an average removal of 70%. The mature granules were then transferred to a real PPW wastewater system containing tannin/lignin concentration up to 500 mg/L. Biodegradation and biosorption were observed to be the two pathways for the removal tannin/lignin. Biosorption was a primary form of removal at lower concentrations, achieving 74% removal at 50 mg/L. The biosorption ability reduced to 58% removal at 200 mg/L. This reveals that biodegradation prevails at these higher concentrations. The Haldane kinetic parameters were: Vmax = 0.93 (g tannin/lignin/g VSS· day), Ks = 1910 mg/L, and Ki = 27 mg/L. Various adsorption kinetic models and isotherms were fitted to the system. The Langmuir isotherm coefficients were: (x/m) max = 21.5 (mg tannin/lignin/g SS), b = 0.00386 L/mg. The Freundlich isotherm had coefficients of n = 1.172, K = 0.1174. COD removal of 79% and a tannin/lignin removal of 56% were achieved with real PPW. Furthermore, experimental runs in warmer and more humid temperature conditions revealed higher removal efficiencies, achieving about 80% tannin/lignin degradation at a concentration of 130 mg/L. The most prominent species responsible for the degradation of these toxic substances were Pseudomonas, Corynebacteriaceae and Flavobacterium.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".