MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945787925 · doi:10.22215/etd/2019-13463

Fouling Indices for Quantification of Natural Organic Matter Fouling and Cleaning in Ceramic and Polymeric Membrane Systems

2019· dissertation· en· W2945787925 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mohammad T. Alresheedi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMembrane Separation Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinistry of Education, IndiaMinistry of Earth SciencesUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsFoulingMembrane foulingUltrafiltration (renal)Ceramic membraneMembraneFiltration (mathematics)CeramicChemistryChemical engineeringHumic acidPulp and paper industryChromatographyEnvironmental engineeringEnvironmental scienceOrganic chemistryEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polymeric membranes have emerged as an economically effective treatment option to produce drinking water.More recently, ceramic membranes are raising interest in this field due to their unique physical properties, which may prove to be important in moving towards more robust and sustainable drinking water treatment methods.However, the loss of membrane permeability as a result of natural organic matter (NOM) fouling remains one of the biggest challenges for sustainable polymeric and ceramic membranes operation.A key challenge in membrane system is to understand how operating pressure and water temperature may impact fouling and subsequent cleaning in relationship to NOM.Further there is limited data to ascertain if ultrafiltration (UF) polymeric and ceramic systems will respond in similar or different manners to NOM fouling which then further impacts how respective systems need to be cleaned.Fouling indices have been developed by means of simple, short, empirical filtration tests to assess the fouling potential of membrane feed water.The modified ultrafiltration fouling index (MFI-UF) is a standard test that is used to estimate a fouling index value that gives a general indication about the treatability of feed water or the need for pretreatment prior to a membrane unit.Unlike the MFI-UF, the unified membrane fouling index (UMFI) is used to quantify fouling a membrane is subjected to (i.e.reversible vs. irreversible), which provide different data on fouling.However, different approaches in fouling assessment may suggest that direct comparison lack context which lead to some disconnect between predicted and actual fouling in the field.Thus, the applicability of the MFI-UF to be effectively used in complement with the UMFI to predict NOM fouling under changes in v Acknowledgements I wholeheartedly want to express my gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Onita Basu.Her support and understanding, both academically and personally, have made this long journey less arduous and more rewarding.Her support from start to finish, encouragement and exceptional guidance throughout this research project has been a constant source of motivation.I wish to express my deep and sincere gratitude to Dr. Benoit Barbeau for his guidance and contribution to this research as

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.242 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMembrane Separation TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207