MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997442758 · doi:10.2166/wqrj.2020.016

Removal of trihalomethanes from high organic matter water sources using aeration: a feasibility study

2020· article· en· W2997442758 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Saeideh Mirzaei, Beata Gorczyca

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Quality Research Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Treatment and Disinfection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersMitacs
KeywordsTrihalomethaneAerationDissolved organic carbonChemistryChlorineWater treatmentChloroformOrganic matterEnvironmental chemistryEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental engineeringPulp and paper industryChromatographyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this study, diffused aeration was applied to remove trihalomethane (THM) compounds from chlorinated, treated water containing high dissolved organic carbon (DOC) of 6.8 ± 1.2 mg/L. Increasing air-to-water volumetric ratio (rA/W) from 16 to 39 enhanced total THM (TTHM) removal from 60 to 70% at 20 °C and from 30 to 50% at 4 °C. Although bromodichloromethane has lower Henry's law constant than chloroform (CF), it was removed by a higher degree than CF in some aeration trials. Albeit obtaining high removals in aeration, TTHM reformed, and their concentration surpassed the Canadian guideline of 100 ppb in about 24 hours at 20 °C and 40 hours at 10 °C in all attempted air-to-water ratios. The water age in the system investigated in this study varied from 48 hours in midpoint chlorine boosting stations to 336 hours in the nearest endpoint. This study showed that THM removal by aeration is not a viable solution to control the concentration of these disinfection by-products in high-DOC treated water and in distribution systems where water age exceeds 24 hours; unless, it is going to be installed at the distribution endpoints.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.222
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.001

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 head0.215
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.180 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Quality Research JournalSame topicWater Treatment and DisinfectionFrench-language works237,207