MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Simulation of Long-Term Performance of an Innovative Membrane-Aerated Biofilm Reactor

2020· article· en· W3014131544 on OpenAlexaff
Zebo Long, Ali K. Oskouie, Thomas E. Kunetz, Jeff Peeters, Nick Adams, Dwight Houweling

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen Removal
Canadian institutionsSuez (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiofilmNitrificationAerationReaction rate constantChemistryMoving bed biofilm reactorHydrolysisKinetic energyKineticsThermodynamicsMembraneChemical engineeringEnvironmental engineeringNitrogenEnvironmental scienceOrganic chemistryBiochemistryBacteriaPhysicsGeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Researchers have observed that the biofilm nitrification rate (NR) in membrane-aerated biofilm reactor (MABR) systems did not deteriorate at low winter temperatures. Using the pilot data, the temperature impacts were studied in two different approaches. A close-to-unity temperature coefficient (θ=1.007) and a constant half-velocity constant (KN,BF=5.7 mgN/L) were obtained from the semiempirical kinetic-based approach, indicating that the bulk NH4+-N concentration, rather than temperature, was determining the biofilm NR. The pilot performance was also simulated in GPS-X 7.0 using all typical kinetic values from scientific literatures except the hydrolysis rate constant. A lower hydrolysis rate constant (0.15 day−1) was used to match the data during calibration and it should be considered as a lumped effect of the pilot conditions. While the temperature effects on biological kinetics are well established, they were masked by the dynamic changes in the MABR biofilm. The apparently weak impact of temperature on the biofilm NR distinguishes the MABR technology as a novel solution for nitrification intensification. The two simulation approaches are proved effective as tools for the process design.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.210
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental EngineeringSame topicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen RemovalFrench-language works237,207