MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Simultaneous TOC and Ammonia Removal in Drinking-Water Biofilters: Influence of pH and Alkalinity

2020· article· en· W3030094041 on OpenAlexaff
H. P. Hamidi, Seyedeh Laleh Dashtban Kenari, Onita D. Basu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Treatment and Disinfection
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlkalinityChemistryBiofilterAmmoniaEnvironmental chemistryWater treatmentWater qualityDissolved organic carbonTotal organic carbonNitrificationOrganic matterPulp and paper industryEnvironmental engineeringNitrogenEnvironmental scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A bench-scale biofiltration study was conducted to investigate the potential benefits of adjusting water pH and alkalinity as a simple water quality control on biofilter efficacy in terms of organic carbon removal, ammonia removal, and head loss development. Two biofilter columns were tested at pH values between 6.0 and 10.0 with low and high alkalinity levels of 25–50 and 180–220 mg CaCO3/L, respectively. Total organic carbon (TOC) removal was 67% at the lower pH range tested (6.0–7.5), and then decreased as the pH increased to an observed low of 31% removal at pH 10. Ammonia removal demonstrated the opposite trend, with a low of 13% removal at pH 6.0, 48% at pH 7.5, and greater than 90% at pH 9–10. An assessment of the available dissolved oxygen (DO) indicated it may have been a limiting factor in complete ammonia removal. Changes in alkalinity demonstrated a modest impact on biofilter activity, i.e., TOC, ammonia removals, and adenosine triphosphate (ATP) levels. Overall, pH 7.5 demonstrated an optimum condition for water quality and head loss control with 67% and 48% removal in terms of TOC and ammonia, respectively, and with the lowest head loss development.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.663
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental EngineeringSame topicWater Treatment and DisinfectionFrench-language works237,207