MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033813550 · doi:10.1021/bk-2020-1348.ch006

Electrocoagulation Separation Processes

2020· book-chapter· en· W3033813550 on OpenAlex
Nael Yasri, Jinguang Hu, Md Golam Kibria, Edward P.L. Roberts

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueACS symposium series · 2020
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAdvanced oxidation water treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrocoagulationProcess engineeringFoulingFaraday efficiencyMaterials scienceWastewaterEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental engineeringPulp and paper industryWaste managementAnodeElectrodeChemistryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The process of electrocoagulation is a highly effective method to remediate effluent streams and to separate problematic pollutants before the discharge of the treated water. Interest in this technology has increased due to its broad range of applications, zero—or minimal—chemical dosing requirements, low waste production, and low cost. The process of electrocoagulation is emerging as an effective alternative to conventional water treatment processes for the separation of a wide range of pollutants. This chapter explores the principles of the electrocoagulation process, and its implementation for the separation of pollutants from wastewater streams. The technology relies on the combination of electrochemical and coagulation processes. Key factors that influence the performance include the electrode material (usually iron or aluminum), current density, electrical charge per unit volume, and solution pH. Commercial electrocoagulation systems are normally operated at constant current (5–20 mA/cm2) to ensure effective treatment. Electrode fouling can present a significant operational challenge but can be mitigated by alternating current operation. Dosing of the coagulant in the electrocoagulation process obeys Faraday’s law of electrochemical dissolution (the Coulombic efficiency is typically close to 100%), which facilitates process automation and control. The electrocoagulation performance can be characterized in terms of the Coulombic efficiency (>95%), electrical energy per unit volume (typically 0.5 kWhr/m3), and the separation efficiency (often >95%). Design parameters must be selected by considering economic, performance and operational factors. The interelectrode gap (typically <15 mm) must consider flow distribution, the risk of plugging due to fouling or coagulated solids, and the cell resistance (and hence energy consumption). Selection of the operating current density is dependent upon the solution conductivity (and hence energy consumption), the total area of electrode required for effective treatment, and the lifetime of the electrodes.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.774
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.217 · 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