MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3096733387 · doi:10.2166/wst.2020.482

Evaluation of fouling and RO performance for MBR treated fruit wastewater

2020· article· en· W3096733387 on OpenAlexafffund
Abu-Taher Jamal-Uddin, Richard G. Zytner

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Science & Technology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMembrane Separation Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
KeywordsFoulingMembrane foulingWastewaterEffluentReverse osmosisForward osmosisPulp and paper industryMembraneMembrane bioreactorEnvironmental scienceSewage treatmentWaste managementChemistryEnvironmental engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fruit processing facilities are looking for ways to reduce water consumption to counter the impact of climate change. A good alternative is an MBR system to treat the processing wastewater, followed by tertiary treatment using a reverse osmosis (RO) unit to enable water reuse. However, fouling of the RO membrane causes operational challenges. As a result, experiments were completed on treated fruit processing wastewater to identify the causes of fouling that originated from the MBR effluent and develop best management practices (BMPs) to minimize fouling of the RO membrane. Physical and chemical analyses along with visual inspection of the membrane surface using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy diffusive X-ray (EDX) and Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy were completed. The issue of RO membrane fouling and subsequent flux decline was directly related to the presence of soluble microbial products, specifically dissolved organic matter (DOM) in the MBR effluent. The developed BMPs show that the previously completed enhanced coagulation-GAC sorption process, when combined with an online non-chemical flushing regimen and proper membrane preservation, keeps the flux readings high, resolving frequent fouling and cleaning problems of the RO membrane.

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)0.001
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 score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.516

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Science & TechnologySame topicMembrane Separation TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207