MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3191342578 · doi:10.3390/w13152123

Treatment of Effluent of Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Bioreactor for Water Reuse

2021· article· en· W3191342578 on OpenAlexafffund
Peter Innes, Sheng Chang, Md. Saifur Rahaman

Bibliographic record

VenueWater · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMembrane Separation Technologies
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalConcordia UniversityUniversity of Guelph
FundersOntario Ministry of Food and Agriculture
KeywordsEffluentReverse osmosisPulp and paper industryUltrafiltration (renal)Filtration (mathematics)Chemical oxygen demandMembrane foulingChemistryTotal suspended solidsBioreactorEnvironmental scienceWaste managementFoulingEnvironmental engineeringSewage treatmentMembraneChromatographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The low-pressure reverse osmosis (LPRO) process is a recent development of reverse osmosis (RO) technology for the reduction in RO energy consumption and operation cost. The goal of this study was to investigate the performance of LPRO processes for the treatment and reuse of effluent discharged from brewery upflow anaerobic sludge blanket bioreactors (UASB). In this study, three different commercially available LPRO membranes were tested to evaluate the water quality that can be achieved under different operational and pretreatment conditions. It was found that the filtration performance and the effluent quality of the LPRO membranes can be considerably affected by the operation conditions and the selection of the pretreatment processes. The ultrafiltration (UF) pretreatment and the control of the operation pressure were found to be essential for mitigating LPRO membrane fouling, which could be caused by Ca2+ associated precipitates and organic gelation, in the treatment of the brewery UASB effluent. Water quality analyses showed that an integrated process of the UASB + UF + LPRO could achieve an effluent quality characterized by concentrations of 10.4–12.5 mg/L of chemical oxygen demand (COD), 1.8–2.1 mg/L of total nitrogen (TN), 1.3–1.8 mg/L of ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N) and 0.8–1.2 mg/L of total phosphorus (TP). The effluent quality and the LPRO performance could be further improved by adding a granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorption process between the UF and LPRO processes, which reduced the concentration of COD to 7–10 mg/L and those of TN, TP, NH3-N to below 1 mg/L. For the treatment of the UASB effluent tested in this study, the UF, UF + GAC (retention time 4 hrs), UF + LPRO, and UF + GAC + LPRO, respectively, achieved overall COD removal efficiencies of 89.6–93.7%, 94.5–96.7%, 99.3–99.1% and 99.3–99.4%; TN removal efficiencies of 73.0–78.2%, 89.2–97.2%, 97.1–98.2% and 94.3–99.7%; and TP removal efficiencies of 29.3–46.2%, 77.0–95.4%, 95.9–97.6z% and 98.0–98.3%. This study showed that both UASB + UF + LPRO and UASB + UF + GAC + LPRO are effective treatment processes for treating brewery wastewater toward reuse water quality standards set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Therefore, the results of this study would help to answer whether a LPRO can treat the brewery UASB effluent to meet the requirements of wastewater reuse standards.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWaterSame topicMembrane Separation TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207