Comparison of dissolved air flotation and ballasted sedimentation for the treatment of an algal impacted water
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Dissolved air flotation (DAF) is considered better than conventional gravity settling (CGS) for the treatment of algal-laden waters, and ballasted sedimentation (BS), a high-rate separation process, is now often used instead of CGS. Our initial literature search did not identify DAF-BS comparisons for the removal of algae and cyanobacteria from algal laden waters. The objective of this bench-scale study was to compare DAF with BS and CGS for the treatment of water from a eutrophic waterway (Bay of Quinte, ON). The study was performed mid-summer when there was substantial algal growth. The optimized BS jar tests had 3% lower average turbidity removal than the DAF jar tests, however BS required 33% more coagulant, as well as 0.25 mg/L anionic polymer and microsand additions. The removal of cyanobacteria and algae (quantified using chlorophyll-a and c-phycocyanin concentrations) by DAF and BS were very similar, and they were superior to that achieved by CGS. The DOC removals and the disinfection by-products formation potential (DBPFP) of DAF and BS treated water were also similar. Based on the chlorophyll-a and c-phycocyanin removals, both BS and DAF performed better than CGS and can be considered suitable for the treatment of algal/cyanobacteria laden waters.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".