Treatability of 18 taste and odor compounds using powdered activated carbon in drinking water utilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Taste and odor (T&O) compounds in source waters can enter drinking water utilities causing customer concerns about the water quality if not removed during treatment. While there has been extensive research on two common T&O compounds, 2‐methylisoborneol (2‐MIB) and geosmin, research on non‐MIB/geosmin compounds has been limited. This study evaluated the treatability of 16 non‐MIB/geosmin compounds, 2‐MIB, and geosmin using powdered activated carbon (PAC). Four types of PAC were tested: two bituminous‐based, one lignite‐based, and one wood‐based PAC. Among the 18 compounds, PAC was effective for 15 compounds with at least 90% removal with typical PAC dosing, but was not suitable for dimethyl disulfide, ethyl methyl dioxolane, and cis‐3‐hexenol. The bituminous‐based PACs showed greater removal with higher adsorption rates compared to the lignite‐ and wood‐based PACs. The adsorption behavior of T&O compounds varied based on their physical and chemical characteristics, for example, hydrophobicity, and nature of functional groups.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".