MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307377237 · doi:10.2166/aqua.2022.133

The effect of pH on taste and odor production and control of drinking water

2022· article· en· W4307377237 on OpenAlexaff
Hunter Adams, Gary A. Burlingame, Keisuke Ikehata, Laith Furatian, I. H. Suffet

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water Supply Research and Technology—AQUA · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicOdor and Emission Control Technologies
Canadian institutionsStantec (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOdorTasteChemistryEnvironmental chemistryWater qualityAdsorptionFood sciencePulp and paper industryEnvironmental engineeringEnvironmental scienceBiologyEcologyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract There is general agreement that pH is an important parameter in many drinking water treatment and control processes such as taste and odor (T&O) control. However, pH is not usually targeted as a primary control parameter and its effects on T&O are often overlooked in favor of other treatment issues. When it comes to T&O control, treatment alternatives typically focus on oxidation and adsorption processes. Whether within these processes or separately, pH plays an important role and the effects on T&O should be considered. For example, pH plays a role in the speciation of odorous chemicals in the environment, some of which arise in wastewater treatment and others from the occurrence of metals in water. During blooms of algae and cyanobacteria in surface water, pH is an important parameter affecting water quality and T&O. Finally, as pH is important for the sample preservation and analysis of T&O compounds, pH is important in the fate and control of T&O. The objective of this article is to better understand the various ways that pH can influence T&O production, control, and analysis of odorants in water and encourage advancement in the state of the science of pH optimization for T&O control.

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)0.002
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations28
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water Supply Research and Technology—AQUASame topicOdor and Emission Control TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207