Waste Activated Sludge-High Rate (WASHR) Treatment Process: A Novel, Economically Viable, and Environmentally Sustainable Method to Co-Treat High-Strength Wastewaters at Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-strength wastewaters from a variety of sources, including the food industry, domestic septage, and landfill leachate, are often hauled to municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) for co-treatment. Due to their high organic loadings, these wastewaters can cause process upsets in both a WWTP's liquid and solids treatment trains and consume organic treatment capacity, leaving less capacity available to service customers in the catchment area. A novel pre-treatment method, the Waste Activated Sludge-High Rate (WASHR) process, is proposed to optimize the co-treatment of high-strength wastewaters. The WASHR process combines the contact stabilization and sequencing batch reactor processes. It utilizes waste activated sludge from a municipal WWTP as its biomass source, allowing for a rapid start-up. Bench-scale treatment trials of winery wastewater confirm the WASHR process can reduce loadings on the downstream WWTP's liquid and solids treatment trains. A case study approach is used to confirm the economic viability and environmental sustainability of the WASHR process compared to direct co-treatment, using life-cycle cost analyses and greenhouse gas emissions estimates.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".