MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392876526 · doi:10.32920/25412722

Optimization of Winery Wastewater Co-treatment at Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants

2024· preprint· en· W4392876526 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Melody Johnson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Reuse
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityRegional Municipality of Niagara
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWinerySewage treatmentEffluentWastewaterEnvironmental scienceBiomass (ecology)Chemical oxygen demandActivated sludgePulp and paper industryEnvironmental engineeringWaste managementChemistryEcologyEngineeringBiologyWineFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work presents a comprehensive assessment of the environmental impact of winery wastewater (WWW) and methods to optimize its co-treatment at municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). A comprehensive review of full-scale treatment at 53 wineries in Niagara Region, Canada finds constructed wetlands are the most common type of on-site treatment. On-site systems do not address all treatment needs, requiring a portion of the WWW to be co-treated at WWTPs. From freshwater resource impact perspective, the grey water footprint (WF) associated with treated WWW effluents is often neglected from wine-making WF assessments. However, co-treated WWW effluents from WWTPs in Niagara Region are found to exert a substantial grey WF equivalent to over 960 times their volume. While full-scale operating data indicate that anaerobic co-digestion with municipal sludges is effective (89% chemical oxygen demand (COD) removal), co-digestion capacity is limited. Bench-scale co-treatment trials confirm that WWTPs’ aerobic activated sludge systems can effectively co-treat WWW provided organic loading rates are limited. A combined Michaelis-Menten-University of Cape Town kinetic model is found to best describe the pH-inhibited oxidation by heterotrophs, and the associated specific rate of substrate consumption is highest in biomass that had been exposed to WWW (57.3 mg COD/g MLVSS·h) compared to biomass that had not (20.7 mg COD/g MLVSS·h). The feasibility of using the Fenton-like process to pre-treat WWW to enhance co-treatment is assessed. Solubilization of particulate COD and total organic carbon (TOC), and sample handling requirements prior to analysis, are identified as factors affecting their apparent removal rates. Inert suspended solids generated during sample handling is found to be the variable best suited to quantifying the extent of reaction. However, the Fenton-like process provides limited opportunity to optimize co-treatment at WWTPs. A novel pre-treatment method, the Waste Activated Sludge-High Rate (WASHR) process, is proposed to optimize the co-treatment. The WASHR process combines the contact stabilization and sequencing batch reactor processes. It utilizes waste activated sludge from the WWTP as its biomass source, allowing rapid start-up. Bench-scale trials confirm that the WASHR process, vs. direct co-treatment, can reduce COD and total suspended solids loadings to the WWTP’s liquid treatment train by more than 81% and 92%, respectively, and to the solids treatment train by more than 59% and 30%, respectively. A case study is used to confirm the economic viability and environmental sustainability of the WASHR process compared with direct co-treatment. Finally, robust correlations between easily measured parameters and key organic and nutrient parameters are developed. The correlations provide a promising, rapid and cost-effective means of characterising WWW to allow improved process 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.229 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWastewater Treatment and ReuseFrench-language works237,207