Effect of pyrite particle size on the denitrification performance of autotrophic or split‐mixotrophic bioreactors supported by pyrite/polycaprolactone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this study, a pyrite‐based autotrophic denitrification (PAD) system, a polycaprolactone (PCL)‐supported heterotrophic denitrification (PHD) system, and a pyrite+PCL‐based split‐mixotrophic denitrification (PPMD) system were constructed. The pyrite particle size was controlled in 1–3, 3–5, or 5–8 mm in both the PAD and PPMD systems to investigate the effect of pyrite particle size on the denitrification performance of autotrophic or split‐mixotrophic bioreactors. It was found that the PAD system achieved the best denitrification efficiency with an average removal rate of 98.98% in the treatment of 1‐ to 3‐mm particle size, whereas it was only 19.24% in the treatment of 5‐ to 8‐mm particle size. At different phases of the whole experiment, the nitrate removal rates of both the PHD and PPMD systems remained stable at a high level (>94%). Compared with the PAD or PHD system, the PPMD system reduced the concentrations of sulfate and chemical oxygen demand in the final effluent efficiently. The interconnection network diagram explained the intrinsic metabolic pathways of nitrogen, sulfur, and carbon in the three denitrification systems at different phases. In addition, the microbial community analysis showed that the PPMD system was beneficial for the enrichment of Firmicutes . Finally, the impact mechanism of pyrite particle size on the performance of the PPMD system was proposed. Practitioner Points The reduction of pyrite particle size was beneficial for improving the efficiency of the PAD process. The change in particle size had an effect on NO 2 − ‐N accumulation in the PAD system. The accumulation of NH 4 + ‐N in the PPMD system increased with the decrease in particle size. The reduction of pyrite particle size increased the production of SO 4 2− in the PAD and PPMD systems. The correlations among the effluent indicators of the PAD and PPMD systems could be well explained.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".