Water Footprint Reduction in Oil and Gas Refineries through Water Reuse: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oil and gas refineries are highly water-intensive industrial settings, with effluent containing a significant level of pollution stemming from diverse organic and inorganic compounds. Besides adhering to discharge standards for industrial effluent, incorporating treated oil refinery effluent (ORE) into the production cycle can play a pivotal role in curbing water consumption. In recent years, there has been research into different approaches to reclaiming ORE. Yet, selecting treatment methods that are technically, economically, and environmentally effective is crucial to preventing resource waste. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the last two decades of literature on methods and technologies used for ORE treatment. Based on the inclusion criteria, the final screening included 82 studies, with acceptable agreement assessed using Cohen's inter-examiner kappa equal to 0.86. The included studies were of biological treatment (n = 27), physicochemical processes (n = 12), advanced purification processes (n = 16), membrane-based technologies (n = 15), and green technologies (n = 13). This comprehensive review showed that the advanced membrane-based techniques are effective in the removal of pollutants from ORE for several reasons, such as reducing the consumption of chemicals, high efficiency, and ease of setup and maintenance. However, combined methods with a focus on membrane-based processes (e.g. UF-RO) are the most promising options for the reclamation of ORE. Since some effluent treatment methods require the use of chemicals and energy to run, future research should focus on environmentally friendly methods and the use of renewable energy.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".