MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402267642 · doi:10.32920/26883646

Dynamic Performance Simulation and Treatment Alternatives Evaluation for Process Intensification for a Wastewater Treatment Plant in Toronto

2024· preprint· en· W4402267642 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fatima-Zahra Ezzahraoui

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicSimulation Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)Sewage treatmentEnvironmental scienceProcess engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Process intensification has become imperative for Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs) to cope with growing urbanisation and stricter environmental regulations. Currently treating less than half its rated capacity, North Toronto Treatment Plant (NTTP) is subject, in this study, to upgrade opportunities examination for an influent increase to 45MLD. A plant-wide model for NTTP was developed using BioWin simulation tool; the model was calibrated and validated based on historical records and sampling campaign measurements from the plant. The validated model served to assess the plant performance and determine the optimum among five technology alternatives under various conditions: (1) current feed flow, (2) plant rated capacity, and (3) summer and winter season. State Point Analysis (SPA) was performed to examine the secondary clarifiers performance under current and potential loading conditions. It was found that the Ludzack-Ettinger (L-E) configuration was better than Conventional Activated Sludge (CAS) and Modified Ludzack-Ettinger (MLE), under current and increased influent flow rates, in terms of Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) objectives compliance, and cost effectiveness, whereas Membrane Aerated Bioreactor (MABR) technology offered better effluent quality without overloading the secondary clarifiers. This study also demonstrated the effect of aeration on the biomass stoichiometric and kinetic parameters, through the calibration of the plant models using two separate datasets from 2017-2021 and summer 2022.</p>

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.694
Threshold uncertainty score0.794

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.223
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSimulation Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207