Fate of biosolids‐bound PFAS through pyrolysis coupled with thermal oxidation for air emissions control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pyrolysis has been identified as a possible thermal treatment process for reducing perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from wastewater solids, though off-gas from the pyrolysis unit can still be a source of PFAS emissions. In this work, the fate of PFAS through a laboratory-scale pyrolysis unit coupled with a thermal oxidizer for treatment of off-gasses is documented. Between 91.5% and >99.9% reduction was observed through the entire system for specific compounds based on targeted analyses. Overall, the pyrolysis and thermal oxidizer system removed 99.4% of the PFAS moles introduced. Furthermore, shorter chain variants comprised the majority of reportable PFAS in the thermal oxidizer flue gas, indicating the longer chain compounds present in the dried biosolids fed to pyrolyzer decompose through the system. PRACTITIONER POINTS: Thermal oxidation is a promising treatment technology for exhaust systems associated with thermal biosolids treatments. Thermal oxidation demonstrated significant degradation capabilities, with gas phase emissions comprising only 0.200% of initial PFAS concentrations to the system. Short-chain PFAS made up a higher percent of thermal oxidizer emissions, ranging between 54.4% and 79.5% of PFAS in the exhaust on a molar basis. The possibility of recombinant PFAS formation and partial thermal decomposition of PFAS in thermal oxidation is a needed area of research.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".