Purifying Anaerobically Treated Municipal Secondary Wastewater Effluent by a Reverse Osmosis-Based Potable Reuse Treatment Train
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a pretreatment to potable reuse trains, anaerobic secondary treatment could reduce the energy demand and footprint compared to aerobic secondary treatment. Long-term pilot tests linked a reverse osmosis (RO)-based potable reuse treatment system to a pilot-scale staged anaerobic fluidized membrane bioreactor (SAF-MBR). A membrane-aerated bioreactor removed sulfide in SAF-MBR effluent prior to RO. The RO operated for ∼120 days at 15 LMH and 67–83% water recovery, with a final feed pressure during each cycle of ∼9–10 bar. When the final pressure increased to ∼12 bar, chemical cleaning reestablished membrane performance, and a membrane autopsy indicated reversible fouling by biomass and phosphate-based minerals. MS2 bacteriophage spiking tests indicated at least 5–6-log removal each by RO and UV/H 2 O 2 advanced oxidation process (AOP) treatment at ∼730 mJ/cm 2 average UV fluence. A 1,100 mJ/cm 2 average UV fluence met treatment goals for 1,4-dioxane and indicators for other organic contaminants. Halogenated DBPs in the chlorinated final effluent were ∼5-fold lower than potable reuse trains fed by aerobic secondary effluent. N -Nitrosodimethylamine was well below California’s 10 ng/L Notification Limit. An operating cost comparison indicated that a potable reuse train fed by SAF-MBR effluent ($0.69/m 3 ) is cost-competitive to that fed by aerobic secondary effluent ($0.69/m 3 ).
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 it