MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6999360642

Comparison of CTA and TFC FO-membranes for water recovery

2017· dissertation· en· W6999360642 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversitat de Girona Digital Repository (Universitat de Girona) · 2017
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMembrane Separation Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsForward osmosisFoulingOsmosisOsmotic pressureMembraneMembrane foulingReverse osmosisWater treatmentCellulose triacetate
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For centuries, mankind has faced water-related issues for it is a limited good of vital importance for
\nhuman development. Climate change, pollution and world water scarcity now have given more
\nawareness to these problems. However, it is in human societies nature to consume water and return
\nit to the environment in a form that is no longer profitable for human use. Ages of developing
\ntechniques and systems for water distribution has led to nowadays being able to obtain water from
\nour own wastewater. Osmotic membrane bioreactor (OMBR) processes are a very important step in
\nwater tertiary treatment and furthermore, forward osmosis OMBR (FO-OMBR), which is at the
\nvanguard of research and innovation. FO-OMBR uses the water gradient that the difference of osmotic
\npressure creates to separate physiochemically water from wastewater. In this project, first steps at
\nlaboratory-scale experiments are carried out to characterize osmotic membranes for further use at
\npilot-scale. Cellulose triacetate (CTA) has been widely used, and new materials such as thin-film
\ncomposite (TFC) polyamide membranes have been produced. Therefore, new work is needed to
\ncompare their behavior at different concentration of the osmotic agent while also comparing
\nperformances at water recovery, lifespan of membrane and costs. In this work, sodium chloride is
\nused as the osmotic agent. Also, the system configuration is considered as a limiting variable at
\noperating, so different experiments were carried in both suction and pulsion modes. Impact of the
\npump is contemplated too so different pump speed experiments were held. In this study, it was also
\nconsidered challenges such as salt loss from the draw solution (DS), so RSD value is reckoned.
\nHowever, membrane fouling was not contemplated in this study; further work needs to be done. Once
\nthe results were obtained, it was regarded that when operated with TFC membrane better
\nperformance of the OMBR is done, as RSD values were lower and permeate volumes higher. Even
\nthough no essential differences where seen between suction and pulsion configurations, it was pulsion
\nthat showed better performance values

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.235 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversitat de Girona Digital Repository (Universitat de Girona)Same topicMembrane Separation TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207