Impact of pretreatments on reverse osmosis treatment of secondary effluent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Impact of pretreatments on reverse osmosis (RO) membrane fouling was investigated in the City of Guelph Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Conventional treatment process and MBR pilot treatment system were selected as two pretreatment options of down stream RO pilot systems. It was shown that the MBR system provided better protection than conventional treatment process for down stream RO membrane from fouling. Two systems were operated at same constant permeate flow rate of 9.46 L/min (2.5 gpm) and constant recovery rate of 26%. The conventional-RO system reached the highest operating pressure within 23 days of operation due to the membrane fouling, while MBR-RO reached the highest operating pressure in 43 days of operation, which resulted in an overall 47% improvement of RO system performance by MBR-RO system. In addition, RO production water qualities were evaluated in terms of pH, turbidity, conductivity, TOC, COD, total/fecal coliforms, cations (sodium, ammonium, calcium and magnesium) and anions (chloride, nitrite, nitrate, sulfate and phosphate). High removal efficiencies were achieved by both RO pilot systems.
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".