MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132938666

Coagulation/Flocculation-Ultrafiltration Optimization in Drinking Water Treatment

2023· dissertation· W7132938666 on OpenAlexafffund
Tyler Andrew Malkoske

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2023
Typedissertation
Language
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMembrane Separation Technologies
Canadian institutionsHudbay Minerals (Canada)
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCoagulationFoulingAlumWater treatmentNatural organic matterFlocculationUltrafiltration (renal)Turbidity
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coagulation/flocculation is applied prior to ultrafiltration (UF) to reduce fouling and increase natural organic matter (NOM) removal. A lack of knowledge exists regarding the selection of optimal conditions to satisfy these treatment objectives. The present research includes three studies which provide guidance for the design and operation of coagulation/flocculation-UF by: i) development of a bench-scale approach for process evaluation, ii) elucidating impacts of coagulation mechanisms and coagulation/flocculation configurations on UF performance, and iii) evaluating the retention of microplastics (MPs) and release by cleaning during coagulation/flocculation-UF treatment. Bench-scale continuous-flow systems allow evaluation of coagulation/flocculation-UF over consecutive permeation cycles, but require high flowrates to achieve hydraulic retention times (HRTs) typical of full-scale rapid mixing. To reduce flowrates, the present research evaluated a typical 2 min HRT vs. 20 min in terms of impacts on particle properties and UF performance; 20 min represents HRTs previously considered during bench-scale investigations. Increases in particle size/concentration and reduced UF fouling resistance at a 20 min HRT, suggest that HRTs equivalent to those typically applied during full-scale rapid mixing must be considered during bench-scale studies in order to produce results relevant to full-scale. In the subsequent study, previous knowledge regarding alum dosages and pH values which promote specific coagulation mechanisms was utilized as a framework to select coagulation conditions applied during coagulation/flocculation-UF. In cases where fouling control is required, conditions that promote adsorption destabilization are optimal, whereas in cases where NOM removal is required, conditions that promote sweep are optimal. Inclusion of flocculation (vs. coagulation alone) increased NOM removal while reducing irreversible fouling resistance, despite increased NOM retention by the membrane. In the final study, when compared to raw water, alum addition increased hydraulically irreversible accumulation of MPs on the membrane from 50% to 80% of those present in UF feed water. Chemical cleaning released 20% to 60% of MPs which had accumulated on the membrane during previous permeation cycles. While positive correlations were observed between the release of MPs and foulants, the release of MPs was consistently lower. Accumulation of MPs on the membrane may increase UF fouling over extended operating periods.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.317
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicMembrane Separation TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207