Importance of process design on carbon footprint from drinking water treatment by enhanced coagulation-filtration
There are several process design options for enhanced coagulation-filtration in drinking water treatment plants (DWTPs). This study compares the carbon footprint and economic impact of two common process designs based on enhanced coagulation-filtration with pH, Ca, and alkalinity adjustment for corr...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Paula Pellikainen [verfasserIn] Bjornar Eikebrokk [verfasserIn] Riku Vahala [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2023 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
In: Water Practice and Technology - IWA Publishing, 2021, 18(2023), 11, Seite 2653-2663 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:18 ; year:2023 ; number:11 ; pages:2653-2663 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.2166/wpt.2023.189 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
DOAJ100654037 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | DOAJ100654037 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20240414110446.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 240414s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.2166/wpt.2023.189 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)DOAJ100654037 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)DOAJ9cd8a673a87342d79690f74b6c9585eb | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 050 | 0 | |a TD1-1066 | |
| 100 | 0 | |a Paula Pellikainen |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Importance of process design on carbon footprint from drinking water treatment by enhanced coagulation-filtration |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2023 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a There are several process design options for enhanced coagulation-filtration in drinking water treatment plants (DWTPs). This study compares the carbon footprint and economic impact of two common process designs based on enhanced coagulation-filtration with pH, Ca, and alkalinity adjustment for corrosion control. The process designs are direct filtration (DF) using Al coagulant with limewater (DF-Al) and contact filtration (CF) using Fe coagulant with alkaline filter layers (CF-Fe). The operational data are retrieved from full-scale DWTPs. The results show that the carbon footprint from operations is five times larger for the DF-Al compared to the CF-Fe. Operational costs covering chemicals and energy are almost 30% higher for the DF-Al. Simplified material intensity estimations for the construction phase show that the carbon footprint and investment cost increase with increasing process area, which are larger for the DF-Al. Therefore, to reduce environmental impacts and costs, the design of drinking water treatment processes should be carefully considered even for very similar processes. The results should motivate both water professionals and decision-makers to include a carbon footprint evaluation as a routine step in the DWTP selection and design phases. HIGHLIGHTS It is important to include carbon footprint estimation in the early process design phase.; Similar treatment processes can have huge differences in carbon footprints.; The carbon footprint and costs can be significantly reduced by the proper design of similar treatment processes.; When selecting water treatment chemicals, their carbon footprints should be considered.; | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a carbon footprint | |
| 650 | 4 | |a coagulation-filtration | |
| 650 | 4 | |a drinking water treatment | |
| 650 | 4 | |a enhanced coagulation | |
| 650 | 4 | |a nom removal | |
| 650 | 4 | |a process design | |
| 653 | 0 | |a Environmental technology. Sanitary engineering | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Bjornar Eikebrokk |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Riku Vahala |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i In |t Water Practice and Technology |d IWA Publishing, 2021 |g 18(2023), 11, Seite 2653-2663 |w (DE-627)600307050 |w (DE-600)2495042-7 |x 1751231X |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:18 |g year:2023 |g number:11 |g pages:2653-2663 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.2166/wpt.2023.189 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doaj.org/article/9cd8a673a87342d79690f74b6c9585eb |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://wpt.iwaponline.com/content/18/11/2653 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/1751-231X |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_DOAJ | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_11 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_20 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_23 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_24 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_31 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_39 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_60 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_62 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_63 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_65 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_69 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_70 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_73 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_95 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_105 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_110 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_151 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_161 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_170 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_213 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_230 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_285 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_293 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_370 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_602 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4046 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 18 |j 2023 |e 11 |h 2653-2663 | ||
| author_variant |
p p pp b e be r v rv |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:1751231X:2023----::motnefrcsdsgocrofopitrmrnigaetetetyn |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2023 |
| callnumber-subject-code |
TD |
| publishDate |
2023 |
| allfields |
10.2166/wpt.2023.189 doi (DE-627)DOAJ100654037 (DE-599)DOAJ9cd8a673a87342d79690f74b6c9585eb DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng TD1-1066 Paula Pellikainen verfasserin aut Importance of process design on carbon footprint from drinking water treatment by enhanced coagulation-filtration 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier There are several process design options for enhanced coagulation-filtration in drinking water treatment plants (DWTPs). This study compares the carbon footprint and economic impact of two common process designs based on enhanced coagulation-filtration with pH, Ca, and alkalinity adjustment for corrosion control. The process designs are direct filtration (DF) using Al coagulant with limewater (DF-Al) and contact filtration (CF) using Fe coagulant with alkaline filter layers (CF-Fe). The operational data are retrieved from full-scale DWTPs. The results show that the carbon footprint from operations is five times larger for the DF-Al compared to the CF-Fe. Operational costs covering chemicals and energy are almost 30% higher for the DF-Al. Simplified material intensity estimations for the construction phase show that the carbon footprint and investment cost increase with increasing process area, which are larger for the DF-Al. Therefore, to reduce environmental impacts and costs, the design of drinking water treatment processes should be carefully considered even for very similar processes. The results should motivate both water professionals and decision-makers to include a carbon footprint evaluation as a routine step in the DWTP selection and design phases. HIGHLIGHTS It is important to include carbon footprint estimation in the early process design phase.; Similar treatment processes can have huge differences in carbon footprints.; The carbon footprint and costs can be significantly reduced by the proper design of similar treatment processes.; When selecting water treatment chemicals, their carbon footprints should be considered.; carbon footprint coagulation-filtration drinking water treatment enhanced coagulation nom removal process design Environmental technology. Sanitary engineering Bjornar Eikebrokk verfasserin aut Riku Vahala verfasserin aut In Water Practice and Technology IWA Publishing, 2021 18(2023), 11, Seite 2653-2663 (DE-627)600307050 (DE-600)2495042-7 1751231X nnns volume:18 year:2023 number:11 pages:2653-2663 https://doi.org/10.2166/wpt.2023.189 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/9cd8a673a87342d79690f74b6c9585eb kostenfrei http://wpt.iwaponline.com/content/18/11/2653 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1751-231X Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_4046 AR 18 2023 11 2653-2663 |
| spelling |
10.2166/wpt.2023.189 doi (DE-627)DOAJ100654037 (DE-599)DOAJ9cd8a673a87342d79690f74b6c9585eb DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng TD1-1066 Paula Pellikainen verfasserin aut Importance of process design on carbon footprint from drinking water treatment by enhanced coagulation-filtration 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier There are several process design options for enhanced coagulation-filtration in drinking water treatment plants (DWTPs). This study compares the carbon footprint and economic impact of two common process designs based on enhanced coagulation-filtration with pH, Ca, and alkalinity adjustment for corrosion control. The process designs are direct filtration (DF) using Al coagulant with limewater (DF-Al) and contact filtration (CF) using Fe coagulant with alkaline filter layers (CF-Fe). The operational data are retrieved from full-scale DWTPs. The results show that the carbon footprint from operations is five times larger for the DF-Al compared to the CF-Fe. Operational costs covering chemicals and energy are almost 30% higher for the DF-Al. Simplified material intensity estimations for the construction phase show that the carbon footprint and investment cost increase with increasing process area, which are larger for the DF-Al. Therefore, to reduce environmental impacts and costs, the design of drinking water treatment processes should be carefully considered even for very similar processes. The results should motivate both water professionals and decision-makers to include a carbon footprint evaluation as a routine step in the DWTP selection and design phases. HIGHLIGHTS It is important to include carbon footprint estimation in the early process design phase.; Similar treatment processes can have huge differences in carbon footprints.; The carbon footprint and costs can be significantly reduced by the proper design of similar treatment processes.; When selecting water treatment chemicals, their carbon footprints should be considered.; carbon footprint coagulation-filtration drinking water treatment enhanced coagulation nom removal process design Environmental technology. Sanitary engineering Bjornar Eikebrokk verfasserin aut Riku Vahala verfasserin aut In Water Practice and Technology IWA Publishing, 2021 18(2023), 11, Seite 2653-2663 (DE-627)600307050 (DE-600)2495042-7 1751231X nnns volume:18 year:2023 number:11 pages:2653-2663 https://doi.org/10.2166/wpt.2023.189 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/9cd8a673a87342d79690f74b6c9585eb kostenfrei http://wpt.iwaponline.com/content/18/11/2653 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1751-231X Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_4046 AR 18 2023 11 2653-2663 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.2166/wpt.2023.189 doi (DE-627)DOAJ100654037 (DE-599)DOAJ9cd8a673a87342d79690f74b6c9585eb DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng TD1-1066 Paula Pellikainen verfasserin aut Importance of process design on carbon footprint from drinking water treatment by enhanced coagulation-filtration 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier There are several process design options for enhanced coagulation-filtration in drinking water treatment plants (DWTPs). This study compares the carbon footprint and economic impact of two common process designs based on enhanced coagulation-filtration with pH, Ca, and alkalinity adjustment for corrosion control. The process designs are direct filtration (DF) using Al coagulant with limewater (DF-Al) and contact filtration (CF) using Fe coagulant with alkaline filter layers (CF-Fe). The operational data are retrieved from full-scale DWTPs. The results show that the carbon footprint from operations is five times larger for the DF-Al compared to the CF-Fe. Operational costs covering chemicals and energy are almost 30% higher for the DF-Al. Simplified material intensity estimations for the construction phase show that the carbon footprint and investment cost increase with increasing process area, which are larger for the DF-Al. Therefore, to reduce environmental impacts and costs, the design of drinking water treatment processes should be carefully considered even for very similar processes. The results should motivate both water professionals and decision-makers to include a carbon footprint evaluation as a routine step in the DWTP selection and design phases. HIGHLIGHTS It is important to include carbon footprint estimation in the early process design phase.; Similar treatment processes can have huge differences in carbon footprints.; The carbon footprint and costs can be significantly reduced by the proper design of similar treatment processes.; When selecting water treatment chemicals, their carbon footprints should be considered.; carbon footprint coagulation-filtration drinking water treatment enhanced coagulation nom removal process design Environmental technology. Sanitary engineering Bjornar Eikebrokk verfasserin aut Riku Vahala verfasserin aut In Water Practice and Technology IWA Publishing, 2021 18(2023), 11, Seite 2653-2663 (DE-627)600307050 (DE-600)2495042-7 1751231X nnns volume:18 year:2023 number:11 pages:2653-2663 https://doi.org/10.2166/wpt.2023.189 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/9cd8a673a87342d79690f74b6c9585eb kostenfrei http://wpt.iwaponline.com/content/18/11/2653 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1751-231X Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_4046 AR 18 2023 11 2653-2663 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.2166/wpt.2023.189 doi (DE-627)DOAJ100654037 (DE-599)DOAJ9cd8a673a87342d79690f74b6c9585eb DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng TD1-1066 Paula Pellikainen verfasserin aut Importance of process design on carbon footprint from drinking water treatment by enhanced coagulation-filtration 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier There are several process design options for enhanced coagulation-filtration in drinking water treatment plants (DWTPs). This study compares the carbon footprint and economic impact of two common process designs based on enhanced coagulation-filtration with pH, Ca, and alkalinity adjustment for corrosion control. The process designs are direct filtration (DF) using Al coagulant with limewater (DF-Al) and contact filtration (CF) using Fe coagulant with alkaline filter layers (CF-Fe). The operational data are retrieved from full-scale DWTPs. The results show that the carbon footprint from operations is five times larger for the DF-Al compared to the CF-Fe. Operational costs covering chemicals and energy are almost 30% higher for the DF-Al. Simplified material intensity estimations for the construction phase show that the carbon footprint and investment cost increase with increasing process area, which are larger for the DF-Al. Therefore, to reduce environmental impacts and costs, the design of drinking water treatment processes should be carefully considered even for very similar processes. The results should motivate both water professionals and decision-makers to include a carbon footprint evaluation as a routine step in the DWTP selection and design phases. HIGHLIGHTS It is important to include carbon footprint estimation in the early process design phase.; Similar treatment processes can have huge differences in carbon footprints.; The carbon footprint and costs can be significantly reduced by the proper design of similar treatment processes.; When selecting water treatment chemicals, their carbon footprints should be considered.; carbon footprint coagulation-filtration drinking water treatment enhanced coagulation nom removal process design Environmental technology. Sanitary engineering Bjornar Eikebrokk verfasserin aut Riku Vahala verfasserin aut In Water Practice and Technology IWA Publishing, 2021 18(2023), 11, Seite 2653-2663 (DE-627)600307050 (DE-600)2495042-7 1751231X nnns volume:18 year:2023 number:11 pages:2653-2663 https://doi.org/10.2166/wpt.2023.189 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/9cd8a673a87342d79690f74b6c9585eb kostenfrei http://wpt.iwaponline.com/content/18/11/2653 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1751-231X Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_4046 AR 18 2023 11 2653-2663 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.2166/wpt.2023.189 doi (DE-627)DOAJ100654037 (DE-599)DOAJ9cd8a673a87342d79690f74b6c9585eb DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng TD1-1066 Paula Pellikainen verfasserin aut Importance of process design on carbon footprint from drinking water treatment by enhanced coagulation-filtration 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier There are several process design options for enhanced coagulation-filtration in drinking water treatment plants (DWTPs). This study compares the carbon footprint and economic impact of two common process designs based on enhanced coagulation-filtration with pH, Ca, and alkalinity adjustment for corrosion control. The process designs are direct filtration (DF) using Al coagulant with limewater (DF-Al) and contact filtration (CF) using Fe coagulant with alkaline filter layers (CF-Fe). The operational data are retrieved from full-scale DWTPs. The results show that the carbon footprint from operations is five times larger for the DF-Al compared to the CF-Fe. Operational costs covering chemicals and energy are almost 30% higher for the DF-Al. Simplified material intensity estimations for the construction phase show that the carbon footprint and investment cost increase with increasing process area, which are larger for the DF-Al. Therefore, to reduce environmental impacts and costs, the design of drinking water treatment processes should be carefully considered even for very similar processes. The results should motivate both water professionals and decision-makers to include a carbon footprint evaluation as a routine step in the DWTP selection and design phases. HIGHLIGHTS It is important to include carbon footprint estimation in the early process design phase.; Similar treatment processes can have huge differences in carbon footprints.; The carbon footprint and costs can be significantly reduced by the proper design of similar treatment processes.; When selecting water treatment chemicals, their carbon footprints should be considered.; carbon footprint coagulation-filtration drinking water treatment enhanced coagulation nom removal process design Environmental technology. Sanitary engineering Bjornar Eikebrokk verfasserin aut Riku Vahala verfasserin aut In Water Practice and Technology IWA Publishing, 2021 18(2023), 11, Seite 2653-2663 (DE-627)600307050 (DE-600)2495042-7 1751231X nnns volume:18 year:2023 number:11 pages:2653-2663 https://doi.org/10.2166/wpt.2023.189 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/9cd8a673a87342d79690f74b6c9585eb kostenfrei http://wpt.iwaponline.com/content/18/11/2653 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1751-231X Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_4046 AR 18 2023 11 2653-2663 |
| language |
English |
| source |
In Water Practice and Technology 18(2023), 11, Seite 2653-2663 volume:18 year:2023 number:11 pages:2653-2663 |
| sourceStr |
In Water Practice and Technology 18(2023), 11, Seite 2653-2663 volume:18 year:2023 number:11 pages:2653-2663 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
carbon footprint coagulation-filtration drinking water treatment enhanced coagulation nom removal process design Environmental technology. Sanitary engineering |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
true |
| container_title |
Water Practice and Technology |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Paula Pellikainen @@aut@@ Bjornar Eikebrokk @@aut@@ Riku Vahala @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2023-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
600307050 |
| id |
DOAJ100654037 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ100654037</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240414110446.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">240414s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.2166/wpt.2023.189</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ100654037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ9cd8a673a87342d79690f74b6c9585eb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">TD1-1066</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Paula Pellikainen</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Importance of process design on carbon footprint from drinking water treatment by enhanced coagulation-filtration</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">There are several process design options for enhanced coagulation-filtration in drinking water treatment plants (DWTPs). This study compares the carbon footprint and economic impact of two common process designs based on enhanced coagulation-filtration with pH, Ca, and alkalinity adjustment for corrosion control. The process designs are direct filtration (DF) using Al coagulant with limewater (DF-Al) and contact filtration (CF) using Fe coagulant with alkaline filter layers (CF-Fe). The operational data are retrieved from full-scale DWTPs. The results show that the carbon footprint from operations is five times larger for the DF-Al compared to the CF-Fe. Operational costs covering chemicals and energy are almost 30% higher for the DF-Al. Simplified material intensity estimations for the construction phase show that the carbon footprint and investment cost increase with increasing process area, which are larger for the DF-Al. Therefore, to reduce environmental impacts and costs, the design of drinking water treatment processes should be carefully considered even for very similar processes. The results should motivate both water professionals and decision-makers to include a carbon footprint evaluation as a routine step in the DWTP selection and design phases. HIGHLIGHTS It is important to include carbon footprint estimation in the early process design phase.; Similar treatment processes can have huge differences in carbon footprints.; The carbon footprint and costs can be significantly reduced by the proper design of similar treatment processes.; When selecting water treatment chemicals, their carbon footprints should be considered.;</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">carbon footprint</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">coagulation-filtration</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">drinking water treatment</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">enhanced coagulation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">nom removal</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">process design</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Environmental technology. Sanitary engineering</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bjornar Eikebrokk</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Riku Vahala</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Water Practice and Technology</subfield><subfield code="d">IWA Publishing, 2021</subfield><subfield code="g">18(2023), 11, Seite 2653-2663</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)600307050</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2495042-7</subfield><subfield code="x">1751231X</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:18</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2023</subfield><subfield code="g">number:11</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:2653-2663</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.2166/wpt.2023.189</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/9cd8a673a87342d79690f74b6c9585eb</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://wpt.iwaponline.com/content/18/11/2653</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1751-231X</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4046</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">18</subfield><subfield code="j">2023</subfield><subfield code="e">11</subfield><subfield code="h">2653-2663</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| callnumber-first |
T - Technology |
| author |
Paula Pellikainen |
| spellingShingle |
Paula Pellikainen misc TD1-1066 misc carbon footprint misc coagulation-filtration misc drinking water treatment misc enhanced coagulation misc nom removal misc process design misc Environmental technology. Sanitary engineering Importance of process design on carbon footprint from drinking water treatment by enhanced coagulation-filtration |
| authorStr |
Paula Pellikainen |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)600307050 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut |
| collection |
DOAJ |
| remote_str |
true |
| callnumber-label |
TD1-1066 |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
1751231X |
| topic_title |
TD1-1066 Importance of process design on carbon footprint from drinking water treatment by enhanced coagulation-filtration carbon footprint coagulation-filtration drinking water treatment enhanced coagulation nom removal process design |
| topic |
misc TD1-1066 misc carbon footprint misc coagulation-filtration misc drinking water treatment misc enhanced coagulation misc nom removal misc process design misc Environmental technology. Sanitary engineering |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc TD1-1066 misc carbon footprint misc coagulation-filtration misc drinking water treatment misc enhanced coagulation misc nom removal misc process design misc Environmental technology. Sanitary engineering |
| topic_browse |
misc TD1-1066 misc carbon footprint misc coagulation-filtration misc drinking water treatment misc enhanced coagulation misc nom removal misc process design misc Environmental technology. Sanitary engineering |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Water Practice and Technology |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
600307050 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Water Practice and Technology |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
true |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)600307050 (DE-600)2495042-7 |
| title |
Importance of process design on carbon footprint from drinking water treatment by enhanced coagulation-filtration |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)DOAJ100654037 (DE-599)DOAJ9cd8a673a87342d79690f74b6c9585eb |
| title_full |
Importance of process design on carbon footprint from drinking water treatment by enhanced coagulation-filtration |
| author_sort |
Paula Pellikainen |
| journal |
Water Practice and Technology |
| journalStr |
Water Practice and Technology |
| callnumber-first-code |
T |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
true |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2023 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
2653 |
| author_browse |
Paula Pellikainen Bjornar Eikebrokk Riku Vahala |
| container_volume |
18 |
| class |
TD1-1066 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Paula Pellikainen |
| doi_str_mv |
10.2166/wpt.2023.189 |
| author2-role |
verfasserin |
| title_sort |
importance of process design on carbon footprint from drinking water treatment by enhanced coagulation-filtration |
| callnumber |
TD1-1066 |
| title_auth |
Importance of process design on carbon footprint from drinking water treatment by enhanced coagulation-filtration |
| abstract |
There are several process design options for enhanced coagulation-filtration in drinking water treatment plants (DWTPs). This study compares the carbon footprint and economic impact of two common process designs based on enhanced coagulation-filtration with pH, Ca, and alkalinity adjustment for corrosion control. The process designs are direct filtration (DF) using Al coagulant with limewater (DF-Al) and contact filtration (CF) using Fe coagulant with alkaline filter layers (CF-Fe). The operational data are retrieved from full-scale DWTPs. The results show that the carbon footprint from operations is five times larger for the DF-Al compared to the CF-Fe. Operational costs covering chemicals and energy are almost 30% higher for the DF-Al. Simplified material intensity estimations for the construction phase show that the carbon footprint and investment cost increase with increasing process area, which are larger for the DF-Al. Therefore, to reduce environmental impacts and costs, the design of drinking water treatment processes should be carefully considered even for very similar processes. The results should motivate both water professionals and decision-makers to include a carbon footprint evaluation as a routine step in the DWTP selection and design phases. HIGHLIGHTS It is important to include carbon footprint estimation in the early process design phase.; Similar treatment processes can have huge differences in carbon footprints.; The carbon footprint and costs can be significantly reduced by the proper design of similar treatment processes.; When selecting water treatment chemicals, their carbon footprints should be considered.; |
| abstractGer |
There are several process design options for enhanced coagulation-filtration in drinking water treatment plants (DWTPs). This study compares the carbon footprint and economic impact of two common process designs based on enhanced coagulation-filtration with pH, Ca, and alkalinity adjustment for corrosion control. The process designs are direct filtration (DF) using Al coagulant with limewater (DF-Al) and contact filtration (CF) using Fe coagulant with alkaline filter layers (CF-Fe). The operational data are retrieved from full-scale DWTPs. The results show that the carbon footprint from operations is five times larger for the DF-Al compared to the CF-Fe. Operational costs covering chemicals and energy are almost 30% higher for the DF-Al. Simplified material intensity estimations for the construction phase show that the carbon footprint and investment cost increase with increasing process area, which are larger for the DF-Al. Therefore, to reduce environmental impacts and costs, the design of drinking water treatment processes should be carefully considered even for very similar processes. The results should motivate both water professionals and decision-makers to include a carbon footprint evaluation as a routine step in the DWTP selection and design phases. HIGHLIGHTS It is important to include carbon footprint estimation in the early process design phase.; Similar treatment processes can have huge differences in carbon footprints.; The carbon footprint and costs can be significantly reduced by the proper design of similar treatment processes.; When selecting water treatment chemicals, their carbon footprints should be considered.; |
| abstract_unstemmed |
There are several process design options for enhanced coagulation-filtration in drinking water treatment plants (DWTPs). This study compares the carbon footprint and economic impact of two common process designs based on enhanced coagulation-filtration with pH, Ca, and alkalinity adjustment for corrosion control. The process designs are direct filtration (DF) using Al coagulant with limewater (DF-Al) and contact filtration (CF) using Fe coagulant with alkaline filter layers (CF-Fe). The operational data are retrieved from full-scale DWTPs. The results show that the carbon footprint from operations is five times larger for the DF-Al compared to the CF-Fe. Operational costs covering chemicals and energy are almost 30% higher for the DF-Al. Simplified material intensity estimations for the construction phase show that the carbon footprint and investment cost increase with increasing process area, which are larger for the DF-Al. Therefore, to reduce environmental impacts and costs, the design of drinking water treatment processes should be carefully considered even for very similar processes. The results should motivate both water professionals and decision-makers to include a carbon footprint evaluation as a routine step in the DWTP selection and design phases. HIGHLIGHTS It is important to include carbon footprint estimation in the early process design phase.; Similar treatment processes can have huge differences in carbon footprints.; The carbon footprint and costs can be significantly reduced by the proper design of similar treatment processes.; When selecting water treatment chemicals, their carbon footprints should be considered.; |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_4046 |
| container_issue |
11 |
| title_short |
Importance of process design on carbon footprint from drinking water treatment by enhanced coagulation-filtration |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.2166/wpt.2023.189 https://doaj.org/article/9cd8a673a87342d79690f74b6c9585eb http://wpt.iwaponline.com/content/18/11/2653 https://doaj.org/toc/1751-231X |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Bjornar Eikebrokk Riku Vahala |
| author2Str |
Bjornar Eikebrokk Riku Vahala |
| ppnlink |
600307050 |
| callnumber-subject |
TD - Environmental Technology |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
true |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.2166/wpt.2023.189 |
| callnumber-a |
TD1-1066 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T15:55:00.439Z |
| _version_ |
1803573893993070592 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ100654037</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240414110446.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">240414s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.2166/wpt.2023.189</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ100654037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ9cd8a673a87342d79690f74b6c9585eb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">TD1-1066</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Paula Pellikainen</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Importance of process design on carbon footprint from drinking water treatment by enhanced coagulation-filtration</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">There are several process design options for enhanced coagulation-filtration in drinking water treatment plants (DWTPs). This study compares the carbon footprint and economic impact of two common process designs based on enhanced coagulation-filtration with pH, Ca, and alkalinity adjustment for corrosion control. The process designs are direct filtration (DF) using Al coagulant with limewater (DF-Al) and contact filtration (CF) using Fe coagulant with alkaline filter layers (CF-Fe). The operational data are retrieved from full-scale DWTPs. The results show that the carbon footprint from operations is five times larger for the DF-Al compared to the CF-Fe. Operational costs covering chemicals and energy are almost 30% higher for the DF-Al. Simplified material intensity estimations for the construction phase show that the carbon footprint and investment cost increase with increasing process area, which are larger for the DF-Al. Therefore, to reduce environmental impacts and costs, the design of drinking water treatment processes should be carefully considered even for very similar processes. The results should motivate both water professionals and decision-makers to include a carbon footprint evaluation as a routine step in the DWTP selection and design phases. HIGHLIGHTS It is important to include carbon footprint estimation in the early process design phase.; Similar treatment processes can have huge differences in carbon footprints.; The carbon footprint and costs can be significantly reduced by the proper design of similar treatment processes.; When selecting water treatment chemicals, their carbon footprints should be considered.;</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">carbon footprint</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">coagulation-filtration</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">drinking water treatment</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">enhanced coagulation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">nom removal</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">process design</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Environmental technology. Sanitary engineering</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bjornar Eikebrokk</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Riku Vahala</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Water Practice and Technology</subfield><subfield code="d">IWA Publishing, 2021</subfield><subfield code="g">18(2023), 11, Seite 2653-2663</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)600307050</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2495042-7</subfield><subfield code="x">1751231X</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:18</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2023</subfield><subfield code="g">number:11</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:2653-2663</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.2166/wpt.2023.189</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/9cd8a673a87342d79690f74b6c9585eb</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://wpt.iwaponline.com/content/18/11/2653</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1751-231X</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4046</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">18</subfield><subfield code="j">2023</subfield><subfield code="e">11</subfield><subfield code="h">2653-2663</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.4020844 |