Impact of landfill leachate on anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge
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
The feasibility of mesophilic anaerobic co-digestion of landfill leachate and sewage sludge was examined in a bench-scale experiment. Three complete-mix, flow-through digesters were operated in a semi-continuous mode. During both phases of research all digesters received 500 ml d(-1) of raw sludge and Reactor 1 was always the control reactor--fed sludge only. During Phase 1, leachate volumes less than 12% of the sludge volume were fed to Reactors 2 and 3. During Phase 2 larger amounts of leachate were added, exceeding 20% of sludge volume which led to an overall decrease in the hydraulic residence time of the digesters. All reactors achieved stable operation, which indicated that the co-digestion of sewage sludge and landfill leachate is feasible During Phase 1, an increase in the average daily methane production from 2.5 l d(-1) to 3.1 l d(-1) and 3.2 l d(-1) was observed; the biomethanation production (BMP) increased from 0.46 to 0.6 m3 - 0.7 m3 CH4 (kg VS rem.)(-1). The average volatile solids reduction (VSR) increased from 46.1% to 48.6% and 49.0%. In Phase 2, the total methane production in the control reactor was significantly higher, at 4.6 l d(-1), while the addition of larger, by volume, amounts of leachate, decreased the methane production to 4.3 l d(-1) and 4.2 l d(-1), respectively. The average BMP values were 0.8, 0.87, and 0.81 m3 CH4 (kg VS rem.)(-1), respectively. In Phase 2, leachate addition decreased the average VSR from 51% to 49% and 45.6%. After calculating that leachate addition to digesters would not increase heavy metal concentrations in the produced biosolids it was concluded that mesophilic anaerobic co-digestion of sewage sludge and landfill leachate is feasible, and provides a promising alternative to aerobic co-treatment.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it