Modeling the Effect of Sonication on the Anaerobic Digestion of Biosolids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ultrasound treatment of wastewater sludge prior to anaerobic digestion disrupts the flocs and causes lysis of the bacterial cells, releasing both inter- and intracellular materials. Primary and waste-activated sludge (WAS) were treated with different ultrasonic intensities, varying sonication time and amplitude at a constant frequency. Results showed that the gas production, volatile fatty acids, ratio of soluble chemical oxygen demand to total chemical oxygen demand, and soluble protein increased, while the particulate protein and particle size of the sludge decreased, with sonication time. An empirical model was developed to determine the economic viability of ultrasound based on electrical energy input and energy obtained from enhanced methane production. It has been found that ultrasonic pretreatment is only economically viable for primary sludge at low sonication doses. The Anaerobic Digestion Model No. 1 (ADM1) was applied to the batch anaerobic digestion for sonicated and non-sonicated sludge. In almost all cases, the model successfully simulated the experimental trends.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".