Anaerobic pond treatment of wastewater containing sulphate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anaerobic ponds are usually used for treatment of industrial and agricultural wastes which contain high organic matter and sulphate. Competition for substrate between sulphate reducing bacteria and methane producing archaea, and the inhibitory effects of sulphide produced from microbial sulphate reduction reported in the literature varied considerably. In this research, a laboratory scale column-in-series anaerobic pond reactor, consisting of five cylindrical columns of acrylic tubes, was operated to evaluate the effect of COD and sulphate ratio on pond performance treating wastewater containing high organic matter and sulphate from a tapioca starch industry. The result depicted that no adverse effect of COD:SO4 ratios between 5 and 20 on overall COD removal performance of anaerobic pond operated with organic loading rate (OLR) of 150 to 600 g COD/m3d. Sulphate reducing bacteria could out-compete methane producing archaea for the same substrate at COD:SO4 ratio equal to or lower than 5 and OLR greater than 300 g COD/m3d. Sulphide inhibition was not observed on overall performance of pond up to an influent sulphate concentration of 650 mg/L.
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) | 0.001 | 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".