A pilot study of anaerobic membrane digesters for concurrent thickening and digestion of waste activated sludge (WAS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increased interest in biomass energy provides incentive for the development of efficient and high throughput digesters such as anaerobic membrane bioreactors (AnMBRs) to stabilize waste activated sludge (WAS). This paper presents the results of a pilot and short term filtration study that was conducted to assess the performance of AnMBRs when treating WAS at a 15 day hydraulic retention time (HRT) and 30 day sludge retention time (SRT) in comparison to two conventional digesters running at 15 (BSR-15) and 30 days (BSR-30) HRT/SRT. At steady state, the AnMBR digester showed a slightly higher volatile solids (VS) destruction of 48% in comparison to 44% and 35.3% for BSR-30 and BSR-15, respectively. The corresponding values of specific methane production were 0.32, 0.28 and 0.21 m(3) CH(4)/kg of VS fed. Stable membrane operation at an average flux of 40+/-3.6 LM(-2 )H(-1) (LMH) was observed when the digester was fed with a polymer-dosed thickened waste activated sludge (TWAS) and digester total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations were less than 15 gL(-1). Above this solids concentration a flux decline to 24.1+/-2.0 LM(-2) H(-1) was observed. Short term filtration tests conducted using sludge fractions of a 9.7 and 17.1 gL(-1) TSS sludge indicated 84 and 70% decline in filtration performance to be associated with the supernatant fraction of the sludge. At a higher sludge concentration, the introduction of unique fouling control strategy to tubular membranes, a relaxed mode of operation (i.e. 5 minutes permeation and 1 minute relaxation by) significantly increased the flux from 23.8+/-1.1 to 37.8+/-2.3 LMH for a neutral membrane and from 25.7+/-1.1 to 44.9+/-2.9 LMH for a negatively charged membrane. The study clearly indicates that it is technically feasible to employ AnMBRs to achieve a substantial reduction in digester volumes.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".