Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This research study focused on the biotreatability of waste beer in an anaerobic environment. A comparison of two bioreactors, ASBR (anaerobic sequencing batch reactor) and UASB (upflow anaerobic sludge blanket) reactors, was performed. The experiments were carried out in the two reactors under identical conditions at room temperature and 35° C under organic loading rates (OLRs) from 2 to 20 kg chemical oxygen demand (COD) m −3 day −1 . The results show that the performance in the ASBR was better than that in the UASB reactor without a recirculation system at the two temperatures under all organic loading levels. In the ASBR, soluble COD reductions of 95 to 57% and 93 to 70% were obtained as the OLR increased from 2 to 20 kg COD m −3 day −1 at room temperature and 35° C, respectively. In the UASB reactor without a recirculation system, the soluble COD reduction was 78 to 49% and 80 to 65% under the same increase in OLR as the ASBR at room temperature and 35° C, respectively. Methane production was measured in the ASBR at both temperatures. Results for methane production were close to the expected yields of 0.39 m 3 /kg COD removed for an OLR of 2 to 6 kg COD m −3 day −1 , and lower than the expected values for an OLR of 8 to 20 kg COD m −3 day −1 . Therefore, anaerobic treatment of beer is sustainable by both reactors if the organic load is limited to 6 kg COD m −3 day −1 . 2004 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Environ Prog, 2004
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".