Pre-Treatment of Wastewater Sludge – Biodegradability and Rheology Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the changes in biodegradability, rheology and metal concentration of wastewater sludge--non-hydrolyzed (raw), sterilized, and hydrolyzed (thermal alkaline pre-treatment) at total solids concentration from 10-50 g l(-1) to ascertain the bioavailability of nutrients for subsequent fermentation. The dissolved solids concentration increased linearly with total solids. Irrespective of the wastewater sludge (raw or, pre-treated), percentage biodegradability in terms of total solids (26.5-44.5%), total COD (25.8-56.5%) and dissolved solids (41.9-66.9%) was maximum around 20 g l(-1) solids concentration. The pseudoplasticity of sludge decreased (consistency index decreased from 895.1 to 5.2 and flow behaviour index increased from 0.28 to 0.88, for all sludge types) with pre-treatment and increased with total solids concentration. The pre-treated sludge, namely, sterilized and hydrolyzed sludge showed higher microbial growth (1-2 log cycles increase in comparison to raw sludge) suggesting their susceptibility to microbial degradation. The C:N ratio decreased with pre-treatment (raw sludge > sterilized > hydrolyzed) during biodegradation. Although the metal concentration increased in incubated hydrolyzed sludge, the final concentration was within the regulatory norms for agriculture application. Thus, pretreatment of sludge resulted in increase in biodegradability making it an excellent proponent for fermented value-added products.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".