Coupled anaerobic–aerobic treatment of whey wastewater in a sequencing batch reactor: proof of concept
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A proof of concept was performed in order to verify if the coupling of anaerobic and aerobic conditions inside the same digester could efficiently treat a reconstituted whey wastewater at 21 degrees C. The sequencing batch reactor (SBR) cycles combined initial anaerobic phase and final aerobic phase with reduced aeration. A series of 24 h cycles in 0.5 L digesters, with four different levels of oxygenation (none, 54, 108 and 182 mgO2 per gram of chemical oxygen demand (COD)), showed residual soluble chemical oxygen demand (sCOD) of 683 +/- 46, 720 +/- 33, 581 +/- 45, 1239 +/- 15 mg L(-1), respectively. Acetate and hydrogen specific activities were maintained for the anaerobic digester, but decreased by 10-25% for the acetate and by 20-50% for the hydrogen, in the coupled digesters. The experiment was repeated using 48 h cycles with limited aeration during 6 or 16 hours at 54 and 108 mgO2gCODinitial(-1), displaying residual sCOD of 177 +/- 43, 137 +/- 38, 104 +/- 22 and 112 +/- 9 mgL(-1) for the anaerobic and the coupled digesters, respectively. The coupled digesters recovered after a pH shock with residual sCOD as low as 132 mg L(-1) compared to 636 mg L(-1) for the anaerobic digester. With regard to the obtained results, the feasibility of the anaerobic-aerobic coupling in SBR digesters for the treatment of whey wastewater was demonstrated.
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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".