Polyhydroxybutyrate Production from Municipal Wastewater Activated Sludge with Different Carbon Sources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, a sequencing batch reactor was set up and operated for over three months to cultivate polyphosphate-accumulating organisms polyphosphate-accumulating organisms (PAOs) in the enriched activated sludge. Batch studies were then carried out to study the effect of different carbon sources on phosphorus removal as well as polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) production. The carbon sources investigated were acetate, glucose, wastewater, and beef extract. It was found that enhanced biological phosphorus removal could not be achieved using glucose as substrate. This suggested that glucose was not a good candidate for biological phosphorus removal. In terms of PHB production, using acetate and glucose as substrate resulted in PHB production of 42% and 40%, respectively, of the dry cell weight (DCW). Lower PHB production was obtained from using municipal wastewater and beef extract as a carbon source. This resulted in ∼15% and 13% of DCW. It was concluded that municipal wastewater activated sludge can be an economic alternative for PHB production if municipal wastewater is mixed with certain kinds of carbon-enriched industrial wastewater.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".