Methane production from anaerobic co‐digestion of maize and cow dung
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anaerobic digestion (AD) treatment of agricultural and animal waste can be considered as a means of enabling environmental remediation. This research investigated two conditions of anaerobic co‐digestion of maize waste and cow dung. This was done by placing a mixture of cow dung and maize waste together in a floating drum digester that was run at two different cow dung/maize ratios of 10:1 and 10:5. Batch conditions were on a bench‐scale of AD, 5 L in volume, developed to operate under mesophilic (36 ± 1 ° C). Results showed that biogas and methane yields from mesophilic digestion at the ratio of 10:1 were lower than yields obtained at ratio tested in the second run (10:5). Biogas yields were 250 and 480 L/kg VS for first and second runs, respectively. In the case of methane, these amounts were presented at 130 and 300 L/kg VS. Furthermore, the average methane content of biogas was calculated as 51 and 62%, in first and second runs respectively. The total biogas production of the reactor increased by 92% when substrates were fed in second condition ratio compared to biogas production during the first condition ratio. In continue the effect of adding maize waste on biogas yield from cow dung was evaluated in batch digesters under mesophilic conditions. The addition of maize waste to cow dung presents a viable method to improve biogas yield, as well as a means to use maize waste. © 2013 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Environ Prog, 33: 597–601, 2014
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".