Anaerobic treatment of concentrated latex processing wastewater in two-stage upflow anaerobic sludge blanketA paper submitted to the Journal of Environmental Engineering and Science.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to investigate treatment performance of the two-stage upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) applied to concentrated latex processing wastewater in Thailand. First, optimal conditions including the hydraulic retention time (HRT) in the acid tank and the UASB tank, pH, and temperature (mesophilic and thermophilic) were determined. It was found that the HRT at 24 h and 48 h were the optimal HRT for the acid tank and the UASB tank, respectively. The pH of the system should be controlled at 7 to prevent rubber coagulation and to achieve high treatment performance, and the mesophilic condition (35°C) was found to be the optimal temperature. Second, the two-stage UASB was applied with the optimal conditions mentioned earlier with real wastewater at a latex mill. It was found that methane production was about 0.116 L CH 4 /g COD removed (16.3–22.8 m 3 CH 4 /d), and average chemical oxygen demand (COD) and suspended solids (SS) removal efficiency were about 82% and 92%, respectively. In case of SS removal, the results revealed that the two-stage UASB was capable of overcoming the limitations of the single-stage UASB in treating concentrated latex effluent. The results indicated that application of the two-stage UASB to concentrated latex processing wastewater is feasible. Nevertheless, combination with other treatment systems (e.g., oxidation pond, aerated lagoon) is necessary to meet Thailand's industrial effluent standards (in the case of COD).
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".