Anaerobic digestion and gasification coupling for wastewater sludge treatment and recovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sewage sludge management is an energy intensive process. Anaerobic digestion contributes to energy efficiency improvement but is limited by the biological process. A review has been conducted prior to experimentation in order to evaluate the mass and energy balances on anaerobic digestion followed by gasification of digested sludge. The purpose was to improve energy recovery and reuse. Calculations were based on design parameters and tests that are conducted with the anaerobic digester of a local wastewater treatment plant and a small commercial gasification system. Results showed a very significant potential of energy recovery. More than 90% of the energy content from sludge was extracted. Also, approximately the same amount of energy would be transferred in both directions between the digester (biogas) and the gasifier (thermal energy). This extraction resulted in the same use of biogas as the reference scenario but final product was a totally dry biochar, which represented a fraction of the initial mass. Phosphorus was concentrated and significantly preserved. This analysis suggests that anaerobic digestion followed by dehydration, drying and gasification could be a promising and viable option for energy and nutrient recovery from municipal sludge in replacement of conventional paths.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".