MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170255595 · doi:10.1109/eicccc.2006.277210

How Microsludge Can Lower Greenhouse Gases at Wastewater Treatment Plants

2006· article· en· W2170255595 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Rob Stephenson, Kristen Price, Preston Hoy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSustainable Development Technology Canada
KeywordsBiogasAnaerobic digestionGreenhouse gasWaste managementEnvironmental scienceSewage treatmentBiosolidsRenewable energyIncinerationBioenergySewage sludgeSewage sludge treatmentMunicipal solid wasteRenewable natural gasEnvironmental engineeringBiofuelMethaneEngineeringFuel gasChemistryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Municipal biological wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) generate greenhouse gases (GHGs) in three main ways: (1) by consuming large amounts of energy from electrical and natural gas utilities to operate the plant, (2) by inherently generating CO2that is lost to the atmosphere, and (3) by generating excess microorganisms that must be disposed of. Effective conversion of these microorganisms or "waste activated sludge" (WAS) to biogas in an anaerobic digester and converting this biogas to energy are the two most important steps that a WWTP can take to minimize its direct and indirect generation of GHGs. Maximizing biogas production can decrease a WWTP's reliance on non-renewable energy sources that generate GHGs as well as decrease the costs of purchased energy. Sludge that is not converted to biogas will lead to GHG emissions to the atmosphere. Therefore, minimizing the amount of residual sludge that must be hauled off site to be either landfilled, applied to agricultural land, or incinerated also minimizes GHG emissions. Conventional mesophilic (37degC) anaerobic digesters (CMADs) at municipal WWTPs are not efficient at converting WAS to biogas, achieving 15 to 30% volatile solids reduction of WAS in typical 15 day treatment times. They capture only a small fraction (15 to 30%) of their biogas potential, resulting in a large portion (70 to 85%) of biosolids that still require disposal. Pre-treatment of WAS is needed to improve the performance of anaerobic digestion. MicroSludge is a sludge pre-treatment technology that greatly improves the efficiency of anaerobic digestion of WAS. MicroSludge results in: (1) more recoverable energy from biogas being available and therefore less non-renewable energy required to operate a WWTP; (2) less residual solids requiring transport either to a landfill, land application site, or incinerator; and (3) fewer GHGs being generated from the fugitive emissions of less residuals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.168 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAnaerobic Digestion and Biogas ProductionFrench-language works237,207