Impact of aeration conduit diameter on production of landfill gas in a semi-aerobic landfill
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Semi-aerobic landfilling is becoming the main technology to solve the solid waste pollution problem in some medium and small cities in China because of land resource limitation and the large amount of garbage. In this technology,the amount of air which enters the landfill site has great impact on the generation and composition of landfill gas (LFG). We set up pilot plants to simulate semi-aerobic landfill technology at the Zhuozhou municipal solid waste landfill site. Three different diameters of aeration conduits,DN100,DN150 and DN200(100mm,150mm and 200mm) were connected to the leachate drainage pipe. The concentration of gases in the LFG was monitored for 10 weeks continuously. The results show that the concentration and the tendency of O2 in LFG coming from the plant with the DN100 aeration conduit are much higher than that from the other two plants. The greenhouse gases CH4 and CO2 have been controlled more effectively in this plant. Through aerothermodynamics calculations,we can see the amount of gas coming from the aeration conduits DN100,DN150 and DN200 are in the proportion 2:3:4. Since the amount of gas entering the drainage pipe is of the same level,more air is transported into the landfill from the DN100 aeration conduit than in the other two situations.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it