Anaerobic digestion for the stabilization of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste: A review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anaerobic digestion (AD) of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) has gained great interest in the last few decades. Presently, among the various municipal solid waste management (MSWM) techniques, such as sanitary land-filling, aerobic or anaerobic composting, and thermal incineration, AD is being considered as the most techno-economically viable method owing to its many advantages. AD not only serves to efficiently manage and treat an enormous quantity of OFMSW but also acts as a convenient source of non-conventional energy. The methane generated via AD of OFMSW serves as a potent substitute for fossil-based fuels. Given the current global energy crisis, this technology may be a welcome boost to the global energy demand. In this review an attempt has been made to provide a comprehensive understanding of: (i) the origin and scope of AD of OFMSW; (ii) the potential of AD for OFMSW stabilization; (iii) various pilot and bench-scale studies conducted hitherto; (iv) the process design aspects of AD of OFMSW; (v) the potential of energy recovery from AD of OFMSW; and (vi) the past experiences of AD of OFMSW. This review also delves into the critical issues that govern the process of AD in stabilizing OFMSW. In addition, the compatibility of AD for MSWM in the Indian scenario compared to other classical methodologies, such as landfilling, composting, thermal incineration, and pyrolysis or gasification, is highlighted. An overview of the overall future prospect of AD of OFMSW is discussed.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".