Comparison between biodegradable polymers from cassava starch and glycerol as additives to biogas production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we compared cassava starch-based biodegradable polymers (PBMs) and glycerol (G) as additives used to increase biogas production from the co-digestion of swine wastewater (ARS). We chose to work with an inoculum comprising 40% (v/v) of the total volume of the reactor; this inoculum was obtained from a Canadian model digester for treating swine waste. In the anaerobic digestion process, batch reactors were used on a laboratory scale with a total volume of approximately 4 L and a working volume of 3.2 L. Three treatments were conducted to compare the efficiency of solid removal, the chemical oxygen demand (COD), and the production of biogas. The first treatment contained only swine waste; the second included the addition of glycerol at 1, 3, and 5% (w/v); and the third treatment included the addition of 1, 3, and 5% (w/v) of PBM residue in relation to the swine wastewater. From the results, it can be concluded that higher yields were obtained for the treatment with 3% PBM and 1% glycerol. Most treatments showed high removal rates of total solids and total volatile solids. Reductions lower than 70% were obtained only for treatments with PBM and glycerol at a ratio of 5%.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".