Feasibility of OFMSW co-digestion with sewage sludge for increasing biogas production at wastewater treatment plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sweden has the ambition to increase its annual biogas production from the current level of 1.9 to 15 TWh by 2030. The unused capacity of existing anaerobic digesters at wastewater treatment plants is among the options to accomplish this goal. This study investigated the feasibility of utilizing the organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) as a co-substrate, with primary and waste-activated sewage sludge (PWASS) for production of biogas, corresponding to 3:1 ratio on volatile solid (VS) basis. The results demonstrated that co-digestion of OFMSW with PWASS at an organic loading rate of 5 gVS l−1 day−1 has the potential to increase the biogas production approximately four times. The daily biogas production increased from 1.0 ± 0.1 to 3.8 ± 0.3 l biogas l−1 day−1, corresponding to a specific methane production of 420 ± 30 Nml methane gVS−1 during the laboratory experiment. Co-digestion of OFMSW with PWASS showed a 50:50 distribution of hydrogenotrophic and aceticlastic methanogens in the digester and enhanced the turnover kinetics of intermediate products (acetate, propionate, and oleate). Practical limitations potentially include the need for sludge dewatering to maintain a sufficient hydraulic retention time (17 days in this study), as well as additional energy consumption for mixing due to an increased sludge apparent viscosity (from 1.8 ± 0.1 to 45 ± 4.8 mPa*s in this study) at elevated OFMSW-loading rates.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".