Solid-State Anaerobic Digestion of Mixed Organic Waste: The Synergistic Effect of Food Waste Addition on the Destruction of Paper and Cardboard
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Full-scale anaerobic digestion processes for organic solid waste are common in Europe but are generally unaffordable in Canada and the United States because of inadequate regulations to restrict cheaper forms of disposal, particularly landfill. We investigated the viability of solid-state anaerobic digestion (SS-AD) as an alternative that reduces the costs of waste pretreatment and subsequent wastewater treatment. A laboratory SS-AD digester, comprising six 10 L leach beds and an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor treating the leachate, was operated continuously for 88 weeks, with a mass balance based on chemical oxygen demand (COD) of 100 ± 2% (CODout/CODin). The feed was a mixture of fibers (cardboard, boxboard, newsprint, and fine paper) with varying amounts of food waste added. The process remained stable throughout. The addition of food waste caused a synergistic effect, raising methane production from the fiber mixture from a low of 52.7 L kg–1 COD fibersadded at no food waste, to 152 L kg–1 COD fibersadded at 29% food waste, an increase of 190%. Substrate COD destruction efficiency reached 65%, and the methane yield reached 225 L kg–1 CODadded at 29% food waste on a COD basis, with a solids retention time of 42 days. This performance was similar to that of a completely stirred tank reactor digesting similar wastes, but with much lower energy input. Multiple factors likely contributed to the enhanced fiber destruction, including the action of hydrolytic enzymes derived from fresh food waste and continuous leachate recirculation between leach beds of different ages.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".