Modelling hydrolysis: Simultaneous versus sequential biodegradation of the hydrolysable fractions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydrolysis is considered the limiting step during solid waste anaerobic digestion (including co-digestion of sludge and biosolids). Mechanisms of hydrolysis are mechanistically not well understood with detrimental impact on model predictive capability. The common approach to multiple substrates is to consider simultaneous degradation of the substrates. This may not have the capacity to separate the different kinetics. Sequential degradation of substrates is theoretically supported by microbial capacity and the composite nature of substrates (bioaccessibility concept). However, this has not been experimentally assessed. Sequential chemical fractionation has been successfully used to define inputs for an anaerobic digestion model. In this paper, sequential extractions of organic substrates were evaluated in order to compare both models. By removing each fraction (from the most accessible to the least accessible fraction) from three different substrates, anaerobic incubation tests showed that for physically structured substrates, such as activated sludge and wheat straw, sequential approach could better describe experimental results, while this was less important for homogeneous materials such as pulped fruit. Following this, anaerobic incubation tests were performed on five substrates. Cumulative methane production was modelled by the simultaneous and sequential approaches. Results showed that the sequential model could fit the experimental data for all the substrates whereas simultaneous model did not work for some substrates. © 2019
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".