MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199109630 · doi:10.3390/catal11091094

Addition of Different Biochars as Catalysts during the Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion of Mixed Wastewater Sludge

2021· article· en· W3199109630 on OpenAlexaff
Marco Chiappero, Francesca Cillerai, Franco Berruti, Ondřej Mašek, Silvia Fiore

Bibliographic record

VenueCatalysts · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMesophileAnaerobic digestionPulp and paper industryMethaneChemistryWastewaterVolume (thermodynamics)BiogasEnvironmental scienceWaste managementEnvironmental engineeringBiologyBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biochar (BC) recently gained attention as an additive for anaerobic digestion (AD). This work aims at a critical analysis of the effect of six BCs, with different physical and chemical properties, on the AD of mixed wastewater sludge at 37 °C, comparing their influence on methane production and AD kinetics. AD batch tests were performed at the laboratory scale operating 48 reactors (0.25 L working volume) for 28 days with the addition of 10 g L−1 of BC. Most reactors supplemented with BCs exhibited higher (up to 22%) methane yields than the control reactors (0.15 Nm3 kgVS−1). The modified Gompertz model provided maximum methane production rate values, and in all reactors the lag-phase was equal to zero days, indicating a good adaptation of the inoculum to the substrate. The potential correlations between BCs’ properties and AD performance were assessed using principal component analysis (PCA). The PCA results showed a reasonable correlation between methane production and the BCs’ O–C and H–C molar ratios, and volatile matter, and between biogas production and BCs’ pore volume, specific surface area, and fixed and total carbon. In conclusion, the physic-chemical properties of BC (specifically, hydrophobicity and morphology) showed a key role in improving the AD of mixed wastewater sludge.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.544

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCatalystsSame topicAnaerobic Digestion and Biogas ProductionFrench-language works237,207