MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4207080389 · doi:10.32920/16860340.v1

Anaerobic Co-Digestion Of Multiple Feedstocks For Biomethane Recover- The Impact Of Lipids:Proteins:Carbohydrates Ratio

2021· preprint· en· W4207080389 on OpenAlexaff
Anahita Rabii

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnaerobic digestionBiogasDigestion (alchemy)Biomass (ecology)BiofuelChemistryPulp and paper industryManureFood wasteBioenergyEnvironmental scienceWaste managementAgronomyMethaneChromatographyBiologyOrganic chemistryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Municipalities are facing increasing challenges regarding management and disposal of solid waste. Anaerobic digestion (AD) of municipal biowaste enables waste reduction and biogas production that can be utilized as a renewable source of energy for heat and power generation. Anaerobic co-digestion (AnCoD) enhances the performance of conventional mono-digestion. The mixing ratio of the feedstocks is an important criterion in AnCoD design which is typically determined based on the optimum carbon to nitrogen (C:N) ratio within the range of 25-30 or COD:N ratio in the range of 50-140. However, literature has shown contradictory results for the optimum C:N and COD:N ratios. Therefore, the main objective of this study was to primarily investigate the influence of the mixing ratio of the feedstocks including thickened waste activated sludge (TWAS), manure and source separated organics (SSO) on improving biomethane production and introducing a new methodology for optimizing the mixing ratio in AnCoD based on the lipids, proteins, and carbohydrates contents as the three main compounds existing in biowaste. The hydrolysis/acidification performance in AnCoD of manure, TWAS and SSO individually and in different combinations was also investigated. This study has introduced an empirical model to explain the relationship between the biomethane production and lipids: proteins: carbohydrates ratio of the feedstocks in anaerobic co-digestion of TWAS, manure and SSO. Among the binary ad ternary combinations, the ternary co-digestion of TWAS/manure/ SSO at the mixing ratio of 2:4:4 and lipids: proteins: carbohydrates ratio of 1:3:12 resulted in the maximum ultimate methane production. The maximum methane yield of 363 ml CH4/g COD added corresponded to co-digestion of manure/SSO at the mixing ratio of 7:3. The maximum hydrolysis rate corresponded to the co-digestion of TWAS/manure at the ratio of 9:1. Overall, the best performance in both hydrolysis and methanogenesis was achieved by the co-digestion of TWAS with SSO at the ratio of 3:7 as well as TWAS/manure/SSO at the ratio of 2:4:4 compared to other feedstock mixes. It was observed that the proposed second order polynomial model could describe the relationship between biomethane production and lipids, proteins, and carbohydrates content of the feedstock.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAnaerobic Digestion and Biogas ProductionFrench-language works237,207