Quantification of greenhouse gas emission from wastewater treatment plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this study, a new quantitative approach of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) is established. It is developed based on three categories of WWPTs: (1) energy and chemical consumption; (2) final disposal of biosolids; and direct GHG emission from treatment processes, which is helpful to better estimate the GHG emission pathways. The developed approach can provide actual results of GHG emission in terms of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), and methane (CH 4 ) from wastewater treatment process. Then, this method is applied to a municipal WWPT, where the GHG emission from the processes of final treatment, biological treatment, and anaerobic digestion, at the southside of Guelph city in Canada. The results show that there are 6743.8 CO 2 eq.kg/day of CO 2 and 1924.48 CO 2 eq.kg/day of N 2 O emissions from aeration tank/activated sludge system. The biological treatment and anaerobic digestion release 74177.58 CO 2 eq.kg/day of CH 4 , 7258.5 CO 2 eq.kg/day of CO 2 , and 59022.6 CO 2 eq.kg/day of CH 4 , 3493.24 CO 2 eq.kg/day of CO 2 . If the methane, which discharged from biological treatment and anaerobic digestion, is captured and burned for energy regeneration, then it can produce 12937.9 CO 2 eq.kg/day of CO 2 . The total amount of GHG indicates that about 80% GHG is emitted from the final disposal field while 9% and 11% GHG is emitted from biological treatment and anaerobic digestion, respectively. Therefore, based on the calculated results, engineers can put forward suggestions to optimize operation conditions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. © 2022 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".