Dimensioning of an Anaerobic Digester for the Treatment of Chicken Manure and for the Production of Biogas: The Case Study of a Chicken Farm in Yaokokoroko (Côte d’Ivoire)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study allowed us to highlight the level of pollution of a BAYA River water near several poultry farms and the sizing of an anaerobic digester that will be able to treat chicken manure from a poultry farm (BRIN FOUNDATION). To evaluate this pollution, the parameters such as ammonium (NH4+), Phosphate (PO43-), Biochemical Oxygen Demand (DBO5) and Nitrate (NO3-) were determined. For sampling point P1, the concentrations in mg/L of these parameters are (25.00 ± 4.25), (0.40 ± 0.20), (98.00 ± 6.35) and (96.00 ± 5.35), respectively. On the other hand, for sampling point P2, the concentrations in mg/L of these parameters are respectively (33.00 ± 9.05), (0.70 ± 0.12), (123 ± 7.13) and (93 ± 7.10). These values indicate a strong organic pollution of the BAYA River. The determination of the different concentrations of the organic pollution parameters allowed us to evaluate the degradation and the quality of the water of the BAYA River water, by the poultry activity. However, considering the physicochemical properties of the waste (chicken manure), which is the main source of organic pollution, we have considered an energy recovery through the production of biogas. This requires the design, sizing, and implementation of an anaerobic digester in a poultry farm. Therefore, the project would require the construction of an adapted masonry type anaerobic digester with a capacity of 10 m3.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".