MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313889027 · doi:10.1680/jenes.22.00060

The effect of lignocellulosic waste on treatment of municipal wastewater in anaerobic digestion process

2023· article· en· W4313889027 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Majid Rasouli⃰, Hossein Babaei, Behnam Ataeiyan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Engineering and Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiogasWastewaterAnaerobic digestionPulp and paper industrySewage treatmentChemistryCarbon-to-nitrogen ratioWaste managementNitrogenEnvironmental scienceMethaneEnvironmental engineeringOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The biological purification of municipal wastewater as an organic waste with a low carbon (C)/nitrogen (N) ratio was explored in the presence of a carbon-rich lignocellulose substrate with a high carbon/nitrogen ratio in this study. The composition of the substrate was optimised to obtain the best biogas yield while maintaining reactor stability. The best composition was modelled and determined using response surface methods and mixture design. The findings revealed that anaerobic co-digestion of municipal wastewater with high-carbon/nitrogen-ratio substrates such as the sugarcane plant and wasted black tea improves biogas generation. This behaviour was observed in reactors with more than 70% (w/w) cane waste during testing in this study. Spent black tea as a co-substrate is suitable for co-digestion with municipal wastewater. However, due to the antibacterial properties of polyphenol and tannins in it, the presence of this substance at a high percentage in combination leads to the loss of useful microorganisms of anaerobic digestion and reduces the biogas production yield. The best substrate composition contains 25% (w/w) lignocellulose waste of sugarcane, 34% (w/w) spent black tea and 41% (w/w) municipal wastewater, which produced 239 ml/g volatile solids of biogas.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.569
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Engineering and ScienceSame topicAnaerobic Digestion and Biogas ProductionFrench-language works237,207