Optimising mechanical separation of anaerobic digestate for total solids and nutrient removal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mechanical separation of anaerobic digestate has been identified as a method to reduce pollution risk to waterways by partitioning phosphorus in the solid fraction and reducing its application to land. Separators have adjustable parameters which affect separation efficiency, and hence the degree of phosphorous partitioning, but information on how these parameters affect separation performance is limited in the literature. Two well known technologies were investigated, decanter centrifuge and screw press, to determine the most efficient method of separation. Counterweight load and the use of an oscillator were adjusted for the screw press, while bowl speed, auger differential speed, feed rate and polymer addition were modified for the decanter centrifuge. Separation efficiency was determined for total solids, phosphorus, nitrogen, potassium, and carbon, and the total solids content of resulting fractions was measured. The decanter centrifuge had higher separation efficiency for phosphorus in all cases, ranging from 51% to 71.5%, while the screw press had a phosphorus separation efficiency ranging from 8.5% to 10.9% for digestate of ∼5% solids (slurry/grass silage mix). Separation by decanter centrifuge partitioned up to 56% of nitrogen in the solid fraction leaving a reduced nitrogen content in the liquid fraction available for land spreading; this nitrogen would most likely need to be replaced by chemical fertiliser which would add to the cost of the system. The decanter centrifuge is better suited to cases where phosphorus recovery is the most important factor, while the screw press could be advantageous in cases where cost is a limiting factor.
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 | 0.001 | 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".