Comparative evaluation of suspended sludge performance at two reactor height-to-width ratios for high-ammonia anaerobically digested sludge supernatant treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents a comparative evaluation evaluation of two sequencing batch reactors (SBRs) with distinct height-to-width (H/W) ratios treating high-ammonia anaerobically digested sludge supernatant via the nitritation-denitritation process. The reactors were designed with constant volumes but differing H/W ratios, 4.8 for R1 and 2.8 for R2, while maintaining identical superficial gas velocity (SGV), to isolate the effects of reactor configuration. Both systems consistently achieved ~99% ammonium nitrogen (NH 4 + -N) removal throughout operation, with total inorganic nitrogen removal efficiencies of 95% in R1 and 97% in R2. Kinetic analysis revealed that R2 achieved higher microbial activity, with maximum AOB and denitritation activities of 0.57 and 6.32 g N/g VSS/d, respectively, compared to 0.49 and 5.12 g N/g VSS/d in R1. Conversely, R1 demonstrated better sludge settleability, with final SVI 30 values of 90 mL/g compared to 120 mL/g in R2. Microbial community profiling revealed comparable population structures in both reactors, with both systems dominated by the same key functional microorganisms: Nitrosomonas as the predominant ammonia-oxidizing bacteria (AOB) and Thauera as the primary denitrifying bacteria. These findings indicate that while a lower H/W ratio enhances microbial activity and nitrogen removal, a higher H/W ratio improves sludge compaction and settling.
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".