The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Biochemical methane potential (BMP) of solid organic substrates: evaluation of anaerobic biodegradability using data from an international interlaboratory study
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: This paper describes results obtained for different participating research groups in an interlaboratory study related to biochemical methane potential (BMP). In this research work, all experimental conditions influencing the test such as inoculum, substrate characteristics and experimental conditions were investigated. The study was performed using four substrates: three positive control substrates (starch, cellulose and gelatine), and one raw biomass material (mung bean) at two different inoculum to substrate ratios (ISR). RESULTS: The average methane yields for starch, cellulose, gelatine and mung bean at ISR of 2 and 1 were 350 ± 33, 350 ± 29, 380 ± 42, 370 ± 36 and 370 ± 35 mL CH 4 g−1 VS added, respectively. The percentages of biotransformation of these substrates into methane were 85 ± 8, 85 ± 7, 88 ± 9, 85 ± 8 and 85 ± 8%, respectively. On the other hand, the first‐order rate constants obtained from the experimental data were 0.24 ± 0.14, 0.23 ± 0.15, 0.27 ± 0.13, 0.31 ± 0.17 and 0.23 ± 0.13 d−1, respectively. CONCLUSION: The influence of inocula and experimental factors was nearly insignificant with respect to the extents of the anaerobic biodegradation, while the rates differed significantly according to the experimental approaches. Copyright © 2011 Society of Chemical Industry
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Van Soest, P. J., Robertson, J. B., & Lewis, B. A. (1991) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(91)78551-2 · Cited by 28,658
Cited by
A review of biochar properties and their roles in mitigating challenges with anaerobic digestion
Masebinu, S. O., Akinlabi, E. T., Muzenda, E., & Aboyade, A. O. (2019) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2018.12.048 · Cited by 308
Elbeshbishy, E., Nakhla, G., & Hafez, H. (2012) · Bioresource Technology · doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2012.01.025 · Cited by 262
Maneein, S., Milledge, J. J., Nielsen, B. V., & Harvey, P. J. (2018) · Fermentation · doi:10.3390/fermentation4040100 · Cited by 160
Aragón-Briceño, C. I., Grasham, O., Ross, A. B., Dupont, V., & Camargo-Valero, M. A. (2020) · Renewable Energy · doi:10.1016/j.renene.2020.05.021 · Cited by 156
Dennehy, C., Lawlor, P. G., Croize, T., Jiang, Y., Morrison, L., Gardiner, G. E., & Zhan, X. (2016) · Waste Management · doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2016.06.032 · Cited by 131
Metadata
- Authors
- Raposo, F., Fernández‐Cegrí, V., De la Rubia, M. A., Borja, R., Béline, F., Cavinato, C., Demirer, G., Fernández, B., Fernández‐Polanco, M., Frigon, J. C., Ganesh, R., Kaparaju, P., Koubova, J., Méndez, R., Menin, G., Peene, A., Scherer, P., Torrijos, M., Uellendahl, H., Wierinck, I., & de Wilde, V.
- Venue
- Journal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-04-12
- Volume
- 86
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1088-1098
- ISSN
- 0142-0356 (ISSN-L)
- 0268-2575
- 1097-4660
- OpenAlex
- W1979754465
- Cited by
- 561
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 36.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
