Regulating the hydrolysis of organic wastes by micro-aeration and effluent recirculation

In this study, the effects of micro-aeration and liquid recirculation on the hydrolysis of vegetable and flower wastes during two-phase solid–liquid anaerobic digestion were assessed. To accomplish this, we evaluated the hydrolysis of five batches of waste that were treated under the following conditions: anaerobic, insufficient micro-aeration (aeration for 5 min every 24 h), and sufficient micro-aeration (aeration for 5 min every 12, 4 and 1 h). Hydrolysis was found to depend on the level of micro-aeration. Specifically, insufficient micro-aeration led to unstable and decreased performance. Conversely, sufficient micro-aeration promoted the hydrolysis of easily biodegradable carbohydrates and proteins, but the microbial activity was later impaired by liquid recirculation using methanogenic effluent. The hydrolysis efficiency under anaerobic conditions was comparable to the efficiency observed under sufficient micro-aeration, while the cumulative TOC of the anaerobic batch was 1.4–2.4 times higher than that of the micro-aerated batches. In addition, liquid recirculation did not have a negative effect on the development of microbial activity under anaerobic conditions, which resulted in the lignocelluloses having a higher hydrolysis efficiency.     

Some unusual case histories from personal experience

Is protection of equipment the only consideration when setting the relieving pressures of safety relief valves? I will show you a case where other factors should have been considered and suggest that you might give your safety valve set pressures a second thought.Do you have side-by-side pieces of identical equipment? If so, you must consider that operating or maintenance personnel may become confused, and the results maybe catastrophic. A PVC reactor incident will demonstrate this point.Does your process contain materials that could decompose? After thirty years of safe operation in butadiene units, there was a vinyl acetylene decomposition. Could it happen to you?It is my hope that these three unique and unusual cases will provide valuable information for operations and maintenance personnel, managers, safety professionals, and engineers.     

What Can Funders Do to Better Link Science with Decisions? Case Studies of Coastal Communities and Climate Change

Many reports and studies have noted that a significant portion of problem-oriented coastal science does not actually link to decisions. Here, three competitively funded project case studies are studied to determine what funders can and should do to better link science with decisions. The qualitative analysis used for this study indicates that the studied program was seen as being unusually attentive to the issue of linking science to decisions, as opposed to simply generating new knowledge. Nevertheless, much of the data indicate that funders can and should do more. Three ideas figured most prominently in the qualitative data: (1) funders should do more to ensure that the problem itself is defined more thoroughly with people who are envisioned as potential users of the science; (2) funders need to allocate more resources and attention to communicating effectively (with users) throughout the project; and (3) funders need to demand more engagement of users throughout the project. These findings have important implications for how funders review and support science, especially when competitive processes are used. Most importantly, funders should adjust what kind of science they ask for. Secondly, funders need to change who is involved in the review process. Currently, review processes focus on knowledge generation, which means that the reviewers themselves have expertise in that area. Instead, review panels should be balanced between those who focus on knowledge generation and those who focus on linking knowledge to decisions; this is a separate but critical discipline currently left out of the review process.