Exact(8)
Four groups of cannibalistic tiger salamander larvae were fed, respectively, healthy tiger salamanders, healthy small-mouthed salamanders and salamanders of both types that had been sickened by letting them swim in a bacterial soup.
Overall average specific CH4 production rate (NL CH4 kg−1 VS day−1) obtained at OLR of 9.0 and 10.0 g TCOD kg−1 inoculum day−1 is 6.4 ± 0.4 and 6.5 ± 0.2 NL CH4 kg−1 VS fed, respectively.
For example, the rejection fraction and permeate flux value of one membrane (fiber diameters: ∼150 250 nm, membrane porosity: ∼40%) were ∼99.3% and ∼71.2·L·h−1·m−2·psi−1 at 13 mL volume fed, respectively, indicating that electrospun nanofiber membranes might be highly promising for microfiltration applications (particularly water purification).
The OLR of cow feces and wheat straw (27 % TS in feed) fed to PDAD-SBR has been increased to 7.0 and 8.0 g TCOD kg−1 inoculum day−1 in long term study (84 days) and SMYs of 147.1 ± 17.2, 143.2 ± 11.7 NL CH4 kg−1 VS fed, respectively, have been reported (Massé and Saady 2015a).
They feasibility of PDAD-SBR of cow feces and wheat straw (27 % TS in feed) has been demonstrated at OLR of 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0 g TCOD kg−1 inoculum day−1 in long term study (315 days) with SMYs of 187.3 ± 18.1, 163.6 ± 39.5, 150.8 ± 32.9 NL CH4 kg−1 VS fed, respectively (Saady and Massé 2015).
The PDAD process fed with cow feces and wheat straw (TS of 27%%) at OLR 9.0 and 10.0 g TCOD kg−1 inoculum day−1 (6.53 ± 0.06 and 7.27 ± 0.12 g VS kg−1 inoculum day−1) resulted in average specific methane yields (SMYs) of 134.0 ± 7.7, 136.4 ± 4.9 NL CH4 kg−1 VS fed, respectively, with an average volatile solids removal of 35%% at the ends of treatment cycles (21 days).
p = 0.0062 and p = 0.018 using Student's t test D. melanogaster vs D. sechellia fed, respectively, a standard diet or morinda diet.
The methane and AD sludge yields are assumed to be 0.35 Nm/kg COD (chemical oxygen demand) removed and 0.03 kg DM/kg COD fed, respectively.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com