1,720,954 research outputs found
Determinants of optimal aerobic bioreactor landfilling for the treatment of the organic fraction of municipal waste
No full textHistorically, municipal solid waste landfills have been designed and operated as disposal facilities with suboptimal degradation under anaerobic conditions, resulting in slow waste stabilization and generation of landfill gas rich in methane and high strength leachate. Recently, aerobic bioreactor landfilling is being promoted as a promising method that enhances waste stabilization while producing a relatively weaker leachate and no methane generation. The authors review transformation processes and benefits associated with aerobic bioreactor landfilling. Factors affecting the operation of aerobic bioreactor landfills were detailed and performance indicators were defined with technical and operational considerations. The article emphasizes conditions for economic viability of the technology and concludes with outlining existing gaps and future research needs to improve the understanding and performance of aerobic bioreactor landfilling. © 2014 Copyright © Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.Abichou T, 2006, WASTE MANAGE, V26, P1305, DOI 10.1016-j.wasman.2005.11.016; Agadag O. N., 2005, CHEMOSPHERE, V59, P871; Agadag O. N., 2004, J ENV SCI HLTH A, V39, P2955; Alvarez-Vazquez H, 2004, J CHEM TECHNOL BIOT, V79, P1043, DOI 10.1002-jctb.1072; Ballik I., 2009, CDM INVESTMENT NEWSL; Berge ND, 2007, J ENVIRON ENG-ASCE, V133, P1117, DOI 10.1061-(ASCE)0733-9372(2007)133:12(1117); Berge ND, 2007, WATER RES, V41, P1907, DOI 10.1016-j.watres.2007.01.049; Berge ND, 2006, WASTE MANAGE, V26, P334, DOI 10.1016-j.wasman.2005.11.003; Berge ND, 2005, CRIT REV ENV SCI TEC, V35, P365, DOI 10.1080-10643380590945003; Berge ND, 2009, WASTE MANAGE, V29, P1558, DOI 10.1016-j.wasman.2008.12.010; Bilgili MS, 2012, WASTE MANAGE RES, V30, P161, DOI 10.1177-0734242X11417983; Bilgili MS, 2007, J HAZARD MATER, V143, P177, DOI 10.1016-j.jhazmat.2006.09.012; Bilgili MS, 2007, J HAZARD MATER, V145, P186, DOI 10.1016-j.jhazmat.2006.11.014; Bilgili MS, 2006, ENVIRON MANAGE, V38, P189, DOI 10.1007-s00267-005-0179-1; Borglin SE, 2004, J AIR WASTE MANAGE, V54, P815; Borjesson G, 2000, ENVIRON SCI TECHNOL, V34, P4044, DOI 10.1021-es991350s; Burton SAQ, 1998, WASTE MANAGE RES, V16, P41, DOI 10.1177-0734242X9801600106; Christensen TH, 2001, APPL GEOCHEM, V16, P659, DOI 10.1016-S0883-2927(00)00082-2; Cossu R, 2003, WASTE MANAGE, V23, P37, DOI 10.1016-S0956-053X(02)00147-2; Cossu R., 2005, 10 SARD WAST MAN LAN; Das KC, 2002, ADV ENVIRON RES, V6, P401, DOI 10.1016-S1093-0191(01)00066-1; Ecosystem Marketplace, 2011, BACK FUT BLOOMB NEW; El Fadel M, 2013, WASTE MANAGE RES, V31, P30, DOI 10.1177-0734242X12457118; El-Fadel M., 2001, MUNICIPAL SOLI UNPUB; Environmental Control Systems, 1999, U.S. Patent, Patent No. [5,888,022, 5888022]; Erses AS, 2008, BIORESOURCE TECHNOL, V99, P5418, DOI 10.1016-j.biortech.2007.11.008; Gabr M. A., 2000, GEOTECH NEWS, V28, P50; Gambelin D. J., 1998, 3 ANN SWANA LANDF S; Giannis A, 2008, WASTE MANAGE, V28, P1346, DOI 10.1016-j.wasman.2007.06.024; Boothe DDH, 2001, ADV ENVIRON RES, V5, P285; Hamoda MF, 2006, J ENVIRON SCI HEAL A, V41, P77, DOI 10.1080-10934520500298895; Hanashima M., 1999, P SARD 99 7 INT WAST, P313; Hao YJ, 2010, WASTE MANAGE RES, V28, P1057, DOI 10.1177-0734242X09355182; He PJ, 2011, J ENVIRON SCI-CHINA, V23, P1011, DOI 10.1016-S1001-0742(10)60574-8; He R, 2006, J HAZARD MATER, V136, P784, DOI 10.1016-j.jhazmat.2006.01.008; Heyer KU, 2005, WASTE MANAGE, V25, P353, DOI 10.1016-j.wasman.2005.02.007; Hossain M. S., 2010, Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, V28, DOI 10.1007-s10706-009-9299-3; Hossain MS, 2003, J GEOTECH GEOENVIRON, V129, P1151, DOI 10.1061-(ASCE)1090-0241(2003)129:12(1151); Hudgins M. P., 1999, P SARD 99 7 INT WAST, P327; Huo SL, 2008, WATER SA, V34, P133; Inanc B, 2007, J HAZARD MATER, V141, P793, DOI 10.1016-j.jhazmat.2006.07.042; Inanc B., 2003, 14 ANN S JAP SOC SOL; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007, CLIM CHANG 2007 PHYS; Ishigaki T, 2005, ENVIRON GEOL, V48, P845, DOI 10.1007-s00254-005-0008-0; Ishigaki T., 2003, J SOLID WASTE TECHNO, V29, P230; Jun D, 2007, J HAZARD MATER, V147, P240, DOI 10.1016-j.jhazmat.2007.01.001; Kim H., 2005, THESIS U FLORIDA; Kjeldsen P, 2002, CRIT REV ENV SCI TEC, V32, P297, DOI 10.1080-10643380290813462; Kossoy A., 2010, STATE TRENDS CARBON; Kumar S, 2011, CRIT REV BIOTECHNOL, V31, P77, DOI 10.3109-07388551.2010.492206; Larson D. F., 2008, 4761 WORLD BANK DEV; Lee JY, 2002, ENVIRON GEOL, V42, P945, DOI 10.1007-s00254-002-0599-7; Mackie KR, 2009, ENVIRON MODELL SOFTW, V24, P1223, DOI 10.1016-j.envsoft.2009.04.003; McCreanor PT, 2000, WATER RES, V34, P1285, DOI 10.1016-S0043-1354(99)00243-2; Mehta R, 2002, J ENVIRON ENG-ASCE, V128, P228, DOI 10.1061-(ASCE)0733-9372(2002)128:3(228); Mertoglu B, 2006, PROCESS BIOCHEM, V41, P2359, DOI 10.1016-j.procbio.2006.06.014; Mertoglu B, 2007, J HAZARD MATER, V142, P258, DOI 10.1016-j.jhazmat.2006.08.008; Nikolaou A, 2010, ENVIRON TECHNOL, V31, P1381, DOI 10.1080-09593331003743104; Peterson C, 2009, CDM INVESTMENT NEWSL; Powell J, 2006, ENVIRON SCI TECHNOL, V40, P1029, DOI 10.1021-es051114j; Prantl R, 2006, WASTE MANAGE, V26, P373, DOI 10.1016-j.wasman.2005.11.010; Price GA, 2003, WASTE MANAGE, V23, P675, DOI 10.1016-S0956-053X(03)00104-1; Qiu Z., 2010, 2010 4 INT C BIOINF; Read AD, 2001, WASTE MANAGE, V21, P617, DOI 10.1016-S0956-053X(00)00124-0; Read AD, 2001, GEOGR J, V167, P235, DOI 10.1111-1475-4959.00021; Read AD, 2001, RESOUR CONSERV RECY, V32, P115, DOI 10.1016-S0921-3449(01)00053-2; Reinhart DR, 2002, WASTE MANAGE RES, V20, P172; Rendra S, 2007, ENVIRON TECHNOL, V28, P609, DOI 10.1080-09593332808618822; Rich C, 2008, WASTE MANAGE, V28, P1039, DOI 10.1016-j.wasman.2007.03.022; Ritkowski M., 2003, 9 INT S WAST MAN LAN; Ritzkowski M, 2006, WASTE MANAGE, V26, P356, DOI 10.1016-j.wasman.2005.11.009; Sang NN, 2009, J BIOSCI BIOENG, V108, P336, DOI 10.1016-j.jbiosc.2009.04.019; Sang NN, 2008, J BIOSCI BIOENG, V106, P425, DOI 10.1263-jbb.106.425; Shao LM, 2008, WASTE MANAGE, V28, P1000, DOI 10.1016-j.wasman.2007.02.028; Smith M. C, 2000, ADV ENVIRON RES, V3, P459; Spokas K, 2003, WASTE MANAGE, V23, P599, DOI 10.1016-S0956-053X(03)00102-8; Sponza DT, 2004, PROCESS BIOCHEM, V39, P2157, DOI 10.1016-j.procbio.2003.11.012; STESSEL RI, 1992, WASTE MANAGE RES, V10, P485, DOI 10.1177-0734242X9201000603; Theng L. C, 2005, WASTE MANAGE, V25, P702; Thompson S, 2009, WASTE MANAGE, V29, P2085, DOI 10.1016-j.wasman.2009.02.004; Unnikrishnan, 2010, RESOURCES CONSERVATI, V54, P630; Wang Q, 2006, WASTE MANAGE, V26, P815, DOI 10.1016-j.wasman.2005.10.002; Warith M, 2002, WASTE MANAGE, V22, P7, DOI 10.1016-S0956-053X(01)00014-9; Yazdani R, 2010, ENVIRON SCI TECHNOL, V44, P6215, DOI 10.1021-es1022398; Zhang HH, 2008, ATMOS ENVIRON, V42, P5579, DOI 10.1016-j.atmosenv.2008.03.0100
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Full text linkWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
A comparative examination of MBR and SBR performance for the treatment of high-strength landfill leachate
No full textThe management of landfill leachate is challenging, with relatively limited work targeting high-strength leachate. In this study, the performance of the membrane bioreactor (MBR) and sequencing batch reactor (SBR) technologies are compared in treating high-strength landfill leachate. The MBR exhibited a superior performance with removal efficiencies exceeding 95percent for BOD5, TN, and NH3 and an improvement on SBR efficiencies ranging between 21 and 34percent. The coupled experimental results contribute in filling a gap toward improving the management of high-strength landfill leachate and providing comparative guidelines or selection criteria and limitations for MBR and SBR applications. While the sequencing batch reactor (SBR) technology offers some flexibility in terms of cycle time and sequence, its performance is constrained when considering landfill leachate associated with significant variations in quality and quantity. Combining membrane separation and biodegradation processes or the membrane bioreactor (MBR) technology improved removal efficiencies significantly. In the context of leachate management using the MBR technology, more efforts have targeted low-strength leachate with limited attempts at moderate to high strength leachate. In this study, the SBR and MBR technologies were tested under different operating conditions to compare and evaluate their feasibility for the management of high-strength leachate from a full-scale operating landfill. Such a comparison has not been reported for high-strength leachate. © 2014 Copyright © 2014 Aandamp;WMA.Afsharnia M, 2012, DESALIN WATER TREAT, V48, P344, DOI 10.1080-19443994.2012.702959; Ahmed FN, 2012, DESALINATION, V287, P41, DOI 10.1016-j.desal.2011.12.012; Ahn WY, 2002, DESALINATION, V149, P109, DOI 10.1016-S0011-9164(02)00740-3; Aloui F, 2009, WATER SCI TECHNOL, V60, P605, DOI 10.2166-wst.2009.377; APHA AWWA WPCF, 2005, STANDARD METHODS EXA; Aziz SQ, 2011, DESALINATION, V277, P313, DOI 10.1016-j.desal.2011.04.046; Bai Y., 2011, 3 INT C MEAS TECHN M, V1, P183, DOI DOI 10.1109-ICMTMA.2011.51; Berube P, 2010, SUSTAIN SCI ENG, V2, P255, DOI 10.1016-S1871-2711(09)00209-8; Bilad MR, 2011, SEP PURIF TECHNOL, V78, P105, DOI 10.1016-j.seppur.2010.12.005; Bodzek M, 2006, DESALINATION, V198, P16, DOI 10.1016-j.desal.2006.09.004; Campagna M, 2013, WASTE MANAGE, V33, P866, DOI 10.1016-j.wasman.2012.12.010; Cecen F, 2004, ENVIRON ENG SCI, V21, P303, DOI 10.1089-109287504323066941; Cecen F, 2001, BIOTECHNOL LETT, V23, P821, DOI 10.1023-A:1010317823529; Chen SH, 2006, CHINESE SCI BULL, V51, P2831, DOI 10.1007-s11434-006-2177-y; Clement B., 1995, P SARD 95 5 INT LAND, P315; ElFadel M, 1997, ENVIRON TECHNOL, V18, P669, DOI 10.1080-09593331808616586; El-Fadel M, 1999, ENVIRON TECHNOL, V20, P121, DOI 10.1080-09593332008616802; El-Fadel M., 2003, ENV STUD A, V60, P603, DOI [10.1080-0020723032000069187, DOI 10.1080-0020723032000069187]; El-Fadel M, 2002, WASTE MANAGE, V22, P269, DOI 10.1016-S0956-053X(01)00040-X; El-Fadel M, 2000, CRIT REV ENV SCI TEC, V30, P327, DOI 10.1080-10643380091184200; Feki F, 2009, CHEMOSPHERE, V75, P256, DOI 10.1016-j.chemosphere.2008.12.013; Guo JS, 2010, J HAZARD MATER, V178, P699, DOI 10.1016-j.jhazmat.2010.01.144; Ince M, 2010, DESALINATION, V255, P52, DOI 10.1016-j.desal.2010.01.017; Jakopovic HK, 2008, FRESEN ENVIRON BULL, V17, P687; Jia H., 2009, INT C EN ENV TECHN I; Klimiuk E, 2006, WASTE MANAGE, V26, P1140, DOI 10.1016-j.wasman.2005.09.011; Kulikowska D, 2007, BIORESOURCE TECHNOL, V98, P1426, DOI 10.1016-j.biortech.2006.05.021; Laitinen N, 2006, DESALINATION, V191, P86, DOI 10.1016-j.desal.2005.08.012; Lin SH, 2000, WATER RES, V34, P4243, DOI 10.1016-S0043-1354(00)00185-8; Loizidou M, 1992, FRESEN ENVIRON BULL, V1, P748; Ministry of Environment, 2001, STAND DISCH SURF WAT; Monclus H, 2009, ENVIRON TECHNOL, V30, P283, DOI 10.1080-09593330802622105; Neczaj E, 2005, DESALINATION, V185, P357, DOI 10.1016-j.desal.2005.04.044; Nurisepehr M, 2012, WASTE MANAGE RES, V30, P883, DOI 10.1177-0734242X11433526; Puszczalo E, 2010, DESALIN WATER TREAT, V14, P16, DOI 10.5004-dwt.2010.1066; Renou S, 2008, J HAZARD MATER, V150, P468, DOI 10.1016-j.jhazmat.2007.09.077; Rodriguez DC, 2011, DESALINATION, V273, P447, DOI 10.1016-j.desal.2011.01.068; Santos A., 2010, DESALINATION, V273, P148, DOI 10.1016-j.desal.2010.07.063; Sethi S, 2013, INT J ENVIRON POLLUT, V51, P57, DOI 10.1504-IJEP.2013.053175; Singh M, 2011, ASIA-PAC J CHEM ENG, V6, P3, DOI 10.1002-apj.490; Tatsi AA, 2002, ADV ENVIRON RES, V6, P207, DOI 10.1016-S1093-0191(01)00052-1; Trabelsi I, 2013, ARAB J GEOSCI, V6, P2071, DOI 10.1007-s12517-011-0464-7; Trebouet D, 2001, WATER RES, V35, P2935, DOI 10.1016-S0043-1354(01)00005-7; Tsilogeorgis J, 2008, DESALINATION, V221, P483, DOI 10.1016-j.desal.2007.01.109; Tsonis S., 1998, P PROT REST ENV 4 HA, P667; Uygur A, 2004, J ENVIRON MANAGE, V71, P9, DOI 10.1016-j.jenvman.2004.01.002; Visvanathan C, 2007, DESALINATION, V204, P8, DOI 10.1016-j.desal.2006.02.028; Xiu-Fen L, 2011, ENVIRON CHEM LETT, V9, P71, DOI 10.1007-s10311-009-0248-4; Zhang J, 2007, DESALINATION, V207, P153, DOI 10.1016-j.desal.2006.07.009; Zouboulis AI, 2001, CHEMOSPHERE, V44, P1103, DOI 10.1016-S0045-6535(00)00343-X0
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Full text linkWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
koamabayili/VECTRON-author-checklist: VECTRON author checklist
No full textWe have done our best to complete the author checklist relating to the use of animals in the hut study. Note that the objective for the hut study was to evaluate the IRS treatment applications for residual efficacy against Anopheles mosquitoes, including the local An. coluzzii mosquito population. Cows were only used to attract mosquitoes into the huts and no tests were carried out directly on the cows. The author checklist is intended for use with studies where experiments are carried out on animals, which is why we have had such difficulty in completing this for the hut study, as many of the questions do not relate to how the cows were used
Author-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.
No full textAuthor-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.</p
- …
