ArticleACS sustainable resource management2025
Primary Sludges Drive the Scalability and Power Production of Hydrothermal Liquefaction for Energy Resource Recovery at Wastewater Treatment Facilities.
Article in ACS sustainable resource management, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This research assesses the impact of wastewater sludges from different treatment stages and facility scales on the biocrude power potential from hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL). HTL offers a promising method for energy resource recovery through biocrude production, yet its viability for smaller facilities [<1 million gallons per day (MGD)] remains uncertain. Sludges from facilities of varying scales (0.8, 13, and 76 MGD) were analyzed. We found that the treatment stage influences the energy content and chemical composition more than the facility scale. HTL experiments showed that primary sludges (PS) yield more biocrude than waste-activated sludges (WAS); however, the carbon fractionation remained similar across facility scales. The power generated by PS converted to biocrude was 1.05-1.55 times higher than that if it were converted to methane. Meanwhile, WAS resulted in lower power generation from biocrude than methane. At small plants where primary treatment is not incorporated, HTL is not an ideal energy recovery technology, and instead other waste-management solutions might be better explored. This study emphasizes applying HTL only at plants where it can be truly viable for matching or exceeding the power consumption by evaluating HTL in the context of practical wastewater treatment parameters, e.g., treatment flow, sludge density, energy density, and the realistic conversion potential for energy resource recovery technologies.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.