ArticleScientific reports2017
Biogas production from food waste via co-digestion and digestion- effects on performance and microbial ecology.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 134 citations in OpenAlex.
- Anaerobic digestion of gliricidia sepium co-digested with pig manure using automated and portable digester.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Sewage sludge management and enhanced energy recovery using anaerobic digestion: an insight.Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research · 2024Review
- Methane Production Characteristics of an Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Pig Manure and Fermented Liquid Feed.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Dynamic Effect of Operational Regulation on the Mesophilic BioMethanation of Grape Marc.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Protection of surplus food from fungal spoilage using Streptomyces spp.: a green approach.Archives of microbiology · 2021Article
- A comparative analysis of biogas production from tomato bio-waste in mesophilic batch and continuous anaerobic digestion systems.PloS one · 2021Article
- Characterisation and microbial community analysis of lipid utilising microorganisms for biogas formation.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this work, performance and microbial structure of a digestion (food waste-only) and a co-digestion process (mixture of cow manure and food waste) were studied at mesophilic (37 °C) and thermophilic (55 °C) temperatures. The highest methane yield (480 mL/g VS) was observed in the mesophilic digester (MDi) fed with food waste alone. The mesophilic co-digestion of food waste and manure (McoDi) yielded 26% more methane than the sum of individual digestions of manure and food waste. The main volatile fatty acid (VFA) in the mesophilic systems was acetate, averaging 93 and 172 mg/L for McoDi and MDi, respectively. Acetate (2150 mg/L) and propionate (833 mg/L) were the main VFAs in the thermophilic digester (TDi), while propionate (163 mg/L) was the major VFA in the thermophilic co-digester (TcoDi). The dominant bacteria in MDi was Chloroflexi (54%), while Firmicutes was dominant in McoDi (60%). For the mesophilic reactors, the dominant archaea was Methanosaeta in MDi, while Methanobacterium and Methanosaeta had similar abundance in McoDi. In the thermophilic systems, the dominant bacteria were Thermotogae, Firmicutes and Synergistetes in both digesters, however, the relative abundance of these phyla were different. For archaea, the genus Methanothermobacter were entirely dominant in both TDi and TcoDi.
Indexed as
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.