ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2021
Implementation of strategies to optimize the co-composting of green waste and food waste in developing countries. A case study: Colombia.
Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Management of the Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste in the Context of a Sustainable and Circular Model: Analysis of Trends in Latin America and the Caribbean.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- Combined landfill leachate treatment methods: an overview.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2021Review
- Potential of windrow food and green waste composting in Tunisia.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2021Article
- The valorization of municipal grass waste for the extraction of cellulose nanocrystals.RSC advances · 2020Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Green waste (GW) management is a key issue due to its high production rate and its variety of physical properties and chemical composition. Composting is a promising alternative for GW treatment and valorization. However, the presence of recalcitrant components such as lignin and cellulose increase the processing time. Strategies such as addition of co-substrates and operative modifications have improved the processing time and compost quality. Therefore, in this study, three strategies have been implemented (i) addition of unprocessed food (UF) and processed foods (PF) as co-substrates for GW to improve the nutrients composition of the substrates at the beginning of the process, (ii) addition of phosphate rock (PR) to improve product quality, and (iii) the use of two-stage composting (TSC) to accelerate the degradation. For this purpose, three treatments with the same mixture (48% GW + 21% UF + 18% PF + 13% sawdust (SW)) were conducted: (i) TA (TSC + 15% PR), (ii) TB (traditional composting +15% PR), and (iii) TC (traditional composting). TSC did not show significant differences compared with TC regarding the process and compost quality, while the addition of PR increased the phosphorus content of the product. However, TC produced the compost with the highest quality according to the Colombian legislation for soil amendment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32072422What 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.