Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32630263›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020

Treatment of Cattle Manure by Anaerobic Co-Digestion with Food Waste and Pig Manure: Methane Yield and Synergistic Effect.

Gahyun Baek, Danbee Kim, Jinsu Kim, Hanwoong Kim, Changsoo Lee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Human Excreta and Food Waste of a Typical Rural Area in China: Characteristics and Co-Fermentation.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Gahyun BaekSchool of Urban and Environmental Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST), 50 UNIST-gil, Eonyang-eup, Ulju-gun, Ulsan 44919, Korea.
Danbee KimSchool of Urban and Environmental Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST), 50 UNIST-gil, Eonyang-eup, Ulju-gun, Ulsan 44919, Korea.
Jinsu KimSchool of Urban and Environmental Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST), 50 UNIST-gil, Eonyang-eup, Ulju-gun, Ulsan 44919, Korea.
Hanwoong KimSchool of Urban and Environmental Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST), 50 UNIST-gil, Eonyang-eup, Ulju-gun, Ulsan 44919, Korea.
Changsoo LeeSchool of Urban and Environmental Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST), 50 UNIST-gil, Eonyang-eup, Ulju-gun, Ulsan 44919, Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The management of cattle manure (CM) has become increasingly challenging because its production continues to rise, while the regulations on manure management have become increasingly stringent. In Korea, most farms produce CM as a dry mixture with lignocellulosic bedding materials (mainly sawdust), making it impractical to treat CM by anaerobic digestion. To address this problem, this study examined whether anaerobic co-digestion with food waste (FW) and pig manure (PM) could be an effective approach for the treatment of CM. The batch anaerobic digestion tests at different CM: FW: PM mixing ratios showed that more methane was produced as the FW fraction increased, and as the CM fraction decreased. The response surface models describing how the substrate mixing ratio affects the methane yield and synergistic effect (methane yield basis) were successfully generated. The models proved that the methane yield and synergistic effect respond differently to changes in the substrate mixing ratio. The maximum 30-day methane yield was predicted at 100% FW, whereas the maximum 30-day synergy index was estimated for the mixture of 47% CM, 6% FW, and 47% PM (total solids basis). The synergy index model showed that CM, FW, and PM could be co-digested without a substantial loss of their methane potential at any mixing ratio (30-day synergy index, 0.89-1.22), and that a possible antagonistic effect could be avoided by keeping the FW proportion less than 50%. The results suggest that co-digestion with PM and FW could be flexibly applied for the treatment and valorization of CM in existing anaerobic digestion plants treating FW and PM.

Indexed as

FoodRefuse DisposalAnaerobiosisAnimalsBiofuelsBioreactorsCattleManureMethaneRepublic of KoreaSwineBiofuelsManureMethaneanaerobic co-digestionbiochemical methane potentialcattle manureresponse surface analysissynergy index

Identifiers

PMID32630263
PMCPMC7370025

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.