ArticleBiomass conversion and biorefinery2025
Systematic characterization of faecal sludge from various sources for its use as a solid fuel.
Article in Biomass conversion and biorefinery, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Faecal sludge (FS) is not extensively evaluated for its potential as a solid fuel mainly due to the general conception of its "highly variable characteristics" in relation to the wide range of on-site sanitation systems. An extensive and systematic FS characterization was therefore conducted on twenty-four samples collected directly from pit latrines, ventilated improved pit latrines (VIPs) and urine-diverting dehydrating toilets (UDDTs) at two depths to understand the impact on properties relevant for combustion. The higher heating value (HHV) for these samples lies between 13 to 22 MJ/kg DM (dry matter). However, such high values should be taken with caution since the measurement guidelines recommended the removal of the large inert pieces found in FS. Besides this potential bias of procedure, differences could be observed between containments, where pit latrines showed the largest variability as compared to VIP and UDDT. These differences are mainly correlated with the ash content, ranging from 15 to 50% DM, while the organic elements concentrations were similar for all samples. Interestingly, the same major inorganic elements could be measured in all samples, namely Si, P, Ca and K followed by Mg and Na. Such similar composition is probably due to similar sanitation practices and staple diet. However, the overall concentration of minor elements was below 1000 ppm DM for most samples. The N concentrations were quite high, between 2.5 to 4.5% DM. Abovementioned results may be problematic for process and environmental aspects if FS is combusted alone. FS can therefore be suitable preferably for co-combustion in blend with lignocellulosic biomass waste.
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.