ReviewJournal of environmental quality
Nutrient and carbon partitioning and performance for swine manure management technologies.
Review in Journal of environmental quality. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Nutrient and carbon partitioning and performance for swine manure management technologies.Journal of environmental qualityReview
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
Swine manure management systems (MMSs) are critical for nutrient cycling. Common swine MMS storage types in the United States are deep pits, anaerobic lagoons, and slurry storages. This study presents a synthesis of literature documenting nutrient and carbon (C) partitioning via a material mass balance approach for four manure treatment technologies: acidification (ACID; n = 4 papers), aeration (AER; n = 16), solid-liquid separation (SLS; n = 11), and anaerobic digestion (AD; n = 23) that can be used in-line with one or more of these common storage types. Mass balance data were primarily extracted for nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and C (AD only) from lab and pilot-scale studies, with nutrient flows normalized to influent characteristics. The ACID papers suggested significant reductions in gaseous losses with ACID; however, the effluent concentration and available mass/volume and gas data together did not document realistic N partitioning. Among SLS systems, urine-feces segregation and filtration retained the most and least amount of solids in the solid fraction, respectively. AD converts organic matter into biogas; for most mesophilic digesters, 56%-66% of the C remained in the effluent; the mass retained in the sludge is underreported. In AER studies, the partitioning of N into different N gases depended on the amount of AER. As pass-through technologies, AD and SLS are easier to incorporate in lagoon and slurry storage systems. ACID and AER can be physically incorporated in common MMSs; however, treatment could hinder anaerobic lagoon function. Understanding nutrient partitioning will benefit from concurrent monitoring of multiple nutrients in the liquid, solid, and/or gas streams.
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.