Implementation of strategies to optimize the co-composting of green waste and food waste in developing countries. A case study: Colombia

Hernández-Gómez, Angélica María; Calderón, Arley; Medina, C.F.; Sánchez-Torres, Viviana; Oviedo-Ocaña, Édgar Ricardo

doi:10.1007/s11356-020-08103-w

Cited by 20 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The treatments had the same mixture of materials (wet weight): 46% GW, 19% UPFW, 18% PFW, 13% SW, and 4% PR. The mixture was de ned based on previous studies [1,16], considering two criteria: i) predominance of GW on the mixture, and ii) C/N ratio around 20.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…PR was added as bulking agent and material amendment, providing porosity and phosphorus. The amount added was considered taking into account previous studies [5,9,16].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, PR must be added in concentrations that do not inhibit the process [16] or excessively increase its content in the end-product [17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous studies that used processed food waste (PFW) and unprocessed food waste (UPFW) [1,16] on GW composting show a reduction of processing times in the mesophilic and thermophilic phases compared to composting of GW only, and improved end-product quality that better ful lls the Colombian quality standards for biofertilizers. However, the cooling and maturation phases (i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This research evaluates the effect of the TSC on the process and quality of end-product in the cocomposting of GW, FW, sawdust (SW) and PR, considering that: i) the mixture of GW and FW has been bene cial for the process and end-product quality of composting [1]; ii) SW have proved to be a bulking agent appropriate for GW composting [4]; iii) phosphorous must be used in the co-composting of GW and FW due to their de ciencies in the product [5,9,16]; and iv) additional strategies for co-composting need to be assessed such as TSC [4,10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Co-composting of green waste, food waste and phosphoric rock. Comparison of two-stage composting with traditional composting.

Hernández-Gómez¹,

Ríos²,

Portela³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Green waste (GW) co-composting has limitations due to the content of slowly degradable compounds (i.e. lignocellulosic substances). The introduction of amendment and bulking materials has improved organic matter degradation and end-product quality. However, recent studies have included additional strategies such as two-stage composting (TSC). This research evaluates the effect of TSC on the process and end-product quality of co-composting of GW, food waste, sawdust and phosphoric rock. In our knowledge, TSC has not been studied together with strategies like the addition of co-substrates such as FW and phosphoric rock to improve GW composting. A pilot-scale study was developed using two triplicate treatments: TA: TSC and TB: Traditional composting. The two treatments used the same mixture (wet weight): 46% GW, 19% unprocessed food waste, 18% processed food waste, 13% sawdust, and 4% phosphoric rock. TB had a higher degradation rate of organic matter during the mesophilic and thermophilic phases compared to TA. This is related to the higher temperatures for longer periods during these two phases, with a higher degradation of volatile solids. Nonetheless, during the cooling and maturation phases, the two treatments had similar behavior on temperature, pH, and electrical conductivity with ash and lignin contents without significant differences at the end of the process. End-products in both treatments lacked statistically significant differences and fulfill quality criteria for use as soil improvers. However, end-products from traditional composting had lower nutrient content (NTotal and PTotal) that can be associated with nitrogen volatilization or the use of nutrients by the microorganisms during the active process phases. These results indicate that at the end of the process, there were no significant differences in the total processing time, degradation rate or end-product quality among TSC and traditional composting. Evaluation of complementary strategies must continue to improve GW composting.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…PR was added as bulking agent and material amendment, providing porosity and phosphorus. The amount added was considered taking into account previous studies [5,9,16].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, PR must be added in concentrations that do not inhibit the process [16] or excessively increase its content in the end-product [17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%