IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i3p1109-d484639.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparison of Two-Stage and Traditional Co-Composting of Green Waste and Food Waste Amended with Phosphate Rock and Sawdust

Author

Listed:
  • Edgar Ricardo Oviedo-Ocaña

    (Escuela de Ingeniería Civil, Facultad de Ingenierías Fisicomecánicas, Universidad Industrial de Santander, Carrera 27 Calle 9, Bucaramanga 680002, Colombia)

  • Angélica María Hernández-Gómez

    (Escuela de Ingeniería Civil, Facultad de Ingenierías Fisicomecánicas, Universidad Industrial de Santander, Carrera 27 Calle 9, Bucaramanga 680002, Colombia)

  • Marcos Ríos

    (Escuela de Ingeniería Civil, Facultad de Ingenierías Fisicomecánicas, Universidad Industrial de Santander, Carrera 27 Calle 9, Bucaramanga 680002, Colombia)

  • Anauribeth Portela

    (Escuela de Ingeniería Civil, Facultad de Ingenierías Fisicomecánicas, Universidad Industrial de Santander, Carrera 27 Calle 9, Bucaramanga 680002, Colombia)

  • Viviana Sánchez-Torres

    (Escuela de Ingeniería Química, Facultad de Ingenierías Físicoquímicas, Universidad Industrial de Santander, Carrera 27 Calle 9, Bucaramanga 680002, Colombia)

  • Isabel Domínguez

    (Escuela de Ingeniería Civil, Facultad de Ingenierías Fisicomecánicas, Universidad Industrial de Santander, Carrera 27 Calle 9, Bucaramanga 680002, Colombia)

  • Dimitrios Komilis

    (Department of Environmental Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, 67132 Xanthi, Greece)

Abstract

The composting of green waste (GW) proceeds slowly due to the presence of slowly degradable compounds in that substrate. The introduction of amendments and bulking materials can improve organic matter degradation and end-product quality. However, additional strategies such as two-stage composting, can deal with the slow degradation of green waste. This paper evaluates the effect of two-stage composting on the process and end-product quality of the co-composting of green waste and food waste amended with sawdust and phosphate rock. A pilot-scale study was developed using two treatments (in triplicate each), one being a two-stage composting and the other being a traditional composting. The two treatments used the same mixture (wet weight): 46% green waste, 19% unprocessed food waste, 18% processed food waste, 13% sawdust, and 4% phosphate rock. The traditional composting observed a higher degradation rate of organic matter during the mesophilic and thermophilic phases and observed thermophilic temperatures were maintained for longer periods during these two phases compared to two-stage composting (i.e., six days). Nonetheless, during the cooling and maturation phases, the two treatments had similar behaviors with regard to temperature, pH, and electrical conductivity, and the end-products resulting from both treatments did not statistically differ. Therefore, from this study, it is concluded that other additional complementary strategies must be evaluated to further improve GW composting.

Suggested Citation

  • Edgar Ricardo Oviedo-Ocaña & Angélica María Hernández-Gómez & Marcos Ríos & Anauribeth Portela & Viviana Sánchez-Torres & Isabel Domínguez & Dimitrios Komilis, 2021. "A Comparison of Two-Stage and Traditional Co-Composting of Green Waste and Food Waste Amended with Phosphate Rock and Sawdust," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-12, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:3:p:1109-:d:484639
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/3/1109/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/3/1109/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:3:p:1109-:d:484639. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.