4.7 Article

Optimization of wheat straw co-composting for carrier material development

Journal

WASTE MANAGEMENT
Volume 98, Issue -, Pages 37-49

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2019.07.041

Keywords

Carrier material; Co-composting; Multiple response optimization; Optimization; Smart fertilizer; Wheat straw

Funding

  1. CONICYT (National foundation for Science and Technology) [11150555]
  2. CONICYT-FONDECYT [3170677]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In modern agriculture large amounts of harvesting residues are produced each year due to the increase of agricultural activities in order to maintain food production for the growing population. The development of innovative fertilizers, able to satisfy nutrient needs without adverse effects on the environment. In order to allow for effective production of a carrier material for smart fertilizers, the objective of this study is to propose a statistical method to optimize the water holding capacity (WHC) and organic matter stability properties of co-composted wheat straw (WS) by using a multi response method. We varied WS size (<1, 1-2, >2 cm), charge of Trichoderma harzianum (0, 7 and 14 discs), and nitrogen addition (0, 0.95 and 1.95 g kg(-1)). Optimized carrier material was characterized by a higher porosity (WHC 91.7%) than raw WS, associated to structural changes and slightly increased stability as indicated by C:N ratio of the 59.5, slightly alkaline (pH similar to 8.0), with high OM structural complexity (E-4:E-6 similar to 7,9) and enhanced sorption properties (total acidity similar to 11.6). We conclude that the optimal treatment included co-composting of WS with fine particle size (<1 cm), with a charge of T. harzianum (14 discs), and 0.98 g kg(-1) of NH4NO3 to obtain a suitable WS carrier material with high possibility to improve nutrient and water holding capacity in soil. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available