4.5 Article

Evaluating growth-dependent enhanced carbon dioxide sequestration potential of Azolla pinnata using cattle wastes (cow dung and cow urine)

Journal

HELIYON
Volume 9, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14610

Keywords

Azolla; Cattle waste; CO2 sequestration; Aquatic environment; Climate factors

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study focused on using Azolla pinnata and cattle waste to control CO2 emissions and global warming. It found that the maximum growth and CO2 sequestration of A. pinnata were achieved with 10% cow dung and 0.5% cow urine.
The increasing rate of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and its impact on global warming are a tremendous problem globally. To control these problems, the present research attempted to employ the Azolla pinnata for growth-dependent enhanced CO2 sequestration using cattle waste (cow dung, CD and cow urine, CU). Two experiments of A. pinnata growth using six different percentages of CD and CU (0.5, 1.0, 5.0, 10, 20 and 40%) were conducted to determine the optimum doses of CD and CU for the maximum growth of A. pinnata and to assess the growth dependent enhanced CO2 sequestration of A. pinnata using CD and CU. The maximum growth of A. pinnata was achieved at the doses of 10% CD (weight 2.15 g and number 77.5) and 0.5% CU (weight 2.21 g and number 79.5). The highest rate of CO2 sequestration was found in the treatments of 10% CD (346.83 mg CO2) and 0.5% CU (356.5 mg CO2) in both experiments. Due to possessing the huge biomass production and high CO2 sequestration properties of A. pinnata within a short span of time using the cattle waste (cow dung and cow urine), therefore, it can be concluded that the explored mechanism would be a simple and potentially novel approach in order to sequester the CO2 and transform into useful plant biomass for the minimization of CO2 emitting problems in the current global warming scenario.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available