4.8 Article

Determination of the performance of vermicomposting process applied to sewage sludge by monitoring of the compost quality and immune responses in three earthworm species: Eisenia fetida, Eisenia andrei and Dendrobaena veneta

Journal

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY
Volume 241, Issue -, Pages 103-112

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2017.05.104

Keywords

Vermicomposting; Sewage sludge management; Earthworms; Biomarkers; Metallic trace elements

Funding

  1. National Center for Science [DEC-2013/09/N/NZ9/01937]
  2. Jagiellonian University [K/ZDS/001955]
  3. French Agence National de la Recherche
  4. Czestochowa University of Technology (CUT) [PB/401/304/11]
  5. Syrian Ministry of Higher Education
  6. Lille 1 University
  7. CUT
  8. European Union

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of vermicomposting process applied on three different sewage sludge (precomposted with grass clippings, sawdust and municipal solid wastes) using three different earthworm species. Selected immune parameters, namely biomarkers of stress and metal body burdens, have been used to biomonitor the vermicomposting process and to assess the impact of contaminants on earthworm's physiology. Biotic and abiotic parameters were also used in order to monitor the process and the quality of the final product. Dendrobaena veneta exhibited much lower resistance in all experimental conditions, as the bodyweight and the total number of circulating immune cells decreased in the most contaminated conditions. All earthworm species accumulated heavy metals as follows Cd > Co > Cu > Zn > Ni > Pb > Cr: Eisenia sp. worms exhibited the highest ability to accumulate several heavy metals. Vermicompost obtained after 45 days was acceptable according to agronomic parameters and to compost quality norms in France and Poland. (C) 2017 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

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available