4.7 Article

Evaluation of anaerobic digestates from sewage sludge as a potential solution for improvement of soil fertility

期刊

WASTE MANAGEMENT
卷 99, 期 -, 页码 122-134

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2019.08.018

关键词

Soil improver; Nutrient-deficient soil; Circular economy; Pot experiment; Climate chamber; Nitrogen content

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sewage sludge production in European countries has widely raised in the last decade and its fate is currently landfilling, incinerators, composting or land application. To explore its agronomic potential, the main target of this work is to understand the effects of anaerobic digestates from sewage sludge (SSAD). To this aim, four different SSADs (two liquids and two dewatered) were characterized. On the liquid ones, Germination Index was evaluated through a plate bioassay with Lepidium sativum L. seeds; low concentrations of SSAD (2.5%) improved GI in one case, while at higher concentrations phytotoxic effects occurred in both. Then, pot experiments were set in climate chamber with Cucumis sativus L grown for 30 days on two different substrates: a sandy, alkaline and poor soil, and peat substrate. All SSADs and a mineral fertilizer were used at three increasing dosages: 85, 170, 255 kg of nitrogen per hectare (kg N/ha). Results in terms of germination, dry biomass, chlorophyll content, net photosynthesis, stomata! conductance, CO2 concentration in substomatal cavity and root development were compared to a not treated control. All treatments gave results significantly higher or similar to control on all the parameters evaluated. Moreover, the intermediate nitrogen dosage (170 kg N/ha) generally showed the highest results compared to other dosages, especially for dewatered SSADs. All these results were much more evident for cucumber plants grown on an the alkaline, sandy and poor soil than on peat substrate, such demonstrating that SSADs have a fertilizing effect for plants growing on this kind of soil. (C) 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据