4.8 Article

Comparison of the basic processes of aerobic, anaerobic, and aerobic-anaerobic coupling composting of Chinese medicinal herbal residues

期刊

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY
卷 379, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2023.128996

关键词

Compost; Chinese medicinal herbal residues; Aerobic -anaerobic coupling; Bacterial communities; Maturity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the potential of aerobic composting, anaerobic digestion, and aerobic-anaerobic coupling composting for the treatment of Chinese medicinal herbal residues. The results showed that the CMHRs treated with aerobic-anaerobic coupling composting and aerobic composting were fully degraded, with the latter having the lowest C/N ratio and highest germination index. Higher enzyme activities were observed during the aerobic-anaerobic coupling composting and aerobic composting treatments. This study provides new insights into biomass resource utilization.
Chinese medicinal herbal residues (CMHRs) are waste generated after extracting Chinese medicinal materials, and they can be used as a renewable bioresource. This study aimed to evaluate the potential of aerobic com-posting (AC), anaerobic digestion (AD), and aerobic-anaerobic coupling composting (AACC) for the treatment of CMHRs. CMHRs were mixed with sheep manure and biochar, and composted separately under AC, AD, and AACC conditions for 42 days. Physicochemical indices, enzyme activities, and bacterial communities were monitored during composting. Results showed that AACC-and AC-treated CMHRs were well-rotted, with the latter exhibiting the lowest C/N ratio and maximal germination index (GI) values. Higher phosphatase and peroxidase activities were detected during the AACC and AC treatments. Better humification was observed under AACC based on the higher catalase activities and lower E4/E6. AC treatment was effective in reducing compost toxicity. This study provides new insights into biomass resource utilisation.

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

4.8
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