| Literature DB >> 31200470 |
Parveen Fatemeh Rupani1, Abbas F M Alkarkhi2, Mohammad Shahadat3, Asha Embrandiri4, Hany S El-Mesery5,6, Hongcheng Wang7, Weilan Shao8.
Abstract
The present study reports mathematical modelling of palm oil mill effluent and palm-pressed fiber mixtures (0% to 100%) during vermicomposting process. The effects of different mixtures with respect to pH, C:N ratio and earthworms have been optimized using the modelling parameters. The results of analysis of variance have established effect of different mixtures of palm oil mill effluent plus palm press fiber and time, under selected physicochemical responses (pH, C:N ratio and earthworm numbers). Among all mixtures, 60% mixture was achieved optimal growth at pH 7.1 using 16.29 C:N ratio in 15 days of vermicomposting. The relationship between responses, time and different palm oil mill waste mixtures have been summarized in terms of regression models. The obtained results of mathematical modeling suggest that these findings have potential to serve a platform for further studies in terms of kinetic behavior and degradation of the biowastes via vermicomposting.Entities:
Keywords: optimization; palm oil mill effluent; palm-pressed fiber; three-dimensional model; vermicomposting
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31200470 PMCID: PMC6616581 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16122092
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1(left) Pre-composting phase for different POME-PPF mixtures (0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, …, 100%) (n = 3 for each treatment). (right) Vermicomposting phase for different percentages of POME-PPF mixtures in Petri dishes (n = 3 for each treatment).
The results of ANOVA for pH, C:N and earthworm (EW) values during the vermicomposting of different POME percentages in PPF (Eudrilus eugeniae).
| S.O.V. | S.S. | d.f. | M.S. | F | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (pH) | |||||
| Model | 24.33 | 39 | 0.62 | 4.47 | <0.0001 |
| A-Day | 16.03 | 3 | 5.34 | 39.11 | <0.0001 |
| B-Mixture | 5.78 | 9 | 0.64 | 4.70 | <0.0001 |
| AB | 2.51 | 27 | 0.093 | 0.68 | 0.8685 |
| Pure Error | 10.93 | 80 | 0.14 | ||
| Total | 35.26 | 119 | |||
| (C:N) | |||||
| Model | 11,421.86 | 39 | 292.87 | 216.82 | <0.0001 |
| A-Day | 3516.43 | 3 | 1172.14 | 867.78 | <0.0001 |
| B-Mixture | 7808.85 | 9 | 867.65 | 642.35 | <0.0001 |
| AB | 96.57 | 27 | 3.58 | 2.65 | 0.0004 |
| Pure Error | 108.06 | 80 | 1.35 | ||
| Total | 11,529.92 | 119 | |||
| (EW) | |||||
| Model | 2.78 | 39 | 0.071 | 42.76 | <0.0001 |
| A-Day | 2.22 | 3 | 0.74 | 444.54 | <0.0001 |
| B-Mixture | 0.29 | 9 | 0.032 | 19.19 | <0.0001 |
| AB | 0.27 | 27 | 0.009947 | 5.98 | <0.0001 |
| Pure Error | 0.13 | 80 | 0.001668 | ||
| Total | 2.92 | 119 |
S.O.V.: Source of variation; S.S.: Sum of square; d.f.: Degree of freedom; M.S.: Mean of sum of square; F: F-value; and p-value.
Figure 2Three-dimensional response surface plot of (a) pH, (b) C:N ratio and (c) EW.