| Literature DB >> 33188266 |
V Murugesan1, D Joshua Amarnath2.
Abstract
Vegetable Market have become major sources ofEntities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33188266 PMCID: PMC7666227 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-75766-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Aerobic composting setup.
Figure 2(a) Composition of VMCW at source. (b) Composition after sample collection.
Characterization of VMCW.
| Parameter | Initial | Final |
|---|---|---|
| C/N | 13.84 | 2.35 |
| Empirical formula | C16H25NO4 | C10H17.9 N |
| CEV (kJ/kg of TS) | 25.05 | 19.45 |
Figure 3(a) Effect of temperature on composting, (b) effect of pH on composting, (c) effect of C/N ratio during the composting process, (d) evolution of volume reduction organic strength reduction and mineralisation.
Figure 4(a) VMCW at Initial and Final stage of composting, (b) CHN concentration at Initial and Final stage of composting.
Figure 8Microbial growth rate of composting process.
Vegetable Market Complex Waste (VMCW) Composition.
| Days elapsed | TS (% of waste) | VS (% of TS) | Ash (% of TS) | Moisture (% of waste) | C (% TS) | H (% TS) | N (% TS) | C/N ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 19.78 ± 0.35 | 82.11 ± 2.83 | 17.89 ± 2.83 | 80.22 ± 0.35 | 53.72 | 6.94 | 3.88 | 13.84 |
| 3 | 35.89 ± 3.09 | 79.24 ± 2.31 | 20.76 ± 2.31 | 64.11 ± 3.09 | 73.00 | 5.44 | 6.10 | 11.95 |
| 5 | 45.71 ± 7.17 | 74.03 ± 2.96 | 25.97 ± 2.96 | 54.29 ± 7.17 | 74.62 | 12.01 | 4.29 | 17.39 |
| 7 | 55.89 ± 2.81 | 70.77 ± 3.13 | 29.23 ± 3.13 | 44.11 ± 3.13 | 37.18 | 5.50 | 4.34 | 4.16 |
| 9 | 81.63 ± 0.29 | 40.82 ± 0.62 | 59.18 ± 0.62 | 18.37 ± 0.29 | 24.35 | 8.81 | 10.94 | 2.35 |
Figure 5Linear relation between (a) VS and Volume reduction, (b) VS and CEV.
Figure 6XRD spectra of VMCW compost.
Figure 7Comparison of NPK of present study with published results.
Figure 9Determination of bio-kinetic constants.