Digestate: A New Nutrient Source - Review

Makádi, Marianna; Tomócsik, Attila; Orosz, Viktória

doi:10.5772/31355

Cited by 114 publications

(102 citation statements)

References 37 publications

(40 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The increase of grain yield ranged from 39.6-47.4% and the sequence was as follows: digestate > NPK > cattle slurry > digestate + straw. Similarly, Makádi et al (2012) confirmed that due to the high available nutrients content, digestate application resulted in significantly higher aboveground biomass yields in the case of winter and spring wheat than the farmyard manure and undigested slurry treatment. Field experiments with the application of equivalent amounts of total N indicate that the uptake of N from liquid digested animal slurry equaled that of undigested slurry after surface application, despite the higher NH 4 + -N content of the digestate (Möller et al 2008).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 56%

The effect of digestate, cattle slurry and mineral fertilization on the winter wheat yield and soil quality parameters

Šimon¹,

Kunzová²,

Friedlová³

2015

Plant Soil Environ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compares the effect of application of digestate, straw, cattle slurry and inorganic fertilizers on crop yield and soil organic matter content. Total organic carbon (C), total organic nitrogen (N), hot water soluble C, microbial biomass C and hydrophobic soil components were evaluated in soil from the field experiment in PragueRuzyně (Orthic Luvisol, clay loam) with winter wheat. All fertilized treatments significantly increased grain yield above the level of non-fertilized control (5.68 t/ha), and the sequence was as follows: digestate (9.88 t/ha) > NPK (9.80 t/ha) > cattle slurry (9.73 t/ha) > digestate + straw (9.35 t/ha). Average organic C content in the soil ranged from 1.668-1.704% and the effect of different fertilization was not significant. The highest increase of microbial biomass C was recorded in digestate + straw (43.2% increase compared to control). Highly significant correlations were found between hydrophobic soil components and hot water soluble C (r = 0.988; P ≥ 0.05) and microbial biomass C (r = 0.964; P ≥ 0.05). Total organic N content ranged from 0.157-0.160% and differences among treatments were insignificant. Fertilization with digestate itself brings an effect in increasing crop yield, but does not improve the level of soil organic matter significantly.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 56%

The effect of digestate, cattle slurry and mineral fertilization on the winter wheat yield and soil quality parameters

Šimon¹,

Kunzová²,

Friedlová³

2015

Plant Soil Environ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The increased NH4-N content of OFMSW digestate and pH elevation, mainly attribute to formation of (NH4)2CO3 [77], which has dominating effect on ammonia volatilisation from the digestate compared to other factors, such as lower viscosity, lower dry matter content, etc. [56].…”

Section: Post-digestion Lossesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is potential for avoiding the air emissions from digestate by utilising the digestate effluent as replacement of freshwater and nutrients for bioethanol production and recent reports suggest enhanced ethanol production by as much as 18% compared to utilisation of fresh water only [104]. Another suggested post-processing involves liquid-solid separation of digestate, and using the liquid fraction rich in high N and K for irrigation and re-utilising the solid fraction, rich in volatile solid and P, as a co-ferment for anaerobic digestion [77].…”

Section: Post-digestion Best Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Emerging perspectives on environmental burden minimisation initiatives from anaerobic digestion technologies for community scale biomass valorisation

Tiwary

Williams

Pant

et al. 2015

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides an extensive review of anaerobic digestion (AD) systems, with a specific focus on community scale digesters for urban applications, processing either municipal organic waste exclusively or as mix feed. Emphasis is placed on reducing the systems scale environmental impact of AD technologies, including pre-and post-treatment stages, alongside biogas production. Developments to-date in AD system research in Europe and in the Asia region have been compared, providing a comprehensive evaluation of current practice, elucidating the areas of further potentials.The scope of this review is two-fold -one, covering AD technologies including a cohort of simple and integrated wet and dry systems, which can be operated as continuous flow designs in single-or multi-stages. Two, focusing more on practices in digestate handling that minimise environmental impacts arising from their storage and land application. From an environmental perspective, we note the following trends emerging in the literature for processing urban waste that need further exploitation: dry AD (60-85% moisture) is suitable for low organic loads, mainly owing to resource savings in terms of water usage; co-digestion has shown better buffering capability, especially for two-stage digestion of food-based feed stocks; separating the digestate into liquid/solid fractions is effective for handling postdigestion emissions, mainly for mitigating ammonia volatilisation to air and phosphate leaching to soil.We report responses to a survey, conducted for this review, highlighting the contemporary issues and challenges -with particular focus on the operational, social and management issues from an Indian perspective. There is need for follow-up of running plants to ensure their environmental performance. Such initiatives will have to consider managing of pollution footprints from AD, alongside the current drive for its widespread implementation for two incentives: greenhouse gas mitigation and fossil-fuel independence.

show abstract

“…Subsequently, the effect of digestate pH on soil is dependent on soil characteristics (Alvarenga et al, 2015, Makádi et al, 2012, thus, in a 4-year fertilization study the soil initial pH of 5.4-5.7 was not affected after application of household-and restaurant waste-based urban digestate (Odlare et al, 2008).…”

Section: Digestate Ph Solids and Organic Mattermentioning

confidence: 99%

Agronomic characteristics of five different urban waste digestates

Tampio

Salo

Rintala

2016

Journal of Environmental Management

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of digestate in agriculture is an efficient way to recycle materials and to decrease the use of mineral fertilizers. The agronomic characteristics of the digestates can promote plant growth and soil properties after digestate fertilization but also harmful effects can arise due to digestate quality, e.g. pH, organic matter and heavy metal content. The objective of this study was to evaluate the differences and similarities in agronomic characteristics and the value of five urban waste digestates from different biogas plants treating either food waste, organic fraction of organic solid waste or a mixture of waste-activated sludge and vegetable waste. The digestate agronomic characteristics were studied with chemical analyses and the availability of nutrients was also assessed with growth experiments and soil mineralization tests. All studied urban digestates produced 5-30% higher ryegrass yields compared to a control mineral fertilizer with a similar inorganic nitrogen concentration, while the feedstock source affected the agronomic value. Food waste and organic fraction of municipal solid * Corresponding author. Tel.: +358 29 532 6573, E-mail address: elina.tampio@luke.fi 2 waste digestates were characterized by high agronomic value due to the availability of nutrients and low heavy metal load. Waste-activated sludge as part of the feedstock mixture, however, increased the heavy metal content and reduced nitrogen availability to the plant, thus reducing the fertilizer value of the digestate.

show abstract

Digestate: A New Nutrient Source - Review

Cited by 114 publications

References 37 publications

The effect of digestate, cattle slurry and mineral fertilization on the winter wheat yield and soil quality parameters

The effect of digestate, cattle slurry and mineral fertilization on the winter wheat yield and soil quality parameters

Emerging perspectives on environmental burden minimisation initiatives from anaerobic digestion technologies for community scale biomass valorisation

Agronomic characteristics of five different urban waste digestates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About