Advanced Technologies

for Solid, Liquid, and

Gas Waste Treatment
Advanced Technologies for Solid, Liquid, and Gas Waste Treatment presents the
potential of using advanced and emerging technologies to effectively treat waste.
This book uniquely addresses treatment techniques for waste in all three phases,
solid, liquid, and gas, with the goals of mitigating negative impacts of waste and
producing value-added products, such as biogas and fertilizer, as well as the use of
artificial intelligence in the field.

• Covers a wide range of advanced and emerging treatment technologies such

as photocatalysis processing, adsorptive membranes, pyrolysis, advanced
oxidation process, electrocoagulation, composting technologies, etc.
• Addresses issues associated with wastes in different phases.
• Discusses the pros and cons of treatment technologies for handling different
wastes produced by different industrial processes, such as agricultural
biomass, industrial/domestic solid wastes, wastewater, and hazardous gas.
• Includes application of artificial intelligence in treatment of electronic
waste.

This book will appeal to chemical, civil, and environmental engineers working on
waste treatment, waste valorization, and pollution control.
 Advanced Technologies
for Solid, Liquid, and Gas
Waste Treatment

Edited by Yeek-Chia Ho, Woei Jye Lau,

Sudip Chakraborty, N. Rajamohan,
and Saleh Al Arni
First edition published 2023
by CRC Press
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300, Boca Raton, FL 33487–2742
and by CRC Press
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
© 2023 selection and editorial matter, Yeek-Chia Ho, Woei Jye Lau,
Sudip Chakraborty, N. Rajamohan, Saleh Al Arni; individual chapters, the
contributors
Reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data and
information, but the author and publisher cannot assume responsibility
for the validity of all materials or the consequences of their use. The
authors and publishers have attempted to trace the copyright holders of
all material reproduced in this publication and apologize to copyright
holders if permission to publish in this form has not been obtained. If any
copyright material has not been acknowledged please write and let us
know so we may rectify in any future reprint.
Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book
may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or utilized in any form by
any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter
invented, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any
information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from
the publishers.
For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this
work, access www.copyright.com or contact the Copyright Clearance
Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923,
978–750–8400. For works that are not available on CCC please contact
[email protected]
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
ISBN: 978-1-032-19759-3 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-032-19763-0 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-26073-8 (ebk)
DOI: 10.1201/9781003260738
Typeset in Times
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
Contents
Preface���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� vii
Editor biographies����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ix
Contributors�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� xi

Chapter 1 Composting of Food Wastes for Soil Amendment������������������������������� 1

A. Sánchez, A. Artola, R. Barrena, T. Gea, X. Font,
and A.J. Moral-Vico

Chapter 2 Integrated Management of Electronic and Electric Waste

(EEW) with the Application of Artificial Intelligence (AI):
Future and Challenges������������������������������������������������������������������������ 23
Giorgio L. Russo

Chapter 3 Thermal Conversion of Solid Waste via Pyrolysis

to Produce Bio-Oil, Biochar and Syngas������������������������������������������� 41
Saleh Al Arni

Chapter 4 Waste Tyre Recycling: Processes and Technologies�������������������������� 57

Saleh Al Arni and Mahmoud M. Elwaheidi

Chapter 5 Electrochemical Removal of Organic Compounds

from Municipal Wastewater��������������������������������������������������������������� 73
R. Elkacmi

Chapter 6 Photocatalytic Membrane for Emerging Pollutants Treatment���������� 95

Nur Hashimah Aliasa, Nur Hidayati Othman, Woei Jye Lau,
Fauziah Marpani, Muhammad Shafiq Shayuti, Zul Adlan Mohd
Hir, Juhana Jaafar, and Mohd Haiqal Abd Aziz‬

Chapter 7 Membrane and Advanced Oxidation Processes for

Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products Removal������������������� 115
Ryosuke Homma and Haruka Takeuchi

Chapter 8 Membrane Bioreactor for Wastewater Treatment���������������������������� 133

Mengying Yang and Xinwei Mao

v
vi Contents

Chapter 9 Integration of Advanced Oxidation Processes as Pre-Treatment

for Anaerobically Digested Palm Oil Mill Effluent�������������������������� 161
E. L. Yong, Z. Y. Yong, M. H. D. Othman,
and H. H. See

Chapter 10 Electrocoagulation and Its Application in Food Wastewater

Treatment������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 179
Mohammed J.K. Bashir and Koo Li Sin

Chapter 11 Advanced Oxidation Processes (AOPs) on the Removal of

Different Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Types
in Wastewater����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 203
Z. Y. Yong, H. Y. Tey, E. L. Yong, M. H. D. Othman, and H. H. See

Chapter 12 Photocatalysis for Oil Water Treatment������������������������������������������� 221

Baskaran Sivaprakash and N. Rajamohan

Chapter 13 Integrated Treatment Process for Industrial Gas Effluent���������������� 239

Daniel Dobslaw

Chapter 14 De-NOx SCR: Catalysts and Process Designs in the

Automotive Industry������������������������������������������������������������������������� 267
Gerardo Coppola, Valerio Pugliese, and Sudip Chakraborty

Chapter 15 Advanced Technology for Cleanup of Syngas Produced

from Pyrolysis/Gasification Processes��������������������������������������������� 289
Saleh Al Arni

Index���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 305
Preface
Advanced Technologies for Solid, Liquid, and Gas Waste Treatment has been
prepared to harness significant environmental issues through a comprehensive
up-to-date overview on the recent development of different treatment technol-
ogies. This book is developed not only for practicing environmental and chemical
engineers, but also for civil engineers who are involved in the processes related to
solid, liquid, and gas waste treatment. The book can also be used as a reference
source for undergraduate and postgraduate courses in waste treatments.
This is the first book that is aimed to address the wastes in all three phases,
i.e., solid, liquid, and gas. Statistics released by the BCC Research indicated the
healthy market growth of the treatment technologies in remediating different
wastes. For instance, the global market for scrap tires management and rubber
remediation applications (i.e., solid wastes) will grow from $7.6 billion in 2017
to nearly $9.5 billion by 2022, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of
4.5% for the period of 2017–2022. The global market for wastewater technolo-
gies and air pollution control equipment meanwhile was reported at $64.4 billion
(2018) and $13.3 billion (2015), respectively with a CAGR of at least 5% over the
next 5-year period.
This book contains the chapters that were contributed by well-known scientists/
researchers from different parts of the world and covers many different types of
treatment technologies such as photocatalysis, adsorptive membranes, pyrolysis,
advanced oxidation process, electrocoagulation, and emerging composting methods
for the treatment of agricultural biomass, industrial/domestic solid wastes, waste-
water, and hazardous gas. Other technologies included in this book are related to
artificial intelligence applications, value-added product formation as new energy and
nutrient sources as well as hybrid processes to curb incalcitrant pollutants present in
the environment.
The advances in solid, liquid, and gaseous emission are discussed in breadth and
depth and summarized in 15 chapters. To illustrate waste management through dif-
ferent technologies, individual graphical figures, tables, and diagrams are depicted.
Additional drawings and photographs are included to aid the understanding of the
advanced technologies presented.
To make this book more valuable, discharge from various industries is consid-
ered. These include automotive, agriculture, electronics, food, oil and gas industry,
and pharmaceuticals, just to name a few. These advanced technologies are aimed
not only to reduce negative impacts caused by the wastes on the environment and
humans but also to produce value-added products.

vii
viii Preface

We hope this book will be of great help for practitioners and researchers in the
real-world application – industry.

Editors

Yeek-Chia Ho
Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Malaysia

Woei Jye Lau

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia

Sudip Chakraborty
University of Calabria, Italy

N. Rajamohan
Sohar University, Oman

Saleh Al Arni
Hail University, Saudi Arabia
Editor biographies
Yeek-Chia Ho (Ph.D.) is Programme Manager for Master in Industrial Environmental
Engineering in Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS. Additionally, she is in the
Leadership Team under the Institute of Self-Sustainable Building (ISB). Also note-
worthy is that she is Secretary in the International Water Association (IWA) for
Design, Operation and Maintenance of Drinking Water Treatment Plants. Her cur-
rent research interest is closely related to environmental engineering, specifically,
Water-Food-Energy nexus. YC is involved in research projects which includes renew-
able energy, microalgae harvesting, water and wastewater treatments, and life cycle
assessment. She has published several works in invited review papers, invited book
chapters, international conference papers and international indexed journal papers.
Also, YC has won a few national awards in publications and international awards for
her research works; two patents and two trademarks have been filed so far. Lastly,
she has been selected to be one of the invited professionals in the Leaders Innovation
Fellowships Programme by the Royal Academy of Engineering, UK.

Woei Jye Lau is currently an associate professor at Faculty of Chemical and Energy
Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM). He obtained his Bachelor of
Engineering in Chemical-Gas Engineering and Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in
Chemical Engineering from UTM. Dr Lau has a very strong research interest in the
field of membrane science and technology for water applications. He has published
more than 250 scientific papers and 30 reviews with a total number of Scopus cita-
tions exceeding 10,000 and h-index of 52. Currently, Dr Lau serves as a subject editor
for Chemical Engineering Research and Design (Elsevier) and associate editor for
Water Reuse (International Water Association). Dr Lau has been named among the
top 2% scientists in the world according to the Stanford Report for 2019 published in
the journal PLOS Biology.

Sudip Chakraborty has a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from University of

Calabria, Italy. He is Abilitazione Scientifica Nazionale (ASN) – full profes-
sor in sector – ING-IND 24 at the Laboratory of Transport Phenomena and
Biotechnology, University of Calabria. He was also a visiting researcher at
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). His major fields of interest are
membrane separation, plasmonic nanoparticles, composite materials, energy, and
process intensification. Dr. Chakraborty has an h-index of 36 and has published
more than 120 research publications in international journals, books, and confer-
ence proceedings.

N. Rajamohan is a senior academic researcher, industrial consultant, program man-

ager and research administrator, currently affiliated with Sohar University as Dean
(acting), Faculty of Engineering Sohar, Oman. He has completed Ph.D., Master’s
and Bachelor’s degrees in Chemical Engineering. He has published more than 125
research articles in various indexed journals of international repute. He has delivered

ix
x Editor biographies

several major research grants including the UK-Gulf Institutional Links grant. His
fields of specialization are environmental chemical engineering, heavy metal pol-
lution control, biological treatment of toxic gases and Sustainable technologies. He
has amassed rich research experience over a period of two decades. He was awarded
“Outstanding Achievement in Research and Knowledge Transfer” at his institution
in February 2020.

Saleh Al Arni is Associate Professor of Chemical Engineering, Hail University

(UOH), Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. He received his Master’s degree (Laurea)
in Chemical Engineering from University of Genoa, Italy, in 1996. In 2000, he
received his first Ph.D. degree in “Technologies and Economics of the Processes
and Products to Safeguard the Environment,” from Catania University, Italy, and in
2008, he received the second Ph.D. degree in “Chemical Sciences, Technologies and
Processes,” from the University of Genoa. His research and teaching activities deal
with biotechnological processes, and he has published several scientific articles in
international journals.
Contributors
Nur Hashimah Aliasa Mahmoud M. Elwaheidi
Universiti Teknologi MARA Department of Geology and
Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia Geophysics – College of Science
King Saud University
Saleh Al Arni Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Department of Chemical Engineering –
Engineering College X. Font
University of Ha’il Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
Ha’il, Saudi Arabia Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain

A. Artola T. Gea
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain

Mohd Haiqal Abd Aziz‬ Zul Adlan Mohd Hir

Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia Universiti Teknologi MARA
Panchor, Johor, Malaysia Pahang
Bandar Tun Abdul Razak, Jengka,
R. Barrena Malaysia
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain R. Homma
Kyoto University
Mohammed J.K. Bashir Kyoto, Japan
Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman
Kampar, Perak, Malaysia Juhana Jaafar
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Sudip Chakraborty Skudai, Johor, Malaysia
Dipartimento di DIMES
Rende (CS), Cosenza, Italy Woei Jye Lau
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Gerardo Coppola Skudai, Johor, Malaysia
Dipartimento di DIMES
Rende (CS), Cosenza, Italy Xinwei Mao
Stony Brook University and New
Daniel Dobslaw York State Center for Clean Water
University of Stuttgart Technology
Stuttgart, Germany New York, USA

R. Elkacmi Fauziah Marpani

University Sultan Moulay Slimane Universiti Teknologi MARA
Beni-Mellal, Morocco Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia

xi
xii Contributors

A.J. Moral-Vico Muhammad Shafiq Shayuti

Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona Universiti Teknologi MARA
Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia

M. H. D. Othman Koo Li Sin

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman
Skudai, Johor, Malaysia Kampar, Perak, Malaysia

Nur Hidayati Othman Baskaran Sivaprakash

Universiti Teknologi MARA Annamalai University
Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia Annamalai Nagar, India

Valerio Pugliese H. Takeuchi

Dipartimento di DIMES Kyoto University
Rende (CS), Cosenza, Italy Kyoto, Japan

N. Rajamohan H. Y. Tey
Sohar University Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Sohar, Oman Skudai, Johor, Malaysia

Giorgio L. Russo Mengying Yang

University of Genoa Stony Brook University and Pall
Genoa, Italy Corporation
New York, USA
A. Sánchez
Universitat Autònoma de E.L. Yong
Barcelona Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain Skudai, Johor, Malaysia

H.H. See Z.Y. Yong

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Skudai, Johor, Malaysia Skudai, Johor, Malaysia
 1 Composting of
Food Wastes for
Soil Amendment
A. Sánchez, A. Artola, R. Barrena, T. Gea,
X. Font, and A.J. Moral-Vico

CONTENTS
1.1 Introduction........................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Food Waste, Domestic Waste, Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid
Waste or Biowaste?............................................................................................ 3
1.3 Particularities of Food Waste............................................................................. 6
1.3.1 Overall Characteristics........................................................................... 6
1.3.2 Heterogeneity and Seasonality.............................................................. 6
1.3.3 Impurities and Pollutants....................................................................... 6
1.3.4 Microplastics and Microbioplastics....................................................... 7
1.4 Food Waste Composting.................................................................................... 8
1.4.1 Process Conditions................................................................................. 8
1.4.2 Microbiology......................................................................................... 9
1.4.3 Gaseous Emissions.............................................................................. 10
1.5 Food Waste Compost....................................................................................... 11
1.5.1 Stability and Maturity.......................................................................... 11
1.5.2 Pollutants............................................................................................. 12
1.6 Uses of Food Waste Compost.......................................................................... 13
1.6.1 Use as Organic Amendment................................................................ 13
1.6.2 Soil Bioremediation............................................................................. 14
1.6.3 Landfill Cover...................................................................................... 15
1.6.4 Suppressor Effect................................................................................. 16
1.7 Conclusions...................................................................................................... 16
References................................................................................................................. 17

1.1 INTRODUCTION
The global generation of municipal solid wastes (MSW) is 2.01 billion tonnes per
year, and it is expected to increase to approximately 3.40 billion tonnes per year by
2050 [1]. However, per capita generation averages are wide, with calculated rates
varying considerably by region, country, city and even within neighborhoods. MSW

DOI: 10.1201/9781003260738-1 1
2 Advanced Technologies for Solid, Liquid, and Gas Waste Treatment

generation rates are influenced by economic development, degree of industrialisa-

tion, public habits, and local climate [2]. In general, the higher the economic devel-
opment and urbanisation rate, the higher the amount of solid waste produced. Each
person in developed countries produces an average of 500 kg of solid waste per year
and this is halved in developing countries. Income level and urbanisation are highly
correlated with waste production. For example, urban residents produce about twice
as much waste as their rural counterparts [1].
Given that the world population is increasing and being concentrated in urban-
ized areas, MSW management (collection, recycling, and valorizing) is becoming
increasingly important. Indeed, it is estimated by the United Nations that 57% of
the population live in urban areas and that by 2050 this percentage will increase
to 68%. Being generated either in rural or in urban areas, big amounts of MSW
are produced and must be properly managed to avoid negative impacts on the
environment, reuse organic nutrients to agriculture and increase resilience of cit-
ies. Besides, collection of organic waste is increasing, for example in low-income
countries it has increased from 22% to 39% [1], thus more efforts are needed to
recycle MSW.
Municipal waste is defined by the Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) as waste collected and treated by or for municipalities.
According to OECD, MSW includes waste from: households, similar waste from
commerce and trade, office buildings, institutions, and small businesses, as well as
yard and garden waste, street sweepings, the contents of litter containers, and market
cleansing waste if managed as household waste. OECD excludes waste from munic-
ipal sewage networks and treatment, and waste from construction and demolition
activities from the flow of MSW. This definition can vary depending on the source,
for example, the World Bank includes industrial wastes and construction and demoli-
tion wastes within MSW flows [3]. Other countries include or exclude some different
materials from MSW.
Whatever the definition of MSW, this residue will contain biodegradable organic
matter. Indeed, biodegradable organic waste accounts for 28 to 56% of MSW [1, 4].
This biodegradable content is also known as organic fraction of MSW (OFMSW)
and it consists of: (1) food manufacturing waste; (2) household waste from food
preparation, leftovers and expired food; and (3) waste from restaurants and food
outlets [5]. These sources comprise 39, 42 and 19% of the total European Union
(EU) food waste stream, respectively [6]. In the overall flow of MSW, the biode-
gradable organic fraction is responsible for some of the negative environmental
impacts associated with MSW collection and treatment. Specifically, odour emis-
sion, leachate production, emission of greenhouse gases among other impacts can
be appointed.
Administrations are promoting policies to reduce or avoid these environmental
impacts. For example, the Landfill Directive by the European Union [7] requires its
member states to reduce the amount of untreated biodegradable waste managed in
landfills by adopting measures to increase and improve waste reduction, recovery,
and recycling. To facilitate MSW fractions recycling and valorisation, separation at
source is the best practice to obtain the minimum percentage of impurities in each
fraction, including the case of OFMSW [8].
Composting of Food Wastes for Soil Amendment 3

In the framework of Circular Economy, the future of OFMSW valorisation should

go beyond traditional low-value recycling processes [9]. For example, in the case
of the European Union, its Green Deal strategy is boosting the transformation of
European society to a modern, resource-efficient, and competitive economy, claim-
ing to recover the economic value of waste when its generation cannot be avoided. In
this sense, anaerobic digestion and composting are the main recycling processes for
OFMSW currently implemented.
The history of composting goes back to early civilizations in South America,
India, China, and Japan, where extensive agriculture was practiced. The fields were
fertilized with animal, human and agricultural waste. It is known that such waste was
kept in pits or heaps to obtain the final soil amendment [10]. Since then, the technol-
ogy has evolved, but there are still some aspects to improve and deepen the under-
standing of the composting process.
In addition to the evolution of the composting technology (improving aeration,
mechanization, and automatization), the use of compost has also evolved. In addition
to its use as a soil amendment, the compost obtained is being used for soil biore-
mediation processes and for landfill cover. Its final use depends on its quality. The
quality of the compost obviously depends on the process operation, but also on the
composted waste that can contain impurities. In the case of food waste, the main
impurities that can be found are plastics, microplastics and glass that can finally be
present in the compost.
In this chapter we will revise the entire chain of the composting process. Starting
with the definition and particularities of food waste, followed by the composting
processes itself and the properties of the compost obtained from food waste. Finally,
the different uses of the obtained product (i.e., soil amendment, bioremediation, and
landfill cover) will be revised.

1.2 FOOD WASTE, DOMESTIC WASTE, ORGANIC FRACTION

OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE OR BIOWASTE?
There are some confusions with the terminology used to designate the organic fraction of
municipal solid waste in a general sense, which can come from households, restaurants,
markets, etc. Molina-Peñate et al. [11] presents a complete study of different terms that
have been used throughout scientific literature. Firstly, the term “biomass”, that is, mass
of living organisms [12], has been used to define all natural carbonaceous resources that
can be used to generate fuels [13]. For this reason, it is an unspecific overused term. On
the other hand, and according to Molina-Peñate et al., terms such as “organic waste”,
“biowaste”, or “food waste” do not precisely describe the origin of the waste (industrial,
agricultural or municipal). Contrarily, the terms “municipal waste” or “household waste”
fail to describe accurately the type of material. It is the opinion of these authors that the
most accurate term is “the organic fraction of municipal solid waste”, or its acronym
OFMSW, although it is less frequently used. Sometimes, OFMSW is also used to simu-
late food waste from restaurants using fresh food waste. However, this analogy cannot be
representative of the complexity of the OFMSW collected in municipalities and managed
in municipal waste treatment facilities [14]. In this chapter, the term “OFMSW” will be
used. Several pictures related to the OFMSW are presented in Figure 1.1. Herein, food
4 Advanced Technologies for Solid, Liquid, and Gas Waste Treatment

(a)

(b)

FIGURE 1.1 Pictures of the Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste (OFMSW) a)
OFMSW as received in a composting plant from a source-separated collection
system, b) Details of the entire OFMSW, c) Details of the impurities found in
the OFMSW, d) Compost from the OFMSW (not refined).
(Source: the authors).
Composting of Food Wastes for Soil Amendment 5

(c)

(d)

FIGURE 1.1 (Continued)

6 Advanced Technologies for Solid, Liquid, and Gas Waste Treatment

waste will refer to mainly OFMSW and will include food waste from markets and food
industry for a more general perspective.

1.3 PARTICULARITIES OF FOOD WASTE

1.3.1 Overall Characteristics
Food waste has unique characteristics and it is probably the most challenging bio-
mass to manage because of the heterogeneous biochemical composition and physical
properties dependent on a broad range of technical and socioeconomic factors and
seasonality [15, 16]. It is a valuable source of nitrogen and phosphorous and unsuit-
able management leads to significant losses of resources [17]. For this reason, food
waste composting and anaerobic digestion are largely encouraged under the circu-
lar economy paradigm to close organic and nutrient cycles and return them to soil,
avoiding the use of chemical fertilizers. However, concern is arising on the potential
risk of critical pollutants’ distribution in the food-supply chain, where food waste
plays a key role [18].

1.3.2 Heterogeneity and Seasonality

OFMSW is a very heterogeneous material since it contains multiple ingredients such
as rests of fruits, vegetables, meat and fish leftovers, cereals, processed food, etc.
These ingredients differ in biochemical composition, water content, particle size,
density, and resistance to compaction. They also differ among regions and countries
due to different culture, food habits or climate [15]. The level of development of the
region/country directly affects OFMSW composition and amount [17].
Moreover, OFMSW composition varies along the year according to certain foods
availability in different seasons. In addition, the amount of garden waste collected
with OFMSW is almost negligible in winter and abundant in spring or autumn. This
directly affects overall OFMSW composition (i.e., moisture or lignin content) [16].
For this reason, some regions implement separate collections for garden waste.
Food waste streams from markets will show the same heterogeneity and season-
ality as household or kitchen waste, while food waste from the food industry may be
more homogeneous and constant in time.
This has some serious implications when designing the composting process
because the time needed to produce a good quality compost depends on the men-
tioned parameters: size, composition, etc. Variations in biodegradability will require
different aeration rates. Variations in water content and porosity will lead to mod-
ifications in the bulking agent ratio. Thus, some operational adjustments may be
necessary along the year to maintain compost quality standards.

1.3.3 Impurities and Pollutants

One of the main constraints in OFMSW management is the serious amount of
non-compostable materials that are collected with food waste. They include pack-
aging material, glass or cardboard, but also batteries, electronic devices or clothes.
Composting of Food Wastes for Soil Amendment 7

The level of impurities can exceed 30% w/w [16, 19] and this fact complicates
the OFMSW management and makes it more expensive. In addition, these non-
compostable materials transfer pollutants into the organic fraction, lowering its qual-
ity as feedstock for composting and eventually contaminating the final compost.
The number of impurities present in OFMSW has been repeatedly linked to
OFMSW selection and collection systems [19–21]. Source-selected OFMSW has
much higher quality than mechanically-sorted OFMSW [8] and is less likely to exceed
the regulatory limits for heavy metal concentration in the compost produced from it.
The type of source-selection systems also affects OFMSW quality. Door-to-door col-
lection systems provide much higher quality OFMSW than anonymous systems based
in street containers, which present a higher non-compostable content (4-fold increase,
according to [16]). The presence of these impurities has serious implications since
they affect the composting process and the quality of the final compost, not only visu-
ally (plastic and glass fragments), but also agronomically (impurities alter porosity
and water holding capacity). In addition, and as mentioned before, they can potentially
transfer chemical pollutants to the organics.
However, chemical pollutants make their way to food and food waste much before
the collection system. In the farm where food is produced, chemical pesticides are
applied and remain in food even at trace level. Later, several opportunities arise for
pollutants to reach food along manufacturing, packaging, and distribution. Isenhour
et al. [22] reflect on the impossible separation of technical and biological cycles and
the consequences for the conceptualization of the circular economy. Besides classical
physical contaminants, heavy metals, and pathogens, some other pollutants are of
arising concern and have been detected in food waste samples [18, 23]. They include
chemicals such as pesticides, halogenated compounds or aromatic hydrocarbons,
antibiotic resistance genes and microplastics. Pesticides and halogenated organics
(i.e., per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances, PFAS) are highly persistent and tend to
accumulate in the environment. When composting food waste, these contaminants
are not degraded and end up in the compost. Antibiotic resistance genes dispersed
in the environment increase risk of gene transfer to human pathogens [23]. Further
research is needed to understand and assess risk related to these pollutants in the
food supply chain to ensure food security [18].

1.3.4 Microplastics and Microbioplastics

Microplastics (MPs) contamination has arisen as one of the major environmental
problems in recent years, receiving much attention by the scientific community. MPs
usually refer to plastic fragments smaller than 2- or 5-mm. MPs have been found
ubiquitous in water bodies and soils and are present in food waste too.
There is a lack of research data on the presence of MPs in food waste. At the
moment, there does not exist a standard method to quantify MPs or nanoplastics
in complex matrices such as food waste samples. Thus, many of the current studies
focus on developing an efficient methodology [24, 25]. Obviously, the presence of
plastics and microplastics in food waste directly affects compost quality.
It is important to notice that MPs can be produced from conventional plastics
and also from biodegradable plastics. Although some studies report the absence of
8 Advanced Technologies for Solid, Liquid, and Gas Waste Treatment

microbioplastics (MBPs) in compost samples [21], thus confirming their composta-

bility, other authors reported the release of MBPs into compost because the wrong
process conditions can reduce MBPs degradation [15]. Presence of MBPs in food
waste has been estimated as 5.4–8.4 MBPs/10 g OFMSW after shredding pre-treat-
ment before anaerobic digestion [15]. More often, MPs have been assessed in compost
from OFMSW with results ranging from 20 to >2500 MPs/kg dry weight according
to [15] and 5–20 items per g dry weight according to [21]. The presence of MPs in
food waste affects product quality and modifies the microbial communities present.
In conclusion, food waste quality is essential, and efforts must be addressed to
avoid food and food waste contamination in the different stages of the food-supply
chain, from farm practices to collection and management systems. Otherwise, com-
post from food waste applied to soils as an amendment may be polluted with the
contaminants mentioned in this section thus endangering the food chain [20]. When
closing the nutrients cycle in the loop food-food waste-compost-soil-food there is a
risk of concentrating persistent pollutants and MPs and spreading antibiotic resis-
tance genes that should be understood and properly managed.

1.4 FOOD WASTE COMPOSTING

1.4.1 Process Conditions
Composting is a fully aerobic process, which requires oxygen, moisture and porosity
to stabilize organic wastes, and their common control variables are temperature, oxy-
gen and moisture [26]. A complex metabolic process is responsible for the decompo-
sition and fractional humification of the organic matter, which ultimately transforms
it into a soil amendment (compost), in which stability and maturity plays the main
role as quality parameters [27].
Among these variables, ensuring the necessary oxygen supply is probably the most
important parameter to consider in food waste composting. Accordingly, aeration is
critical, especially when using the OFMSW, which requirements of oxygen supply
are among the higher ones found in organic waste, as observed using respiration
measurements [28–30]. In fact, the efficiency of the composting process is strongly
affected by the oxygen level because the composting process is directly associated
with microbial population dynamics [31]. Rasapoor et al. [32] compared different
aeration systems in the OFMSW composting. Both forced aeration and pile turning
are shown to be efficient in terms of final compost quality, although the latter showed
better results for agricultural applications. Other studies evaluated the performance
of different systems for composting the source-selected OFMSW [33]. In this case,
turned pile, static forced-aerated pile and turned forced-aerated pile were analyzed at
full scale. The results demonstrated that static systems showed worse values in terms
of stability as the compaction of material resulted in an evident loss of porosity. In
conclusion, besides oxygen demand, the porosity of the solid matrix to be composted
is a key parameter for the successful composting of OFMSW [34].
Porosity is influenced by several parameters such as particle size and moisture
content and it has a direct influence in aeration distribution and the oxygen content
across the organic matrix. In the case of the OFMSW, water content is typically
Composting of Food Wastes for Soil Amendment 9

high [35], whereas porosity is not sufficient, which can result in anaerobic zones,
undesirable gaseous emissions, or unpleasant odors. Achieving proper porosity lev-
els ensures correct air circulation through the solid matrix and provides full aerobic
conditions. In general, this issue is approached by composters and researchers by
including a known volumetric ratio of bulking agent to OFMSW to adjust the mois-
ture content, C/N ratio and porosity, although this is not always possible [36, 37].
In OFMSW composting, several bulking agents have been evaluated. Among
them, lignocellulosic waste from agricultural activities, pruning waste, residual pel-
lets and wood chips have resulted in good porosity conditions [35, 38]. Most of the
studies reported an adequate porosity range of 30–50% for OFMSW composting,
expressed as FAS (free air space). However, these values are obtained for the ini-
tial mixture. In general, there is a lack of information about the evolution of poros-
ity during the entire composting process. When using a suitable bulking agent with
enough resistance to compaction, FAS levels are maintained near initial values. It
is also frequent to observe a reduction in FAS in the first days of the process due to
compaction and substrate size reduction due to biodegradation. Later, FAS increases
again as biodegradation proceeds [33, 34]. Yu et al. [39] assessed the effect of poros-
ity during the curing stage by using passive aeration and confirmed and modelled the
direct positive effect of FAS on microbial kinetics. Anyway, lack of FAS could limit
the understanding of the entire process and have a negative impact on the compost
quality.
Another important parameter in any composting process is the C/N ratio. This
variable is critical for several aspects of composting such as ammonia emissions,
but it is particularly crucial for the development of microorganisms during com-
posting because both elements are required for cellular growth. Limiting the content
of nitrogen is undesirable because it generates a reduction in the C consumption
rate, whereas an excess can generate the release of ammonia in gaseous form [40].
The recommended initial C/N ratio at the start of the composting process ranges
from 25–30. However, many other authors have used slightly different C/N ratios
[41, 42], with good results. Regarding C/N ratio, it is important to note that OFMSW
can present slow or non-biodegradable carbon sources depending on the presence of
impurities such as plastics, textiles, wood, etc. In this sense, the use of a ratio based
on the biodegradable organic carbon should be more adequate, as pointed out by
Puyuelo et al. [43].
Other properties have traditionally been used for the monitoring of composting
processes. However, biological and biochemical parameters have been reported as
excellent indicators to know the biological activity of the process [44]. Biological
methods are typically based on respiration activities. Other biologically-related
parameters such as enzymatic activities or maturity tests are also emerging parame-
ters to monitor the composting process [45, 46].

1.4.2 Microbiology
During the last decades, a large variety of mesophilic, thermotolerant and thermo-
philic aerobic microorganisms including bacteria, actinomycetes, yeasts and other
fungi have been extensively reported in compost and composting [47–49]. In fact,
10 Advanced Technologies for Solid, Liquid, and Gas Waste Treatment

composting is a process performed by a series of microorganisms associated with

different biodegradation systems [50].
In the case of the OFMSW, several authors have monitored the microbial com-
munities and succession in the composting process [47]. Most of the studies report
the importance of maintaining microbial diversity by controlling variables such as
moisture, oxygen and turning.
One of the main problems found in OFMSW composting is to have a homogenous
and reproducible process. Indeed, the operational parameters are responsible for the
microbial fluctuations of the process. In this sense, the composting microbial com-
munities act on a succession of different microorganisms that are strongly dependent
on each other and are conditioned by biotic and abiotic factors [49]. Traditionally, it
has been reported the succession of microbial communities from mesophilic to ther-
mophilic along the composting process, in parallel to temperature profile. Recently,
an exhaustive study on composting microbiome has challenged this perspective when
demonstrating huge levels of thermotolerance by 90% of microbial strains involved
in composting [50].
Composting is a process that occurs spontaneously due to autochthonous micro-
organisms present in the organic waste, thus no inoculation would be necessary.
Despite this, several studies have reported that the addition of inoculating agents
can result in enhancement of the composting process. These inoculants can be a sole
strain [51–53] or a commercial mixture of several strains and enzymes [54–56]. The
objective of these studies is to reveal a considerable reduction in the operation time
of the composting process, odour reduction or the improvement of compost quality.
However, other studies show different results, where inoculation does not present any
significant improvement [57]. In general, the studies conducted on the suitability of
different inoculants are inconclusive and scarce for the OFMSW. Moreover, home
and community composting perform perfectly without the use of inoculum, which
reinforces the idea that the autochthonous microbial communities in the OFMSW are
active enough to start the process [58].

1.4.3 Gaseous Emissions
Although composting is generally considered an environmentally friendly tech-
nology, it also has negative environmental impacts. This is the case of atmospheric
emissions, especially in the case of greenhouse gases (GHG) and volatile organic
compounds (VOC).
Among the released GHGs, they can be attributed to energy requirements of the
composting plant operation and to biochemical reactions, which produces carbon
dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) in the biodegradation of
organic matter [59–60]. Regarding VOCs, the rates and specific forms of these emis-
sions highly depend on the feedstock materials and composting phases, considering
that aeration of the composting mixture plays a considerable role in releasing these
compounds [61–62].
Undesirable gaseous emissions are formed due to inadequate aerobic conditions
of composting [63]. This results in CH4 emissions, whereas nitrogen transformation
Composting of Food Wastes for Soil Amendment 11

and loss (NH3 and N2O) are related to ammonification, nitrification, and denitrifi-
cation [64]. The rate of gaseous emissions strongly depends on the initial content of
carbon and nitrogen [65]. It is also important to note that the emissions flow is also
influenced by the composting technology [66]. To reduce the impact of gaseous emis-
sions from composting, biofilters effectively reduced ammonia and VOCs emission,
being one of the most extended technologies in composting plants [67].
Finally, when comparing composting with other technologies for the treatment
of organic solid waste, different studies have demonstrated that it has less impact on
global warming, as it produces lower amounts of GHGs. This fact was concluded
and documented by different studies, which emphasized that composting produces
lower amounts of emissions than incineration or landfill in terms of g CO2-eq/ton of
waste [68–69]. The sole exception is vermicomposting, which can be defined as the
process by which worms are used to convert organic materials (usually wastes) into
a humus-like material known as vermicompost. In this case, when composting and
vermicomposting were compared, it was found that the vermicomposting process
caused lower GHG emissions compared to traditional composting [70].

1.5 FOOD WASTE COMPOST

The production of good quality compost is a crucial aspect to guarantee its safe use
in agriculture. Essentially, it should present low levels of trace elements and organic
contaminants, (near) absence of pathogenic organisms, and be mature and stable
enough.

1.5.1 Stability and Maturity

Numerous techniques have been reported to assess compost quality [71]. Among
them, respiration indices are one of the most used and recognized methods in the eval-
uation of compost stability [44] as an indicator of the extent to which biodegradable
organic matter is being broken down within a specified time period. Respirometric
activity can be determined directly from the O2 consumption or CO2 production and
indirectly through the heat released during the process [72]. Among the numerous
existing methodologies, two main aspects could be used for its classification. The
first one is related to the way that the index is calculated and expressed: as an uptake
rate or a cumulative (both O2 consumption and CO2 production). The second aspect is
whether oxygen uptake measurement is made in the absence (static respiration index,
SRI) or the presence (dynamic respiration index, DRI) of continuous aeration of the
biomass [73].
Respiration indices of food waste compost have been widely reported using differ-
ent methodologies from plants treating OFMSW presenting differences in collection
systems, treatment technology and density of served population [73–76]. Nowadays,
different composting facilities treating OFMSW are well-implemented around the
world. Table 1.1 presents input and output values of DRI from samples of treatment
plants using different technologies. As observed, a stable compost could be produced
with the current technology if the composting process is accurate, and the length
12 Advanced Technologies for Solid, Liquid, and Gas Waste Treatment

of maturation is respected. Most of them achieved DRI values lower than 1 g O2

kg-1 OM h-1 [73] and close to the valued 0.8 g O2 kg-1 OM h-1 suggested in the EU
Regulation for fertilizing products (Regulation (EU) 2019/1009) [77]. In this regula-
tion, the compost shall meet at least one of the following stability criteria: (a) Oxygen
uptake rate: (maximum 25 mmol O2/kg organic matter/h); or (b) Self-heating: (min-
imum Rottegrad III).
Maturity is usually related to the absence of phytotoxic substances and is gener-
ally determined by plant bioassays [72]. The germination test is the most reported
method, although the seed selection is important for a sensitive and reliable indicator
[78]. Food waste compost has been reported to have high salt concentrations [79]
that could inhibit seed germination and plant growth. Hence, electrical conductivity
should be carefully considered in the application of compost.

1.5.2 Pollutants
For a long time, the main concern about the use of compost derived from MSW
has been the presence of heavy metals (Cd, Cu, Ni, Pb, Zn, Hg and Cr). However,
the amount of them in compost has been clearly related to the system of collection
[80]. The most effective method of reducing heavy metals in compost is the source
separation of the organic fraction. Nowadays, European regulations only allow food
waste resulting from separate collections at the source as suitable input material to
obtain compost (Regulation (EU) 2019/1009). Mixed municipal waste is excluded.
According to its use as a component of organic fertiliser, soil improver or grow-
ing media, the limits are detailed in the regulation. Also, the content of pathogens
(usually Salmonellas, Salmonella spp. and Escherichia coli or Enterococcaceae) is
usually analyzed and delimited in compost regulations.
Other organic toxins detected in MSW compost have been related to the quality
of the organic fraction, being higher in mixed MSW [79]. Although composting can
be an effective way to reduce levels of these compounds enhancing its degradation
(per example PAHs and short-chain phthalates [81]) their presence is limited when
organic fraction is separately collected. However, there is a rising concern about
the presence of pollutants in compost because some of them can persist in the envi-
ronment and could be accumulated in the food supply chain [18, 23]. More data
is required about the content of microplastics, heavy metals, pesticides, polychlori-
nated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), per- and polyflu-
oroalkyl substances (PFAS), and pathogens in compost and digestates derived from
food waste [18]. It is convenient to know the presence and concentration of toxic and
dangerous compounds to assess the risk that compost handling, treatment, process-
ing, and use can contribute to human health and the environment, helping to prevent
many unwanted risks.
Compost quality also depends on the presence of non-compostable materials.
Especially attention has been paid in the last years to plastic and emerging con-
taminants of plastics impurities [24,25]. In 2022, Edo et al. [21] found that the
concentration of small fragments and fibers (diameter <5 mm) in compost was in
the 5–20 items/g of dry weight. Five polymers represented 94% of the plastic items
found: polyethylene, polystyrene, polyester, polypropylene, polyvinyl chloride.
Composting of Food Wastes for Soil Amendment 13

TABLE 1.1
Stability of OFMSW Compost From Facilities Adopting Different Technologies
OFMSW OFMSW treatment DRI
source technology (g O2 kg-1 TS h-1)
Decomposition phase Maturation Input Output
stage
Street bin Thermophilic anaerobic Static turned 3.4 ± 0.7 0.4 ± 0.1
collection digestion (21days) + windrow
Tunnel (1 week) (1–2 weeks)
Composting tunnel Aerated windrow 3.6 ± 0.1 0.9 ± 0.1
(2 weeks) (8 weeks)
Turned windrow Turned windrow – 1.0 ± 0.1
(2 weeks) (2 months)
Mesophilic anaerobic – 3.0 ± 0.9 0.3 ± 0.1
digestion (22 days) +
Tunnel (3 weeks)
Door to door Home composter – 5.5 ± 1.0 0.1 ± 0.1
collection (3 months)
Aerated module, covered Static windrow 4.8 ± 0.8 1.1 ± 0.2
by a Gore-Tex® layer (4 weeks)
(5 weeks)
Vermicomposting – 3.1 ± 0.2 0.2 ± 0.1
(3 months)
Mechanically Channels – 2.7 ± 0.5 1.6 ± 0.2
separated (4 weeks)
(street bin
mixed waste)

Created by the authors from [28, 44, 76]. OFMSW: organic fraction of municipal solid waste, DRI:
dynamic respiration index, TS: total solids.

Interestingly, the presence of plastic was fewer in compost from simple compost-
ing plants but treating door-to-door collected organic fraction. In that sense, the
use of compostable bioplastics seems to be a useful way to eliminate the presence
of plastic in compost [21].

1.6 USES OF FOOD WASTE COMPOST

1.6.1 Use as Organic Amendment
Closing the loop of nutrients between food consumption and agriculture is in the aim
of the whole composting process, the use of compost as organic amendment being
the summit. Compost application for agronomic purposes is regulated by each coun-
try’s legislation. In the case of the European Union, a directive was published in 2019
[82] to ensure safe use of compost relying on its biological stability, maturity and
agronomical value, the later evaluated mainly by means of compost content on macro
14 Advanced Technologies for Solid, Liquid, and Gas Waste Treatment

and micronutrients and lack of phytotoxicity [83]. Benefits of compost application to

soil have extensively been reported [84]. Among them, increase in soil fertility, water
holding capacity and structure must be highlighted, resulting in reduced water needs.
Other properties improved are cation exchange and buffering capacity mainly due to
compost content in humic acid [85]; erosion prevention being also reported.
As organic amendment, compost application has been pointed to perform better
than mineral fertilizers in terms of soil organic carbon content, also improving plant
growth and yield strongly depending on compost application rate [86]. In this sense,
repeated application of compost for agricultural purposes increases organic matter
content of soil as well as C/N ratio, helping in retaining nutrients that in case of min-
eral fertilizers are easily drained by rain and irrigation [87].
On the other hand, the literature also reports some drawbacks on compost use as
organic amendment such as the presence of heavy metals that can be absorbed by
crops after accumulating in soil due to repeated applications, despite the chelating
effect of humic substances [79]. In addition to heavy metals’ entrance to the trophic
chain, the presence of Zn, Cu and Pb can also diminish the activity of some enzymes
at soil level [88]. Although pathogen inactivating capacity of the composting pro-
cess has been recognized when provided proper conditions, active Listeria spp. and
Salmonella spp. presence in compost has been detected [87]. This is also the case
of some organic pollutants whose origin has been attributed to hazardous household
and industrial wastes present as impurities in the OFMSW.
Thus, establishing compost quality to be used as organic amendment has been one
of the priorities of national and international organizations. Compost quality depends
on the origin of the waste and the composting process itself. As mentioned before,
door to door collection systems have been pointed as the most adequate strategy to
ensure a very low to null presence of impurities [89]. Barrena et al. [76], after ana-
lyzing compost samples from 25 different treatment plants, concluded that in terms
of stability, current composting technologies demonstrate the potential for producing
a high-quality product depending on the proper control of the composting process.
As previously described, stability and maturity are complementary when assessing
compost quality, measuring transformation of unstable organic matter in the raw
waste to stable organic matter in the final product and the effects of compost on
plants respectively [90]. pH, C/N ratio, moisture and organic matter content, cation
exchange capacity (CEC), humic to fulvic acids ratio, heavy metals content, respira-
tion index, self-heating capacity, germination index, are measured assessing compost
quality. However, not to forget, attention should be given to the presence of emerging
contaminants and microplastics.

1.6.2 Soil Bioremediation
As widely known, compost is commonly used as soil fertilizer. However, its role in
soil bioremediation has been discovered in the last few decades as very effective [91].
Contaminated soils normally do not have enough degrading capacity by themselves
since the physicochemical conditions do not allow a satisfactory elimination of the
pollutants. The presence of compost permits the boosting of the biodegrading pro-
cess by providing the system with a satisfactory metabolic activity on one side, and
Composting of Food Wastes for Soil Amendment 15

providing the microbes already present in the soil with nutrients. Hence, it can help
in two soil improvement tasks: bioremediation and soil amendment [92]. Compost
can degrade several organic pollutants normally present in soil coming from very
different sources. Among them, pesticides are the most abundant in soils dedicated
to agriculture, and it becomes essential to degrade these contaminants for the recov-
ery of these soils. Besides pesticides, other usual pollutants can be found in soils,
such as heavy metals and petroleum derivatives, which cause an important damage
in soil in terms of physicochemical and microbiological characteristics [93], signifi-
cantly increasing the interest in the use of compost thanks to its mentioned capacity
to trigger the pollutants biodegradation.
The techniques normally used for the remediation of soils are often expensive,
making compost addition a very promising technique in economic terms [94].
Besides, the bioremediation of soils is an attractive technology that permits the
transformation of contaminants to biomass and innocuous final products [95], which
results in a much more environmentally friendly technique to treat polluted soils.
However, some drawbacks should be considered, for instance, the composition of
compost can vary significantly depending on its origin, which has a very important
influence on the microbial and physical conditions of the compost. Hence, it becomes
important to know if the selected compost can be applied for the degradation of the
contaminants present in the soil to be treated, as some compounds degradation can
result easier than others. In this sense, it is essential that the microbes have an easy
access to contaminants, and the concentration of these should be previously known
as high concentrations could result in toxicity. All these factors make the relationship
between compost amendments and contaminants quite complex, and research is still
needed to clarify this topic [96].

1.6.3 Landfill Cover
It is necessary to apply a daily cover on landfills to reduce their odors and gases
emissions, which generate much inconvenience or are highly pollutant. Landfills
have evolved significantly from being open dumps with no kind of treatment, or
being covered with any type of soil, to modern facilities where a proper and specific
treatment is applied to residues [97]. One of the main problems that landfills present
is that they are considered as one of the great sources of methane emissions nowa-
days, a problem that needs to be addressed urgently due to global warming. Even
though covering landfills with ordinary soils can effectively reduce gases emissions
[98], it results much more useful to use compost as landfill cover in terms of spe-
cific mitigation of methane emissions, since it contains an increased microbiological
activity and diversity. In fact, compost can act both as a biofilter, thanks to its high
capacity to permeate gas flows [99] and as an active source for methane oxidation
[100]. In particular, it has been reported that composts are excellent matrices for the
growth and activity of methanotrophs, which are the bacteria that have the ability to
oxidize methane as their only source of carbon, generating water and carbon dioxide.
Besides, compost contains a high nutrient quantity for the satisfactory development
of these bacteria [101], and it is an economical and environmentally friendly material
to obtain high methane oxidation rates [102]. It has also been described how compost
16 Advanced Technologies for Solid, Liquid, and Gas Waste Treatment

of specific materials can also be used not only in methane mitigation, but also in
reducing landfills emissions of odors, widening its environmental advantages. For
instance, biochar has been reported as a good material for this purpose [103]. Thus,
further research in this field is needed for the development of different types of com-
post materials which may prove very efficient for the reduction of the several species
of gases involved in landfills emissions.

1.6.4 Suppressor Effect
Pest and disease suppression have also been associated with compost application
presumably reducing the need for pesticides [83]. Suppression capacity has been
associated with the microbiota present in compost [104] which interact with the
organic matter already present in soil and the target crops/plants regulates the
rhizosphere microbial community. The mechanisms responsible for the compost
suppressive effects can be found in more detail in the review presented by De
Corato [105] where pros and cons of compost repeated application on soil are
analyzed in terms of enhancement of natural soil suppressiveness. Specifically,
compost from OFMSW can contribute to the control of P. ultimum in cucumber,
Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. basilici in basil or Sclerotinia sclerotiorum in lettuce
[105]. In fact, the influence of raw materials in the suppressive effect of compost
has been reported as well as composting process operation [104]. The type of
bulking agent used and its particle size seem also to play a role in defining final
compost suitability to act on specific soil-borne plant pathogens [106]. Bonanomi
et al. [107] studied data from more than 250 papers to ascertain the key parame-
ters in predicting the beneficial effect of different organic amendments in disease
suppression as results presented lead to inconsistent conclusions depending on
the organic matter used and target plant disease. Microbiological and enzymatic
characteristics were found to provide more information than the physico-chemi-
cal ones. FDA activity, substrate respiration, microbial biomass, total culturable
bacteria, fluorescent Pseudomonas and Trichoderma populations were among the
most useful parameters with not a single variable considered sufficient to deter-
mine disease suppression properties.

1.7 CONCLUSIONS
Composting of the OFMSW, in its different technologies and scales, is a highly valu-
able process for waste management that permits, by means of a biological robust
process, obtaining an end product with a high potential for soil amendment, although
other alternative uses as pathogen suppressor or soil bioremediation enhancer are
being considered in modern literature.
The composting operational conditions must be carefully defined for a successful
process: moisture, biodegradability, C/N ratio and porosity are the main parame-
ters to be adjusted. Particularly, in the composting of the OFMSW the presence of
impurities must be also considered, being plastics (macro and micro) one of the main
problems. These impurities can contaminate the final compost, in which stability and
maturity are also crucial.
Composting of Food Wastes for Soil Amendment 17

Finally, the determination and further mitigation of gaseous emissions is very

important for ensuring the sustainability of the composting process in the framework
of a circular economy. Further research on food waste composting should be focused
on its use in innovative applications. It also should include a holistic approach to
avoid the introduction of pollutants in the food supply chain. Special attention must
be given to chemical pollutants, antibiotic resistance genes and microplastics.

REFERENCES
[1] Kaza S, Yao L, Bhada-Tata P, Van Woerden F. What a waste 2.0: A global snapshot
of solid waste management to 2050. World Bank, Washington, DC (License: Creative
Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0 IGO). 2018.
[2] Hoornweg D, Bhada-Tata P. What a waste: A global review of solid waste management.
World Bank, Washington, DC. 2012.
[3] Kawai K, Tasaki T. Revisiting estimates of municipal solid waste generation per capita
and their reliability. Waste Manage 2016; 18:1–13.
[4] Hoornweg D, Bhada-Tata P, Kennedy C. Waste production must peak this century.
Nature 2013; 502:615–17.
[5] Braguglia CM, Gallipoli A, Gianico A, Pagliaccia P. Anaerobic bioconversion of food
waste into energy: A critical review. Bioresource Technol 2018; 248:37–56.
[6] European Commission. Assessment of the management of bio-waste. Working docu-
ment: Accompanying the communication from the commission on future steps in bio-
waste management in the European Union. 2010. Available from: https://eur- lex.europa.
eu/legal-content/ES/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52010SC0577
[7] Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste https://eur-lex.
europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A31999L0031
[8] Angouria-Tsorochidou E, Thomsen M. Modelling the quality of organic fertilizers
from anaerobic digestion – Comparison of two collection systems. J Clean Prod 2021;
304:127081.
[9] Korhonen J, Honkasalo A, Seppälä J. Circular economy: The concept and its limitations.
Ecol Econ 2018; 143:37–46.
[10] Diaz LF, de Bertoldi M. Chapter 2: History of composting, in Waste management series.
Editors: LF. Diaz M. de Bertoldi W. Bidlingmaier, E. Stentiford, Elsevier, London, 2007,
pp. 7–24.
[11] Molina-Peñate E, Artola A, Sánchez A. Organic municipal waste as feedstock of biore-
fineries. Bioconversion technologies integration and challenges. Rev Environ Sci Bio-
technol 2022; 21:247–67.
[12] Houghton RA. Biomass, in Encyclopedia of ecology. Elsevier Inc., London, 2008,
pp. 448–53.
[13] Pang S. Fuel flexible gas production: Biomass, coal and bio-solid wastes, in Fuel flex-
ible energy generation: Solid, liquid and gaseous fuels. Elsevier Inc., London, 2016,
pp. 241–69.
[14] Alibardi L, Cossu R. Composition variability of the organic fraction of municipal solid
waste and effects on hydrogen and methane production potentials. Waste Manage 2015;
36:147–55.
[15] Bandini F, Taskin E, Bellotti G, Vaccari F, Misci C, Guerrieri MC, Cocconcelli PS,
Puglisi E. The treatment of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) as a
possible source of micro- and nano-plastics and bioplastics in agroecosystems: A review.
Chem Biol Technol Agric 2022; 9:4.
[16] Pecorini I, Rossi E, Iannelli R. Bromatological, proximate and ultimate analysis of
OFMSW for different seasons and collection systems. Sustainability 2020; 12:2639.
18 Advanced Technologies for Solid, Liquid, and Gas Waste Treatment

[17] Niu Z, Jin Ng S, Li B, Han J, Wu X, Huang Y. Food waste and its embedded resources
loss: A provincial level analysis of China. Sci Total Environ 2022; 823:153665.
[18] O’Connor J, Mickan BS, Siddique KHM, Rinklebe J, Kirkham MB, Bolan NS. Physical,
chemical, and microbial contaminants in food waste management for soil application:
A review. Environ Pol 2022; 300:118860.
[19] Alvarez MD, Sans R, Garrido N, Torres A. Factors that affect the quality of the bio-
waste fraction of selectively collected solid waste in Catalonia. Waste Manage 2008;
28:359–66.
[20] Friege H, Eger Y. Best practice for bio-waste collection as a prerequisite for high-quality
compost. Waste Manage Res 2022; 40:104–10.
[21] Edo C, Fernández-Piñas F, Rosal R. Microplastics identification and quantification
in the composted organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Sci Total Environ 2022;
813:151902.
[22] Isenhour C, Haedicke M, Berry B, MacRae J, Blackmer T, Horton S. Toxicants,
entanglement, and mitigation in New England’s emerging circular economy
for food waste. J Environ Stud Sci 2022. https://doi-org.are.uab.cat/10.1007/
s13412-021-00742-w
[23] Thakali A, MacRae JD, Isenhour C, Blackmer T. Composition and contamination of
source separated food waste from different sources and regulatory environments. J Envi-
ron Manage 2022; 314:115043.
[24] Ruggero F, Gori R, Lubello C. Methodologies for microplastics recovery and identificaa��
tion in heterogeneous solid matrices: A review. J Polym Environ 2020; 28:739–48.
[25] Ruggero F, Porter AE, Voulvoulis N, Carretti E, Lotti T, Lubello C, Gori R. A highly
efficient multi-step methodology for the quantification of micro-(bio) plastics in sludge.
Waste Manag Res 2021; 39:956–65.
[26] Haug RT. The practical handbook of compost engineering. Lewis Publishers, Boca
Raton, FL, 2003.
[27] Bertoldi M, de Vallini G, Pera A. The biology of composting: A review. Waste Manage
Res 1983; 1:157–76.
[28] Barrena R, Gea T, Ponsá S, Ruggieri L, Artola A, Font X, Sánchez A. Categorizing raw
organic material biodegradability via respiration activity measurement: A review. Com-
post Sci Util 2011; 19:105–13.
[29] Almeira N, Komilis K, Barrena R, Gea T, Sánchez A. The importance of aeration mode
and flowrate in the determination of the biological activity and stability of organic wastes
by respiration indices. Bioresource Technol 2015; 196:256–62.
[30] Mejías L, Komilis D, Gea T, Sánchez A. The effect of airflow rates and aeration mode on
the respiration activity of four organic wastes: Implications on the composting process.
Waste Manage 2017; 65:22–8.
[31] Nakasaki K, Hirai H. Temperature control strategy to enhance the activity of yeast
inoculated into compost raw material for accelerated composting. Waste Manage 2017;
65:29–36.
[32] Rasapoor M, Adl M, Pourazizi B. Comparative evaluation of aeration methods for munic��-
ipal solid waste composting from the perspective of resource management: A practical
case study in Tehran, Iran. J Environ Manage 2016; 184:528–34.
[33] Ruggieri L, Gea T, Mompeó M, Sayara T, Sánchez A. Performance of different systems
for the composting of the source-selected organic fraction of municipal solid waste.
Biosyst Eng 2008; 101:78–86.
[34] Ruggieri L, Gea T, Artola A, Sanchez A. Air filled porosity measurements by air pyc��-
nometry in the composting process: A review and a correlation analysis. Bioresource
Technol 2009; 100:2655–66.
[35] Adhikari B, Barrington S, Martinez J, King S. Characterization of food waste and bulk-
ing agents for composting. Waste Manage 2008; 28:795–804.
Composting of Food Wastes for Soil Amendment 19

[36] Külcü R. Determination of the relationship between FAS values and energy consump��-
tion in the composting process. Ecol Eng 2015; 81:444–50.
[37] Mu D, Horowitz N, Casey M, Jones K. Environmental and economic analysis of an
in-vessel food waste composting system at Kean University in the U.S. Waste Manage
2017; 59:476–86.
[38] Schwalb M, Rosevear C, Chin R, Barrington S. Food waste treatment in a community
center. Waste Manage 2011; 31:1570–5.
[39] Yu S, Grant Clark O, Leonard J. Influence of free air space on microbial kinetics in pass��
sively aerated compost. Bioresource Technol 2009; 100:782–90.
[40] Zhang H, Li G, Gu J, Wang G, Li Y, Zhang D. Influence of aeration on volatile sulfur
compounds (VSCs) and NH3 emissions during aerobic composting of kitchen waste.
Waste Manage 2016; 58:369–75.
[41] Maulini-Duran C, Artola A, Font X, Sanchez A. Gaseous emissions in municipal wastes
composting: Effect of the bulking agent. Bioresource Technol 2014; 172:260–68.
[42] Zhang L, Sun X. Improving green waste composting by addition of sugarcane bagasse
and exhausted grape marc. Bioresource Technol 2016; 218:335–43.
[43] Puyuelo B, Ponsá S, Gea T, Sánchez A. Determining C/N ratios for typical organic
wastes using biodegradable fractions. Chemosphere 2011; 85:653–9.
[44] Barrena R, d’Imporzano G, Ponsá S, Gea T, Artola A, Vázquez F, Sánchez A, Adani
F. In search of a reliable technique for the determination of the biological stability of
the organic matter in the mechanical-biological treated waste. J Hazard Mater 2009;
162:1065–72.
[45] Zhang S, Wang J, Chen X, Gui J, Sun Y, Wu D. Industrial-scale food waste composting:
Effects of aeration frequencies on oxygen consumption, enzymatic activities and bacte-
rial community succession. Bioresource Technol 2021; 320A:124357.
[46] Siles-Castellano AB, López MJ, López-González JA, Suárez-Estrella F, Jurado MM,
Estrella-González MJ, Moreno J. Comparative analysis of phytotoxicity and compost
quality in industrial composting facilities processing different organic wastes. J Cleaner
Prod 2020; 252:119820.
[47] Antunes L, Martins L, Pereira R, Thomas A, Barbosa D, Lemos L, Silva G, Moura L,
Epamino G, Digiampietri L, Lombardi K, Ramos P, Quaggio R, de Oliveira J, Pascon
R, Cruz J, da Silva A, Setubal J. Microbial community structure and dynamics in ther-
mophilic composting viewed through metagenomics and metatranscriptomics. Sci Rep
2016; 6:38915.
[48] Kinet R, Destain J, Hiligsmann S, Thonart P, Delhalle L, Taminiau B, Daube G, Delvigne
F. Thermophilic and cellulolytic consortium isolated from composting plants improves
anaerobic digestion of cellulosic biomass: Toward a microbial resource management
approach. Bioresource Technol 2015; 189:138–44.
[49] López-González J, Vargas-García M, López M, Suárez-Estrella F, Jurado M, Moreno
J. Biodiversity and succession of mycobiota associated to agricultural lignocellulosic
waste-based composting. Bioresource Technol 2015; 187:305–13.
[50] Moreno J, López-González JA, Arcos-Nievas MA, Suárez-Estrella F, Jurado MM,
Estrella-González MJ, López MJ. Revisiting the succession of microbial popula-
tions throughout composting: A matter of thermotolerance. Sci Total Environ 2021;
773:145587.
[51] Hou N, Wen L, Cao H, Liu K, An X, Li D, Wang H, Du X, Li C. Role of psychrotrophic
bacteria in organic domestic waste composting in cold regions of China. Bioresource
Technol 2017; 236:20–8.
[52] Tsai C, Chen M, Ye A, Chou M, Shen S, Mao I. The relationship of odor concentration
and the critical components emitted from food waste composting plants. Atmos Environ
2008; 42:8246–51.
20 Advanced Technologies for Solid, Liquid, and Gas Waste Treatment

[53] Zhao Y, Lu Q, Wei Y, Cui H, Zhang X, Wang X, Shan S, Wei Z. Effect of actinobacteria
agent inoculation methods on cellulose degradation during composting based on redun-
dancy analysis. Bioresource Technol 2016; 219:196–203.
[54] Ke G, Lai C, Liu Y, Yang S. Inoculation of food waste with the thermo-tolerant lipolytic
actinomycete Thermoactinomyces vulgaris A31 and maturity evaluation of the compost.
Bioresource Technol 2010; 101:7424–31.
[55] Manu MK, Kumar R, Garg A. Performance assessment of improved composting system
for food waste with varying aeration and use of microbial inoculum. Bioresource Tech-
nol 2017; 234:167–77.
[56] Nair J, Okamitsu K. Microbial inoculants for small scale composting of putrescible
kitchen wastes. Waste Manage 2010; 30:977–82.
[57] Karnchanawong S, Nissaikla S. Effects of microbial inoculation on composting of
household organic waste using passive aeration bin. Int J Recycl Org Waste Agric 2014;
34:113–9.
[58] Sánchez A. Decentralized composting of food waste: A perspective on scientific knowll��
edge. Front Chem Eng 2022; 4.
[59] Friedrich E, Trois C. GHG emission factors developed for the recycling and composting
of municipal waste in South African municipalities. Waste Manage 2013; 33:2520–31.
[60] Luo W, Yuan J, Luo YM, Li GX, Nghiem L, Price WE. Effects of mixing and cover��-
ing with mature compost on gaseous emissions during composting. Chemosphere 2014;
117:14–9.
[61] Delgado-Rodríguez M, Ruiz-Montoya M, Giráldez I, Cabeza IO, López R, Diaz MJ.
Effect of control parameters on emitted volatile compounds in municipal solid waste and
pine trimmings composting. J Environ Sci Health Part A 2010; 45:855–62.
[62] Font X, Artola A, Sánchez A. Detection, composition and treatment of volatile organic
compounds from waste treatment plants. Sensors 2011; 11:4043–59.
[63] Dhamodharan K, Varma VS, Veluchamy C, Pugazhendhi A, Rajendran K. Emission of
volatile organic compounds from composting: A review on assessment, treatment and
perspectives. Sci Total Environ 2019; 695:133725.
[64] Yang F, Li G, Shi H, Wang Y. Effects of phosphogypsum and superphosphate on comm��
post maturity and gaseous emissions during kitchen waste composting. Waste Manage
2015; 36:70–6.
[65] Ba S, Qu Q, Zhang K, Groot JCJ. Meta-analysis of greenhouse gas and ammonia emiss��
sions from dairy manure composting. Biosyst Eng 2020; 193:126–37.
[66] Colón J, Cadena E, Pognani M, Barrena R, Sánchez A, Font X, Artola A. Determinaa��
tion of the energy and environmental burdens associated to the biological treatment of
source-separated municipal solid wastes. Energy Environ Sci 2012; 5:5731–41.
[67] Colón J, Martínez-Blanco J, Gabarrell X, Rieradevall J, Font X, Artola A, Sánchez A.
Performance of an industrial biofilter from a composting plant in the removal of ammo-
nia and VOCs after material replacement. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2009; 84:1111–7.
[68] Güereca LP, Gassó S, Baldasano JM, Jiménez-Guerrero P. Life cycle assessment of
two biowaste management systems for Barcelona, Spain. Resour Conserv Recycl 2006;
49:32–48.
[69] Yay ASE. Application of life cycle assessment (LCA) for municipal solid waste manage��-
ment: A case study of Sakarya. J Cleaner Prod 2015; 94:284–93.
[70] Lleó T, Albacete E, Barrena R, Font X, Artola A, Sánchez A. Home and vermicompost��-
ing as sustainable options for biowaste management. J Cleaner Prod 2013; 47:70–6.
[71] Komilis, DP. Compost quality: Is research still needed to assess it or do we have enough
knowledge? Waste Manage 2015; 38:1–2.
[72] Wichuk KM, McCartney D. Compost stability and maturity evaluation—A literature
review. Can J Civ Eng 2010; 37:1505–23.