Greenhouse gas and sanitary issues for onsite treatment of urban organic waste
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urban organic waste (UOW) represents one of the major components of the municipal solid waste (MSW) mainstream. Being the most biologically active fraction and once landfilled, UOW generates greenhouse gases contributing to global warming. Considering such environmental issue, the European Union has set a diversion goal of 65 % for the biodegradable fraction of MSW by 2016. Since modern centralized organic waste treatment systems have an important economic impact even on developed countries, more practical but just as safe solutions are needed. In this context, the onsite composting of food and yard trimmings using home systems (HC) can divert from landfills significant amounts of urban organic wastes. However, few studies pertain to the environmental and sanitary issues resulting from such practice. The aim of this study was to quantify the greenhouse gas (CO2, N2O and CH4) emissions and the pathogen and parasite content of the matured compost produced by HC. This study selected three of the most popular HC with a useful capacity of 320 L: slatted plastic bin; slatted wooden bin, and; ground pile. Each compost system received 60 kg of mixed food waste and yard trimmings. The gaseous emissions from each HC were measured using a closed hood and analysed by gas chromatography (GC). The composts were mixed weekly and sampled for analysis on days 0, 15, 30 and 150. During the active composting phase, the highest CO2 emissions were produced during the thermophilic period from all three HC while the maximum N2O emissions were observed after the mesophilic period. The CH4 emissions were too limited to be measured by gas chromatography. After 150 days of composting, the mature product offered parasite and pathogen levels within standard limits accepted France and North America.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".