CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 100

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Biogas potential from spent tea waste: A laboratory scale investigation of co-digestion with cow manure

Khayum, Naseem, Anbarasu, S., Murugan, S.·2018·Energy
DOI 10.1016/j.energy.2018.09.163
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.energy.2018.09.163

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 47

  1. Bacenetti, 2013, Anaerobic digestion of different feedstocks: impact on energetic and environmental balances of biogas process, Sci Total Environ, 463, 541, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.06.058 · DOI
  2. Goel, 2001, Two-phase anaerobic digestion of spent tea leaves for biogas and manure generation, Bioresour Technol, 80, 153, 10.1016/S0960-8524(01)00083-9 · DOI
  3. Munda, 2012, Production of bioenergy from composite waste materials made of corn waste, spent tea waste, and kitchen waste co-mixed with cow dung, Int J Green Energy, 9, 361, 10.1080/15435075.2011.621492 · DOI
  4. Luz, 2017, Anaerobic digestion of coffee grounds soluble fraction at laboratory scale: evaluation of the biomethane potential, Appl Energy, 207, 166, 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.06.042 · DOI
  5. Luz, 2017, Analysis of Residual Biomass fast pyrolysis at laboratory scale: experimental and numerical evaluation of spent coffee powders energy content, Energy Proc, 105, 817, 10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.395 · DOI
  6. Li, 2017, Effects of thermal pretreatment on degradation kinetics of organics during kitchen waste anaerobic digestion, Energy, 118, 377, 10.1016/j.energy.2016.12.041 · DOI
  7. Kumar, 2015, Anaerobic digestion of food waste to methane at various organic loading rates (OLRs) and hydraulic retention times (HRTs): thermophilic vs. mesophilic regimes, Environ Eng Res, 21, 69, 10.4491/eer.2015.068 · DOI
  8. Chen, 2008, Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process: a review, Bioresour Technol, 99, 4044, 10.1016/j.biortech.2007.01.057 · DOI
  9. Lijó, 2017, The environmental effect of substituting energy crops for food waste as feedstock for biogas production, Energy, 137, 1130, 10.1016/j.energy.2017.04.137 · DOI
  10. Bora, 2014, Effect of compression ratio on performance, combustion and emission characteristics of a dual fuel diesel engine run on raw biogas, Energy Convers Manag, 87, 1000, 10.1016/j.enconman.2014.07.080 · DOI
  11. Zhai, 2015, Effect of initial pH on anaerobic co-digestion of kitchen waste and cow manure, Waste Manag, 38, 126, 10.1016/j.wasman.2014.12.027 · DOI
  12. Riggio, 2015, Energy production from anaerobic co-digestion processing of cow slurry, olive pomace and apple pulp, Renew Energy, 83, 1043, 10.1016/j.renene.2015.05.056 · DOI
  13. Banks, 2011, Energetic and environmental benefits of co-digestion of food waste and cattle slurry: a preliminary assessment, Resour Conserv Recycl, 56, 71, 10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.09.006 · DOI
  14. Zarkadas, 2015, Thermophilic anaerobic digestion of pasteurised food wastes and dairy cattle manure in batch and large volume laboratory digesters: focussing on mixing ratios, Renew Energy, 80, 432, 10.1016/j.renene.2015.02.015 · DOI
  15. Song, 2015, Anaerobic codigestion of pretreated wheat straw with cattle manure and analysis of the microbial community, Bioresour Technol, 186, 128, 10.1016/j.biortech.2015.03.028 · DOI
  16. Akyol, 2016, Anaerobic co-digestion of cow manure and barley: effect of cow manure to barley ratio on methane production and digestion stability, Environ Prog Sustain Energy, 35, 589, 10.1002/ep.12250 · DOI
  17. Aboudi, 2016, Evaluation of methane generation and process stability from anaerobic co-digestion of sugar beet by-product and cow manure, J Biosci Bioeng, 121, 566, 10.1016/j.jbiosc.2015.10.005 · DOI
  18. Li, 2016, Solid state anaerobic co-digestion of tomato residues with dairy manure and corn stover for biogas production, Bioresour Technol, 217, 50, 10.1016/j.biortech.2016.01.111 · DOI
  19. Tasnim, 2017, Biogas production from anaerobic co-digestion of cow manure with kitchen waste and Water Hyacinth, Renew Energy, 109, 434, 10.1016/j.renene.2017.03.044 · DOI
  20. Hassan, 2017, Batch and semi-continuous anaerobic co-digestion of goose manure with alkali solubilized wheat straw: a case of carbon to nitrogen ratio and organic loading rate regression optimization, Bioresour Technol, 230, 24, 10.1016/j.biortech.2017.01.025 · DOI
  21. Li, 2018, Anaerobic co-digestion of animal manures with corn stover or apple pulp for enhanced biogas production, Renew Energy, 118, 335, 10.1016/j.renene.2017.11.023 · DOI
  22. Li, 2018, Methane production through anaerobic co-digestion of sheep dung and waste paper, Energy Convers Manag, 156, 279, 10.1016/j.enconman.2017.08.002 · DOI
  23. Cooper, 2011, Life cycle analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from organic and conventional food production systems, with and without bio-energy options, NJAS - Wageningen J Life Sci, 58, 185, 10.1016/j.njas.2011.05.002 · DOI
  24. Liebetrau, 2013, Analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from 10 biogas plants within the agricultural sector, Water Sci Technol, 67, 1370, 10.2166/wst.2013.005 · DOI
  25. El-Mashad, 2010, Biogas production from co-digestion of dairy manure and food waste, Bioresour Technol, 101, 4021, 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.01.027 · DOI
  26. Chandra, 2012, Production of methane from anaerobic digestion of jatropha and pongamia oil cakes, Appl Energy, 93, 148, 10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.10.049 · DOI
  27. Mshandete, 2004, Anaerobic batch co-digestion of sisal pulp and fish wastes, Bioresour Technol, 95, 19, 10.1016/j.biortech.2004.01.011 · DOI
  28. Macias-Corral, 2008, Anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste and agricultural waste and the effect of co-digestion with dairy cow manure, Bioresour Technol, 99, 8288, 10.1016/j.biortech.2008.03.057 · DOI
  29. Athanasoulia, 2012, Optimization of biogas production from waste activated sludge through serial digestion, Renew Energy, 47, 147, 10.1016/j.renene.2012.04.038 · DOI
  30. Dioha, 2013, Effect of carbon to nitrogen ratio on biogas production, Int Res J Nat Sci, 1
  31. Guermoud, 2009, Municipal solid waste in Mostaganem city (Western Algeria), Waste Manag, 29, 896, 10.1016/j.wasman.2008.03.027 · DOI
  32. Khalid, 2011, The anaerobic digestion of solid organic waste, Waste Manag, 31, 1737, 10.1016/j.wasman.2011.03.021 · DOI
  33. Weerayutsil, 2016, Optimum ratio of chicken manure and napier grass in single stage anaerobic co-digestion, Energy Proc, 100, 22, 10.1016/j.egypro.2016.10.141 · DOI
  34. Macias-Corral, 2008, Anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste and agricultural waste and the effect of co-digestion with dairy cow manure, Bioresour Technol, 99, 8288, 10.1016/j.biortech.2008.03.057 · DOI
  35. Marañón, 2012, Co-digestion of cattle manure with food waste and sludge to increase biogas production, Waste Manag, 32, 1821, 10.1016/j.wasman.2012.05.033 · DOI
  36. Barik, 2015, Assessment of sustainable biogas production from de-oiled seed cake of karanja-an organic industrial waste from biodiesel industries, Fuel, 148, 25, 10.1016/j.fuel.2015.01.072 · DOI
  37. Godi, 2014, Gas chromatograph plots on diverse cow dung analysis, Int J Electron Eng Res, 2, 19
  38. Ukpai, 2012, Comparative study of biogas production from cow dung, cow pea and cassava peeling using 45 litres biogas digester, Adv Appl Sci Res, 3, 1864
  39. Herout, 2011, Biogas composition depending on the type of plant biomass used, Res Agric Eng, 57, 137, 10.17221/41/2010-RAE · DOI
  40. Rasi, 2007, Trace compounds of biogas from different biogas production plants, Energy, 32, 1375, 10.1016/j.energy.2006.10.018 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Jena, 2017, An experimental approach to produce biogas from semi dried banana leaves, Sustain Energy Technol Assess, 19, 173
  42. Zhang, 2013, Carbon emission reduction potential of a typical household biogas system in rural China, J Clean Prod, 47, 415, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.06.021 · DOI
  43. Stolarski, 2017, Energy efficiency of perennial herbaceous crops production depending on the type of digestate and mineral fertilizers, Energy, 134, 50, 10.1016/j.energy.2017.05.195 · DOI
  44. Alburquerque, 2012, Assessment of the fertiliser potential of digestates from farm and agroindustrial residues, Biomass Bioenergy, 40, 181, 10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.02.018 · DOI
  45. Surendra, 2014, Biogas as a sustainable energy source for developing countries: opportunities and challenges, Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 31, 846, 10.1016/j.rser.2013.12.015 · DOI
  46. Alburquerque, 2012, Agricultural use of digestate for horticultural crop production and improvement of soil properties, Eur J Agron, 43, 119, 10.1016/j.eja.2012.06.001 · DOI
  47. Owamah, 2014, Fertilizer and sanitary quality of digestate biofertilizer from the co-digestion of food waste and human excreta, Waste Manag, 34, 747, 10.1016/j.wasman.2014.01.017 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 100

Metadata

Authors
Khayum, N., Anbarasu, S., & Murugan, S.
Venue
Energy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-12
Volume
165
Pages
760-768
ISSN
0360-5442
DOI
10.1016/j.energy.2018.09.163
Cited by
100
References
0
Language
en
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review