The DOI matches its Crossref record; 61 of the 61 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparative characterization of digestate versus pig slurry and cow manure – Chemical composition and effects on soil microbial activity
Open accessAbstract
The growing number of biogas plants in Europe has resulted in increased production of nutrient-rich digestate with great potential as fertilizer for arable land. The nutrient composition of digestate varies with the substrate treated in the biogas plant and may contain compounds that stimulate or inhibit soil microbial activity. This study compared 20 digestates (D) with 10 pig slurries (PS) and 10 cow manures (CM) regarding their chemical content and their effect on soil microbial activities, i.e. potential ammonia oxidation rate (PAO) and soil respiration. The results showed no significant differences within the D group when divided based on substrate type. i.e. manure dominated vs. other organic waste materials in any of the tests. In general D contained significantly higher concentrations of ammonium while the concentrations of total carbon and volatile fatty acids were higher in PS and CM than in D. The D showed both stimulating and inhibiting effects on PAO, while all CM and all PS except one showed inhibiting effects on PAO. However, PAO activity was negatively correlated with the content of volatile fatty acids in the residues indicating that these compounds may be the cause of the inhibition. The maximum respiration activity ( h peakmax ) was lower and the time point for the maximum respiration activity ( t peakmax ) occurred earlier for D compared with CM and PS. This earlier peak time could be indicative of a high proportion of easily degradable carbon in D compared with PS and CM. However, the utilization rate of carbon, i.e. the proportion of added organic C converted to CO 2 -C during 12 days, did not differ significantly between D, PS and CM, indicating that overall carbon quality in the different fertilizers was still roughly comparable. In short, our results suggest that digestates were different compared with PS and CM but without posing a higher risk with respect to their impact on soil microbial activity.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Standard methods: For the examination of water and waste water
(1990) · Analytical Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/0003-2697(90)90598-4 · Cited by 72,091
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater
Jenkins, S. H. (1982) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/0043-1354(82)90249-4 · Cited by 30,002
Methods in Applied Soil Microbiology and Biochemistry
(1995) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-513840-6.x5014-9 · Cited by 2,831
Biogas production: current state and perspectives
Weiland, P. (2010) · Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology · doi:10.1007/s00253-009-2246-7 · Cited by 2,814
NH4+ toxicity in higher plants: a critical review
Britto, D. T., & Kronzucker, H. J. (2002) · Journal of Plant Physiology · doi:10.1078/0176-1617-0774 · Cited by 1,854
The future of anaerobic digestion and biogas utilization
Holm-Nielsen, J. B., Al Seadi, T., & Oleskowicz-Popiel, P. (2009) · Bioresource Technology · doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2008.12.046 · Cited by 1,600
Effects of anaerobic digestion on digestate nutrient availability and crop growth: A review
Möller, K., & Müller, T. (2012) · Engineering in Life Sciences · doi:10.1002/elsc.201100085 · Cited by 1,339
A critical review on inhibition of anaerobic digestion process by excess ammonia
Rajagopal, R., Massé, D. I., & Singh, G. (2013) · Bioresource Technology · doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2013.06.030 · Cited by 1,299
Anaerobic digestion in global bio-energy production: Potential and research challenges
Appels, L., Lauwers, J., Degrève, J., Helsen, L., Lievens, B., Willems, K., Van Impe, J., & Dewil, R. (2011) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.121 · Cited by 955
Nkoa, R. (2014) · Agronomy for Sustainable Development · doi:10.1007/s13593-013-0196-z · Cited by 940
Cited by
Kizito, S., Luo, H., Lu, J., Bah, H., Dong, R., & Wu, S. (2019) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su11113211 · Cited by 260
Digestate Management and Processing Practices: A Review
Kovačić, Đ., Lončarić, Z., Jović, J., Samac, D., Popović, B., & Tišma, M. (2022) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app12189216 · Cited by 137
Santamaria-Fernandez, M., Ytting, N. K., Lübeck, M., & Uellendahl, H. (2020) · Waste and Biomass Valorization · doi:10.1007/s12649-019-00842-3 · Cited by 30
Metadata
- Authors
- Risberg, K., Cederlund, H., Pell, M., Arthurson, V., & Schnürer, A.
- Venue
- Waste Management
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-03
- Volume
- 61
- Pages
- 529-538
- ISSN
- 0956-053X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2564930522
- Cited by
- 258
- References
- 61
- FWCI
- 20.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparative characterization of digestate versus pig slurry and cow manure – Chemical composition and effects on soil microbial activity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.12.016
- The paper
- Risberg, K., Cederlund, H., Pell, M., Arthurson, V., & Schnürer, A. (2017). Comparative characterization of digestate versus pig slurry and cow manure – Chemical composition and effects on soil microbial activity. Waste Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.12.016
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.