Phytotoxicity Removal Technologies for Agricultural Waste: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Wenzhong Cui
,
Wanlai Zhou
,
Zhiyong Qi
,
Qi Bai
,
Juncheng Liu
,
Jing Chen

Agricultural waste often contains substances such as phenols, organic acids, ammonia, nitrogen, and heavy metals, which can be highly phytotoxic. This phytotoxicity can inhibit seed germination and plant growth, making it a significant obstacle to using agricultural waste as a component of growing media. Therefore, it’s crucial to reduce or eliminate this phytotoxicity before agricultural waste can be effectively used. Various technologies have been explored for this purpose, including the four most common methods: composting, heat treatment, washing, and aging. Additionally, a newer method, ammonium incubation, has also been introduced. These methods aim to mitigate the phytotoxicity in agricultural wastes, enhancing their potential for effective utilization.

  • agricultural waste
  • growing media
  • phytotoxicity
  • composting
  • biochar
  • ammonium incubation

1. Removal of Phytotoxicity by Composting

Composting is a process of decomposing organic matter into stable, humus-like products through microorganisms under controlled conditions [1]. It is essentially the mineralization and humification of organic matter under the action of microorganisms[2]. Composting is generally carried out under aerobic conditions, usually including the stages of heating, high temperature, and maturation[1]. The practical agricultural operation process involves the careful adjustment of the physicochemical properties of the materials, including the C/N ratio and moisture content, with the objective of facilitating the rapid proliferation of microorganisms. This microbial activity, in turn, accelerates the decomposition of readily biodegradable organic matter, ultimately yielding compost products that exhibit a higher level of stability[3][4]. During aerobic composting, microbial metabolic activity releases a large amount of heat, raising the temperature of the pile to above 50 °C. In certain cases, composters may introduce thermophilic bacteria, pushing the temperature even higher, sometimes surpassing 100 °C. This elevated temperature serves to effectively eliminate pathogens, pests, and weed seeds, thereby meeting the necessary criteria for plant growing [5][6]. Owing to its simplicity and efficiency, composting has been the most widely used method for harnessing the resource potential of agricultural waste [7][8].
Composting is also the most commonly used method to reduce or eliminate the phytotoxicity of agricultural waste. It can reduce phytotoxicity by decomposing, transforming, and aggregating phytotoxic substances and reducing the bioavailability of toxins. Specifically, composting typically reduces the phytotoxicity of materials by reducing the concentration of organic acids and ammonium ions and the bioavailability of heavy metals in the material. For instance, a study conducted by Wang et al. [9] highlighted that the initial concentrations of acetic acid and butyric acid in raw composting materials exceeded 400 mg/L and 200 mg/L, respectively. However, after the composting process, these organic acids were nearly undetectable in the materials, resulting in a substantial reduction in phytotoxicity. Kong et al. [10] employed farm animal manure for composting. Their findings revealed a negative correlation between the NH4+-N concentration and the GI. Following the composting process, the NH4+-N concentration dropped from an initial level of 300 mg/L to near 0 mg/L, thereby ensuring that the compost material met the harmless criteria. Zhao et al. [11] analyzed the correlation between heavy metal ions and phytotoxicity, confirming that the phytotoxicity of compost products was positively correlated with the content of As, Cd, Hg, Cr, Fe, Mn, and Pb. Tiquia et al. [12] also revealed that the main contributors to the phytotoxicity of pig manure compost were extractable copper, extractable zinc, and NH4+-N. Importantly, these substances gradually decreased during the composting process.
Although composting can notably mitigate the phytotoxicity of agricultural waste, it is important to note that this process is relatively time-consuming. The entire composting procedure required to attain full maturation typically spans several months [13]. In addition, some studies have also shown that even after undergoing thorough composting treatment, compost products may still retain phytotoxicity; the variability inherent in the materials, coupled with the differences in composting methods and equipment, can result in diverse composting outcomes [14]. For example, Siles-Castellano et al. [15] analyzed the evolution of phytotoxicity in five compost materials from fifteen industrial composting facilities. The results showed that compost products derived from municipal solid waste and plant residues, even after undergoing composting treatment, always exhibited phytotoxicity. They also revealed that inappropriate EC, pH values, and heavy metal content were the primary factors leading to phytotoxicity in these compost products. To address this issue, there is a growing focus on optimizing composting measures. This involves improving the composting environment in various ways, such as regulating temperature and enhancing ventilation, with the aim of accelerating the composting process, reducing the duration required for compost maturation, and diminishing the phytotoxicity of final compost products. As an example, Tong et al. [16] conducted a comparative study examining the distinctions between static treatment, flipping treatment, forced ventilation treatment, and acidified forced ventilation. Their findings suggested that forced ventilation and acidification could enhance composting efficiency, shorten treatment times, mitigate ammonia volatilization, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Rosimara Zittel et al. [17] prepared mixtures using different reactors and different types of waste to carry out reactor compression mixed composting at different stages, thereby generating mature and non-toxic compost faster. Furthermore, the inherent characteristics of compost raw materials, such as C/N and moisture content, may also cause variations in compost outcomes. Rosimara Zittel et al. [18] used tobacco, garden waste, sawdust, and sludge to form substrates with different C/N contents for composting. The experimental group with a C/N of 20.1 exhibited superior detoxification, yielding compost products with the highest GI. Generally speaking, maintaining the C/N of the compost pile within the range of 18–30 and the water content within 60–75% promotes nutrient utilization by microorganisms. This, in turn, facilitates the conversion of phytotoxic organic substances and reduces the bioavailability of heavy metals [19][20].
Many additives can effectively enhance the humification of compost and reduce phytotoxicity, but their effects on the composting process are different. As an illustration, Wang et al. [21] introduced superphosphate and biological additives into chicken manure compost. Their findings revealed that both additives effectively accelerated the composting process and reduced the phytotoxicity of the material. Superphosphate was found to promote the humification process and reduce phytotoxicity, while biological additives facilitated the formation of precursor substances and the humification process. In Wang et al.’s study [9], it was highlighted that carbon-rich additives, such as mushroom substrates, corn straw, and waste branches, can diminish the levels of total soluble nitrogen, ammonium nitrogen, and low molecular weight organic acids in the compost, thereby contributing to a decrease in phytotoxicity. Sun’s team, as reported in [22], found that adding bean dregs and crab shell powder for composting led to various improvements in compost conditions such as compost temperature, specific surface area, average pore size, pH value (the concentration of hydrogen ions, used to measure the acidity or alkalinity of a solution), and EC value (electrical conductivity, used to measure the concentration of soluble ions in the growing media). These improvements further facilitated microbial growth and enhanced enzyme activity. Moderate use of these two additives accelerated the decomposition of the composting process, shortened the composting duration, and improved the maturity and stability of compost products. Yin et al. [23] conducted composting with the addition of bean dregs and flue gas gypsum. This measure accelerated the degradation of lignocellulose and improved the water retention, nutrient content, pore distribution, and soil structure of the final compost products, and reduced their phytotoxicity. Pei et al. [24] used fruit residue, biochar, and manganese dioxide as additives for agricultural waste composting. Their results proved that these additives could significantly promote metabolic product transformation, optimize bacterial community structure, and effectively remove phytotoxic substances in agricultural waste, thereby improving the GI.
Biochar has gained significant popularity as a compost additive in recent years. Its incorporation into compost can effectively mitigate phytotoxicity by improving the physicochemical properties of the compost mixture. This includes boosting microbial activity, facilitating the decomposition of organic matter, promoting nitrogen conversion processes, diminishing the bioavailability of heavy metals, and enhancing overall compost maturity [25][26]. For example, Chen et al. [3] reported that biochar improved the pore structure of compost materials, leading to enhanced oxygen availability, the prevention of anaerobic environments, and the overall enhancement of compost quality. These effects collectively contributed to a reduction in phytotoxicity. A study by Sánchez-García et al. [27] also showed that biochar could prevent the formation of large chunks of material, thus promoting gas exchange and reducing phytotoxicity caused by poor material structure and gas exchange. In addition to improving the pore structure, Xiao et al. [26] pointed out that biochar could serve as a habitat for microorganisms, providing energy and nutrients for microbial activity, thereby promoting the microbial conversion of phytotoxic substances. In addition, since ammonia nitrogen is a substrate for nitrification, the addition of biochar to compost can accelerate the conversion of ammonia to nitrate and nitrite nitrogen, thus reducing the phytotoxicity caused by high concentrations of ammonia nitrogen [28][29]. A study by Chen et al. [3] proved that biochar can significantly reduce the extractable heavy metal content during the composting process of river bottom sediment and agricultural waste mixtures. Arshad et al. [30] also demonstrated that biochar reduced the bioavailability and migration of certain metal elements during the composting process, thereby reducing the phytotoxicity arising from excessive concentrations of heavy metals in compost materials. Additionally, it is worth noting that biochar contains high levels of FA-like and HA-like substances. These substances can expedite the formation of humus-like substances, thereby promoting a faster maturation of the compost and ensuring it meets harmless standards [31].

2. Removing Phytotoxicity by Heat Treatment

Heat treatments, including pyrolysis, torrefaction, and hydrothermal carbonization (HTC), are common methods for biomass treatment [32][33][34]. The representative product of heat-treated biomass for agricultural applications is biochar. Biochar refers to the solid, carbon-rich part obtained through the thermochemical conversion of biomass in a limited oxygen environment [28]. Pyrolysis, typically conducted under anaerobic or anoxic conditions within a temperature range of 350–1000 °C, results in the gradual decomposition of cellulose and lignin under thermal cracking conditions. Torrefaction is an incomplete pyrolysis process that occurs under anaerobic or low-oxygen conditions at 200–300 °C [35]. Compared with pyrolysis, torrefaction has lower energy consumption. However, due to the lower degree of carbonization, it is generally considered that biomass torrefaction products cannot provide the same carbon sequestration capacity as biochar [36]. As a result, compared with biochar, less attention has been paid to biomass torrefaction products [33]. The HTC process requires a moderate temperature of 150–350 °C and a certain pressure (2–6 Mpa); thus, HTC is particularly suitable for raw materials with a high water content, such as crop straw and sludge [37][38]. Hydrothermal carbonization, with a carbon efficiency as high as 80–100%, significantly outperforms pyrolysis, which has a carbon efficiency of about 50%. Given its similar physicochemical properties to peat, HTC is regarded as a promising technology for using biomass as growing media [39]. Biomass heat treatment products are generally quite stable and have a high porosity and specific surface area. They can significantly improve soil physicochemical properties and improve nutrient utilization efficiency. Therefore, they are widely used in agricultural production. Some common agricultural applications of biomass heat treatment products, such as soil amendments, compost additives, slow-release fertilizer carriers, etc., have been extensively studied. In contrast, there are much fewer studies on biomass heat treatment products as growing media components. However, several scholars have underscored the significant potential of biomass heat treatment products as components of growing media [40][41][42].
During the heat treatment process, the phytotoxic components in the material are volatilized/condensed and degraded/generated at high temperatures, resulting in a significant alteration in the phytotoxicity. The alteration is typically manifested as a substantial decrease in the material’s phytotoxicity [43][44][45]. For instance, organic substances like polyphenols were eliminated from a garden waste mixture through the process of slow pyrolysis, enabling the treated materials to meet harmless standards [46]. Steam explosion treatment notably diminished the phenolic content in oak chips. Consequently, the treated oak chips ceased to impede the growth of Chinese cabbage, marking a significant contrast to the pre-treatment phase [47]. Furthermore, after the pyrolysis and hydrothermal carbonization processes of urban sewage sludge, the bioavailability of heavy metals was reduced, and there was a decrease in phytotoxicity [48]. In addition, all hydrochars exhibited superior germination compared to untreated raw materials such as sludge, coffee grounds, and grape pomace [49]. Moreover, after using eucalyptus globulus bark treated by a low-temperature hydrothermal treatment and then mixed with peat as a substrate for cultivating Chinese cabbage, the growth statistics of Chinese cabbage were better than those of commercial substrates, indicating that it is non-phytotoxic [40].
However, materials may still retain phytotoxicity after heat treatment [50]. Mumme et al. [51] measured the phytotoxicity of various biochars. Some heat treatment products still inhibited plant growth, and different biochars showed great variations in phytotoxicity levels. A study by Busch et al. [52] compared the phytotoxicity of biochar and hydrochar products under various processes and found that some hydrochars still had a high level of phytotoxicity, while the overall phytotoxicity of biochar was lower than that of hydrochar. Furthermore, the research results of Bargmann et al. [53] also showed that biochar usually has no effect on seed germination or even has a slight positive effect, while hydrochar usually has a significant negative impact on seed germination. The phytotoxicity of these hydrochars was mainly caused by the presence of water-soluble or volatile organic compounds [54][55]. Buss et al. [56] also pointed out that volatile organic compounds (VOCs) with the highest potential to cause phytotoxicity include low-molecular-weight organic acids and phenols, which is attributed to their high mobility. Furthermore, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which are byproducts of the pyrolysis process, can also contribute to phytotoxicity [57][58]. Furthermore, the formation of phytotoxic compounds, such as furans and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, was generated during the pyrolysis process, and these phytotoxic substances then dissolved into the bio-oil. This bio-oil had the potential to be adsorbed onto the biochar following recondensation during the carbonization process, thereby transforming the biochar into a pollutant carrier and leading to high levels of phytotoxicity [59][60]. Besides volatile substances, high concentrations of heavy metals are also a main reason for the phytotoxicity of biochar [61][62][63]. In addition, the adsorption of ammonia nitrogen and organic and inorganic composite pollutants by biochar and high pH and EC levels can also have negative effects on plant growth [54].
The properties of biochar vary due to different raw materials and heat treatment conditions. The type of raw material, heat treatment conditions (temperature, time, and oxidation conditions), and variations in pre- and post-treatment steps significantly influence the composition of elemental and surface functional groups as well as the pore structure and quantity of biochar [64][65]. These alterations result in substantial variations in the properties of biochar, thereby affecting the final outcome of phytotoxicity removal [66][67][68].
Compared with low-temperature biochar, high-temperature biochar often has lower phytotoxicity. This can be attributed to the fact that high temperatures are more conducive to reducing the content of organic pollutants in biochar and reducing the bioavailability of heavy metals [69]. However, higher temperatures often mean a higher pH of the product, and high pH is generally not conducive to plant growth. Furthermore, higher temperatures result in increased energy consumption, which, in turn, significantly raises production costs. Compared with high-temperature pyrolysis, hydrothermal carbonization is more efficient and consumes less energy, and largely retains physicochemical properties similar to peat. However, due to the low processing temperature, it cannot effectively eliminate volatile and water-soluble organic phytotoxic substances, nor can it passivate harmful heavy metals, so it is difficult to directly use for growing media components [70][71].
To create high-quality, heat-treated growing media components at a low cost and with minimal energy consumption, numerous studies are concentrating on the post-treatment process of HTC; the aim is to entirely eliminate the phytotoxicity of HTC products. Choosing suitable raw materials and optimizing preparation and post-treatment processes have been proven to be feasible methods to reduce the phytotoxicity of HTC. For example, research by Martin Hitzl et al. [72] proposed that secondary heat treatment of prepared HTC at 275 °C can remove more than 99% of volatile organic phytotoxic substances. Research by Intani et al. [73] pointed out that fresh biochar and biochar water extract both have severe phytotoxicity, but the washing treatment of biochar can effectively reduce its phytotoxicity. Similarly, research by Islam [74] showed that untreated biochar, fresh HTC, and aging hydrothermal carbon all have strong phytotoxicity, but washed hydrothermal carbon shows lower phytotoxicity.

3. Removing Phytotoxicity by Washing

Washing is the technique of using water or other solvents to diminish the pollutant content of materials, thereby enhancing their quality and applicability [75]. Initially, research on washing methods was primarily aimed at solving the problem of heavy metal soil pollution, with a focus on reducing the excessive concentrations of these metals in the soil [76]. In recent years, washing has also been used to treat agricultural waste to remove its phytotoxicity.
Washing can be categorized into two types based on the type of washing agent used: water washing and chemical washing [77]. Water washing is the simplest and most common method. It uses deionized water to wash contaminated media to dilute and eliminate pollutants. The advantage of water washing is that it is simple to operate and low in cost. The disadvantage is that it is inefficient, requires a large amount of water resources, and may lead to wastewater discharge [78][79]. Chemical washing refers to the use of chemical reagents to treat contaminated materials in order to increase the solubility of harmful substances or alter their chemical properties, thereby accelerating their removal process. Chemical washing is efficient and can choose reagents suitable for specific pollutants, but it is complicated to operate, high in cost, and may produce some phytotoxic or difficult-to-degrade chemicals, causing secondary pollution [80].
Phytotoxicity removal mechanisms for washing methods can be divided into two categories: physical mechanism—by the flushing, dissolution, adsorption, and desorption of pollutants in the material with water or other washing agents, whereby pollutants are transferred from the solid phase to the liquid phase or gas phase, thereby reducing their content and bioavailability in the material—and chemical mechanism—through oxidation, reduction, complexation, permutation, and other reactions between water or other washing agents and the pollutants in the material, which are transformed into more soluble, less phytotoxic, or more easily degradable forms, thereby reducing their content and bioavailability in the material [81][82]. It is important to note that washing is only suitable for treating some lightly or moderately polluted soils and soilless substrates, especially materials containing soluble or adsorbable harmful substances. For some difficult-to-remove pollutants, such as organochlorine pesticides and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, washing may not achieve the expected effect and may need to be combined with other methods for comprehensive treatment [83][84].
Due to significant differences in the physicochemical properties of different phytotoxic substances and washing agents, the removal effects of washing methods on material phytotoxicity vary [85]. Generally speaking, organic pollutants are more difficult to remove than inorganic pollutants, and high-concentration pollutants are more difficult to remove than low-concentration pollutants [86]. Furthermore, the washing time and frequency affect the contact time and number of washes between pollutants and washing agents. The longer the washing time and the higher the frequency, the better the removal effect, but it may also cause the material to be overly moist. Therefore, it is necessary to determine the appropriate washing time and frequency based on the migration speed of pollutants and the water demand of substrates or plants. Furthermore, different washing agents have different solubilities and affinities for pollutants. Usually, the higher the concentration of the washing agent, the better the removal effect, but a too-high concentration of the washing agent may cause damage to the material. Therefore, it is necessary to choose a suitable washing agent and dosage based on the characteristics of pollutants and the tolerance of substrates or plants. Moreover, the washing temperature and pH will affect the chemical reaction rate and equilibrium state between pollutants and washing agents [87]. The higher the temperature and the farther away from neutral pH, the better the removal effect usually is [88]. But, it is necessary to consider whether too high a temperature and too acidic or alkaline an environment will cause thermal damage or acid-base damage to materials, and pH will greatly affect nutrient element availability. Therefore, it is necessary to control washing temperature and pH value according to pollutant reaction kinetics and use a suitable temperature and pH range for the material [89][90].
Although washing methods can efficiently mitigate phytotoxicity through straightforward procedures and observable outcomes, they also pose challenges, including the consumption and contamination of water resources. Consequently, it is essential to devise more eco-friendly washing technologies; investigate novel, safe washing agents; and establish scientifically sound washing standards and regulations.

4. Removing Phytotoxicity by Aging

Composting, heat treatment, and washing are all technologies that require human intervention to remove phytotoxicity from agricultural waste. Aging treatment refers to the open-air storage of materials and natural weathering for 2–18 months, without adding fertilizers or additives and without adjusting the physicochemical properties of the materials in order to achieve the purpose of removing phytotoxicity [91]. Organic carbon, ammonia nitrogen, sulfur, and other elements in plant waste are converted into harmless states such as carbon dioxide, ammonia, nitrate nitrogen, nitrite nitrogen, sulfate, etc. by microorganisms and enzymes [92]. Moreover, phytotoxic substances such as phenols, aldehydes, and ketones in plant waste can be removed by aging, while the suitability of the waste as a growing media component can be improved [93].
The efficiency of phytotoxicity removal through natural aging is determined by various factors, primarily environmental temperature, humidity, and the material’s pH value and C/N ratio [94]. Temperature, humidity, and pH are important factors affecting the activity of microorganisms and enzymes. Too-high or too-low temperatures, humidity, and pH will inhibit the activity and metabolism of microorganisms and enzymes [[95]. The C/N ratio is an important factor affecting the conversion rate of organic carbon and nitrogen [96]. Generally, the more suitable the C/N ratio of the material, the faster the natural aging speed is. Too-high or too-low C/N ratios will lead to the accumulation or deficiency of organic carbon or nitrogen. The most used aging waste is coir and bark. Several cases are used to illustrate aging methods for agricultural waste as a growing media component. Research by Ma and Nichols [97] pointed out that fresh coconut shells have high phytotoxicity and are used as a cultivation substrate to significantly inhibit lettuce growth. After the aging treatment of coconut shells, the phenol content is reduced and the inhibition of lettuce growth is also weakened. Tuckeldoe et al. [98] planted peppers with soil and aged coir growing media, respectively. The planting effect of aged coir growing media was better than soil planting. Furthermore, Buamscha et al. [92] used fresh and aged cedar bark as growing media, respectively. The geraniums planted in aged cedar bark growing media grew faster and had higher leaf nitrogen contents. Similarly, Chemetova et al. [99] found that fresh Acacia melanoxylon bark also has a strong phytotoxic effect, but, after the aging treatment of Acacia melanoxylon bark, phenolic substances were completely removed and no longer inhibited celery germination. And Altland et al. [91] compared the physical and hydraulic properties of fresh pine bark, short-time-aged pine bark, and long-time-aged pine bark. The aged pine bark had a finer particle size and stronger water storage capacity, so it was more suitable for use in soilless cultivation.
Generally, the benefits of natural aging are clear: cost-effectiveness, ease of implementation, and no requirement for chemical additives. However, natural aging is time-consuming, yields inconsistent results, and is limited by the availability of raw materials. These factors make it challenging to industrialize for the production of high-quality growing media [100].

5. Removing Phytotoxicity by Ammonium Incubation

For the industrial utilization of agricultural waste as growing media, prerequisites in-clude shorter processing time, ease of operation, reproducibility, and stable yield and quality. Additionally, considerations must be given to cost reduction and minimizing environmental pollution. Recently, Zhou and colleagues[101] conducted an evaluation of the phytotoxicity of six common plant wastes in southwestern China. They high-lighted a strong correlation between the intensity of phytotoxicity and the content of organic acids in these wastes. Drawing on these findings, they suggested a novel ap-proach for mitigating the phytotoxicity of green waste called Ammonium Incubation. The basic idea of Ammonium Incubation was to have a specific detoxifying agent react chemically with the phytotoxic substances in the material, and reduced the activity or concentration of the phytotoxic substances, thereby eliminating or reducing the phyto-toxicity. Specifically, it was to mix green waste and ammonium salts (ammonium car-bonate, ammonium bicarbonate, etc.) at a mass ratio of 1%-2%, adjusted the moisture content to 60%-70%, and then placed them at room temperature for 3-7 days. The experiment showed that this technology could significantly reduce the content of organic acids and their derivatives in green waste within 5 days, making the seed ger-mination index (GI) of representative green waste mixtures from less than 5% to more than 100%. During the Ammonium Incubation process of green waste, complex biolog-ical and non-biological reactions involving ammonium salts, organic acids, and other phytotoxic substances may occur, thereby reducing the phytotoxicity of green waste. This treatment process had low energy consumption and low pollution, and had very good prospects for industrial application.

 

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/agronomy14010040

References

  1. Zhang Mengqi; Aiping Shi; Muhammad Ajmal; Lihua Ye; Muhammad Awais; Comprehensive review on agricultural waste utilization and high-temperature fermentation and composting. Biomass- Convers. Biorefinery 2021, 13, 5445-5468, .
  2. Li Chen; Yaoning Chen; Yuanping Li; Yihuan Liu; Hongjuan Jiang; Hui Li; Yu Yuan; Yanrong Chen; Bin Zou; Improving the humification by additives during composting: A review. Waste Manag. 2023, 158, 93-106, .
  3. Yaoning Chen; Yao Liu; Yuanping Li; Yanxin Wu; Yanrong Chen; Guangming Zeng; Jiachao Zhang; Hui Li; Influence of biochar on heavy metals and microbial community during composting of river sediment with agricultural wastes. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 243, 347-355, .
  4. J. Moreno; M.J. López; M.C. Vargas‐García; F. Suárez‐Estrella; RECENT ADVANCES IN MICROBIAL ASPECTS OF COMPOST PRODUCTION AND USE. Acta Hortic. 2013, 1, 443-457, .
  5. Mitsuhiko Koyama; Norio Nagao; Fadhil Syukri; Abdullah Abd Rahim; Mohd Salleh Kamarudin; Tatsuki Toda; Takuya Mitsuhashi; Kiyohiko Nakasaki; Effect of temperature on thermophilic composting of aquaculture sludge: NH3 recovery, nitrogen mass balance, and microbial community dynamics. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 265, 207-213, .
  6. Kiyohiko Nakasaki; Shogo Araya; Hiroshi Mimoto; Inoculation of Pichia kudriavzevii RB1 degrades the organic acids present in raw compost material and accelerates composting. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 144, 521-528, .
  7. Zhen Yu; Xiaoming Liu; Meihua Zhao; Wenqi Zhao; Jing Liu; Jia Tang; Hanpeng Liao; Zhi Chen; Shungui Zhou; Hyperthermophilic composting accelerates the humification process of sewage sludge: Molecular characterization of dissolved organic matter using EEM–PARAFAC and two-dimensional correlation spectroscopy. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 274, 198-206, .
  8. Zhechao Zhang; Yue Zhao; Tianxue Yang; Zimin Wei; Yingjun Li; Yuquan Wei; Xiaomeng Chen; Liqin Wang; Effects of exogenous protein-like precursors on humification process during lignocellulose-like biomass composting: Amino acids as the key linker to promote humification process. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 291, 121882, .
  9. Guoying Wang; Yan Yang; Yilin Kong; Ruonan Ma; Jing Yuan; Guoxue Li; Key factors affecting seed germination in phytotoxicity tests during sheep manure composting with carbon additives. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 421, 126809, .
  10. Yilin Kong; Guoying Wang; Wenjie Chen; Yan Yang; Ruonan Ma; Danyang Li; Yujun Shen; Guoxue Li; Jing Yuan; Phytotoxicity of farm livestock manures in facultative heap composting using the seed germination index as indicator. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2022, 247, 114251, .
  11. Xinyu Zhao; Beidou Xi; Xiaosong He; Dan Li; Wenbing Tan; Hui Zhang; Xiaowei Wang; Chao Yang; The impacts of metal ions on phytotoxicity mediate by microbial community during municipal solid waste composting. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 242, 153-161, .
  12. S.M. Tiquia; Reduction of compost phytotoxicity during the process of decomposition. Chemosphere 2010, 79, 506-512, .
  13. Olfa Fourti; The maturity tests during the composting of municipal solid wastes. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2013, 72, 43-49, .
  14. Ana B. Siles-Castellano; María J. López; Macarena M. Jurado; Francisca Suárez-Estrella; Juan A. López-González; María J. Estrella-González; Joaquín Moreno; Industrial composting of low carbon/nitrogen ratio mixtures of agri-food waste and impact on compost quality. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 316, 123946, .
  15. Ana B. Siles-Castellano; María J. López; Juan A. López-González; Francisca Suárez-Estrella; Macarena M. Jurado; María J. Estrella-González; Joaquín Moreno; Comparative analysis of phytotoxicity and compost quality in industrial composting facilities processing different organic wastes. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 252, 119820, .
  16. Bingxin Tong; Xuan Wang; Shiqiang Wang; Lin Ma; Wenqi Ma; Transformation of nitrogen and carbon during composting of manure litter with different methods. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 293, 122046, .
  17. Rosimara Zittel; Cleber Pinto da Silva; Cinthia Eloise Domingues; Daniele Cristina Hass Seremeta; Ruben Auccaise Estrada; Sandro Xavier de Campos; Composting of smuggled cigarettes tobacco and industrial sewage sludge in reactors: Physicochemical, phytotoxic and spectroscopic study. Waste Manag. 2018, 79, 537-544, .
  18. Rosimara Zittel; Cleber Pinto da Silva; Cinthia Eloise Domingues; Tatiana Roselena de Oliveira Stremel; Thiago Eduardo de Almeida; Gislaine Vieira Damiani; Sandro Xavier de Campos; Treatment of smuggled cigarette tobacco by composting process in facultative reactors. Waste Manag. 2017, 71, 115-121, .
  19. Rui Guo; Guoxue Li; Tao Jiang; Frank Schuchardt; Tongbin Chen; Yuanqiu Zhao; Yujun Shen; Effect of aeration rate, C/N ratio and moisture content on the stability and maturity of compost. Bioresour. Technol. 2012, 112, 171-178, .
  20. Lixia Wang; Yingxin Li; Shiv O. Prasher; Baixing Yan; Yang Ou; Hu Cui; Yanru Cui; Organic matter, a critical factor to immobilize phosphorus, copper, and zinc during composting under various initial C/N ratios. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 289, 121745, .
  21. Guoying Wang; Yilin Kong; Yan Yang; Ruonan Ma; Yujun Shen; Guoxue Li; Jing Yuan; Superphosphate, biochar, and a microbial inoculum regulate phytotoxicity and humification during chicken manure composting. Sci. Total. Environ. 2022, 824, 153958, .
  22. Lu Zhang; Xiangyang Sun; Effects of bean dregs and crab shell powder additives on the composting of green waste. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 260, 283-293, .
  23. Zexin Yin; Lu Zhang; Ruinan Li; Effects of additives on physical, chemical, and microbiological properties during green waste composting. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 340, 125719, .
  24. Fangyi Pei; Xinbo Cao; Yangcun Sun; Jie Kang; YanXin Ren; Jingping Ge; Manganese dioxide eliminates the phytotoxicity of aerobic compost products and converts them into a plant friendly organic fertilizer. Bioresour. Technol. 2023, 373, 128708, .
  25. Yue Li; Mukesh Kumar Awasthi; Raveendran Sindhu; Parameswaran Binod; Zengqiang Zhang; Mohammad J. Taherzadeh; Biochar preparation and evaluation of its effect in composting mechanism: A review. Bioresour. Technol. 2023, 384, 129329, .
  26. Ran Xiao; Mukesh Kumar Awasthi; Ronghua Li; Jonghwan Park; Scott M. Pensky; Quan Wang; Jim J. Wang; Zengqiang Zhang; Recent developments in biochar utilization as an additive in organic solid waste composting: A review. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 246, 203-213, .
  27. M. Sánchez-García; J.A. Alburquerque; M.A. Sánchez-Monedero; A. Roig; M.L. Cayuela; Biochar accelerates organic matter degradation and enhances N mineralisation during composting of poultry manure without a relevant impact on gas emissions. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 192, 272-279, .
  28. Giovanni Ferraro; Giuditta Pecori; Luca Rosi; Lorenzo Bettucci; Emiliano Fratini; David Casini; Andrea Maria Rizzo; David Chiaramonti; Biochar from lab-scale pyrolysis: influence of feedstock and operational temperature. Biomass- Convers. Biorefinery 2021, 1, 1-11, .
  29. Junqiu Wu; Zimin Wei; Zechen Zhu; Yue Zhao; Liming Jia; Pin Lv; Humus formation driven by ammonia-oxidizing bacteria during mixed materials composting. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 311, 123500, .
  30. Maryem Arshad; Aqib Hassan Ali Khan; Imran Hussain; Badar- Uz- Zaman; Mariam Anees; Mazhar Iqbal; Gerhard Soja; Celeste Linde; Sohail Yousaf; The reduction of chromium (VI) phytotoxicity and phytoavailability to wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) using biochar and bacteria. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2017, 114, 90-98, .
  31. Jining Zhang; Fan Lü; Chenghao Luo; Liming Shao; Pinjing He; Humification characterization of biochar and its potential as a composting amendment. J. Environ. Sci. 2014, 26, 390-397, .
  32. I. Bargmann; M. C. Rillig; W. Buss; A. Kruse; M. Kuecke; Hydrochar and Biochar Effects on Germination of Spring Barley. J. Agron. Crop. Sci. 2013, 199, 360-373, .
  33. Margareta Novian Cahyanti; Tharaka Rama Krishna C. Doddapaneni; Timo Kikas; Biomass torrefaction: An overview on process parameters, economic and environmental aspects and recent advancements. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 301, 122737, .
  34. José Alexander Rodriguez; José Ferreira Lustosa Filho; Leônidas Carrijo Azevedo Melo; Igor Rodrigues de Assis; Teógenes Senna de Oliveira; Influence of pyrolysis temperature and feedstock on the properties of biochars produced from agricultural and industrial wastes. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2020, 149, 104839, .
  35. Wei-Hsin Chen; Jianghong Peng; Xiaotao T. Bi; A state-of-the-art review of biomass torrefaction, densification and applications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 44, 847-866, .
  36. Rachel Backer; Michele Ghidotti; Timothy Schwinghamer; Werda Saeed; Claudia Grenier; Carl Dion-Laplante; Daniele Fabbri; Pierre Dutilleul; Philippe Seguin; Donald L. Smith; et al. Getting to the root of the matter: Water-soluble and volatile components in thermally-treated biosolids and biochar differentially regulate maize (Zea mays) seedling growth. PLOS ONE 2018, 13, e0206924, .
  37. Azharul Islam; Sharif Hasan Limon; Marija Romić; Atikul Islam; Hydrochar-based soil amendments for agriculture: a review of recent progress. Arab. J. Geosci. 2021, 14, 1-16, .
  38. Harpreet Singh Kambo; Animesh Dutta; A comparative review of biochar and hydrochar in terms of production, physico-chemical properties and applications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 45, 359-378, .
  39. N. Gruda; CURRENT AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVE OF GROWING MEDIA IN EUROPE. Acta Hortic. 2012, 1, 37-43, .
  40. C. Chemetova; D. Mota; A. Fabião; J. Gominho; H. Ribeiro; Low-temperature hydrothermally treated Eucalyptus globulus bark: From by-product to horticultural fiber-based growing media viability. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 319, 128805, .
  41. Michael Roehrdanz; Thomas Greve; Megan de Jager; Rainer Buchwald; Michael Wark; Co-composted hydrochar substrates as growing media for horticultural crops. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 252, 96-103, .
  42. W.R. Carlile; Costantino Cattivello; Patrizia Zaccheo; Organic Growing Media: Constituents and Properties. Vadose Zone J. 2015, 14, 1-13, .
  43. Martin Brtnicky; Rahul Datta; Jiri Holatko; Lucie Bielska; Zygmunt M. Gusiatin; Jiri Kucerik; Tereza Hammerschmiedt; Subhan Danish; Maja Radziemska; Ludmila Mravcova; et al. A critical review of the possible adverse effects of biochar in the soil environment. Sci. Total. Environ. 2021, 796, 148756, .
  44. Sirjana Adhikari; Wendy Timms; M.A. Parvez Mahmud; Optimising water holding capacity and hydrophobicity of biochar for soil amendment – A review. Sci. Total. Environ. 2022, 851, 158043, .
  45. Humberto Blanco-Canqui; Does biochar application alleviate soil compaction? Review and data synthesis. Geoderma 2021, 404, 1, .
  46. Mengyuan Ji; Xiaoxia Wang; Muhammad Usman; Feihong Liu; Yitong Dan; Lei Zhou; Stefano Campanaro; Gang Luo; Wenjing Sang; Effects of different feedstocks-based biochar on soil remediation: A review. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 294, 118655, .
  47. A. Nieto; G. Gascó; J. Paz-Ferreiro; J.M. Fernández; C. Plaza; A. Méndez; The effect of pruning waste and biochar addition on brown peat based growing media properties. Sci. Hortic. 2016, 199, 142-148, .
  48. Ji Young Jung; Ji Su Kim; Si Young Ha; Ju Hyun Choi; Jae-Kyung Yang; Suitability of thermal treated sawdust as replacements for peat moss in horticultural media. J. Agric. Life Sci. 2015, 49, 105-115, .
  49. Mozhdeh Alipour; Hossein Asadi; Chengrong Chen; Mehran Rezaei Rashti; Bioavailability and eco-toxicity of heavy metals in chars produced from municipal sewage sludge decreased during pyrolysis and hydrothermal carbonization. Ecol. Eng. 2021, 162, 106173, .
  50. Gianluigi Farru; Chau Huyen Dang; Maja Schultze; Jürgen Kern; Giovanna Cappai; Judy A. Libra; Benefits and Limitations of Using Hydrochars from Organic Residues as Replacement for Peat on Growing Media. Hortic. 2022, 8, 325, .
  51. Jan Mumme; Josephine Getz; Munoo Prasad; Ulf Lüder; Jürgen Kern; Ondřej Mašek; Wolfram Buss; Toxicity screening of biochar-mineral composites using germination tests. Chemosphere 2018, 207, 91-100, .
  52. Daniela Busch; Arne Stark; Claudia I. Kammann; Bruno Glaser; Genotoxic and phytotoxic risk assessment of fresh and treated hydrochar from hydrothermal carbonization compared to biochar from pyrolysis. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2013, 97, 59-66, .
  53. I. Bargmann; M. C. Rillig; W. Buss; A. Kruse; M. Kuecke; Hydrochar and Biochar Effects on Germination of Spring Barley. J. Agron. Crop. Sci. 2013, 199, 360-373, .
  54. Wolfram Buss; Ondřej Mašek; Mobile organic compounds in biochar – A potential source of contamination – Phytotoxic effects on cress seed (Lepidium sativum) germination. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 137, 111-119, .
  55. J. Ruzickova; S. Koval; H. Raclavska; M. Kucbel; B. Svedova; K. Raclavsky; D. Juchelkova; F. Scala; A comprehensive assessment of potential hazard caused by organic compounds in biochar for agricultural use. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 403, 123644, .
  56. Wolfram Buss; Ondřej Mašek; Margaret Graham; Dominik Wüst; Inherent organic compounds in biochar–Their content, composition and potential toxic effects. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 156, 150-157, .
  57. Mauro Cordella; Cristian Torri; Alessio Adamiano; Daniele Fabbri; Federica Barontini; Valerio Cozzani; Bio-oils from biomass slow pyrolysis: A chemical and toxicological screening. J. Hazard. Mater. 2012, 231-232, 26-35, .
  58. Sarah E. Hale; Johannes Lehmann; David Rutherford; Andrew R. Zimmerman; Robert T. Bachmann; Victor Shitumbanuma; Adam O’toole; Kristina L. Sundqvist; Hans Peter H. Arp; Gerard Cornelissen; et al. Quantifying the Total and Bioavailable Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Dioxins in Biochars. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 2830-2838, .
  59. Maria Isidoria Silva Gonzaga; Cheryl L. Mackowiak; Nicholas Brian Comerford; Ederlon Flávio da Veiga Moline; Jennifer P. Shirley; Danielle Vieira Guimaraes; Pyrolysis methods impact biosolids-derived biochar composition, maize growth and nutrition. Soil Tillage Res. 2017, 165, 59-65, .
  60. Isabel Hilber; Ana Catarina Bastos; Susana Loureiro; Gerhard Soja; Aleksandra Marsz; Gerard Cornelissen; Thomas D. Bucheli; THE DIFFERENT FACES OF BIOCHAR: CONTAMINATION RISK VERSUS REMEDIATION TOOL. J. Environ. Eng. Landsc. Manag. 2017, 25, 86-104, .
  61. Daniele Fabbri; Alessandro G. Rombolà; Cristian Torri; Kurt A. Spokas; Determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in biochar and biochar amended soil. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2013, 103, 60-67, .
  62. Jae-Young Kim; Shinyoung Oh; Young-Kwon Park; Overview of biochar production from preservative-treated wood with detailed analysis of biochar characteristics, heavy metals behaviors, and their ecotoxicity. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 384, 121356, .
  63. Patryk Oleszczuk; Izabela Jośko; Marcin Kuśmierz; Biochar properties regarding to contaminants content and ecotoxicological assessment. J. Hazard. Mater. 2013, 260, 375-382, .
  64. Subhash Chandra; Jayanta Bhattacharya; Influence of temperature and duration of pyrolysis on the property heterogeneity of rice straw biochar and optimization of pyrolysis conditions for its application in soils. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 215, 1123-1139, .
  65. Waled Suliman; James B. Harsh; Nehal I. Abu-Lail; Ann-Marie Fortuna; Ian Dallmeyer; Manuel Garcia-Perez; Modification of biochar surface by air oxidation: Role of pyrolysis temperature. Biomass- Bioenergy 2016, 85, 1-11, .
  66. Alba Dieguez-Alonso; Axel Funke; Andrés Anca-Couce; Alessandro Girolamo Rombolà; Gerardo Ojeda; Jörg Bachmann; Frank Behrendt; Towards Biochar and Hydrochar Engineering—Influence of Process Conditions on Surface Physical and Chemical Properties, Thermal Stability, Nutrient Availability, Toxicity and Wettability. Energies 2018, 11, 496, .
  67. Agnieszka Tomczyk; Zofia Sokołowska; Patrycja Boguta; Biochar physicochemical properties: pyrolysis temperature and feedstock kind effects. Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technology 2020, 19, 191-215, .
  68. Luiza Usevičiūtė; Edita Baltrėnaitė-Gedienė; Dependence of pyrolysis temperature and lignocellulosic physical-chemical properties of biochar on its wettability. Biomass- Convers. Biorefinery 2020, 11, 2775-2793, .
  69. Kurt A. Spokas; Keri B. Cantrell; Jeffrey M. Novak; David W. Archer; James A. Ippolito; Harold P. Collins; Akwasi A. Boateng; Isabel M. Lima; Marshall C. Lamb; Andrew J. McAloon; et al. Biochar: A Synthesis of Its Agronomic Impact beyond Carbon Sequestration. J. Environ. Qual. 2012, 41, 973-989, .
  70. Megan de Jager; Luise Giani; An investigation of the effects of hydrochar application rate on soil amelioration and plant growth in three diverse soils. Biochar 2021, 3, 349-365, .
  71. Javier Ordonez-Loza; Farid Chejne; Abdul Gani Abdul Jameel; Selvedin Telalovic; Andrés Amell Arrieta; S. Mani Sarathy; An investigation into the pyrolysis and oxidation of bio-oil from sugarcane bagasse: Kinetics and evolved gases using TGA-FTIR. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9, 106144, .
  72. Martin Hitzl; Ana Mendez; Mikołaj Owsianiak; Michael Renz; Making hydrochar suitable for agricultural soil: A thermal treatment to remove organic phytotoxic compounds. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2018, 6, 7029-7034, .
  73. Kiatkamjon Intani; Sajid Latif; Shafiqul Islam; Joachim Müller; Phytotoxicity of Corncob Biochar before and after Heat Treatment and Washing. Sustain. 2018, 11, 30, .
  74. Azharul Islam; Sharif Hasan Limon; Marija Romić; Atikul Islam; Hydrochar-based soil amendments for agriculture: a review of recent progress. Arab. J. Geosci. 2021, 14, 1-16, .
  75. Weijin Feng; Shirong Zhang; Qinmei Zhong; Guiyin Wang; Xiaomei Pan; Xiaoxun Xu; Wei Zhou; Ting Li; Ling Luo; Yanzong Zhang; et al. Soil washing remediation of heavy metal from contaminated soil with EDTMP and PAA: Properties, optimization, and risk assessment. J. Hazard. Mater. 2019, 381, 120997, .
  76. Riyad J Abumaizar; Edward H Smith; Heavy metal contaminants removal by soil washing. J. Hazard. Mater. 1999, 70, 71-86, .
  77. Pablo Carril; Majid Ghorbani; Stefano Loppi; Silvia Celletti; Effect of Biochar Type, Concentration and Washing Conditions on the Germination Parameters of Three Model Crops. Plants 2023, 12, 2235, .
  78. O. Dikinya; O. Areola; Comparative analysis of heavy metal concentration in secondary treated wastewater irrigated soils cultivated by different crops. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 7, 337-346, .
  79. Zhongzhen Wang; Hongbin Wang; Haijuan Wang; Qinchun Li; Yang Li; Effect of soil washing on heavy metal removal and soil quality: A two-sided coin. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2020, 203, 110981, .
  80. Zhihua Zhu; Jianle Wang; Xueqiang Liu; Le Yuan; Xueming Liu; Hong Deng; Comparative study on washing effects of different washing agents and conditions on heavy metal contaminated soil. Surfaces Interfaces 2021, 27, 101563, .
  81. Heng Zhang; Yongxin Xu; Thokozani Kanyerere; Yang-Shuang Wang; Minhui Sun; Washing Reagents for Remediating Heavy-Metal-Contaminated Soil: A Review. Front. Earth Sci. 2022, 10, 1, .
  82. Xiaoxun Xu; Yan Yang; Guiyin Wang; Shirong Zhang; Zhang Cheng; Ting Li; Zhanbiao Yang; Junren Xian; Yuanxiang Yang; Wei Zhou; et al. Removal of heavy metals from industrial sludge with new plant–based washing agents. Chemosphere 2020, 246, 125816, .
  83. A. Branzini; M. S. Zubillaga; Assessing Phytotoxicity of Heavy Metals in Remediated Soil. Int. J. Phytoremediation 2010, 12, 335-342, .
  84. S. Gitipour; A. Mohebban; S. Ghasemi; M. Abdollahinejad; B. Abdollahinejad; Evaluation of effective parameters in washing of PAH-contaminated soils using response surface methodology approach. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 17, 683-694, .
  85. Melayib Bilgin; Şevket Tulun; Biodrying for municipal solid waste: volume and weight reduction. Environ. Technol. 2015, 36, 1691-1697, .
  86. Pei Ya Liu; Huan Liu; Yu Jiao Li; Chang Xun Dong; Remediation of Arsenic Contaminated Soils and Treatment of Washing Effluent Using Calcined Mn-Fe Layered Double Hydroxide. Adv. Mater. Res. 2014, 955-959, 2014-2021, .
  87. Jyoti Prakash Maity; Yuh Ming Huang; Chun-Mei Hsu; Ching-I Wu; Chien-Cheng Chen; Chun-Yi Li; Jiin-Shuh Jean; Young-Fo Chang; Chen-Yen Chen; Removal of Cu, Pb and Zn by foam fractionation and a soil washing process from contaminated industrial soils using soapberry-derived saponin: A comparative effectiveness assessment. Chemosphere 2013, 92, 1286-1293, .
  88. Shridhar K. Sathe; Valerie D. Zaffran; Sahil Gupta; Tengfei Li; Protein Solubilization. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 2018, 95, 883-901, .
  89. Sergio González- Pérez; Johan M. Vereijken; Gerrit A. Koningsveld; Harry Gruppen; Alphons G. J. Voragen; Physicochemical Properties of 2S Albumins and the Corresponding Protein Isolate from Sunflower (Helianthus annuus). J. Food Sci. 2005, 70, C98-C103, .
  90. G. Sripad; V. Prakash; M. S. Narasinga Rao; Extractability of polyphenols of sunflower seed in various solvents. J. Biosci. 1982, 4, 145-152, .
  91. James E. Altland; James S. Owen; Brian E. Jackson; Jeb S. Fields; Physical and Hydraulic Properties of Commercial Pine-bark Substrate Products Used in Production of Containerized Crops. HortScience 2018, 53, 1883-1890, .
  92. M. Gabriela Buamscha; James E. Altland; Dan M. Sullivan; Donald A. Horneck; John P.G. McQueen; Nitrogen Availability in Fresh and Aged Douglas Fir Bark. HortTechnology 2008, 18, 619-623, .
  93. S. Okada; A. Iwasaki; I. Kataoka; K. Suenaga; H. Kato-Noguchi; Phytotoxic activity of kiwifruit leaves and isolation of a phytotoxic substance. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 250, 243-248, .
  94. Kailin Liu; Ying He; Shiji Xu; Lifeng Hu; Kun Luo; Xiangying Liu; Min Liu; Xiaomao Zhou; Lianyang Bai; Mechanism of the effect of pH and biochar on the phytotoxicity of the weak acid herbicides imazethapyr and 2,4-D in soil to rice (Oryza sativa) and estimation by chemical methods. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 161, 602-609, .
  95. Izabela Jośko; Joanna Dobrzyńska; Ryszard Dobrowolski; Magdalena Kusiak; Konrad Terpiłowski; The effect of pH and ageing on the fate of CuO and ZnO nanoparticles in soils. Sci. Total. Environ. 2020, 721, 137771, .
  96. Ben J. Miflin; Dimah Z. Habash; The role of glutamine synthetase and glutamate dehydrogenase in nitrogen assimilation and possibilities for improvement in the nitrogen utilization of crops. J. Exp. Bot. 2002, 53, 979-987, .
  97. Y. B. Ma; D. G. Nichols; Phytotoxicity and Detoxification of Fresh Coir Dust and Coconut Shell. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2004, 35, 205-218, .
  98. Roger B. Tuckeldoe; Mdungazi K. Maluleke; P. Adriaanse; The effect of coconut coir substrate on the yield and nutritional quality of sweet peppers (Capsicum annuum) varieties. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 1-13, .
  99. C. Chemetova; T. Quilhó; S. Braga; A. Fabião; J. Gominho; H. Ribeiro; Aged Acacia melanoxylon bark as an organic peat replacement in container media. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 232, 1103-1111, .
  100. Dandan Qi; Aiqing Miao; Junxi Cao; Wenwen Wang; Wei Chen; Shi Pang; Xiugu He; Chengying Ma; Study on the effects of rapid aging technology on the aroma quality of white tea using GC–MS combined with chemometrics: In comparison with natural aged and fresh white tea. Food Chem. 2018, 265, 189-199, .
  101. Wanlai Zhou; Jianxin Liao; Bo Zhou; Rui Yang; Wei Lin; Dongdong Zhang; Hong Wang; Zhiyong Qi; Rapidly reducing phytotoxicity of green waste for growing media by incubation with ammonium. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2023, 31, 1, .
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Video Production Service
Feedback