Waste Management xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

A systematic review on the composting of green waste: Feedstock

quality and optimization strategies
M. Reyes-Torres a, E.R. Oviedo-Ocaña a, I. Dominguez a, D. Komilis b,c,⇑, A. Sánchez c
a
Escuela de Ingeniería Civil, Facultad de Ingeniería Físicomecánicas, Universidad Industrial de Santander, Carrera 27 Calle 9, Bucaramanga, Colombia
b
Dept. Of Environmental Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, Xanthi 67132, Greece
c
Composting Research Group, Department of Chemical Engineering, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193-Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Green waste (GW) is an important fraction of municipal solid waste (MSW). The composting of lignocel-
Received 3 November 2017 lulosic GW is challenging due to its low decomposition rate. Recently, an increasing number of studies
Revised 11 April 2018 that include strategies to optimize GW composting appeared in the literature. This literature review
Accepted 25 April 2018
focuses on the physicochemical quality of GW and on the effect of strategies used to improve the process
Available online xxxx
and product quality. A systematic search was carried out, using keywords, and 447 papers published
between 2002 and 2018 were identified. After a screening process, 41 papers addressing feedstock qual-
Keywords:
ity and 32 papers on optimization strategies were selected to be reviewed and analyzed in detail. The GW
Green waste
Composting
composition is highly variable due to the diversity of the source materials, the type of vegetation, and cli-
Feedstock quality matic conditions. This variability limits a strict categorization of the GW physicochemical characteristics.
Optimization strategy However, this research established that the predominant features of GW are a C/N ratio higher than 25, a
End-product quality deficit in important nutrients, namely nitrogen (0.5–1.5% db), phosphorous (0.1–0.2% db) and potassium
(0.4–0.8% db) and a high content of recalcitrant organic compounds (e.g. lignin). The promising strategies
to improve composting of GW were: i) GW particle size reduction (e.g. shredding and separation of GW
fractions); ii) addition of energy amendments (e.g. non-refined sugar, phosphate rock, food waste, volatile
ashes), bulking materials (e.g. biocarbon, wood chips), or microbial inoculum (e.g. fungal consortia); and
iii) variations in operating parameters (aeration, temperature, and two-phase composting). These alter-
natives have successfully led to the reduction of process length and have managed to transform recalci-
trant substances to a high-quality end-product.
Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
2. Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
2.1. Literature search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
2.2. Screening and selection criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
2.3. Organization and data structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
2.4. Review and analysis of documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3. Results and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3.1. Research trends and current status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3.2. Physicochemical characteristics of GW (feedstock quality) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3.3. Conditions of the GW composting process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3.4. Strategies to optimize GW composting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3.4.1. Pre-treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3.4.2. Co-substrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3.4.3. Changes in the process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00

⇑ Corresponding author at: Dept. Of Environmental Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, Xanthi 67132, Greece.
E-mail address: dkomilis@env.duth.gr (D. Komilis).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.04.037
0956-053X/Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Reyes-Torres, M., et al. A systematic review on the composting of green waste: Feedstock quality and optimization
strategies. Waste Management (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.04.037
2 M. Reyes-Torres et al. / Waste Management xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

4. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Appendix A. Supplementary material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00

1. Introduction The main objective of this research was to investigate aspects of

the physicochemical quality of GW and the effect of certain strate-
The growth of urban green areas worldwide has led to an gies to improve the process and end-product quality. To achieve
increase of the amounts of green waste (GW) generated. This, in that, an initial literature search identified 447 papers published
turn, has become an environmental problem in developing and between 2002 and 2018. After a screening process (see Fig. 1), 41
developed countries (Zhang and Sun, 2017b). Along with other bio- papers about feedstock mixture (GW) and 32 papers on optimiza-
waste (i.e. food waste), GW constitutes the highest fraction of tion strategies were screened down, reviewed, and systematically
municipal solid waste (MSW) (Kumar et al., 2010; U. S. analysed. The composition of GW that has been typically reported
Environmental Protection Agency, 2010; Wei et al., 2017). GW con- in the literature comprises of leaves, grass clippings, pruning
sists of tree wood and bark, pruning from young trees and shrubs, waste, branches, wood trimmings, yard trimmings, small plants,
dead and green leaves, grass clippings and soil, and originates from weeds, vegetable waste. Those materials were discussed in this
municipal parks, gardens, reserves, and domestic dwellings, among review. In addition, information on the physicochemical character-
others (Bustamante et al., 2016; Haynes et al., 2015; Vasarevičius istics, identifying reference values for the parameters reported by
et al., 2011). GW is expensive and unattractive to transfer, due to the literature, was analysed and reviewed. Finally, different opti-
its low bulk density and its low value, respectively. The principal mization strategies were selected to analyze the effect on the pro-
management cost is related to collection and transportation to cess (e.g. length, gas emissions, temperature, pH, moisture) and on
landfill or treatment facilities (López et al., 2010). end-product quality.
Composting is a suitable method for the recycling of GW, since Despite the large amount of literature on GW composting, the
the compost obtained is a useful organic amendment and/or present work is the first that addresses and integrates research that
organic substrate that can be reincorporated into the economic deals with the quality of the feedstock materials, end-product
system (Wei et al., 2017; Zhang and Sun, 2016a), helping to solve quality and optimization strategies during GW composting.
the disposal problem and to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases
(Morales et al., 2016). In addition, a positive aspect is that GW
2. Methodology
often shows low contents of micro-pollutants. This aspect favors
the production of a compost with adequate properties that can ful-
2.1. Literature search
fil the quality standards and utilization restrictions for compost
use in organic farming systems (Bustamante et al., 2016). However,
A systematic literature review, which included the definition of
composting of the lignocellulosic fraction of GW is challenging due
a search protocol, the identification of keywords and sources of
to its low decomposition rate (Zhang and Sun, 2016b).
available information, was carried out (Caro Gutiérrez et al.,
GW contains organic compounds that are recalcitrant to
2005). The academic databases Science DirectÒ and ScopusÒ were
biodegradation (e.g. lignin that typically sheaths cellulose prevent-
used.
ing and slowing its aerobic decomposition) or slowly/moderately
degradable (e.g. hemicellulose, cellulose). The ratio of cellulose to
lignin could be an index to judge the aerobic degradability of GW
and the composting process, as proposed by Komilis and Ham
(2003). In addition, if the composting is not properly operated
and controlled (e.g. oxygen supply, humidification, nutrient bal-
ance), the process can be slow (i.e. between 90 and 210 days),
demand large areas for treatment (Khalil et al., 2008), generate
malodorous gases (López et al., 2010), and can produce a low qual-
ity product unsuitable for commercial use (Gabhane et al., 2012;
Zhang and Sun, 2017b). Likewise, GW composition is highly vari-
able and depends on the predominant source vegetation, the sea-
son of the year, and the local collection policies, among others
(López et al., 2010). This variability in the composition of GW can
affect its decomposition.
In this context, the reduction of the time required for compost-
ing and the increase of the quality of the product have become
important goals in the use of composting for GW valorization
(Zhang and Sun, 2016a). Recently, an increasing number of studies
have focused on the optimization of GW composting with promis-
ing results in the reduction of processing time, the minimization of
gas emissions, and the improvements of end-product quality
(Belyaeva and Haynes, 2009; Bustamante et al., 2016; Zhang and
Sun, 2016a; Zhang et al., 2013). The identified strategies include:
(i) operational changes on the process; (ii) changes on the oxygen
provision; (iii) pre-treatment; (iv) addition of microbial inoculum;
and (v) co-composting with different supplementary materials Fig. 1. Outline of the screening process to finally select the 70 papers used in this
(bulking or amendment). study.

Please cite this article in press as: Reyes-Torres, M., et al. A systematic review on the composting of green waste: Feedstock quality and optimization
strategies. Waste Management (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.04.037
 M. Reyes-Torres et al. / Waste Management xxx (2018) xxx–xxx
The search focused on scientific research articles using the fol-
lowing protocol: (i) publication years were between 2002 and
2018; (ii) the keywords ‘‘green waste” AND ‘‘composting” had to
appear in the title and abstract; (iii) they had to be scientific
indexed papers only; (iv) at least one of the words: ‘‘composting”,
‘‘green waste”, ‘‘yard waste”, ‘‘pruning waste”, ‘‘full scale”, ‘‘green
waste compost”, ‘‘tree bark”, ‘‘wood chips”, ‘‘grass clippings”,
‘‘grass trimmings”, ‘‘branches”, ‘‘leaves”, had to be included in the
paper keywords. Thus, a more specific search was conducted that
resulted in 447 papers.
2.2. Screening and selection criteria
The search process was followed by a screening process with
the aim to identify the relevant documents according to the
research focus. The following parameters were considered:
(i) Title and Abstract: papers with a title and/or abstract that
lacked relation to composting or GW characterization were
excluded despite the inclusion of the selected keywords;
(ii) Abstract: each paper abstract was read once more so that to
further select papers that addressed GW composting;
(iii) Content: the full paper was read to identify the studies that
include characterization of different GW and/or innovative
strategies on GW composting;
(iv) Related documents: relevant documents referenced on the
initially selected papers were searched and read. At the end,
all studies on GW composting, that included information on
one or more of the following topics, were selected for analysis:
 Physicochemical characteristics of GW directed for
composting
 Proposals to optimize the GW composting process (i.e.
with evidence on length reduction, and/or positive effects
on product quality)
The screening process used for this research is summarized in
Fig. 1.
2.3. Organization and data structure
To organize the selected papers, the MendeleyÒ application was
used to load the bibliography, facilitate the search among the dif-
ferent research units according to categories (e.g. authors, journals,
Fig. 2. Outline of the review process.
Please cite this article in press as: Reyes-Torres, M., et al. A systematic review on the composting of green waste: Feedstock quality and optimization
strategies. Waste Management (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.04.037
3
publication year, and keywords), and to classify the papers into
folders according to themes. In addition, the X-MindÒ software
was used to create conceptual maps with the composting strate-
gies found.
After the screening process, 70 papers were classified (see
Fig. 2), beginning with papers that provide full information on
GW physicochemical characteristics (41 from 70 papers). Then,
these 70 papers were reviewed again looking for information rele-
vant to the GW composting process and end-product quality,
which allowed for a second screening process that resulted in 32
papers that addressed optimization strategies for the composting
process with GW being the main feedstock material. Criteria for
inclusion comprised aspects, such as reports on reduction on the
process length and treatments with sufficient replicates (i.e. three
replicates).
2.4. Review and analysis of documents
The ExcelÒ software was used to tabulate data from the papers
that addressed the physical composition and the physicochemical
properties of GW. The tabulated data included: authors, publica-
tion year, GW denomination, proportion of each component in
the physical composition and values for the physicochemical vari-
ables. Then, basic descriptive statistics were computed, namely
number of elements in the sample (n); maximum, minimum, aver-
age and coefficient of variation of the datasets for each variable.
Regarding the strategies, after their tabulation, a summary was
produced by taking into account:
(i)the general characteristics of the study,
(ii)the characteristics of the materials to be composted,
(iii)the composting process,
(iv) the parameters monitored (e.g. temperature, pH, moisture,
dissolved oxygen),
(v) the reduction in process length and the final product
characteristics.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Research trends and current status
The growth of research in this area is noticeable after 2005,
making evident the interest of the scientific community towards
4 M. Reyes-Torres et al. / Waste Management xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

GW composting, which has particularly intensified over the last 12
years. Data processing provided a picture on the research trends on
GW composting (see Fig. 3). The lowest number of publications
was found on the first years of the analysis (between 3 and 7 arti-
cles per year). During years 2005 and 2006, an increase was
noticed in the number of publications (i.e. 17 studies per year).
From 2007 to 2017, the number of relevant articles increased to
around 27 to 40 per year, with year 2017 having the highest
number. On January 2018 only, 9 articles had been already
published.
On the other hand, results from the screening process high-
lighted the insufficient availability on studies dealing with the
physicochemical characteristics of the feedstock mixture and with
optimization strategies of GW composting (i.e. 55 from the initial
447 screened papers). Fig. 4 shows the classification of papers
according to the country where the studies were developed (coun-
try and continent).
The dynamics of studying GW composting could have been
influenced by two factors:
(i) the increasing trend to establish urban spaces like parks and
gardens, that result in a high generation rate of these wastes
(e.g. Beijing produced about 6 million tons of GW per year
(Zhang and Sun, 2017b)); and

Fig. 3. Distribution of the number of papers found (n = 447) per year (2018 contains entries from January only).

Fig. 4. Categorization of papers reviewed (n = 55) according to (a) country and (b) continent where the experiments were carried out.

Please cite this article in press as: Reyes-Torres, M., et al. A systematic review on the composting of green waste: Feedstock quality and optimization
strategies. Waste Management (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.04.037
 M. Reyes-Torres et al. / Waste Management xxx (2018) xxx–xxx 5

(ii) the environmental and sanitary impacts associated to land- ochemical quality of the raw material and can aid in the selection
fill disposal, such as the generation of greenhouse gases of appropriate materials (co-substrates) to improve its
and ammonia (European Environment Agency, 2015). decomposition.
The GW composition (e.g. proportion of leaves, grass, yard trim-
Fig. 4 also reveals that most of the published papers originate mings, branches, pruning waste) influences the physicochemical
from China, Spain, the United States, France and Australia. There composition, which in turn has an impact on the composting pro-
is a lack of studies from Latin America, where the common practice cess (EPA - Environmental Protection Agency, 1994; Sánchez et al.,
is to transfer GW to final disposal facilities without any pretreat- 2017). It is important to develop studies on feedstock materials
ment (UNEP, 2005; Martínez et al., 2010). impacts, that would allow to identify the physicochemical quality,
as a function of the physical composition. This will aid to identify
conditions for process optimization and to contribute in the
3.2. Physicochemical characteristics of GW (feedstock quality)
improvement of the final product quality (EPA - Environmental
Protection Agency, 1994; Vandecasteele et al., 2016). The variabil-
GW characterization represents a challenge for the scientific
ity on the GW composition was used to identify the heterogeneous
community, because the material arriving to the composting facil-
physicochemical characteristics in the feedstock mixture, as pre-
ities typically has a high variability in composition due to factors
sented in Table 2.
such as the climatic and geographic characteristics of the collection
Based on the results related to the physicochemical characteris-
sites (e.g. the abundance of dry leaves in autumn and the scarcity
tics of GW, the following can be observed:
of grass in winter) (Benito et al., 2006; Bustamante et al., 2016;
Inghels et al., 2016), together with the dominant vegetation.
- There is a high heterogeneity in the values of all the parameters
Hanc et al. (2011) report that grass clippings is the predominant
analysed, except the pH and the water holding capacity (i.e.
material in GW, in both summer and spring, with proportions of
coefficients of variation lower than 20%). This is consistent with
71% and 45% respectively. Similarly, Vandecasteele et al. (2016)
our previous statement about the GW variability and the diffi-
show that in composting facilities, weather seasons influence GW
culty of obtaining a uniform composition.
characteristics. For example, spring is the season in which GW
- The available information reporting key properties of GW is
characteristics improve product qualities. In Vandecasteele et al.
scarce. For some key parameters, there were less than 10 data
(2016), a predominant GW material existed in each season:
on the papers reviewed. This was the case, especially for param-
eters such as heavy metals and cellulose, hemicellulose and lig-
 Spring: pruning waste (Organic Matter – OM: 72% dry matter-
nin. The last macromolecule is in high amounts in GW and is
db, C/N: 45, PTotal:0.12% db and KTotal:0.63% db);
well known for it being slowly degradable.
 Summer: grass clippings (OM: 53.4% db, C/N: 25, PTotal:0.22% db
- The parameters more frequently reported in the papers are
and KTotal:1.563% db);
those that directly influence the composting process and the
 Winter: leaves (OM: 64.9% db, C/N: 40, PTotal:0.13% db, and
quality of the end-product, namely pH, electric conductivity,
KTotal:0.57% db) (Vandecasteele et al., 2016).
moisture, organic matter, C/N ratio, TOC content and macronu-
trients such as NTotal, PTotal and KTotal.
Despite the variability in the substrate composition (i.e. type of
organic material included in GW), GW typically contains green
Despite the reported heterogeneity and the lack of information
leaves, dry leaves, branches and grass clippings; and sometimes
on several parameters, typical ranges for the values of GW physic-
dead plant matter, roots and soil fractions (Bustamante et al.,
ochemical properties with greater influence in the composting pro-
2016; Haynes et al.; 2015; Vasarevičius et al., 2011). This is consis-
cess, were established (see Table 3).
tent with results from this review, where leaves, grass trimmings
From the review, it can be said that despite having multiple pro-
and branches were found to be the predominant ones (see Table 1).
portions of materials that influence their properties, GW is charac-
It is important to indicate that few reports specify the physical
terized for:
composition of the material used, which makes it difficult to follow
the influence of the material in the GW composting process. Taking
- Low moisture, which can render a material ideal as a structural
into account the diversity of materials that make up GW, some
amendment. This is especially true for bark and branches (i.e.
authors break up this type of waste into two fractions: the green
woody material).
fraction (i.e. including leaves and grass clippings) and the brown
- High content of TOC which may be associated to the predomi-
fraction (i.e. including branches, hedge clippings, roots and trunks).
nance of lignocellulosic materials (e.g. brown fraction).
This type of classification could provide information on the physic-
- Low content of essential nutrients such as NTotal, PTotal and KTotal.
It is for this reason that GW is frequently used as feedstock
Table 1 material during co-composting of materials which are
Frequency of each material present in GW that has been reported in the articles nutrient-rich (e.g. food waste and manures).
reviewed. - C/N ratio seldom in the range of 20–25 (8 from 33 data). Most of
Type of material Number of articlesa,b the reported C/N ratios were greater than 25 (22 of 33 data)
Leaves 28
(See data in (Reyes-Torres, 2017)), which is consistent with
Grass/Grass clippings 16 the reported tendency of GW to show high C/N ratios.
Branches 13 - Very low heavy metals content like Cd, Pb and Ni, which is a
Pruning waste 7 positive indicator for the composting process and the quality
Wood trimmings 5
of the final product.
Yard trimmings 3
Flowers/Small plants 2
Weeds 2 3.3. Conditions of the GW composting process
Vegetable waste 1
a
Based on the papers that include these data (n = 33); The management and monitoring of the composting process is
b
The list of papers consulted for the construction of this table can be seen in followed via various parameters, like temperature changes, oxygen
supplementary material. content and depends on the properties of the feedstock material

Please cite this article in press as: Reyes-Torres, M., et al. A systematic review on the composting of green waste: Feedstock quality and optimization
strategies. Waste Management (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.04.037
6 M. Reyes-Torres et al. / Waste Management xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

Table 2
GW physicochemical characteristics.

Parameter [unit]a,b Minimum value Maximum value Average value (n)c Coefficient of variation (CV in%)
Physical characteristics
Bulk density [g/cm3]d 0.19 0.98 0.61 12 53.5%
Particle size [mm] 5.0 50.0 16.3 4 78.8%
Moisture [%] 21.1 67.9 46.1 7 29.5%
Water holding capacity [%] 48.1 52.3 50.2 3 4.22%
Organic matter [%] 30.0 98.9 64.6 17 30%
Chemical characteristics
pH 5.4 8.2 6.9 33 10.7%
Electrical conductivity [mS/cm] 0.46 3.00 1.53 20 46.9%
Cation exchange capacity [cmol/kg] 20.3 35.8 29.1 3 27.3%
C/N ratio 13.5 79.0 35.3 33 44.6%
Total organic carbon [%] 21.60 56.31 40.89 31 24.4%
Cellulose [%] 18.00 50.04 33.32 7 34.7%
Hemicellulose [%] 9.75 52.29 24.32 7 71.2%
Lignin [%] 19.50 82.33 36.22 7 56.9%
Macro and micronutrients
Total N [%] 0.41 3.40 1.29 33 48.1%
Total P [%] 0.04 0.38 0.14 16 61.4%
Total K [%] 0.26 1.56 0.58 15 56.8%
Ca [%] 0.15 3.00 1.06 15 74.5%
Mg [%] 0.10 0.75 0.38 13 55.6%
S [%] 0.12 6.13 2.23 11 119%
Fe [10 3%] 7.1 670 182.3 9 153%
Mn [10 3%] 3.4 13.1 6.6 6 51.7%
Mo [10 3%] 0.3 1.3 0.6 4 81.6%
Heavy metals
Cu [10 3%] 0.10 3.80 1.60 9 85.1%
Pb[10 3%] 0.15 2.79 1.65 4 66.4%
Cr [10 3%] 0.65 2.64 1.64 4 54.7%
Ni [10 3%] 0.36 6.30 2.21 4 125%
B [10 3%] 0.82 1.57 1.11 6 24.2%
Cd [10 3%] 0.00 0.02 <0.01 5 120%
Zn [10 3%] 0.70 8.70 3.95 10 87.0%

Notes:
a
[%] and [10 3%]: percentage based on dry matter basis;
b
The list of papers consulted for the construction of this table can be seen in supplementary material;
c
n: number of papers reporting data on the parameter;
d
The relatively high bulk densities reported by Zhang and Sun (2014a, 2014b, 2016a, 2016b, 2017a, 2017b) could be related to the increased moisture content of the end
material, which was between 60 and 70% wb.

Table 3 mixtures (i.e. agricultural wastes and poultry manure + biochar)

Ranges of several key parameter values as reported in the literature. monitoring only temperature as a function of time. Temperature
Parametera Number of papersb,c Range of the values can be used to indicate the exposure of the material to ther-
found in the review mophilic temperatures. However, the sole use of this parameter
Particle size [mm] 9/14 10–30 to GW composting has not been reported.
Moisture [%]d 9/17 40–55 With regards to the GW composting, it was identified that there
pH 15/33 6.5–7.5 is a rapid increase on the temperature in the first days of the pro-
C/N ratio 8/33 20–25
cess, achieving values characteristic of the thermophilic range (45–
Total organic carbon [%] 12/31 40–50
Total N [%]e 10/33 0.9–1.2 65 °C), even in the first day of the process (Bustamante et al., 2016;
Total P [%] 8/16 0.1–0.2 Zhang and Sun, 2016b, 2017a, 2017b). In a typical GW composting
Total K [%] 8/15 0.4–0.8 process, the thermophilic phase begins during the two first days
a
All values are based on a GW dry weight basis; (due to the high content of OM) with, however, a short duration
b
n/N, where n: number of papers that simply mention a range; N: number of (less than four days) and long maturation periods (between 2
papers with precise information of the corresponding property; and 3 months) (Khalil et al., 2008; Zhang et al., 2013). On the other
c
The detailed description of the frequency analysis of each parameter is found in hand, Steel et al. (2018) carried out the monitoring of the microbial
Reyes-Torres (2017);
d
The lowest moisture content observed was 21.1% that resulted from a com-
community and nematodes in GW composting as a function of cer-
posting process with grass trimmings, leaves and small plants as GW substrates; tain process conditions (i.e. temperature, CO2, pH). The authors
this low value likely occurred after long storage of the end product and a subse- found out that a repeatable pattern of nematode succession was
quent drying of the pile; presented in the GW composting systems. They also indicated this
e
The most widely used N determination method was the Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
succession of nematodes could be clearly related to the changes in
method (18 out of 33 publications), followed by elemental analysis (5 out of 33
publications) and the ISO/TS 12902:2001 Standard (3 out of 33 publications); seven the process conditions, such as the phases of composting and tem-
studies did not specify the method of N determination. perature changes. Therefore, this type of estimations could become
an additional parameter to monitor maturity during composting.
Moisture is essential to maintain the microbial activities of
(Kulcu and Yaldiz, 2014). Some authors like Kulcu and Yaldiz transformation of organic molecules (dissolved in the medium)
(2014) and Czekala et al. (2016) used new parameters for the and for the exchange of nutrients through the cell membrane. Nor-
assessment of the composting process with different feedstock mally, the recommended moisture for the substrate is between 40

Please cite this article in press as: Reyes-Torres, M., et al. A systematic review on the composting of green waste: Feedstock quality and optimization
strategies. Waste Management (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.04.037
 M. Reyes-Torres et al. / Waste Management xxx (2018) xxx–xxx
and 60% wet weight basis (wb) or, better, the one that corresponds
to 75% of the water holding capacity, since moisture can vary
according to the physical state and size of the particles. With
regard to moisture of GW composting, different authors suggest
the need to adjust moisture to 60–70% wb at the beginning and
throughout the process (Belyaeva and Haynes, 2009; Belyaeva
et al., 2012; Zhang and Sun, 2014a, 2017a). Table 4 presents
selected moisture values at the beginning of the process on GW
composting, where values between 55 and 65% wb are dominant.
Composting is a process of biological oxidation, in which oxy-
gen is used by microorganisms as the final acceptor of electrons
for aerobic respiration; under these conditions, the transformation
of substrates is characterized by the consumption of oxygen and
the generation of CO2, water and heat. Due to the continuous
decrease in oxygen concentration during the process, air supply
is necessary to maintain metabolic activities. In relation to the oxy-
gen provision in GW composting, the studies report manual or
mechanical turning, or forced aeration. With regards to turning,
different frequencies have been studied. For instance,
Karnchanawong et al. (2017) used a turning frequency of once a
day, during five minutes in the composting of GW from trees.
Zhang and Sun (2014a, 2014b, 2016b) and Zhang et al. (2013), used
a mini excavator to turn the windrows every three days, for 40 min
every time during GW composting with different co-substrates to
aerate the mixtures and to stimulate microbial activity.
Another aeration mechanism used in GW composting is forced
aeration, which can be beneficial for nutrients retention and
organic carbon oxidation (Białobrzewski et al., 2015). Francou
et al. (2008), on their study of GW composting using biowaste as
feedstock, used forced aeration at a rate of 400 L/h in the first
phases of the process, and then making gradual reductions of up
to 600 L/h after 84 days of composting. The action of a mechanized
turning (i.e. spiral-leaf agitator) has been combined with air supply
using a pump at a rate of 10 L/min in the co-composting of GW and
food waste (Kumar et al., 2010). These reports lack of conclusive
evidence on the type and rate of aeration for GW composting.
Zhang and Sun (2016b) and Zhang et al. (2016) indicate that an
aeration rate between 0.2 and 0.6 L/min/kg OM can significantly
reduce NH3 emissions, increase microbial activity, and shorten
the period needed to achieve product maturation.
The C and N are essential for microorganisms because they are
structural elements and sources of energy. Heterotrophic microor-
ganisms use C as a source of energy and for the synthesis of cellular
constituents; N is a component of the proteins, nucleic acids,
amino acids, enzymes and coenzymes necessary for the growth
and functioning of cells (Epstein, 2011). The generally recom-
mended value of the (total) C / N ratio in substrates is between
25 and 30 (Haug, 1993) although the bio C/N is considered a more
accurate ratio compared to the C/N (Sánchez, 2007). Epstein (2011)
indicates that at a ratio of C/N > 30, the rate of decomposition is
slow because of the little N available for microorganisms, while
at C/N < 20, the excess of N is released in the form of NH3 generat-
Table 4
Initial moisture contents as reported in GW related publications.
WC [%] Raw materials Reference
60–70 GW + coal fly ash Belyaeva and Haynes
(2009)
60 GW + seaweed + bentonite Zhang and Sun (2017b)
60–65 GW + wood chips + GW compost Zhang and Sun (2016b)
50–70 GW + NaOH + fly ash Karnchanawong et al.
(2017)
55–65 GW + phosphate rock + elemental Bustamante et al. (2016)
sulfur
WC: water content or moisture in wet weight basis (% wb).
Please cite this article in press as: Reyes-Torres, M., et al. A systematic review on the composting of green waste: Feedstock quality and optimization
strategies. Waste Management (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.04.037
7
ing losses of nutrients and potential malodors. With regard to the
GW C/N ratio, the prevalence of high values shows the importance
of adding materials that are rich in nitrogen, such as manure, sta-
bilized compost, waste sludge or food residues. Zhang and Sun
report in different studies on GW composting the addition of urea
as a method to adjust the C/N ratio of the initial GW mixture
(Zhang and Sun, 2014a, 2014b, 2016b; Zhang et al., 2013). How-
ever, other authors have assessed the effectiveness of developing
composting processes using different feedstock materials charac-
terized for an initially low C/N (Huang et al., 2004; Ogunwande
et al., 2008; Zhu, 2007). For instance, Kumar et al. (2010) in their
study of co-composting GW and food waste achieved a product
suitable as land improver in 12 days, with a substrate with a feed-
stock initial C/N ratio of only 19.6.
The pH of the substrate and the production of acids at the
beginning of the process can initiate the appearance of certain
microbial groups which affects the transformation of organic mat-
ter (Sundberg and Jönsson, 2008). The highest variability of micro-
bial species is found at pHs between 5.5 and 8.0. Although it is not
usual to modify the pH of the substrate, Haug (1993) indicate that
acidic environments require the incorporation of alkaline materials
to improve the environment for microbial growth. During GW
composting, it has been found that pH is in the range of 7.5–8.5
throughout the process (Zhang and Sun, 2016a, 2016b). However,
other studies (e.g. Karnchanawong et al., 2017) have included an
alkaline pre-treatment, adding different proportions of sodium
hydroxide (NaOH) (i.e. 1%, 2% and 3%), which allowed adjusting
the initial pH of the feedstock within 6.2 to 8.0. The results showed
that a 1–2% NaOH solution reduced lignin 2 times more than the
control. However, higher doses of alkali can increase nitrogen loss
due to NH3 volatilization in the higher pHs. Therefore, the incorpo-
ration of alkaline substances during composting should be care-
fully applied.
On the other hand, the pH of the process is one of the indicators
of the maturity of the final product as long as it is considered
simultaneously with maturity tests (i.e. seed germination, plant
growth assays). According to Karak et al. (2013), pH in a mature
compost must be in a neutral range. Despite that, a slightly acidic
compost could be favourable, for example, for application to cal-
careous soils or as a growth media for plants (Cáceres et al.,
2018). According to Cáceres et al. (2016), these relatively acidic
pH values can be achieved if nitrification is promoted, since nitri-
fication leads to pH reduction during the composting process.
Some examples of feedstock and end-product pH values from dif-
ferent studies on GW composting are shown in Table 5.
In relation to the length of the GW composting process, differ-
ent experiences have shown that it is longer compared to compost-
ing of other materials, because typically, GW have about 75%
content of lignocellulosic substances (i.e. dry matter basis) which
are slowly degraded by micro-organisms under aerobic conditions
(Liu et al., 2006; Shi et al., 2006; Zhang and Sun, 2014b). According
to Tai and He (2007), composting of lignocellulosic materials (such
as leaves and wood chips) could take up to 24 months to mature if
strategies are not used to accelerate the process. Table 6 presents
GW composting studies that show reduction of the composting
times using different strategies (see Section 3.4).
According to Ruggieri et al. (2009), composting of organic waste
is a financially sustainable process, since its operational/manage-
ment cost is relatively low compared to other processes. Likewise,
the associated environmental impacts, when compared to other
organic waste management methods like incineration and landfill-
ing (Wei et al., 2000), are low too. Thus, the economic parameter
can justify the optimization of the GW composting process. In par-
ticular, composting can be applied to GW without intense mechan-
ical pretreatment, and without the need for complicated aeration
equipment. For example, a single front-end loader equipped with
8 M. Reyes-Torres et al. / Waste Management xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

Table 5
Initial and final pH values as reported in GW related publications.

Raw materials Initial pH value (raw materials) Final pH value (product) Reference
GW + sugarcane bagasse + grape marc 7.01 6.62 Zhang and Sun (2016a)
GW 7.33 7.00 Zhang and Sun (2014b)
GW + lime 11.21 7.36 Gabhane et al. (2012)
GW + phosphate rock + elemental sulfur 6.70 7.50 Bustamante et al. (2016)
GW + zeolite + earthworm casts 7.00 6.61 Zhang and Sun (2015)

Note: Sugarcane bagasse: used as structural support to form porous spaces and as a carbon sources to adjust C/N ratio; Exhausted grape marc (EGM): reduces the pH of the
compost (perhaps because of the high water-soluble carbohydrate content of EGM) and may therefore help balance the pH during composting; Lime: Increases the pH of the
mixture, improving the environment for the development of microorganisms; Phosphate rock + elemental sulfur: Rock phosphate may enhance the availability of P, further
enhanced with the addition of elemental sulfur, which increases the water-soluble pool of P present in rock phosphate; Zeolite: Used to increase water and nutrient retention,
reduce N volatilization, to improve aeration, and to enhance microbial activities (i.e. due to its high sorption capacity and ion exchange properties).

Table 6
Length of the process as reported in GW related publications.

Raw materials Composting strategies implementeda Composting time Composting time Reference
(control) [days] (optimal treatment) [days]c
BM AM MIA OC PT
GW –b 220 Khalil et al. (2008)
GW + NaOH + fly ash x X – 105 Karnchanawong et al. (2017)
GW X x 135 75 Tai and He (2007)
GW x X 175–210 70 Vandecasteele et al. (2016)
GW + biosolids x – 42 Belyaeva and Haynes (2009)
GW + rhamnolipids x x X x X 30 24 Zhang and Sun (2014b)
GW + seaweed + bentonite x x X x X 30 21 Zhang and Sun (2017b)
GW + PFW + UFWd X 65 55 Oviedo Ocaña, et al. (2017)
a
BM: bulking material; AM: amendment; MIA: microbial inoculum addition; OC: operational changes; PT: physical pre-treatments.
b
All treatments interrupted simultaneously (control included).
c
Composting time of the treatment that reported the best results in terms of end-product quality and/or time reduction.
d
PFW: Processed Food Waste; UFW: Unprocessed Food Waste.

a windrow turner is sufficient to adequately compost GW. Other
factors that need to be considered when composting GW, are:
transportation, marketing and environmental control costs associ-
ated to odor emissions and reject disposal.
3.4. Strategies to optimize GW composting
The composting process and the end-product quality are
adjusted to the compost quality standards depending on final
usage (Bernal et al., 2009). GW compost is mainly used as a growth
medium for ornamental plants and/or horticulture (Morales-Corts
et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2014; Kazamias et al., 2017; Massa et al.,
2018) and a soil quality amendment (Karami et al., 2011; Zhu-
Barker et al., 2015; García-Jaramillo et al., 2016; Marín-Benito
et al., 2018).
The low contents of macro and micronutrients in GW combined
with the high concentration of recalcitrant substances (i.e. cellu-
lose and hemicellulose decompose slowly, whilst lignin is resistant
to decomposition) (Fernández-Hernández et al., 2014) has impact
on those quality standards required for the final product and on
composting process duration, area requirements, emission of pol-
lutants and generation of products with low quality (Zhang and
Sun, 2017a, 2017b). Thus, in this section, methods used to optimize
GW composting that have led to the improvement of the product
quality are summarized.
In this study, it is considered that stability is a stage in the
decomposition of organic matter and is related to microbial respi-
ration (Komilis and Tziouvaras, 2009). An unstable product or com-
post has greater potential to generate odors, can warm up and can
remove N from the soil making it unavailable to plants (Insam and
de Bertoldi, 2007). On the other hand, maturation is a chemical-
organic condition of compost that describes its suitability for a par-
ticular use as fertilizer and is related to the presence or absence of
phytotoxic compounds (NH3, heavy metals or short-chain organic
acids) (Epstein, 2011). Therefore, the quality of the product is
judged by both its stability and maturity status.
On the other hand, three strategies are proposed: i) pre-
treatment of feed material (i.e. shredding and extraction of parts
from the material); ii) addition of co-substrates (i.e. adding bulking
materials, amendments materials, inoculating agents); and iii)
operational changes in the process (i.e. different aeration systems
and composting process in two stages).
3.4.1. Pre-treatments
The application of physical conditioners to the feedstock mix-
ture before the process is one of the alternatives used in GW com-
posting (Barrington et al., 2003). The most common treatment is
the homogenization of GW through the shredding of the materials
to be composted with the aim to obtain a specific particle size.
Table 7 shows particle sizes achieved in different studies.
The particle size distribution on the feedstock highly influences
the porosity and the degree of compaction that favours material
aeration. It is also considered as a potential control of the compost-
ing physicochemical properties and bacterial diversity (Liu et al.,
2018). Small particles tend to create a mass that hinders pore for-
mation and big particles hinder the temperature rise of the feed-
stock so that degradation becomes slower (Bernal et al., 2009;
Onwosi et al., 2017; Zhou et al., 2014). Zhang and Sun (2014b)
assessed the effects of choosing different particle sizes (i.e. 10, 15
and 25 mm) on the study of co-composting GW and rhamnolipids.
The study revealed an increase on the NTotal content in compost
when GW particle sizes were adjusted to 15 mm (3.6% of NTotal
compared to 3.1% in the control treatment); and a reduction on
the C/N ratio (6.2) compared to the control (10.3) (i.e. possibly
associated with the greater degradation of organic matter and
the maintenance of the nitrogen content in the mixture). Likewise,
they highlight the importance of selecting an adequate particle size
for the transformation of recalcitrant components, such as ligno-

Please cite this article in press as: Reyes-Torres, M., et al. A systematic review on the composting of green waste: Feedstock quality and optimization
strategies. Waste Management (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.04.037
 M. Reyes-Torres et al. / Waste Management xxx (2018) xxx–xxx 9

Table 7
Particle sizes achieved after shredding as reported in GW related publications.

Green waste type Particle size [mm] Shredding method Reference

Green waste 10 Mechanically with a shredding machine Zhang and Sun (2016a, 2016b) and Zhang et al. (2013)
Municipal green waste 5 Belyaeva and Haynes (2009) and Belyaeva et al. (2012)
Green plant waste 30 Kejun et al. (2011)
Tree green waste 25 With a tub grinder Karnchanawong et al. (2017)

cellulose, since the exposure of the interior of the particles could
aid cellulose degradation, reducing processing time. From the
review, it is important to emphasize the need to previously shred
the GW, since it is needed to: (i) homogenize and reduce the mate-
rial volume, and (ii) increase the surface area of the feedstock
material to promote the degradation of recalcitrant substances
and allow water infiltration to reduce water evaporation from
the surface. This strategy contributes simultaneously to the reduc-
tion of processing and the sufficient degradation of organic matter.
On the other hand, some researchers have conducted studies
where the feedstock has been physically changed through the
extraction and separation of parts from the material. In the case
of GW, when the C/N relation is substantially high (e.g. above
50–60), this is due to the presence of an important proportion of
woody material in its composition (i.e. branches and bark of trees),
which could limit nitrogen mineralization and could produce
immature compost (Haynes et al., 2015). For this reason,
Vandecasteele et al. (2016) studied the effects of the partial sepa-
ration of woody material from the feedstock mixture through a
sieving process where particles with a size higher than 40 mm
were removed. The authors concluded that removal of woody bio-
mass from the green waste before composting did not negatively
affect the compost quality when more intensive composting was
applied (i.e. higher turning frequency). Removal of woody biomass
before composting led to a similar compost quality, except, occa-
sionally, in cases with low levels of Organic Matter (OM) (<16%
wb). This is the lower ΟΜ limit to define a material as compost
and, in such cases, woody biomass removal should be avoided.
3.4.2. Co-substrates
Different studies have used co-substrates to improve product
quality or to reduce the GW composting process duration (EPA -
Environmental Protection Agency, 1994). In general, the literature
suggests adding materials or microorganisms to complement GW
characteristics. In this study, the following definitions of amend-
ments is provided: (i) Bulking materials: the material (organic or
inorganic) is used to control moisture, increase porosity and struc-
tural support and improve movement of air in the mixture; (ii)
Amendment material: the material added to the substrate or to
the final product to improve the development of the process or
the quality of the product; therefore, it is used to improve the
chemical characteristics of the materials, such as deficiencies in
N, C or some other element; (iii) Additive: a mixture of different
types of microorganisms (i.e. inocula), mineral nutrients, easily
available forms of C, enzymes and compounds to balance the pH;
it is used to improve the microbial activity when additives come
in contact with the material to be composted (Gabhane et al.,
2012).
– Addition of bulking materials and amendments
GW have been usually composted by adding materials rich in
essential nutrients, of readily available carbon forms or pH regulat-
ing compounds which have as an objective the promotion of the
microbial activity when coming into contact with the material to
be composted (Gabhane et al., 2012; Himanen and Hänninen,
2009). Table 8 includes some materials used in different GW com-
posting studies and their effect in the process length and the final
C/N ratios.
The effects of adding co-substrates on the GW composting pro-
cess have been studied by several authors (Belyaeva et al., 2012;
Bustamante et al., 2016; Dzulkurnain et al., 2017; Francou et al.,
2008; Gabhane et al., 2012; Kumar et al., 2010).
To improve the C/N ratio of the mix and the nutrient content on
the end-product, Zhang and Sun (2017c) co-composted GW with
cow dung (CD) and/or spent coffee grounds (SCG) at different pro-
portions. They found out that the large quantities of nitrifying bac-
teria on the cow dung and the nitrogen content of both feedstock
materials (i.e. 5.9% db on CD and 2.31% db on SCG) greatly affected
the nitrogen retention on the final compost. Moreover, the com-
bined addition of both materials could help to improve fungal
activity on lignin degradation due to their acidic nature (i.e. CD
with an initial pH on 6.11 and SCG with 5.23). Belyaeva et al.
(2012) on their research of co-composting, found that adding 50
and 25% of bio-solids to GW reduced the C/N ratio in the final pro-
duct (i.e. 7 and 12, respectively), compared to composting GW

Table 8
Co-substrates used during GW composting.

Co-substrate Typea Proportion in Study scalec Composting Final C/N ratios Reference
the mix [%]b time [days]
Control Co-
treatment composting
treatment
Phosphate rock AM 15 Pilot 22 44.6 7.9 Zhang and Sun (2017a)
Fly ash BM 5 Laboratory 21 14.0 13.0 Gabhane et al. (2012)
Elemental sulfur AM 0.5 Pilot 120 15.0 10.0 Bustamante et al. (2016)
Bio-char BM 20 Pilot 24 25.0 8.3 Zhang and Sun (2014a)
Jaggery AM 5 Laboratory 21 14.0 10.0 Gabhane et al. (2012)
Bio-solids AM 50 Laboratory 60 25.0 9.0 Belyaeva et al. (2012)
Wood chips BM 15 Pilot 22 20.8 3.1 Zhang and Sun (2016b)
Pig manure AM 30 Pilot 48 19.0 10.3 Arias et al. (2017)
PFW and UFWd AM 30 and 20 Pilot 55 9.27 10.5 Oviedo Ocaña et al. (2017)
a
AM: amendment; BM: bulking material.
b
Percentage based on dried weight of GW. Co-substrate content in the optimal treatment.
c
N.R: the study does not report the scale.
d
PFW: Processed Food Waste; UFW: Unprocessed Food Waste

Please cite this article in press as: Reyes-Torres, M., et al. A systematic review on the composting of green waste: Feedstock quality and optimization
strategies. Waste Management (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.04.037
10 M. Reyes-Torres et al. / Waste Management xxx (2018) xxx–xxx
solely with an initial value of 25. Likewise, the biosolids addition
affected the water holding capacity and buffer pH, which allowed
a rapid degradation of OM for the 60 days of the composting pro-
cess, decreasing the duration of the process.
Other studies have reported that adding sugar-rich materials
could increase the degradation rate of recalcitrant compounds
and can promote the growth of microorganisms, which generate
positive effects on the composting process length (Zhang et al.,
2013). According to Gabhane et al. (2012), non-refined sugar acts
as a source of calorific energy for the existent microorganisms. In
addition, Zhang et al. (2013) indicated that non-refined sugar
enhances microbial decomposition of recalcitrant molecules pro-
motes the growth of microorganisms, and changes the pH from
slightly acidic to slightly alkaline during the composting process.
In their GW composting study, Gabhane et al. (2012) added 5% of
different materials (i.e. lime, phosphorous plaster, polyethylene
glycol, non-refined sugar and volatile ash) and found that non-
refined sugar produced a better-quality compost in terms of
macronutrients contents compared to the products obtained from
all the assessed mixtures during the 21 days the process lasted.
On the other hand, the addition of bulking materials (BM)
increased the availability of carbon to be degraded and regulated
the water content of the feedstock mixture, which can lead to
the increase on the microbial activity (Doublet et al., 2011; Iqbal
et al., 2010; Zhang and Sun, 2016b). Generally, GW have been used
as BM in composting animal waste or sludge (Jouraiphy et al.,
2005; Moretti et al., 2015; Neugebauer and Sołowiej, 2017; Asses
et al., 2018). However, some studies where GW is the main feed-
stock mixture have shown that the composting process is more
effective when adding BM such as sawdust or rice husks to GW
(Zhang and Sun, 2016b; Zhou et al., 2014). Zhang and Sun
(2016b) studied the co-composting of GW with 15% and 25% of
woodchips as BM. This aimed to ensure an adequate gas inter-
change and to prevent the over-compaction of the materials. Those
authors reported that sawdust provides a high adsorption capacity
and a surface area that decreases NH3 emissions and can facilitate
the reduction of the composting process in 8 days (i.e. 22 days on
GW composting with the addition of 15% of woodchips, compared
to 30 composting only GW).
Another frequently used BM is biochar, a carbon rich material
obtained by a slow pyrolysis of biomass that can improve soil
structure and enhance plant growth (Ngo et al., 2013; Sánchez-
Monedero et al., 2018). With regard to biochar impact on GW com-
posting, Agyarko-Mintah et al. (2017) reported a significant reduc-
tion of N losses compared to the treatment control (i.e. green
waste + poultry litter without biochar). Zhang and Sun (2014a)
explained that when GW was co-composted with biochar (as
BM) at 20 to 30% ratios, the transformation of OM was augmented,
and the thermophilic temperatures were maintained for a longer
time. This improved the hygienization conditions (i.e. between
10 and 12 days compared to four days on the treatment using only
GW) and efficiently broke down the overall OM (i.e. OM loss
between 60 and 80% compared to 30% for the control treatment)
(Zhang and Sun, 2014a; Dias et al., 2010). The high surface area
and porosity of biochar aids in the binding of nutrients and the pre-
vention of their loss by leaching, providing thus a habitat for
microbial growth, while improving oxygen and water availability
(Meng et al., 2013); these effects can eventually accelerate the
degradation of the overall organic matter.
There are materials that can both provide nutrients (AM) and
structure (BM). One of these materials is phosphate rock, a natural
source of phosphorus that can be solubilized through treatments
such as composting and also has high porosity that provide surface
area for the feedstock mixture and have substantial capacity for
water storage (Bustamante et al., 2016). Bustamante et al. (2016)
showed that co-composting GW with 2.3% of phosphate rock is
Please cite this article in press as: Reyes-Torres, M., et al. A systematic review on the composting of green waste: Feedstock quality and optimization
strategies. Waste Management (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.04.037
an alternative to reduce nitrogen losses by volatilization and to
obtain a product rich in PTotal. This can be especially important
when the end-product is applied to agricultural land. Additionally,
as suggested by Vandecasteele et al. (2017), the amount of phos-
phorus in products used as organic fertilizers in agricultural lands,
must not exceed the maximum rates of application of fertilizers so
that prevent losses of this nutrient to groundwater. On the other
hand, Zhang and Sun (2017a) have reported an increase on heat
generation in the mixture when 15% of phosphate rock was added
(i.e. higher degradation rate), which given its high porosity, it bal-
anced the available oxygen, and sustained aerobic conditions.
Finally, Oviedo-Ocaña et al. (2017) showed that the incorpora-
tion of the Processed Food Waste (PFW) and Unprocessed Food
Waste (UPFW) (i.e. act as amendments) mixture. These two sub-
strates (PFW and UPFW) provide readily degradable organic matter
and a supply of nitrogen, which may be suitable to compost GW in
which the brown fraction predominates. The addition of those
materials allowed GW composting to reach thermophilic tempera-
tures in a shorter period compared to GW composted alone. It was
also effective to maintain temperatures at the thermophilic range
for longer periods (19 days) compared to the treatment with only
GW (9 days). In addition, the process was also characterized by a
shorter duration and the ambient temperature was reached at 8
days faster than the piles with only GW. An improvement in pro-
duct quality was observed with the incorporation of the UPFW
and PFW mixture compared to GW alone. This was judged by the
adequate final C/N ratio (i.e. 10.2 compared to 9.2), a lower propor-
tion of ash (i.e. 26% db compared to 45.8% db), higher concentra-
tion of PTotal (i.e. 0.8% compared to 0.55% db), lower values of
electrical conductivity (i.e. 1.62 mS/cm compared to 7.90 mS/cm).
Since it is not always feasible to obtain available amendments or
support materials, food waste is a promising amending alternative,
given its availability in MSW.
The review presented in this section reveals that the incorpora-
tion of AM or BM in GW have had simultaneous effects to the
reduction of the processing time, to the increase in the degradation
rate of the organic matter, and to the decrease of nitrogen losses. In
some cases, the addition of materials such as phosphoric rock or
sugar-rich materials have also improved the nutritional content
of the product.
– Incorporation of additives
Although composting is a biological process in which the organ-
isms responsible for the material stabilization are naturally devel-
oped, it has been reported that the addition of inoculating agents
(IA) can increase the degradation rates of OM, the thermophilic
phase and can reduce the whole composting process time (Cerda
et al., 2017; Karnchanawong and Nissaikla, 2014; Mat Saad et al.,
2013). The addition of one species, a consortium of several species
or the simple use of mature compost from GW, are some of the
alternatives. Table 9 shows types of IA used in GW composting
studies and the results on the process length and on the C/N ratio
of the product (i.e. higher TOC degradation).
Considering the presence of lignocellulosic materials on GW,
some authors have used lignocellulose degrading microorganisms
as IA on their studies to facilitate degradation (Voběrková et al.,
2017; Zhang and Sun, 2017b). White rot fungi are known as the
most efficient lignocellulose degrading microorganisms. In particu-
lar, the species Phanerochaete chrysosporium is the most studied
fungus in the composting of different types of lignocellulosic waste
(López et al., 2002), and has been used in several GW composting
processes, individually and in fungal consortiums (Voběrková
et al., 2017; Zhang and Sun, 2015, 2016a). Zhang and Sun (2015,
2017a, 2017b) have added in several experiments, 5 mL per dry
kg of GW of a fungal consortium made of 60% Trichoderma s.p.
 M. Reyes-Torres et al. / Waste Management xxx (2018) xxx–xxx
Table 9
Inoculation agents (IA) used during GW composting.
Inoculant agents (IA) Typea Composting time with the IA [days]
Phanerochaete chrysosporium F 86
Trametes versicolor F 86
GW compost CP 22
Cellulase E 21
Fruit waste effective microbes BC 49
Phanerochaete chrysosporium FC 86
Trametes versicolor
Fomes fomentarius
a
F: fungal species; BC: bacterial consortium; E: enzyme application; FC: fungal consortium; CP: compost as a IA (inoculation agent).
and 40% Phanerochaete chrysosporium. This addition has revealed
positive results on the cellulose reduction rate (30–60%), hemicel-
lulose (50–80%) and lignin (20–40%) in short composting periods
(21–24 days). Therefore, a reduction in processing time and a rela-
tively high degradation of recalcitrant compounds was achieved
with the addition of these IA.
The application of cellulase in the composting mixture is an
innovative way to enhance the cellulose degradation and to pro-
mote the formation of humic substances, which is one of the main
requirements for a high-quality end-product (Liu et al., 2018;
Tuomela et al., 2000). Liu et al. (2018) assessed the effects of the
cellulase and a microbial inoculum in the GW composting process.
They found out that the addition of both IA could improve the pro-
cess and the end-product quality in terms of: promoting the ther-
mophilic temperatures, reducing the C/N ratio (15 compared to 20
in the control treatment), and increasing the germination index in
the compost (85% compared to 55% in the control treatment).
On the other hand, it has been reported that the addition of
mature compost can produce several effects on the composting
process: provide and keep microbial diversity, reduce composting
process length, increase the OM degradation rate and improve
the maturity index on the final product (Kato and Miura, 2008;
Tai and He, 2007). This is consistent with reports from Zhang and
Sun (2016b) who showed that by adding 25 and 35% of GW mature
compost improved the conditions of the GW and woodchips co-
composting. This allowed to obtain a compost with a high germi-
nation index (90–160%) and C/N ratios below 15 (4–11) in a rela-
tively short composting time (22–24 days).
3.4.3. Changes in the process
Another alternative to optimize GW composting process is by
modifying the typical process, either by using alternative control
parameters, periodically adding substances or by applying innova-
tion on the composting technologies. Several authors have
assessed the effect of different aeration systems and temperature
on process efficiency over different materials. For example,
Vandecasteele et al. (2016) used different turning frequencies
(e.g. weekly, quarterly, monthly) for two GW composting methods
(piles and windrows). These authors concluded that for windrows,
a weekly turning is adequate, whereas for piles, a quarterly turning
is the minimum needed. Likewise, Pandey et al. (2016), studied the
composting of food waste, horse manure, grass clippings and tree
branches, in a closed heating system at 55 °C in order to help the
mixture to reach thermophilic temperatures. They used three
treatments: (i) control pile (static pile); (ii) pile with turning fre-
quency twice a week during 15 min; and (iii) pile with air injection
through a pump at a rate of 80 L/min. The results showed that the
heating system allowed to increase the temperatures to values in
the range of 45–60 °C and to generate a mature compost with
C/N ratio below 20 in the three treatments (i.e. after 70 days).
However, the differences in terms of the C/N ratio, reduction of
TOC and content of NTotal among the three products were very
Please cite this article in press as: Reyes-Torres, M., et al. A systematic review on the composting of green waste: Feedstock quality and optimization
strategies. Waste Management (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.04.037
11
Addition effect on the C/N ratio Reference
Control treatment Treatment with the IA
11.8 10.5 Voběrková et al. (2017)
11.8 11 Voběrková et al. (2017)
21 10 Zhang and Sun (2016b)
20 15 Liu et al. (2018)
16 13 Mat Saad et al. (2013)
11.8 11 Voběrková et al. (2017)
low. Despite the improvements obtained by the variable frequen-
cies and modes of aeration, the application of a specific aeration
regime depends on the physical-chemical characteristics of the
feedstock, the size and shape of the piles or windrow of compost-
ing, and the specific conditions of the compost facility. That is, the
aeration regime, turning frequency and equipment should be engi-
neered according to the specific conditions.
An alternative that can integrate several optimization techniques
is to divide the composting process in two stages, which is a proposal
implemented by Zhang and Sun in different studies that addressed
co-composting of GW with different additives (Zhang and Sun,
2014a, 2014b, 2015, 2016a, 2016b, 2017a, 2017b; Zhang et al.,
2013). In the first stage (primary composting), the mixture to be
composted (i.e. GW previously shredded and mixed with AM, BM
or IA) was placed in uncovered containers, and irrigated and turned.
This stage finished when temperature in the mixture, after the ther-
mophilic stage, decreased to values in the range of 45–50 °C. Subse-
quently, the material was removed from the containers and
windrows were shaped for the second stage (secondary compost-
ing). To promote aeration, windrows were mechanically turned
and water was added to the material for regulating moisture (60–
70%). In this secondary composting, temperature increased again
up to the thermophilic range and then progressively reduced to
ambient temperature (Zhang et al., 2013). These authors reported
that this method allowed to achieve temperatures from the ther-
mophilic range (55–65 °C) twice during the process, and that peri-
ods were longer compared to the conventional process (from 4 to
5 days for each stage). They indicated that a mature product was
obtained between 21 and 30 days, compared to 90–270 days
required for the traditional GW composting process (traditional pro-
cess of one stage in composting piles) (Zhang and Sun, 2015, 2017b).
Kalamdhad et al. (2009), on their study of rotary drum for com-
posting GW, plant and animal waste assessed two methods for the
maturation phase of the process: windrow composting (WC) and
vermicomposting (VC). The results show that both methods
achieved C/N ratios lower than 10 during the 20 days of the matu-
ration phase. However, when VC was used, products exhibited a
slightly higher nutritional content: NTotal of 3.1% compared to
2.9% in treatments with WC and PTotal of 0.71% compared to
0.68%, respectively.
In addition to composting in two stages, Zhang and Sun (2014a,
2014b, 2015, 2016a, 2016b) implemented the periodical addition
(i.e. in the first stage when temperatures of 60 °C occurred, and
in the second stage every six days) of 2 mL of bamboo vinegar
diluted in 2 L of water in the GW composting process, with the goal
to control NH3 emissions when temperatures reached the ther-
mophilic range (i.e. added to control the pH when thermophilic
temperatures occurred). This strategy had positive effects on the
mineral nitrogen content of the final product (i.e. C/N ratio
between 5 and 15 and NTotal mostly above 1.5%). These features
facilitated the use of the product in horticultural activities
(Zhang et al., 2013).
12 M. Reyes-Torres et al. / Waste Management xxx (2018) xxx–xxx
4. Conclusions
The conclusions of this work are the following:
1. Several strategies with promising results have been used to
optimize GW composting. These include pre-treatment of the
feedstock mixture to reduce particle size, addition of different
amendments (e.g. non-refined sugar, phosphate rock, food
waste, volatile ash); bulking materials (biocarbon, woodchips)
or microbial inoculums (fugal consortiums) as well as opera-
tional changes during the process (i.e. two-stage composting,
temperature control). These strategies have been effective in
reducing the composting length, have achieved a higher trans-
formation of recalcitrant organic compounds like lignin and cel-
lulose, and have improved product quality.
2. An increasing trend on studies regarding GW composting was
identified. However, only 41 reports were directly related with
the physicochemical characterization of this feedstock, and 32
with relevant strategies for the optimization of the process. Fur-
thermore, a scarce number of research is produced in develop-
ing countries from Latin America and the Caribbean.
3. GW have a variable physical composition associated to aspects
such as the vegetation type, climatic conditions, and collection
strategies. This variability limits the ability to provide uniform
physicochemical characteristics for this feedstock material.
However, this study allowed to identify that GW typically have
C/N ratios higher than 25, a lack of essential nutrients such as
nitrogen (0.5–1.5%), phosphorous (0.1–0.2%) and potassium
(0.4–0.8%), and a high content of recalcitrant organic substances
such as lignin, cellulose, and hemicellulose.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Universidad Industrial de Santander –
Colombia for funding the research projects identified CI 2354 dur-
ing 2017.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.04.
037.
References
Agyarko-Mintah, E., Cowie, A., Pal Singh, B., Joseph, S., Van Zwieten, L., Cowie, A.,
Harden, S., Smillie, R., 2017. Biochar increases nitrogen retention and lowers
greenhouse gas emissions when added to composting poultry litter. Waste
Manage. (Oxford) 61, 138–149.
Arias, O., Viña, S., Uzal, M., Soto, M., 2017. Composting of pig manure and forest
green waste amended with industrial sludge. Sci. Total Environ. 586, 1228–
1236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.118.
Asses, N., Farhat, A., Cherif, S., Hamdi, M., Bouallagui, H., 2018. Comparative study of
sewage sludge co-composting with olive mill wastes or green residues: Process
monitoring and agriculture value of the resulting composts. Process Saf.
Environ. Prot. 114, 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2017.12.006.
Barrington, S., Choinière, D., Trigui, M., Knight, W., 2003. Compost convective
airflow under passive aeration. Bioresour. Technol. 86 (3), 259–266. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0960-8524(02)00155-4.
Belyaeva, O.N., Haynes, R.J., 2009. Chemical, microbial and physical properties of
manufactured soils produced by co-composting municipal green waste with
coal fly ash. Bioresour. Technol. 100 (21), 5203–5209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2009.05.032.
Belyaeva, O.N., Haynes, R.J., Sturm, E.C., 2012. Chemical, physical and microbial
properties and microbial diversity in manufactured soils produced from co-
composting green waste and biosolids. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 32 (12), 2248–
2257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.05.034.
Benito, M., Masaguer, A., Moliner, A., De Antonio, R., 2006. Chemical and physical
properties of pruning waste compost and their seasonal variability. Bioresour.
Technol. 97 (16), 2071–2076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2005.09.011.
Please cite this article in press as: Reyes-Torres, M., et al. A systematic review on the composting of green waste: Feedstock quality and optimization
strategies. Waste Management (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.04.037
Bernal, M.P., Alburquerque, J.A., Moral, R., 2009. Composting of animal manures and
chemical criteria for compost maturity assessment. Rev. Bioresour. Technol. 100
(22), 5444–5453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.11.027.
Białobrzewski, I., Mikš-Krajnik, M., Dach, J., Markowski, M., Czekała, W.,
Głuchowska, K., 2015. Model of the sewage sludge-straw composting process
integrating different heat generation capacities of mesophilic and thermophilic
microorganisms. Waste Management, 43(Supplement C), 72–83. https://doi.
org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.05.036.
Bustamante, M.A., Ceglie, F.G., Aly, A., Mihreteab, H.T., Ciaccia, C., Tittarelli, F., 2016.
Phosphorus availability from rock phosphate: Combined effect of green waste
composting and sulfur addition. J. Environ. Manage. 182, 557–563. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.016.
Cáceres, R., Coromina, N., Malinska, K., Martínez-Farré, F.X., López, M., Soliva, M.,
2016. Nitrification during extended co-composting of extreme mixtures of
green waste and solid fraction of cattle slurry to obtain growing media. Waste
Manage. (Oxford) 58, 118–125.
Cáceres, R., Malińska, K., Marfà, O., 2018. Nitrification within composting: A review.
Waste Manage. (Oxford) 72, 119–137.
Caro Gutiérrez, M. A., Rodríguez Ríos, A., Calero, C., Fernández-Medina, E., & Piattini,
M., 2005. Análisis y revisión de la literatura en el contexto de proyectos de fin de
carrera: Una propuesta. Revista Electrónica de La Sociedad Chilena de Ciencia de
La Computación, 6(1). Retrieved from http://www.dcc.uchile.cl/%7B~%
7Dmmarin/revista-sccc/sccc-web/Vol6/CCESC08.pdf.
Cerda, A., Artola, A., Font, X., Barrena, R., Gea, T., Sánchez, A., 2017. Composting of
food wastes: Status and challenges. Bioresour. Technol. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biortech.2017.06.133.
Czekala, W., Malińska, K., Cáceres, R., Janczak, D., Dach, J., Lewicki, A., 2016. Co-
composting of poultry manure mixtures amended with biochar – The effect of
biochar on temperature and C-CO2 emission. Bioresource Technology 200, 921–
927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.11.019.
Dias, B.O., Silva, C.A., Higashikawa, F.S., Roig, A., Sánchez-Monedero, M.A., 2010. Use
of biochar as bulking agent for the composting of poultry manure: effect on
organic matter degradation and humification. Bioresour. Technol. 101, 1239–
1246.
Doublet, J., Francou, C., Poitrenaud, M., Houot, S., 2011. Influence of bulking agents
on organic matter evolution during sewage sludge composting; consequences
on compost organic matter stability and N availability. Bioresour. Technol. 102
(2), 1298–1307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.08.065.
Dzulkurnain, Z., Hassan, M.A., Zakaria, M.R., Wahab, P.E.M., Hasan, M.Y., Shirai, Y.,
2017. Co-composting of municipal sewage sludge and landscaping waste: a
pilot scale study. Waste Biomass Valorization 8 (3), 695–705. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12649-016-9645-7.
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency, 1994. Composting Yard Trimmings and
Composting of yard Trimmings and Municipal solid Waste. Composting Yard
Trimmings and Composting of Yard Trimmings and Municipal Solid Waste,
(May), 141. https://doi.org/EPA530-R-94-003.
Epstein, E., 2011. Industrial Composting: Environmental Engineering and Facilities
Management. CRC. Tailor & Francis Group. Press, Boca Raton, p. 314p.
European Environment Agency, 2015. Many European countries’ air pollutant
emissions above legal limits Retrieved from https://www.eea.europa.eu/
highlights/many-european-countries2019-air-pollutant/#parent-fieldname-
title, .
Fernández-Hernández, A., Roig, A., Serramiá, N., Civantos, C.G.-O., Sánchez-
Monedero, M.A., 2014. Application of compost of two-phase olive mill waste
on olive grove: Effects on soil, olive fruit and olive oil quality. Waste
Manage. (Oxford) 34 (7), 1139–1147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2014.03.027.
Francou, C., Linères, M., Derenne, S., Villio-Poitrenaud, M. Le, Houot, S., 2008.
Influence of green waste, biowaste and paper-cardboard initial ratios on organic
matter transformations during composting. Bioresour. Technol. 99 (18), 8926–
8934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.04.071.
Gabhane, J., William, S.P., Bidyadhar, R., Bhilawe, P., Anand, D., Vaidya, A.N., Wate, S.
R., 2012. Additives aided composting of green waste: Effects on organic matter
degradation, compost maturity, and quality of the finished compost. Bioresour.
Technol. 114, 382–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.02.040.
García-Jaramillo, M., Cox, L., Hermosín, M.C., Cerli, C., Kalbitz, K., 2016. Influence of
green waste compost on azimsulfuron dissipation and soil functions under oxic
and anoxic conditions. Sci. Total Environ. 550, 760–767.
Hanc, A., Novak, P., Dvorak, M., Habart, J., Svehla, P., 2011. Composition and
parameters of household bio-waste in four seasons. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 31
(7), 1450–1460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.02.016.
Haug, R.T., 1993. The Practical Handbook of Compost Engineering. Lewis Publishers,
Boca Raton.
Haynes, R.J., Belyaeva, O.N., Zhou, Y.F., 2015. Particle size fractionation as a method
for characterizing the nutrient content of municipal green waste used for
composting. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 35, 48–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2014.10.002.
Himanen, M., Hänninen, K., 2009. Effect of commercial mineral-based additives on
composting and compost quality. Waste Management (New York, N.Y.), 29,
2265–2273.
Huang, G.F., Wong, J.W.C., Wu, Q.T., Nagar, B.B., 2004. Effect of C/N on composting of
pig manure with sawdust. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 24 (8), 805–813. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.wasman.2004.03.011.
Inghels, D., Dullaert, W., Bloemhof, J., 2016. A model for improving sustainable
green waste recovery. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 110, 61–73. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.03.013.
 M. Reyes-Torres et al. / Waste Management xxx (2018) xxx–xxx
Insam, H., de Bertoldi, M., 2007. Microbiology of the composting process. Compost
Science and Technology. In: Diaz, L.F., de Bertoldi, M., Bidlingmaier, W.,
Stentiford, E. (Eds.). Waste Management Series 8. 25–45 (Chapter 3).
Iqbal, M.K., Shafiq, T., Ahmed, K., 2010. Characterization of bulking agents and its
effects on physical properties of compost. Bioresour. Technol. 101 (6), 1913–
1919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.10.030.
Jouraiphy, A., Amir, S., El Gharous, M., Revel, J.C., Hafidi, M., 2005. Chemical and
spectroscopic analysis of organic matter transformation during composting of
sewage sludge and green plant waste. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 56 (2), 101–
108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2005.06.002.
Kalamdhad, A.S., Singh, Y.K., Ali, M., Khwairakpam, M., Kazmi, A.A., 2009. Rotary
drum composting of vegetable waste and tree leaves. Bioresour. Technol. 100
(24), 6442–6450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.07.030.
Karak, T., Bhattacharyya, P., Paul, R.K., Das, T., Saha, S.K., 2013. Evaluation of
composts from agricultural wastes with fish pond sediment as bulking agent to
improve compost quality. CLEAN - Soil, Air, Water 41 (7), 711–723. https://doi.
org/10.1002/clen.201200142.
Karami, N., Clemente, R., Moreno-Jiménez, E., Lepp, N.W., Beesley, L., 2011.
Efficiency of green waste compost and biochar soil amendments for reducing
lead and copper mobility and uptake to ryegrass. J. Hazard. Mater. 191 (1–3),
41–48.
Karnchanawong, S., Nissaikla, S., 2014. Effects of microbial inoculation on
composting of household organic waste using passive aeration bin. Int. J.
Recyc. Org. Waste Agric. 3 (4), 113–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40093-014-
0072-0.
Karnchanawong, S., Mongkontep, T., Praphunsri, K., 2017. Effect of green waste
pretreatment by sodium hydroxide and biomass fly ash on composting process.
J. Cleaner Prod. 146, 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.126.
Kato, K., Miura, N., 2008. Effect of matured compost as a bulking and inoculating
agent on the microbial community and maturity of cattle manure compost.
Bioresour. Technol. 99 (9), 3372–3380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2007.08.019.
Kazamias, G., Roulia, M., Kapsimali, I., Chassapis, K., 2017. Innovative biocatalytic
production of soil substrate from green waste compost as a sustainable peat
substitute. J. Environ. Manage. 203, 670–678.
Kejun, S., Juntao, Z., Ying, C., Zongwen, L., Lin, R., Cong, L., 2011. Accelerating the
degradation of green plant waste with chemical decomposition agents. J.
Environ. Manage. 92 (10), 2708–2713. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jenvman.2011.06.011.
Khalil, A., Domeizel, M., Prudent, P., 2008. Monitoring of green waste composting
process based on redox potential. Bioresour. Technol. 99 (14), 6037–6045.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2007.11.043.
Komilis, D.P., Ham, R.K., 2003. The effect of lignin and sugars to the aerobic
decomposition of solid wastes. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 23, 419–423.
Komilis, D., Tziouvaras, I., 2009. A statistical analysis to assess the maturity and
stability of six composts. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 29, 1504–1513. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.10.016.
Kulcu, R., Yaldiz, O., 2014. The composting of agricultural wastes and the new
parameter for theassessment of the process. Ecol. Eng. 69, 220–225.
Kumar, M., Ou, Y.L., Lin, J.G., 2010. Co-composting of green waste and food waste at
low C/N ratio. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 30 (4), 602–609. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.wasman.2009.11.023.
Liu, J., Yuan, X., Zeng, G., Shi, J., & Chen, S., 2006. Effect of biosurfactant on cellulase
and xylanase production by Trichoderma viride in solid substrate fermentation.
Process Biochem. 41(11), 2347–2351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2006.
05.014.
Liu, L., Wang, S., Guo, X., Zhao, T., Zhang, B., 2018. Succession and diversity of
microorganisms and their association with physicochemical properties during
green waste thermophilic composting. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 73, 101–112.
López, M.J., Elorrieta, M.A., Vargas-García, M.C., Suárez-Estrella, F., Moreno, J., 2002.
The effect of aeration on the biotransformation of lignocellulosic wastes by
white-rot fungi. Bioresour. Technol. 81 (2), 123–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0960-8524(01)00112-2.
López, M., Soliva, M., Martínez-Farré, F.X., Bonmatí, A., Huerta-Pujol, O., 2010. An
assessment of the characteristics of yard trimmings and recirculated yard
trimmings used in biowaste composting. Bioresour. Technol. 101 (4), 1399–
1405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.09.031.
Marín-Benito, J.M., Barba, V., Ordax, J.M., Andrades, M.S., Sánchez-Martín, M.J.,
Rodríguez-Cruz, M.S., 2018. Application of green compost as amendment in an
agricultural soil: Effect on the behaviour of triasulfuron and prosulfocarb under
field conditions. J. Environ. Manage. 207, 180–191.
Martínez, E., Daza, D., Tello, P., Soulier, M., Terraza, H., 2010. Regional Evaluation on
Urban Solid Waste Management in Latin America and the Caribbean: 2010
Report. Interamerican Development Bank (IADB). 160.
Massa, D., Malorgio, F., Lazzereschi, S., Carmassi, G., Prisa, D., Burchi, G., 2018.
Evaluation of two green composts for peat substitution in geranium
(Pelargonium zonale L.) cultivation: Effect on plant growth, quality, nutrition,
and photosynthesis. Sci. Hortic. 228, 213–221.
Mat Saad, N.F., Nadrah Ma’min, N., Md Zain, S., Ahmad Basri, N.E., Md Zaini, N.S.,
2013. Composting of mixed yard and food wastes with effective microbes.
Jurnal Teknologi (Sci. Eng.), 65(2), 89–95. https://doi.org/10.11113/jt.v65.2196.
Meng, J., Wang, L., Liu, X., Wu, J., Brookes, P.C., Xu, J., 2013. Physicochemical
properties of biochar produced from aerobically composted swine manure and
its potential use as an environmental amendment. Bioresour. Technol. 142 (8),
641–646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.05.086.
Please cite this article in press as: Reyes-Torres, M., et al. A systematic review on the composting of green waste: Feedstock quality and optimization
strategies. Waste Management (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.04.037
13
Morales, A.B., Bustamante, M.A., Marhuenda-Egea, F.C., Moral, R., Ros, M., Pascual, J.
A., 2016. Agri-food sludge management using different co-composting
strategies: study of the added value of the composts obtained. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 121(Suppl. C), 186–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2016.02.012.
Morales-Corts, M., Gómez-Sánchez, M., Pérez-Sánchez, R., 2014. Evaluation of
green/pruning wastes compost and vermicompost, slumgum compost and their
mixes as growing media for horticultural production. Sci. Hortic. 172, 155–160.
Moretti, S.M.L., Bertoncini, E.I., Abreu-Junior, C.H., 2015. Composting sewage sludge
with green waste from tree pruning. Scientia Agricola 72 (5), 432–439. https://
doi.org/10.1590/0103-9016-2014-0341.
Neugebauer, M., Sołowiej, P., 2017. The use of green waste to overcome the
difficulty in small-scale composting of organic household waste. J. Cleaner Prod.
156, 865–875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.095.
Ngo, P.T., Rumpel, C., Ngo, Q.A., Alexis, M., Vargas, G.V., Mora Gil, M.D.L.L., Dang, D.
K., Jouquet, P., 2013. Biological and chemical reactivity and phosphorus forms of
buffalo manure compost, vermicompost and their mixture with biochar.
Bioresour. Technol. 148, 401–407.
Ogunwande, G.A., Osunade, J.A., Adekalu, K.O., Ogunjimi, L.A.O., 2008. Nitrogen loss
in chicken litter compost as affected by carbon to nitrogen ratio and turning
frequency. Bioresource Technology, 99(16), 7495–7503. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.biortech.2008.02.020.
Onwosi, C.O., Igbokwe, V.C., Odimba, J.N., Eke, I.E., Nwankwoala, M.O., Iroh, I.N.,
Ezeogu, L.I., 2017. Composting technology in waste stabilization: On the
methods, challenges and future prospects. J. Environ. Manage. 190, 140–157.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.12.051.
Oviedo-Ocaña, R., Dominguez, I., Komilis, D., Sanchez, A., 2017. Co-composting of
green waste mixed with unprocessed and processed food waste: influence on
the composting process and product quality. Waste Biomass Valorization.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-017-0047-2.
Pandey, P.K., Cao, W., Biswas, S., Vaddella, V., 2016. A new closed loop heating
system for composting of green and food wastes. J. Clean. Prod. 133, 1252–
1259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.114.
Reyes-Torres, M., 2017. Pasantía de investigación para la construcción del estado
del arte sobre estrategias para optimizar el compostaje de residuos verdes.
Universidad Industrial de Santander, Proyecto de grado. Escuela de Ingeniería
Civil.
Ruggieri, L., Cadena, E., Martínez-Blanco, J., Gasol, C.M., Rieradevall, J., Gabarrell, X.,
Gea, T., Sort, X., Sanchez, A., 2009. . Recovery of organic waste in the Spanish
wine industry. Technical, economic and environmental analyses of the
composting process. J. Clean. Prod. 17, 830–838.
Sánchez, O., Ospina, D., Montoya, S., 2017. Compost supplementation with nutrients
and microorganisms in composting process. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 69 (26),
136–153.
Sánchez, A., 2007. A kinetic analysis of solid waste composting at optimal
conditions. Discussion article, 27, 854–855.
Sánchez-Monedero, M., Cayuela, A., Roig, A., Jindo, K., Mondini, C., Bolan, N., 2018.
Role of biochar as an additive in organic waste composting. Bioresour. Technol.
247, 1155–1164.
Shi, J.G., Zeng, G.M., Yuan, X.Z., Dai, F., Liu, J., Wu, X.H., 2006. The stimulatory effects
of surfactants on composting of waste rich in cellulose. World J. Microbiol.
Biotechnol. 22 (11), 1121–1127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-006-9152-2.
Steel, H., Moens, T., Vandecasteele, B., Hendrickx, F., De Neve, S., Neher, D.A., Bert,
W., 2018. Factors influencing the nematode community during composting and
nematode-based criteria for compost maturity. Ecol. Ind. 85, 409–421.
Sundberg, C., Jönsson, H., 2008. Higher pH and faster decomposition in biowaste
composting by increased aeration. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 28 (3), 518–526.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.01.011.
Tai, H.S., He, W.H., 2007. A novel composting process for plant wastes in Taiwan
military barracks. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 51 (2), 408–417. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.resconrec.2006.10.006.
Tuomela, M., Vikman, M., Hatakka, A., Itävaara, M., 2000. Biodegradation of lignin in
a compost environment: a review. Bioresour. Technol. 72, 169–183.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010. Municipal Solid Waste Generation,
Recycling, and Disposal in the United States : Facts and Figures for 2010, (2011),
1–12. https://doi.org/EPA-530-F-14-001.
UNEP: United Nations Environment Programme, 2005. Solid Waste Management.
United Nations, New York, p. 1.
Vandecasteele, B., Boogaerts, C., Vandaele, E., 2016. Combining woody biomass for
combustion with green waste composting: Effect of removal of woody biomass
on compost quality. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 58, 169–180. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.wasman.2016.09.012.
Vandecasteele, B., Willekens, K., Steel, H., D’Hose, T., Van Waes, C., Bert, W., 2017.
Feedstock mixture composition as key factor for C/P ratio and phosphorus
availability in composts: role of biodegradation potential, biochar amendment
and calcium content. Waste and Biomass Valorization, 8(8), 2553–2567.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-016-9762-3.
Vasarevičius, S., Baltrenas, P., Baltrenaite, E., 2011. Investigation and evaluation of
green waste composting parameters. Polish J. Environ. Stud. 20 (6), 1603–1609.
Voběrková, S., Vaverková, M.D., Burešová, A., Adamcová, D., Vršanská, M., Kynický, J.,
Brtnický, M., Adam, V., 2017. Effect of inoculation with white-rot fungi and
fungal consortium on the composting efficiency of municipal solid waste. Waste
Manage. (Oxford) 61, 157–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.12.039.
Wei, Y., Fan, Y.B., Wang, M.J., Wang, J.S., 2000. Composting and compost application
in China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 30 (4), 277–300.
14 M. Reyes-Torres et al. / Waste Management xxx (2018) xxx–xxx
Wei, Y., Li, J., Shi, D., Liu, G., Zhao, Y., Shimaoka, T., 2017. Environmental challenges
impeding the composting of biodegradable municipal solid waste: A critical
review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 122, 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2017.01.024.
Zhang, H., Li, G., Gu, J., Wang, G., Li, Y., Zhang, D., 2016. Influence of aeration on
volatile sulfur compounds (VSCs) and NH3 emissions during aerobic
composting of kitchen waste. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 58, 369–375. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.08.022.
Zhang, L., Sun, X., Tian, Y., Gong, X., 2013. Effects of brown sugar and calcium
superphosphate on the secondary fermentation of green waste. Bioresour.
Technol. 131, 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.10.059.
Zhang, L., Sun, X., 2014b. Effects of rhamnolipid and initial compost particle size on
the two-stage composting of green waste. Bioresour. Technol. 163, 112–122.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.04.041.
Zhang, L., Sun, X., 2015. Effects of earthworm casts and zeolite on the two-stage
composting of green waste. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 39, 119–129. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.02.037.
Zhang, L., Sun, X., Tian, Y., Gong, X., 2014. Biochar and humic acid amendments
improve the quality of composted green waste as a growth medium for the
ornamental plant Calathea insignis. Sci. Hortic. 176, 70–78.
Zhang, L., Sun, X., 2014a. Changes in physical, chemical, and microbiological
properties during the two-stage co-composting of green waste with spent
mushroom compost and biochar. Bioresour. Technol. 171 (1), 274–284. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.08.079.
Please cite this article in press as: Reyes-Torres, M., et al. A systematic review on the composting of green waste: Feedstock quality and optimization
strategies. Waste Management (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.04.037
Zhang, L., Sun, X., 2016b. Influence of bulking agents on physical, chemical, and
microbiological properties during the two-stage composting of green waste.
Waste Manage. (Oxford) 48, 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2015.11.032.
Zhang, L., Sun, X., 2016a. Improving green waste composting by addition of
sugarcane bagasse and exhausted grape marc. Bioresour. Technol. 218, 335–
343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.06.097.
Zhang, L., Sun, X., 2017c. Using cow dung and spent coffee grounds to enhance the
two-stage co-composting of green waste. Bioresour. Technol. 245, 152–161.
Zhang, L., Sun, X., 2017a. Addition of fish pond sediment and rock phosphate
enhances the composting of green waste. Bioresour. Technol. 233, 116–126.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.02.073.
Zhang, L., Sun, X., 2017b. Addition of seaweed and bentonite accelerates the two-
stage composting of green waste. Bioresour. Technol. 233, 116–126. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.02.073.
Zhou, H.-B., Ma, C., Gao, D., Chen, T.-B., Zheng, G.-D., Chen, J., Pan, T.-H., 2014.
Application of a recyclable plastic bulking agent for sewage sludge composting.
Bioresour. Technol. 152, 329–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2013.10.061.
Zhu, N., 2007. Effect of low initial C/N ratio on aerobic composting of swine manure
with rice straw. Bioresour. Technol. 98 (1), 9–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2005.12.003.
Zhu-Barker, X., Doane, T., Horwath, W., 2015. Role of green waste compost in the
production of N2O from agricultural soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 83, 57–65.