Composting and Vermicomposting of Fish Sludge with Egg Boxes and Lettuce Wastes with the Addition of Eggshells: Impacts on Chemical Properties, Nutrient Availability, and Safety
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experimental Design
2.2. Sampling, Physicochemical and Biological Analyses
2.3. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Analysis of Input Materials
3.2. Numbers of Earthworms and Biomass
3.3. Total Nutrient Concentrations in Earthworms
3.4. Chemical Changes During the Process
3.4.1. Changes in pH
3.4.2. Changes in Electrical Conductivity (EC)
3.4.3. Changes in Available Macronutrients
3.4.4. Changes in Available Micronutrients
| Composting | Vermicomposting | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment | T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | T5 | T6 | T7 | T8 | |
| Feavail | m 0 | 413 ± 28 | 357 ± 8.8 | 41.6 ± 2.8 | 35.5 ± 3.1 | 413 ± 28 | 357 ± 8.8 | 41.6 ± 2.8 | 35.5 ± 3.1 |
| m 1 | 434 ± 16 | 80 ± 8.6 | 367 ± 8.5 | 86.4 ± 2.6 | 449 ± 30 | 79.5 ± 0.8 | 395 ± 9.7 | 76.3 ± 2.7 | |
| m 3 | 653 ± 43 | 90 ± 5.1 | 453 ± 71 | 96.3 ± 4.1 | 401 ± 119 | 64.1 ± 4.5 | 221 ± 35 | 79.6 ± 4.3 | |
| m 5 | 177 ± 27 | 67.6 ± 2.5 | 104 ± 8.3 | 66.6 ± 3.1 | 343 ± 3.7 | 63 ± 2.8 | 206 ± 38 | 71.2 ± 5.5 | |
| Cuavail | m 0 | 26.2 ± 1.1 | 25.5 ± 1.3 | 4.3 ± 0.7 | 5.2 ± 1.9 | 26.2 ± 1.1 | 25.5 ± 1.3 | 4.3 ± 0.7 | 5.2 ± 1.9 |
| m 1 | 21 ± 0.6 | 4.9 ± 0.2 | 16.5 ± 2.4 | 6.2 ± 1 | 16.4 ± 1.5 | 6.3 ± 0.8 | 15.5 ± 1.2 | 6.03 ± 0.1 | |
| m 3 | 4.04 ± 0.6 | 8.4 ± 0.4 | 7.9 ± 2.1 | 12.5 ± 0.2 | 5.02 ± 0.7 | 8.98 ± 0.4 | 14 ± 3.2 | 12.6 ± 0.5 | |
| m 5 | 23.9 ± 3.8 | 6.9 ± 0.5 | 25.5 ± 2.1 | 11.4 ± 1 | 15.4 ± 0.7 | 7.9 ± 0.1 | 19.9 ± 1.2 | 10.5 ± 1 | |
| Znavail | m 0 | 214 ± 13 | 194 ± 9.4 | 25.9 ± 2.2 | 25.8 ± 4.3 | 214 ± 13 | 194 ± 9.4 | 25.9 ± 2.2 | 25.8 ± 4.3 |
| m 1 | 119 ± 2.4 | 59.4 ± 3.3 | 112 ± 7 | 106 ± 0 | 130 ± 0.47 | 89.5 ± 3.8 | 119 ± 2.8 | 90.1 ± 7.2 | |
| m 3 | 138 ± 10 | 72.3 ± 17 | 186 ± 23 | 163 ± 10 | 179 ± 49 | 82 ± 6.5 | 245 ± 78 | 143 ± 26 | |
| m 5 | 435 ± 74 | 71.9 ± 11 | 436 ± 27 | 133 ± 9.4 | 227 ± 94 | 67.5 ± 7.7 | 363 ± 45 | 122 ± 21 | |
| Mnavail | m 0 | 196 ± 5.1 | 169 ± 5.7 | 20 ± 1 | 18 ± 1.9 | 196 ± 5.1 | 169 ± 5.7 | 20 ± 1 | 18 ± 1.9 |
| m 1 | 142 ± 2.3 | 24 ± 1.5 | 133 ± 6.6 | 37 ± 4.9 | 168 ± 2.9 | 40 ± 2.7 | 145 ± 1.2 | 40 ± 3.8 | |
| m 3 | 110 ± 5.4 | 32 ± 6.6 | 108 ± 4.8 | 51 ± 3.8 | 114 ± 5.5 | 31 ± 3.8 | 108 ± 7.1 | 32 ± 1.5 | |
| m 5 | 101 ± 6.6 | 19 ± 1.7 | 101 ± 9.9 | 21 ± 2.9 | 120 ± 10.3 | 21 ± 3.7 | 114 ± 3.7 | 22 ± 3.1 | |
3.4.5. Changes in the Enzymatic Activity Levels
3.4.6. Changes in Volatile Solids (VS)
3.4.7. C/N Ratio
| Composting | Vermicomposting | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment | T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | T5 | T6 | T7 | T8 | |
| C/N | m 0 | 7.2 ± 0.3 | 94.5 ± 13.3 | 6.9 ± 0.01 | 73.6 ± 18.7 | 7.2 ± 0.3 | 94.5 ± 13.3 | 6.9 ± 0.01 | 73.6 ± 18.7 |
| m 1 | 7.9 ± 0.1 | 26.3 ± 3.5 | 8.1 ± 0.06 | 16.2 ± 3.2 | 8.2 ± 0.1 | 16.4 ± 0.4 | 8.1 ± 0.1 | 14.1 ± 1.2 | |
| m 3 | 8.3 ± 0.1 | 20.2 ± 3.4 | 8.7 ± 0.3 | 12.5 ± 0.8 | 8.4 ± 0.1 | 15.3 ± 1.5 | 8.7 ± 0.4 | 12.2 ± 0.5 | |
| m 5 | 8.8 ± 0.2 | 16.7 ± 0.5 | 8.5 ± 0.3 | 10.7 ± 0.5 | 8.9 ± 0.2 | 14.6 ± 1.1 | 9.1 ± 0.3 | 11.3 ± 0.5 | |
3.5. Comparison Between the Final Products of Composting and Vermicomposting
3.6. Determination of Optimal Treatment Based on Levels of Final Products
4. Discussion
4.1. Biomass, Abundance and Nutrient Content of Earthworms
4.2. Chemical Changes During the Composting and Vermicomposting Processes
4.3. Comparison Between the Final Products of Composting and Vermicomposting
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Zhang, J.; Akyol, C.; Meers, E. Nutrient recovery and recycling from fishery waste and by-products. Review. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 348, 119266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, H.; Gao, Y.; Liu, J.; Lina, Z.; Lee, C.T.; Hashim, H.; Wu, W.-M.; Li, C. Recovery of Nutrients from Fish Sludge as Liquid Fertilizer to Enhance Sustainability of Aquaponics: A Review. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2021, 83, 55–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nordvarg, L. Predictive models and eutrophication effects of fish farms. In Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology 602; Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis: Uppsala, Sweden, 2001; 44p. [Google Scholar]
- Madhusanki, F.; Epa, U. Use of Aquaculture Pond Sludge and Fish Waste to Produce Manure Worm, Eisenia fetida (Lumbricidae), Vermiwash. J. Fish. Environ. 2023, 47, 126–137. [Google Scholar]
- Salazar, F.J.; Saldana, R.C. Characterization of manures from fish cage farming in Chile. Bioresour. Technol. 2007, 98, 3322–3327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campo, L.M.; Ibarra, P.; Gutierrez, X.; Takle, H. Utilization of Sludge from Recirculation aquaculture Systems; Report; Nofima Marin: Tromsø, Norway, 2010; Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/11250/2559653 (accessed on 3 January 2026).
- Habib, S.S.; Arshad, M.; Majeed, S.; Ullah, M.; Ujan, J.A.; Naz, S.; Mohany, M. Sludge removal frequency influences heavy metal accumulation, water quality, and growth in Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) biofloc systems. Water Environ Res. 2025, 97, e70081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guyapale, R.M.; Dionela, C.; Huervana, F. Comparison of the nutrient composition of sludge under aerobic and anaerobic mineralization from African catfish, Clarias gariepinus (Actinopterygii: Siluriformes: Clariidae), reared in an intensive recirculating aquaculture system. Acta Ichthyol. Piscat. 2024, 54, 275–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ogello, E.O.; Outa, N.O.; Obiero, K.O.; Kyule, D.N.; Munguti, J.M. The prospects of biofloc technology (BFT) for sustainable aquaculture development. Sci. Afr. 2021, 14, e01053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ejileugha, C.; Onyegbule, U.O.; Osuoha, J.O. Use of Additives in Composting Promotes Passivation and Reduction in Bioavailability of Heavy Metals (HMs) in Compost. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2024, 262, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, S.; Sharma, V.; Bhoyar, R.V.; Bhattacharyya, J.K.; Chakrabarti, T. Effect of Heavy Metals on Earthworm Activities During Vermicomposting of Municipal Solid Waste. Water Environ Res. 2008, 80, 154–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amouei, A.; Yousefi, Z.; Khosrafi, T. Comparison of vermicompost characteristics produced from sewage sludge of wood and paper industry and household solid wastes. J. Environ. Health Sci. Eng. 2017, 15, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Macktoobian, M. Life Cycle Assessment of Vermicomposting Process. Master’s Thesis, University of South-Eastern Norway, Notodden, Norway, 2024. [Google Scholar]
- Kouba, A.; Lunda, R.; Hlavac, D.; Kuklina, I.; Hamackova, J.; Randak, T.; Kozak, P.; Koubova, A.; Buri, M. Vermicomposting of sludge from recirculating aquaculture system using Eisenia andrei: Technological feasibility and quality assessment of end-products. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 177, 665–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adhikary, S. Vermicompost, the story of organic gold: A review. Agric. Sci. 2012, 3, 905–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Srikanth, M.; Rao, G.R.; Lakshmi, G.V.; Rani, I.U. A Study on Composting of Aquaculture Sludge from Patapalem (SPSR Nellore) and its Suitability to different Crops. Andhra Agric. J. 2019, 66, 453–459. Available online: https://aaj.net.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/663-006.pdf (accessed on 3 January 2026).
- Belmeskine, H.; Dilmi, N.; Tsagadirts, Z. Aquacultural sludge recovery and vermicomposting for soil amendment: A useful strategy for sustainable agriculture. Int. J. Recycl. Org. Waste Agric. 2023, 12, 111–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Birch, S.; Bell, R.; Nair, J.; Phung, C.V. Feasibility of vermicomposting aquaculture solid waste on the Mekong Delta, Vietnam: A pilot study. In Dynamic Soil, Dynamic Plant; Global Science Books: Hong Kong, China, 2010; Volume 4, pp. 127–134. [Google Scholar]
- Borkute, P.A.; Hedaoo, D.M.N. Study on composting of vegetable waste. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Innov. Res. 2022, 9, 31–36. Available online: https://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR2211120.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2026).
- Zaini, M.S.; Syafi, W.S. Recycling of Waste Tea Leaves via Vermicomposting Process and the Effect on Water Spinach Growth. Kem. Ind. 2021, 70, 387−392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Misra, R.V.; Roy, R.N.; Hiraoka, H. On-Farm Composting Methods. FAO. FAO Land and Water Discussion Papers. 2003. Available online: https://www.fao.org/4/y5104e/y5104e00.htm (accessed on 5 January 2026).
- Sindhu, M.; Annapoorani, C. Efficacy of reproduction and vermicomposting ability of eggshell powder using Eudrilus eugeniae. Int. J. Entomol. Res. 2021, 6, 273–277. Available online: www.entomologyjournals.com (accessed on 5 January 2026).
- BSI EN 15933:2012; Sludge, Treated Biowaste and Soil—Determination of pH. British Standards Institution: London, UK, 2012. Available online: https://lakeohridniva.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/bs-en-15933-2012sludge-treated-biowaste-and.pdf (accessed on 3 January 2026).
- Hanc, A.; Castkova, T.; Kuzel, S.; Cajthaml, T. Dynamics of a vertical- ow windrow vermicomposting system. Waste Manag. Res. 2017, 11, 1121–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- BS EN 13651:2001; Soil Improvers and Growing Media. Extraction of Calcium Chloride/DTPA (CAT) Soluble Elements. British Standards Institution: London, UK, 2001. Available online: https://knowledge.bsigroup.com/products/soil-improvers-and-growing-media-extraction-of-calcium-chloride-dtpa-cat-soluble-elements (accessed on 12 January 2026).
- Hrebeckova, T.; Wiesnerova, L.; Hanc, A. Changes of enzymatic activity during a large-scale vermicomposting process with continuous feeding. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 239, 118127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Compost Network ECN e.V. European Quality Assurance Scheme for Compost and Digestate. 2014. Available online: www.compostnetwork.info (accessed on 10 January 2026).
- Official Journal of the European Union. Regulation (EU) 2019/1009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019. Laying Down Rules on the Making Available on the Market of EU Fertilising Products and Amending Regulations (EC) No 1069/2009 and (EC) No 1107/2009 and Repealing Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003; Official Journal of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Duddigan, S.; Fraser, T.; Green, I.; Diaz, A.; Sizmur, T.; Tibbett, M. Plant, soil and faunal responses to a contrived pH gradient. Plant Soil 2021, 462, 505–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clasen, B.; Ferreira, T.; Santana, N.A.; Portela, V.O.; Loro, V.L.; Murussi, C.R.; Leitemperger, J.; Tiecher, T.L.; Domínguez, J.; Jacques, R.J.S.; et al. Eisenia andrei Behavioral and Antioxidative Responses to Excess of Copper in the Soil. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2021, 232, 443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jicong, H.; Yanyun, Q.; Guangqing, L.; Dong, R. The Influence of Temperature, pH and C/N Ratio on the Growth and Survival of Earthworms in Municipal Solid Waste. Agric. Eng. Int. E J. CIGR 2005, VII, 1–6. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/1813/10443 (accessed on 5 January 2026).
- Alcaraz, M.N.G.; Gestel, C.A.M. Metal/metalloid (As, Cd and Zn) bioaccumulation in the earthworm Eisenia andrei under different scenarios of climate change. Environ. Pollut. 2016, 215, 178–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rusanescu, C.O.; Rusanescu, M.; Voicu, G.; Paraschiv, G.; Biris, S.S.; Popescu, I.N. The Recovery of Vermicompost Sewage Sludge in Agriculture. Review. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koski, J.; Penttinen, O.P.; Väisänen, A.O.; Gestel, C. An uptake and elimination kinetics approach to assess the bioavailability of chromium, copper, and arsenic to earthworms (Eisenia andrei) in contaminated field soils. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 15095–15104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lalremruati, M.; Devi, A.S. Duration of Composting and Changes in Temperature, pH and C/N Ratio during Composting: A Review. Agric. Rev. 2021, 44, 350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dominguez, J.; Edwards, C.A. Relationships between Composting and Vermicomposting. In Vermiculture Technology; Taylor & Francis Group, LLC: Abingdon, UK, 2011; pp. 11–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, Y.; Zhang, C.; Tan, L.; Wei, X.; Li, Q.; Zhing, X.; Liu, F.; Wang, J.; Xu, Y. Full-Scale of a Compost Process Using Swine Manure, Human Feces, and Rice Straw as Feedstock. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2022, 10, 928032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Elissen, H.; Weide, R.; Gollenbeek, L. Effects of Vermicompost on Plant and Soil Characteristics—A Literature Overview; Report WPR-995; Wageningen Research: Lelystad, The Netherlands, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karak, T.; Bhattacharyya, P.; Paul, R.K.; Das, T.; Saha, S. Evaluation of Composts from Agricultural Wastes with Fish Pond Sediment as Bulking Agent to Improve Compost Quality. Clean -Soil Air Water. 2013, 41, 711–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, J.W.C.; Wong, M.H. Coal Fly Ash as a Composting Material for Sewage Sludge: Effects on Microbial Activities. Environ. Technol. 1995, 16, 527–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lanno, M.; Kriipsalu, M.; Shanskiy, M.; Silm, M.; Kisand, A. Distribution of Phosphorus Forms Depends on Compost Source Material. Resources 2021, 10, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dróżdż, D.; Malińska, K.; Kacprzak, M.; Mrowiec, M.; Szczypiór, A.; Postawa, P.; Stachowiak, T. Potential of Fish Pond Sediments Composts as Organic Fertilizers. Waste Biomass Valorization 2020, 11, 5151–5163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abu Bakar, A.; Gawi, S.N.A.S.M.; Mahmood, N.Z.; Abdullah, N. Vermicomposting of Vegetable Waste Amended with Different Sources of Agro-Industrial By-Product Using Lumbricus rubellus. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2014, 23, 1491–1498. [Google Scholar]
- Moustafa, Y.; El-Hady, E.S.; El-Dahshouri, M.F.; Zuhair, R.; Zhang, L.; Mustafa, N. Impact of Different Agro-Wastes on Quality of Vermicompost Made of Either Fish Sludge or Cow Dung. Asian J. Plant Sci. 2021, 20, 370–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, L.; Miao, J.; Yang, J.; Zhao, X.; Xie, M.; Shi, W.; Cai, J.; Ding, W. Evolution of Cr, Cu, Mn, and Zn during the composting process of chicken manure and their integrated potential ecological risk assessment. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 349, 012043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanc, A.; Dume, B.; Hrebeckova, T. Differences of Enzymatic Activity During Composting and Vermicomposting of Sewage Sludge Mixed with Straw Pellets. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 12, 801107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Enebe, M.C.; Erasmus, M. Mediators of biomass transformation—A focus on the enzyme composition of the vermicomposting process. Environ. Chall. 2023, 12, 100732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dume, B.; Hanc, A.; Svehla, P.; Michal, P.; Solcová, O.; Chane, A.D.; Nigussie, A. Nutrient recovery and changes in enzyme activity during vermicomposting of hydrolysed chicken feather residue. Environ. Technol. 2022, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manea, E.E.; Bumbac, C. Sludge Composting—Is This a Viable Solution for Wastewater Sludge Management? Water 2024, 16, 2241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hubbe, M.A.; Daystar, J.S.; Venditti, R.A.; Pawlak, J.J.; Zambrano, M.C.; Barlaz, M.; Ankeny, M.; Pires, S. Biodegrability of Cellulose Fibers, Films, and Particles: A review. BioResources 2025, 20, 1–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vishwakarma, V.K.; Kumar, P.; Jethoo, A.S.; Khwairakpam, M. Comparative study on assessment of compost stability through C/N ratio by different composting techniques. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Academic Research in Science, Technology and Engineering, Rome, Italy, 10–12 May 2019; Available online: https://www.dpublication.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/ICARSTE-1-188.pdf (accessed on 8 January 2026).
- Devi, N.L.; Singh, A.H.; Nongthombam, J.; Kumar, S.; Chaudhary, K.P. Fish Waste Compost—A Fertilizer for Organic Agriculture. J. Exp. Agric. Int. 2024, 46, 778–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wiater, J. Changes in the C:N Ratio in the Sludge Treated with Natural Methods. J. Ecol. Eng. 2020, 21, 240–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hai, L.T.; Kien, T.T.; Hung, N.T. Utilizing sludge from catfish farming to produce vermicompost for improving soil quality. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2024, 1383, 012005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hidalgo, P.R.; Matta, F.B.; Harkess, R.L. Physical and Chemical Properties of Substrates Containing Earthworm Castings and Effects on Marigold Growth. HortSci 2006, 41, 1474–1476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmad, A.; Aslam, Z.; Belliturk, K.; Iqbal, N.; Naeem, S.; Idrees, M.; Kaleem, Z.; Nawaz, M.Y.; Nawaz, M.; Sajjad, M.; et al. Vermicomposting Methods from Different Wastes: An Environment Friendly, Economically Viable and Socially Acceptable Approach for Crop Nutrition: A Review. Int. J. Food Sci. Agric. 2021, 5, 58–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abinaya, V.; Devanathan, S.; Senthilmurugan, S. Physicochemical analysis of compost and vermicompost of banana and water hyacinth leaf wastes processed by using the earthworm Eisenia fetida. Int. J. Entomol. Res. 2024, 9, 1–7. Available online: https://www.entomologyjournals.com/assets/archives/2024/vol9issue9/9214.pdf (accessed on 5 January 2026).
- Chaulagain, A.; Maharjan, B.; Pathak, R.; Piya, S.; Chimoriya, S.; Shrestha, I.; Gauchan, D.P.; Lamichhane, J. Effect of feeding materials on yield, quality of vermicompost, multiplication and reproduction of Eisenia Foetida. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2017, 13, 15–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suthar, S. Vermicomposting potential of Perionyx sansibaricus (Perrier) in different waste materials. Bioresour. Technol. 2007, 98, 1231–1237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mehdaoui, I.; Mahmoud, R.; Majbar, Z.; Berrada, S.; Abbou, M.; Elshikh, M.S.; Ali, M.A.; Chen, T.W. Comparing how compost and manure affect soil organic matter using a complete factorial design. JKSU 2024, 36, 103471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rekasi, M.; Ragalyi, P.; Sandor, D.B.; Szabo, A.; Rivier, P.A.; Farkas, C.; Szecsy, O.; Uzinger, N. Effect of composting and vermicomposting on potentially toxic element contents and bioavailability in sewage sludge digestate. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 2023, 21, 101307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amlinger, F.; Pollak, M.; Favoino, E. Annex 2: Compost Quality Definition—Legislation and Standards. European Commission, Directorate General Environment. 2004. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/pdf/waste/compost/hm_annex2.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2026).






| Treatment Group | Weight Ratio of Fish Sludge: Egg Boxes: Lettuce (FS: EB: L) | Additives | Earthworms (Eisenia andrei) |
|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | 1:0:0 | eggshells | No |
| T2 | 1:3:0 | eggshells | No |
| T3 | 9:0:1 | eggshells | No |
| T4 | 4:5:1 | eggshells | No |
| T5 | 1:0:0 | eggshells | Yes |
| T6 | 1:3:0 | eggshells | Yes |
| T7 | 9:0:1 | eggshells | Yes |
| T8 | 4:5:1 | eggshells | Yes |
| Element | Fish Sludge | Egg Boxes | Eggshells |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry matter DM% | 32 ± 1.7 | 99 ± 0.35 | 98 ± 0.52 |
| P | 23,082 ± 422 | 277 ± 37 | 1763 ± 26 |
| K | 2541 ± 63 | 438 ± 57 | 902 ± 53 |
| Mg | 2865 ± 77 | 1475 ± 51 | 3862 ± 46 |
| S | 6898 ± 285 | 762 ± 20 | 1663 ± 65 |
| Fe | 5758 ± 112 | 904 ± 81 | 53 ± 3.6 |
| Cu | 93 ± 0.8 | 4.7 ± 0.12 | 2.1 ± 0.08 |
| Zn | 1207 ± 40 | 45.6 ± 3.6 | 5.3 ± 0.14 |
| Mn | 493 ± 14.8 | 30 ± 1.1 | 2 ± 0.23 |
| Ni | 47 ± 6 | 2 ± 0 | 0.45 ± 0.2 |
| Cr | 29 ± 7 | 5 ± 0 | ND |
| Pb | ND | 8 ± 1 | 1.7 ± 0.2 |
| As | 0.449 ± 0.01 | 0.359 ± 0.009 | 0.446 ± 0.03 |
| Composting | Vermicomposting | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment | T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | T5 | T6 | T7 | T8 | |
| Pavail | m 0 | 2613 ± 135 | 2397 ± 111 | 99.7 ± 7.3 | 113.7 ± 23 | 2613 ± 135 | 2397 ± 111 | 99.7 ± 7.3 | 113.7 ± 22.8 |
| m 1 | 3257 ± 46 | 108 ± 11 | 2567 ± 278 | 231.7 ± 18 | 3254 ± 69 | 193 ± 44 | 2523.5 ± 60 | 226 ± 28.9 | |
| m 3 | 1837 ± 242 | 124 ± 2.9 | 1678 ± 170 | 1457 ± 25 | 1457 ± 192 | 161.7 ± 28 | 1533 ± 119 | 287.3 ± 43 | |
| m 5 | 665.6 ± 45 | 83.7 ± 12 | 574.6 ± 22 | 177 ± 4 | 981 ± 229 | 139 ± 25.3 | 908.1 ± 73 | 206.3 ± 13 | |
| Kavail | m 0 | 2306 ± 89 | 4370 ± 367 | 643.3 ± 13 | 1458 ± 62 | 2306 ± 89 | 4370 ± 367 | 643 ± 13 | 1458 ± 62 |
| m 1 | 2030 ± 16 | 547 ± 98 | 3933 ± 147 | 3140 ± 206 | 2557 ± 229 | 1499 ± 554 | 5140 ± 305 | 3583 ± 380 | |
| m 3 | 2650 ± 43 | 864 ± 66 | 5784 ± 211 | 3197 ± 102 | 4959 ± 223 | 1897 ± 200 | 6863 ± 196 | 4845 ± 228 | |
| m 5 | 3150 ± 88 | 934 ± 75 | 6283 ± 436 | 3683 ± 285 | 5817 ± 315 | 1930 ± 156 | 8635 ± 678 | 4757 ± 243 | |
| Mgavail | m 0 | 1700 ± 36 | 1590 ± 57 | 318 ± 1.9 | 343 ± 36 | 1700 ± 36 | 1590 ± 57 | 318 ± 1.9 | 343 ± 36 |
| m 1 | 625 ± 39 | 547 ± 98 | 490 ± 116 | 624 ± 28 | 801 ± 76 | 527 ± 27 | 718 ± 58 | 563 ± 27 | |
| m 3 | 1283 ± 5.5 | 427 ± 18 | 1181 ± 35 | 798 ± 57 | 934 ± 20 | 676 ± 59 | 922 ± 89 | 959 ± 58 | |
| m 5 | 1534 ± 74 | 496 ± 17 | 1524 ± 255 | 1049 ± 81 | 1005 ± 92 | 739 ± 19 | 919 ± 30 | 1062 ± 73 | |
| Savail | m 0 | 460 ± 9.4 | 437 ± 12 | 273 ± 11 | 267 ± 15 | 460 ± 9.4 | 437 ± 12 | 273 ± 11 | 267 ± 15 |
| m 1 | 1730 ± 43 | 236 ± 51 | 2300 ± 303 | 684 ± 20 | 2540 ± 353 | 415 ± 82 | 2647 ± 372 | 2647 ± 109 | |
| m 3 | 1943 ± 550 | 197 ± 21 | 2193 ± 246 | 539 ± 52 | 2833 ± 205 | 204 ± 60 | 2773 ± 83 | 406 ± 156 | |
| m 5 | 2737 ± 83 | 107 ± 8.6 | 2733 ± 87 | 657 ± 50 | 2150 ± 454 | 234 ± 61 | 2240 ± 149 | 419 ± 132 | |
| Parameter | Composting | Vermicomposting |
|---|---|---|
| pH | 7.05 ± 0.23 b | 7.19 ± 0.4 a |
| EC | 2695 ± 1162 a | 2119 ± 773 b |
| Available P | 375 ± 250 b | 518 ± 350 a |
| Available K | 3512 ± 1921 b | 5284 ± 2433 a |
| Available Mg | 1150 ± 448 a | 931 ± 137 b |
| Available S | 1558 ± 1194 a | 1260 ± 970 b |
| Available Fe | 103 ± 47 b | 170 ± 116 a |
| Available Mn | 60 ± 41 b | 69 ± 48 a |
| Total Cu | 585 ± 362 a | 665 ± 363 a |
| Total Zn | 90 ± 7.1 a | 97 ± 8 a |
| Total Cr | 178 ± 6.1 b | 198 ± 6.6 a |
| Total Ni | 26 ± 13.7 a | 27 ± 14 a |
| Total Pb | 5.34 ± 3.1 a | 5.41 ± 3.4 a |
| Total As | 6.71 ± 2.3 a | 5.98 ± 2.4 a |
| Composting | Vermicomposting | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Element Treatment | T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | T5 | T6 | T7 | T8 |
| PA | 665.6 ± 45 b | 83.74 ± 12 c | 574.6 ± 22 b | 177 ± 4 c | 981 ± 229 a | 139 ± 25.3 c | 908.1 ± 73 a | 206.3 ± 13 c |
| KA | 3150 ± 88 d | 934 ± 75 f | 6283 ± 436 b | 3683 ± 285 d | 5817 ± 315 b | 1930 ± 156 e | 8635 ± 678 a | 4757 ± 243 c |
| MgA | 1534 ± 74 a | 496 ± 17 d | 1524 ± 255 a | 1049 ± 81 b | 1005 ± 92 b | 739 ± 19 c | 919 ± 30 bc | 1062 ± 73 b |
| SA | 2737 ± 83 a | 107 ± 8.6 d | 2733 ± 87 a | 657 ± 50 c | 2150 ± 454 b | 234 ± 61 cd | 2240 ± 149 b | 419 ± 132 cd |
| FeA | 177 ± 27 b | 67.6 ± 2.5 c | 104 ± 8.3 c | 66.6 ± 3.1 c | 343 ± 3.7 a | 63 ± 2.8 c | 206 ± 38 b | 71.2 ± 5.5 c |
| MnA | 101 ± 6.6 b | 19 ± 1.7 c | 101 ± 9.9 b | 21 ± 2.9 c | 120 ± 10.3 a | 21 ± 3.7 c | 114 ± 3.7 ab | 22 ± 3.1 c |
| CuT | 118 ± 7.5 a | 64 ± 4.6 b | 112 ± 13.4 a | 68.8 ± 2.9 b | 123 ± 10.6 a | 74.1 ± 4.1 b | 116 ± 12.8 a | 76.6 ± 4.6 b |
| ZnT | 1055 ± 31 a | 241 ± 18 c | 1023 ± 80 a | 423 ± 27 b | 1064 ± 93 a | 264 ± 21 c | 972 ± 87 a | 360 ± 47.7 bc |
| CrT | 24.3 ± 0.7 ab | 11.2 ± 0.8 d | 23.5 ± 2.5 b | 12.9 ± 0.8 cd | 25.7 ± 1 ab | 11.8 ± 0.5 d | 26.5 ± 1.2 a | 14.7 ± 1.2 c |
| NiT | 40.1 ± 2.5 a | 10.5 ± 0.5 b | 39.5 ± 4.2 a | 15.9 ± 1.4 b | 42.9 ± 2.1 a | 12.2 ± 1.7 b | 39.3 ± 4.4 a | 15.5 ± 0.9 b |
| PbT | 1.98 ± 0.1 c | 9.9 ± 1 a | 3.37 ± 0.1 d | 6.11 ± 0.6 c | 2.55 ± 0.5 de | 9.53 ± 0.2 a | 1.66 ± 0.3 e | 7.89 ± 0.5 b |
| AsT | 9.64 ± 1.4 a | 3.64 ± 0.2 e | 7.04 ± 0.6 bc | 5.55 ± 0.6 cd | 8.31 ± 0.9 ab | 3.1 ± 0.6 e | 7.99 ± 0.6 ab | 4.53 ± 0.9 de |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
Hleibieh, M.; Hanc, A.; Michal, P.; Hrebeckova, T. Composting and Vermicomposting of Fish Sludge with Egg Boxes and Lettuce Wastes with the Addition of Eggshells: Impacts on Chemical Properties, Nutrient Availability, and Safety. Agronomy 2026, 16, 473. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy16040473
Hleibieh M, Hanc A, Michal P, Hrebeckova T. Composting and Vermicomposting of Fish Sludge with Egg Boxes and Lettuce Wastes with the Addition of Eggshells: Impacts on Chemical Properties, Nutrient Availability, and Safety. Agronomy. 2026; 16(4):473. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy16040473
Chicago/Turabian StyleHleibieh, Maha, Ales Hanc, Pavel Michal, and Tereza Hrebeckova. 2026. "Composting and Vermicomposting of Fish Sludge with Egg Boxes and Lettuce Wastes with the Addition of Eggshells: Impacts on Chemical Properties, Nutrient Availability, and Safety" Agronomy 16, no. 4: 473. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy16040473
APA StyleHleibieh, M., Hanc, A., Michal, P., & Hrebeckova, T. (2026). Composting and Vermicomposting of Fish Sludge with Egg Boxes and Lettuce Wastes with the Addition of Eggshells: Impacts on Chemical Properties, Nutrient Availability, and Safety. Agronomy, 16(4), 473. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy16040473

