A Review on Vermicomposting of Organic Wastes

Usman Ali,a Nida Sajid,a Azeem Khalid,b Luqman Riaz,b Muhammad Muaz Rabbani,c
Jabir Hussain Syed,d and Riffat Naseem Malika
a
Environmental Biology and Ecotoxicology Laboratory, Department of Environmental Sciences, Quaid-I-Azam University,
Islamabad, Pakistan; r_n_malik2000@yahoo.co.uk (for correspondence)
b
Department of Environmental Sciences, Pir Mehr Ali Shah Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan
c
Department of Forestry and Range Management, Pir Mehr Ali Shah Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan
d
State Key Laboratory of Organic Geochemistry, Guangzhou Institute of Geochemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou,
China
Published online 00 Month 2015 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI 10.1002/ep.12100

Generation of the huge amount of solid waste around the
globe is a major ecological and technical problem. Vermi-
composting may be the viable option to handle solid waste in
an environmentally friendly way. This review provides a gen-
eral overview of viability of vermicomposting processes as an
ecofriendly approach. The integrated approach of composting
and vermicomposting processes provides better results. Fur-
ther, to optimize the process of vermicomposting, codigestion
of organic wastes provides better opportunity for both micro-
organisms and earthworms to convert the organic fraction of
solid waste under controlled environmental conditions. Feed-
ing, stocking density, pH, C/N ratio, temperature, and mois-
ture, by inference, seem to be the critical factors that
influence the vermicomposting process. Furthermore, the end
product of vermicomposting, the nutrient-rich compost, could
be used for biogas production. Hence, the management of
solid waste and energy production can be achieved at the
same time with no further costs. V C 2015 American Institute of
Chemical Engineers Environ Prog, 00: 000–000, 2015
Keywords: vermicomposting, integrated composting, codi-
gestion, feeding, stocking density, biogas
INTRODUCTION
Various anthropogenic activities, escalating urbanization,
industrialization, and economic growth are leading to the
production of huge quantities of solid waste around the
globe. The management of this solid waste has now become
an ecological and a technical problem for all [1]. Sustainable
solid waste management practices are indispensable to keep
the environment healthy and clean [2]. The situation of gen-
eration of solid waste in all over the world is worse. By
inference, it seems that only in Asia Pacific region, 1.8 mil-
lion tons of solid waste generation per day would be esti-
mated by 2025 [3]. It was surprisingly increased of solid
waste generation in America when municipal solid waste
(MSW) generation was reported 243 tons in 2009. According
to different studies, an average of 0.77 kg/person/day solid
waste is generated in 23 developing countries [4]. Currently,
it is predicted to increase the world’s solid waste generation
up to 3 billion tons by 2025 [5].
These huge amounts of wastes have not been fully
oppressed owing to technical and economic issues, as there
C 2015 American Institute of Chemical Engineers
V ent in solid waste [2].
is a lack of viable technology for their economical recycling
in developing countries. Although many strategies have been
proposed and implemented for proper solid waste manage-
ment, including source reduction, curbside recycling, mate-
rial recovery, waste to energy, landfill dumping, incineration,
and composting [6], some of these treatment and disposal
methods could cause serious environmental issues. In many
studies [7–9], it was reported that the waste placed in landfill
or in open dumps caused groundwater contamination due to
leachate of organic and inorganic compounds present in
waste. Landfill dumping also promotes the greenhouse effect
as well [10]. Similarly, incineration treatment is restricted
because of its low-fattening value and the cost of fuel incre-
ments [9]. In the case of sewage sludge, it is directly dis-
posed off on agricultural lands because of its high nitrogen
(N) and phosphorus (P) contents used as fertilizer; however,
it may cause toxicity for soil and plants and have depressive
effects on the metabolism of soil microorganisms [11].
Under these conditions, vermicomposting may be a via-
ble technology that is ecologically sound, and it not only
becomes ecofriendly but also economical for converting
solid wastes into organic rich manure. Vermicomposting is a
waste management technology that involves decomposition
of organic fraction of solid waste in an ecofriendly way to a
level in which it can be easily stored, handled, and applied
to agricultural fields without any adverse effects [2,12,13].
Vermicomposting is a joint action of microorganisms and
earthworms in environment-controlled conditions, hence to
achieve nonthermophilic decomposition and stabilization of
organic fraction of solid waste [14–18]. Simply, it is a bio-
technological process in which organic waste is converted
into nutrient-rich vermicompost by using earthworms [19].
The microbes present in the system are responsible for bio-
chemical degradation of organic matter, whereas earth-
worms play their role in conditioning of substrate and also
altering of biological activity. This is a very low-cost tech-
nology for the treatment of organic wastes using earth-
worms [20]. In an acre of soil, different types of earthworm
species exist having different types of nature and mode of
nutrition due to which the rate of degradation is affected
[12]. In the case of MSW, the process of vermicomposting
would be highly recommended because of its safe and
hygienic degradation of high amount of organic waste pres-

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.00, No.00) DOI 10.1002/ep Month 2015 1
Figure 1. Mutualistic relationship shown by earthworm and microbes. [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, which
is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
The aim of this work is to provide a review on the poten-
tial of vermicomposting in handling solid waste management
in environment-friendly way. Beside a general overview, this
work specifically aims to cover the potential of (i) integrated
composting and vermicomposting approaches and (ii) to
optimize the vermicomposting process by codigestion of
organic wastes. Furthermore, these factors are discussed here
that critically influence the process of vermicomposting. The
potential of vermicompost in biogas production is also
reviewed in this work, which further provides the opportu-
nity of handling the waste on one hand and energy produc-
tion on the other hand.
COMPOSTING AND VERMICOMPOSTING INTEGRATION
Strong mutualistic relationship among microorganisms and
earthworms (shown in Figure 1) has been reported in the lit-
erature, which could be beneficial in terms of better organic
waste degradation and quality of compost and vermicompost
products when used as nutritional conditioner particularly for
soils [2]. Microorganisms found in the gut and intestine of
earthworms get their nourishment from organic material and
decompose it into finer particles. In this way, microorganisms
provide nourishment to earthworms, and earthworms in turn
promote further microbial activity by producing fecal material
or casts that are microbially active than what they consume
[21,22]. Composting is the process of aerobic decomposition
of organic waste through microorganisms, whereas vermi-
composting involves the combination of both the microorgan-
isms and the earthworms [2]. Although vermicomposting is
considered to be the superior process over composting in
terms of the ability to kill pathogens [23,24], some studies
considered that the vermicomposting process lacks the ability
to kill pathogens, hence it is considered as the major draw-
back of vermicomposting process when compared with ther-
mophilic composting [25]. The optimum temperature for
earthworms in vermicomposting process is considered up to
35 C [22], whereas in conventional composting (including
thermophilic composting), it may reach up to 70 C. There-
fore, vermicomposting process does not attain the favorable
temperature to kill pathogens, and if the temperature exceeds
35 C, it may lead to the death of earthworms which further
stop the process of vermicomposting. In this scenario, an
integrated approach has been introduced composed of both
composting and vermicomposting processes to achieve better
output. There can be two possibilities that are generally pro-
posed for integrated approach of composting and vermicom-
posting: (i) prevermicomposting followed by composting or
(ii) precomposting followed by vermicomposting [25]. By
using the second approach, Gajalakshmi et al. [26] achieved
better output by high-rate composting of water hyacinth
before vermicomposting.
2 Month 2015 Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.00, No.00) DOI 10.1002/ep
VERMICOMPOSTING THROUGH CODIGESTION OF ORGANIC WASTES
The mixture of substrate and cosubstrate changes the
physicochemical nature of the waste, which could ultimately
affect the vermicomposting process. These organic substrates
provide such chemical nature to the waste which increases
the efficiency of worms in vermicomposting system by
increased rate of waste reduction. It also provides fertilizer
value of the vermicomposting, growth, and reproduction of
the worms during the vermicomposting process [27,28]. The
physicochemical characteristics of some widely used organic
amendments are given in Table 1. The vermicomposting
potential of earthworms for degrading different types of
wastes amended with suitable cosubstrates is given in Table
2. It has been observed that earthworms’ ability to survive
particularly in industrial wastes greatly reduced, and thus,
there is a need of some nutrient-rich organic source, such as
cow dung, biogas plant slurry, and poultry droppings, mix
with industrial wastes to enhance the vermicomposting pro-
cess by providing sufficient amount of nutrients and inocu-
lums of microorganisms [55]. When the saw dust and cow
dung were amended with guar waste as organic amendments
and supplements, they provide favorable conditions for
worms and effectively increase the degradation rate [32]. In
contrast to this, sometimes, conditions could not be favor-
able and can decrease the efficiency of worms when distill-
ery sludge is mixed with cow dung as bulking agent [31]. It
was found that high proportion of distillery sludge affects
the decomposition efficiency of worms. Several studies indi-
cated cow dung as the suitable organic amendment to
enhance the process of vermicomposting, including Deka
et al. [14], Suthar [31], Gupta and Garg [34], Sen and Chandra
[35], and Garg et al. [42]. When cow dung was added to the
waste of citronella plant, it significantly enhanced the pro-
cess of vermicomposting with decrease in C:N ratio up to
87.7%. About 40% of cow dung is considered as the initial
substrate in preconsumed processing vegetable waste, which
could produce a good-quality vermicompost [33]. Tannery
waste has been reported to be 100% toxic for earthworms;
therefore, cow dung as an organic substrate was added by
Vig et al. [29] to enhance the nutrient contents for better sur-
vival of worms in the system, and the results showed that
vermicomposting produced contained higher nutrient con-
tents with lower C:N ratio and electrical conductivity so that
it could further be used as a valuable manure. Yadav and
Garg [36] got improved vermicompost when cow dung was
mixed to 30% of food industrial sludge. In the study of Elvira
et al. [37], solid paper mill sludge was mixed with sewage
sludge in a 3:2 ratio, and it resulted in the highest growth
rate with lower mortality, but when mixed with pig slurry, a
high mortality of worms was observed because of the
change in environmental characteristics. Yadav and Garg [1]
observed that waste mixture containing 50% cow dung, 25%
Table 1. Initial physicochemical characteristics of some widely used organic amendments.

Organic amendments
Parameters Cow dung* Cattle dung** Poultry droppings† Biogas slurry††
pH 7.01 6 0.61 8.63 6 0.02 7.7 6 0.35 7.4 6 0.01
Electrical conductivity (EC; ds/m) 0.967 6 0.14 — 3.35 6 0.32 —
Ash content (g/kg) 238.7 6 2.7 — — —
Total organic carbon (TOC; g/kg) 416 6 1.8 18.7 6 0.58 405 6 12 289.5 6 2.7
Total Kjehldahl nitrogen (TKN; g/kg) 8.1 6 0.5 1.20 6 0.01 14.5 6 0.8 19.8 6 0.3
Total potassium (TK; g/kg) 3.65 6 0.0021 0.21 6 1.30 3.1 6 0.1 —
Total available phosphorus (TAP; g/kg) 2.5 6 0.003 0.58 6 2.19 9.2 6 0.6 2.85 6 0.1
C:N ratio 51.35 6 1.75 15.58 6 0.35 27.9 6 1.8 14.6 6 0.4

*Ref. 14.
**Ref. 29.
†
Ref. 1.
††
Ref. 30.

poultry droppings, and 25% fruit industry sludge had better manure [70], and textile mill sludge mixed with poultry drop-
fertilizer value. Contreras-Ramos et al. [39] used sewage ping [41]. Eisenia fetida also functions in the reduction of soil
sludge as the initial substrate for earthworms for degradation organic matter larger than 2000 lm by between 97 and 27%
of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. (200–2000 lm) during digestion [71]. Yadav and Garg [36]
used Eisenia fetida for nutrient recovery from industrial sew-
age sludge. Eisenia fetida, during vermicomposting, needs
VERMISYSTEMS AND VERMIDIVERSITY
high moisture content, sufficient amounts of organic material,
Different types of vermicomposting systems are proposed
and dark conditions for proper growth and development
by researchers to provide better habitat for worms. It includes
[72–74]. Epigeic earthworms are reported to greatly decrease
windrow system [56], pits, heaps, tanks, cement rings, and
the volatile solids in aerobic sewage sludge [75]. Suthar [76]
beds or bins (Glenn Munroe). Windrow systems are of differ-
studied the decomposition efficiency of Perionyx sansibaricus
ent types, including continuous flow system [21], batching
(Perrier) agriculture waste, farm yard manure, and urban solid
system, and wedge system. As this review article has not
waste. Liu et al. [77] studied the Eisenia fetida to reduce cop-
focused on technical and engineering aspects of vermin sys-
per and cadmium availability in sewage sludge. Saxena et al.
tems, we are not going into the in-depth details of vermin
[78] also reported Eisenia fetida to have the potential of accu-
systems; however, a brief overview of the above-mentioned
mulating heavy metals at superior concentrations during ver-
systems has been demonstrated in Table 3. In all these ver-
micomposting. Gajalakshmi et al. [79] used manure worm,
min systems, the diversification of worms may play a crucial
Eudrilus eugeniae, for vermicomposting because of its high
role in overall processing of the vermicomposting. In this
growth rate and reproduction in different type of organic
way, the selection of appropriate earthworm species for
wastes [80,81], and it is further affected by type of waste, sea-
organic waste degradation is a great matter of concern and is
sonal, and other abiotic factors. Kaviraj and Sharma [82] per-
important for getting better results. The adaptability to waste,
formed a comparative study to assess the vermicomposting
minimal gut transit time, fast growth rate, and high reproduc-
efficiency of exotic (epigeic, Eisenia fetida) and local species
tive potential of earthworms are some general characteristics
(anaecic, Lempito mauritii). Their results showed that
which should be under consideration before starting the
although Eisenia fetida was performed well in terms of loss
activity of vermicomposting [57]. Earthworms are terrestrial
of total organic carbon (TOC), reduction in C:N ratio, and
invertebrates broadly categorized as anecic, endogeic, and
increase in EC and TK over Lempito mauritii, it did not show
epigeic (Table 4) on the basis of their behavior on natural
significant value in soil structure modification. On the other
environments [58]. The vermicomposting of organic waste
hand, Lempito mauritii was not only capable of consuming
using diverse range of earthworms is given in Table 5. Differ-
organic waste but also modified and improved the structure
ent studies reported diverse range of earthworms for different
of the soil. Three tropical epigeic earthworm species (Eisenia
types of wastes. Among them, Eisenia fetida is the mostly
fetida, Perionyxex cavatus, and Dicogaster bolaui) were used
used specie for stabilization of organic waste. However, Den-
to assess in order to evaluate the suitability of different forest
drobaena veneta and Lumbricus rubellus from temperature
litters as their food material [83]. The results indicated Eisenia
regions and Eudrilus eugeniae, Perionyx excavatus, and Peri-
fetida as the suitable worm for vermicomposting of forest lit-
onyx hawayana from the tropics [68] are also among the spe-
ter in terms of survival and growth rate when compared with
cies of earthworms which are potentially the most useful
the rest of two worms. It is believed that Eudrilus euginae
specie for stabilizing organic waste. Generally, Eisenia fetida
and Perionyx excavatus are more versatile waste managers
is widely used all over the globe, whereas Eudrilus eugeniae
[84,85].
is popular in tropical and subtropical countries [57]. Apart
from this, polyculture worms are also used with a combina-
tion of different species. Eisenia fetida, also termed as ROLE OF VERMICULTURES IN VERMICOMPOSTING
banded worms, are the most widely used species for the deg- Earthworms played an important role in organic waste
radation and stabilization of different types of organic wastes, system by colonizing organic waste along with consumption,
including neem leaves [67], dung of cow, buffalo, horse, don- digestion, and assimilation of high rates of organic wastes.
key, sheep, goat, and camel [55], biogas slurry, cow dung, They also have the ability to tolerate a wide range of envi-
vegetable market waste, wheat straw [38], kitchen waste, ronmental stresses with high reproductive rates [86]. In an
agroresidues, and institutional and industrial wastes [69], cow organic waste system, earthworms ingest, grind, and digest

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.00, No.00) DOI 10.1002/ep Month 2015 3
Table 2. Vermicomposting with suitable organic amendment

Substrate Waste Worms Reference

Cow dung Distillery sludge Eisenia fetida [31]
Sawdust and cow dung Guar gum Perionyx sansibaricus [32]
Cow dung Waste of citronella plant Eudrilus eugeniae [14]
Cow dung Preconsumed processing Eisenia fetida [33]
vegetable waste
Cattle dung Tannery sludge Eisenia fetida [29]
Cow dung Sewage sludge Eisenia fetida [34]
Cow dung Filter cake, trash, and bagasse Eudrilus eugeniae [35]
Cow dung Food industry sludge Eisenia fetida [36]
Primary sewage sludge Paper pulp mill sludge Eisenia andrei [37]
Sugarcane trash Sewage sludge Eisenia fetida [38]
Sewage sludge Polycyclic aromatic Eisenia fetida [39]
hydrocarbons
Cow dung Nonrecyclable postconsumer Eisenia fetida [40]
paper waste
Poultry droppings Textile mill sludge Eisenia fetida [41]
Anaerobically digested Textile mill wastewater sludge Eisenia fetida [42]
biogas plant slurry
Cow dung/agricultural Solid textile mill sludge Eisenia fetida [43]
residues
Sugar mill filter cake Horse dung Eisenia fetida [44]
Cow dung Solid textile mill sludge Eisenia fetida [45]
Cattle dung Crop residues Eisenia fetida [46]
Wheat straw, cow dung, Vegetable solid waste Eisenia fetida [47]
and biogas slurry
Cow dung Water hyacinth Eisenia fetida [48]
Cattle manure Dairy industry sludge Eisenia andrei [28]
Cattle dung Beverage industry sludge Eisenia fetida [49]
Cattle dung Sugar industry waste Eisenia fetida, [12]
Perionyx excavatus,
and Eudrilus eugeniae
Cow dung and agriculture Leather processing sludge Eisenia fetida [50]
residues
Sheep manure Cotton industrial waste Eisenia fetida [51]
Cow manure Oat straw Eisenia fetida [52]
Cow manure Hospital wastes Eisenia fetida [53]
Cow dung Fly ash Eisenia fetida [54]

Table 3. Different vermitechnology systems

Vermicomposting system Description

Windrow Long rows on ground up to depth of 50 cm, organic waste is
placed and worms are introduced.
Continuous flow system Container above the ground with mesh floor.
Stacking system Several trays on top of one another. Mostly, three trays are used with 150 mm in depth.
Batching system Compiled of boxes.
Wedge system Horizontal feeding method, where at 45 angle feed is applied on the bedding.
Pits Below the ground, 1-m-deep and 1.5-m-wide pits with varying lengths
Heaps Above the ground, heaps are made with placement of polythene sheet on ground.
Tanks Above the ground, tanks are made with normal bricks.
Cement rings Cement rings are made with dimensions of 90 cm diameter and 30 cm height.

organic waste with the help of aerobic and anaerobic micro-
flora present in the gut of earthworms. The physical and bio-
chemical actions are performed in waste system by
earthworms.
The example of physical actions includes substrate aera-
tion, mixing, and actual grinding. Biochemical actions by
earthworms include microbial decomposition of substrate in
the intestine of earthworms [20,37,51,87]. As a result of this
activity, rapid mineralization and humification process start,
which convert the unstable organic matter into relatively sta-
ble and microbially active material [40,88–90]. During this sta-
bilization process, chelating and phytohormonal elements are
released, which make the organic matter into stabilized humic
substances with high microbial content [90]. According to Lav-
elle [91], earthworms ingest organic waste as well as soil
which pass through their body where it mixes with digestive
enzymes and reduced by the grinding action. The material
that is excreted by the worms after digestion is nutrient rich
and termed as “castings.” All these roles are better played in
moist soil and well-aerated soils with low acidic value.

4 Month 2015 Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.00, No.00) DOI 10.1002/ep
Table 4. Classification of earthworms

Type Characteristics Examples

Anecic These construct permanent vertical burrows as in the soil (4 to 6 feet deep) Lumbricus terrestris
They feed on organic debris on the soil surface Lampito mauritii
Endogeic They mainly show horizontal burrows Aporrectodea calignosa
They feeding on mineral soil particles and decaying organic matter
Epigeic They do not build permanent burrows Eisenia fetida
They are usually found in areas rich in organic matter Eisenia andrei
Perionyx excavates
Eudrilus eugeniae

Source: Ref. 58.

Table 5. Vermicomposting of organic wastes using diverse finer particles when passing through a grinding gizzard of
earthworms earthworms. Earthworms get their nourishment from
microbes, whereas microbial activity is influenced by the
casts produced by worms [21,22].
Time
Earthworms are responsible for the increase in phospho-
Organic waste Worms (Days) References
rus, potassium, and nitrogen which ultimately improve soil
Coffee pulp Eisenia fetida 98 [59] fertility. This increase is strongly attributed to the direct
Soybean straw, Perionyx excavatu 180 [60] action of gut enzymes of earthworms or indirect action by
wheat straw, stimulation of microflora present in the gut [12,25]. Microor-
maize stover, ganisms in the gut of earthworms produce acids which in
chick pea turn play their role in solubilizing of insoluble potassium
straw and [82]. Biologically, vermicomposts contain diverse nature of
city garbage microbial populations that are more diverse and larger when
Pig waste Pheretima asiafica — [61] compared with the thermophilic composts. Vermicomposts
Coffee pulp Eudrilus eugeniae 112 [62] are also rich in nutrient composition such as nitrates,
Pig manure Eisenia fetida 252 [63] exchangeable calcium, phosphorus, and soluble potassium.
Cattle dung Perionyx excavatus 75 [64] This is due to the vermicompost ability of having large sur-
Cow and horse Drawidia nepalensis 240 [65] face area which provides microsites for microbial activity
manure resulting in the availability of nutrients [68]. Microorganisms
Spent mushroom Eisenia fetida and 90 [66] present in the gut of earthworms are strongly responsible for
compost Eisenia andrei acid production and play role in process and increased K2O
Sewage sludge Eisenia fetida 126 [19] level. Carbonic acid and sulfuric acids are the major
Paper mill Lumbricus terrestris — [27] potassium-solubilizing acids produced by microflora present
sludge in the gut of earthworms [82]. According to Parthasarathi and
Neem leaves Eisenia fetida — [67] Ranganathan [98], microbial communities present in the gut
of earthworms secrete enzymes which are actually responsi-
ble for enhanced N, P, and K contents in vermicomposts.
Vermicomposts produced after digestion and excretion by Total phosphorus increased during the vermicomposting pro-
earthworms are actually nutrient-rich organic soil amendment cess as a result of bacterial activity present in the gut of
and has considerable potential in crop production. The com- earthworms and fecal phosphatase activity of earthworms
bined action of microorganisms and earthworms makes it due to mineralization and mobilization [15]. According to
finely divided peat-like material with high porosity, aeration, Vinotha et al. [99], phosphorus concentration in vermicasts
drainage, water-holding capacities, and low C:N ratios [68]. reported to be increasing due to microbial communities pres-
In waste system, under aerobic conditions, earthworms ent in organic waste substrate.
ingest the organic solid waste and convert a portion of it There is a strong relationship of microbial decomposer
into biomass and respiration products [92]. Microflora of communities and earthworms in a waste system. Earth-
organic waste and intestine along with gut enzymes of earth- worms in a waste system favor and promote biochemical
worms are responsible in the decomposition of organic degradation, which in turn promotes the activity of decom-
waste [93–95]. poser microbial communities. This is due to the addition of
The rest of the organic material that does not undergo mucus and enzymes in waste material through muscular
complete stabilization process is discreted by earthworms as action of foregut of earthworms, which increased the sur-
residual, which is a partially stabilized material known as face area of waste for decomposition by microbial action
“vermicasting” [92]. The enzymes secreted through the diges- [36]. Apart from aerobic microbial communities and anaero-
tive epithelium of gut of earthworms are cellulase, amylase, bic microbes, nitrifying and denitrifying microbes are also
invertase, protease, and phosphatase [96]. Although the pro- present in the intestinal gut of earthworms [100]. Firestone
cess of transformation of organic waste in the gut of earth- et al. [101] described the role of facultative anaerobic bacte-
worms is not fully understood, the resulting worm castings ria which reduce the nitrates to nitrogen and nitrous oxide.
(worms manure) are reported to be rich in microbial activity, Karsten and Drake [102] reported that gastrointestinal tracts
plant growth regulators, and fortified with pest repellence of gut of earthworms contain high proportion of anaerobic
[97]. Some earthworm species can rapidly consume the denitrifying microflora when compared with the surround-
organic fraction of solid waste and fragment them into much ing soil.

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.00, No.00) DOI 10.1002/ep Month 2015 5
Table 6. Factors with optimal range for vermicomposting
Optimal range for
earthworms growth
Parameters and cocoon production References
Stocking density 27–53 worms per kg [105]
and 4–8 worms per g/feed
Temperature 25–37 C [106]
Feeding rate 1.25 kg feed/kg worm/day [107]
Moisture 65–70% [70]
C:N Ratio 25 [107]
pH 4.2–8.0 [58]
Vermicomposting is also used for toxic metal uptake and
removal and break down of complex chemical chemicals to
nontoxic forms [103]. During ingestion of organic substrate
by earthworms, heavy metals present in organic matter are
up taken by the skin and intestine of earthworms. The
increase in composting time results in the decreased uptake
of heavy metals absorption [104].
FACTORS AFFECTING VERMICOMPOSTING
The important factors with optimal range values that have
influence on vermicomposting process, growth of worms,
and production of cocoons are given in Table 6. However,
the detail of each factor is discussed as follows.
Feeding
Feeding plays an important role not only in the growth
and reproduction of earthworms during vermicomposting
but also on the production rate of cocoon. The feeding rate
is influenced by different factors like moisture, particle size,
and substrates organic content [108]. According to Wright
[109], the feeding rate is dependent on the feed type, prepa-
ration, or feed pretreatment. The methodology adopted
while feeding the substrate is important to oppose anaerobic
conditions as mentioned by Reinecke and Viljoen [110]. In a
vermicomposting system, anaerobic microorganisms are also
consumed by worms along with organic matter. High organic
matter reduces the activity of worms, therefore enhancing
anaerobic activity of microorganisms which creates anaerobic
and foul odor conditions [111]. Toxic metals if present in the
organic feed become fatal for worms [54]. Gupta et al. [54]
reported good vermicompost processes at 60% feed as fly
ash; however, when it reached to 80%, a gradual decrease in
the degradation efficiency of worms was observed. In the
study of Garg et al. [69], when different types of dungs were
used as feed, it was found that cow, sheep, horse, and goat
dung had more favorable feed for the production of value-
added fertilizer when compared with buffalo, camel, and
donkey dung.
pH
Neutral pH is suitable for the proper working of worms,
but the favorable range reported is 4.5–9.0. It mostly
depends on earthworm sensitivity [15] and physicochemical
characteristics of the waste. The difference in physicochemi-
cal characteristics of waste mainly alters the pH of vermi-
composting process. The microbial activity changes
physicochemical characteristics of waste during decomposi-
tion process along with mineralization of nitrogen and
phosphorus into nitrites/nitrates and orthophosphates
[38,47]. Because of the decomposition of organics, some
intermediates are produced, such as ammonium and humic
acids, during the decomposition process that alter the
change of pH based on the fact that negatively and posi-
tively charged groups led to either neutral or acidic pH
[112]. Different types of substrates also affect the pH of the
6 Month 2015 Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.00, No.00) DOI 10.1002/ep
vermicomposting system because of different intermediate
species production, and hence, different types of waste show
different behaviors in pH shift, and the overall pH in vermi-
composting process drops from alkaline to acidic nature [28].
Many studies [1,12,38,69,73,113] reported acidic pH during
vermicomposting process; however, at initial stages, the pH
value is in alkaline range (8.3–7.2), which slightly shifts to
acidic or neutral range (6.3–7.1) at the end of vermicompost-
ing process [42] owing to the intermediate products produced
during the process. Yadav and Garg [1] also reported
decreased pH from alkaline (7.2–8.1) to slightly acidic (6.4–
6.8), which was supported by the results of Khwairakpam and
Bhargava [12]. Another experiment conducted by Yadav and
Garg [36] also showed decreasing trend in vermicomposting
process with initially alkaline (6.5–7.9) to finally acidic (5.8–
6.7). The results of Suthar [38] showed 3.5–9.5% overall
decrease in pH value during vermicomposting. However,
Datar et al. [114] reported contradiction results with the
increase in the value of pH during vermicomposting. The final
lower pH of waste when compared with the initial characteris-
tics was largely due to the evolution of CO2 and the accumu-
lation of organic acids [28].
Temperature
Although, earthworms have fairly complex responses to
changes in temperature, the optimum temperature range
may be 25–37 C (Table 6), which favors the activity, growth,
metabolism, respiration, reproduction, and cocoon produc-
tion for earthworms and also favors the microorganisms
associated with earthworms. Worms tolerate at a temperature
range of 5–29 C [115]. Different tolerant temperature ranges
are documented by several researchers from 0 to 40 C
[86,116]. At higher temperatures (above 30 C), the chemical
and microbial activity enhances in the substrate, which leads
to the reduction of oxygen level and thus had negative
effects on earthworms [86]. Different earthworm species
showed different responses against temperature. For exam-
ple, Eisenia fetida grows optimally at 25 C with 0–35 C tem-
perature tolerance, whereas Dendrobaena veneta showed
optimum growth at lower temperature and found less toler-
ance of extreme temperatures. Eudrilus eugeniae and Perio-
nyx excavatus also showed optimum growth at about 25 C;
however, their tolerance temperature range was generally
found between 9 and 35 C [22]. In another study, Dendro-
baena veneta showed poor reduction with decreasing tem-
perature [88]. A study conducted by Frederickson and
Howell [117] to assess the earthworm population in unheated
(at ambient temperature of 6.3 C 6 2.3 C) and heated beds
(at 13.7 C 6 0.8 C) showed greater earthworm biomass and
higher numbers of hatchlings and cocoons in heated beds
when compared with unheated beds. However, another
study found that Eudrilus eugeniae and Perionyx excavates
showed higher hatching percentage at lower temperatures
(20–24 C) when compared with high temperatures (27–30 C)
[118]. From this discussion, we may conclude that different
earthworm species showed diverse response against diverse
temperature ranges. Vermicomposting systems, when com-
pared with composting process, are greatly affected by
extreme temperature conditions, that is, low or high temper-
ature. For example, higher temperatures in vermicomposting
systems are responsible for the loss of nitrogen as NH3 vola-
tilization [119]. On the other hand, lower temperatures in
vermicomposting process fail to destroy pathogenic organ-
isms [25]. Edwards [68] reported that increased temperature
up to 30 C accelerated the growth of earthworm specie
(Perionyx excavatus) with lessened time of sexual maturity.
They also concluded that highest reproduction rate of Perio-
nyx excavates was observed at 25 C. Eisenia fetida showed
broad temperature tolerance between 15 and 20 C [106,120].
Lumbricus terrestris showed increased weight with an opti-
mal temperature range of 15–17.5 C [121].
Moisture
The growth rate of earthworms has been related to the
moisture level in the vermicomposting system [122]. An opti-
mum moisture range between 50 and 80% has been consid-
ered for efficient vermicomposting [123]; however, up to 90%
of moisture level has also been considered efficient for ver-
micomposting process [120]. Low-moisture conditions delay
sexual development of earthworms [86]. According to Rei-
necke and Venter [124], the optimum moisture content for
Eisenia fetida is 70%. Neuhauser et al. [125] considered 70–
80% moisture content as optimum for Eisenia fetida in cow
manure, and Tomlin and Miller [126] reported Eisenia fetida
development and reproduction at 82% of moisture content
level. Kaplan et al. [127] achieved higher worm biomass with
optimum moisture content between 70–80%. Some species
of earthworms like Lumbricus terrestris survive well in dry
conditions, whereas others like Allolobophora chlorotica,
Allolobophora caliginosa, and Aporrectodea rosea did not
survive in dry conditions. Albanell et al. [51] mentioned that
moisture reduction was greater in vermicastings than in
manures.
Stocking Density
The density of earthworms is influenced by several factors
including initial substrate quality and quantity, temperature,
moisture, and soil structure and texture [21,128–130]. The
copulation frequency of earthworms is high at low popula-
tion density, whereas it decreases when the density
approaches the carrying capacity of the substrate [122]. It has
been reported that the stocking density of 1.60 kg worms/m2
is optimum for vermicomposting [107]. Dominguez et al. [24]
reported that Eisenia andrei grew slowly on higher popula-
tion density with lower final body weight.
C:N Ratio
The C:N ratio plays a critical role in cell synthesis, growth,
and metabolism of earthworms. For proper nutrition, carbon
and nitrogen should be present as substrates in appropriate
and correct ratio [107]. C:N ratio is one of the most important
indicators of waste stabilization, which is widely used in the
index for compost maturation [45,131,132]. The improved com-
post maturity is reflected with a C:N ratio less than 20 [21,133]
when the initial C:N ratio of the substrate is 25 [107]. As a result
of rapid mineralization and organic matter decomposition, car-
bon is lost as carbon dioxide in microbial respiration, and at
the same time, nitrogen is increased by worms in the form of
mucus, and the nitrogenous excretory material results in overall
decrease in C:N ratio [14,41,74,79,131,134,135]. However, initial
nitrogen contents in the substrate are mainly responsible for
the final N content of vermicompost and overall the extent of
decomposition. The decrease in pH also plays an important
role in nitrogen retention, as at high pH, nitrogen is lost as vol-
atile ammonia [136].
GROWTH AND COCOON PRODUCTION
The growth rate of worms and the production rate of
cocoon during the vermicomposting process are vital for sus-
tainable progress of the process. The production rate of
cocoon is mostly dependent on the quality of feed and sub-
strate. Physicochemical and nutrient characteristics are the
main factors in determining the growth of earthworms [137].
High feeding generally results in high production rates of
cocoon [110], which is also a reflection of the quality of the
waste as it could be the important factor that determines the
onset of cocoon production [138]. Sometimes, extreme condi-
tions of system may lead to decrease in cocoon production
Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.00, No.00) DOI 10.1002/ep
and growth rate of worms. For example, the production rate
of cocoon and the reproduction rate of worms decreased
with the increasing concentration of distillery sludge in the
vermicomposting system owing to the presence of higher
growth-retarding compounds like metals, higher salt concen-
tration, and grease in the initial feed of worms [31]. The
reduction in worm’s efficiency was attributed to the presence
of toxic metals. The toxic copper ions enter the cocoon by
diffusion as cocoon membrane is permeable, and these cop-
per ions interact with the proteinaceous material and reserve
for developing embryos of worms. Similarly, chromium ions
across the cell membrane reduce the transport capability of
essential metabolites due to electrode potential reduction,
which might be the cause of toxicity for developing embryo.
Lead also affects during cocoon production by entering into
cocoon through clitellar muscles and disturbs embryo devel-
opment [139].
Stocking density of worms in vermicomposting system is
another important factor which is to be considered. There is
still a limited knowledge available regarding optimum stock-
ing density load rates of vermicomposting systems [64]. The
higher stocking density results in reduced earthworm growth
and cocoon production even at appropriate physicochemical
conditions. Garg et al. [105] found that Eisenia fetida showed
different behaviors at different stocking densities. At higher
stocking densities, the worms grew slowly in the vermicom-
posting system while the maximum body weight of earth-
worms was higher at lower stocking densities. The worm
population of 27–53 worms per kilogram and 4–8 worms per
gram/feed mixture is optimum as stocking density for effec-
tive vermicomposting system [105]. Suthar [64] reported that
the production rate of cocoon and the performance of earth-
worm were high at high-stocking density load, whereas the
individual biomass production was high in low-stocking den-
sity loads.
Substrate type also affects the growth rate of worms and
the production rate of cocoon, that is, among different live-
stock excreta in the form of dung of cow, buffalo, horse,
donkey, sheep, goat, and camel for vermicomposting, the
highest production rate of cocoon was recorded in donkey
dung (116 6 38.20) and buffalo dung (120 6 9.64); however,
horse and camel dung showed no cocoon production [140],
which might be attributed to the physicochemical nature of
the substrate and the presence of potential toxic contami-
nants. It is also observed by researchers that cocoon produc-
tion is more in the case of using cow dung as substrate feed,
whereas it becomes low in the case of horse dung, most
probably owing to lower nutritional value [65,138]. Haimi
and Huhta [141] reported decrease of cocoon and increase of
biomass in “worm bed compost” containing sewage sludge
as substrate feed. Turkey solids when used as substrate feed
for worms also showed poor growth rates due to high
ammonia content and conductivity values, which diminished
the growth of earthworms [138]. Earthworms grow with
increased cocoon production at most appropriately between
temperatures of 25–37 C [106]. Edwards et al. [138] reported
accelerated sexual maturity of earthworms with increasing
temperature up to 30 C. The optimal moisture content of 65–
70% was considered good for worm growth and cocoon pro-
duction [70].
BIOGAS PRODUCTION USING VERMICOMPOST AND USE OF BIOGAS SLURRY
Biogas is produced as a result of anaerobic digestion or
codigestion of animal wastes or organic wastes [30]. Mostly,
it is used in lighting and cooking by farmers in agriculture-
based countries, which is produced in reactors known as
biogas digesters, and millions of people around the world
get benefited by this low-cost and environment-friendly tech-
nology [30,142,143]. Generally, biogas is a composition mix-
ture of 48–65% methane, 36–41% carbon dioxide, up to 17%
Month 2015 7
nitrogen, <1% oxygen, and 32–169 ppm hydrogen sulfide,
and traces of other gases [144]. In anaerobic digestion pro-
cess, the yield of biogas is affected by many factors, among
which substrate composition is one important factor.
Actually, it is the pretreatment requirement in anaerobic
codigestion process which enhances the production of bio-
gas; however, pretreatments are rarely discussed in the litera-
ture since the last decade [43,145]. Currently, intensive
research has been carried out to explore the pretreatment
options for anaerobic codigestion and production of biogas.
Previously, pretreatment involved mechanical (33%), thermal
(24%), and chemical (21%) methods [43]; however, the focus
has now been diverted toward biological pretreatments, and
the use of vermicompost is one sound option. Briefly, the
lignocellulosic material, that is, chitin, present in initial sub-
strate composition in anaerobic process is hard to be
degraded by anaerobic microorganisms [44]. The vermicom-
posting process enhances the degradability of chitin by
hydrolysis to free N-acetyl-D-glucosamine by a chitinolytic
system consisting of two hydrolases, chitinase and N-acetyl
b-glucosaminidase which act consecutively. The vermicom-
post also provides large surface area to enhance nutrient
retention to anaerobic microorganisms responsible for biogas
production. The degradation of chitin in vermicompost sys-
tem made favorable conditions for anaerobic microorganisms
to readily attack the vermicomposted enwrapped degradable
organic matters that might be the important factor for
enhancement of methane production. In the study of Chen
et al. [44], the corn stalk was codigested with vermicompost,
which resulted in better biogas yield with 63.21–65.10%
methane content when compared with corn stalk digested
alone. The improvement in cellulose destruction was also
observed by the addition of vermicompost. As there is lim-
ited literature available on the use of vermicompost as an
amendment for enhancing biogas production, it is direly
important to explore the new directions and intensive
research on use of vermicompost in biogas production. On
the other hand, the byproduct of biogas termed as “biogas
slurry” can effectively be used for the substrate amendment
in vermicomposting systems. For example, biogas plant
slurry has been used by Yadav and Garg [46] for vermicom-
posting food industry wastewater. The results showed that
without amendment of biogas plant slurry, the worms were
unable to survive in 100% sludge. Thus, the addition of these
organic sources is necessary during vermicomposting.
INDUSTRIAL PERSPECTIVE OF VERMICOMPOSTING
Owing to the environmental issues and pollution prob-
lems associated with conventional treatment methods for the
treatment of industrial wastes, vermicomposting has been
growing as an emerging cost-effective and environmentally
sound treatment option for a wide range of industries.
Although huge work has been carried out in the literature
regarding vermicomposting of industrial wastes, no compre-
hensive review is available to provide a simple and up to
date knowledge on vermicomposting of industrial wastes.
The gap was initially covered by the work of Yadav and
Garg [48]. Briefly, the vermicomposting can effectively be
used for industrial solid waste, including palm oil mill [49],
paper pulp [27,28,37], winery/beverage [50,52,53], sugar
[35,59], textile [45,60], food [61], thermal power plant [78],
dairy [62,63], tannery [66,146], distillery [147,148], oil extrac-
tion [149], guar gum [32], and sago industries [150,151].
Here, the question arises about the operational cost of the
vermicomposting systems for treating industrial solid organic
wastes through either conventional or vermicomposting
methods. Nevertheless, vermicomposting systems are less
energy consuming, economically feasible, and cost effective
over conventional treatment technologies [152] and have
more potential of nutrient recovery [153]. According to Sinha
8 Month 2015 Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.00, No.00) DOI 10.1002/ep
et al. [154], 20–25 million US dollars is required for the con-
struction of engineered landfills and dumping of first load.
On the other hand, vermicomposting provides profit when
compared with capital investment in terms of better growth
of crops and sales of vermicompost. The marketing and eco-
nomic cost effectiveness of vermicompost has been studied
by Devkota [155]. The authors collected information on the
production and marketing of vermicompost from vermicom-
post producers of Chitwan, Nepal. The authors suggested
that vermicompost total production cost was Rs. 15.68 per
kilogram compost and Rs. 0.40 per earthworm with a net
profit of Rs. 9.32 per kilogram. Total variable and gross cost
was found to be 4.30 and 2.55, respectively, in view of
undiscounted benefit cost ratio. The payback period of capi-
tal investment was suggested to be 1.72 years. This study
revealed high feasibility enterprise for vermicompost produc-
tion. Jensen et al. [156] provided the capital and operational
costs for vermicomposting systems. The major capital costs
were involved in terms of land, permit fees, facility, utilities
development, general equipment, specialized vermicompost-
ing system, and rolling stocks, and it overall costs $2,159,000
for Indoor Continuous-Flow Reactor Facility Vermicompost-
ing with a capacity of 100 tons of organic waste per day.
However, this cost could be reduced to $1,917,000 in the
case of the absence of base and tunnels. Apart from these
capital costs, the operational costs may involve labor wages,
maintenance, fuel and utilities, disposal fee for undisposal
materials, insurance/taxes, monitoring/testing, marketing/
sales, bagging, accounting, and administration. All these
operational costs vary on geographical scale. Distant to these
costs, there are certain barriers for industrial and commercial
level which may hinder the widespread use of vermisystems.
For example, low-technology vermisystems, labor cost, rele-
vant experience, and lack of marketing aspects. The pro-
jected labor costs were estimated to be in the range of $28–
80 based on experience at low to medium technology opera-
tions on per ton of material processed basis. However, more
efficient vermitechnologies in larger projects significantly
reduced the labor cost per ton of organic wastes processing.
It was estimated by the US military researchers that operating
cost of continuous-flow vermicomposting reactor system
handling 9.1 tons per day may require $40–60 per ton. Sev-
eral factors play crucial role as potential barrier during the
feasibility and adoption of vermicomposting in industrial set-
ups, such as onsite or offsite processing, location/space, cli-
mate, human pathogens, feedstock loading rates, and
earthworm population growth and availability. The annual
return/profit, however, may significantly increase after adop-
tion of vermicomposting systems as indicated by Jensen
et al. [156] with a total of $2,055,000. Overall, it is concluded
for this section that apart from some socioeconomic barriers
for industrial setups, vermicomposting is a viable, environ-
mentally sound, and cost-effective technology with a net
profit more than capital and operational costs and can be
adopted by a diverse range of industries. Marketing and
awareness on vermicomposting should be enhanced espe-
cially for industries to adopt this cost-effective and environ-
mentally healthy technology.
CONCLUSIONS
Our review identified that vermicomposting may be the
viable and a very low-cost option to handle solid waste in
an ecofriendly way. Based on the above discussion, it can be
concluded that vermicomposting is a waste management
technology that involves decomposition of organic fraction
of solid waste in an ecofriendly way to a level in which it
can be easily stored, handled, and applied to agricultural
fields without any adverse effects. Integration approach of
composting and vermicomposting processes provides better
results by combining both processes and choosing one of
the two forms as (i) prevermicomposting followed by com-
posting or (ii) precomposting followed by vermicomposting.
Further, to optimize the process of vermicomposting, codi-
gestion of organic wastes provides better opportunity for
both microorganisms and earthworms to convert the organic
fraction of solid waste under controlled environmental condi-
tions. Feeding, stocking density, pH, C/N ratio, temperature,
and moisture, by inference, seem to be the critical factors
that influence the vermicomposting process. Furthermore,
the end product of vermicomposting, the nutrient-rich com-
post, could be used for biogas production. Hence, the man-
agement of solid waste and energy production can be
achieved at the same time with no further costs. Thus, vermi-
composting technology can be used for economical recycling
of solid organic waste in developing countries. It is strongly
recommended that this technology can be used to manage
the waste placed in landfill or in open dumps, sewage
sludge, incineration waste, and dumps in the agricultural
fields to avoid/reduce groundwater contamination and toxic-
ity of soils and plants through different contaminants.
LITERATURE CITED
1. Yadav, A., & Garg, V.K. (2011). Recycling of organic
wastes by employing Eisenia fetida, Bioresource Tech-
nology, 102, 2874–2880.
2. Singh, R., Embrandiri, A., Ibrahim, M., & Esa, N. (2011).
Management of biomass residues generated from palm
oil mill: Vermicomposting a sustainable option, Resour-
ces, Conservation and Recycling, 55, 423–434.
3. Visvanathan, C., & Trankler, J. (2003). Municipal solid
waste management in Asia: A comparative analysis. In
Workshop on Sustainable Landfill Management (pp. 3–5),
Chennai.
4. Troschinetz, A.M., & Mihelcic, J.R. (2009). Sustainable
recycling of municipal solid waste in developing coun-
tries, Waste Management, 29, 915–923.
5. Charles, W., Walker, L., & Cord-Ruwisch, R. (2009). Effect
of pre-aeration and inoculum on the start-up of batch
thermophilic anaerobic digestion of municipal solid
waste, Bioresource Technology, 100, 2329–2335.
6. Chang, N.-B., & Davila, E. (2008). Municipal solid waste
characterizations and management strategies for the Lower
Rio Grande Valley, Texas, Waste Management, 28, 776–794.
7. Mor, S., Ravindra, K., Dahiya, R., & Chandra, A. (2006).
Leachate characterization and assessment of groundwater
pollution near municipal solid waste landfill site, Envi-
ronmental Monitoring and Assessment, 118, 435–456.
8. Cadena, E., Col on, J., Sanchez, A., Font, X., & Artola, A.
(2009). A methodology to determine gaseous emissions in
a composting plant, Waste Management, 29, 2799–2807.
9. Tsai, S.-H., Liu, C.-P., & Yang, S.-S. (2007). Microbial con-
version of food wastes for biofertilizer production with
thermophilic lipolytic microbes, Renewable Energy, 32,
904–915.
10. Lee, D.H., Behera, S.K., Kim, J.W., & Park, H.-S. (2009).
Methane production potential of leachate generated from
Korean food waste recycling facilities: A lab-scale study,
Waste Management, 29, 876–882.
11. Ayuso, M., Pascual, J.A., Garcıa, C., & Hernandez, T.
(1996). Evaluation of urban wastes for agricultural use,
Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 42, 105–111.
12. Khwairakpam, M., & Bhargava, R. (2009). Vermitechnol-
ogy for sewage sludge recycling, Journal of Hazardous
Materials, 161, 948–954.
13. Aira, M., Monroy, F., Domınguez, J., & Mato, S. (2002).
How earthworm density affects microbial biomas and
activity in pig manure, European Journal of Soil Biology,
38, 7–10.
Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.00, No.00) DOI 10.1002/ep
14. Deka, H., Deka, S., Baruah, C.K., Das, J., Hoque, S., &
Sarma, N.S. (2011). Vermicomposting of distillation waste
of citronella plant (Cymbopogon winterianus Jowitt.)
employing Eudrilus eugeniae, Bioresource Technology,
102, 6944–6950.
15. Edwards, C., & Lofty, J. (1977). Biology of earthworm,
London: Chapman and Hall.
16. Pramanik, P. (2010). Changes in microbial properties and
nutrient dynamics in bagasse and coir during vermicom-
posting: Quantification of fungal biomass through ergos-
terol estimation in vermicompost, Waste Management, 30,
787–791.
17. Pramanik, P., Ghosh, G., & Banik, P. (2009). Effect of
microbial inoculation during vermicomposting of differ-
ent organic substrates on microbial status and quantifica-
tion and documentation of acid phosphatase, Waste
Management, 29, 574–578.
18. Ronald, E., & Donald, E. (1977). Earthworms for ecology
and profit: Scientific earthworm farming, Ontario: Book-
worm Publishing Company.
19. Benıtez, E., Nogales, R., Masciandaro, G., & Ceccanti, B.
(2000). Isolation by isoelectric focusing of humic–urease
complexes from earthworm (Eisenia fetida)-processed
sewage sludges, Biology and Fertility of Soils, 31, 489–493.
20. Hand, P., Hayes, W., Frankland, J., & Satchell, J. (1988).
Vermicomposting of cow slurry, Pedobiologia, 31, 199–
209.
21. Edwards, C.A., & Bohlen, P.J. (1996). Biology and ecol-
ogy of earthworms, London: Chapman and Hall, 1996.
22. Edwards, C.A. (1988). Breakdown of animal, vegetable
and industrial organic wastes by earthworms. In C.A.
Edwards & E.F. Neuhauser (Eds.), Earthworms in waste
and environmental management (pp. 21–31), The Hague:
SPB Academic Publishing BV.
23. Neklyudov, A., Fedotov, G., & Ivankin, A. (2008). Intensi-
fication of composting processes by aerobic microorgan-
isms: A review, Applied Biochemistry and Microbiology,
44, 6–18.
24. Dominguez, J., Edwards, C., & Subler, S. (1997). Compar-
ison of vermicomposting and composting, BioCycle: Jour-
nal of Composting and Organics Recycling, 38, 57–59.
25. Ndegwa, P., & Thompson, S. (2001). Integrating compost-
ing and vermicomposting in the treatment and biocon-
version of biosolids, Bioresource Technology, 76, 107–
112.
26. Gajalakshmi, S., Ramasamy, E., & Abbasi, S. (2002). Ver-
micomposting of paper waste with the anecic earthworm
Lampito mauritii Kinberg, Indian Journal of Chemical
Technology, 9, 306–311.
27. Butt, K.R. (1993). Utilisation of solid paper-mill sludge
and spent brewery yeast as a feed for soil-dwelling earth-
worms, Bioresource Technology, 44, 105–107.
28. Elvira, C., Sampedro, L., Benitez, E., & Nogales, R.
(1998). Vermicomposting of sludges from paper mill and
dairy industries with Eisenia andrei: A pilot-scale study,
Bioresource Technology, 63, 205–211.
29. Vig, A.P., Singh, J., Wani, S.H., & Singh Dhaliwal, S.
(2011). Vermicomposting of tannery sludge mixed with
cattle dung into valuable manure using earthworm Eisenia
fetida (Savigny), Bioresource Technology, 102, 7941–7945.
30. Suthar, S. (2010). Potential of domestic biogas digester
slurry in vermitechnology, Bioresource Technology, 101,
5419–5425.
31. Suthar, S. (2008). Bioremediation of aerobically treated
distillery sludge mixed with cow dung by using an epi-
geic earthworm Eisenia fetida, The Environmentalist, 28,
76–84.
32. Suthar, S. (2007). Production of vermifertilizer from guar
gum industrial wastes by using composting earthworm
Month 2015 9
 Perionyx sansibaricus (Perrier), The Environmentalist, 27,
329–335.
33. Garg, V.K., & Gupta, R. (2011). Optimization of cow
dung spiked pre-consumer processing vegetable waste
for vermicomposting using Eisenia fetida, Ecotoxicology
and Environmental Safety, 74, 19–24.
34. Gupta, R., & Garg, V. (2008). Stabilization of primary
sewage sludge during vermicomposting, Journal of Haz-
ardous Materials, 153, 1023–1030.
35. Sen, B., & Chandra, T. (2007). Chemolytic and solid-state
spectroscopic evaluation of organic matter transformation
during vermicomposting of sugar industry wastes, Biore-
source Technology, 98, 1680–1683.
36. Yadav, A., & Garg, V.K. (2009). Feasibility of nutrient
recovery from industrial sludge by vermicomposting tech-
nology, Journal of Hazardous Materials, 168, 262–268.
37. Elvira, C., Sampedro, L., Dominguez, J., & Mato, S.
(1997). Vermicomposting of wastewater sludge from
paper pulp industry with nitrogen rich materials, Soil
Biology and Biochemistry, 29, 759–762.
38. Suthar, S. (2009). Vermistabilization of municipal sewage
sludge amended with sugarcane trash using epigeic Eise-
nia fetida (Oligochaeta), Journal of Hazardous Materials,
163, 199–206.
39. 
Contreras-Ramos, S.M., Alvarez-Bernal, D., & Dendooven,
L. (2009). Characteristics of earthworms (Eisenia fetida)
in PAHs contaminated soil amended with sewage sludge
or vermicompost, Applied Soil Ecology, 41, 269–276.
40. Gupta, R., & Garg, V.K. (2009). Vermiremediation and
nutrient recovery of non-recyclable paper waste employ-
ing Eisenia fetida, Journal of Hazardous Materials, 162,
430–439.
41. Garg, V.K., & Kaushik, P. (2005). Vermistabilization of
textile mill sludge spiked with poultry droppings by an
epigeic earthworm Eisenia foetida, Bioresource Technol-
ogy, 96, 1063–1071.
42. Garg, V., Kaushik, P., & Dilbaghi, N. (2006). Vermiconver-
sion of wastewater sludge from textile mill mixed with
anaerobically digested biogas plant slurry employing
Eisenia foetida, Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety,
65, 412–419.
43. Mata-Alvarez, J., Dosta, J., Romero-G€ uiza, M., Fonoll, X.,
Peces, M., & Astals, S. (2014). A critical review on anaero-
bic co-digestion achievements between 2010 and 2013,
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 36, 412–427.
44. Chen, G., Zheng, Z., Yang, S., Fang, C., Zou, X., & Luo,
Y. (2010). Experimental co-digestion of corn stalk and
vermicompost to improve biogas production, Waste Man-
agement, 30, 1834–1840.
45. Kaushik, P., & Garg, V.K. (2003). Vermicomposting of
mixed solid textile mill sludge and cow dung with the
epigeic earthworm Eisenia foetida, Bioresource Technol-
ogy, 90, 311–316.
46. Yadav, A., & Garg, V. (2010). Bioconversion of food
industry sludge into value-added product (vermicompost)
using epigeic earthworm Eisenia fetida, World Review of
Science, Technology and Sustainable Development, 7,
225–238.
47. Suthar, S. (2009). Vermicomposting of vegetable-market
solid waste using Eisenia fetida: Impact of bulking mate-
rial on earthworm growth and decomposition rate, Eco-
logical Engineering, 35, 914–920.
48. Yadav, A., & Garg, V. (2011). Industrial wastes and
sludges management by vermicomposting, Reviews in
Environmental Science and Bio/Technology, 10, 243–276.
49. Rupani, P.F., Singh, R.P., Ibrahim, M.H., & Esa, N. (2010).
Review of current palm oil mill effluent (POME) treat-
ment methods: Vermicomposting as a sustainable prac-
tice, World Applied Sciences Journal, 11, 70–81.
10 Month 2015 Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.00, No.00) DOI 10.1002/ep
50. Nogales, R., Cifuentes, C., & Benitez, E. (2005). Vermi-
composting of winery wastes: A laboratory study, Journal
of Environmental Science and Health Part B, 40, 659–673.
51. Albanell, E., Plaixats, J., & Cabrero, T. (1988). Chemical
changes during vermicomposting (Eisenia fetida) of
sheep manure mixed with cotton industrial wastes, Biol-
ogy and Fertility of Soils, 6, 266–269.
52. Singh, J., Kaur, A., Vig, A., & Rup, P. (2010). Role of Eise-
nia fetida in rapid recycling of nutrients from bio sludge
of beverage industry, Ecotoxicology and Environmental
Safety, 73, 430–435.
53. Singh, R., Gupta, R., Patil, R., Sharma, R., Asrey, R.,
Kumar, A., & Jangra, K. (2010). Sequential foliar applica-
tion of vermicompost leachates improves marketable fruit
yield and quality of strawberry (Fragaria ananassa
Duch.), Scientia Horticulturae, 124, 34–39.
54. Gupta, S., Tewari, A., Srivastava, R., Murthy, R., &
Chandra, S. (2005). Potential of Eisenia foetida for sus-
tainable and efficient vermicomposting of fly ash, Water,
Air, and Soil Pollution, 163, 293–302.
55. Garg, V., Chand, S., Chhillar, A., & Yadav, A. (2005).
Growth and reproduction of Eisenia foetida in various
animal wastes during vermicomposting, Applied Ecology
and Environmental Research, 3, 51–59.
56. Board, N. (2004). The complete technology book on ver-
miculture and vermicompost, New Delhi, India: National
Institute of Industrial Research, 2004.
57. Kumar, A. (2005). Verms & vermitechnology, New Delhi,
India: APH Publishing.
58. Sherman, R. (2003). Raising earthworms successfully,
North Carolina: North Carolina Extension Service, North
Carolina State University.
59. Reddy, K., & Shantaram, M. (2005). Potentiality of earth-
worms in composting of sugarcane byproducts, Asian
Journal of Microbiology Biotechnology and Environmen-
tal Sciences, 7, 483–487.
60. Kaushik, P., & Garg, V. (2004). Dynamics of biological
and chemical parameters during vermicomposting of
solid textile mill sludge mixed with cow dung and agri-
cultural residues, Bioresource Technology, 94, 203–209.
61. Tajbakhsh, J., Abdoli, M., Mohammadi Goltapeh, E.,
Alahdadi, I., & Malakouti, M. (2008). Trend of physico-
chemical properties change in recycling spent mushroom
compost through vermicomposting by epigeic earth-
worms Eisenia foetida and E. andrei, Journal of Agricul-
tural Technology, 4, 185–198.
62. Gratelly, P., Benitez, E., Elvira, C., Polo, A., & Nogales, R.
(1996). Stabilization of sludges from a dairy processing plant
using vermicomposting. In C. Rodringuez-Barrueco (Ed.), Fer-
tilizers and environment (pp. 341–343), Netherlands: Springer.
63. Nogales, R., Elvira, C., Benitez, E., Thompson, R., & Gomez,
M. (1999). Feasibility of vermicomposting dairy biosolids
using a modified system to avoid earthworm mortality, Jour-
nal of Environmental Science & Health Part B, 34, 151–169.
64. Suthar, S. (2012). Earthworm production in cattle dung
vermicomposting system under different stocking density
loads, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 19,
748–755.
65. Kaushal, B., & Bisht, S. (1992). Growth and cocoon pro-
duction of Drawidia nepalensis (Oligochaeta), Biology
and Fertility of Soils, 14, 205–212.
66. Hemalatha, B., & Meenambal, T. (2005). Reuse of indus-
trial sludge along with yard waste by vermicomposting
method, Nature, Environment and Pollution Technology,
4, 597–600.
67. Gajalakshmi, S., & Abbasi, S. (2004). Vermiconversion of
paper waste by earthworm born and grown in the waste-
fed reactors compared to the pioneers raised to adulthood
on cowdung feed, Bioresource Technology, 94, 53–56.
68. Edwards, C.A. (1998). The use of earthworms in the
breakdown and management of organic wastes. In:
Edwards, C.A. (Ed.), Earthworm Ecology. Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press.
69. Garg, P., Gupta, A., & Satya, S. (2006). Vermicomposting
of different types of waste using Eisenia foetida: A com-
parative study, Bioresource Technology, 97, 391–395.
70. Reinecke, A., & Venter, J. (1987). Moisture preferences,
growth and reproduction of the compost worm Eisenia
fetida (Oligochaeta), Biology and Fertility of Soils, 3,
135–141.
71. Ziegler, F., & Zech, W. (1992). Formation of water-stable
aggregates through the action of earthworms. Implica-
tions from laboratory experiments, Pedobiologia, 36,
91–96.
72. Chaudhuri, P., & Bhattacharjee, G. (2002). Capacity of
various experimental diets to support biomass and repro-
duction of Perionyx excavatus, Bioresource Technology,
82, 147–150.
73. Gunadi, B., & Edwards, C.A. (2003). The effects of multi-
ple applications of different organic wastes on the
growth, fecundity and survival of Eisenia fetida (Savigny)
(Lumbricidae), Pedobiologia, 47, 321–329.
74. Gunadi, B., Blount, C., & Edwards, C.A. (2002). The
growth and fecundity of Eisenia fetida (Savigny) in cattle
solids pre-composted for different periods, Pedobiologia,
46, 15–23.
75. Taylor, M., Clarke, W., & Greenfield, P. (2003). The treat-
ment of domestic wastewater using small-scale vermi-
compost filter beds, Ecological Engineering, 21, 197–203.
76. Suthar, S. (2007). Nutrient changes and biodynamics of
epigeic earthworm Perionyx excavatus (Perrier) during
recycling of some agriculture wastes, Bioresource Tech-
nology, 98, 1608–1614.
77. Liu, X., Hu, C., & Zhang, S. (2005). Effects of earthworm
activity on fertility and heavy metal bioavailability in sew-
age sludge, Environment International, 31, 874–879.
78. Saxena, M., Chauhan, A., & Asokan, P. (1998). Flyash ver-
micompost from non-ecofriendly organic wastes, Pollu-
tion Research, 17, 5–11.
79. Gajalakshmi, S., Ramasamy, E., & Abbasi, S. (2001).
Potential of two epigeic and two anecic earthworm spe-
cies in vermicomposting of water hyacinth, Bioresource
Technology, 76, 177–181.
80. Pattnaik, S., & Reddy, M.V. (2010). Nutrient status of ver-
micompost of urban green waste processed by three
earthworm species—Eisenia fetida, Eudrilus eugeniae,
and Perionyx excavatus, Applied and Environmental Soil
Science, Article ID 967526.
81. Padmavathiamma, P.K., Li, L.Y., & Kumari, U.R. (2008).
An experimental study of vermi-biowaste composting for
agricultural soil improvement, Bioresource Technology,
99, 1672–1681.
82. Kaviraj, & Sharma, S. (2003). Municipal solid waste manage-
ment through vermicomposting employing exotic and local
species of earthworms, Bioresource Technology, 90, 169–173.
83. Manna, M.C., Jha, S., Ghosh, P.K., & Acharya, C.L. (2003).
Comparative efficacy of three epigeic earthworms under
different deciduous forest litters decomposition, Biore-
source Technology, 88, 197–206.
84. Graff, O. (1981). Preliminary experiments of vermicom-
posting of different waste materials using Eudrilus euge-
niae Kinberg, Proc. Workshop on Role of Earthworms in
the Stabilization of Organic Residues, M. Mary Appelhof
(Ed.), Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Mich, pp.
179–191.
85. Kale, R., Bano, K., & Krishnamoorthy, R. (1982). Potential
of Perionyx excavatus for utilizing organic wastes, Pedo-
biologia, 23, 419–425.
Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.00, No.00) DOI 10.1002/ep
86. Dominguez, J., & Edwards, C. (2004). Vermicomposting
organic wastes: A review. In S.H. Shakir & W.Z.A. Mikhail
(Eds.), Soil zoology for sustainable development in the
21st century, Cairo (pp. 369–395).
87. Vinceslas-Akpa, M., & Loquet, M. (1997). Organic matter
transformations in lignocellulosic waste products com-
posted or vermicomposted (Eisenia fetida andrei):
Chemical analysis and 13C CPMAS NMR spectroscopy,
Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 29, 751–758.
88. Neuhauser, E., Loehr, R., & Malecki, M. (1988). The
potential of earthworms for managing sewage sludge. In
Clive Arthur Edwards, and Edward F. Neuhauser (Eds.),
Earthworms in waste and environmental management
(pp. 9–20), The Hague: SPB Academic Publishing.
89. Frederickson, J., Butt, K.R., Morris, R.M., & Daniel, C.
(1997). Combining vermiculture with traditional green
waste composting systems, Soil Biology and Biochemis-
try, 29, 725–730.
90. Tomati, U., Galli, E., Pasetti, L., & Volterra, E. (1995). Bio-
remediation of olive-mill wastewaters by composting,
Waste Management & Research, 13, 509–518.
91. Lavelle, P. (1988). Earthworm activities and the soil sys-
tem, Biology and Fertility of Soils, 6, 237–251.
92. Benitez, E., Nogales, R., Elvira, C., Masciandaro, G., &
Ceccanti, B. (1999). Enzyme activities as indicators of the
stabilization of sewage sludges composting with Eisenia
foetida, Bioresource Technology, 67, 297–303.
93. Piearce, T. (1978). Gut contents of some lumbricid earth-
worms, Pedobiologia, 18, 153–157.
94. Whiston, R., & Seal, K. (1988). The occurrence of cellu-
lases in the earthworm Eisenia foetida, Biological Wastes,
25, 239–242.
95. Kavian, M.F., & Ghatneker, S. (1991). Bio-management of
dairy effluents using culture of red earthworms (Lumbri-
cus rubellus), Indian Journal of Environmental Protection,
11, 680–682.
96. Ranganathan, L., & Vinotha, S. (1998). Influence of press-
mud on the enzymatic variations in the different repro-
ductive stages of Eudrilus eugeniae (Kinberg), Current
Science, 74, 634–635.
97. Crescent, T. (2003). Vermicomposting. Development
Alternatives (DA) sustainable livelihoods. http://www.
dainet.org/livelihoods/default.htm.
98. Parthasarathi, K., & Ranganathan, L. (2000). Chemical
characterization of mono and polycultured soil worm-
casts by tropical earthworms, Environment and Ecology,
18, 742–746.
99. Vinotha, S., Parthasarathi, K., & Ranganathan, L. (2000).
Enhanced phosphatase activity in earthworm casts is
more of microbial origin, Current Science, 79, 1158–1159.
100. Matthies, C., Grießhammer, A., Schmittroth, M., &
Drake, H.L. (1999). Evidence for involvement of gut-
associated denitrifying bacteria in emission of nitrous
oxide (N2O) by earthworms obtained from garden and
forest soils, Applied and Environmental Microbiology,
65, 3599–3604.
101. Firestone, M.K., Firestone, R.B., & Tiedje, J.M. (1980).
Nitrous oxide from soil denitrification: Factors control-
ling its biological production, Science, 208, 749–751.
102. Karsten, G.R., & Drake, H.L. (1997). Denitrifying bacteria
in the earthworm gastrointestinal tract and in vivo emis-
sion of nitrous oxide (N2O) by earthworms, Applied
and Environmental Microbiology, 63, 1878–1882.
103. Jain, K., Singh, J., Chauhan, L.K., Murthy, R.C., & Gupta,
S.K. (2004). Modulation of flyash-induced genotoxicity
in Vicia faba by vermicomposting, Ecotoxicology and
Environmental Safety, 59, 89–94.
104. Shahmansouri, M., Pourmoghadas, H., Parvaresh, A., &
Alidadi, H. (2005). Heavy metals bioaccumulation by
Month 2015 11
 Iranian and Australian earthworms (Eisenia fetida) in the
sewage sludge vermicomposting, Iranian Journal of Envi-
ronmental Health Science and Engineering, 2, 28–32.
105. Garg, V., Kaushik, P., & Yadav, Y. (2008). Effect of stock-
ing density and food quality on the growth and fecundity
of an epigeic earthworm (Eisenia fetida) during vermi-
composting, The Environmentalist, 28, 483–488.
106. Reinecke, A., Viljoen, S., & Saayman, R. (1992). The suit-
ability of Eudrilus eugeniae, Perionyx excavatus and
Eisenia fetida (Oligochaeta) for vermicomposting in
southern Africa in terms of their temperature require-
ments, Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 24, 1295–1307.
107. Ndegwa, P., Thompson, S., & Das, K. (2000). Effects of
stocking density and feeding rate on vermicomposting
of biosolids, Bioresource Technology, 71, 5–12.
108. Neuhauser, E., Kaplan, D., Malecki, M., & Hartenstein,
R. (1980). Materials supporting weight gain by the earth-
worm Eisenia foetida in waste conversion systems, Agri-
cultural Wastes, 2, 43–60.
109. Wright, M. (1972). Factors’ governing ingestion by the
earthworm Lumbricus terrestris (L.), with special refer-
ence to apple leaves, Annals of Applied Biology, 70,
175–188.
110. Reinecke, A., & Viljoen, S. (1990). The influence of feed-
ing patterns on growth and reproduction of the vermi-
composting earthworm Eisenia fetida (Oligochaeta),
Biology and Fertility of Soils, 10, 184–187.
111. Hartenstein, R., & Bisesi, M. (1989). Uses of earthworm
biotechnology for the management of effluents from
intensively housed livestock, Outlook on Agriculture,
18, 72–76.
112. Pramanik, P., Ghosh, G., Ghosal, P., & Banik, P. (2007).
Changes in organic–C, N, P and K and enzyme activities
in vermicompost of biodegradable organic wastes under
liming and microbial inoculants, Bioresource Technol-
ogy, 98, 2485–2494.
113. Mitchell, A. (1997). Production of Eisenia fetida and ver-
micompost from feed-lot cattle manure, Soil Biology
and Biochemistry, 29, 763–766.
114. Datar, M., Rao, M., & Reddy, S. (1997). Vermicompost-
ing—A technological option for solid waste management,
Journal of Solid Waste Technology and Management, 24,
89–93.
115. Sinha, R.K., Herat, S., Agarwal, S., Asadi, R., &
Carretero, E. (2002). Vermiculture and waste manage-
ment: Study of action of earthworms Elsinia foetida,
Eudrilus euginae and Perionyx excavatus on biodegra-
dation of some community wastes in India and Aus-
tralia, Environmentalist, 22, 261–268.
116. Nagavallemma, K., Wani, S., Lacroix, S., Padmaja, V.,
Vineela, C., Rao, M.B., & Sahrawat, K. (2004). Vermi-
composting: Recycling wastes into valuable organic fer-
tilizer. Global Theme on Agroecosystems Report No. 8,
Monograph, Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops
Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.
117. Frederickson, J., & Howell, G. (2003). Large-scale vermi-
composting: Emission of nitrous oxide and effects of
temperature on earthworm populations, Pedobiologia,
47, 724–730.
118. Giraddi, R., Gundannavar, K., Tippannavar, P., & Sunitha,
N. (2008). Reproductive potential of vermicomposting
earthworms, Eudrilus eugeniae (Kinberg) and Perionyx
excavatus (Perrier) as influenced by seasonal factors, Kar-
nataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 21, 38.
119. Tiquia, S., & Tam, N. (2000). Fate of nitrogen during
composting of chicken litter, Environmental Pollution,
110, 535–541.
120. Loehr, R.C., Neuhauser, E.F., & Malecki, M.R. (1985).
Factors affecting the vermistabilization process: Temper-
12 Month 2015 Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.00, No.00) DOI 10.1002/ep
ature, moisture content and polyculture, Water Research,
19, 1311–1317.
121. Daniel, O., Kohli, L., & Bieri, M. (1996). Weight gain
and weight loss of the earthworm Lumbricus terrestris L.
at different temperatures and body weights, Soil Biology
and Biochemistry, 28, 1235–1240.
122. Rodriguez-Canche, L.G., Cardoso Vigueros, L.,
Maldonado-Montiel, T., & Martinez-Sanmiguel, M. (2010).
Pathogen reduction in septic tank sludge through vermi-
composting using Eisenia fetida, Bioresource Technol-
ogy, 101, 3548–3553.
123. Dresser, V., & McKee, I. (1980). Compendium on solid
waste management by vermicomposting. Prepared for
the Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory Office
of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH: Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
124. Reinecke, A., & Venter, J. (1985). The influence of mois-
ture on the growth and reproduction of the compost
worm Eisenia fetida (Oligochaeta), Revue d’Ecologie et
de Biologie du Sol, 22, 473–481.
125. Neuhauser, E., Kaplan, D., & Hartenstein, R. (1979). Life
history of the earthworm Eudrilus eugeniae, Revue
d’Ecologie et de Biologie du Sol, 16, 525–534.
126. Tomlin, A., & Miller, J. (1980). Development and fecun-
dity of the manure worm, Eisenia fetida (Annelida: Lum-
bricidae) under laboratory conditions. In Soil biology as
related to land use practices, Proceedings of the 7th Inter-
national Soil Zoology Colloquium of ISSS (pp. 673–678),
Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency.
127. Kaplan, D.L., Hartenstein, R., Neuhauser, E.F., &
Malecki, M.R. (1980). Physicochemical requirements in
the environment of the earthworm Eisenia foetida, Soil
Biology and Biochemistry, 12, 347–352.
128. Smetak, K.M., Johnson-Maynard, J.L., & Lloyd, J.E.
(2007). Earthworm population density and diversity in
different-aged urban systems, Applied Soil Ecology, 37,
161–168.
129. Wever, L.A., Lysyk, T.J., & Clapperton, M.J. (2001). The
influence of soil moisture and temperature on the sur-
vival, aestivation, growth and development of juvenile
Aporrectodea tuberculata (Eisen) (Lumbricidae), Pedo-
biologia, 45, 121–133.
130. Lee, K.E. (1985). Earthworms: Their ecology and relation-
ships with soils and land use, Sydney: Academic Press.
131. Tripathi, G., & Bhardwaj, P. (2004). Comparative studies
on biomass production, life cycles and composting effi-
ciency of Eisenia fetida (Savigny) and Lampito mauritii
(Kinberg), Bioresource Technology, 92, 275–283.
132. Loh, T., Lee, Y., Liang, J., & Tan, D. (2005). Vermicom-
posting of cattle and goat manures by Eisenia foetida
and their growth and reproduction performance, Biore-
source Technology, 96, 111–114.
133. Senesi, N. (1989). Composted materials as organic fertil-
izers, Science of the Total Environment, 81, 521–542.
134. Viel, M., Sayag, D., Peyre, A., & Andre, L. (1987). Opti-
mization of in-vessel co-composting through heat recov-
ery, Biological Wastes, 20, 167–185.
135. Atiyeh, R.M., Dominguez, J., Subler, S., & Edwards, C.A.
(2000). Changes in biochemical properties of cow
manure during processing by earthworms (Eisenia
andrei, Bouche) and the effects on seedling growth,
Pedobiologia, 44, 709–724.
136. Hartenstein, R., & Hartenstein, F. (1981). Physicochemi-
cal changes effected in activated sludge by the earth-
worm Eisenia foetida, Journal of Environmental Quality,
10, 377–381.
137. Suthar, S. (2007). Vermicomposting potential of Perionyx
sansibaricus (Perrier) in different waste materials, Biore-
source Technology, 98, 1231–1237.
138. Edwards, C., Dominguez, J., & Neuhauser, E. (1998).
Growth and reproduction of Perionyx excavatus (Perr.)
(Megascolecidae) as factors in organic waste manage-
ment, Biology and Fertility of Soils, 27, 155–161.
139. Gupta, P.K. (2005). Vermicomposting for sustainable
agriculture, Jodhpur: Bharat Printing Press.
140. Garg, V., Yadav, Y., Sheoran, A., Chand, S., & Kaushik,
P. (2006). Livestock excreta management through vermi-
composting using an epigeic earthworm Eisenia foetida,
The Environmentalist, 26, 269–276.
141. Haimi, J., & Huhta, V. (1986). Capacity of various organic
residues to support adequate earthworm biomass for
vermicomposting, Biology and Fertility of Soils, 2, 23–27.
142. Suthar, S. (2010). Recycling of agro-industrial sludge
through vermitechnology, Ecological Engineering, 36,
1028–1036.
143. Gautam, R., Baral, S., & Herat, S. (2009). Biogas as a
sustainable energy source in Nepal: Present status and
future challenges, Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 13, 248–252.
144. Ward, A.J., Hobbs, P.J., Holliman, P.J., & Jones, D.L.
(2008). Optimisation of the anaerobic digestion of agricul-
tural resources, Bioresource Technology, 99, 7928–7940.
145. Clarke, W.P., & Alibardi, L. (2010). Anaerobic digestion
for the treatment of solid organic waste: What’s hot and
what’s not, Waste Management, 30, 1761–1762.
146. Ravindran, B., Dinesh, S., Kennedy, L.J., & Sekaran, G.
(2008). Vermicomposting of solid waste generated from
leather industries using epigeic earthworm Eisenia foe-
tida, Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 151,
480–488.
147. Seenappa, S., Rao, J., & Kale, R. (1995). Conversion of
distillery wastes into organic manure by earthworm
Eudrilus euginae, Journal of IAEM, 22, 244–246.
148. Suthar, S., & Singh, S. (2008). Feasibility of vermicompost-
ing in biostabilization of sludge from a distillery industry,
Science of the Total Environment, 394, 237–243.
Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.00, No.00) DOI 10.1002/ep
149. Hayawin, Z.N., Khalil, H.A., Jawaid, M., Ibrahim, M.H.,
& Astimar, A. (2010). Exploring chemical analysis of ver-
micompost of various oil palm fibre wastes, The Envi-
ronmentalist, 30, 273–278.
150. Subramanian, S., Sivarajan, M., & Saravanapriya, S.
(2010). Chemical changes during vermicomposting of
sago industry solid wastes, Journal of Hazardous Materi-
als, 179, 318–322.
151. Christy, A., & Ramalingam, R. (2005). Vermicomposting
of sago-industrial solid waste using an epigeic earth-
worm Eudrilus eugeniae and macronutrients analysis of
vermicompost, Asian Journal of Microbiology Biotech-
nology and Environmental Sciences, 7, 377–381.
152. Sinha, R.K., Bharambe, G., & Chaudhari, U. (2008). Sew-
age treatment by vermifiltration with synchronous treat-
ment of sludge by earthworms: A low-cost sustainable
technology over conventional systems with potential for
decentralization, The Environmentalist, 28, 409–420.
153. Lleo, T., Albacete, E., Barrena, R., Font, X., Artola, A., &
Sanchez, A. (2013). Home and vermicomposting as sus-
tainable options for biowaste management, Journal of
Cleaner Production, 47, 70–76.
154. Sinha, R.K., Herat, S., Chauhan, K., & Valani, D. (2009).
Environmental-economics of crop production by vermicul-
ture: Economically viable and environmentally sustainable
over chemical agriculture, American-Eurasian Journal of
Agricultural and Environmental Science, 5, 42–55.
155. Devkota, D., Dhakal, S.C., Dhakal, D., Dhakal, D.D., &
Ojha, R. B. (2014). Economics of production and mar-
keting of vermicompost in Chitwan, Nepal, International
Journal of Agricultural and Soil Science, 2, 112–117.
156. Jensen, J., Christie, B., & Edwards, C.A. (2011). The
commercial potential and economics of vermicompost-
ing. In Edwards, C.A., Arancon, N.Q., & Sherman R.
(Eds.), Vermiculture technology: Earthworms, organic
wastes, and environmental management (pp. 303–322),
Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
Month 2015 13