Back to Search Start Over

Evaluation of alternative methods of tunnel composting (submitted by the European Composting Network) II.

Authors :
Koutsoumanis K
Allende A
Bolton D
Bover-Cid S
Chemaly M
Herman L
Hilbert F
Lindqvist R
Nauta M
Nonno R
Peixe L
Skandamis P
Ru G
Simmons M
De Cesare A
Escamez PF
Suffredini E
Ortiz-Pelaez A
Ordonez AA
Source :
EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority [EFSA J] 2024 Apr 26; Vol. 22 (4), pp. e8745. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Apr 26 (Print Publication: 2024).
Publication Year :
2024

Abstract

Two alternative methods for producing compost in a tunnel, from certain category (Cat.) 3 animal by-products (ABP) and other non-ABP material, were assessed. The first method proposed a minimum temperature of 55°C for 72 h and the second 60°C for 48 h, both with a maximum particle size of 200 mm. The assessment of the Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ) exclusively focused on Cat. 3 ABP materials (catering waste and processed foodstuffs of animal origin no longer intended for human consumption). The proposed composting processes were evaluated for their efficacy to achieve a reduction of at least 5 log <subscript>10</subscript> of Enterococcus faecalis and Salmonella Senftenberg (775W, H <subscript>2</subscript> S negative) and at least 3 log <subscript>10</subscript> of relevant thermoresistant viruses. The applicant provided a list of biological hazards that may enter the composting process and selected parvoviruses as the indicator of the thermoresistant viruses. The evidence provided by the applicant included: (a) literature data on thermal inactivation of biological hazards; (b) results from validation studies on the reduction of E. faecalis , Salmonella Senftenberg 775W H <subscript>2</subscript> S negative and canine parvovirus carried out in composting plants across Europe; (c) and experimental data from direct measurements of reduction of infectivity of murine parvovirus in compost material applying the time/temperature conditions of the two alternative methods. The evidence provided showed the capacity of the proposed alternative methods to reduce E. faecalis and Salmonella Senftenberg 775W H <subscript>2</subscript> S negative by at least 5 log <subscript>10</subscript> , and parvoviruses by at least 3 log <subscript>10</subscript> . The BIOHAZ Panel concluded that the two alternative methods under assessment can be considered to be equivalent to the processing method currently approved in the Commission Regulation (EU) No 142/2011.<br />Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu<br /> (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
1831-4732
Volume :
22
Issue :
4
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
38681740
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2024.8745