Research ArticleArticles

Energy Potential of Urban Tree Pruning Waste

Débora Pagliuso, Camila Prado Cenciani de Souza, Aline Gloria Felix, Rose Mary Garcia Skelton Celidonio, Liliane Id, Alexandre Luiz Cavalcanti Valdez, Adriana Grandis, Edgard Bastos de Freitas Back Silva, Pamela Cezar Oliveira and Aline A. Cavalari
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) May 2025, 51 (3) 226-236; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2025.008

Abstract

Background Large urban centers, such as São Paulo, have green areas interspersed with asphalt and buildings, requiring periodic maintenance to avoid issues with electrical networks. Urban tree management generates tons of pruning waste that is often deposited in landfills. Therefore, it is essential to discard these residues sustainably by composting and reusing the material to generate bioenergy and value-added products that support a circular economy.

Methods This study aimed to evaluate the biomass potential of pruning tree waste through a composting system by characterizing the cell wall composition, starch, lignin, and saccharification capacity.

Results The fermentable sugars in pruning tree waste are degraded during the composting process; however, the levels of starch, galactose, xylose, and arabinose are maintained during the first weeks of composting.

Conclusions These sugars can be utilized for energy production and contribute to the saccharification capacity. Throughout the 32-week composting process, lignin is not degraded; however, the decrease in other sugars in the biomass increases the proportion of lignin, suggesting opportunities for the use of thermal energy and green chemistry.

Keywords

Introduction

Green infrastructure in cities plays a fundamental role in reducing heat islands, mitigating carbon dioxide levels, and improving physical and mental health for residents. Cities face the challenge of promoting climate change mitigation and implementing sustainable urban initiatives, such as urban forestry (Bush and Doyon 2019), or the implementation of vegetation in strategic urban settings. Its management, which includes regular cleaning, pruning, and removal, generates a significant amount of solid waste. In most Brazilian cities, this waste is disposed of in landfills, where it is discarded without prior reduction through crushing and grinding, which could enhance storage efficiency and decomposition rates. Urban solid waste (or municipal solid waste, MSW) is primarily generated due to poor urban planning. Brazil’s waste management units and composting plants receive less than 1% of the waste destined for landfills, controlled landfills, and dumps, according to the National Sanitation Information System (Brasil 2020). Tree pruning waste can contaminate water bodies, cause fires, and create fuel, despite its high carbon content and biodegradability (Rocha et al. 2015). Therefore, the proper management and disposal of pruning tree waste should include consideration of its ecological value and potential for industrial reuse to generate sustainable products (de Meira et al. 2024). Municipal solid waste management must align with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) outlined by the UN (United Nations 2015). In Brazil, waste management and disposal are governed by the National Solid Waste Policy (Brasil 2010). Municipal solid waste must be allocated appropriately and recycled to achieve full reuse, segregated into categories such as: (1) branches and foliage, (2) wood with a diameter of 5 cm, (3) wood with a diameter of 5 to 10 cm, (4) wood with a diameter of 10 to 20 cm, (5) wood with a diameter greater than 20 cm, and (6) tree roots (Cortez 2011). The different sizes of wood can be redirected for craft projects, civil construction (e.g., scaffolding and shoring), public use projects (e.g., parks, playgrounds, and fences), and organic matter for composting. This can lead to carbon credits for companies and municipalities and reduce CO2 emissions. Pruning tree waste biomass comprises cell walls, a complex structure of polysaccharides, phenolic compounds, and proteins (Carpita and Gibeaut 1993). This structure is organized around a cellulose core crosslinked with hemicelluloses and lignin, immersed in a pectin matrix (Carpita and Gibeaut 1993). The polysaccharides can be used for second-generation (2G) ethanol production. Producing 2G ethanol involves pretreating the biomass to release fermentable sugars, which are then fermented and distilled (de Souza et al. 2014). However, accessing and releasing fermentable sugars is complex and costly (de Souza et al. 2014). Understanding the composition and arrangement of cell wall polysaccharides in different plant tissues can enhance pretreatment efficiency (Liu et al. 2019). Therefore, characterizing tree pruning waste is necessary to optimize its applicability and reuse in sustainable systems. A sustainable solution for urban waste management is composting, which is a process of biotransformation of organic matter through the action of microorganisms that release oxygen and oxidize heterogeneous compounds (Kiehl 1998). The first phase of this process consists of a rapid mesophilic stage with intense metabolic activity from microorganisms, followed by biostabilization and humification or maturation phases. These stages are followed by the mineralization of nitrogen, phosphorus, calcium, and magnesium, which transition from organic to inorganic forms, becoming available to plants (Kiehl 1985). The resulting product is called organic vegetable compost, which is beneficial for soil nutrition (Zucconi and De Bertoldi 1987; Rodrigues et al. 2011). Thus, composting is an effective process for the partial degradation of cell wall polymers for further applications as bioenergy. However, the duration of composting and its relationship with waste composition still needs further exploration. Composting is particularly important in developing countries due to the high proportion of organic waste in MSW (Cestonaro et al. 2021). In Brazil, however, only about 0.5% of MSW is allocated for composting (Brasil 2022). As mentioned, waste management practices need improvement, and additional information on potential applications based on characterization and conversion yields should be considered. Composting and incineration can be alternatives for reducing pruning tree waste (lignocellulose). Lignin is the phenolic compound that interacts with cell wall polysaccharides, providing mechanical support, resistance to degradation, and recalcitrance. However, this process is often separate from energy production (de Souza et al. 2016; Souza et al. 2020). According to Reyes-Torres et al. (2018), the raw materials of MSW are divided into green and food waste. Green waste comprises garden refuse, leaves, tree trimmings, and cuttings. When composted with agro-industrial waste, green waste has a low decomposition rate despite its lignocellulosic content (Reyes-Torres et al. 2018). Nevertheless, combining organic waste with tree pruning waste is a viable technique for treating and recovering green waste to produce organic fertilizer (Wang et al. 2019; Yin et al. 2021). The composition and properties of green waste vary by geographic location, climate, and vegetation (Boldrin and Christensen 2010; Reyes-Torres et al. 2018). Recently, some studies in Brazil have evaluated the potential of green waste for applications in solid wood products, such as toys (Bispo et al. 2021) and charcoal (Souza et al. 2020; de Meira et al. 2021). The green waste generated in São Paulo is estimated to be between 3,500 and 4,000 tons per month, resulting in 50,000 tons per year (Rocha et al. 2015). This constitutes a highly abundant material that could have sustainable and ecological applications, both in nonenergy reuse (composting and wood use for crafts, furniture, and related products) and energy (combustion, gasification, briquetting, and anaerobic digestion). This study aimed to assess how composting duration affects the bioenergy potential (ethanol production and direct fuel use) of pruning tree waste. The structural and nonstructural carbohydrates were characterized alongside the saccharification capacity of pruning tree wastes subjected to composting for 0, 2, 12, 16, 28, and 32 weeks.

Materials and Methods

Pruning Tree Residues

Pruning tree residues were collected from São Paulo (22°43′07″S, 47°41′91″W), Itatiba (23°00′21″S, 46°50′20″W), Jundiaí (23°11′11″S, 46°53′03″W), and Louveira (23°05′11″S, 46°57′02″W). For this study, composts of leaves, stems, trunks, and grasses subjected to composting for 0, 2, 12, 16, 28, and 32 weeks were evaluated. Samples from different locations with the same composting duration were homogenized to create a stratified sample. These municipalities share similar vegetation and climatic conditions, with an annual temperature of 20 °C and precipitation of 1,527 mm (Weather Spark 2021a, 2021b, 2021c). The pruning tree residues were frozen, freeze-dried, and pulverized in a ball mill for biochemical analysis.

Extraction and Analysis of Soluble Sugars

Total soluble sugars (glucose, fructose, sucrose, and raffinose) were exhaustively extracted from 10 mg of pulverized samples using 1.5 mL of 80% ethanol (v/v) at 80 °C for 20 minutes. The supernatants containing the soluble sugars were recovered by centrifugation at 10,000 rpm for 10 minutes at 4 °C, combined, vacuum concentrated (Savant™ SC250EXP Speed-Vac™; Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., Waltham, MA, USA), and resuspended in 1 mL of water and 1 mL of chloroform. The sugars were analyzed using High-Performance Anion Exchange Chromatography with a Pulsed Amperometric Detector (HPAEC-PAD) in a Dionex™ ICS-5000 (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., Waltham, MA, USA) system equipped with a Carbo-Pac™ PA1 column (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., Waltham, MA, USA), eluted with 150-μM sodium hydroxide in a 27-minute isocratic run (Pagliuso et al. 2018). Quantification was performed using a standard curve of 50 to 200 μM for glucose, fructose, sucrose, and raffinose. The alcohol-insoluble residue (AIR) obtained after the extractions was dried at 50 °C overnight for starch analysis.

Starch Extraction and Quantification

Starch was extracted and quantified as described by do Amaral et al. (2007). The AIR was enzymatically digested with 120 U mL-1 of α-amylase (EC 3.2.1.1) from Bacillus licheniformis, diluted in 10-mM MOPS buffer at pH 6.5 at 75 °C for 1 hour, followed by 30 U/mL of amyloglucosidase (EC 3.2.1.3) from Aspergillus niger, diluted in 100-mM sodium acetate at pH 4.5 at 50 °C for an additional hour. The reactions were stopped by freezing the samples. The supernatants were recovered by centrifugation at 10,000 rpm for 10 minutes at room temperature. The destarched AIR was washed 3 times with 80% ethanol (v/v) and dried at 50 °C for cell wall evaluation. For starch quantification, 50 μL of each sample was reacted with 250 μL of a solution containing glucose oxidase (1,100 U mL-1), peroxidase (700 U mL-1), 4-aminoantipyrine (290 μmol L-1), and 50-mM phenol (pH 7.5), incubated at 30 °C for 15 minutes, and the absorbance read at 490 nm. Quantification was performed using a glucose (Sigma-Aldrich®; Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany) standard curve of 0.02 to 0.2 mg mL-1.

Cell Wall Hydrolysis and Neutral Monosaccharides Analysis

Cell wall hydrolysis was performed on 2 mg of destarched AIR with 1 mL of 2M trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), incubated for 1 hour at 100 °C to identify noncellulosic monosaccharides. The samples were vacuum-dried, resuspended in 1 mL of milliQ water, and filtered through 0.22 μm pore-size filters (MF-Millipore™; Millipore®; Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany). For cellulose hydrolysis, 2 mg of destarched AIR was reacted with 100 μL of 72% sulfuric acid at 45 °C for 30 minutes, followed by dilution to 4% and incubation at 100 °C for 1.5 hours. The hydrolysate was recovered by centrifugation and filtered for analysis. The obtained monosaccharides were detected by HPAEC-PAD in a Dionex™ ICS-5000 system equipped with a CarboPac™ SA10 column (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., Waltham, MA, USA), eluted isocratically with 99.2% water and 0.8% sodium hydroxide (v/v) at a flow rate of 1 mL min-1 with postcolumn containing 500 mM sodium hydroxide (0.5 mL min-1). Standards for the monosaccharides arabinose, galactose, glucose, rhamnose, fucose, and xylose (Sigma-Aldrich®) were used to calibrate the instrument for quantification.

Determination of Lignin Content

Following Van Acker et al. (2013), 30 mg of pulverized pruning waste were washed with 1 mL of water, ethanol, ethanol-chloroform (1:1 v/v), and acetone, for 15 minutes each, while stirring at 750 rpm at temperatures of 98 °C, 76 °C, 59 °C, and 54 °C, respectively. After each extraction, the reactions were cooled and centrifuged for 5 minutes at 14,000 rpm to recover the residue. The obtained material was dried at 50 °C until a constant mass was achieved. Lignin determination was carried out using the acetyl bromide method described by Fukushima and Kerley (2011). Ten mg of the washed samples were incubated with 250 μL of 25% acetyl bromide in acetic acid (v/v) for 2 hours at 50 °C, followed by an additional hour of stirring at 1,500 rpm. The samples were cooled in an ice bath and centrifuged for 15 minutes at 10,000 rpm. For quantification, 100 μL of the supernatant was reacted with 400 μL of 2M sodium hydroxide, 75 μL of 0.5-M hydroxylamine hydrochloride, and 1.425 mL of glacial acetic acid, and the absorbance was read at 280 nm. Lignin calculations were performed using the Bouguer-Lambert-Beer law and corrected for the amount of cell wall used in the assay (Chang et al. 2008): A=ε×c×l where A = absorbance; ε = 23.35; c = g cm-1; and l = 0.1 cm.

Results

Nonstructural Carbohydrates

Tree pruning wastes showed no soluble sugars at any composting period, indicating a lack of energy availability from these simple sugars (e.g., sucrose and glucose). Among nonstructural carbohydrates, starch levels varied between 16.3 and 2.9 μg glucose mg DW–1 (dry weight) over 32 weeks (Figure 1). Starch content decreased over time, with an 82% reduction by week 12, which was maintained through week 32 (Figure 1).

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Starch levels of pruning tree wastes at different composting times. Data represented by mean ± SE (n = 5). The letters show significant differences according to the ANOVA one-way followed by Tukey’s tests (P ≤ 0.05). The samples were composted for 0, 2, 12, 16, 28, and 32 weeks.

Structural Carbohydrates and Lignin

The cell wall composition was analyzed through monosaccharide identification. Trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) hydrolysis represented the composition of pectins and hemicelluloses, while stronger acids like sulfuric acid hydrolyzed cellulose and other polysaccharides. Cellulose content was inferred from glucose levels derived from both hydrolyses. Cellulose levels decreased from 68.4 μg glucose mg DW-1 at week 0 to 36.1 μg glucose mg DW-1 at week 32, a reduction of 47.2% (Figure 2). Noncellulosic glucose content remained unchanged during composting (Table 1). Before composting (week 0), the cell walls of pruning tree wastes contained 5% fucose, 14% arabinose, 14% galactose, 7% rhamnose, 8% glucose, 44% xylose, and 7% mannose (Table 1). By week 32, the overall monosaccharide composition decreased; however, the composition varied at each evaluated time point (Table 1). Xylose was the predominant monosaccharide, decreasing from 44 μg glucose mg DW-1 at week 0 to 17.9 μg glucose mg DW-1 at week 32, a reduction of 30%. Galactose, the second major component, declined from 14.3 μg glucose mg DW-1 at week 0 to 8.9 μg glucose mg DW-1 at week 32 (38% reduction)(Table 1). Similarly, arabinose levels dropped from 14 μg glucose mg DW-1 (week 0) to 8 μg glucose mg DW-1 (week 32)(Table 1). In contrast, the degradation of fucose, mannose, and rhamnose was minimal, with their proportions in the overall cell wall increasing from 5% (week 0) to 9% (week 32), 7.4% (week 0) to 11.1% (week 32), and 7.1% (week 0) to 10.6% (week 32), respectively (Table 1).

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Cellulose levels of pruning tree wastes at different composting times. Data represented by mean ± SE (n = 5) of the sulfuric acid hydrolysis. Different letters represent statistical differences between the composting times of a given sugar by ANOVA one-way and Tukey’s tests (P ≤ 0.05). The samples were composted for 0, 2, 12, 16, 28, and 32 weeks.

View this table:
Table 1.

Structural carbohydrates composition of pruning tree wastes. Data presented as mean ± SE (n = 5). Different letters represent statistical differences between the composting times of a given sugar by ANOVA one-way and Tukey’s tests (P ≤ 0.05). The samples were composted for 0, 2, 12, 16, 28, and 32 weeks. SE (Standard Error); DW (dry weight).

Lignin levels ranged from 14.9% to 20.6% over the 32 weeks of composting, starting at 17.6% at week 0 and reaching 20.6% at week 28 and 18.9% at week 32 (Figure 3).

Figure 3.
Figure 3.

Lignin levels of pruning tree wastes at different composting times. Data represented by mean ± SE (n = 5). Letters in the graph represent the significant differences in ANOVA one-way and Tukey’s tests (P ≤ 0.05). The samples were composted for 0, 2, 12, 16, 28, and 32 weeks.

Saccharification

The saccharification capacity was highest without composting (3.8 nmol glucose mg DW-1)(Figure 4), likely due to elevated starch, galactose, and glucose levels (Table 1). From weeks 2 to 16, there was a gradual reduction in saccharification capacity by 46% (2.04 nmol glucose mg DW-1), and a further decline of 41% (2.26 nmol glucose mg DW-1) by week 32 (Figure 4). Interestingly, at week 28, a higher saccharification capacity of 3.4 nmol glucose mg DW-1 was observed, potentially due to increased levels of galactose and mannose (Figure 4 and Table 1).

Figure 4.
Figure 4.

Saccharification capacity of the cell walls of pruning tree wastes. Data represented by mean ± SE (n = 5). Letters in the graph represent the significant differences in ANOVA one-way and Tukey’s tests (P ≤ 0.05). The samples were composted for 0, 2, 12, 16, 28, and 32 weeks.

Discussion

Pruning tree wastes from São Paulo, Itatiba, Jundiaí, and Louveira consisted of branches, leaves, and thinner tree trunks. Given the similar climatic conditions of these cities, the degradation processes of the wastes should also be comparable. The degradation of organic matter is influenced by both biotic and abiotic factors, which affect the duration of the process and the amount of organic matter generated (Vitti et al. 2008). Consequently, the storage and composting time of the pruning tree wastes are critical for bioenergy production (de Souza et al. 2016). In the studied locations, pruning waste is often piled in large volumes outdoors, leading to inadequate composting conditions despite favorable temperature, humidity, and aeration (da Silva et al. 2007). Additionally, the preparation of waste piles and operational activities such as turning frequency and water addition significantly impact nutrient composition (N, P, and K)(Cestonaro et al. 2021). However, environmental conditions contribute minimally to nutrient variation (Cestonaro et al. 2021). For efficient composting and organic matter generation, wastes should be arranged in windrows approximately 1.5-m high to balance temperature, aeration, and humidity (Valente et al. 2009). According to de Meira et al. (2024), 69% of the organic matter produced from composting tree pruning waste is usable. Thus, composting exclusively tree pruning waste is inefficient, and this material should be repurposed for value-added products and bioenergy. The carbohydrate composition of tree pruning wastes composted for 0, 2, 12, 16, 28, and 32 weeks were analyzed, along with the saccharification capacity for bioenergy applications. The degradation of nonstructural carbohydrates (soluble sugars and starch) occurred primarily in the initial weeks of composting. Glucose, fructose, sucrose, and raffinose were not detected in the samples (data not shown). Starch degradation accelerated from week 12 onward, resulting in an 82% reduction (Figure 1). This finding aligns with studies by Jensen et al. (2005) and Sousa et al. (2017), which noted that the decomposition of organic matter is most rapid in the early months, with sugars and proteins being the first to degrade. In contrast, lignin, tannins, and lipids remained recalcitrant (Abiven et al. 2005). Lignin levels increased over weeks 28 and 32 by 2%, likely due to the reduction of other biomass compounds (Figure 3). A similar trend was observed in the degradation of sugarcane straw over 12 months, where lignin accumulation negatively impacted saccharification capacity (Pagliuso et al. 2021).

Carbon is primarily stored in cell walls, providing these structures with energetic potential (Verbančič et al. 2018). The composition of the cell walls was evaluated to assess the fermentable sugars and the potential use of tree pruning waste for bioenergy. At the start of composting (time zero), xylose was the predominant sugar (Table 1), suggesting elevated levels of xylans. Xylans are hemicelluloses composed of β-(1→4)-linked xylose backbones, which can branch with arabinose to form arabinoxylan or with glucuronic acid to form glucuronoxylan (Scheller and Ulvskov 2010). Xylose is also present in xyloglucan hemicelluloses, characterized by repetitive glucose units with xylose at the C-6 position, further branched with galactose and fucose (Scheller and Ulvskov 2010). The levels of noncellulosic glucose and fucose showed minimal change over time (Table 1), indicating that the composting process had a slight impact on these polymers. However, alterations in other non-cellulosic monosaccharides were observed, except for mannose and glucose (Table 1), indicating degradation and/or changes in hemicelluloses and pectins. The accessibility of the cell wall facilitates polysaccharide hydrolysis and the release of monosaccharides. Pectins are typically the first barrier to degrade (Bellincampi et al. 2014), leading to expected changes in pectin monosaccharides. Rhamnose, an exclusive sugar of the rhamnogalacturonan types I and II, has a backbone of disaccharide repeats of galactose and rhamnose (Mohnen 2008). Type II is the most complex pectin, consisting of 12 different sugars and over 20 glycosidic bonds (Mohnen 2008). Although rhamnose levels significantly reduced, its final proportion in the cell walls of tree pruning wastes at 32 weeks increased by 3.5% (Table 1), likely due to the reduction of other monosaccharides and their greater representation in the samples. The hydrolysis of hemicellulose accelerates the degradation process (Coûteaux et al. 1995). Levels of xylose, arabinose, and galactose decreased at week 32 by 59.1%, 42.5%, and 37.9%, respectively (Table 1). This suggests the degradation of xylans (the main hemicellulose in secondary cell walls) and arabinogalactans (components of pectins formed by arabinose and galactose). Following the degradation of pectins and hemicelluloses, cellulose becomes more accessible for further degradation (Leite et al. 2017). Composed of glucose monomers linked by β-1,4 bonds, cellulose is easily hydrolyzed by microbial enzymes and converted into energy (van Maris et al. 2006). Cellulose levels gradually decreased over time, with a 47% reduction observed by week 32 (Figure 2). The saccharification capacity is a crucial parameter regarding the potential use of waste for bioenergy production. High levels of xylose and arabinose were found in tree pruning wastes (Table 1); these pentoses are resistant to metabolism by yeast for ethanol production (van Maris et al. 2006). Conversely, glucose, fucose, mannose, and galactose are hexoses that can be fermented by microorganisms used in the alcohol industry (van Maris et al. 2006). The saccharification capacity decreased with composting time (Figure 4), attributed to the increasing proportion of lignin (Figure 3), as well as the degradation of fermentable sugars, starch (Figure 1), and cellulose (Figure 2). For higher yields of 2G ethanol production, fermentation of fresh pruning tree wastes is recommended to maximize nonstructural sugars and the levels of fermentable sugars (Table 1, Figures 1 and 2). While bioethanol production from tree pruning waste is feasible, it demonstrates moderate efficiency and requires pretreatment (Sofokleous et al. 2022). On the other hand, lignin, a phenolic compound with a high calorific value, can be used for combustion in boilers to generate thermal energy (da Rosa and Garcia 2009).

Municipal solid waste (MSW) is generated on a large scale and often lacks efficient management and disposal. To promote sustainability and reuse of this waste, it should be utilized for composting and biofertilizer production, as well as for manufacturing small objects and generating energy (Rocha et al. 2015; Kaur et al. 2021). Waste segregation and understanding its composition enable its allocation for biorefineries and the production of high-value-added products (Rocha et al. 2015; Kaur et al. 2021), supporting a circular economy and reducing final waste.

Conclusion

Tree pruning waste exhibits varying compositions based on the duration of composting. Over time, levels of fermentable sugars and starch decrease, while lignin content remains stable. These changes impact saccharification capacity and its application in bioenergy production (e.g., bioethanol). For effective 2G ethanol production, pruning tree waste should be processed while fresh to optimize nonstructural sugar use. However, the high lignin and low pentose content at the end of the composting period (32 weeks) highlight the material’s potential for thermal energy and green chemistry applications.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Literature Cited

  1. ↵
    1. Abiven S,
    2. Recous S,
    3. Reyes V,
    4. Oliver R.
    2005. Mineralisation of C and N from root, stem and leaf residues in soil and role of their biochemical quality. Biology and Fertility of Soils. 42:119-128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-005-0006-0
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. Bellincampi D,
    2. Cervone F,
    3. Lionetti V.
    2014. Plant cell wall dynamics and wall-related susceptibility in plant-pathogen interactions. Frontiers in Plant Science. 5:228. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2014.00228
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Bispo LFP,
    2. Nolasco AM,
    3. de Souza EC,
    4. Klingenberg D,
    5. Dias Júnior AF.
    2021. Valorizing urban forestry waste through the manufacture of toys. Waste Management. 126:351-359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2021.03.028
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Boldrin A,
    2. Christensen TH.
    2010. Seasonal generation and composition of garden waste in Aarhus (Denmark). Waste Management. 30(4):551-557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2009.11.031
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. ↵
    Brasil. 2010. Institui a Política Nacional de Resíduos Sólidos; altera a Lei n° 9.605, de 12 de Fevereiro de 1998; e dá outras providências. Lei N° 12.305, de 02 de Agosto de 2010. https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2007-2010/2010/lei/l12305.htm
  6. ↵
    Brasil. 2020. Diagnóstico do Manejo de Resíduos Sólidos Urbanos–2019. Ministério do Desenvolvimento Regional. Secretaria Nacional de Saneamento - SNS. Sistema Nacional de Informações sobre Saneamento. Brasília: SNS/MDR. 244 p. https://www.gov.br/mdr/pt-br/assuntos/saneamento/snis/diagnosticos-anteriores-do-snis/residuos-solidos-1/2019
  7. ↵
    Brasil. 2022. Diagnóstico do manejo de Resíduos Sólidos Urbanos–2017. Sistema Nacional de Informações sobre Água, Saneamento e Resíduos Sólidos - SNIS. Secretaria Nacional de Saneamento Ambiental - SNSA. Ministério das Cidades - MCIDADES. Brasília: SNIS/SNSA/MCIDADES. 194 p. [Accessed 2024 April 04]. http://www.snis.gov.br/diagnostico-residuos-solidos/diagnostico-rs-2017
  8. ↵
    1. Bush J,
    2. Doyon A.
    2019. Building urban resilience with naturebased solution: How can urban planning contribute? Cities. 95:102483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102483.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. ↵
    1. Carpita NC,
    2. Gibeaut DM.
    1993. Structural models of primary cell walls in flowering plants: Consistency of molecular structure with the physical properties of the walls during growth. The Plant Journal. 3(1):1-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-313X.1993.tb00007.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Cestonaro T,
    2. de Vasconcelos Barros RT,
    3. de Matos AT,
    4. Costa MA.
    2021. Full-scale composting of food waste and tree pruning: How large is the variation on the compost nutrients over time? Science of the Total Environment. 754:142078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142078
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Chang XF,
    2. Chandra R,
    3. Berleth T,
    4. Beatson RP.
    2008. Rapid, microscale, acetyl bromide-based method for high-throughput determination of lignin content in Arabidopsis thaliana. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 56(16):6825-6834. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf800775f
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Cortez CL.
    2011. Estudo do potencial de utilização da biomassa resultante da poda de árvores urbanas para a geração de energia–estudo de caso: AES Eletropaulo. [Doctoral thesis]. São Paulo (Brazil): Universidade de São Paulo. 246 p. https://doi.org/10.11606/T.86.2011.tde-13092011-151318
  13. ↵
    1. Coûteaux MM,
    2. Bottner P,
    3. Berg B.
    1995. Litter decomposition, climate and litter quality. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 10(2):63-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(00)88978-8
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. da Rosa SES,
    2. Garcia JLF.
    2009. O etanol de segunda geração: Limites e oportunidades. Revista do BNDES. 32:117-156.
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    1. Spadotto C,
    2. Ribeiro W
    1. da Silva FC,
    2. Rodrigues LS,
    3. Barreira L,
    4. Kovacs A.
    2007. Compostagem: Reciclagem de resíduos sólidos orgânicos. In: Spadotto C, Ribeiro W, editors. Gestão de resíduos na agricultura e agroindústria. Botucatu (São Paulo, Brazil): Fundação de Estudos e Pesquisas Agrícolas e Florestais. p. 63-112.
  16. ↵
    1. de Meira AM,
    2. Nolasco AM,
    3. de Souza EC,
    4. de Souza MP,
    5. Pereira AKS,
    6. Ucella-Filho JGM,
    7. Dias Júnior AFD.
    2024. Integrated municipal management of waste from tree pruning and removal. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 94:128238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2024.128238
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    1. de Meira AM,
    2. Nolasco AM,
    3. Klingenberg D,
    4. de Souza EC,
    5. Dias Júnior AF.
    2021. Insights into the reuse of urban forestry wood waste for charcoal production. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy. 23:2777-2787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-021-02181-1
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. de Souza AP,
    2. Grandis A,
    3. Leite DCC,
    4. Buckeridge MS.
    2014. Sugarcane as a bioenergy source: History, performance, and perspectives for second-generation bioethanol. BioEnergy Research. 7:24-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-013-9366-8
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    1. de Souza NRD,
    2. Alencar LS,
    3. Mazzonetto AW.
    2016. Potencial energético do resíduo das podas de árvores no município de piracicaba–sp. Revista Energia na Agricultura. 31(3): 237-245. https://revistas.fca.unesp.br/index.php/energia/article/view/2189
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    1. do Amaral LIV,
    2. Gaspar M,
    3. Costa PMF,
    4. Aidar MPM,
    5. Buckeridge MS.
    2007. Novo método enzimático rápido e sensível de extração e dosagem de amido em materiais vegetais. Hoehnea. 34(4): 425-431. https://doi.org/10.1590/S2236-89062007000400001
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    1. Fukushima RS,
    2. Kerley MS.
    2011. Use of lignin extracted from different plant sources as standards in the spectrophotometric acetyl bromide lignin method. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 59(8):3505-3509. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf104826n
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Jensen LS,
    2. Salo T,
    3. Palmason F,
    4. Breland TA,
    5. Henriksen TM,
    6. Stenberg B,
    7. Pedersen A,
    8. Lundström C,
    9. Esala M.
    2005. Influence of biochemical quality on C and N mineralisation from a broad variety of plant materials in soil. Plant and Soil. 273:307-326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-004-8128-y
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. ↵
    1. Kaur P,
    2. Kaur GJ,
    3. Routray W,
    4. Rahimi J,
    5. Nair GR,
    6. Singh A.
    2021. Recent advances in utilization of municipal solid waste for production of bioproducts: A bibliometric analysis. Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering. 4:100164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscee.2021.100164
    OpenUrl
  24. ↵
    1. Kiehl EJ.
    1985. Fertilizantes orgânicos. São Paulo (Brazil): Agronomica Ceres. 492 p.
  25. ↵
    1. Kiehl EJ.
    1998. Manual de compostagem: Maturação e qualidade do composto. Piracicaba (São Paulo, Brazil): Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz, Universidade de São Paulo. 171 p. https://repositorio.usp.br/item/001004271
  26. ↵
    1. Leite DCC,
    2. Grandis A,
    3. Tavares EQP,
    4. Piovezani AR,
    5. Pattathil S,
    6. Avci U,
    7. Rossini A,
    8. Cambler A,
    9. De Souza AP,
    10. Hahn MG,
    11. Buckeridge MS.
    2017. Cell wall changes during the formation of aerenchyma in sugarcane roots. Annals of Botany. 120(5): 693-708. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcx050
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Liu CG,
    2. Xiao Y,
    3. Xia XX,
    4. Zhao XQ,
    5. Peng L,
    6. Srinophakun P,
    7. Bai FW.
    2019. Cellulosic ethanol production: Progress, challenges and strategies for solutions. Biotechnology Advances. 37(3): 491-504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2019.03.002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Mohnen D.
    2008. Pectin structure and biosynthesis. Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 11(3):266-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2008.03.006
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Pagliuso D,
    2. Grandis A,
    3. de Sousa CR,
    4. de Souza AP,
    5. Driemeier C,
    6. Buckeridge MS.
    2021. The effect of sugarcane straw aging in the field on cell wall composition. Frontiers in Plant Science. 12:652168. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPLS.2021.652168
    OpenUrlPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Pagliuso D,
    2. Grandis A,
    3. Igarashi ES,
    4. Lam E,
    5. Buckeridge MS.
    2018. Correlation of apiose levels and growth rates in duckweeds. Frontiers in Chemistry. 6:291. https://doi.org/10.3389/fchem.2018.00291
    OpenUrlPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Reyes-Torres M,
    2. Oviedo-Ocaña ER,
    3. Dominguez I,
    4. Komilis D,
    5. Sánchez A.
    2018. A systematic review on the composting of green waste: Feedstock quality and optimization strategies. Waste Management. 77:486-499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.04.037
    OpenUrlPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Rocha AJF,
    2. de Souza RLP,
    3. de Lima Reda AL,
    4. da Silva GT.
    2015. Destinação sustentável do resíduo da poda de árvores urbanas: Sustainable destination for the urban tree pruning waste. In: XV Safety, Health and Environment World Congress; 2015 July 19-22; Porto, Portugal. p. 137-141. https://copec.eu/congresses/shewc2015/proc/works/30.pdf
  33. ↵
    1. Rodrigues PNF,
    2. Rolim MM,
    3. Neto EB,
    4. Costa RNT,
    5. Pedrosa EMR,
    6. Oliveira VS.
    2011. Efeito do composto orgânico e compactação do solo no milho e nutrientes no solo. Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola e Ambiental. 15(8):788-793. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-43662011000800004
    OpenUrl
  34. ↵
    1. Scheller HV,
    2. Ulvskov P.
    2010. Hemicelluloses. Annual Review of Plant Biology. 61:263-269. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-arplant-042809-112315
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Sofokleous M,
    2. Christofi A,
    3. Malamis D,
    4. Mai S,
    5. Barampouti EM.
    2022. Bioethanol and biogas production: An alternative valorisation pathway for green waste. Chemosphere. 296:133970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.133970
    OpenUrlPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Sousa JG de A Jr.,
    2. Cherubin MR,
    3. Cerri CEP,
    4. Cerri CC,
    5. Feigl BJ.
    2017. Sugar cane straw left in the field during harvest: Decomposition dynamics and composition changes. Soil Research. 55(8):758-768. https://doi.org/10.1071/SR16310
    OpenUrl
  37. ↵
    1. Souza CA,
    2. Guimarães CC,
    3. Velasco GDN.
    2020. Reaproveitamento de resíduos de poda e sua colaboração para atingir os Objetivos de Desenvolvimento Sustentável. In: Anais do 13° Seminário Internacional NUTAU 2020. São Paulo (Brasil): Blucher. p. 83-88. https://doi.org/10.5151/nutau2020-40
  38. ↵
    United Nations. 2015. The 17 Goals. Department of Economic and Social Affairs: Sustainable Development. [Accessed 2024 April 02]. https://sdgs.un.org/goals
  39. ↵
    1. Valente BS,
    2. Xavier EG,
    3. Morselli TBGA,
    4. Jahnke DS,
    5. Brum B Jr.,
    6. Cabrera BR,
    7. Moraes P,
    8. Lopes DCN.
    2009. Fatores que afetam o desenvolvimento da compostagem de resíduos orgânicos. Archivos de Zootecnia. 58:59-85. https://doi.org/10.21071/az.v58i224.5074
    OpenUrl
  40. ↵
    1. Van Acker R,
    2. Vanholme R,
    3. Storme V,
    4. Mortimer JC,
    5. Dupree P,
    6. Boerjan W.
    2013. Lignin biosynthesis perturbations affect secondary cell wall composition and saccharification yield in Arabidopsis thaliana. Biotechnology for Biofuels. 6:46. https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834-6-46
    OpenUrlPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. van Maris AJA,
    2. Abbott DA,
    3. Bellissimi E,
    4. van den Brink J,
    5. Kuyper M,
    6. Luttik MAH,
    7. Wisselink HW,
    8. Scheffers WA,
    9. van Dijken JP,
    10. Pronk JT.
    2006. Alcoholic fermentation of carbon sources in biomass hydrolysates by Saccharomyces cerevisiae: current status. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek. 90:391-418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10482-006-9085-7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Verbančič J,
    2. Lunn JE,
    3. Stitt M,
    4. Persson S.
    2018. Carbon supply and the regulation of cell wall synthesis. Molecular Plant. 11(1):75-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molp.2017.10.004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Vitti AC,
    2. Trivelin PCO,
    3. Cantarella H,
    4. Franco HCJ,
    5. Faroni CE,
    6. Otto R,
    7. Trivelin MO,
    8. Tovajar JG.
    2008. Mineralização da palhada e crescimento de raízes de cana-de-açúcar relacionados com a adubação nitrogenada de plantio. Revista Brasileria de Ciência do Solo. 32:2757-2762. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-06832008000700020
    OpenUrl
  44. ↵
    1. Taherzadeh MJ,
    2. Bolton K,
    3. Wong J,
    4. Pandey A
    1. Wang Q,
    2. Awasthi MK
    3. Zhang Z,
    4. Wong JWC.
    2019. Chapter 9—Sustainable composting and its environmental implications. In: Taherzadeh MJ, Bolton K, Wong J, Pandey A, editors. Sustainable resource recovery and zero waste approaches. Amsterdam (Netherlands): Elsevier. p. 115-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-64200-4.00009-8
  45. ↵
    Weather Spark. 2021a. Clima e condições meteorológicas médias em Itatiba no ano todo: São Paulo, Brasil. [Accessed 2021 June 21]. https://pt.weatherspark.com/y/30288/Clima-caracter%C3%ADstico-em-Itatiba-Brasil-durante-o-ano
  46. ↵
    Weather Spark. 2021b. Clima e condições meteorológicas médias em Jundiaí no ano todo: São Paulo, Brasil. [Accessed 2021 June 21]. https://pt.weatherspark.com/y/30285/Clima-caracter%C3%ADstico-em-Jundia%C3%AD-Brasil-durante-o-ano
  47. ↵
    Weather Spark. 2021c. Clima e condições meteorológicas médias em Louveira no ano todo: São Paulo, Brasil. [Accessed 2021 June 21]. https://pt.weatherspark.com/y/30284/Clima-caracter%C3%ADstico-em-Louveira-Brasil-durante-o-ano
  48. ↵
    1. Yin X,
    2. Wei L,
    3. Pan X,
    4. Liu C,
    5. Jiang J,
    6. Wang K.
    2021. The pretreatment of lignocelluloses with green solvent as biorefinery preprocess: A minor review. Frontiers in Plant Science. 12:670061. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.670061
    OpenUrlPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. De Bertoldi M,
    2. Ferranti MP,
    3. L’hermite MP,
    4. Zucconi F
    1. Zucconi F,
    2. De Bertoldi M.
    1987. Composts specifications for the production and characterization of compost from municipal solid waste. In: De Bertoldi M, Ferranti MP, L’hermite MP, Zucconi F, editors. Compost: Production, quality and use. London (United Kingdom): Elsevier. p. 276-295.
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Email Article
Citation Tools
Energy Potential of Urban Tree Pruning Waste
Débora Pagliuso, Camila Prado Cenciani de Souza, Aline Gloria Felix, Rose Mary Garcia Skelton Celidonio, Liliane Id, Alexandre Luiz Cavalcanti Valdez, Adriana Grandis, Edgard Bastos de Freitas Back Silva, Pamela Cezar Oliveira, Aline A. Cavalari
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) May 2025, 51 (3) 226-236; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2025.008
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

Keywords