A group of authors in China has lost their 2011 paper in Bioresource Technology on pig poop because the journal detected a whiff of the familiar in a previously published article by other researchers in the same journal (a major tsk tsk and, well, oops).
The article, “Feasibility of biogas production from anaerobic co-digestion of herbal-extraction residues with swine manure,” came from a team at Nanchang University. Except, well, not really, as we’ll see. According to its abstract:
The objective of this work was to examine the feasibility of biogas production from the anaerobic co-digestion of herbal-extraction residues with swine manure. Batch and semi-continuous experiments were carried out under mesophilic anaerobic conditions. Batch experiments revealed that the highest specific biogas yield was 294 mL CH(4) g(-1) volatile solids added, obtained at 50% of herbal-extraction residues and 3.50 g volatile solids g(-1) mixed liquor suspended solids. Specific methane yield from swine manure alone was 207 mL CH(4) g(-1) volatile solid added d(-1) at 3.50 g volatile solids g(-1) mixed liquor suspended solids. Furthermore, specific methane yields were 162, 180 and 220 mL CH(4) g (-1) volatile solids added d(-1) for the reactors co-digesting mixtures with 10%, 25% and 50% herbal-extraction residues, respectively. These results suggested that biogas production could be enhanced efficiently by the anaerobic co-digestion of herbal-extraction residues with swine manure.
But as the retraction notice indicates, the article was more wild boar than Wilbur:
This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief and Author.
The paper appears to be very similar to another paper on Potential for methane production from anaerobic co-digestion of swine manure with winery wastewater authored by B. Riaño, B. Molinuevo & M.C. García-González published in Bioresource Technology, 102 (2011) 4131–4136.
The similarity is too large to justify the publication.
That’s rather charming in its ambiguity, isn’t it?
In case you were wondering, here’s the abstract from the plagiarized article:
This work examines the methane production potential for the anaerobic co-digestion of swine manure (SM) with winery wastewater (WW). Batch and semi-continuous experiments were carried out under mesophilic conditions. Batch experiments revealed that the highest specific methane yield was 348 mL CH(4)g(-1) COD added, obtained at 85.4% of WW and 0.7 g COD g(-1)VS. Specific methane yield from SM alone was 27 mL CH(4)g(-1) COD added d(-1). Furthermore, specific methane yields were 49, 87 and 107 mL CH(4)g(-1) COD added d(-1) for the reactors co-digesting mixtures with 10% WW, 25% WW and 40% WW, respectively. Co-digestion with 40% WW improved the removal efficiencies up to 52% (TCOD), 132% (SCOD) and 61% (VSS) compared to SM alone. These results suggest that methane can be produced very efficiently by the co-digestion of swine manure with winery wastewater.
The scent of the now-retracted paper — that is, citations of it — can be found in 13 other articles, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.