What is the proposed origin of these compounds (e.g., 1-hydroxypyrene, phthalates, arsenic derivatives) in the vermicompost? Were the earthworms (Eisenia fetida), their bedding, or the salvinia feedstock sourced from an environment potentially contaminated with industrial pollutants, heavy metals, or plastic residues?
Could these compounds have leached from laboratory plasticware (e.g., polyethylene flasks, tubing) or solvents used during extraction or analysis? Were procedural blanks and control samples (e.g., earthworm bedding without salvinia) run through the same GC-MS protocol to rule out analytical artifact or background contamination?
The central conclusion is that vermicomposting transforms salvinia into a “potent organic fertilizer” and destroys its toxicity. However, the introduction of persistent organic pollutants or heavy metal complexes would render the compost unsafe for agricultural use, negating the primary benefit. How do the authors reconcile the presence of these contaminants with their safety claim?
If the process is sensitive to unknown contamination sources, can it be reliably reproduced at scale? An operational hazard of converting a global weed into fertilizer is the risk of concentrating and spreading environmental toxins.
