Talk:Coffee wastewater

Rewrite/reorganization
Here are a few comments from edit logs:


 * Copyediting won't help this article; this needs a complete rewrite to make this unencyclopedic; an expert would be useful

and


 * this is a scientific salad :) Lots of good info, totally unstructured, I have to look into further work on the subject before I can do better editing

Personally, I'd say the first priority is to improve the article's links (both incoming and outgoing, but especially incoming), so we can attract editors who may have some knowledge/interest. Secondly, I'd fix some of the more obvious organizational problems. You can't stop people from copy-editing; that's just the nature of wikipedia (and a lot of other places too). Kingdon 19:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The article struck me as an advertisement at first. Repetitive use of a company name and a specific technology would more appropriately be found after a general explanation of processing methods and the contents and quantities of wastewater produced, in a section devoted to remediation and reduction efforts. After having demonstrated that certain processes generate certain amounts of waste with particular contents, it would then be appropriate to highlight the performance of a particular approach (as far as drawn conclusions are acceptable here anyway considering nPOV) Freshgroundcoffee (talk) 03:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Difference in coffee quality from washed and semi-washed processing
The claim in the semi-washed section "the quality of the end product is regarded as inferior" was unsourced since January 2007.

Joseph Karanja Mburu's Ph.D. thesis titled "Comparative use of lime and moringa oleifera in removal of suspended solids from coffee processing effluent" includes:
 * In Kenya, the coffee cherry is preferably wet processed because it reportedly produces superior quality coffee compared to the dry and semi washed coffee processing methods (Shanmukhappa et. al., 1998 and Gonzalez-Rios et al., 2006).

.. which citations are:

(I do not have access to these.)

The English abstract of a different paper claims:
 * For the analyzed samples, the results showed that the wet via processing, with or without removal of mucilage, do not differ as to the overall quality of the drink.

Due to this conflict, I am removing the unsourced claim.

« D. Trebbien ( talk ) 12:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)