TECHNICAL NOTE

Main Design Parameters of a Vermicompost Screening Machine

0000-0001-9603-2856María Victoria Gómez-Águila^{*  1}  , 0000-0002-1071-3923Luis Tonatiuh Castellanos-Serrano¹  , 0000-0003-3299-9851Luis Arturo Soriano-Avendaño¹  , 0000-0001-8950-1992José Alfredo Castellanos Suárez¹  , 0000-0003-4849-1518Josué Vicente Cervantes-Bazán¹  , 0000-0002-2746-8688Marcelino Aurelio Pérez-Vivar¹  , 0000-0001-5354-4034Ramiro Chávez-Mota¹ 

¹Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, Centro de Investigaciones Interdisciplinarias y de Servicio en Ciencia, Naturaleza, Sociedad y Cultura, Texcoco de Mora, Estado de México, México.

ABSTRACT

In Mexico, there is an ecological deterioration caused in part by the inadequate management of natural resources. In order to collaborate in the reduction of this ecological deterioration in the soils and the environment, the objective of the work was to design an accessible vermicompost screening machine that is adaptable to the needs and requirements of small producers of this organic fertilizer in the country, so the calculation was made for the design of the main systems of the machine that are the fertilizer dosing system, the screening system and the power transmission system, developing the deployment of the QFD quality function that allows considering the demands and requirements to be satisfied, in the generation and selection of concepts and / or proposals for design, thereby improving the quality of the design. A vermicompost screening machine was designed which will make it possible to speed up and improve the working conditions in the production of this compost, thus obtaining a production of screened compost greater than that achieved manually.

Key words: Ecological Deterioration; Soils; Screening; Organic Fertilizer

INTRODUCTION

In Mexico, the Green Revolution produced a substantial change in all sectors related to productive activities, especially in conventional agriculture, which is based on the intensive use of inputs and machinery, being aggressive to agroecosystems and the environment due to excessive abuse of agrochemicals (chemical fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, nematicides, among others) which accumulate in the water tables, soils, water and atmosphere, representing a threat to life, due to their high degree of toxicity. Nowadays, new techniques have been implemented to reduce this ecological deterioration as part of organic agriculture. They are crop rotation, use of residues of organic origin, green manures, mechanical tillage, among others, with the purpose of maintaining soil productivity and fertility, as well as controlling pests, weeds and diseases (^{Mendoza, 2013}). Vermiculture is an alternative for the use of organic waste and animal fertilizers, since they can be incorporated into the soil in a short time, thus generating fertilizers called "Wormcompost" or "Vermicompost", capable of replacing chemical fertilizers according to ^{Mendoza (2013)}, becoming a technique for soil conservation and improvement. Vermiculture is conceived as a biotechnology that makes it possible to use the Californian red worm (Eisenia fetidae) as a work tool; for the management of organic waste according to ^{Ceccon (2008)}; ^{Dávila & Ramírez (1996)}; ^{Rodríguez et al. (2007)} and ^{Schuldt (2006)}.

The decompositions of these products by the earthworm can be used and exploited for agricultural production, as well as the earthworm can be used to feed minor species such as birds, fish, rabbits, etc., in the same way it is used to improve environmental quality, soil fertility and improvement of human health (^{Rodríguez et al., 2007}; ^{Compagnoni & Putzolu, 2018}). Currently, the vermicomposting production process in Mexico is being carried out intensively, due to the benefits it provides to agricultural soils, generating growth opportunities for small producers who increase the production of this fertilizer to satisfy the existing demand of this product according to ^{Xelhuantzi and Salazar (2012)}. One of the main problems that commonly occurs when the production volume begins to increase, is the screening or sifting of the humus, which is a production task carried out when the fertilizer reaches an approximate humidity of 30% that allows to obtain the desired granulometric characteristics for the storage and sale of the product, which allow the easy incorporation of the fertilizer into the soil (^{Dávila & Ramírez, 1996}; ^{Martínez, 1999}; ^{Calderon, 2003}; ^{Schuldt, 2006}; ^{Compagnoni & Putzolu, 2018}). Due to the fact that in the national market there is not yet a vermicompost screening machine that is accessible and adaptable to the needs of small producers, the producer sees the need to increase the workforce for this process as it has to be done manually, by means of fixed screens, which is tiring and unproductive. The main objective of the work is the design of a vermicompost screening machine prototype taking into account the desired characteristics of the humus for storage and sale. Once the board of directors of San Juan Raboso Community, belonging to Izúcar de Matamoros Municipality, State of Puebla, Mexico is consulted, the requests are addressed and the deployment of the quality function (or QFD, for its English acronym) is a product and service design method that collects customer demands and expectations and translates them, in successive steps, into satisfactory technical and operational characteristics according to ^{Budynass & Nisbett (2019)}; ^{Cheng & de Melo Filho (2007)}; ^{De Melo (2007)}; ^{Montesinos et al. (2016)}; ^{Pérez et al. (2007)}.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this project, the technique called Quality Function Deployment or QFD, for its acronym in English, was used, which allowed generating technical engineering specifications to define the design (^{Butters & Brennan, 1998}; ^{Flórez et al., 2010}; ^{Mott, 2011}; ^{Beer et al., 2013}; ^{Budynass & Nisbett, 2019}). Figure 1 shows the QFD diagram developed, later solution concepts were generated for each technical specification, evaluating with morphological matrices each of the possible concepts proposed for the design by ^{Dean et al. (2018)}; ^{Hernández (2013)} (Table 1). The design of the vermicompost screening machine prototype is developed taking into account the winning solution concepts for each technical specification with the characteristics that the conceptual design of the machine must meet (Figure 2) (^{Flórez et al., 2010}; ^{Mendoza, 2013}; ^{International Standard Organitation ISO, 2015}; ^{Rodríguez, M. et al., 2014}). The main design parameters are determined and the driving source and type of transmission are calculated according to ^{Mott (2011)}.

FIGURE 1 QFD diagram of the vermicompost sieve.  

According to the morphological matrix, and taking into account the highest rating for each consideration, it is concluded that the vermicompost screening machine to be designed (Figure 2) will meet the following characteristics:

• Form of screening will be by a rotary system.

• It will work with an electric motor.

• It will have a metal screening mesh.

• Power transmission will be by chain.

• The compost dosing system will be by a conveyor screw.

• The inclination of the drum will be variable from 0°, 5° and 8°.

• Cleaning of the drum will be done using a rotating brush.

• The way to collect the humus will be manual by means of a hopper.

• The form of waste collection will be manual by means of a hopper.

• The structure of the machine will be in one piece, that is, it will not be disassembled.

• For the transport system of the machine there will be four steerable wheels.

Recommendations for Machine Work

The recommendations are derived from the QFD analysis and are as follows:

• The dimensions of the screening machine will be 1 ∙ 3.15 ∙ 1.2 m and its operation will consist of a simple technological process for its operation.

• Placing the machine in the workplace, ensuring that the machine is positioned at an 8 ° angle of inclination that will allow the vermicomposting.

• Fixing the stabilizer supports during the screening process and placing the cleaning brush in the cleaning position.

• Deposit of the vermicompost to be screened in the feed hopper with an approximate capacity of 0.3 m³

• Switch on the machine with a switch to start the screening process.

• Control of the flow of fertilizer introduced to the screening drum, where the screened fertilizer and the solid waste will be separated.

• Continuous feeding of the material to be screened into the inlet hopper.

• Shut down the machine and return to its vacuum position.

• Cleaning of dosing and screening systems.

TABLE 1 Morphological matrices of the vermicompost screening machine 

		Evaluation criteria
Aspect	A	C	F	T	R	S	M	P.S	P	Total	100%
		16.6	16.6	13.3	13.3	13.3	10	10	6.66		100%
Screening form	Vibratory	7	8	7	9	8	8	7	8	62	49.21
	Rotary	7	9	9	9	7	8	7	8	64	50.79
Driving source	Electric motor	8	10	9	8	9	9	6	9	68	56.2
	Gasoline engine	5	8	6	9	7	7	6	5	53	43.8
Mesh material	Metal	6	8	10	9	8	8	8	7	64	50.79
	Plastic	8	8	10	5	9	5	8	9	62	49.21
Power Transmission	Band	7	7	7	7	7	8	8	8	59	33.52
	Chain	8	8	9	8	7	7	9	7	63	35.8
	Gears	5	9	5	9	7	8	5	6	54	30.68
Compost dosing system	manual	8	5	8	6	7	8	8	8	58	32.77
	Trans band,	6	8	5	7	8	8	8	6	56	31.64
	Trans endless,	7	9	7	9	8	8	8	7	63	35.59
Variable drum tilt	Variable	8	9	8	8	8	8	8	8	65	50.39
	Permanent	9	7	8	8	8	8	8	8	64	49.61
Drum cleaning	Manual	8	6	8	7	6	8	8	8	59	48.36
	Rotating brush	6	8	7	8	9	9	8	8	63	51.64
Humus collection	Manual	8	9	8	8	8	9	8	8	66	53.23
	Trans band,	6	9	6	9	7	7	8	6	58	46.77
Waste collection	manual	8	9	8	8	8	9	8	8	66	53.23
	Trans band,	6	9	6	9	7	7	8	6	58	46.77
Structure type	Dismountable	8	8	8	8	8	8	8	8	64	44.44
	Fixed	10	10	10	10	10	10	10	10	80	55.56
Machine transport system	By hitch	8	8	6	9	8	8	8	8	63	32.64
	4 wheels	8	10	9	7	8	8	8	9	67	34.72
	No system	10	0	10	8	8	9	8	10	63	32.64

A: Performance, T: Size, R: Strength, C: Cost, M: Maintenance, S: Safety, PS: Standard Part, P: Weight

Detailed design: During the screening process, the vermicompost to be screened must have, according to ^{Schuldt (2006)}, 30% humidity to keep the microorganisms alive, as well as the small worms and eggs that the compost carries at harvest time.

FIGURE 2 General diagram of the vermicompost screening machine. 

Dosing system: Dosing will be done with the conveyor screw (Figure 3), to dose the material placed in the feed hopper to the sieve drum. The request of the board of directors of San Juan Raboso Community is to dose 2 m³/h, a parameter to be considered in the calculation of the flow rate (Q) for the endless conveyor. The flow rate for a helical worm conveyor is determined according to equation 1 (^{Mendoza, 2013}),

$Q=3600sv\mathrm{k};\frac{\mathrm{t}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{n}}{\mathrm{h}}$ (1)

where:

s:	gutter fill area.
v:	linear displacement speed of the material; v = 2/3 D.
γ:	density of the material to be transported.
k:	material flow decrease coefficient; k = 0.8, with an angle of inclination of 10^o.

The average density of the vermicompost is 0.5 t/m³, therefore, it is obtained that the flow for the conveyor is 1 t/h. For the gutter fill area equation 2is used

$S=\frac{\pi D^2}{4};m^2$ (2)

where:

λ:	filling coefficient of the cross section. It is considered a light non-abrasive load, therefore, λ = 0.4 (^Mendoza, 2013).
D:	diameter of the gutter of the endless conveyor.

The linear displacement speed of the material is determined according to equation 3 (^{Shigley & Mischke, 2011}).

$v=t\frac{n}{60}$ (3)

where:

t:	pitch of the proposed screw
n:	rotation frequency; rpm

The linear displacement speed of the material is determined by considering the pitch and speed of the worm. The pitch is proposed equal to the diameter and a speed of rotation of the screw equal to 40 rpm. Taking into account equation 4, the diameter of the gutter is determined.

$v=\frac{D40}{60}=\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{D}$ (4)

The diameter of the auger gutter is determined by solving, substituting the values and solving for equation 1, leaving D = 0.1491 = 0.15 m.

FIGURE 3 Conveyor auger. 

The proposed endless conveyor is shown in Figure 4.

FIGURE 4 Auger conveyor (auger). 

With the proposed dimensions, the mass of fertilizer that will be transported during the screening process will be approximately 5.2 kg. To calculate the torque generated by the transport of this mass of fertilizer on the spiral, equation 5 is considered.

$Tts=Fd$ (5)

where:

F:	Force necessary to move the mass inside the endless conveyor 51.01 N
d:	Distance from the center to the end of the conveyor spiral of 0.075 m.
Substituting F and d	in equation 4, it is obtained that the generated torque is equal to T ts = 3.83 Nm

The endless conveyor will be placed on the main shaft in the lower part of the input hopper which will be filled with the fertilizer to be screened, consequently the main shaft will support the weight of the conveyor and the fertilizer that is in it. It is considered that the mass of the conveyor auger with the proposed dimensions is 3.5 kg and the mass of the fertilizer on it is 15 kg.

Inlet Hopper

In the feed hopper (Figure 5a), the feeding of approximately 0.3 m³ of material to be screened is guaranteed. The proposed geometry guarantees direct feeding to the worm. The dimensions of the hopper are proposed according to the customer's requirements.

The construction material is made up of a 20 gauge galvanized steel sheet.

Screening Drum

The screening drum performs the function of screening the material. For the drum mesh, a perforated galvanized steel sheet with holes of ø = 0.6 cm was selected to obtain the quality of the desired fertilizer. The dimensions of the drum (Figure 5.b) are proposed according to the dimensions established for the construction of the machine. The drum geometry is of length L = 1.45 m, effective screening length approximately 1.30 m, drum diameter D = 0.7 m, perimeter P = π 0.7 = 2.2 m, sheet thickness e = 1 mm, total area of the mesh (perforated sheet with holes of ø = 0.6 cm with distance between centers of each hole of 0.9 cm, is A _Tmesh = 2.14 m ² . With sheet gauge according to the proposed thickness, a 20 gauge of the mesh is selected for the construction of the screening mesh (Figure 5b) Considering these aspects, the approximate mass of the mesh is 15.9 kg.

Drum Stiffness Rings

The support rings provide greater rigidity to the screening mesh during the operation of the machine, therefore, it is proposed to make the hearth rings of steel with a thickness of the hearth e = 4.8 mm, the width of the hearth A = 25, 4 mm, the length of the hearth L = 2.2 m, mass per ring m = 2.1 kg, mass of the rings m _A = 4.1 kg.

FIGURE 5 a) Fertilizer inlet hopper; b) screening drum. 

Cleaning Brush

The cleaning brush (Figure 6) has the function of preventing the clogging of the holes in the drum. The tangential speed of the crib drum v is determined according to equation 6.

$v=\mathrm{r}$ (6)

where:

ω:	Angular velocity of the drum;
r:	Radius of the sieve drum;

Substituting the kinetic and geometric parameters in equation 5, the result is a tangential velocity equal to 1.47 m/s, which facilitates the calculation of the torsional moment, the result of which is equal to 2.16 Nm.

FIGURE 6 Cleaning brush. 

Cleaning Brush Design

For the design of the cleaning brush, the simplified model of the forces acting on it is considered, through the free body diagram (Figure 7), the reactive forces are determined and the Tresca criterion is used (^{Faires, 1999}; ^{Shigley & Mischke, 2011}; ^{Beer et al., 2013}). From the free body diagram (FBD) of the brush axis, the equations of static equilibrium are used and the reactions at supports A and B are determined, resulting in the magnitudes of the reactions equal to: RAy = RBy = 24 , 29 N; RAx = 6.83 N.

FIGURA 7 Free body diagram (FBD) of the brush axis. 

The maximum bending moment is determined by the method of sections and it is obtained that the $\mathit{M}\mathit{f}\mathit{m}\mathit{a}\mathit{x}=\frac{\mathit{w}{\mathit{L}}^2}{8}\mathit{cos}8~1\mathit{N}\mathit{m}$ .

The diameter of the cleaning brush shaft is determined considering the maximum shear stress failure theory or TRESCA theory (^{Beer et al., 2010}; ^{Shigley & Mischke , 2011}), according to equation 7.

$Dbrushaxis={⌊32\frac{n}{\pi Sy}{\left(M^2+T^2\right)}^{1/2}⌋}^{!/3}$ (7)

where:

n:	safety factor for brush shaft design of 2
Sy:	effort to yield; Sy = 220 ∙ 106 Pa
M:	maximum bending moment; Mmax = 19.43 Nm
T:	torsional moment on the shaft; T = 2.16 Nm

Substituting in equation 6, the diameter of the drum is equal to 0.01 m, the diameter is selected equal to 15 mm.

Shear forces and bending moments are graphed (Figure 8).

Principal Axis

The main axis is the element in charge of transmitting the rotary movement to the dosing system and the screening system of the machine. According to ^{Faires (1999)}; ^{Shigley & Mischke (2011)} the total torsional moment is equal to T totat = 160.1 Nm and a rotation frequency equal to 1200 rpm, with a 10: 1 reducer that will allow obtaining 120 rpm of output. The maximum diameter of the shaft will be 26 mm which is standardized and it is proposed to be 31.8 mm (1¼ in).

FIGURE 8 Shear and bending moment diagram of the brush shaft. 

Selection of Sprockets and Transmission Chain

The sprockets and the chain make up the power transmission system from the motor to the main shaft, so they must be selected according to the working conditions in which this machine will operate. The reduction of sprockets is given by equation 8.

$r=\frac{n1}{n2}=\mathrm{}\frac{z1}{z2}$ (8)

where:

n 1 :	gear motor rotation frequency equal to 120 rpm.
N 2 :	proposed machine rotation frequency equal to 40 rpm.
Z 1 :	number of teeth of the conducted sprocket.
Z 2 :	proposed number of teeth of the motor sprocket equal to 17.

Substituting the parameters in equation 9, the transmission ratio will be 3, with the sprocket driven 51 teeth. Therefore, according to ^{Faires (1999)} a sprocket number 35 is chosen, with 52 teeth.

A number 35 chain is selected, with a circular pitch equal to 9.52 mm, single strand with type A manual or drip lubrication, according to ANSI Standard (^{Budynass & Nisbett, 2019})

The approximate mass of the vermicompost screening machine is 370 kg.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Taking into account the established methodology, the best design variant was defined and the main design parameters were calculated, obtaining a machine prototype (Figure 2), with a 2 "x 2" 14 gauge PTR base, which will allow the placement of the systems and elements of the screening machine, with dimensions of 13.15 x 1.2 m; transport system with 4 steerable wheels; lifting system that will allow the machine to be positioned at an 8° angle of inclination for the screening position, consisting of a lifting screw and two 2 ”x 2” 14 gauge PTR fixing brackets. Fertilizer dosing system is made up of a 20 gauge steel sheet inlet hopper where approximately 0.3 m³ of fertilizer will be placed and an endless conveyor with dimensions that allow dosing 2 m³/h of fertilizer to the screening system, at 4, 2 rad/s; screening system consisting of 20 gauge perforated steel sheet screening drum with 0.6 mm holes with 0.9 mm distance among centers, with 75 cm diameter and 145 cm length, thick hearth rings 3/16” by 1” wide and 75 cm in diameter that will provide greater rigidity to the screening drum. The 145 cm long polypropylene steel bar support arms, which will have arms that allow it to be placed in the working position, to avoid clogging of the drum holes during the screening process. The collection system is made of a compost collection hopper and a waste collection hopper, both made of 20 gauge steel sheet with dimensions proposed according to the base of the machine; transmission system where there is a 1 hp motor, with a 5/8 ”cylindrical 10: 1 reducer that fixes the screen drum with the main shaft and the cleaning brush with bristles and a chain system with sprockets that will provide the transmission of motion at a constant angular velocity.

CONCLUSIONS

After carrying out the design of the machine prototype, it is concluded that it is easy to use, maintain and perform the screening, humanizing the work. The motor to be used is 1 hp and a gear motor that reduces the rotation frequency to 120 rpm.

REFERENCES

BEER, F.P.; JOHNSTON, E.; RUSSELL, J.: Mechanics of Materials, Ed. McGraw-Hill, USA, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-07-128422-6.

BEER, F.P.; RUSSELL, J.E.Jr.; DEWOLF, J.T.; MAZUREK, D.: Mecánica de Materiales, Ed. Mc Graw Hill, sexta ed., México, DF, 817 p., 2013, ISBN: 978-607-15-0934-5.

BUDYNASS, R.G.; NISBETT, K.: Diseño en Ingeniería Mecánica de Shigley, Ed. Mc Graw Hill Education, novena ed., Edo. de México, México, 1059 p., 2019, ISBN: ISBN 978-607-15-0771-6.

BUTTERS, J.R.; BRENNAN, J.: Las operaciones de la ingeniería de los alimentos, Ed. Acribia, Mexico, 714 p., 1998.

CALDERON, F.E.: “Impacto de la lombricultura en Mazapiltepec”, En: VI Congreso internacional de ciencias Ambientales, México, pp. 767-768, 2003.

CECCON, E.: “La revolución verde: tragedia en dos actos”, Ciencias, 91(091), 2008, ISSN: 0187-6376.

CHENG, L.Ch.; DE MELO FILHO, L. del R.: QFD: desdobramento da função qualidade na gestão de desenvolvimento de produtos, Ed. Editora Blucher, 2007, ISBN: 85-212-1691-2.

COMPAGNONI, L.; PUTZOLU, G.: Cría moderna de las lombrices y utilización rentable del humus, Ed. Parkstone International, 2018, ISBN: 1-68325-590-9.

DÁVILA, M.T.; RAMÍREZ, C.A.: “Lombricultura en pulpa de café”, Avances Técnicos Cenicafé, 225(1), 1996.

DE MELO, L.F.: “QFD na garantia da qualidade do produto durante seu desenvolvimento: caso em uma empresa de materiais”, Production, 17(3): 604-624, 2007, ISSN: 0103-6513.

DEAN, R.A.; MAGLIONE, L.S.; CAPPELLARI, F.O.: “Análisis de función y matriz morfológica aplicado al diseño de un implemento agrícola”, Aporte Santiaguino, : ág-11, 2018, ISSN: 2616-9541.

FAIRES, V.M.: Diseño de elementos de máquinas, Ed. Limusa Noriega, México, DF, 1999, ISBN: 978-607-05-0436-5.

FLÓREZ, D.A.; RAMÍREZ, W.A.; VARELA, L.B.: “Diseño conceptual de una máquina peletizadora de alimentos para aves de corral”, Medellín-Ingeniería Mecánica-Facultad de Minas-Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 2010.

HERNÁNDEZ, P.D.: “Caracterización morfológica de recursos fitogenéticos”, CONACYT, 2013, ISSN: 2007-3380.

MARTÍNEZ, C.C.: Potencial de la lombricultura, elementos básicos para su desarrollo, Inst. Lombricultura técnica Mexicana, México, DF, 140 p., 1999.

MENDOZA, R.O.: Diseño de máquina cribadora de vermicomposta, Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, Departamento de Ingeniería Mecánica Agrícola, Tesis Profesional, Chapingo, Texcoco, Estado de México, México, 16-57 p., 2013.

MONTESINOS, S.; ECHEVERRÍA, Y.; ALVARADO, A.; MANZANO, M.: “Aplicación del QFD y AHP en el diseño de una montura mecánica para manipular una lente sintonizable sólida elástica por compresión”, Revista de Ingeniarla Industrial, : 22-29, 2016.

MOTT, R.: Machine Elements in Mechanical Design, Ed. Prentice Hall, cuarta ed., USA, 2011.

NTERNATIONAL STANDARD ORGANITATION ISO: General principies and perspectives of QFD., 2015, ISO, 2015.

PÉREZ, Y.; RÍOS, R.; SÁNCHEZ, C.; VERGARA, I.; NOY, M.: “"QFD VS AHP: Comparación de los resultados en la obtención de los requisitos de calidad”, Ingeniería Industrial, 28: 62-65, 2007, ISSN: 0258-5960, e-ISSN: 1025-9929.

RODRÍGUEZ, D.N.; CANO-RÍOS, P.; FAVELA-CHÁVEZ, E.; FIGUEROA-VIRAMONTES, U.; DE PAUL-ÁLVAREZ, V.; PALOMO-GIL, A.; MÁRQUEZ-HERNÁNDEZ, C.; MORENO-RESÉNDEZ, A.: “Vermicomposta como alternativa orgánica en la producción de tomate en invernadero”, Revista Chapingo Serie Horticultura, 13(2): 185-192, 2007, ISSN: 1027-152X.

RODRÍGUEZ, M.; CHAGOLLA, H.; LÓPEZ, M.: “Diseño Conceptual de Sistema para la Automatización del Invernadero uno de la Universidad Tecnológica del Suroeste de Guanajuato”, En: Ciencias de la Ingeniería y Tecnología Handbook T-IV: Congreso Interdisciplinario de Cuerpos Académicos, Ed. Citeseer, pp. 299-318, 2014, ISBN: 607-8324-27-6.

SCHULDT, M.: Lombricultura. Teoría y práctica, Ed. Mundi-Prensa Libros, 2006, ISBN: 84-8476-296-3.

SHIGLEY, J.E.; MISCHKE, C.R.: Mechanical Engineering Design, Ed. McGraw-Hill, Décima edición ed., México, DF, 2011, ISBN: 0-07-107783-9.

XELHUANTZI; SALAZAR, G.G.: Manual para la elaboración de abonos orgánicos, Ed. SAGARPA, Folleto No. 2 ed., México D.F., 48 p., 2012.

Received: February 10, 2021; Accepted: November 12, 2021

^*Author for correspondence: María Victoria Gómez-Águila, e-mail: [e-mail]

María Victoria Gómez-Aguila, Profesora, Investigadora, Centro de Investigaciones Interdisciplinarias y de Servicio en Ciencia, Naturaleza, Sociedad y Cultura. Departamento de Ingeniería Mecánica Agrícola. Universidad Autónoma Chapingo. CP 56200. Texcoco de Mora. Estado de México, México. [e-mail],

Luis Tonatiuh-Castellanos, Profesor, Investigador, Centro de Investigaciones Interdisciplinarias y de Servicio en Ciencia, Naturaleza, Sociedad y Cultura. Departamento de Ingeniería Mecánica Agrícola. Universidad Autónoma Chapingo. CP 56200. Texcoco de Mora. Estado de México, México. [e-mail],

Luis Arturo Soriano-Avendaño, Profesor, Investigador, Centro de Investigaciones Interdisciplinarias y de Servicio en Ciencia, Naturaleza, Sociedad y Cultura. Departamento de Ingeniería Mecánica Agrícola. Universidad Autónoma Chapingo. CP 56200. Texcoco de Mora. Estado de México, México. [e-mail],

José Alfredo Castellanos-Suárez, Profesor, Investigador, Centro de Investigaciones Interdisciplinarias y de Servicio en Ciencia, Naturaleza, Sociedad y Cultura. Departamento de Ingeniería Mecánica Agrícola. Universidad Autónoma Chapingo. CP 56200. Texcoco de Mora. Estado de México, México. [e-mail]

Josué Vicente Cervantes-Bazán, MC., Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, Centro de Investigaciones Interdisciplinarias y de Servicio en Ciencia, Naturaleza, Sociedad y Cultura, Texcoco de Mora, Estado de México, México.

Marcelino Pérez-Vivar, Profesor, Investigador, Centro de Investigaciones Interdisciplinarias y de Servicio en Ciencia, Naturaleza, Sociedad y Cultura. Departamento de Fitotecnia. Universidad Autónoma Chapingo. CP 56200. Texcoco de Mora. Estado de México, México. [e-mail],

Ramiro Chávez-Mota, Profesor, Investigador, Centro de Investigaciones Interdisciplinarias y de Servicio en Ciencia, Naturaleza, Sociedad y Cultura. Departamento de Suelos. Universidad Autónoma Chapingo. CP 56200. Texcoco de Mora. Estado de México, México. [e-mail],

The authors of this work declare no conflict of interests.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS: Conceptualization: M. V. Gómez. Data curation: M. V. Gómez, L. T. Castellanos. Formal analysis: M. V. Gómez, L. T. Castellanos, L. A. Soriano, J. A. Castellanos, J. V. Cervante, M. A. Pérez, R. Chávez-Mota. Investigation: M. V. Gómez, L. T. Castellanos, L. A. Soriano, J. A. Castellanos. Methodology: M. V. Gómez, L. T. Castellanos. Supervision: M. V. Gómez. Roles/Writing, original draft: M. V. Gómez, L. T. Castellanos, L. A. Soriano, J. A. Castellanos. Writing, review & editing: L. T. Castellanos, L. A. Soriano, J. A. Castellanos, J. V. Cervante, M. A. Pérez, R Chávez-Mota.