The Impact of Input Material on Compost Quality Using Aerated Static Piles in Rural Areas (Case Study: Sooleghan Village)

Subject Areas : waste

Ghasemali  Omrani ¹ (Professor of Environmental Engineering, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.)
Mohammad Ali  Abdoli ² (Professor of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Environment, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.)
Mahyar  Safa ³ (PhD of Environmental Engineering (Solid Waste Branch), Faculty of Environment, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran (Corresponding Author).)

Received: 2017-02-07 Accepted : 2017-05-22 Published : 2019-09-23

Keywords: PH, Net Present Value, compost, aerated static piles, carbon to nitrogen ratio,

Abstract :

Background and objective:In this study the process of producing bio-compost from rural separated solid wastes using aerated static piles method was investigated. The combination of waste ingredients, conditions and duration of processing, analysis of key parameters governing the process, the quality of the final product as well as economic assessment of costs and revenues were the most important parameters that were considered. Materials and Methods: After the separation of rural wastes, two compost piles, one containing 100 percent of putrescible wastes and another one containing 75% putrescible wastes and 25% of cow dung were created. To better estimating the variables related to process maturity and identifying the errors, three replications were applied. Four main variables including: moisture, pH, temperature and carbon to nitrogen ratio were measured for each of the piles. Comprehensive statistical analysis including the comparison of the variables, correlation between variables and analysis of one-way variance was performed for the measured parameters. Findings: Total Coliform reduction in both kinds of waste compositions observed in approximately about 3log. Reduction of parasite eggs in piles containing 100% organic wastes was about 75.8% and in piles containing 75% organic wastes & 25% cow dung obtained about 95%. Heavy metals such as lead, cadmium and nickel, were not found in the piles. For finished compost the average of C/N and pH were recorded 12.35 & 8.05 respectively. Discussion and Conclusion:Comparing the final product by Iranian, American and Canadian standards showed that static method stabilized solid wastes in both kinds of piles and eventually was led to the production of good compost. The economic evaluation showed that the internal rate of return (IRR) for producing compost, using aerated static piles method, is equal to 12.4%.

References:

      1.Omrani, Gh, Ghafghazi, L., 2012. The principle of bicompost production in small communities. Tehran university press, chapter 2 & 7. (In persian)

      2.Iranian Municipalities and Rural Municipalities Organization, 2010. Comprehensive studies of rural wastes. (In persian)

      3.Abdoli, M.A., Roshani, M.R., 2007. Vermicompost: design, build and implementation. Tehran university press. (In persian)

      4.Tchobanoglous, G, Theisen, H, Vigil, S., 1993. Integrated Solid Waste Management: Engineering Principles and Management Issues. McGraw-Hill, Inc.

      5.Brinton, William, F., 2000. Compost Quality Standards & Guidelines. Woods End Research Laboratory, Inc, Prepared for: New York State Association of Recyclers.

      6.Bertoldi, M., Sequi, P., Lemmes, B., Papi, T., 1996. The Science of Composting. Chapman & Hall, Vol.1 & 2.

      7.Brown, M.B., Gage, J., 2015. Lessons Learned in Aerated Static Pile (ASP) Composting. Compost Design Services, Olympia, WA, USA.

      8.Dehghani, R., Charkhloo, E., Mostafaii, Gh., Asadi, Ma., Mousavi, G., Saffari, M., Pourbabaei, M., 2012. A study on the variations of temperature, moisture, pH and carbon to nitrogen ratio in producing compost by stack method. Journal of Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Vol. 15, No 4.

      9.PN 1340, 2005. Guidelines for Compost Quality. CCME: Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.

   10.Haug, R.T., 1996. Composting Plant Design and Process Management. Chapman & Hall, USA.

   11.Ministry of the Environment- Ontario, 2004. Interim Guidelines for the Production and Use of Aerobic Compost in Ontario.

   12.Alberta Environment & Olds College, 1999. Midscale Composting Manual. First Edition.

   13.Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 2012. Ontario Compost Quality Standards. Waste Management Policy Branch.

   14.Pichtel, J., 2005. Waste Management Practices; Municipal, Hazardous and Industrial. Taylor & Francis Group, CRC press.

   15.Woods End Laboratories, 2016. Principals and Practice: Compost Sampling for Lab Analysis. Inc, USA.

   16.Joint Project of the United States Department of Agriculture and The United States Composting Council, 2001. Test Methods for the Examination of Composting and Compost.