Part 23 - cd3wd423.zip - Offline - The CoComposting of Domestic Solid and Human Wastes

Part 23 - cd3wd423.zip - Offline - The CoComposting of Domestic Solid and Human Wastes

WIICFIOFICHE

REFERENCE

LIBRARY

A project of Volunteers in Asia ay: Letitia A. Obeng and Frederick W. .Wright

WB TP#7/UNDP PMR##7

&F

Published by: IBRD

1818 H Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20433

Available from: Publications Sales Unit

The World Bank

1818 H Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20433

Reproduced with permission.

Reproduction of this microfiche document in any form is subject to the same restrictions as those of the original document.

Integrated Resource Recovery

UNDP Project Management Report

&lumber 7

INTEGRATBD RESCURCE RECDVBR’I SERIES

CLG/80/004, CLO/80/007

NUMBER 7

This is the seventh in a series of reports being prep&red by the

Resource Recovery Project as part of a global effort to realize the goal of the United Nations International Drinking

Water

Supply and

Sanitation Decade, which is to eF;end domestic and community water supply and sanitation services throughout the developing world during 1981 to 1990. The project objective is to encourage resource recovery a3 a means of off setting some of the costs of community sanitation.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Other volumes published to date include:

Recycling

Annotated et al. from !4unicipal

Bibliography

Refuse:

(Technical

A State-of-th? Art Review and

Paper No. 30) by S. Cointreau

Remanufacturing:

Implications

R. T. Lund. for

The Experience of the United States and

Developing Countries (Technical Paper

No.

31) by

Aquaculture:

A Component of Low Cost Sanitation

TTechnical Paper No. 36) by P. Edwards.

Technology

Municipal

Waste

Processing in

Europe:

A

Status Report on Selected

Materials and Energy Recovery Projects (Technical

Note

No. 37) by

J. C. Abert.

Anaerobic Digestion:

TTechnical Paper No.

Principles and Practices for Biogas Systems

49) by C. G. Gunnerson and 0, C. Stuckey et al.

Wastewater Irrigation in Developing Countries: Health Effects and

Technical Solutions (Technical Paper No, 51) by ii. Shuval et al.

Photographs (from top to bottom, left to right): Workers show how compost can be used to improve the quality of soil for agricultural purposes. A range of different waste materials can be efficiently composted if the right mix of carbon and nitrogen is provided in the materials. Here garbage is placed on a conveyer belt for sorting out noncompostible matter , and sludge from a septic tank is mixed with paper wastes and wood chips for co-compostfng.

Aeration of composting materials can be carried out in a variety of ways.

These include by hand-turning, provided proper protective clothing is worn; by using wlndrow machines or tractors to turn windrows of composting materials, here made up of garbage and sludge; and by forced aeration in which air is blown or drawn through a static pile by a small horsepower motor.

The large amount of heat generated destroys disease-causing organisms.

WORLD BANK TECHNICAL PAPER NUMBER !57

The Co-compoding of Domestic Solid and Human Wates

Letitia A. Obeng and Frederick W. Wright

The World Bank

Washington, B.C.

The I&mational Bank for Reconstruction

1818

H

Street, N.W.

Washiqton D.C. 20433, USA.

Ail rights reserved

Man&ctured in the United States of America

First printing March 1987

Technical Papers are not formal publications of the World Bank, and are circulated to encmrage discussion and comment and to communicate the results of the Rank’s work quickly to the development community; citation and the use of these papers should take account of their provisional character. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the author(s) and should not be attributed in any manner to the World Rank, to ik affiiiated organizations, or to members of ik Board of Executive Directors or the countries they represent. Any maps that accompany the text have been prepared solely for the convenience of readers; the designations and presentation of material in them do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the World Rank, its affiliates, or its Board or member countries concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city, or area or of the authorities thereof or concerning the delimitation of its boundaries or ik national affiliation.

&cause of the informality and to present the results of research with the least possible delay, the typescript has not been prepared in accordance with the procedures appropriate to formal printed texts, and the World Rank accepts no responsibility for errors. The publication is supplied at a token charge to defray part of the cost of manufacture and distribution.

The most recent World Bank publications are described in the catalog Nnu

IWicutim, a new edition of which is issued in the spring and fall of each year. The complete bacldist of publications is shown in the annual In&x of Rcblicdms, which contains an alphakztical title list and indexes of subjeck, authors, and countries and regions; it is of value principally to libraries and institutional purchasers. The continuing shrdia, which is issued annually. The latest edition of each of these is available free of charge from the Publications Sales Unit, Department F, The World Rank, 1818 H Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A., or from Publications, The World Bark 66, avenue d%na, 75 116 Paris, France.

Letitia A. Obeng is an economist and Frederick W. Wright a project officer in the

Applied Technology Unit of the Water and Urban Development Department at the

World Bank

Library of congnsS Chtaloging-in-Publiation

Data

Obeng,

Letitia A., 1954-

Co-compoeting of domestic solid and human wastes.

(World

Bank technical paper, ISSN 0253-7494 ; no. 57)

Bibliography : p.

1.

Compost.

2. Recycling (Waste, etc.)--Developing countries. I. Wright, Frederick W.,

1955-

.

II. Title. III. Series.

! TD796.5.024 1987

ISBN O-8213-0894-7

628.4’458

87-6091 t .-.

.,

-,. -

-V-

ABSTRACT

This report is part of a joint global research, development, and demonstration effort of the United Nations Development Progransne and the world

Bank.

It reviews current literature and practices on the co-cornposting of human waste (fresh nightsoil or sewage sludge) together with the organic fraction of domestic solid waste (as well as with other wastes].

The report describes the composting process, reviews various co- composting systems, and discusses health aspects such as pathogen destruc- tion. The uses of compost as a soil conditioner, mulch, fertilizer or for land reclamation are also described.

The report also develops several cost/benefit models for economic analysis of co-composting operations and outlines the economics of the process as a whole. The focus of the analytical methodology is on developing coun- tries.

The computer models are written for use on widely available micro- computers and are designed so that they can be adapted to site-specific economic conditions. A copy of the computer models is available on request. discussed.

Key issues for consideration

Decision makers reference on co-composting and planners in when addressing planning will find waste for this composting report management a valuable and are also resource recovery issues in the developing countries.

--

- vii -

This is the seventh of a series of generic reports produced by the joint UNDP/World Bank Global Research and Development Project on Integrated

Resource Recovery CGL0/84/007, GLO/80/004). The primary project goal is to achieve economic and social benefits through sustainable resource recovery activities in the developing countries by recycling liquid wastes from municipal and comrcial sources and reusing within the solid context and of appropriate waste management.

Increasing recognition ciency in allocating and utilizing of the need for technical and economic effi- resources and the role that appropriate resource recovery can play in the water and sanitation sector have led this project

International to be included in the formal activities

Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation of

Decade. the United Nations

Urban areas are finding it increasingly of human wastes and domestic solid wastes. difficult to safely dispose

It is also becoming increasingly important worldwide to improve the nutrient and physical qualities of agricul- tural soils. This is especially true in the food production areas surrounding growing urban centers in developing countries.

This report presents a review and analysis framework of co-composting, which is a process that can convert more than one waste, such as human and domestic solid wastes, into a useful resource l

The report describes composting and examines ways of co-composting of human waste (fresh nightsoil or sewage sludge) together with the organic fraction of domestic solid waste. It discusses the procedures entailed, the health aspects, and the uses of compost based on a literature review.

Furthermore, an economic analysis methodology is developed using computer models that perform cost-benefit calculations of co-composting operations.

These models are suitable for analysis of specific co-composting investmen when modified to reflect local conditions.

Copies of the

Et template are available on request.

The authors would like to thank J. Pickford, G. Willson, C. Golueke,

L. Diaz, 0. Mara, !4. Thalmann, and S. Cointreau and World Bank staff members

M. Cohen, G. Tschannerl, D. de Ferranti, C. Bartone, S. Arlosoroff, H. Garn,

We Walters, A. Elwan, and R. Overby, who have reviewed this report and whose assistance has been invaluable to its production. They would also like to thank all others who have assisted in the preparation of this report.

Your comments on this report would be welcome, and we would be grateful to receive any case study information the resource recovery series could benefit. from which future editions of

Please send your comments to

WUDAT, The Uorld Bank, 1818 R Street, N.WI, Washington, D.C. 20433, USA.

S. Arlosoroff

Chief, Applied Research and Technology Unit

UNDP Projects Manager

Water and Urban Development Department

A/ Registered Trademark of LOTUS Corporation.

_

Integrated Resource Recovery

The Co-cornposting of Domestic Solid and Human Wates

-

Letitia A. Obeng and Frederick W. Wtight

- ix - tist of Tables and Figures

. . . . . . ..*..................*.....*.......

Chapter

1 Iatroduction

. . . ..e....*..........................*......

Aim ......................................................... biight Soil ..................................................

Sewage

Sludge ...............................................

Solid Waste .................................................

Co-Composting of Garbage with liuman Waste ...................

Qmpter 2 The Comporting Procerr l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*................

Rate-Related Factors ........................................

Xoirrture Content .........................................

Tmperature

..............................................

Tim .....................................................

Particle Site ............................................

WEi- SUPPlY ............................................

Nutrient8

................................................ pH Control

...............................................

Odor

.....................................................

Other Factors ...............................................

Quptcr 3 Comportirmg Sy8tcrl

. . . . . . ..*.............................

Reactor Systmm ............................................. lIonreactor Systems ..........................................

Choice of System ............................................

Sewage Sludge and Night Soil

Co-Composted with Refuse

.......

Background ...............................................

Proccm ..................................................

Siting and Mixing .........................................

Planning .................................................

Qhepter 4 Cmttol of Bxcreted and

Other

Pathogen8 ,............+...

Bacteria ....................................................

Virurrell

.....................................................

Protozoa ....................................................

Helminths ...................................................

Veterinary Pathogens ........................................

Secondary Pathogen8 .........................................

Plant Pathogens .............................................

4

6

6

8

0

8

10

10

10

11

12

13

13

13

14

17

17

17

22

22

25

27

29

29

30

30

32

34

%i

1

1

1

1

2

2

-x- chapter

5 u8e8 Of -8t

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*.....*........e...*....

Quality of Cumpost ..........................................

Application of Compost to Land ..............................

Other Uses of Compost .......................................

Chapter 6 lkthodology for Rvaltmting the lltconmic Fearibility of Co-cmpo8tily .a.......*.......................,...

47

Qupter

Composition of Waste and Value of Resources Recovered .......

47

Scale and Technology of Co-Composting Plant .................

52

Capital and Operating Gouts .................................

54

Land Value and Lendfill Requirements Corta ..................

Other Factors Affecting Financial Caste and Revenues ........

From Financial co8t6/hm.LueS

56 to Economic Coats/Benefits

.....

60

Result8 from Hypothetical Model Calculationa

................

57

65

7 mry ..*.........,..............,.................*...

71

Waste Material

..............................................

Market ...................................................... compost Plant ...............................................

Pilot Scale Composting ......................................

Benefits and Justification

..................................

72

72

72

72

73

Annex A:

Other Methods of Co-comporting with Sewage Sludge . . . . . . . . 75 and Night Soil

Sewage Sludge and Night Soil Composted with Bark . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Sewage Sludge and Night Soil Comported with Straw . . . . . ...*..

75

Sewage Sludge and Night Soil Composted with Wood Chipa . . . . . . 75

Sewage Sludge and Night Soil Comported with Other

Naterials..

Sewage Sludge and Night Soil Comported without the Addition of Bulking Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..a.................

79

82

Annex B: Pathogen Survival

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*................*....

05

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..C....................~................

91

36

36

37

39

- xi -

LIS!coFTABLgsAllDipIGIJRm

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4,

Table 5.

Table 6.

Table 7.

Table 8.

Table 9.

Table 10.

Table 11.

Table 12.

Table 13.

Table 14.

Table 15.

Table 16.

Table 17.

Table 18.

Table 19.

Table 20.

Table 21.

Table 22.

Table 23.

Table 24.

Table 25.

Table 26.

Table 27.

Table 28.

Table 29.

Table 30.

Table 31.

Table 32.

Table 33.

Refuse Content from Various Nunicipalities ..............

Hicrofloral Population during Aerobic Composting ........

3

4

Maximum, Optimum, and Ninimum Temperature Ranges for Nesophils and Thermophila

.........................

Feedback Loops in the Composting Ecosystem

..............

Approximate Nitrogen Content and C/N Ratios for Some Compostable Materials

........................

Methods of Odor Control

Using Compost Filters

...........

Sunxnary of Different Nonreactor Composting Systems ......

6

7

11

12

14

Comparison of Reactor and Nonreactor Systems ............

Composting of Sewage Sludge with Refuse .................

16

18

Comparative Costs for Various Sludge Disposal Processes., 23

Factors To Consider in Planning a

Compost Plant

.........

Survival Times of Rxcreted Pathogens in Feces,

Night Soil, and Sludge at 20030°C .....................

Survival Times of Excreted Pathogens On Crops

24

25 at 20030°C ............................................

Bacterial Pathogens Excreted in Feces ...................

26

27

Viral Pathogens Excreted in

Feces

.......................

Protozoa1 Pathogens Excreted in Feces ................... fX

Relminthic Pathogens Excreted in Feces ...................

31

Animal Pathogens Capable of Causing Infections in Naz ...

32

Concentrations of Thermophilic Actinomycetes

Different Naterials ...................................

Plant Pathogens in

Compost

.............................. in

33

3s

Differences between Rature and Raw Compost ..............

Netal Concentrations in Compost and Human Waste .........

37

38

Physical Effects of the Addition of Compost to Clay or Sandy Soils ........................................

Criteria for the Specific Applications of Compost .......

Compost Application Rates:

Uses and Application Rates of Sewage

Sludge Compost to Achieve Fertilizer

Benefits and Improve Soil .............................

Application Rates for Sewage Sludge Compost in the

First

39

40

41

Year of Use Based on N or P Fertilizer Recommendations 44

Domestic Solid Waste Composition ........................

Resource Recovery Coefficients ..........................

Recovered Material Values ...............................

40

49

49

Recovered Materials,

Revenue/Ton of Domestic Solid Waste

SO

Material Balance Per

1 Ton Domestic Solid Waste .........

Description of Base Case

Models

.........................

52

53

Estimated Capital Costs (Base Case) •o~~.~~gg~~~-~~~~C~~~ 54

- xii -

Table

34.

Table 35.

Table

36.

Table 37,

Table 38.

Table 39.

Table 40.

Table 41.

Table 42.

Table 43.

Table 44.

Table 45.

Table 46.

Estimated Staffing Requirements (base case) .............

Miscellaneous Base Case Operating Requirements

(units/year)

..........................................

Financial Input Prices (base case) ......................

Operating Cost Bstimata (base case) .....................

Compost Markets and Prices (base case) ..................

55

55

55

56

59

Economic Input Prices (bare case) .......................

62

Baergy Used to Process Virgin and Recycled Materials .... 63

Recycled Material Valuation - Energy Based ..............

63

1984 Fertilieer Prices ..................................

Base Case Results .. Financial ..........................

64

67

Base

Case Results -- Bconomic

...........................

67

Alternative Technologies

-- Results (Economic Values) ... 68

Sensitivity Tests -- Multiple

Change .................... 69

Table A-l. Composting of Sludge and Night Soil with Bark . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Table

A-2.

Composting

of

Sludge and Night Soil with Straw . . . . . . . . . .

77

Table

A-3.

Description of the Beltsville Aerated Static Pile and Windrow Composting . . . . . . . . . ..*.......+............

Table A-4. Rethods of Composting Sewage Sludge with Other

78

Bulking Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*....................*.

Table A-5. Methods of Composting Sewage Sludge and Night Soil Alone.

:x

Table B-l. Survival of Bacterial Pathogens during Composting .......

Table B-2. Survival of Viral Pathogens during Composting ...........

Table B-3.

Survival of

Protosoal Pathogens during Composting .......

Table B-4. Survival of Lielminthic Pathogens during Composting ......

85

88

89

90

FICURRS

Figure 1. Typical time/temperature relationships using mode valuea of readings taken at 14 monitoring points within each of 12 static piles . ..*...............*....

Figure 4. Survival of pathogens at different temperature/time regimes ..*...................................,.....*..

S

Figure 2.

A typical time/temperature relationship for composting sewage sludge by the aerated pile method . . .

9

Figure 3. Elements of aerated pile composting system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

20

The recycling of human waste has been an accepted practice throughout the which world for many years.

One method of reusing human waste is composting, means converting it into

a

material that is safe to use, usually on land.

AIM

The purpose of this report is to describe methods of co-composting

I r-k-,& with human waste in various places (using selected literature) and some of the health aspects, uses, and the economics of composting.

The report also suggests ways in which planners and operators in developing countries can co-compost these two wastes (garbage and human) to best suit their needs and requirements.

NIGHT SOIL toilet

Human waste may be deposited into buckets, pits, vaults, or flush basins.

When it is deposited into buckets, pits, or vaults, it is referred to as night soil. If the night soil is deposited into buckets

or

vaults, it has to be removed and tr;ated away from the site of collection. If the night soil is deposited into pits or vaults, they become full. emptying of these pits is often these have to be emptied hazardous because full when pits contain fresh excrete.

If twin or double pits are in use, the night soil in one pit is usually stored for at Least one year (preferably two) before the pit is emptied.

During this time, most of the disease-causing organisms are destroyed.

However, hardy pathogens such as Ascaris eggs may survive.

The night

soil that is removed from the pits (either fresh

or

stored)

can

be reused in agriculture,

as

it contains many nutrients.

It can be mixed with

other

materials in

a

biogas plant or it can be used as a raw material in

a

compost plant.

During the composting process, most disease-causing organisms that may be present in the night soil will be destroyed. The resulting compost is a humus-Like material properties

as

it contains many nutrients with good soil-conditioning and minerals essential for pLant growth.

Waste that is flushed away into

sewers

is transported to sewage- treatment plants.

The solid waste matter produced by this treatment is known

as

sludge. This material can be further treated by anaerobic digestion to produce digested sludge.

Many countries in Europe and in North America either use sewage sludge directly uses. on the land or convert it into compost, which is put to many

The use of sewage sludge compost on land is restricted in some indus- trialized areas because it contains relatively high concentrations of heavy metals.

Sewage sludge and night soil are similar in their moisture and nutrient content.

The advantage of night soil over contain heavy metals, but there has been little sludge is that experience in it does not night soil composting.

Nevertheless, provide some information the experience that may be of with sewage sludge composting can use in night soil composting. This review focuses primarily there on co-composting of garbage and human wastes, but

are

also other ways of co-composting with sludge and night soil (see annex A).

Any of these systems could be a useful guide to plant planners wishing to find a suitable method of composting human waste.

SOLID WASTE

In this report garbage refers to the organic material present in refuse or solid waste.

Refuse also contains metals, glass, plastics, and other such materials.

In most industrialized countries, cloths, solid waste consists the waste primarily of non-compostable can be composted. matter that has to be sorted out before

Very of ten the main costs of refuse composting plants arise from these sorting activities. In many developing countries the sorting is done by sea-:engers before the refuse reaches the treatment plant.

Diat and Colueke (1985) discuss scavenging in relation solid waste management, including the social, political,

In some countries to other aspects and economic of ones. the waste is mainly organic and does not need to be sorted, but in others sorting information is required (see table 1). There is a wealth of on the sorting of refuse, but that subject is beyond the scope of this report.

CO-COMPOSTING OF GARBAGE WITH HUMAN WASTE materials

The term co-composting together. means

Many exampl e 8 of the composting different of materials two or being more raw composted together are available. Some are cited in Annex A. In the case of human waste and garbage advantageous because

(the organic part the two waste of refuse), materials this kind of composting is complement each other well.

The human waste is high in nitrogen content and moisture and the garbage is high in organic (carbon) content and has good bulking quality.

Furthermore, both these waste materials can be converted into a useful product.

-3-

Constituents

Table 1. Refuse Content from Various Municipalities

(weight percent)

Iraq

Algiers,

Algeria

Hong

Kong

Abu Aleran-

Dhabi, Accra, dria,

UAE

Ghana Egypt

Sao

Cairo, PaoLo,

Egypt Brazil

Vegetables

Textiles

Paper/carton

Straw

Timber

Leather/rubber

Horn/bones

Plastics

Metals

Crockery

Glass

Organic fines

Total

Moisture of crude refuse

Compostable portion

S8.5

87.7

68.6

3.8

10.2

1.0

1.1

1.8

1.2

2.1

2.3

5.5

2.4

-

100

72.0

1:::

0.1

1.0

1.2

0.2

2.5

8:;

1.2

-

100

60.0

90.0

46.2

9.0

25.7

2.;

0.3

0.3

8.1

1.9

0.4

5.6

100

44.7

77.9

22.5

0.3

42.4

0.4

2.9

2.;;

6.3

14.0

3.8

4.4

100

30.0

73.5

87.1

1.2

5.7

-

-

1.3

2.6

-

1.4

0.7

100

50.0

94.9

65.0

2.5

23.0

-

-

0.5

0.2s

1.75

-

2.25

4.75

100

-

-

43.8

3.0

9.2

7.7

2.2

0.9

1.3

2.0

3.0

24.7

1.9

100 100

30-40 62.0

87.3

-

46.9

3.4

25.9

1.9

1.5

0.1

4.3

4.2

9.7

2.1

-

84.6

- = not measured

Sources: Weber (1983); Hughes (1986).

-49

Camposting can be defined as the biological decomposition of the organic constituents of wastes under controlled conditions. This process can take place in the presence or absence of oxygen. The former is called aerobic composting composting and the latter can rapidly anaerobic.

If efficiently produce a pathogen-free carried out, aerobic product, as this review attempts to show. decomposition times

Anaerobic composting and is seldom free by contrast of pathogen requires much longer and odor problems.

The material being composted decomposes as a result of the activity of the bacteria, fungi, actinomycetes, and protozoa present material and of those that are seeded from the atmosphere. in the

The densities waste of the different organisms are a function of the nature of the waste in which they are found. various

Table 2 shows typical numbers of some organisms present in

stages

of composting. The efficiency of the process depends to a large extent on temperature since microbial succession occurs with the temperature changes brought about by microbial activity. Figure 1 shows a typical temperature pattern in a compost pile over a period of 25 days. When a composting mixture is prepared, mesophilic microbial activity within the mass generates heat, which raises the temperature the temperature reaches a certain level, the within the mixture.

When q esophilic activity begins to subside and thermophilic activity begins to increase. This process continues until declines. the temperature thermophils, and their conditions population become declines. limiting to the

Subsequently, survival of the temperature

At this point mesophilic organisms (mainly fungi and acti,lomycetes) the

0nCe again increase. As the process approaches completion, the concentration

Table 2.

Microfloral Population during Aerobic

Numbers per gram wet compost

Composting

Mesophilic initial tem- perature - 40°C

Thermophilic

4o”c-7o”c

Mesophilic

70°C-initial temperature3

Numbers of microorganisms identified

(species 1

Bat teria

Mesophilic

Thermopilic

Actinomycetes

Thermophilic

Pungil

Mesophilic

Thermophilic

108

104

104

106

103

106

109

108

103

107

1011

107

105

10s

106

6

1

14

18

16

Source: adapted from Poincelot (1974).

1 number less than or equal to number stated.

-5-

Time (days)

Piyre

1. mica1 time/temperature relationship using mode values of readings taken at 14 monitoring points within each of 12 static milea.

Source:

Sikora

et ali 11981).

-69 of nutrients also becomes rate limiting to its ambient value. Table 3 indicates and the temperature typical temperature ranges for mesophils and thermephils. mini-l, eventually optimal, returns and maximal

Table 3.

Maximum, Optimum, and Minimum Tern erature Ranges for

Mesophils and Thermophils ( a C)

Mesophils

Thermophils

Minimum

10-25

25-45

Source: Glathe and Parkasdi (1966).

Opt imum

2S-35

~50-55

Maximum

35-4s

7 S.-80 destroyed

Excreted pathogens or inactivated during present in the raw waste material the thermophilic will be phase (see table 4). Since the composting process is aerobic, structure and porosity for efficient the sewage sludge and night soil conposting, raw materials decomposition organic to or must occur, have sufficient

In the case of inorganic materials normally have to be added so as tc increase air spaces to allow for proper aeration, mixture, provide structural and, in the support, reduce the bulk weight of the composting

case

of organic additives, increase the quantity of degradable materials. this purpose, as

The organic part of garbage or refuse is suitable for

are

other types of materials that can be added, such as wood chips, shredded tires, peanut shells, rocks, bark, rice hulls, peat, straw, sawdust, manure, and grass.

Various rate-related parameters or

factors

affect the efficiency the comporting process and the quality of the product.

The most important of ones are briefly described in this section. The optimal ranges given are not always found in practice as different ezperience to be the best suited to operators their may particular use conditions raw shown materials by and composting process.

Moisture Content

The moisture content of a composting mixture should be much greater than the lowest level at which bacterial activity will occur

(which is about

12-15 percent 1. The optimum moisture usually in the range of SO-60 percent. content

for

efficient composting is

(typically

Sewage sludge and night soil contain a great deal of ‘moisture

> 92 percent)

in

their untreated state. Even when dewatefed, they may still be too wet to be composted on their own and amendments or bulking

Table I. Feedback Loops In the Camposting Ecosystam

MlcroblologlcaI factor

Wroghlllc population

Thermophlllc popuIatlon

Teqmratura

Temperature

Tmrature optma foe the popuIatloa

Fmltivo feedback (a’

Taaperatura

Iwal

Cmponant intaractlon

38* c

(8PP~

1

Amblent teeperatur e at assembly of rlxture

I&mph1 Is generate heat; temperature

Increases; aesophi Is increase

!KP c

Above 40’ C

(awrox 1 at start of thermphi I ic phase of self- heat i ng

Thermphi Is generate heat; teaperature

Increases; thermoph i I s i ncrease

Neqat I vo feedback

(b)

Tamperaturo

Iavel

Component i ntaract lm

Above 40* c, self-heatlng passes from aesophI I Ic phsse to thermophlllc

Above SSO C

Marophfl Ic tmrature tolerance Iirlt emesded; popu-

Iatlons collapse; accompanying heat outputs decl In0

The-hi I ic taperature tolerance limit approached ; population and acampanylng heat output decl Ines a. Posittva. The microbial succession progresses. b. NagHive. The microbial succession is regressed.

Finstein et al. (1980).

agents

*.rill then be required structural integrity as well to reduce as increase the the moisture carbon content content. and

Typical provide amend- ments include sawdust, straw, garbage, grass, etc. Typical bulking agents include wood chips, shredded tires, rocks, peanut shells, etc.

The moisture content of a composting mass will tend to decrease as decomposition mainly because of evaporation losses during the thermophilic phase, proceeds, and in some cases water may have to be added to maintain optimal conditions. Process performance can be evaluated during the drying out of a composting mixture since it is relatively simple to measure moisture and can easily be done even with poor laboratory facilities.

Temperature including between

Aerobic thermophilic

20 the and important

35’ C. composting has different thermophilic one,

Excreted pathogens

Most microorganisms thrive at temperature body grow stages, best temperature

(3f0 cl.

Temperatures above 50’ C achieved during thermophilic composting should be high enough to destroy these pathogens if maintained for a suff i- cient period of time. This, however, is only possible if the tempersture maintained above SO0 C throughout the composting mass and there are no pockets is of low tempe,.-ature during that time.

The temperature changes observed during the decomposition of organic matter can be used as an indication malfunctioning) of the process. of the proper functioning

Temperature is perhaps a more reliable

(or indicator directly than moisture, aeration, affects pathogen control, or nutrient which is important good compost.

Figure 2 shows typical time-temperature concentrations, to prcfiles the production for since composting it of sewage sludge scales to by the aerated attain thermophilic pile method. temperatures.

Other methods use different

In addition, the time maximum temperatures materials operators achieved vary from system to system, depending on the raw used and operational and design factors.

Many compost plant believe that it is important to maintain very high temperatures

(>6S” C), but this has been shown to be counterproductive microbial activity rapidly becomes limited at these because temperatures. thermophilic

Time

The quality of a product greatly depends on the length of time that a mixture is composted. If high composting temperatures (optimum SO-55’ C) are not days), maintained resistant pathogen throughout destruction pathogens the material will not for reach a sufficient the required length of time (> 2 level.

(Some heat may survive this temperature range.)

Reactor retention times and curing times may vary from system to system.

Particle Size

Composting material that consists of small particles is more readily decomposed than material with larger particles is greater. At the same time, if particles oxygen diffusion. Furthermore, as the surface are too fine, area there will of contact be less very fine material tends to lose some of its

-9-

20

40

60 lima (day31

60 100

Figure 2. A typical time/temperature sludge by the aerated pile method. conditiona of mirture, temperature, relationship

Curve 1 depicts for comporting rewage

a

situation where and aeration are at optimum levela for rapid transition

Curve 2 represent8

a

from the merophilic condition where certain outside their optiur and activity range, of theOindigenous rerulting organisms. into the thermophilic parameters in adverse effectr are deficient rtage. or on the growth

Saurce: Parr, Bpatein, and Yillson (1978).

- 10 - usefulness as a soil amendment. Typical particle sizes of material used for composting range from 10 to 50 millimeters, the lower value being appropriate for forced aeration or agitated system and the upper one for static piles or windrows.

Oxygen Supply

The optimum levels of oxygen required microorganisms range

for

the growth of aerobic

from

5 to 15 percent of the air, with 5 percent being the minimum essential for the growth of mesophils.

The oxygen consumption in a composting mass depends on several factors: (a) the stage of the

process;

(b) the temperature; composition

(c) the degree of agitation of the comporting mass; of the mass;

(d) the

(e)

the

particle

size of the mass; and

(f) the moisture content. logarithmically with changes

Oxygen consumption in temperature appears to increase

, and the moisture and decrease content affects the air spaces within the composting mass.

The rate

at which the compost material is aerated also affects the process.

(33-78 cubic feet of air

If the aeration rate is high

per

day per pound of volatile solids) the excess flow of air causes the compost mixture to cool down. If this rate is low (4-6 cubic feet of air per day per pound of volatile solids), aerobic activity will decline and the process may become anaerobic.

Nutrients

Carbon and nitrogen are two elements required for microbial

The carbon-to-nitrogen (C/N) ratio provides a useful indication growth. of the rate of decomposition of organic matter. l4icroorganisms generally require 30 parts of carbon to each part of nitrogen for their metabolism. This ratio is therefore commonly used in the composting process; the most frequently used value is between 25 and 30. Sewage sludge and night soil are both relatively high in nitrogenous compounds, and the C/N ratio is normally less than 15 for these wastes (see table 5 for the nitrogen wastes).

The addition of amendments content and C/N ratios of various

or

bulking agents material that have a high C/N ratio compared with that of sewage sludge

or

night soil can be used to adjust is too high, the final however , ratio to one within the decomposition the optimal range,

If the C/N ratio process slows down as nitrogen becomes growth limiting; if ;he ratio is too low, the large amount of nitrogen present is rapidly lost by volatilization as molecular anrnonia.

Since nitrogen is a valuable plant nutrient, its levels in mature compost need to be kept reasonably process. high; thus , maintaining an optimum C/N ratio is advantageous to the pH Control

The optimal pH for the growth of bacteria and other composting organisms is in the range of 6.0 to 8.0.

At a pH of 8-9, nitrogen may be lost through volatilization of molecular ammonia; if the pH is too acidic (< 5 1, microbial malfunction; activity will cease.

In some cases9 pH may reflect if, for example , a composting mass begins to turn anaerobic, process the pH may fall

Conversely, to about 4.5 owing to the accumulation as the process approaches stability, of organic the pH shifts acids. toward neutrality (pH 7).

Material

- 11 -

Table 5.

Approximate Nitrogen Content and C/M Ratios for Some

Compostable Materials

Nitrogen

X dry weight

C/N ratio

Urine

Mixed slaughterhoure

Night soil wastea

Digested sewage sludge

Activated sludge

Young grass clippings

Cabbage

Weeds

Grass clippings

(average mixed)

Farmyard manure (average)

Seaweed

Potato haulms

Oat straw

Uheat straw

Fresh sawdust

Newspaper

Food wastes

Fruit wastes

Refuse

Wood

Paper

Source :

Gotaas (1956).

H-18

7-10

5.5-6.5

1.9

5.0-6.0

4.0

3.6

2.0

2.4

2.15

1.9

1.5

1.05

0.3

0.11 nil

2.0-3.0

1.5

0.5-1.4

0.07

0.2

19

14

19

25

40

128

511

15

35

30-80

700

170

0.8

69:O

16

6

12

12

19

Odor

This indicator is not only an index of the efficiency of the process, but it also affects public acceptance of and support for composting plants, especially in areas of high population density.

There are various methods of controlling are effective or removing foul odors from composting materials. unless the process goes totally anaerobic,

These usually for example, and garticblarly foul odors are produced. In forced aeration systems a relatively simple and inexpensive method of deodorizing the exhaust air is to use some of the previously filter composted materials as

a

filter, since organisms present in the readily absorb and decompose the malodorous compounds present in the air. Simple filters consist of is blown. (Some compost filters

a

small pile of compost through which the air

are

described in table 6.)

Filter type

Filter bed

Windrow filter

Filter pile

Dan0 filter

- 12 -

Table 6. Methods

of

Odor Control Using Compost Filters

Source Description

A bed of perforated covered with compost piping

Composting plants at Duisburg and Heidelberg (Fed. Rep. of

Germany) (Jiiger and JPger 1978)

Beringen Composting Plant

(Switzerland)

A windrow constructed perforated pipe through which air from a reactor is blown over

Cone-shaped pile of screened compost contain- ing 1 cubic yard of dry material per 10 tons of wet sludge being composted lb-inch diameter perforated asbestos cement pipes

8 feet apart are covered with l-2 inches of gravel to a thickness of 16 inches and this is then covered with fresh compost

to

a depth of 5 feet

Beltsville Cornposting Plant

United States (Willson et al.

1980)

(Wesner 1978)

OTHER FACTORS

Increasing ammonia concentration and rising levels of carbon dioxide have been shown to correlate

(Japan Sewage Uorks Agency with different

1980). stages of the composting process

At composting installations with well- equipped laboratories, be used as indicators these parameters can be continuously of process operation. monitored and thus

- 13 -

CHAPTER3

CCNPOSTIMC SYSTmS

The composting systems described in this report can be divided into two main categories: (a) reactor systems in which at least the initial composting occurs within a mechanical reactor and

(b) nonreactor systems in which the entire composting process occurs outside a reactor.

Most composting systems developed up to now have been used for composting refuse; however, since human wastes in the form of sludge and night soil are the main raw materials of interest in this report, systems that can be used to treat these wastes are described here as well as systems for their combined treatment with garbage.

REACTOR SYSTEMS

The different usually classified types as vertical of reactor flow, systems inclined flow, used for composting and horizontal flow are in which aeration occurs with or without agitation of the composting mass. There are many different reactor systems for composting. These systems can compost a combination of human waste (sludge or night soil) and garbage, provided the waste has been adequately prepared (presorted, days in the reactor, windrows to mature. the waste material pulverized, etc.). After a few

(raw compost) is put in piles or

A few of the more common reactor systems are described below.

A vertical flow system may have vertically stacked floors or decks in a silo or tower-type reactor.

Aeration is effected by allowing the composting mass to drop from one level to the next over a period of days.

The raw compost is then stored outside to mature.

The Dano system is a typical comprises a drum that is slightly inclined inclined from flow the type horizontal of system. and can

It be rotated. Air is introduced into the drum by forced aeration. The composting mass stays in the drum for up to 5 days, after which it is placed in windrows to mature. horizontal

A typical horizontal screw moves the waste bottom of each cell. After flow reactor consists of a series of cells. from cell to cell. a few days in the cells,

Air is introduced the compost matures out

A at the in the open for several weeks.

NONRRACTOR SYSTEMS

There are two types of nonreactor systems: (a) those in which the waste being composted is agitated or turned and (b) those in which the waste remains static during composting. system will

vary

considerably,

The degree of mixing in the nonreactor depending on the technology used and the degree of control applied.

In situations where the waste being composted is agitated or turned, this may be done by placing it in a windrow that is turned by a windrow-turning machine, by a front-end loader on a tractor, or manually by

- 14 - using shovels.

The static pile system relies on two methods forced aeration of the composting mass and natural ventilation of

(air aeration: diffu- sion).

A comparison of different nonreactor systems

(1982) has shown that turning is a less efficient by method de Bertoldi of producing et al. good compost than forced aeration of a static pile. This is mainly because of the difficulty

Periero-Neto, of attaining

Stentiford, thorough mixing and Mara (1986j by turning. in which

A study windrows conducted were compared by with aerated static piles showed that a better quality compost

(good pathogen removal) was produced by the forced aeration static piles. Table 7 describes briefly four different shown in figure 3, nonreactor systems.

A typical forced aeration pile is

Table 7.

Summary of Different Nonreactor Composting Systems

Item

1.

2.

3.

4.

General descriptions

The waste material is placed in alternate pile.

It is turned frequently by shovel layers in a trench or over a 3 to 6 month period.

The waste material is formed into a windrow (triangular section) using a front-end loader or windrower. This in cross is then regularly turned by machine for 4 to 6 weeks.

The waste material is extruded into pellets (each with a l/cm diameter), pressed into briquettes or formed into bales, stacked in piles, and aerated by natural ventilation.

The material is constructed into a pile (static aerated pile) through which air is either blown or drawn over a period of about 3 weeks. cxorce

OF SYSTEM

The major differences between reactor and nonreactor the capital and operating costs of the two systems. This systems is of great are in impor- tance if financial resources are a constraint in the choice of a composting system. technically

Because of their complexity skilled operators, in hardware and their need for highly reactor systems have high construction, tion, and maintenance costs, whereas nonreactor systems that are less opera- complex and can rely on fewer technically skilled staff tend to cost less. Reactor systems for composting have been popular in industrialized countries, where there has been increasing need to compost solid and human waste.

In addition, complex equipment has been required to sort out the large amounts of noncom- postable waste material in areas with limited space availability.

In many developing basis countries, of limited there is no need to opt for the reactor system on the space availability. In addition, the waste often comprises more than 60 percent compostable material.

Often this is because scavengers have removed most of the noncompostable material. Comparison is made of some of the management and operational differences between reactor and nonreactor systems in table 8.

Some of the important points to consider in planning for composting are discussed later.

caamsnN0 mm H)nclD AmAnoN

- 15 -

-

WAran TMC

FOrr CONOSNSATIS

SCRIINIO COMPOST

World BIllk - 18069

Figure 3. Elements of aerated pile composting system.

capitel costs

Operating costs

Land requirement control of air supply

Heed for subsequent drying

Turned windrow

Ronreactor systems

Aerated pile generally low

Generally low

High

- 16 -

Table 8.

Comparison of Reactor and Nonreactor Systems generally low in small systems; can become high in large systems

High, depending largely on amendment or bulking agents

High

Limited unless forced aeration is used

Drying usually occurs in wlndrow but depends on cl imate

Ccmp I ete

Drying can be achieved in pile with high air supply; wlndrow drying may be required

Forced aeration, agitation

Reactor systems

Forced aeration, no agitation generally high

Generally high

Generally low, depending on power source

Low for reactor but can be high where windrow drying Is required

Camp I ete general ly low, depend i ng on amendment or bulking agent

Low, but can increase if wlndrow drying is required

Camp I ete

Drying achieved tor; can be final in reac- drying in windrow or heat dryer may be required

Demonstrated in cold and wet climates

Less drying potential frcm lower air flow- rates; final drying In wind- row or heat dryer usually required

Demonstrated in cold and wet climates

Sensftivlty to cold or wet weather

Sensltlve unless in housing; demon- strated mainly in wara, dry cl imates

Demonstrated in cold and wet c ‘r imates

Yes

Cwms+fng demonstrated on digested sludge

Yes

Coposting duonstrated on raw sludge

Yes, but odor problems observed

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

(cont.1

- 17 -

Table 8 (cont.1

Turned windrow

Nonreactor systems

Aerated p I lo

Itea

Control of odors Depends largely on Handling of raw raw ataterials sludge is poten- tial ly odorous; filter nay be requ i red

Source : Adapted fran Haug (1980).

Forced aeration, agitation

Reactor systems

Forced aeration, no agitation

Potentially good

Potentially good

SEWAGE SLUDGE AND NIGHT SOIL CO-COMPOSTED WITH REFUSE

Background

Several European countries, most notably Holland (Oosthoek 19811,

France (Hirscheydt 19751, Austria (Ingerle 19781, and the Federal Republic of

Germany (Tabasaran 19761, have a long history of refuse cornposting. of preparing refuse for camposting have been described in the literature

Methods

(see, for example, Breidenbach 1971; Spohn 1978; Rabbani et al. 1983; Savage and

Golueke 1986). Sorting processes for refuse and composting are not discussed in detail here as they are also well described in the literature.

In West Germany, the co-cornposting of sewage sludge with garbage originated out of the need to treat and dispose of ever-increasing amounts of sludge.

Co-composting now is a viable alternative in many developing coun- tries where great concern exists about the large amounts of garbage and poorly disposed and treated human wastes that are being produced in urban areas.

These waste materials can be reused and recycled through cornposting, to improve the urban environment soils. and to increase the quality and productivity of

Process

Co-cornposting of garbage with human waste can be carried out both in reactor systems (Ingerle 1980) and nonreactor systems.

Nonreactor systems are best used wherever the refuse does not require much sorting and pulverizing and where funds and other resources are scarce. The different reactor and nonreactor systems for composting already have been described. examples of different reactor and nonreactor systems

Table 9 gives and how they have been used to co-compost garbage and human waste.

Different types night soil can be mixed with the garbage (or sorted refuse). of sludge and

Temperatures reached at cornposting time are indicative of efficient pathogen control.

- 18 -

Table 9. Examples of Co-composting of Sewage Sludge with Refuse

Country/ city

PI ant type/ raw materials

Process description

Reference

Reactors

W. Germany

W. Germany

(Lemgo)

Woreactor cell system; dewatered digested sludge and refuse

Hstemag drum system with forced aeration; refuse and ml xed raw/d i gested sewage sludge dewatered to 25 percent solids

After refuse is separated and pulverized, it is nixed in a drum together with the sludge for 24 hours; then the raw compost is matured In forced ‘aeration piles for up to 5 months. Temperatures of up to 50’ C are attained within the drum.

A compost filter is used to control odor.

Grote ( 1978 1

W. Germany

Multibacto

(Heidelberg) system; a tower reactor con- sisting of several levels; refuse and dewatered dfgested sludge

W. Germany

(Du i sberg 1

Dano drum/ reactor; refuse and d i gested sludge

Experimental study. The sewage sludge is first pelletized (to a diameter of

10 millimeters) and then aixed together with the sorted pulverized refuse in bioreactor ccl Is. Temperatures of up to 80’ C are attained over a number of days.

The sludge is dewatered to 40 percent solids before addftion to the sorted pulverized refuse. The mixture falls from level to level wfthin the tower during a period of 24 hours to 1 week during which temperatures of up to

70’ C are reached, Maturation occurs in tunneled wlndrows (I.e., plled with

@*tunnels” to aid aeration and drying).

Experiments using the towers demonstrate the varlatlon In mesophilic and thermo- philic populations (described in chapter

2) at the temperatures occurring at different levels within the tower. A compost filter is used to control odor.

Refuse is sorted before being put into the drum, where it is mixed with the sludge. Rstention tima is about 3 days, after which the raw ccmpost mix is put in windrows to mature. Temperatures up to 72’ C are reached and maintained in the drum.

A canpost filter is used to control odor.

Spohn (19701,

Uiersch and

Strauch

(1978)

Jeger (19771,

Farkasd I fexperimentel,

19681, Sander fl%f), Hart

(1967)

Hart (1%7),

Hasuk (19791,

Hlrschheydt

(19751,

Sander

(19671,

Ernst (1972)

(cont. 1

- 19 -

Table 9 (cont.)

Country/ city

PI ant type/ raw mater i a I s

Process description

Reference

W. Germany

(F lensburg 1

W. Germany

Rheinstatil process drum reactor; refuse and dewatered mixed sludge

Dana drum

(Dar i ngsn 1 reactor; refuse and dewatered digested sewage slLdge

The refuse is milled and sorted. it is then mixed with the sludge in a drum for

24 hours. The raw compost is then matured in a windrow for J-4 months.

Temperatures of 60-70’ C are main- tained in the drun during the 24 hours.

A ccmpost filter Is used to control odor.

Schwabe

(19731,

JClger

(1974)

The refuse is sorted and milled and fed into a Dano drum together with the sludge.

The retention time is 48 hours and a temperature of at least 40° C is main- tained throughout. The raw compost is matured in windrows for 8-10 months

(temperatures of up to 70’ C are ccamion).

A ccmpost filter is used to control odors from the drum.

KOhIer S

Hardma i or

(1980)

Kuchta

(19671,

Hughes

(1977)

Eng I and

Sweden

Oano; refuse

(Leicester 1 and digested sewage sludge

The refuse is sorted, homogenized, and mixed with the sludge. The mixture is fed into the drum where it stays for about 3 days; then the raw compost is screened and matured in w i ndrous.

Vertical reactors each divided

Into stages by paraliei steel bars; refuse and dewatered sludge and night soil

Experimental plant. The refuse is sorted and milled and is then mixed with the sludge and night soil. The mixture is added to a vertical reactor consisting of five stages. The retention time is 5 days and the the average temperature is 5S” C.

Japan

Dano rotating

(Toyohash I ) drums and verti- tlcal reactors; refuse and raw/ digested night soil fend poul- try wastes 1

The refuse is sorted and milled. The night soil is either digested aerobically first or dewatered and mixed with the ret use.

The mixture is fed into Dano drums for 2 days, is kept in vertical reactors for another 2 days, and then stored. A tamperslure of 60’ C is reeched in both reactors. The raw c-post is then stockpiled for 2 weeks before use.

Hovsenius

(1975)

Toyohash i

City (n.d.1

(cont.1

Table 9 (cont.1

Country/ city

Plant type/ rau materfals

Process description

Reference

Italy

Refuse and sludge are c-posted using a biotunnel. Temperatures of 65-70’ C are observed.

Ferraro

(1978)

Nonreactors

W. Gsmany

W. gemany

(Schueinfurt)

Swltrerland

Mel 1

Austr I a

Composting of

(Wiesbaden) bales; refuss and raw sludge grikollare pro- cess briquettes

20 x 25 x 50 centimeters are formad; refuse and dwatered digested sewage t I udge

Same as above briquettes

20 x 25 x 50 centimeters; refuse and dwatered sewage sludge

Voest Alpine

(platform ronpostirq); refuse end sewage si udge

Experfmental plant. me refuse Is sorted and mllled and then mixed with the sludge.

Waxt, the mixture is formed into bales uslng a press and then stored

In the open to mature for about 14 mths before being broken up. Temperatures

(typical of windrow compost temperatures) sf between 36’ C and 72’ C have been measured. Odor Is not a problem.

Leonhardt

(1979)

Refuse Is sorted, ground, end then mixed Hart (19671, with the sewage sludge. The mixture is

Sander then compressed into briquettes have holes for aeration).

(which

(19671,

They are stored Nordsiek on pallets In a curing shed. Temperatures (1976) of 55-60’ C are attained during curing

(2-3 weeks 1.

The briquettes are broken up before marketing.

The process is similar to the one above except that higher (60-65’ C) tempera- tures are observed In the briquettes durlng 3 weeks of curing. The briquettes are broken up and seived Into dlfferent fractions before marketing.

Hel for

(19751,

Heifer

(1977)

Refuse Is sorted and ground and then mixed with sludge.

The mix Is laid on a plat- form to a depth of 3-4 meters and ccxn- posted with forced aeration

Then the compost Is matured on open-air platforms for up to 4 months. for 3-4 weeks.

Willets

(1979)

- 21 -

Table 9 (cont.1

Country/ city

Plant type/ ram naterials

Process description

Reference

Eng I and

(Manchester/

Dorchester 1

India

I ndones i a

China

Haiti

(Port-au-

Prince)

Refuse and sewage sludge in forced aeration pi Is

Refuse and night soi I

Windrows; refuse, manure, night soil

Night soil and refuse

Nlght soil and refuse

Experimental study. Refuse “fines,” which pass through a 50 IIUI mesh, are mixed uith sewage sludge (l-g% solids) with front-end loader, and the mixture

Is piled over a perforated aeration pipe for canposting for ,about 30 days and then allowed to nature.

Stentiford et al.

(1985)

The refuse and night soil mixture is placed in brick-lined pits that have aeration and drainage channels. The mixture Is turned at least twice during the 30-day c-posting period.

The raw materials are mixed and put in wlndrows, which are then left for 4-7 months.

Sunawira

(1%8)

Refuse (70-80 percent by weight) and night soil (20-30 percent by weight) are mixed and heaped in piles 4 meters at the base, 2 meters at the top,

1.5 maters high and 4 meters long.

Bamboo poles for aeration are inserted at 30-centimeter levels and removed on day 2. The pile is sealed with a 40:60 percent soil-cinder paste. Temperatures of 50-55’ C are achieved and malntalned for 25 days.

Ch i nese

Academy of

Sciences

(1975)

Pilot plant, 175 cubic asters of preheated Dalmat shredded refuse from a refuse treatment et al. plant is mixed with 3.5 cubic meters of

(1982) pit latrins wasts using a front-end loader.

Pi Ies are constructed over a system of perforated pipes for forced aeration.

Air Is drawn through the pipes and exhaust gases conducted into a compost filter (Beltsvil Ie Aerated Pile Method).

-

Siting and Mixing

Many counttier traditionally collect rafure reparately from night soil and their refure treatment production and dirpoaal riter. and dirporal

The logiaticr rites of locating differ a night from sludge aoil/eludge- garbage co-cwrting rite muat be carefully conridered.

A refure disposal site ir often suitable becaure of land availability.

After the refuee is sorted and the reject6 dirpored sludge.

of,

it must be mixed with the night soil or

Where windrour are to be ured instead of aerated pilea or reactors, experiments have rhown that rpetially derigned ahtedder machines are far more efficient at mixing than front-end loaderr (Colueke et al. 1980).

Planning plant.

Many factor8 need to be considered

To begin with, the planner must carefully before opting for one ryrtem or another. when

Table planning rtudy a composting the local

10 compares situation some sludge disposal methods and give. an idea of the torts involved.

According to the figurer in table 10, the cortr of composting are lower than the corta for treatment procersea such aa heat drying and incineration landrpreading, treating but comparable to dirporal-reure and ocean dirporal. and dirporing of uarter

Am noted are often protearer earlier, compared. ruch aa landfilling, different

Compoating methods of may not always be the most economically viable method of treating waste, sludge, and/or refume, and thur

govetamentr,

often faced with the difficult city councila

, and private companies tart of deciding whether or not to compost. are

Item

Table 10.

Comparative Coats for Variour Sludge Dirposal Proceesea

(1974 U.S. dollara)

[email protected]

of cortr

per dry ton (US$/ton)

Reference

Digested sludgea

Ocean outfall

Liquid Landrpreading

10-3s

20-54

Wyatt and White (1975),

Carroll et al. (19751,

Smith and Bilera (1975),

USBPA

(1974)

Digested and dewatered rludae

Ocean barging

Landfilling

Landrpreading

Dewatered rludaea

Trenching aI

31-44

23-53 .

26-96

Wyatt and White (19751,

USEPA (1975),

Yyatt

(1975) and White (19751,

Camp Dresser & McKee

Incineration

Heat drying

Camposting b/ r,b/

116-134

57-93

62-115

35-50

.

Resource8 Wanagement

Awociates (1975)

Brinrrko (19741,

Camp Dresser and

McKee (19751,

Van Note et al. (1975)

Camp Drerwer and

McKee

(19751,

Stern (1975)

Colacicco, Derr, and Kaoper (1977) a. Costs exclude tranrportation of rludge to rite. b. Coats exclude cost of removal of reriduer and benefits from resource recovery I

Source:

Colacicco,

Dew, and Karper (1977).

- 24 -

It is important to note, however, that significant

(even though difficult to quantify) derive from converting health benefits these highly pathogenic organic wastes into compost that is relatively

Furthermore, the application of compost to poor soils helps pathogen-free. to improve their fertility and general condition.

Another important factor is the nature of the raw material(s) to be used, as this determines the complexity of the treatment plant required. the raw material is refuse containing little organic matter, for example,

If a considerable amount of sorting and pulverization -- by machinery or manpower, or both -- will be required before the refuse can be composted. Other factors that need to be taken extensive expenditure, into consideration, especially are summarized in table 11. since they may require

Table 11. Factors To Consider in Planning a Compoating Plant

Waste material

Compost plant

Compost process

,

Compost demand quantity and composition of waste type of waste collection of waste pretreatment required cost of bulking material transport of raw wastes to plant transport of compost disposal of noncompostible materials marketing possibilities alternative disposal options location of plant capital costs land requirement (also for storage) site development equipment costs expansion possibilities applicability of existing types system required choice of equipment energy/fuel requirements laboratory needs maintenance needs maintenance costs personnel costs market research market promotion marketing costs

As table 11 indicates, planners must weigh many factors in deciding how to best compost garbage and human waste. They should not just pick any system and hope that it can be operated efficiently under local conditions.

(Some of the questions on costs are discussed in Chapter 6.)

.

-

25

-

-4 eolsTBOL OF EXCUTBD AND OTHER PATEoGgNS

Excreted pathogens occur in sewage sludge at varying concentrations depending on their ability to survive the various sewage treatment processes and whether they accumulate in the sludge. Concentrations in night soil depend almost entirely on the levels being excreted at any one time and on the ability of the pathogens to survive in the external environment.

Table 12 suxrsarises the survival times of pathogens excreted in feces, night soil, and sludge, and table 13 suaxnarixes survival timea on crops. Golueke (1983) has reviewed their survival in soil.

The literature on the survival of enteric pathogens during various treatment processes has been thoroughly reviewed by

Peachem et al. (19831, who present detailed information aspects of excreta-related infections. Furthermore, on health and other

Blum and Feachem (1985) review the health aspects of night discuss survival and health risks. soil and sludge use in agriculture and

Table 12. Survival Times of Excreted Pathogens in Feces,

Night Soil, and Sludge at 20-30°C

Pathogens Survival time (days)

Viruses

Enterovirus*

Bacteria

Cl00 but usually <20

<90 but usually C50

<60 but usually (30

<30 but usually cl0

(30 but usually <5

Protozoa

Entamoeba histolytica cysts

Helminths

Ascaris lumbricoides eggs

<30 but usually cl5

Many months

* Includes polio , echo, and coxsackieviruses.

Source: Feathem et al. (19831, p, 66.

- 26 -

Table 13.

Survival Times of Excreted Pathogens on Crops at 20-30°C

Pathogens

Survival tiw

(days)

Viruses

Bnteroviruses* <60 but usually <15

Bacteria

Fecal coliforms

Salmonella spp.

Shigella spp.

Vibrio cholerae

Protosoa

Entamoeba histolytics

Helminths

<30 but usually

<30 but usually

<lo but usually

<5 but ususlly cysts

Ascaris lumbricoides eggs

Cl5

<15

C5

*2

<lo but usually ~2

<60 but usually <30

* Includes polio, echo, and coxsackieviruses.

Source:

Feachem et al. (19831, p*

62.

Some pathogens msy not survive the sludge production process. open-air drying of sludge and night soil eliminates pathogens,

In addition, depending on the length of drying time. The key factors in determining the survival of pathogens sre the temperature-time

(1983) have suggested various temperature-tim interactions. regimes

Peachem et al. for selected pathogens to ensure their death in sewage sludge snd night soil. These have been based on an evaluation of survival times for numerous pathogens over a wide range of temperatures (see figure 4).

Samples of sludge or night soil should be free of excreted pathogens

(with the possible exception of hepatitis

A virus and heat-resistant bacterial spores such as those of clostridium perfringens) if they are heated for 1 hour at > 62’ C, 1 day at

> 50” C, or 1 week at > 46’ C.

These regimes are all within the safety zone shown in f igurc 4.

Smsll-scale studies using 20-30 tons of compost msterisl have shown that e* coli and salmonella spp+ are destroyed by heat more easily than fecal streptococci, and that even cm perfringers

Stentiford, numbers decrease during comporting and maturation (Pereira-Neto, and Mara 1986).

Other workers have proposed different criteria for determining pathogen destruction in compost on the basis of work using

-

27

- other media as well as compost.

For example,

Burge, Cramer, and Epstein

(1978) and [email protected], Colacicco, and Cramer (1981) suggest that F2 bacteriophage be used as an indicator of pathogen destruction since this organism is more resistant to heat than many excreted pathogens.

[email protected] of work done on this organism have shown that a 150log reduction in F2 bacteriophage numbers can be expected reduction if they are of an infective maintained at dose of 10

5

5’ C for 2 days (for example, a I-log

- Vibrio [email protected] would leave 1 Vibrio cholera bacterium). Maintaining pathogens at 55” C for 2 days as a minimum is within the safety zone shown in figure 4. This figure is a reliable of survival times, especially since the use of standard fecal coliform indicator counts may not be reliable (these have been shown to multiply in msture compost

([email protected] et al. 1981)).

BACTERIA

The main bacterial pathogens of interest are listed in table 14. The survival rate of excreted bacterial pathogens in night soil and sludge is variable involved. and depends in part on the temperature

At and the length of time temperatures above 20’ C, these pathogens will generally survive up to one month in samples of sludge and night soil. cates survival times for various bacteria.

The data

(Annex table B-l indi- are based mainly on the absence of pathogens in the compost at the end of the sampling time, and in many cases there ir no indication of the initial concentrations, which would

Table 14. Bacterial Pathogens Excreted in Feces

Bacteria

Campylobacter

Diarrhea

Pathogenic Escherichia coli Castroenteritis

Disease of diarrhea

Salmonellae

Salmonelloais and other types of food poisoning

Salmonella typhi

S. paratyphi

Shigella

Vibrio [email protected]

Other vibrios

Yersinit

Typhoid

Bacillary

Cholera

Diarrhea

Yersinio8is fever

Paratyphoid fever dysentery

- 20 -

1 day

Time (hours)

1 ~osk 1 month

1 year

Figure 4. gumrival of pathogens at different

Source:

Peachem et al. (1983). tmperature/tirc rcgimss.

- 29 - have an effect on the time for complete destruction or of frequences of sampling.) temperatures

However, above in general,

50’ when the cornposting

C, complete destruction

2 weeks (see examples in annex B table B-1). mass was maintained was shown to occur within at

VIRUSES

The main viral pathogens of interest here are listed in table 15.

Data on the survival of viruses in sludge and night soil are less abundant than in the case of bacteria, principally because the methods used to determine unreliable. viruses in samples are difficult to carry out and are of ten

Survival of viral pathogens in compost of different materials is reduced to low levels within 2 weeks at temperatures between 35 and 70’ C for most of the pathogens presented in annex table B-2.

Table 15. Viral Pathogens Excreted in Feces

Viruses

Adenoviruses

Coxsackieviruses

Echovirus

Hepatitis A virus

Reoviruses

Rotavirus

Poliovirus

Disease

Numerous conditions

Numerous conditons

Numerous conditons

Infectious hepatitis

Numerous conditions

Diarrhea or gastroenteritis childre;

Poliomyelitis in

PROTOZOA

The main protoeoal pathogens of interest here are listed in table 16.

Reported survival of some of these pathogens in compost is presented in annex table B-3.

The figures there indicate that in general the protozoa1 pathogens survive for short pfriods.

Giardia lamblia

Balantidium coli

- 30 -

Table 16.

Protoeoal Pathogens Excreted in Feces

Protozoa

Entamoeba hiatolytica

Disease

Amoebic dysentery and liver abrcess

Diarrhea and malabsorption

Mild diarrhea and colonic ulceration

The main helminths of interest are presented in table 17.

Certain helminths can survive in night soil and sludge up to a period of 3 months or longer, especially at cooler temperatures (<25’ C).

The most resistant are Ascaris and hookworm ova (annex table B-4). In compost, survival ones is generally very low at temperatures maintained over 35’ C for a few days (annex table B-4).

Because the survival times for the different pathogens vary gre.at!.y at the different temperature-time cornposting plant operators, it regimes is extremely measured important by researchers to establish and reliable temperature-time criteria for pathogen destruction during composting. The regimes within the safety zone proposed by Feachem et al. (1983) and Burge,

Colacicco, and Cramer (1981) may be of great ure in this regard.

VETERINARY PATEGGENS

Pathogens excreted by animals may find their way into sludge or night soil if the wastes containing them become mixed with human wastes. Several infections can be transmitted from animals to man (see table 18). Only some of these diseases are enteric and are of interest here. bacteria,

Enteric pathogens that mey’be isolated from animal waste include viruses, protoeoa,*and helminths. They occur in varying numbers depending on the type of disease and the physical and chemical composition of the waste. Since these pathogens are enteric, their optimum growth occurs around body temperature. Thus the thermophilic temperature (> 45 C) achieved during aerobic composting should be sufficient enteric pathogens, especially if the to destroy temperatures are or inactivate msintained sufficient the for lengths of time.

Some exceptions to this may be spores of apore- forming bacteria found in animal wastes (such as Bacillus anthracis and some clostridia), which survive at high temperatures.

Pathogen

Ancylostoma [email protected]

Necator americanus

Ascaris lumbricoides

Clonorchis sinensis

Opisthorchis

Opisthorichis

Diphyllobothrium felineus viverrini latum

Enterobius vermicularis

Fasciola hepatica

Fasciolopsis

Gastrodiscoides buski hominis

Heterophyes heterophyes

Hymenolepis spp.

Eetagonimus yokogawai

Paragonimus westermani

Schistosoma haematobium

Schistosoma mansoni

Schistosoma japonicum

Strongyloides stercoralis

Taenia saginats

Trichuris trichiura

Table 17.

Helminthic Pathogens Excreted in Feces

Disease

Hookworm

Hookworm

Ascariasis

.

Clonorchiasis

Opistorchiaais

Opistorchiasis

Diphyllobothriasis

Enterobiasis

Fascioliasis

Fasciolopsiasia

Gastrodiscoidiasis

Heterophyiasis

Hymenolepiasis

Metagonimiasis

Paragonimiasis

Schistosomiasis

(Bilharziasis)

Schistosomiasis

Schistosomiasis

Strongyloidiasis

Taeniasia

Trichuriaais

Pathogen

- 32 -

Table 18. Animal Pathogens Capable of Causing Infections in Man

Infection Rode of infection sacter i a

Bacillus anthracis

Brucella abortus

8ruwlla suis

Brucella melitensis

Leptospira ict~rohermmrrhagiae

Rikettsial typhi

Salmel la

Listeria mmcytoq8ws*

Anthrax

Brucellosis

Bruceliosis

Brucellosls

Leptosplrosis

Typhus

Salronellosis

Listeriosis

Direct contact, excreta

Cow to man, direct

Swlnr to aan, contact goats to non, ingestion

Urine

Excreta

Excreta

Cattle/dogs to aan, direct contact

Viruus

Arbov i ruses

Rarpas virusa

Pox virus cowpoxa

Protoma

Toxoplasaa gondii

Togav i rus

B virus

(cow to man)

Ingestion

Ronkey to man, direct contact

Direct contact

Toxoplasmosis Mammals/birds to man, ingestion/inhalation feces

Hslainths

Fasciola hopstics

Tamis raginata

Tmnia solium

Fungi*

Microsporum canls

+

Rat enteric.

Fast iI ol iasis

Tam i asis

Taen i asrs

RI ngworm

Sheap and cattle to man

Cow to man

Pig to man

Bog to man, d irrct contact

SECONDARY PATHOGENS

Secondary pathogens affect people whose defense systems have been weakened by certain diseases or therapies. They may be present in sewage sludge secondary or night soil pathogens and some are are able some thermophilic to grow in compost. fungi

Examples of and actinomycetes.

These infect people who have had respiratory infections or prolonged antibiotic or steriod treatment (Hart, Russell, and Remington

1969).

The p.cobability of

.I

1

I

,’

- 33 - people in good health becoming infected is very low (Olver 1979; Willson et al. 1980; gurge and Millner 1980).

The main thermophilic fumigatus, which causes a respiratory thermophilic actinomycetes (for fungus of concern here is Aspergillus disease example, known as asperigillosis.

Thermopolyspora

The

Micromonospora vulgaris) cause allergic reactions such as

1974; Marsh, Miller, actinomycetes reported and Kla 1979). to grow at the

Millner thermophilic

(1982) lists several other temperatures attainable during ubiquitous the composting process (SO' C).

These secondary pathogens are and are very common in agricul turaj situations.

Asperigillus fumigatus, for example, is found in soils, hay, wood, cereals, forage, and various moldy farm wastes. thermophilic actinomycetes

From the data on maximal concentrations in different materials (see table 19), it of appears that the concentrations in compost are generally lower than those in the othe materials

(more mature compost usually has higher concentrations - up to 10 B per gram of dry weight ). Compost is able to support the growth of fumigatus and the actinomycetes because of the temperatures achieved during the pro- cess.

Aspergillus fumigatus grows at temperatures of Less than 20’ C to about

60’ C (Cooney and Kmerson 1964; Kane and Mullins 1973a,b) and has been readily isolated from wood chips at 50’ C (Tansey 1971). The actinomyecetes have a similar temperature (Lacey 1974). High concentrations have been isolated between 55’ la::1 60’ C (Millner 1982).

Certain factors can inhibit the growth of these secondary pathogens: excessive moisture and high temperatures (> 63’ low

C). pH, anaerobic conditions,

Toward the end of a composting process, when the compost is cooling down and becoming drier, the secondary pathogens may predominate.

Their spores are readily dispersed from dry and dusty compost piles especially during and after mechanical agitation (Millner, Bassett, and Marsh 1980).

Table 19. Concentrations of Thermophilic Actinomycetes in Different Materials

(numbers per gram, dry weight)

Growth material

Moist hay

Pl-day sewage sludge compost

4-month sewage sludge compost gagasse

Mushroom compost

Moist grain

Concentration

1.7 x 107

5.7 x 109

1.8 x lo8

9.6 x lo6

6.6 x 106

103

- 34 -

The degree of dispersal also depends on meteorological factors such as wind and rain (Millner et al. 1977).

Experiments carried out to measure concentrations of these secondary pathogens at Locations downwind of compost piles at treatment plants have shown that conditions differ for each compost plant, but that concentrations secondary infections tend to be lower from moldy hay (Burge than and Millner those associated

1980; Millner 1982). with

As already noted, the risk of infection in healthy individuals is low.

Certain measures can be taken, however, to improve the general health standards at a composting pla3 and thus reduce the risk of these secondary infections even further:

1.

Workers should be encouraged to maintain high standards of hygiene.

2. During periods of dry weather, sprinkled periodically with water the composting to reduce area dust dispersal. should be

3.

4.

During adverse weather conditions, wear masks or respirators or workers some other should covering be encouraged to reduce to dust inhalation.

Workers should be isolated from the spore-dispersing process, such as mechanical turning. parts of the

5. The composting plant should be Located at “discreet” hospitals and residential areas (the distance will distances vary from plant from to plant, but in general should be at Least 1 kilometer).

PLANT PATHOGENS

Numerous pathogens cause plant diseases. Most agricultural soils are infested with nematodes, bacteria, viruses, and fungi (Sasser 1971).

Some of these may be present in compost made from garbage, vegetable, and other gardening wastes. Knoll (1980) has described standard laboratory methods that can be used to isolate and measure the concentrations of indicator plant pathogens in comport.

Table 20 Lists some pathogens that have been associated with compost as an indicator or that have been isolated from it.

The most important ones are those that produce heat-resistant spores, such as the fungi listed in table

20 or some viruses. would therefore be inactivated

Most other under thermophilic pathogens composting are mesophils temperature-time and regimes (although heat resistant spores present in compost may persist in the soil for long periods after being spread on Land). Recent research has revealed that compost may have a beneficial diseases. The application of compost to soils effect on plants containing and soil-borne diseased plants has been followed by inmediate and Long-term reduction in the incidence and severity of certain diseases such as root rot of beans, cotton, and radish.

- 35 -

Pathogens

Bacteria

Viruses,

Helminths,

Sclerotinia

(various) tobacco nematodes

Table 20.

Plant Pathogens in Compost mosaic meloidogyne

Globodera rostochiensis

Fungi, Plasmodiophora brassicae

Olipidium brassicae type,

Plants affected

Cabbage

Beans

Tomatoes

Tobacco

Potato

Cucumber

Tomatoes

Lettuce

Carrots

Potatoes

Cabbage

Rape

Cabbage

Lettuce

Other vegetables

Lettuce

- 36 -

This chapter briefly reviews the uses of compost. The degree of use depends greatly on whether or not material of fecal origin ie culturally and socially acceptable.

QUALITY OF COMPOST

A well-produced, mature compost is free from odor and easy to handle, store, and transport. these qualities,

A raw compost (one that but will acquire them with has time if not it matured) is allowed does not have to mature.

Table 21 lists some of the differences between raw and mature compost.

Mature compost contains trace and essential elements, of which the most important are nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and sulphur. These are available to the soil and plants, depending on their initial concentrations in the raw compost materials and on the degree of mineralization

(Tester, Parr, and Paolini 1980). (Concentration that occurs in compost from sludge/night soil and garbage compost are considered equivalent, although concentrations other elements will vary depending on the raw materials.) These elements of are released by the compost and become available in the years following applica- tion. The compost can therefore be used in somewhat the same way as an inorganic fertilizer (except that in many cases the concentrations elements are 50 low that excessively Large application rates of these would be required).

As a result, compost is often considered a low analysis fertilizer or soil conditioner (Golueke 1972; Hand, Gerahman, and Navarro 1977; Parr et al. 1978). However, the NPK values (and other mineral content) of compost can be fortified with chemicals to enhance its fertilizing capacity (Hileman

1982). Unlike inorganic fertilizers, compost has a humuslike quality that makes it even more useful, especially in areas of the world where the humus content of soil is being rapidly depleted as a result of excessive cultivation and land erosion (Tietjen 1975; compost can replace lost humus.

Pagliali et al. 1981). That is to say,

Compost may contain high concentrations the source of the raw materials. If sludge of heavy metals, depending from a mixed industrial-domestic on source is used, concentrations of lead, zinc, and nickel may be very high.

Some typical heavy metal concentrations in compost, night soil, and sludge are presented in table 22. Concentrations in night soil are negligible. Garbage and human waste plants metals, especially if utilizing the night soil will produce compost low in heavy refuse is largely organic.

Other hazardous chemicals such as detergents and those in certain industrial wastes that may be composted will appear in the product if they are nonbiodegradable.

- 37 -

Hature

Table 21. Differences between Mature and Raw Compost compost

Nitrogen as nitrate ion

Sulphur as sulphate ion

Lower oxygen demand

No danger of putrefaction

Nutrient element5 are in part available to plants

Higher concentrations of vitamin5 and antibiotic5

Higher concentrations of soil bacteria, fungi, which are decomposed, easily degradable substances

Mineralization

50 percent is about

Higher water retention ability

Clay-humus complexes are built

Compatible with plants

Raw compost

Nitrogen as ammonium ion

Sulphur still in part as sulphide ion

Higher oxygen demand

Danger of putrefaction

Nutrient element5 not available

Lower concentrations and antibiotics of vitamin5

Higher concentration of bacteria and fungi, which decompose organic materials

High proportion mineralized

No clay-humus

Not compatible of organic

Lower water retention complexes with ability generated plants substances not

APPLICATION OF COMPOST TO LAND

The most important use of compost is its application takes several forms:

It can be applied to land as a to land. fertilizer,

This soil conditioner, or mulch, or can be used as a means of Land reclamation.

Furthermore, the use of compost can range from domestic applications by the home gardener to Large-scale cropland or by municipalities applications for parklands. by conrmercial farmers to their positive

The application effects on plant of compost to land has several advantages. growth, compared with the effects of fertilizers fruit, crop alone yields, are well and other documented factors

(see,

Its for example, Arditti 1973; Hornick et al. 1979; Tokyo Metropolis 1979; Kurzweil

Table 22. MeteI Concentrstions in Coapost and Hwsn Waste

SOUfCfB mstarlal

Rmf uwh I udge carport

Refuse/sludge sewago/ I udga

C-P-t

Ccmcbntrat ions c8dn i urn Chrunlun Copper Nickel Lead

6.0

10.0

4.4

10.0

0.006

4.9

-

200.0

0.24 lsO.0 77.0

-w-t

Night soi1

Night soi1

Mixed damtic/ industrial sludge

Mixad daestic/ industrial sludge

Sludge, digested, industrial

Sludge, digested

Mixed domestic/ industrial s I udge

- 3 not measured.

6.0

0.024

16.0

25.0

110.0

72.0

3.4

200.0

-

100.0

299.5

80.0

0.15

2.1

00.0

Zinc Ref oronce

34.0 Rhode (19721

0.19

160.0

300.0

0.77 6ucller ( 1974 I

960.0

Faust

(19701 and fbmano

1,200.o

Faust and

Romeno

(1976)

0.25 Japan Samgo

Uorks Agency (19gg)

0.5 4.6

Japan Seuage tbrks Agmy (19m)

7.00

3,wQ.o

Japan Sowaga works Agency (I980)

290.0

1,55&o 1,930.O

Japan Sewage

Works Agency 119110)

320.0

12Q.o

17.8

1 ,x&o

735.0

216.0

2,790.O

2,OlO.O

546.0

WIllson et al. w8o)

Willson et al.

(1980)

Stentiford et al.

(1983)

- 39 -

1980; Angle, Wolf, and Hall 1981; and Sridhar et al. 1985). The advantages it has over inorganic fertilizers lie in itr cffecta on the soil.

Table 23 zusssarizea some of these effects with respect to clay or sandy soils.

In both cases, the quality of the soil ir improved and it is more productive. recommendations and criteria for the application of compost to land

Some are presented in tables 24-26.

Compost may not only amend the physical properties of the soil, but it may have other beneficial effects, such as raising the pH of acid soils.

Production of compost may be of great countries with poor, arid soils. interest, especially in

Table 23. Physical Effects of the Addition of Compost to Clay or Sandy Soils

Sandy soil + compost Clay soil + compost

Water content is increased

Water retention is increased

Aggregation of soil particles is enhanced

Erosion is reduced

Aeration of soil increased

Permeability increased of soil to water

Potential crusting of soil surface is decreased

Compaction is reduced horticulture,

Compost may be used on land for the following purposes: home gardening, vegetable gardening, viticulture, landfill, forestry, soil conditioner, or cosssercial farming. or fertilizer

It is usually for many of these applications. applied agriculture, landscaping, as mulch,

OTHER USES OF COI’4POST

Apart from the traditional other uses.

For example, sewage applications sludge to land, or refuse compost compost has some can be fed to piglets. Pigs are omnivores and so compost is palatable to them. The compost has to be ground into a fine material (< 4m) and is fed only to piglets. In

Switzerland it is bagged and sold on the market at about 120 SF per cubic meter Olelfer 1975). As noted earlier, animal enteric pathogens should in general be inactivated or destroyed.

Compozt from night soil and vegetable matter has been used in fish farming experiments, where the compost has acted not only as a nutrient for the growth of algae but also as fish feed (Polprasert has also been used to make bricks bricking material before firing; porous. during leaving the fired bricks porous, as desired. firing

It is incorporated the st al. 1981). Compost organic matter into the burns,

- 40 -

Table 24.

Criteria for the Specific Applications of Compost

Application

Compost type Frequency

(years)

(tons

Quantities per hectare)

Grain crops

Root crops

Grassland and cultivation fodder plants of

Fruit growing

Vine growing

Fresh/mature

Fresh/mature

Fine fresh/mature

Fresh/mature

Fresh/mature

2-4

2-4

2-4

3

3-4

20-60

40-100

20-50

100-200

SO-100 (light soils) *

80-240 soils)

(heavy

50-100 Vegetables

(outdoor)

Vegetables

(greenhouse)

Landscaping slopes

Pig feed

Fresh/special*

Mature/special

Fresh/mature

Special mix with iron

2-4

2-4

2

-

10-15

100-300

20-40

(30 kilograms per farrow in first three weeks) up to 300

Control of erosion

Fresh

*

Special compost has added minerals or is very fine in texture.

Source:

Adapted from Bundesrepublik (1979) and Tabasaran, Bidlingmaier,

Bickel (1981). and

- 41 -

Use

Table 25. Compost Application Rates:

Uses and Application of Sewage Sludge Compost to Achieve Fertilizer Benefits

Ratea and Improve Soil

Compost

(metric tons per hectare)

Remarks

Vegetable crops

Establishment 50-150

Maintenance

Field crops

Barley, oats, rye, wheat

corn

Legumes

Forage grasses

Establishment

50

50-60

150-185

195-340

Rototill into surface l-3 weeks before planting or in previous fall. Do not exceed recommended crop nitrogen rate.

Rate is for years after ini- tial garden establishment.

Rototill into surface l-2 weeks before planting or in previous fall.

Incorporate into soil

1-2 weeks befqre planting or in previous fall.

Incorporate into soil l-2 weeks before planting.

Supplemental potash may be required, depending on soil test.

Legumes can be grown in rotation with corn, oats, or other nitrogen-required crops b

Incorporate with top

4-6 inches of soil. lower rate on relatively

Use fertile soil and higher rate on infertile soil.

Supplement during first year's growth with l/2 pound per 1,000 square feet

(25 pounds per acre) of soluble nitrogen fertil- izer when needed.

(cont. 1

- 42 -

Table 25 (cont.)

Use

Maintenance

Uursery crops and ornamental8

(shrubs and trees)

Establishment (soil incorporation)

Compost

(metric tons per hectare)

SO-60

Remarks

Broadcast uniformly on surface in fall or early spring 1 year after incorporated application.

90-350

Maintenance

Potting mixes lo-25

Equal ratio of material

Incorporate with top

6-8 inches of soil. Do not use where acid-soil plants (aealea, rhododendron, etc.) are to be grown.

Broadcast uniformly on surface soil.

Can be worked into soil or used as a mulch.

Thoroughly water and drain mixes several times before planting to prevlnt salt injury to f’snts.

Reclamation

Conservation planting up tc 450

Mulch 15-35

Incorporate with top

6 inches of soil. Use maximum rate only where excessive growth for several months following establish- ment is desirable.

For each inch beyond 6 inches of incorporation, add 1,000 pounds per 1,000 square feet on soils where groundwater nitrogen will not be increased.

Broadcast screened or unscreened compost uniformly on surface after seeding; unscreened is more effective.

(cont.)

/’

- 43 -

Table 25 (cont.)

Use

Turfgrasses

Establishment (Soil incorporation)

Compost

(metric tons per hectare)

100-300

Surface mulch

Maintenance

Sod production, incorporated with soil

Sod production, unincorporated soil with

30-35

20-40

150-300

300-900

Source: Adapted from Hornick et al. (1979).

Remarks

Incorporate with top

4-6 inches of soil.

Uee lower rate on relatively fertile on infertile soil and higher rate soil.

Broadcast uniformly on sur- face before seeding small reeded species (bluegrass) after seeding large seeded rpecies (fescues). or

Broadcast uniformly on sur- face. On cool-season grasses apply higher rate in fall or lower rate in fall and again in early spring.

Incorporate with top 4-6 inches of soil.

Apply uniformly to surface.

Irrigate for germination and establishment.

- 44 -

Table 26.

Application Rates for Sewage Sludge Compost in the First of Use Based on N or P Fertilizer Recommendations

Year

Remarks N-based fertilizer recoamendat ions

P-based fertilizer recommendations

(tons compost per hectare)

Nursery crops and ornamental8

(shrubs and trees 1

Establishment loo-380 35-100 Incorporate with top

6-8 inches of soil. not use where acid-soil plants (azalea, rhodo-

Do dendron, etc.) are to be grown. Broadcast uniformly on surface soil.

Can be worked into soil or used as a mulch.

Reclamation

Conservation planting up to 500 n.r,

Mulch 17-40 n.r.

Incorporate with top 6 inches of soil. Use maximum rate only where excessive growth for several months follow- ing establishment is desirable. For each inch beyond 6 inches of incorporation, add 22 tons per acre on soils were groundwater nitrogen will not be increased.

Spread screened or unscreened compost uni- formly on surface after seeding; unscreened is effective,

- 45 -

Table 26 (cont.)

Field Grass

Barley, oats, rye, wheat

COrEI

N-based fertilizer recommendat ions

P-based fertilizer recommendations

(tons compost per hectare)

509

105-200

10

15-17

Legumes

Forage grasses

Establishment

Maintenance n.r.

220-380

50-70

10-30

10-12

Remarks incorporate into soil l-2 weeks before plant- ing or in previous fall.

Incorporate into soil l-2 weeks before plant- ing. Supplemental potash may be required depending on soil test.

Legumes can be grown in rotation with corn, oats, or other nitrogen-requiring crops.

Incorporate with top

4-6 inches of soil.

Use lower rate on relatively fertile soil and higher rate on infertile soil.

Supplement during first year’s growth, using

25 pounds per acre of soluble nitrogen fertilizer when needed.

Broadcast uniformly on surface in fall or early spring 1 year after incorporated application.

(cont. 1

- 46 -

Table 26 (cont.)

Turfgrasses

Establishment

(Soil incorporation)

N-baaed fertilizer recommendations

P-based fertilizer recowsendations

(tons compost per hectare)

100-330

27-37

Surface mulch

Maintenance

32-40

22-44

165-330 nor.

7-10

27-37

Remarks

Incorporate with top

4-6 inches of soil.

Use lower rate on rela- tively fertile soil and higher rate on infertile soil.

Spread uniformly on surface before sec- ding small seeded species

(btuegrass) or after seeding large seeded species

(fescues).

Spread uniformly on surface. On cool- season grasses apply higher rate in fall or lower rate in fall and again in early spring.

Incorporate with top

4-6 inches of soil.

Sod production, incorporated with soil

Vegetable crops

Establishment 55-165 7-17

Maintenance 55

Rototill into surface l-2 weeks before planting or in previous fall.

Rate is for years after initial garden estab- liehment. Rototill into surface l-2 weeks before planting or in previous fall. n.r. = not recommended.

Source :

Adapted from Hornick et al. (1979).

- 47 - n'f!mOIMmXYpoB EVALUATIMG TllEE~CPBASIBILITYOF M)-CCHPOSTIW:

In developing countries the waste stream is relatively higher in organic matter than that of industrialized countries.

Since compost is derived only from the organic wastes, it would seem that developing countries have a relative advantage in the production of compost. In addition, domestic solid waste in developing countries contains few, if any, toxic materials which minimizes the risks of recycling them in the domestic solid waste to the land in the form of compost. The purpose of this chapter is to present and analyze the e_conomic parameters underlying will be done by presenting the fundamental co-composting information operations.

This needed to assess the viability financial of co-composting, followed by development of hypothetical models in and then economic terms, along with a discussion of the differences between them. The models will then be computerized and results and sensi- tivity analysis presented. The methodology followed conforms to World Bank guidelines for project economic analysis.

Analysis is being limited to co-composting domestic solid waste with night soil, although with minor modif icationa it would be applicable compost operations using domestic solid waste or sludge separately. composting of domestic solid waste would be more closely correlated to

Direct to the figures presented here, since the night soil component is relatively small

(less than soil/sludge,

10 percent of total inputs). Direct compost ing of night however, requires the use of a bulking agent or organic amendment to reduce its moisture content.

(For a detailed description composting, see Shuval et al. 1981.) Co-composting utilizes solid waste to serve as a bulking agent for the night soil. of night the soil domestic

COMPOSITION OF WASTE AND VALUE OF RESOURCES RECOVERED

The hypothetical models developed in this chapter assume a typical composition of solid waste for developing countries, which limits the capital requirements for equipment such as hammermills or rasps (to grind incoming domestic solid waste) by the waste composition (highly organic) and the use of a manual picking or sorting process. The specifics of the waste stream and its need for size reduction would vary for each municipality.

Typical domestic solid waste generation rates for developing countries that will be used as the basis for these models are 0.3 kilograms/person/day of domestic solid waste with a moisture content of 50 percent and a density of 250-400 kilograms per cubic meter and 1.5 liters of night soil/person/day with a solids content of 3 percent.

The quantity of night soil that can be processed by the co-composting operation depends on the moisture content of the material

This chapter was written by World Bank staff economists Frederick Wright and

Edward F. Quicke.

- 48 - to be composted; this should be no greater than 55 percent.

The anal ysi 8 assumes fresh night soil is collected and used by the co-composting operation, which severely percent solids), limits dried the amount used. sewage sludge

The uae of pit

(lo-20 percent latrine solids), sludge (20-25 or dewatered sludge would allow a greater population base to be handled. lower moisture liquid human waste would change the analysis

The use of a slightly by increasing the amount of compost increased solids but would have little produced if in direct any impact proportion to on compost-processing the costs.

Local conditions will determine the source of liquid material for the co-composting operation.

For the purposes of modeling, the domestic solid waste composition as given in table 27 has been assumed.

Table 27. Domestic Solid Waste Composition

X Domestic solid waste*

Vegetables/putrescible

Paper/carton

Textiles

Metals

Glass

(ferrous)

Plastic and rubber

Inerts, ash, rejects, etc.

58

20

: iax

: a

* Moisture content of 50 percent, density of

400 kg/m3.

Domestic solid waste composition and quantities generated are subject to wide variations as shown in chapter 1, table 1, and depend a great deal on the local collection/scavenging system. Waste composition and quantity also vary according to season (higher ash content in winter, higher moisture levels during wet season, etc.) and source (industry, economic level, etc.). areas, the waste stream may consist almost entirely of organic material,

In many the recoverable material of any value having been removed by scavengers before collection and delivery to the composting plant. Because variations in compo- sition could have a substantial impact on the operating viability of a composting system, waste composition must be determined prior to consideration of compoeting as a waste management option.

Variations in quantities of waste may also effect the capacity need for alternative disposal utilization of the co-composting operation or the systems , particularly where co-composting opera- tions are uaed for a siguificant portion of the waste stream.

The moisture content of the domestic solid waste is very important when co-composting is done, since the lower the domestic solid waste moisture the greater the

- 49 - amounts of night soil (3 percent solids) or sewage sludge (lo-20 percent solids) that can be disposed of.

The domestic solid waste collection system is not being analyzed here but plays a very important role and should be examined when composting as a disposal option is considered. is only possible on the organic material, the inert

Since composting material (including metals, glass, plastics) needs to be sorted out if good quality compost is to be made.

The percentage of available materials recovered will not approach

100 percent of their content in the domestic solid waste unless sophisticated recovery technologies recovery coefficients are used. Table 28 illustratea

(for manual sorting) eatimated reasonable resource from the available literature.

Table 28. Resource Recovery Coefficients

Paper

Textiles

!4etals

Glass

Plastic

(ferrous) and rubber

X Recovered

60

70 a5

50

60

The remainder consists of compostable material

(most of the unreclaimed paper and some textiles also fall in this category) and rejects.

The rejects (comprising mainly inert material such aa construction unrecovered recyclable materials) must be disposed waste of in an appropriate and man- ner -- a sanitary such as construction landfill, for example -- or some other recycling technology land reclamation fill or waste-derived building blocks where feasible. composting

Therefore, is the landfilling of rejects vi11 be done. in many cases the appropriate site for the co- site, where sorting and separation and disposal

For modeling purposes, the US dollar equivalent prices for recovered materials will be assumed as given in table 31.

Table 29. Recovered Material Values

Paper

Textiles

Metals

Glass

Plastics

(ferrous) and Rubber (mixed)

* Prices are ex-plant.

$/Ton*

20

20

15

20

50

- 50 -

The actual prices received for recovered materials are relatively unstable and highly dependent on the local market (rural, availability, etc.). In addition, these materials industry, transport tend to be bulky and transport costs constitute a high percentage of the end users coat.

Also, the size of the composting operation has some bearing on prices for recovered materials.

A amall-scale plant would only be able to offer material users significant quantities after a perins of time, whereas a large facility would be in a better position to negotiate a long-term sales contract. investing in a composting/resource recovery plant, detailed estimates

Prior to must be made of the local market (quantity and price) for recovery materials. Table

30 estimates the value of recovered materials from one ton of waste, based on the assumed waste composition (table 291, resource recovery coefficients

(table 301, and material valuea (table 31).

Table 30. Recovered Materials,

Revenue/Ton of Domestic Solid Waste

(US)

Material

Domestic solid waste content kg

Recovery coeff. x

Quantity recovered kg

Price

$/ton

Revenue

$/ton

Paper

Textiles

Metals

Glass

Plastics

TOTAL

200

30

40

30

40

340

60 ii

50

60

--

120

21

34

15

24

214

20

20

15

20

50

--

2.40

.42

.51

.30

1.20

4.83

Aa can be seen, the gross revenue generated for moat items is rather small (particularly for textiles, metals, and glass) and one might assume it is not economical to recover them (recovery, of course, depends on local labor costs and potential compostable materials. markets).

Therefore, then become rejects (requiring

Yet, they disposal) except would if for still not the paper, need sorting recovered these and would and sold, are not and a significant percentage of the end cost has to be invested for both recycling and co-composting.

The other revenue-generating

(value) of c ompost is also sensitive item will to local be the compost. conditions patterns (vegetables or other high value crops), soil condition,

The price such as cropping availability of alternative soil conditioners (such as livestock wastes or crop residues), and costs of agricultural water). inputs (for example, inorganic fertilizers

Other potential buyers of compost include greenhouses and horticul- and tural plant nursery operations (as a substitute for other more expensive

- 51 - growing media, such as peat moss), land reclamation projects (atrip mining or landfill cover), and public works (parks, landscaping, etc.).

The amount of carpost produced depends on the quantity of compostable material, content of volatile solids, and its initial and final moisture con- tent.

Particle size, moisture content, aa well as the carbon/nitrogen ratio

(the mixing of night soil or sewage aludge with the compoatable part of the domestic solid waste generally improves the C/N ratio) and oxygen content are the critical factors affecting the speed of the composting process and the quality of the finished compost.

A review of the available literature indicates a aubstantial varia- tion in the yield of compost, particularly from soiid waste,

For example, the research done by the TVA at Johnson City indicates a 20-30 percent reduction in total solids (after removal of noncompostables) for municipal waste com- post.

Other sources show reductions in solids as low as 10 percent (Flintoff) and as high as 50-55 percent, reports make specific reference again based on total to reduction in compostable volatile solids.

Other solids and show values ranging from 42 percent (Net0 and Stentiford) up to 62 percent

(Diaz). Still others report yields of compost based on the total waste stream, with figures ranging from 37-50 percent !Eqr);

Other factors that compound the problem of comparing these compost yields are the variations in waste composition, maturity. the final moisture content, and the

Before a decision is made on the economic viability degree of compost of composting, the yield of the proposed co-composting plant needs to be estimated based on trials that utilize the local waste atream.

For modeling purposes and 80 kilograms of night soil- l/t he input/output balance for one ton of waste is as presented in table 31.

The compost product, in addition to being a soil conditioner, have some value as a low-grade fertilizer with analysis closely correlated would to the waste input. Typical N (nitrogen), P (phosphate), and

K

(potassium) values for municipal waste and night soil compost are 1.3, 0.9, 1.0, respectively; however, wide variations nature of the nitrogen, much of it exist. Because ia unavailable for of the unmineralized immediate plant use

(typically, only 10 percent is available in the first year) and therefore acts much like a low-grade, elow-release fertilizer. The major value of compost is derived from its organic content which improves soil texture.

Improved soi 1 structure increases water retention capabilities resulting in either greater yields ability or lower to provide micronutrients, irrigation and/or requirements. improve utilization and enhance

(thought to be a function of slower leaching). using compost on food crops is the crop that

Other benefits come from compost’s of plant nutrients, particularly utilization waste-derived of artificial

One point fertilizers of caution co-compost

(particularly when

L/ The 80 kg of night soil (3% solids) added after the separation step raises the moisture content of the compoatable material to 55%. Use of pit latrine wastes or sewage sludge at 20% solid would be 140kg and increase the amount of compost to 360kg/l ton domestic solid waste.

- 52 -

Table 31. Material Balance P r

1 Ton Domestic Solid Waste a

7

Recover

Rejects-

%?

Compoa t-

Cl

Materials

Loss of volatited solids and water

214

86

335

445

1080 a. Assumed to have an initial moisture content of

50%. b. Rejects consist of inerts (excluding ash and fines), and unrecovered metals, glass and plastics. c. Quantity of compost produced is based on 700 kg of compostable material at 50% moiature plus 80 liters of night soil at 3% solids. During the composting process 33% of total solida are consumed and the final product has a 30% moisture content for a total weight reduction of

57%. when sewage sludge is used) may contain heavy metals (lead, cadmium, nickel, zinc, mercury) which would limit the acceptable application in the majority of urban areas in developing countries rates.

However, the potential percentage of heavy metals is negligible.

CO-COMPOSTING PLANT

In order to preaent a wide range of composting alternatives, four different scale base case models of one nonreactor windrow, will be developed and analyzed. cornposting

The descriptions of system, the the 3- and 50- ton-per-day plants are from Flintoff (1976) for India, and the 150- and 300- ton-per-day from consultants’ work done for the recently appraised Egypt Solid

Waste Management project. Interpolation of physical components was also done as a cross check to get a degree of consistency across the four hypothetical base case modela. Financial prices ussd are based on the consultants’ for Bgypt . It should be explicitly understood that, while efforts report have been made to be realistic, these base case models are hypothetical and should be used with caution, although attempts have been made to make them as realistic as possible. methodology

Their main purpose is to allow the reader to work through the using data from his or her specific situation.

A description of these four base case models is given below in table 32.

- 53 -

Table 32. Description

Model designation

A

B

C

D of Base Case Models

Capacity/description

3 tans/8-hour input), day (Domestic entirely solid manual/windrow-sty waste e operations on an unpaved site of 500 m 1 , with storage tank (night soil) and a manual rotary screen (waste from 10,000 people and night soil from 160 people or sludge from 1,900 people).

50 tons/B-hour day, using a 2 ha paved site, conveyors, separator, windrow-style operations with rotary screen, ballistic storage tank (night soil), front-end loader, tractor and trailers

(waste from 160,000 people and night soil from 2,500 people or sludge from

30,000 people).

150 tons/lb-hour operation day, windrow-style using a 18.5 ha paved site with weigh bridge, storage tank (night soil), civil works, conveyors, shredding drums, magnetic separator, baler windrow turning hydraulic machine (l), frontend loaders (2), tipper trucks (4), workshop, laboratory generator, and bagging line (waste from 500,000 people and night soil from 8,500 people or sludge from 93,000 people).

300 tons/l6-hour day, using a 25 ha site, same description as in C with two times equipment and throughput.

In addition to these windrow (periodic-turning) systems, there are at least two other viable co-cornposting systems suited for conditions in developing countries, systems. such as the

These were described static in some detail aerated pile, in chapter 3. and reactor

The basic input/output relationships are the same for all co-composting systems.

For the static aerated pile there would be minor changes in capital costs

(suction fans and process controls but no windrow turning equipment) and reduced operating costs (less turning). For the enclosed reactor systems, the capital and operating costs would increase dramatically land requirements (only for the cornposting, not maturation). but have lower

Analyses of these additional sensitivity analysis co-composting that options makes changes will in both be approximated eapital using and operating costs as outlined in chapter same for all models and technologies.

3, table 8. The physical parameters (waste input, recovery rates, and compost production) operating are the

-

54

-

CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS

Base case investment costs for the four windrow models are detailed in table

33 below.

Models A and B could be constructed in less than one year, while the larger models would require a two-year construction period.

Staffing and operating coefficients are given in tables 34-36.

Table 33.

Estimated Capital Costs (Base Case)

(thousands of US$)

(5Ot;d)

Model

Description

(3tpAd)

Civil Works

Site preparations

Fences and gates

Administrative

Cornposting area building

Maturing area

Paving to roads and

Receiving area

Water supply

Storage tank (night soil)

Drainage

Electrical installation

Miscellaneous buildings

Subtotal

Equipment

Weigh bridge

Conveyors and feeding assembly

Baling equipment

Screening assembly

Electrical equipment

Compost-turning machines

~~~~:nl;dt~~~:;X:t5~

Spare parts

Laboratory

Workshop/clothing/tools

Generator

Bagging plant- b/

Installation & Engineering

Training and Tech. Asst.

Subtotal

Physical

TOTAL

Contingency (15%)

1.0

2.0

5.0

4.0

1.0

1.0

14.0

10.0

5.0

2.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

10.0

30,o

6.6

50.6

25

15.0

25.0

75.0

25.0

25.0

7.0

3.0

10.0

15.0

25.0

250.0

300.0

20.0

30.0

50.0

75.0

30.0

50.0

5.0

5.0

50.0

50.0

200.0

25.0

890.0

171.0

1311.0 a. Either tipper trucks or tractors and trailers. b. Used for fine-grade compost only.

(15Ot;d,

160.0

180.0

160.0

200.0

80.0

80.0

32.0

8.0

40.0

160.0

1,040.o

1,040.o

25.0

675.0

80.0

120.0

150.0

150.0

150.0

250.0

150.0

10.0

15.0

100.0

150.0

850.0

125.0

3,000.0

606.0

4646.0

(3OOtDpd)

240.0

120.0

240.0

320.0

120.0

120.0

48.0

12.0

60.0

280.0

40.0

1,600.O

25.0

1,290.o

110.0

175.0

250.0

300.0

300.0

500.0

230.0

.p 10.0

35.0

150.0

150.0

1,325.0

150.0

5,000.0

990.0

7590.0

- 55 -

Table 34. Estimated Staffing Requirements (base case)

Description

A

B

B

C

C

D

D

Management staff*

Labor

1

5

4

10

8

36

* Nanagement staff includes some or all of the duties; supervisor, mechanical engineer, accountant, maintenance engineer, electricians and lab technicians.

8

47

Table 35. Miscellaneous Base Case Operating Requirements (units/year)

A Description

Electricity kw-hr ) liters)

(thousands

Water (thousands of m3)

Fuel (thousands of liters)

Lubricant (thousands of of

0.5

-

125.0

6.5

70.0

.3

415.5

18.0

232.5

.9

780.0

40.5

435.0

1.8

Item

Table 36. Financial Input Prices (base case)

Price

Electricity

Water

Fuel

Lubricant

1.6 US t/kw-hr

2.3 US t/m3

20 US L/liter l.POUS$/liter

Maintenance costs are estimated at 2 percent/year of total equipment costs.

Average financial wage rates used for the base case analysis are

$1,62O/person/year for management and $1,25O/person/year for labor.

These rates, as with other input prices, would of course vary from country to country and should be adjusted to the specific location being studied. operating cost parameters are listed in table 37.

Other

Description

A

- 56 -

Table 37.

Operating Cost Estimate (base case)

(thousands of US$/year)

B

C

Labor

Management

General

1.6

6.3

Fringe benefits @ 25percent 2.0

Overtime 25percent 2.0

Subtotal

11.9

Other

Electricity

Water

Fuel

Lubricant

Maintenance

Subtotal

Total Plant Running Costs

0.0

0.9

0.9

12.8

6.5

12.5

4.7

4.7

2&.5

2.0 l l

1.4

.4

22.8

26.t

55.2

13.0

45.0

14.5

14.5

86.9

6.6

.4

4.7

1.1

80.8 m

180.5

D

13.0

58.8

17.9

17.9

107.6

12.5

.9

8.7

2.2

132.0

156.3

263.9

Management of the co-cornposting operation should be stressed, parti- cularly since the handling of pathogens is involved.

Proper training record keeping is essential to production of good quality hygienic compost. and

LAND VALUE AND LANDFILL REQUIREMENTS COSTS

The plant must also bear the cost of reject material

(amounting to at least 119 kilograms/ton domestic solid waste input). disposal

These costs will include transport

(including land), and operating to a sanitary costs. landfill facility,

For base case modeling its capital purposes the land price for both the landfill

$25,00O/hectare (nearby urban areas). and the composting

Transport facility is assumed at cost to the landfill is being assumed at a nominal US$l.O/ton of rejects (i.e., the compost plant is close to the landfill and transport equipment from the plant will be used). Typical densities for rejects, which consist primarily of inorganic waste (stones and building materials such as concrete, brick, etc.), are relatively higher

(approximately sanitary landfill

30 percent) than generally landfilled wastes. Assuming the depth is 3 meters (excluding thickness of cover material), and the rejects have a compacted density of 0.67 tons/cubic meter, each ton of rejects therefore requires l/2 square meters of land area. For without the project case a reasonable density for compacted landfilled composting/resource recovery, i.e., without project) waste is 0.5 tons/cubic

(without meter which would require 0.67 square meters of land area per ton. landfill operating costs have been estimated at US$2.43/ton

Base case

(including costs of equipment, civil works, and operations) excluding land. It is worth noting that the landfilled rejects, because of their low organic content, would

- 57 - create a landfill that did not produce methane gas.

This can either be considered a plus or a minus depending on long-term management of the landfill

(reduced risk of explosion, or lost income potential from gas recovery).

Also, for the same reasons, there should be fewer rodent and odor problems associated with the landfilling of rejects and it should be possible to use them for land reclamation (swamp, coastal) activities, which would result in almost total elimination of landfill requirements.

In addition, rejects are of very low value, they should not attract scavengers since to the the landfilling site.

Landfill disposal or a give-away program may also be required for the poorer fully quality compost used for landfill if it cannot be marketed.

Compost has been success- cover and surface reclamation of sanitary landfills in place of soil. For modeling purposes compacted compost is estimated to require transport

0.55 square and landfill meter of land operations per would ton (depth of 3 meters). be approximately

Costs for the same as for rejects.

All of the base case model assumptions (quantities and prices) are subject to a fairly high variation, and should be modified to reflect the circumstances the analysis, of any specific sensitivity project environment under review.

As part of tests will be performed to vary assumptions systematically for individual and groups of line items in the models. The intent will be to determine general viability of cornposting and highlight the key parameters.

The base case models have been developed using Lotus 123 (a popular personal computer spreadsheet) which can be modified easily to reflect particular situations.

OTHER FACTORS AFFECTING FINANCIAL COSTS AND REVENUES

In addition to the basic quantitative capital/operating parameters and prices outlined earlier, the planner must consider several other items, a few of which are discussed here.

Transport distances to the compost facility systems for domestic solid waste and night soil collection

(or landfill) and local are a major cost of any waste management scheme. These costs are not being addressed here since it is assumed that the collection costs are almost equal regardless of the final disposal method.

This is not to say that collection options should not be examined.

For example, for domestic solid waste it is generally accepted that it is more economical to separate the recoverable materials at the source, prior to mixing with the general waste stream.

Source separation or widespread scavenging would reduce the recycling revenue of the compost plants to almost zero while having only a limited impact on operating costs since sorting of rejects (with no value) must still be carried out.

Another factor to consider is the type of domestic solid waste collection vehicle.

Com- pacting trucks are generally inadequate for the developing countries due to maintenance trucks difficulties for pit latrines, and the already high density of the waste.

Vacuum septic tanks or cess pools are often very effective since they limit the health risks involved in human handling and can discharge

- 58 - the human wastes to the cornposting consideration is the organisation stations, utilisation of capital, of plant the and labor). directly. collection

Still another process (transfer

All of these will depend a great deal on local conditions and practicesl The compost plant has been assumed to be located near the currently analyze the specific situation -- it used landfill. may be less

It expensive is important to locate to the compost plant either closer to the waste generation point (lower collection transport costs) or closer to the agricultural areas (lower transport costs for the compost).

The seasonality of the waste stream will also affect the viability the compost facility.

In general, of tvo elements pertain: (1) the volume of domestic solid waste and night soil , and (2) the composition

(moisture and ash content in particular).

The design capacity of the compost plant must allov for either adequate storage and processing flexibility (multiple shifts) to meet peak utilization loads or alternative disposal vi11 also have a significant systems. impact

The plant capacity on operating efficiency.

For the purposes of the four models, it is assumed that they average 80 percent of design capacity from the year after investments are completed, and only 50 percent during in the vaste final year of construction. stream and down-time

This figure allovs for variations for equipment and site maintenance.

Another seasonal factor would be the efficiency of the comporting process during the rainy season when the vindrovs may require temporary covers or more frequent turning. In areas with heavy rain seasons, a simple roof shelter may be built

(adding throughput). to the capital cost but maximieing the potential operating

It is typical of most waste disposal operations that they operate at a loss, which is true for almost all compost operations in both industralized and developing countries (depending of course on operating costs and the value of compost and recovered materials). This net composting operating cost of domestic solid vaste disposal is generally covered by charging a “tipping fee” for accepting the vaste from the collection system. The tipping fee (if set high enough) would make cornposting a viable activity for the privateeVsector.

A waste management planner would try to set the tipping fee as far as possible below the costs of alternative disposal (dumping, landfill, sanitary landfill, incineration, etc.), yet high enough to make composting financially viable.

For the purposes of the four f’ set at US$l.O/ton waste input,-

%@ ncial models, the initial and sensitivity tests will tipping fee will be carried be out to determine the level of tipping fee needed to run a financially posting facility.

If the municipality runs both the collection operations, viable com- and cornposting the tipping fee becomes a proxy for the estimated savings on landfilling costs and allows the municipality this case, one could substitute a collection to compare the alternatives. In fee that is then allocated to the collection/disposal operations for costs recovery. be compared vith the waste generator’s willingness

This fee, and ability of course, to pay. must

A/ This tipping fee would be extremely low in comparison with that found in some parts of the United States where landfills fees for landfills or incineration facilities are scarce and tipping can range up to US$30/ton, or even higher for certain wastes such as sewage sludge.

- 59 -

The marketability and price received for compost are probably the most important financial factors. compost is very crop- and location-specific.

As mentioned earlier,

In temperate the winter demand for or tropical monsoon climates, the land application of compost may be seasonally restricted and require site. storage capacity either at the application

Compost, due to its moisture retention abilities, demand for certain higher-valued and higher-risk area or cornposting is often in greater crops*

Moreover, the quality of the compost, that is, nutrients, impact on its price, Throughout particle the available sixe, and maturity, literature, has a great the need for a well-thought-out and executed compost marketing program is stressed.

Failure to market the compost adequately has been cited as the main cause for the failure of composting operations. In many areas, compost users will need to have its use and value demonstrated to them. The demonstration of composts agricultural usefulness may be dramatic in developing countries where farmers often cannot get or do not use fertilizers or manure since the potential for incremental yield increases from using compost would be more than in other regions of the world. For existing compost plants the range of prices is from

SO/ton (actually it is given away) up to a reported US$40/ton. This range of prices certainly covers different quality composts being used for different purposes.

For base case modeling purposes, it is assumed that there are four compost market outlets (table 38).

Table 38. Compost Markets and Prices (base case)

Markets

Horticulture

Land reclamation/Agriculture

Public

Landfill works cover

X of Production

Sold to

10

50

30

10

Price

($/Ton)

14

10

7

0

These prices are assumed ex-plant and would of course depend greatly on local conditions and marketing efforts.

These four market outlets would not all get the same quality compost.

The last category, landfill cover, would include the poorer quality product and in some cases would not have a value of zero, since alternative transported landfill from a significant cover may have a value , particularly distance.

The horticulture if market it must be would only get the highest quality compost. landfill cover compost are included

Costs of transport and disposal as a cost in the models. for the

The financial factor most often overlooked by planners is the working capital requirements. Working capital

(minimum resource requirements for carrying breaks down operations), into: (1) and (2) permanent variable

(seasonal requirements for such things as unsold compost). For modeling purposes net working capital requirements are estimated at one month’s gross revenue and costed in the model at a 12 percent annual interest rate (i.e.,

1 percent of annual gross revenues).

- 60 -

FROM FINANCIAL COSTS/REVENUES TO ECONOXIC COSTS/BENEFITS

The basic thrust of project economic analysis is to determine if the co-composting process is a beneficial (productive, or lover cost disposal, waste management) use of scarce resources (capital,

There are several fundamental differences in this material, process and labor). from the financial accounting system -- the object here is to quantify the impact on the economy and not simply assess the financial operations. Considerations include the

“economic” nonquantifiable cost of labor, transfer payments, and other external and effects of the project in terms of the economic costs and benefits.

The most significant adjustment to the financial base

case

model comes from the use of “shadow prices,” or economic conversion factors, which attempt to adjust imperfect financial market prices to their true economic values.

These financial prices often include government transfer payments, such as taxes, subsidies, and quotas , and are adjusted through their exclusion and through the use of international (free trade) border prices.

The economic valuation of goods that are not usually traded internationally (e.g., recycled goods -- paper, glass, low-grade metals, tex- tiles; compost; labor) is less refined, and it is often impossible to estimate the correct economic exchange price.

Several valuation options exist. simplest would be to assume that the economic price equals the financial

The price

(economic conversion factor = l.O), that is, assume a free market does exist.

Another option is to value these goods in terma of other traded goods; for example, the recycled materials can be valued based on the energy saved -- the oil equivalent -- through their use in the production process. For the compost, vith more research, estimates could be made of its value in terms of reduced agricultural inputs, such as soil conditioners, fertilizer, and

water, or

increased production of internationally traded agricultural products

(vheat, corn, fruits, method -- tradable vegetables, etc.), or both. Uhen using the latter

resources

saved or incremental tradable goods produced -- the analysis benefits. materials should

Examples include of the incremental incremental ccsts of real izing these costs include transport of recycled to the processing factory or transport and spreading for the camp09 t . methods. realistic.

There are several problems with either of these economic valuation

For each country/location a different approach might be more

Where there is already an active recycling trade, the use of market prices adjusted for macromarket imperfections makes the most sense. It is also vorth noting that many developing countries do not have internal sources for virgin materials and therefore have only two alternatives, importation or recycling. lated

In addition, conversion factor. many of these countries are extremely short of foreign exchange for imports.

This would argue for the relative economic advantages of recycling , which should be accounted for by a properly calcu-

The same is true for compost, but there will rarely be an active, significant

proved

to be very difficult volume soil conditioner trade. to isolate the agricultural

In addition, it has value of compost vithin the extremely complex agroeconomic system, which includes sun, water,

- 61 - nutrients, soils, plant varieties, and farming methods.

However9 there have been numerous experiments that have conclusively shown increased yields, over a wide range, attributed to the use of compost. depends greatly on the existing conditions, with

The yield less impact impact of compost on high quality soils also facility and often very risky is large: resulting in dramatic to use market prices yield if increases the on poor soils. composting/resource

It is recovery an oversupply may be created and cause prices to fall. counted

It is also worth stressing here that economic benefits should not be twice.

For example, if the market price (adjusted by a conversion factor) is used to estimate economic value, savings or agricultural impact. This would one cannot be double also count counting the energy since the market price includes the consumers’ “economic” benefits of using the material or compost.

Nonquantified impacts include the project’s impact on land values and quality of life. The value of land near the compost plant may decline and values near the forgone landfill, which would now be smaller or more sanitary, may increase. particularly

Health and sanitation co-cornposting, when it benefits can result is compared with from cornposting, more traditional and waste disposal options such as open dumping of solid waste or direct land disposal of night soil , sludge and septage.

External environmental impacts of composting/resource recovery could possibly be of value. There are both positive effects -- reduced health water and soil pollution hazards and raw material needs, as well as improved soil structure resulting in less erosion -- and negative ones -- smell, leachate -- which depend on how well the cornposting operation composting facility is well designed and managed, it is is managed. expected

If the to have little if any negative impact on the environment and numercus benefits. Some of these benefits are captured elsewhere in the analysis in such things as recycled

Others are materials, not, less land such as improved for landfill, sanitation benefits are excluded from the analysis. these nonquantifiable benefits of camposting or the market value of compost. and health.

These nonquantifiable

It should also be noted that may not accrue most of to the cornposting enterprise.

For any particular investment, there is also the consideration of sunk costs, for example, existing equipment. landfill operations,

For cornposting, this is not usually significant including since land and rejects would continue to be landfilled and it is unlikely that composting would handle the entire waste stream, more often being only a component in the overall vaste management scheme.

Another significant adjustment to the financial model is needed for labor.

The economic price of labor depends on the local demand curves, which in turn depend on the opportunities market supply-and- for alternative work and valuation assumption of leisure. is that skilled

For labor the is purpose in of relatively these short four models, supply, with the an economic conversion factor greater than 1.0, for example, 1.5* and that there

- 62 - is a relative surplus of unskilled labor, a factor of, say, 0.5 -- a typical situation in developing countries.

For the illustrative calculations below, capital cost estimates from the financial base case models will remain unchanged in the base case economic model a.

These costs were originally estimated in US dollars and therefore will serve as economic values ‘for our purposes.

As mentioned earlier, the labor costs for the base case economic models will be adjusted by factors of 1.5 and 0.5 for management and general labor, respectively. Fringe benefits and overtime will remain at 25 percent each, although there may be some small element of a transfer payment in the fringe benefits.

Other operating costs will be adjusted to reflect economic prices as discussed previously (table 39).

Table 39. Economic Input Prices (base case)

Item Value

Skilled labor

Unskilled labor

Electricity

Water

Fuel

Lubricant

2,430 US$/year

625 US$/year

10 US ilyegr

2.9 US t/m

40 US t/liter

1.20 US t/liter an arbitrary

The base case financial

25 percent, price even though its for water economic has been adjusted value upward by is very difficult to estimate; in any case, it is a very small input. more significant

The price of water would be if it were used to value the compost’s agricultural input savings.

The base case economic models will value the recycled materials at the financial prices, which are rather conservative. The alternative valuation, energy saved, has been estimated for the United States (table 40). if the energy costs of mining the virgin ore are also included, the values of scrap in terms of energy savings increase. In many cases, these figures are misleading; for example, steel energy savings are dependent on the type of furnace, type of scrap, and end product. For glass the energy savings would be much greater if intact containers were recycled. of contamination in plastics greatly affect both

The type and amount the recycling options and energy savings. reprocessing,

For paper the quality thereby making it less valuable. of the fibers decreases during

- 63 -

Table 40.

Energy

Used to Process Virgin and Recycled Materials

Material

Steel

Glass

Plastics

(polyethylene)

Newsprint

Virgin ore Recycled material

(thousands of BTU/kg)

18.3

17.2

109.1

25.1

Source: Adapted from Hayes (1978).

9.7

15.9

3.0

19.4

(100% Scrap)

Savings

8.6

1.3

106.1

5.7 t% 1

(47)

(8)

(97)

(23)

Assuming that the above figures are reasonable and that the marginal source of energy is imported oil, the approximate energy-based economic value of the recovered materials is shown in table 41.

Material

Table 41. Recycled Material Valuation - Energy Based

$/to&

Value $/ton-

/2

Domestic solid waste

Metals

Glass

Plastics & rubber- b/

Total

45.4

6.9

280.0

1.54

.lO

6.72

12.59

/1 Based on table 43 and World Bank Commodity Price Data.

/2 Calculations done as in table 32. value based on newsprint. a. No data available for rag recycling, b.

One half polyethelene.

-

64

-

Bxcept for glass, these energy-based valuations are higher than the financial prices and will only be used for a sensitivity test. This valuation would need adjustment for transport to the recycling plant and any processing overheads beyond the use of virgin materials. valuations

For the economic value of compost in the models, three alternative will be tested.

The compost’s economic value for a specific project area depends on its quality and ultimate use. As an upper value it is assumed that compost has value equivalent to peat, which is a

Recent peat export prices for Ireland have been about US$lO/ton,-

55 aded good. excluding transport which can be costly. small and is primarily sold to

The world the trade in. peat home garden or moss is relatively commercial nursery markets.

Compost should not be considered the full equivalent of peat moss.

Therefore, as an upper value of compost we will use the value of peat without any adjustment for transport, that is, US$‘lO/ton. structure

Compost is at its lowest value as a low-grade fertilizer; value is not included. costs were ignored. the soil

This would represent a floor on its value if the necessary transport and application

Approximate 1984 fertilioer prices are listed in table 42.

Prices (approx.)

Table 42.

1984 Fertilizer

Fertilizer

Urea (46 percent

TSP (46 percent

N)

P20 )

Muriate of potash ( i 0%

K2O5)

$/Ton

170

130

85

Based on a co-compost nutrient mix of 1.3, approximate value would be US$8.75/ton (igno=g

0.9, 1.0

801116 obvious

(N, P, K),- benefits

21 the includ- ing the slow-release nutrients). nature of the

The World Bank projections nitrogen and the for fertilizers value of in constant the micro- terms show that prices should rise by 37 percent for N, 12 percent for P, and 15 percent for U through 1995.

To keep the economic analysis simple, these as well as any other (energy, land) relative included in this analysis. increases

The fertilizer in economic value prices will needs to be reduced not be by the

A/ 50% moisture content fob costs 5 Irish pounds/300 liter bale. g/ If greater amounts of dried sewage sludge vere used, these nutrient values would be [email protected], but in any case they will vary depending on local waste compositioxL*

I- 65 - increased handling, transport, and application alent amount of inorganic fertilizer. This costs cost compared with is estimated the equiv- at US$2.75/ton which, when deducted, gives a low-end economic value for compost of US$6.0/ton ex-factory.

As a realistic base case value for the compost, a conservative estimate was to be used of yield increases and inputs saved that were attributable this valuation realistic to compost. Because of the many factors method is probably the least certain affecting but would crop yield, be the most economic value. For example, typical net incomes for field crops in the developing countries range between US$200-500/ha, and up to US$l,200/ha for fruits and vegetables.

The reasonable application rate of compost for vegetable crops can be estimated from the figures presented in chapter 5, table 24 and amounts to 50-100 tons every 2 to 4 years. If we assume that 25 tons/ha of compost per year allows net income to increase approximately

US$500-600/ha (switching from field crops to vegetables), ture value would be US$20-24/tan. From this figure the upper we must deduct agricul- transport from the plant and application costs. A compost value of US$ZO/ton will be used as a proxy in the base case.economic models.

This value is very subjective in that it is a substitute for input savings on fertilizer, soil conditioners, and water, which accrue over a period of years; the value of increased crop yields, which depend on the local cropping patterns, soil conditions, to achieve these benefits. etc;

For areas and the transport/application with badly overexploited costs soils and/or shortages or lack of fertilizer inputs, the yield response from using compost could be dramatic and therefore specific locations.

There is its a lack economic of data value may on the be much higher benefit of in compost resulting from the improvement of the physical structure of soil, and this may be a constraint on the increased demand for, and value of, compost.

The market outlets for compost will remain the same for the economic analysis but prices will be equal remain at zero. for all but landfill cover (lowest quality), which will landfill,

The base case economic values for other cost factors miscellaneous operating unchanged from the financial models. expenses, and working capital, will such as remain

RESULTS FROM HYPOTHETICAL MODEL CALCULATIONS

The computer model developed (using Lotus l-2-3) takes the form of a simple line-item budget covering a 2O-year period.

All of the parameters discussed in this chapter are included. equipment in year 10, with no salvage value.

The models assume replacement of

There is no. provision for re- sale of the land, or re-use of the landfill.

The base case models are built up from the financial price ass\lmptions adjusted by a factor that is set to 1, for the financial analysis, and set to the shadow economic conversion factor for the economic analysis.

These factors can readily be substituted to adapt any “base case” situation also some standard input/output to a particular operating investment coefficients situation.

-- waste

There are composition

- 66 - and density

-- and four sets (one for each base case model) of physical parameters as described in this chapter.

Capital investments are assumed to take one year for models A (3 tons per day) and B (50 tons per day) with a 50 percent capacity utilization reached in that year.

For the larger models C (150 tons per day) and D (300 tons per day) investments occur over a two-year period (50 percent each year) with a SO percent capacity utilization in year 2. For the remainder of the 20 years, capacity utilization is 80 percent. investments,

Since this chapter is not intended to evaluate the financing investments. no calculation has been included for funding the initial capital of

Analysis indicators the hypothetical models. are calculated

The first at two stages is based on the “net or bottom with project” lines

(with), in which represents the compost facility would be a good indicator if the private operations sector including were running tipping fee and the composting plant but had no responsibility

“net incremental” (incr ) , which for the landfill. takes into account

The second indicator the benefits is the of reduced landfill (without project) and excludes the tipping fee (transfer

The latter situation would be typical of a situation payment). where the operations -- composting municipality. and landfill -- are run by the same entity,

Both bottom lines are calculated for the financial that is, and economic factors, although the “net with” is not really meaningful for the economic analysis.

The incremental bottom line is more relevant, even in the financial model, if the compost plant is to be run by the municipal government.

The indicators calculated for each hypothetical model include internal rate of return (IRR), net present value (NPV) per ton of domestic solid aaste, which is the cashflow NPV at 12 percent divided by the discounted

(at 12 percent) amount of waste processed (NPV/ton). This last indicator adjusts the models to a consistent used in calculating the context of this average analysis incremental it unit gives for costs comparison for utility an indication and is traditionally rate setting. In of the average cost incurred for each ton of waste processed by the co-composting operation. that

The results for the hypothetical co-composting forgone landfill

(including recovery is benefits not a financially are of recyclable counted. materials) base case financial worthwhile

It will models indicate operation even if the seems clear not reduce that co-composting the cost of waste management and more likely would only increase the financial management on municipalities. burden of waste

The base case economic analysis has similar implications and shows that co-composting is likely to be a higher cost waste management alternative than sanitary landfill. See table 43 for the base case financial results and table 44 for the base case economic results.

Sensitivity analysis on the hypothetical financial base case indicates that either the compost or the recycling revenues would need to increase by a factor of 4-S times for the composting plant

(with) to break

Category

COSTS

Capitel

Operating

REVENUES

Recycled materials compost

Tipping fee

Wet With Project

WITHOUT PROJECT

Reduced landfill

Tipping fee

Met Incremental

-

67

-

Table 43. Base Case Results -- Financial

NPV(12X)$/Toa Domestic Solid Waste Processed

A B

Model

C

-1069

-15.6

4.8

2.9

1.0

117.8

4.1

- 1.0

-14.7

-1?,5

- 5.2

4.8

2.9

1.0

-14.0

4.1

- 1.0

=im

D

-33,1

- 5.5

-18.7

-

4.4

4.8

2.9

1.0

-19.9

4.8

2.9

1.0

-14.4

4.1

- 1.0

-16.8

4.1

- 1.0

-11.3

Table 44. Base Case Results -- Economic

NPV(12X)$/Ton Domestic Solid Waste Processed

A

B

Model

C Category

COSTS

Capital

Operating

REVENUES

Recycled materials

Compost

NET WITH

Reduced landfill

NET INCRMBNTAL

Internal Rate of Return%

- Incremental

-10.9

-11.9

4.8

6.0

-12 .o

4.1

- 7.9

- 9.0

-17.5

- 5.9

4.8

6.0

-12.5

4.1

- 8.5

- 0.8

D

4.8

6.0

-18.3

4.1

-14.3

- 4.6

-23.1

- 6.0

-18.7

- 5.1

4.8

6.0

-12.9

4.1

- 8.9

0.0

- 68 - even (IRR = 12% or NPV/ton

[ 12X] = 0) at a 12 percent discount rate. The increase in either compost or recycled revenues required would be somewhat less -- approximately three to four times as high received a tipping fee equal to the forgone landfill

-- if costs the compost of about plant

US$Q/ton

(i.e., net incremental 1. A tipping fee of 14-20 US$/ton (equivalent to the net with project Loss) would be required for the plant to break even finan- cially at a 12 percent discount rate. The required increase in total reve- nues -- compost plus recycled materials -- would need to more than double from the base case for the “with project” to have a 12 percent rate of return.

Sensitivity on compost revenues in the hypothetical economic base case indicates that the use of a peat-based valuation (US$70/ton) would make

Eomposting viable.

The use of the N-P-K valuation for compost results in about valuation a US$4/ton decrease for recycled in materials

NPV from the makes significant economic base case.

Energy impact on the economic base case, decreasing waste processing costs about US$7/ton in PV from the base case l

The substitution of sewage sludge for night soil would raise compost production and revenues about 7 percent.

Table 45 outlines the results of adjusting the base economic models to approximate the aerated pile and an enclosed reactor system (Model A is excluded since it is using manual processing).

Table 45. Alternative Technologies

-- Results (Economic Values)

NP'J (12%) $/ton Domestic Solid Waste Processed

Composting technology

Reac tot:’

NPV/ton

NPV/ton

Aerated

NPV/ton

NPV/ton

(with)

(incr ) pi&

(with)

(incr)

B

-2s

-21

-15

-11

Node1

C

-33

-29

-13

-9

D

-2s

-21

-8

-4 a. Investment costs (excluding iand) up 60X, operating costs up 20X, Land for plant down 20%. b. Investment costs up 20% for model B and down 20% for models C & D (to reflect the addition of fans to all models and deletion of windrow-turning machines in models C & D), operating costs down 20%.

- 69 -

The reactor option is much more costly; the aerated pile costs, however, are slightly worse for labor-intensive model B and slightly better for models C & D by about US$4/ton in NPV terms than the base case economic models.

The potential advantage process is somewhat more controLLed.in of the aerated pile terms of uniform system temperature is that the achieved, which is critical in destroying the pathogens in the night soil sludge and septage and thus removing them from the environment. should be investigated as the system of lowest cost

The aerated piie when considering system co- cornposting.

Sensitivity of the economic models to Land pricing was also tested.

There was a marginal impact of higher Land prices on the models’ indicators for the with or incremental bottom lines since land is a relatively minor component of the compost plant net with project

, and increased costs there are offset by increased benefits (Landfill impact of land prices forgone) was seen in the widening in the without. of the difference

The real between the net with and net incremental indicators. The relative land valuation might

. in the situation where sanitary Landfill available within a reasonable distance to the waste source. options are no longer

Sensitivity tests on a combination of factor:3 out.

These are intended to demonstrate the potential cost were also carried effectiveness of co-composting in specific local situations that might be more favorable than assumed for the base case analysis. These sensitivity for Model A - 3tpd economic base case in table 46 below. results are presented

Table 46. Sensitivity Tests - Multiple Change

Category

Model A - 3tpd - Economic

X Change from Base Case

Line Item Changes

Compost revenues

Recycled revenues

Reduced Landfill costs (without project)

Results

IRR - incremental

NPV/Ton - incremental (12%)

+100

+lOO

0

+so

+so

+100

+18.3

+lS.S

+ 3.0 4~1.6

+ 2s

+ 2s

+100

+100

*so

+50

+9.6

+17.5

-1.1

+2.6

0

0

+200

+3.3

-3.8

Prom the illustrative calculations done here one may conclude that, if local conditions correspond to any of these sensitivity scenarios, further detailed investigation is warranted. However, any significant investment in composting should be done only after detailed analysis of potential markets and a commitment has been made to actively market the compost and recovered recyclables.

Many other sensitivity tests have been carried out and a copy of the

Lotus 1-2-3 template can be made on diskettes (one S-1/4” IBM format required) sent in by interested persons.

A short user’s manual will also be provided on the diskette explaining the structure of the template.

There are customized menus that allow the selection of model size, economic or financial prices

(factors), investments, as well as various sensitivity operating and maintenance, tests for IRR and NPV/PV on recycled materials, sales, compost sales, percent, tipping fee

+200 percent, and without project

+300 percent,

(-100 percent, -50 percent, +lOO

+400 percent, +SOO percent).

A custom menu for printing the assumptions, or results, is also included.

For those readers familiar with the Lotus 123, any of the assumptions outlined in this chapter can, of course, be changed to allow for analyses of specific situations:

(1) where compost values (prices) may be higher than the base case assumptions because of, for example, scarce or poor quality land, large horticulture industry, or shortages of inputs;

(2) where a subset of the domestic solid waste collected may not require sorting prior to co-composting, as in produce markets; or (33 where sanitary landfill of domestic solid waste is not an option such as when there exists a high water table or scarcity of land and co-composting is thought to be a cost-effective component of the waste management.

- 71 -

SUNNARY

Refuse collection, treatmmsnt, and disposal im one of the major problems facing urban planner8 and operator8 in auny developing countries today, in addition to the problems ammociated with inadequate treatment and

dimpomal

of human

wamtem.

open

Unmightly pile8 of wamte, drains clogged with refumc and night soil,

mewerm

filled with human and domemtic

wastes, end

meptic tank mludge duaped in the open are all examplem of

waym

in which the urban environment is being polluted today in many citiem and towns of the developing world. City dwellarm are being exposed to dimeamem transmitted theme by pathogens present in

wamtem am

well

am

to the nuimancem produced by the

l

ituation. Further- more, the volume of wamte being produced im rapidly increaming with the influx of rural dwellerr into the urban environment. wamte management

is

fart becoming a priority countricm that are rapidly growing in mite.

Indeed, proper refume and human in army citiem in developing

In the preceding chapter8 , co-compomting of garbage with human wastes

ham

been described in detail through both a review of the literature and economic and financial

immuemt

models, with dimcummion centering on the following the robumtnemm of the aerobic comporting

procemm

the variety of available compomting

mymtemm

the possibilities of to-compomting different the effectiveness of efficient dimeame-causing organimmm comporting

wamtem l ymtcmm

in destroying the many usem of compost the economics of different-mized comporting mymtemm.

The choice of co-composting am a wamte treatlaent alternative for garbage and human wamte mumt be conridered in the light of other existing treatlaent alternatives dumping of mludge. much am landfilling, incineration, and the ocean uiatenke

Before deciding to compost, the planner mot consider and review meverai bamie faetorm aiready de scribed in previoum chapters. iafotlution on the wamte material; transport of the

Thim includes

wamtem

and the compost that

is

produced ; aurrketing of the product; the conmtruction, operation, and coats; the location and land requitemntm of the plant: and the type of plant that would be moat muitable for producing comport under local conditions. If the decimion im taken to conmider comporting

am

an option for

- 72 - waste treatment and aunagcment, the the

role

theme factors will play in ensuring

muccemm

of a comporting operation must be

mtremmed.

Sow of the more significant elements are reiterated below,

UASTB HATERIAL

It is important to determine the nature and composition of the wastes to be composted.

Such basic information will be of use later when the time

comes

to choose an appropriate composting system.

Furthermore, it is useful to know how the collection of theme wastes would fit

into

the overall waste

Banagement system (e.g., landfilling and incineration) and if there are already waste-recycling activities to which this could be added, such

as organized sorting

of garbage for recyclablea or scavenging and biogas opera- tions.

MARKET

there

Is

there

a mwket for any compost that might be produced?

Perhaps

are

crop farmers

or

horticulturists in the city outskirts who would use it to

improve

the quality and productivity of their crops.

Maybe the public

or private

sector is involved in a landscaping program, or perhaps there is badly eroded topsoil

or

sandy and/or clay soils that could be reclaimed for productive use.

The financial waste is dependent on a well-developed

for

the

costs of

production. viability of co-composting garbage and human market that is willing to pay

at least

COMPOST PLANT

Next, we ask about the type of plant, taking into consideration possible location, availability of trained technical staff and manual labor, and financial resources to cover capital and operating costs, in order to determine which myrtem would be most appropriate for the city. Economic and financial feasibilitiem will be of importance in considering involved for a specific system.

The planner may often find that the costs

a

simple windrow or forced aeration establishment

system

will best suit and will be therefore most effectively the capabilities of the run.

There is aLso the consideration of the potential for manufacture nationally, requirement for foreign exchange components. thus reducing the

PILOT SCALE COMPOSTING

Once the waste materials and composting system have been identified, it is useful, if a

large-scale

operation is being planned, to start with a pilot plant.

This will serve

two

purposes:

firet, the prospective operators will become familiar with the

process;

second, it wiL1 serve

as a

good public relations exercise to produce small amounts of compost for

for

the

potential market. sale

or as mamples

- 73 -

BENEFITS AND JUSTIFICATION tion?

Finally,

There what benefits accrue from the separation/compost are those that can be readily quantified, need for sanitary Landfill of garbage and recovrring such as reducing materials for opera- industry, the which often obviate importation

For specific waste management or mining activities, of Llimilar the industrial careful materials. integration of composting operations should allow for more efficient savings of which can easily be quantified collection and used to offset networks, the cost the of compogting. benefits

In addition, it should be relatively simple to demonstrate the of compost in terms of improved soil productivity, measured as increased yields and/or reduction of other inputs (fertilizers and water), and easier tillage. This can easily be carried out in a controlled trial using compost produced locally on a trial basis for two or three cropping seasons perhaps at the pilot compost plant.

Other benefits, longevity of the soil, in the environment, and the improved aesthetic quality of the surroundings, are difficult to quantify but are of importance in ensuring adequate mainte- nance of the environment. such as the effect of compost on the quality and the reduced health risk of having pathogenic material

There are many examples in the world where the high costs of environ- mental degradation are plainly seen with hindsight but were not quantified at a time when something could have been done to prevent them.

The valuation of productive soils in the future may be much greater than we now can quantify and, with hindsight, composting may eventually look more attractive.

Situations in which the economic models will show that composting is economically viable or the least-cost waste management alternative are quite site-specific. Where landfilling of waste is very costly due to high land values or high transport costs, composting may become the Least-cost alter- native for waste management. Often the composting plant can be Located in much a way as to reduce collection and landfill costs, both of which should be included as benefits when evaluating tives. The marketability for least-cost the compost waste is the other management critical alterna- benefit, At the present time horticultural nurseries in peri-urban areas and desert land reclamation areas offer the best economic returns.

It is possible, however, that the economic benefits from improved soil structure are considerably greater report than has been generally does not attribute appreciated, although the analysis in this any specific economic value to such improvement, simply because there is a lack of empirical field data from which to quantify economic returns. Were such quantification to be available, it is Likely that the models prepared for this report would show that composting is also economically attractive under ather conditions.

To embark on a large compo;;rting operation is to embark on a Long-term activity which ensures both the improvement of soil for agricultural purposes, at a time when increased food production is so important, and the conversion of waste materials into resources.

OTHRR NETNODS OF CPCOHPOSTIlG MITE SWACB SLUDGE AUD BIGHT SOIL

SEWAGE SLUDGE AND NIGHT SOIL COMPOSTED WITH BARR

The composting of sludge and night soil together with bark is carried out in course, both reactor and nonreactor on the availability systems. The use of bark depends, of of the material (for example, on the location of a wood-processing plant in the vicinity or within easy transport distance).

Table A-l describes some of theme systems.

In all cases, the temperatures achieved during the composting period would indicate adequate pathogen removal. In compost plants where bark is used a-8 a bulking agent, odor control does not appear to be a problem, possibly because of the odor- absorbing properties treated with pesticides, of the bark. Problems can occur if the wood ham been since they may persist in the compost.

SEWAGE SLUDGE AND NIGHT SOIL COMPOSTED WITH STRAW

Straw is a waste material that is readily composted with sewage sludge in reactor as well as nonreactor systems. The examples described in table A-2 are of both types (though mainly the Latter).

The use of straw in composting is common in farming communities but is not Limited to them. As table A-2 indicates, a windrow compost product can be ready within 4 months of starting the process.

Forced aeration would speed up the composting process.

The Beltsville aerated static documented and reviewed in the literature pile composting process is well

(see, for example, Nurizzo 1981).

The windrow method of composting sludge with wood chips is also well documented. The two processes are similar in terms of product quality but the windrow method appears to be more suitable for digested than for raw sewage sludge.

The forced aeration process is also used for composting night soil

(Patterson and Rogers 1979; Shuval, Gunnerson, and Julius 1981).

Raw materiel

Night soil end bark

Sludge end bark

Digested

-we, sludge, end bark

Raw deretered sewage s I udge end berk

Dewetered sewage sludge end berk tend recycled wPost)

- 76 -

Table A-l. Colposting of Sludge and Night Soil with Bsrk

ProCOSS

WY bmar toi let open baskets

1

Windrows

W i ndrows

Verticei reactor with 10 levels

Dembech

Schnoor

Description

Bark was added to night soil in dry toilets et the rate of 4 parts bark to 1 part night soil.

Tefsperetures of over 60° C were achieved.

Bark end sludge (end other wastes) were mixed together end conposted to produce w&ebe,w a market- able product.

Dewetered digested sewage sludge was mixed with bark (1:3) end -posted in large besksts that could be easily stacked.

Temperatures of up to 75’ C were ette i ned . The retention time in the baskets was 9-12 weeks followed by 3-4 weeks maturation in piles to produce wRindekcepost.w

Dewetered sewage sludge (25 percent solids) mixed with bark (1:3) and composted in wlndrows for at least 21 days.

In general, tempere- tures of 50-75’ C are mein- telned for et least half of this time, although it is less in the winter.

Dewatered sludge (22-25 per- cent solids) is mixed with bark (2:l) and fed into a

IO-level reactor. Retention time Is 50 days end ntove- ment from level to level through traps in floor occurs every 3 days. Tw- peretures are usually mein- talned et 70° C or higher for about 10 days end over

50 ’ C more than 15 days.

Reference

Alestslo end

Koistinen

(1975)

Adems (1971)

Wesner f 1978 1,

Oiver (1980)

Schwlnhsussr

(19781,

Bidlingmeier

(19791, Tebessren

(19801, Tebessren et al. (1981)

Raw materiel

Raw dewstored sewkge sludge end strew

WI ndrows

Raw dewetered sewage sludge end strew

Digested sludge and strew

S-age sludge end strew

Table A-2. CarpostIng of Sludge end Night Soil with Strew

Process Description

Reference

W i ndrows

WI ndrows eiaist w i ndron

(Full-scale plant.) experimental

The sewage sludge

(25-30 percent sol ids) was mixed with strew (1:l volume) end composted in windrows, which were turned regularly (8 times) for 3 months.

At the end of this time the compost was reedy for use.

Temperatures of

55-60° C were regularly achieved even in some of the colder glonths.

Experiments. The sludge

(21.8 percent sol ids) was mixed with strew et a ratio of (28:l). Temperatures of

55-62’ C were maintained in windrout, which were turned once weekly for 3 months (in earlier stages there were problems with fly control 1.

Exper i ment .

Digested sludge was mixed with strew et a ratio of

1:1.25 in windrows for 6 weeks during which tempere- tures of 65-70’ C were ech loved as above, except the retlo of mixture was

1:s of sludge to straw.

The strew is chopped and mixed with the sewage sludge and then sprayed a windrow. out into

Wuhlecker

Klausing

(1975),

Bldlingmeier end Tebesaren

(19801,

Bidlingmaiar

(19791,

Bidlingmaier and

Bickel (19801,

Streuch, Berg, end Fleischle

(1980)

Bidl ingmeier

(19791,

Bldlingmeier end

Bickel (19801,

Bidl lngmeier and

Tebaseren (1960)

(cont.1

11980)

Tebeseren end

Isusterer (1979 1

- 78 -

Table A-2 (cont.)

Rer materiel

Sewage sludge and strew

Process

Dembech

Schnorr reactor

Description

Dewatered sewage sludge is mixed with chopped strew (end/or other bulking agents) end fed into the reactor, which has a reten- tion time of 34 days.

Reference

Bidl ingma ler and Dicke #I (1980)

Raw meteriel

Sewage sludge and wood chips (rindrow)

Table A-3. Description of the Deltsville end Windrow Cumposting

Aerated Static Pile

Process description Reference

Del lair0

(1978)

Sewage sludge and wood chips (aerated pile)

Night sol I (toi let wastes 1, paper, waod chips (aerated

PI 10)

Dlgested sewage sludge is mixed with wood chips (1:3 volume ratio) in windrows 1.8 meters high and 2.1 meters wide. The windrows are turned daily for et least 2 weeks, then they are spread outp dried, end cured for

30 days. The wood chips are screened out for reuse.

Raw sewage sludge(22 percent solids) is mixed with wood chips, and then transferred to a composting pad consisting of wood chips spread over perforated piping. Air is drawn through the pipe into a compost filter, The pile is mainteined for 21 days followed by screening end drying. Tempera- tures of 55’ C are achieved throughout the pi le.

The night soil is mixed with paper end wood chips on a concrete pad end then transferred to the can- posting pad, which is a bed of wood chips covering a perforated

PIPS.

Air is drawn through the pipe into a compost filter. The pile is mrinteined for 21 days at temperatures of 60’ C for most of this time. The compost is then cured for 30 days.

- 79 -

The two processes using sewage sludge are described briefly in table

A-3 together

with a process using night soil (from chemical toilets). It

should

be noted that it is not essential to use only wood chips in the

Beltsville process; other organic bulking agents (for example straw,

woodbark) may also

be used.

Detailed experiments carried out on pathogen

removal using

the Beltsville efficient at aerated pile process have shown it to be

reducing

the pathogen content of the product (Burge,

Cramer, and

Epstein

1976;

Burge,

Barsh, and Millner 1977; Burge and Millner 1980).

Many other raw

materials have been composted together with sewage sludge and night soil.

Some of these are described in table A-4 to show the versatility of the process. sludge

In many areas, and/or

night soil. effects on pathogen control. animal wastes are composte.1 together with

sewage

As noted in chapter 3, this should have no adverse

Reu meteriel

Table A-4. Rethods of Cunposting Sewage Sludge with Other Bulking Agents

Process Description Reference

Biolnist w I ndrow

The mixture w I ndrow . is sprayed out onto a

Mach (1978)

Sludge, mush- roam wastes, poultry wastes, organic bulking en* w

Raw sewage sludge end sewdust end recycled c-P=*

Kneer bioreac- tor (EN system)

BAV bioreac- tor

(open 1

The mixture is retained in the reec- tor for 14 days. Temperatures of

60-85’ C are maintained for most of this time.

Then the raw compost is matured for 6-8 weeks in a windrow.

Mach (1978)

Cawatered raw sewage (25 percent solids) is mixed with sawdust and return compost (50, 10, end 40 percent, respectively) and fed into a cylindrical reactor, which is open at the top. Retention time is

3 days. This is followed by 6-8 weeks of maturation in windrows.

Temperatures of 75-80’ C are reached.

Oger (19811,

Bidlingmaier

(19791,

Bidlingmaier and Tebasaran

(19801,

Tabesaran et al.

(1981)

(cont.)

-8o-

Table A-4 (cont.)

Raw material

Ran semage sludge and peat, straw lignite.

Raw sewage sludg8 and sawdust and recycled f=P=t .

Swego sludge end p8et

Sewage sludge end rice hulls end recyci8d capost kwage sludge end shrsdded papsr

Sewage s I udg8 end ssrdust

(also recycled

CaPost 1

Process

BAV bioreac-- tor

(own 1

WSiS bioreac- tor

(closad)

Description

As abov8, except mixture is 1:l.

Raf erence

Wolf (1974)

Biohum process w i ndrow

Trough fermenter

Feirf ield digester reactor

Trlge process eel I reactor

The dewstored sewage sludge cent solids) and recycled

(25 per- is rpixed with sawdust compost and fed into a closed cylindrical reactor, mhere it is retained for lo-14 days.

The raw materiels are mixed together end ccmposted in a w I ndrow .

The digested s8wage sludge is mixed with rice hulls end finished compost

(1:l:l volume) and fed into a trough where it is composted for 2 weeks by forced aeration end turning.

This Is followed by l-2 months of meturet ion.

Temperatures reach up to 7o” c.

Dewetered sewage sludge Is mixed * with shredded paper end fed into a reactor. The retention tlme is

7 devs anr! temeeretures reach

70° C during rhls time.

The sewage sludge (15-20 percent solids) is mixed with sawdust at a retio of 1:s wt end fed into a vertical reactor consisting of four cells. The retention time is

12-15 days and t8mperetures of

70-80’ C are achieved. Metura- tion occurs in piles fin a shed)

In which tecnperetures often reach so0 C.

Bldlingmaier

(19791,

Bldlingmaier and Bickei

(1980).

Bidtingmeier end Tebassren

(1980),

Tebaseren et al.

(1981)

Mach

(1978)

Wesner

(1978)

Schneider

(1981)

(cont. 1

- 81 -

Table A-4 (cont.)

Raw material

Sewage sludge and sawdust

(and other bulking materiel)

Water hysc 1 nth , night soil, rice strew

Night soil rice husks, grass cutt i rigs, briquette c i ndsr

Process

Windrows

WI ndrow/ pi ies

Windrows eerat ion by ver I ous methods

Bescription

Reference

The windrows are turned for 3 months and then sold es a product ‘Grow

Rich.” The contents of the windrows are dewatered sewage sludge (30 per- cent solids) end sawdust et weight ratios 80:20.

The maximum tempere- ture achieved Is 74’ C.

Experiment. Night soil, water hyacinth, end fin some cases) rice strew were mixed end com- posted in piles for 2-3 months.

Temperatures of 43-64’ C were maintained for et least 8 days in the coolest parts of the piles.

Night soil is mlxed with different amounts of rice husks, grass cut- tlngS, or briqU8tt8S Of cinder into w I ndrows.

These era aerated by various fII8thOdS.

Temperatures of up to 70° C are achieved end

HO0 C maintained for et least

8 days.

Haamen

(19771,

Breer

(1960)

Polpresert end

Muttemera

(19801,

Poipresert et al.

(1982)

Kim end and Bee

(1981)

- 82 -

SENAGE SLUDGE MD NIGHT SOIL COMPOSTED

WITHOUT THE ADDITION OF BULKING AGENTS

The processes described in table A-S indicate some of the ways in which sewage sludge or night soil can be composted without the addition of any bulking agents .

In all the examples given, the sludge has to be dewatered before being mired with the recycled compost. (If night soil is used instead, some dewatering may also be required.)

The temperatures camposting in the examples given here should be sufficient relatively pathogen-free achieved to during ensure a product if they are maintained for almost all the retention time and are kept uniform throughout the reactor.

Pew aeteriel

Table A-5. Uethods of Composting Sewage Sludge end Night Soil Alone

Process Description Reference

Sewage sludge and recyclad capost

Dlgasted sewage sludge and recycled compost

(also same sawdust 1

Sewage sludge end recyc I8d compost

Laboratory reactor

Bioreec- tot

HKS process

Dewatered sludge cake was successfully composted in a laboratory scale reactor in which temperatures of 60-70° were maintained.

C

D8WOt8r8d digested sewage sludge (20-25 percent solids)

IS mixed with recycled CU8pOSt in a vertical reactor for 14 days.

Temperatures of 60-70’ C are reached. The air drawn out of the reactor is passed into en activated sludge tank. MetUra- ration of ccnnpost takes place for

6 weeks in windrows.

The sludge end recycled compost are added to a slowly rotating drum (which is stopped at night). The retention time is 24 hours followed by a P-week maturation period in a windrow. Temperatures of 60-75’ C are attained.

Schuchardt end

Beeder ( 1979)

Moilliet (1981)

Bidi ingme ier

(19791,

Tebaseren

(1960),

Bid1 ingme lier and Bicke ‘I

(19791,

Spennes end

Britsch (1977)

Table A-5 (cont.1

Raw material

Dawetered tswege sludge end r8cyc I ed compost

Sewage s I udge fdewetsred 1 end recycled capost

Dawetered sewage sludga end r8CyClbd caapost

Raw or digested sewage sludg8 end recyc I8d capost

Process

W 1 ndrow

Roed i ger

Ferment- techn i

Vertical reactor

(Pi lot plant) k

Forced eeret ion through fermenter

Description

The sewage sludge is mixed with recycled compost et a ratio of 3:2 end deposited es a windrow, which Is turned by a cueposter for 4 weeks. This is followed by 30 days of metu- ration.

The sewage sludge is mixed with recycled compost and put in a vertical reactor.

The retention tlma is 4-6 days, efttr which the compost is put in J dryer for a further

4-6 days; it is then pelleted end stored for sale.

Tempere- tures of over 65’ C are attained in the reactor.

The sewage sludge end recycled compost are mixed end ground and fed into the fermenters, where the mixture is OOrOt8d and turned.

The retention tlm8 is 10 days end temperatures of up to 7S” C are attained. The compost is then graded end begged.

The dewetered sludge is mixed with recycled compost and fed into a vertical reactor consisting of two levels.

Retention time is 7-9 days, during which t8mperatures of

65-70’ C are r88Ch8d end malnteined.

Reference

Gunn (1980)

Widmer and

Konstendt (19781,

Bidlingmeier

(19791,

Bidlingmeier end

Bickel (19781,

Tebeseran et al.

(19811,

Bidlingmeier end end Tebaseren

(1980)

Meebeshi (1980)

(cont. 1

- 64 -

Table A-5 (cont.)

Raw material

Raw sludge and recycled

-P-t

Digested or condi- tiowd sludge and recyc 1 ed compost

Process

Pel lets in piles

Detscription

The dewatered sludge (60 percent moisture) Is mixed with finished compost three parts to two and the mixture is laid as a windrow over a bed of straw on a con- crete floor having an aera- tion-and-drainage systam. A

Cubey cunposter is used to mix the motorists, The retention tima is 4 weeks, followed by 50 days of curing. Temperatures resch 76’ C during this time.

The sludge is dewatered and passed through a mincer to make pellets. These are piled for up to 8 weeks after mixing with recycied ccmpost.

Reference

Spohn

(1933) r

- 85 -

Pathogen

Bacillus anthracis

_B, anthracis

B. anthracis

Bscherichia coli

B. coli

E. coli

E. coli

E. coli kfycobac- terium tuberculosis

Table B-l. Survival of Bacterial Pathogens during Cornposting

Raw

Material

Type

Refuse/sludge in reactor

Refuse/sludge in windrow

Refuse/sludge in reactor

58

74

55

Temper- ature

(Oc)

40-43

Time

65

3

7

15 days days days

2 weeks

12

12 days days

Dewa t ered raw sludge and wood chips in windrow

SO-70

Refuse and sludge in drum

55

55

Night soil and 29 rubbish in

40 pile, aerobic and anaerobic

Raw sludge, digested s Ludge

Refuse

SO-70

40-60

. 65

14

2

7

3

14

14 days days days days days days

Survival o-01

1 x

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.01

0

(low)

0

0

Source

Miersch

Strauch

Burge and

(1978)

Miersch and

Strauch (1978)

Miersch and

Strauch (1978)

Wiley (1962)

McGarry and

Stsinforth

(1978)

Burge et al.

(1978)

Morgan and

MacDonald

(1969)

(cont. ) and

Cramer (1974)

Krogstad

Gudding and

(1975)

- 86 -

Table B-l

(cont.)

Pathogen

Salmonellae

Salmonellae

Salmonella

Salmonella

SPP.

Salmonella see*

Salmonella see*

Salmonella see*

Salmonella dub1 in

S. dublin

S. newport

S. paratyphi

Refuse and sludge in windrow

Refuse and sludge in reactor,

4S percent

H20, 15 square centimetera

Sewage sludge

Refuse and sludge in windrows

Raw

Material

‘Wee

Temper- ature

(Oc)

Sludge windrow

Activated and primary sludge windrow

60

Refuse compost 55

(DANO)

Refuse and sludge in windrows

55-70

Sewage sludge 50-70 and wood chips

Refuse and sludge windrow

Sludge windrow

Time

8 days l-5 weeks

3 days

17 hours

50 days

14 days

7-21 days

10 days

Survival high x

0

65 2 weeks

40-43

60-70

50

3 days

7 days

15 days

15 hours

2 days

0

0

0

0

0

Source

Faust and

Roman0 (1978)

Wesner (1978)

Golueke and

Gotaas (1954)

Knoll (19591, quoted Wiley

(1962)

Burge and

Cramer (1974)

Gaby (1975)

Epstein et al.

(1976)

Miersch and

Strauch

(1978)

Miersch and

Strauch (1978)

Wiley and

Westerberg

(1969)

Knoll

(1958)

(cont.)

- 87 -

I

I

Pathogen

S. paratyphi

.RclW

Material

Type

Garbage

Temper- ature

(Oc)

Time

30-65

-

68 hours

Survival x

0

S. paratyphi

S. seftenburg

S. sef tenburg

S. typhi

Feces and garbage windrow

Refuse and sludge in reactor,

48’ C to HZO, 15 centimeters

Refuse and sludge in windrow

Garbage

S. typhi

S. typhi

Feces and

garbage

windrow

Night soil and garbage

S. typhi- murium

Shigellae

_Sh. sonnei

Refuse and sludge

Refuse compost

DAN0

Garbage

Sh. dysen- teriae

- not stated.

Night soil

68

40-43

6S

50

55

65

55

55

30-65

55

60

55

14 days

3

days

7 days

15 days

2 weeks

68 hours

40 days

1 month

5 days

2 days

4

days

3 days

17 hours l-3 days

3-7 days

5 days

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Source

-

Barth and

Brauss

(1967)

Savage, Chase, and MacMillan

(1973)

Miersch and

Sttauch

(1978)

Miersch and

Strauch

(1978)

Barth and

Brauss (1967)

Savage et sl.

(1972)

Chinese Academy of Sciences

(1975)

Krogstad and

Gudding (1975)

Golueke et al.

(1954)

Baetgen

(1962)

Feachem et al.

(1980)

- 88 -

Pathogen

Bacterio- ehw

Bacterio- ehage f2

Table B-2.

Survival of Viral Pathogens during Cornposting

Raw

Material

‘Owe

Sewage sludge and grass, sewage sludge and refuse

Sewage sludge and wood chips, sewage sludge and wood chips turned once

II II

Temper- ature

(Oc)

40

38-60 so-70

SO-70

SO-70

Time

6 days

14 days

6 days

14 days

2 weeks

2 weeks

2 weeks and 70 days

Survival x

1

10

0

0

0

0

0

Source

Krige

(1964)

Burge and

Craher

(1974)

II II

Bacterio-

@we f2

Raw sludge and wood chips, digested sludge and wood chips

Coliphage f2 Sludge and wood chips

Poliovirus Sludge

Poliovirus 1 Sewage sludge mesophi- lit

50-70

40-60

50

35-58

60-70

Poliovirus 1 Refuse and sludge

1 month

SO days

70 days

13 days

21 days

7 days

3 days

8 days

3-7 days

0

0.001

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

Kawata,

Cramer, and Burge

(19771

Burge et al.

(1978)

Krige (1964)

Wiley and

Westerberg

(1969)

Cooper and

Golueke

(19751

Gaby (1975) Poliovirus type 2

(inserted)

Sludge and refuse mix

- not stated.

- 89 -

Pathogeu

Protozoan cysts

Entamoeba histolytica

Table B-3. Survival of Protozcel P&hogens during Cornposting

.‘..

Raw

Material

Type

Vegetable matter and feces

Refuse and sludge

Temper- ature

PC)

55-60

49

55

Time

3

8

7 weeks days days

Survival

X

0

0

0

Source

Scott

(1952)

Gaby

(1975)

- 90 -

Table B-4.

Survival of Helminthic Pathogens during

Somposting

Pathogen

Raw

Material

Trpe

Refuse/sludge

Heiminthic ova

Helminthic ova

Refuse/sludge

Ascaris Night soil lumbricoides and garbage ova

Ascaris Feces and lumbricoides vegetable ova matter, soil ash

Sludge

Ascaris lumbticoides ova

Sludge

Ascaris lumbricoides ova

Ascaris

Lumbricoides ova

Garbage and night soil

Hookworm ova Night soil

N.americanus Night soil

Temper- ature

(Oc)

40

65

65

55-70

60-76

5-64

35-5s

35-65

35-60

- not stated.

Time

7 days

20 dayr

1 month

5 days

12

22 days

67 days

2 months

15-O

1 hour

LOS days days

24 hours

24 hourr

24 hours

Survival x

0

6-O

5

15

0.3

4

0

0

1-O

0

0

0

Source

Caby (1975)

McGarry and

Stainforth

(1978)

Stone (1949)

Scott (1952)

Murray

(1960)

Wiley and

Westerberg

(1969)

Chinese

Academy of Sciences

(1975)

Nicholls and

Gunawardena

(1939)

- 91 -

REFERENCES

Adams, R.

1971. Composting tree bark with sewagt?.

Compose Science 12(3):

30-32.

Alestalo, A., and Koistinen, 0. 1975. On the bark and where this compost can be used. possibilities of

ISWA Information composting

Bulietin

17:13-17.

Angle, J. S.,

Wolf, D. C., and Hall, J. R. III. by sludge compost.

Biocycle 22(6):40-43,

1981. Turfgraes

Arditti E.

1973.

Use of municipal observation, 1959-1970. garbage

ISWA Information compost

Bulletin in Israel. ll-12:70-78. growth

Research aided and

Baetgen, D.

1962.

Die Kompostierung der TPE und Ruhrgruppe.

Stiidtehygiene und day Absterben pathogener Bakterien

13(5):81-85.

Barth, H., and Brauss,

Schnellkompostierung

F. W. nach

Salmonellen beim Rotervorgang dem

1967.

Multibacto-Verfahren.

Stgdtehygiene,

Untersuchungen

4:79-85.

Bidlingmaier,

Mitterlungen

W., and Bickel, F. 1980.

Behandlung und besertigung

Schl%unen Band 34:El-9.

Bidlingmaier, W., and Tabaseran,

Korrespondenz Abwasser 27(2):133-36.

0. 1980. zur Hygiene

Verhal ten

Schlammkompostierung. der von

Bidlingmaier, W.

Fortbildungs-zentrum

Kurzfassungen

1979.

Gesundheits

Aerob-Thermophile und der Referate II Seminar 15-16 MZrz.

Kl~rachlambehandlung.

Umweltschultz Berlin, e.V.

KlErschlannnkompostierung. Wiener von Komrnunalen und industriellen

Blum, D., and Feachem, R. G. 1985.

Health aspects of night soil and sludge use in agriculture and aquaculture; Part III an epidemiological perspective. IRCWD Report, No. 5.

Breer , 1980.

Die Hygienisierung

Behaf;dlungeertahrer Wasser Energie von Kliirschlanun

Luft 72(12):41-44. mit Lilfe verschiedener

Breidenbach,

States.

A. W. 1971. Composting of Municipal

U.S. Environmental Protection

Solid

Agency Report

Wastes in the United

SW47R, chapters 3, 4.

Brinsko, G. A. 1974. Sludge disposal by incineration

Proceedings of the National pp, 157-62. Rockville, Md.:

Conference

Information on Municipal

Transfer, Inc. of ALCOSAN. In

Sludge Management,

Bucher, R. komposten.

1974. Einsatz von kliirschlamm

Der Deutsche Weinbau. miill und miill-kl&schlanun

- 92 -

Bundesrspablik recommendations

1979.

Preliminary for application sludge .” instruction leaflet, “Quality criteria of co~mpost from domestic refuse/sewage and

Burge, W. D., and Cramer, W. N. 1974.

Destruction sewage sludge. of pathogens by composting

Progress report Joint Project. M.E.S. and Water Resources

Management Administration, Washington, D.C.

Burge, W. B., sludge

Cramer, and sludge

W. N., compost. and Epstein, E.

1976. Pathogens in sewage

Proc . A.S.C.E. San. Eng. Dir. De;, paper no.

76-2559.

Burge, W. D., Marsh, P.

B.,

and Millner, P. D. 1977. Occurrence of pathogens and microbial

National allergens

Conference in the sewage sludge composting on Composting of Municipal Residues environment. and Sludges,

August 23-25, pp. 128-35.

Burge, W. D., Cramer, W. Nc, and Epstein, l?. in Sewage Sludge by Composting (reprint).

21(3):510-14.

1978.

Destruction

Transactions of Pathogens of the ASAE

Burge, W. D.,

Primary and Millner, and secondary and J; M. Davidson teds.),-

245-64. Ann Arbor, Mich.:

P. pathogens.

D. 1980. Health aspects of composting:

In G. Bilton, B. L. Damron, G. T. Edds.

Sludge-Health

Ann Arbor

Risks

Science of Land Application,

Publishers. pp:

Burge, W. D., Colacicco D., and Cramer, W. N. 1981.

Criteria pathogen destruction during composting. J. Water for

Pollution achieving

Control

Federation 53(12):1683-90.

Camp Dresser and McKee, In- l

1975. Alternative the District of Columbia Water Pollution

Washington, D.C.: Department of Environmental sludge disposal systems for

Control Plant of Blue Plains.

Services.

Carroll, T. E., Maase, D. L., Ceneco, of Landspreading liquid municipal

Washington, D.C.:

Environmental

J.

M., and Ifead, C. N.

1975. Review sewage sludge.

EPA-676/2-75-049.

Protection Agency, Office of Research and

Development.

Chinese Academy of Sciences, Dept. of Environmental

Chinese Medical Journal 1(6):407-12.

Health, Peking.

1975.

Chrometzka, P. 1972. uber den vorteil gegeniiber nicht ausgeriften. ausgerifter

ANS Mitteilungen vol. 1.

Miillkl~rschlammkomposte no. 29 Wasser & Abwasser,

Colacicco, D., composting

Derr, D., sewage sludge and Kasper, in aerated

V. piles.

Cooney, D. G., and Emerson, R. 1964. Thermophilic their biology, activities

Freeman and Company. and classification.

1977.

Beltsville,

Major cost factors

Md, in fungi.

An account of

San Francisco: W. H.

Cooper, R. C., and Golueke, C. G.

1979.

Survival viruses in compost and its leachate.

Compost of enteric

Science/Land

20(2):29-35. de Bertoldi, M., Citernesi, sludge composting.

U.,

Compost, and Griselli,

Science/Land bacteria

Utilization

Dalmat,

D. J., Parr, J. F., Von Lignau, A., and Laguerre,

Biocycle 23(6):43-46.

Dallaire, G. 1978.

Aerated-pile disposing of sewage sludge.

P. A. composting:

Civil Engineering

A promising new alternative

ASCE (September). and

1982. for

M.

1980.

Utilization

Bulking agents in

21(1):32-35. de Bertoldi, M., Vallini, G., Pera, A., and Zucconi, F.

1982. Comparison of

3 windrow compost systems. Biocycle 23(2):45-50.

Diar, L. F., and Golueke, C. G. 1985. Solid Waste Management in Developing

Countries.

Biocycle 26(5):46-52.

Epstein

1976.

E., Willson,

A forced of Water Pollution

G. B., Burge W. D., Mullen D. C., and Enkin, N. K. aeration

Control system for

Federation composting

48(4):688-94. wastewater sludge, Journal

Ernst von A. A. 1572.

Der StZdtetag 9:511-12.

Miillkl&schlamm kompost-Herstellung und Anwendung.

Faust, J., and Romano, L. S. 1978. Composting sewage sludge by means of forced aeration

Ontario Ministry at Windsor, of Environmental

Ontario.

Sludge.

Utilization and Disposal no. 6. und Farkasdi, G. 1968. Wirkung der Vorrote im Etagenturm auf die Mikroflora den Stoffabbau. University of Giassen Institut fiir handwirtschaffliche

Mikrobiologie der Justus Liebig, ppa 75-85.

Feachem, R. G., Bradley, D. J., Garelick, H., and Mare, D. D.

1980. Health

Aspects of Excreta and Sullage Management:

A State of the Art Review.

World Bank Studies in Water Supply and Sanitation, Appropriate Technology for Water Supply and Sanitation, vol. 3.

Feachem, R. G., Bradley,

Sanitation and Disease.

D. J., Garelick, H., and Mara, 0. D.

New York: J. Wiley and Sons.

1983.

Ferrero, G. 1978. The bio-tunnel sludge. Inquinamento 20(7/8):83, for composting solid urban waste and sewage

85-95.

Finstein, N. S.,

1980. composting.

Cirello,

Microbial

Journal

J., Suler, D. J., Morris, M. L., and Strom, P. F. ecosystems responsible of Water Pollution for anaerobic

Control Federation digestion

52(11):2675-85. and

Gaby, W. L.

1975. Evaluation waste/sewage sludge mixture. of health hazards associate'b

EPA 670/2-75023. Cincinnati, Ohjo. with solid

- 94 -

Glathe, H., and Farkasdi,

Kompostierung.

G.

In Kumpf,

1966. Bedeutung

E. H. N., Maas, verschiedener

K., and Straum, faktoren

H. teds.), fiir die

Mull

Handbuch Erich Schmidt Verlag, ppD l-23.

Golueke, disposal

C. G., and Gotaas, by cornposting,

H. B. 1954.

Public Health aspects of waste

Amer. J. Public Health 44:339-48.

Golueke, C. G. 1972.

Composting a Study of the Process and Its Principles.

Emmaus, Pa.: Rodale Press.

Golueke, C. G., Lafrene, D., Chaser, B., and Diaz, L. F.

1980. combined refuse and sewage sludge. Compost Science/Land

21(5):42-48.

Composting

Utilization

Golueke, C. G.

Management.

1983.

Epidemiological

Biocycle 24(4):SO-28.

Aspects of Sludge Handling and

Gotaas, H. B. 1956. organic

Organization. wastes.

Composting:

WHO

Sanitary

Monograph series disposal

31. and

Geneva: reclamation

World of

Health

Gunn, G. A.

Science/Land

Grote, H.,

(6):185-90.

1980. Virginia

Utilization and Model, J. compost project develops new approaches.

21(5):28-31.

1978. Lippe-Kompost aus Lemgo.

El1

Compost und Abfall

Hand, C. W.,

Composted study.

Get&man, H. W.,

Sewage Sludge in and Navarro, the Metropolitan

P. 1977.

Washington

Markets Study for

Area.

A case

Natl. Conf. on Composting of Municipal Residues and Sludges sponsored by: Information Transfer Inc.

Hazardous Control Research

Institute, Washington, D.C.

Hart, S. A. 1967.

Cornposting (solid waste management), European activity

American potential. A report to the U.S. Public Health Service office and of solid wastes 43 pp*

Hart, P. D., host

120:169-91.

Russell, and infection.

E., Jr., and Remington, J. C.

1969. The compromised

II. Deep fungal infections.

J. Infect. Diseases

Hasuk, A.

1979.

Mullkl~rschlamnkomposten

11(10):27S-78.

Einjahringe in vier

Qualitatsuntersuchungen

Kompostierungsanlagen. von

Mill1 und

Miill und Abfall

Haug, R. T. 1980. Compost Engineering:

Mich.: Ann Arbor Science Publishers.

Hayes, Denis.

Sustainable

1978.

Society.

Worldwatch Institute.

Repairs, Reuse, Recycling--First

Worldwatch

Principles

Paper and Practice.

-no.

-23.

Ann Arbor,

Steps Toward a

Washington, D.C.:

- 95 -

Heaman, J. D. 1977.

COmpOSting

Science :841):28-29.

- An approach to using sewage waste. Compost

Helfer, K.

1975.

Die Hiill und Klirschlammverwertung der region Biel (Schewie).

Forum Umwelthygiene

Helfer, K.

1977.

Betriebserfahrungen brikollaren mit der kompostierung

23~22-24. des gemeinde

17:343-95. verban&s nach dem system

Hirschheydt, A. von.

Abfall 7:196-204.

1975.

Zur Mijllkompostierung

Hileman, fertilizer.

L. H.

1982.

Fortified

Biocyele 23(1):43-44.

Compost in

Product

Frankrech. shows

Miill promise und as

Hornick, S. B., Murray, J. J., Chaney, R. L., Sikora, L. J., Parr, J. F.,

CUTUP, W. D., Willson, G. B., and Tester, C. F. 1979. Use of sewage sludge compost for soil improvement and plant

Revieus and Manuals - ARM-NE-6, pp* 11. growth. USDA, SEA, Agric.

Hovsenius, G. 1975.

Composting

Pollut. Control Fed. 147(4):741-47. and use of compost it.> Sweden.

J. Water

Hughes, E. G. 1977.

Reviewing an English composting plant. i8(2):ia-21.

Compost Science

Hughes, E. G. 1986. Solid Waste Composting in Egypt. Biocycle 27(2):26-27.

Ingerle K. van. 1978.

Erfshrungee mit der gemeinsam Verrottung

Kliirschlamm in d'sterreich. Miill und. Abfall 10(1):26-28. von Mill1 und

Ingerle K. 1980.

Gemeinsame ablagerung von Kliirschlamn

Mitteilungen Behandlung und beseitigung und Hausmiill. von Kommunalen

Wiener und Industriellen

Schliimmen, Band 34:1-15.

Jiiger, 8. 197s.

Investitions

Abfall 32 Lfg VI (5610). und Betriebskosen von Kompostwerken Miill und

In Erich Schmidt Verlag Kumpf, F. H., MasB, K., and Straumm, H. teds.), Mull Handbuch, pp. L-17.

Jiiger, B. 1977.

Stand der Kennstrusse und erfahrungen und KomposrierungPv,erYahren System Willisch. Miill mit dem Aufbereitungs und Abfall 9(2):44, 46.

Jiger, B., sai; wcrn 3&x, J. 1978, Geruchsbekimpfung

Beispiel Heidelbeq . Mi;ll und Abfall 10(2):48-54.

Japan Sewage Works Agency. of research work 1:215-50.

1980. Agricultural in Kompostwerken use of sewage sludge. am

Report

Kane, B. E., and Mullins, J. T. 1973a. compost system. Mycologia 65:1087-1100.

Thermophilic fungi in municipal waste

- 96 -

Kane, B, B., 8nd Mullins, environment

J. T. in 8 high-rate

1973b. mUniCipa1

Thermophilic composting fungi system. and the

Compost compost

Science

14(6):6-7.

Kaweta, K., Cramer, W. W., and Burge, W. D. 1977. pathogens in sewage solids.

Composting

Water and Sewage Works 124(4):76-79. destroys

Kim, B. I., and Bae, M.

1981. Night Soil Composting.

Regional Workshop on Rural Development Technology,

Proceedings

Seoul, Korea. of the

Kl8uBing, 0.

Kompostierung

1975. Biologische nach dee Bio-mist

Umwel t Wiesbaden.

Grundlagen

Verfahren. der

Hessische

Stroh-KlPrschlamm

Landesanstalt fiir

-

Knoll, Ii. 1980.

Die effektiviciit hindblick auf die forderungen

Osterreichische Abwasser-Rundschau von Klgrschlamm-aufbereitungsverfahren der Hygiene zur Vewertung der produkte.

(f):lll-16, im

Kohler, H., and Hardmeier,

Kliirschlamm kompost.

Schweit.

H. U.

Stellunganahme

1980.

Grenzwerte fur Miill und Miill der KBA Beringen KT Schaffhausen

Krige, P. R.

1964. A survey of the pathogenic organisms and helminth ova in composts and sewage sludge. J. and Proceedings Inst. Sewage Purification

3:215-20.

Krogstad, O., and Gudding, R. microrganisms during reactor

1975. composting.

25:281-84.

The survival of some pathogenic

Acta Agr. Scandinavica (Sweden)

Kuchta, H. D.

1967. Kompostierung biostabilisator-verfahren. von Miill

Aufbereitungs und Kliirschlanun

- Technik 5:253-56. nach dem dano-

Kurzweil, H. E.

Abwaseer-Rundschau

1980. Compost ing of sewage sludge .% Osterreichnisshe

(5):122-25 (in German).

Lacey, J. 1974.

Thermophilic actinomycetes associated

In R. de H8ller and P. Suter teds.), Aspergillosis with farmer’s lung. end Farmers Lung in Man and Animal, pp= 155-163. Bern, Switzerland: Hans Huber.

Leonhsrdt, H. W. 1979.

Verrottung

Abfall 11(7):214-18. von ballen aus mullklirschlamm. Mill1 und

Leonhardt, H. W. 1981.

Abfell 13(7):194-204.

Modell-fleisschemen fiir kompostwerke.

Miill und

M8ch, R. 1978.

Anlagen und Systeme zur Kompostierung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland stand - Tendenzen. von Abwassarschl&nmen

Mill und Abfall lO(l):l-9.

- 97 -

Maebashi, R.

(Minamitama).

1980. Composting of sewege sludge by mechanical

Japan Sewage Works Bureau, pp. l-11. facility

Marsh, P. literature

B., Millner, P. D., 8nd Kla, J. M.

1979. on aspergillosis as

C8UBed by ABpergillUB

Dept. of Agriculture publication ARM-NE-58EA. Washington,

A guide to recent fuInig8tuB. U.S.

D.C.

McGarry, M. G., and Stainforth, production

J. 1978. form human and farm wastes

Compost, in the People's fertilizer

Republic end biOg89 of China.

IDRC TS8e Ottawa.

Miersch, K., and Strauch, D. 1978. Hygienische van

Siedlungsabfffllen in stationiren Rottezellen uberprufiing mit der Kompostierung

Beliiftung, Hiill und

Abfall 10(4):115-21.

Millner, P. 0. 1982.

Thermophilic and thermotolerant

Sludge Compost. Devel. Ind. Microbiology 23:61-78. actinomycetes in Sewage

Millner, P. D., Bassett,

Aspergillus fumigatus mechanical

39:1000-1009. agitation

D. A., and Marsh, P. B. in from self-heating open air. compost

Appl. and

1980. piles

Environ.

Dispersal subjected

Microbial.

Of to

Millner, P.

Occurrence

D., of

Marsh,

Aspergillus

P. B., Snowden, R. B., and Parr, J. F.

1977. fumigatua during composting of sewage sludge.

Appl. and Environ. Microbial. 34(6):765-72.

Moilliet, von G.

1981.

Feuchtkompostierung alternative-verfahren bei problematischem l-8.

Kolloquium Kl&chlamm behandeln. von KlZrschlamm - das bewghrke flussigaustrag, chap. 16, pp.

Luzern, Switzerland.

Morgan, M. T., and Macdonald, F. W. 1969.

Tests show MB Tuberculosis survive composting. J. Environ. Health 32:101-8. doesn't

Miihlecker (1980).

Marganthaler

Bericht cur

Nussbaum in Bitzfeld.

Kompostierung.

Klaranlage Lomersheim

Murray, H. M. 1960. Incidence of Ascaris ova in Pretoria reduction by storage of the Institute for

(Maturation) in large

Sewage Purification he8pB.

(3):337-42. sludge and their

Journal and Proceedings

Nicholls, L., and Gunawardara, S. A. 1939. The destruction in nightsoil by composting.

Ceylon J. Science 5(1):1-g.

Nordsiek, D.

Verfahren.

1976. Miill-Klarschlamm-Kompoatierung.

Forum Umwelt Hygiene 27(8):275-79. of helminth

Nach Dem Brikollare ova

Oger, L. 1981.

Le compostage aerobie de boues de stations procede B.A.V. Eau et Industrie Dec. no. 60, pp. 35-40. depuration. Le

- 98 -

Olver, W. M.

1979. The life and times of Aspergillus

Sci. tand/Utilieation 20(1):36-39. fumigatus.

Compo s t

Olver, W. M.

1980. Cold weather sludge composting works in Maine.

Science/Land Utilization 21(5):20-22.

Oosthoek, Jo

13(7):185-88.

1981. Das Kompostwerk in Wijster.

Compost

Miill und Abfall

Parr, for

J. F., land

Epstein, application.

E., and Willson,

Agriculture

G. B.

1978. Composting sewage sludge and Environment 14:123-37.

Pagliai M., Guada, G., LeMarca M., Ginchetti, L., and Lucamank, G. 1981.

Effects of Sewage Sludge9 and composts on soil porosity 8nd aggregation. journal Environ. Quality 10(4):556-61.

Patterson,

Treatment

J. C., and Rodgers, S.

1979.

Alternative.

Static Pile Composting - A Waste

Perks

- Park Techniques 4(1):16-19.

Pereira-Neto, in 8

J. T., refuse/sludge

Stentiford, forced

E. I., Hera, D. D.

1986. Pathogen survival aeration compost sys tern. Institution

Chemical Engineers,

Effluent

Resellrch Meeting, University

Treetment of Bradford and Disposal

96:373-391. of and The Annual

Pereira-Neto, windrows

International

Itely,

J. and

T., Stentiford, aerated static

E. I., Mara, D. D.

1986. Comparison of piles for refuse/sludge composting.

Symposium on Compost, Production Quality and Use. Udine,

11 ppm

Poincelot, R. P.

1974. practice of composting.

A scientific examination

Compost Sci. 15(3):24-31. of the principles and

Polprasert, C., and Muttamara, hyacinth in the tropics.

S.

1980. Composting

Compost Science/Land night

Utilization soil and water

21(2):25-27.

Polprasert,

Suthirawuts.

C.,

Edwards, P.,

1982.

Recycling

Pacharaprakiti, rural

C., and urban

Rajput, night soil

V. in

S.,

Thailand. and

IDRC final report AIT Research Report no. 143 Bangkok.

Rabbani, K. R., Jindal , R., and Kubota, H.

1983.

Refuse.

Environment81 Sanitation Reviews, No. lO/ll.

Composting of Domestic

Resources Management Associates,

Montgomery County, Maryland. tal Service.

Inc.

1975. The land containment project

Report prepared for the Maryland Environmen- in

Rohde, G.

1972.

Kliirschlama

Pasteurisierung des Kl~rschlammes oder Kompostierung und Miill vor der Anwendung zu Diingungszwecken.

Abw8SBer (5):129-31. von

Wasser

- 99 *

Sander von 8. 1967.

Verfahren

AbwasserfauLschLamm fiir die und probleme

Verwendung der im

Kompostierungvon

Landbau.

Zeitschrift

Kulturtechnik und Flurbereinigun. 6(6):345-53.

Miill und fiir

Sasser, J. N.

1971. An introduction to the plant world crops and a survey of current

Nachtrichten Bayer 24(1):3-47. control nematode problem affecting methods. Pflantenxchuts-

Savage, J., Chase, T., and MacMillan, enteric bacteria and other

T. D. microorganisma

1973. during

Population aerobic windrow compost ing . Appl. Microbial. 26:969-74. changes in thermophlllu

Savage, G. M., Golueke, C. C. Major Cost Elements in Co-Cornposting.

Biocycle 27(1):33-35.

1986.

Schneider,

Kolloquium von P. 1981.

Des Triga-verfahere

Klirrschlamm behandeln zur Klarschlamm-kompostierung.

29-30 Jan. in

Horw.bei Luzern,

Switzerland.

Schuchardt, F., and Baader, W.

Klzrschlamm.

1979.

MC11 und Abfall 11(8):205-14.

Kompostierung von brikettiertem

Schwabe, von 0. H.

Flensburg.

1973. der Stlidtetag

Miill

(5):302-S. und KL~rschLammbehandLungsanLage in

SchwanhEuser , H . von. 1978. Erfahrungen mit dem Schlammverotlungsystem

Dambach Schnorr in Rastgft W. Germany.

Miill und Abfall 10(1):22-25.

Scott, J. c. 1952. Health and Agriculture in China: A Fundamental Approach to Some of the Problems of World Hunger. London : Faber and Faber.

Shuval, H. I.,

Cornposting.

Gunnerson,

Appropriate

C. G., and Julius,

Technology

De Anne.

1981. Night-soil for Water Supply and Sanitation

Series, vol. 10, Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Sikora, L.

Materials

J., Willson, balance

G. in aerated

B., Colacicco, static pile

D., and cornposting.

Parr, J. F.

1981.

Journal of the Water

Pollution Control Federation 53(12):1701-7.

Smith, E., and Eilers, R. G. 1975.

Computer evaluation and disposal cost, pp. 30-59. In Proceedings of sludge of the National handling

Conference on Municipal Sludge Management and Disposal.

Transfer, Inc.

Rockville, Md.: Information

Spennes, G., and Britsch,

Kommunalwirtschaft

Th:

(9):320-25.

1977. Kliirschlamm kompostierung ohne Zusgtze

Spohn, E. 1978. Neue einfache

Science/Land Utilization verfahren

19(3):26-27. der abfallverwertung. Compo s t

Sr idhar , M. K. C., EGerikhare, E. O., Bammeke, A. O., Omishakin,

1985. Cornposting in a Nigerian Community. Biocycle 26(3):50, 52-54.

M. A.

- 100 -

Stentiford,

Aeration

E. I., Mara, D. D., Taylor,

Co-Cornposting of Domestic

P. L.,

Refuse

Leton, T. G. and Sewage Sludge,

1983. Forced

Proceedings of the International

Conference on Composting of Solid Wastes and

Slurries.

University of Leeds, England 58-72.

Stentiford,

269-277.

E. I., Pereira-Neto,

Real,

J., Witter, E. 1985.

T. J., Taylor,

Sanitisation sewage sludge and refuse in a static

Engineering. Ed. T. H. Y. Tebbutt. pile

P. L., potential system

Elsevier in

Mare, of

Applied

D. D., cornposting

Advances in

Science

Lopez- for

Water

Pub.

Stentiford, E. I., Taylor, P. I., Leton, T. G., Mara, D. D.

1985. Forced

Aeration Composting of Domestic Refuse and Sewage Sludge.

J. Inst. Water

Pollution Control 84Cl), pp. 23-32.

Stern, G.

1975.

Processing, economics, and sale of heat dried sludge.

Proceedings of the National Conference on Municipal Sludge Management

In and

Disposal, pp- 235-44. Rockville, Md.: Information Transfer, Inc.

Sterritt, ture

-., and Lester, J. M. 1980. The value of sewage sludge to agricul- and effects of the agricultural toxic elements: A review. use of sludges contaminated with

The Science of the Total Environment 16:55-90.

Stone, R.

Plant.

1949. The Shnoyang, China, Night Soil Fertilizer

Sewage Works Journal 21(6):992-1001.

Reclamation

Strauch, D., Berg, T., and Fleischle, disinfection of sewage sludge. straw and digested sludge.

W.

III.

1980.

Experiments

CWF-Wasser/Abwasser

Microbiological on the

121(6):298-301. studies cornposting for of

Sunawira, U. 1968. A system of cornposting in West Java Indonesia.

Science 9(2):22.

Tabasaran , 0.

1976.

Tests on the cornposting of domestic refuse and waste- water sludge. Wasser-Abwasser Gewasser 20:1-35.

Tabasaran, straw.

0,

1980.

Aerobic stabilization

Ingegneria Ambientale 3(9):111-16. of sludge by cornposting on

Tabasaran,

O., and Lausterer, W. , 1979. Cornposting of raw domestic sewage sludge in clumps together with straw. Abwassertechnik 30(1):17-21.

Tabasaran,

O., Bidlingmaier, behandlung in Bioreaktoren.

Horw bei Luzern, Switzerland.

W., and Bickel, F. 1981. Abwasserschlamm-

Kolloquim Klarschlamm behandeln 29-30 Jan.in

Tansey, M. R. industrial

1971. Isolation wood chip piles. of thermophilic

Mycologia 63:537-47. fungi from self heated

Tester, C. F., Parr, J. F., and Paolini, compost properties.

Proceedings

1980. Ef feet of screening of N<;L. Conference on municipal on and industria? sludge composting, Nov. 14-16, Maryland.

- 101 -

Tiet jen, C.

1975.

The potential

Compost Science 16(4):6-7. of cornposting in developing

Tokyo Metropolis

Labour Economy Office. 1979. Agricultural

Minamitamn sewage and urban refuse compost research outline. countries. utilization of

Toyohashi City, Japan. N-d.

Urban and utal environmental

(reprl’nt). combination system

U.S. Environmental Protection for sludge treatment

625/l-74-006. and

Agency

Washington, D.C.

(USEPA). disposal.

1974. Process

EPA technology design transfer. manual

EPA

Van Note, R. U., Herbert, P. V., Patei, R. M., Chupek, C., and Feldman, L.

1975.

A guide to the selection of cost effective wastewater treatment systems.

U.S. E.P.A. 430/g-75-002. Washington, D.C.

Weber, H. countries.

1983.

Experiences in building of compost plants in developing

Wesner, G. M. 1978.

Disposal.

Sewage sludge

Sludge Disposal. Vol. composting.

12. U.S.

In Sludge

EPA 625/4-70-012.

Treatment and

Washington,

D.C.

Widmer, O., and Konstandt, zuschlagstoffe Miill

H. G. 1978. und Klarschlammverwertung

Klsrschlammkompostierung

18 Oct. 1978 in Konstanz am Bodensee, Switzerland.

Erfahrungen ohne und Tendenzen,

Wiley, B. B., and Westerberg, S. C. composted sewage.

Applied Microbiology

1969. Survival

18:994-1001.

Wiley, J. S.

1962. Pathogen

Journal of the Water Pollution survival

Control in composting

Federation 34:80-90. municipal

Willetts,

Pollut.

S. R. 1979.

Advanced Cornposting

Management 9(2):36, 38-39. of human pathogens

- The Austrian wastes.

Way.

Environ. in

Willson, G. 8.) Parr, J. F., Epstein, E., Marsh, P. B., Chaney, R. L.,

Colacicco, D., Burge, W. D., Sikora, L. J., Tester, C. F., and

Hornick, S.

1980. Manual for composting sewage sludge by the Beltsville aerated pile method. U-S. EPA 690/b-80-022 May 1980. Washington, D.C,

Wolf, H. W. 1974.

Cornposting sludge in Germany. Compost Science r5(6):31.

Wyatt, J. M., and White,

P. C. 1975. Sludge processing, disposal/resource recovery: A Planning perspective.

Protection Agency,

Washington, D.C.

Water Planning Division, transportation,

U.S. Environmental

UP0 12-75-01 p. and

186.

#[email protected],sRL(irlair0uuaw,~

:BJ.WFIw43k.U3!465,1IutBaamAira

A~r8Pa~(;lbmlwmmsJllr

+kmntoi lnfo4iK,owtwwDautnmtDdivcrY,lbl s& QW. Sydney, tuw zppl

Ambz &old xnd Co., A-1011 Wii. Onten 31. Auxtria m: Middle Eas MaMing kwuch Burau, Branch oukzBtbmillRcm8KbMd~-

W..LL, P.O.

~0~n5o,hm~~mm~17 zicatiom dn Nations Unin. Av du ROI 202.

BIA publipn# lknicw lntmtacicnaix Ltda.. Rua

Pcixoto Goltlide. 2m Olrop Lo PItdO. SP

-tiww- cue k Dimlwllr. CA 83,lsol rue Ampn.

Bouchaa. Qucblc J4B 3E6

Cklkz Editoti Rcnacimiento. MinIlores 334. Santrago

Cdorb(r: Enlace Ltda.. Aptdo. Acrm 34270. Bogota D.E. call Rkc Librcria Trcjox. CaUe II-il. Av. Frraandex

Gudl,s&8Jow

Qlpmitcm~18rmmioll SaQiwh Had offii. PO.

~S&wwemw,R-AllcII,

DLl97OFrakhbqC.

[email protected]~EditonWlcr.C.porA.,lwbdl8

C&imaEq.RtltlOfYbll,ApdO.~fl#l.S~lo

DdaP

~&abRqsbKcafzAfAhmm,~Svut.Caim qLsccAlarb

Nu:

Akntdtm Yinkaupp8. P.O. Box 128.

Sm101,Hcldald IO tha: World Bnnk Publkuioas. a, wttue d’lCnr, 73116

Pub

TbUe ok UNtMrlq, MUJ

Bonn

Cr;la:wolulalormuionSenim.BrMchOlricc,24.

Ippodamu.Smc~Ahu-11635

E~:K&M,P.O.BOX

149,13999udapat62

Muw. SW Heq Kuq

M8byd8: Uniwsity of Malaya, Cwpcrrtiw Book*.

Limited. P.O. Box 1127, Jrlan Pantat Baru, Ku& Lurttput

592W

M8ldlvcl. see sli Luh

Mcxku: ‘)(FoTK, SW Fcmando No. 37. Col. TorMb ciurhr. G&z

- Mrdical Books Eump, BV (uM). w

1:. 724 BL Lodlem

Nn Zadnb IL Hill and Smt Ltd., Private B%. Nnr

Mkt. Auckland

&wb: Uninrritr Prcm Limited. Tim Cmwns Buildigl

Jeti&, Private Mail Bag JO%. lbxdxtt

NorWmlnbrlSuUJ*IR&h

Nomar [email protected] ti&s: Tknumid Johut, A.S., Bokx

Box I I77 Seluum. 0107. Oxio I

Ml Book

Box huma: Lib& Cultural Panxmatx, S.A. (UP). Vii

Eqa~l6,PlnamxZ~tuL

PrpNewGrlwr.SaA8slf~

)m: EditotirlDourolloSA,ApuuQ3#),l~242,OE.

I06,Liml

PbNppbw: National Bwk Store, PO. Bon 1924, Manila [email protected]:livmri4Ponupl.RuIbCum70-74,

Lillml lm

SruY Afable Juir Bmk Store, B.0. Bor )I%,

RJyadh-II471 w, lhu, Bmr: !nlomuion Publkwiow,

PrivUr, Ltd., 02-M Fkn Fkmr. Pd.Pu lnduxttial Bldg.,

24N#hldullMn~.Siinl9JJ s8bmwIR88h.swAww8

Sumlb AMcut For riqfe f&s: Oxford Uaitity Ptax,

Swtkrn Affk8, Audaak Diviaian. PO. Bon 1141, Ca9c suburipion sm., P.O. Box 4Io9S, crai#uu,

Johrnnabur6

Irrl: Jawxlcrn Poxt. Jtruxalmt Post Buildin& P.0. Boa

Il.Ko~ra1uJewakm9lDoo

IW COW. Librcria Commixxionaric, Sanxoni S.P.A.. Via

Lunwlnon 45, car& Postale 532.5aiZI Fiomla h6ty k3wt~ Cam Udition CI de Difluxioa Africa&x

@DA). 04 B.P. 541. Abidjan 01 Plateau

Jyr:Eufcm Book Servitcl~~h 37-3. Honlo 3-Chow

Bunkpku III. Tokyo

Jetdam, YEUIB laformauon Serv~ca. Branch OtTw P.0

Box 314~. Jabal, Amman

I(nyx Aha Baok Service (EA.3 Ltd.. P.O. Bon 45245.

Nairobi

1-m. Shinmun-RO. Jon$rot& P.0 Bw 101.

[email protected] Seoul

Kwsit. MEMR~ lnformatlon Scrvm. Branch Office. P.O.

Box 3463, Kuralt

M,Box3al%,+l%tisto&&

S-LiiRyc4,6Ruc0ra1u1,Cuepoml

UI,CH l2llaam II

- lulmm,cMw.sw~

Ilulwk:hfwdUaivtnitrPlca,P.O.llorlrP),Duw s8lutn

TbnBn& celllml Dcflmma son, IM siloln Pod, w* ni#d 4 [email protected]: syltrnl8liw stlldiw unit, JS Eutcm

Wn Rod. Cunpc, Ttiid8d

~adr: SC&C llmiWnr dr Ditition, 5 Amme de c8llw,~

‘hkcy: Huct Kitabni A.S.. 469, lxtiklal Caddai.

Bcyo&-Istanbul

U&n: Shppiag U#amta Bootshop. PO. Box 7145,

Kampala u&d Ad Eoh~cx: Middle East Marketin: Research hew, Branch Offtt. P. 0. Box 6fM, Sltarjrh

Umlrcl lUm#dam

Inlul: Microinfo Ltd.,

PO. Box 3. Allott, Hampshire GU 34 2PG hwrlr. SW Amtd8 hcmclaz Libnria dd Gtr, Aptdo. 60.337, Caraax lM0.A ubcm Smor: W&y Brwkxhop, PO. Box 207, Apia

VnpxlarL: Ju~odovcnxka Knjip, YU-I loo0 Bduxdcm

Rtpublikc. 8th Floor timbobn: ikxtbaok slkr Pvt. Ltd., Box 3799, Hann

No. 33.

Guidelines for Calculating Financial and ECOn-iC Rates

(also in French,

33P, and Spanish, 33s) of Return for

DFC Projects

No. 34. guergp Efficiency in the Pulp and Paper Industry with Emphasis on Developing Countries

No.

35.

Potential for Energy Efficitrm in the Fertilizer Industry

No.

36. Aquaculture: A Cmponent of

Lou Cost Sanitation Technology

No.

37.

Municipal

Wartt Processing in

Europe: A

Status Report on Selected Materials and Energy Recovtrv Projects

No. 38.

Bulk Shipping and Terminal Logistics

No.

39.

Cocoa Production:

Present Constraints and Priorities for

Research

No.

40. Irrigation Design and Management: Experience in Thailand

No. 41. Put1 Peat in Dtvtloplng Countries

No. 42.

Administrative and Gperational Procedures for Programs for Sites aad Services and

Area

Upgrading

No. 43.

Parming Systems Research:

A

Review

No. 44. Animal Health Services in Sub-Saharan Africa: Alternative Approaches

No. 45.

The

International Road Roughness Experiment:

Establishing Correlation and a Calibration

Standard for

Measurements

No. 46. Guldtlines for Conducting and Calibrating Road Roughness

Measurements

No. 47. Guidelines for

Evaluating the Management Information Systems of Industrial Enterprises

No. 48. Handpumps Testing and Development:

Proceedings of a Workshop in China

No. 49. Anaerobic Digestion: Principals and Practices for Blogas Systems tJ9. 50. Investment and Pinanst in Agricultural Service Cooperatives

No. 5.l. Wastewater Irrigation:

No.

54. Aanassr’s

Health Effects and Technical Solutions

No. 52.

Urben Transit Systems: Guidelines for Examining Options

No.

53,

Monitoring and Evaluating Urban Development Programs:

A

Handbook for Program Managers and Restarchers

Guide to

"WouitorinE and

Evaluating Urban Development Prograa=+'

No. 55.

Techniques for Assessing Industrial Bazards: A Manual

No. 56. Action-Planning Workshops for Development Managplent: Guidelines

The World Bank

Headquar&ers

1818 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20433,

U.S.A.

Telephone: (202) 477-1234

Telex: WUI 64145 WORLDBANK

RCA

248423

WORLDBK

Cable Address: INTBAFRAD

WA5HlNCTONDC

75

,

116 Faris, France

Telephone:

(1) 47.23.54.21

Telex: 842-62062S

Tokyo Office

Kokusai Building

1-I

Marunouchi 3-chome

Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo

100,

Japan

Telephone: (03)

214-5001

Telex: 781-26838

UNJDP

New York

United Nations Development Programme

I

United Nations Plaza

Telephone: (212) 754-1234

Telex: 125980 (domestic!

232-422 (overseas)

Cable Address: UNDEVPRO

NEW YORK

Geneva Office

Palais des Nations

Cl-I-1211 Germ--a

10

Switzerland

Telephone: 98-84-00

DBHTelephone: DDH98-58-50

Telex: (IJNDP) 28.96.20 or (UN) 2896.96

Cable Address:

UNDEVPRO

GENEVA (SWITZERLAND)

Tokyo Office

Shin Aoyama Building

Room 2255 l-l, Minami-Aoyama I-Chome

Minato-Ku

Tokyo 107, Japan

Telephone: 03-475-1619120

Telex:

128 334

AB TKOPI 128 334

Cable Address: UNDEVPRO

TOKYO (JAPAN)

ISSN

0253-7494

ISBNO-8213-0894-7

Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement