1 2

1 2
1
Published as: Lucid, J.D., Fenton, O., Healy, M.G. 2013. Estimation of maximum biosolids and
2
meat and bone meal application to a low P index soil and a method to test for nutrient and
3
metal losses. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 224: 1464 – 1475. DOI: 10.1007/s11270-013-1464-x
4
5
Estimation of maximum biosolids and meat and bone meal application to a
6
low P Index soil and a method to test for nutrient and metal losses
7
8
9
Joseph D. Lucida, Owen Fentonb, Mark G. Healy a*
10
11
a
12
b
13
*Corresponding author. Tel: +353 91 495364; Fax: +353 91 494507. E-mail address:
14
[email protected]
Civil Engineering, National University of Ireland, Galway, Co. Galway, Rep. of Ireland.
Teagasc, Johnstown Castle, Environmental Research Centre, Co Wexford, Rep. of Ireland
15
16
17
Abstract
18
19
The aim of this study was to develop: (1) a method for the calculation of the maximum legal
20
rate at which meat and bone meal (MBM) and biosolids should be applied to land, which
21
took into account the soil P index, the dry solids and the nutrient and metal content of each
22
material, and (2) a quick method to evaluate their impact, when applied at the estimated
23
maximum and twice the maximum application rates, on the release of phosphorus (P) and
24
metals to surface runoff. Three types of biosolids - lime stabilised (LS), anaerobically
25
digested (AD) and thermally dried (TD) – and two types of MBM (low and high ash) were
26
examined. The nutrient and metal losses were examined using a 1 L-capacity beaker, which
27
contained an intact soil core. Treatments were applied at maximum and twice the maximum
28
legal application rates and then overlain with 500 mL of water, which was stirred to simulate
1
29
overland flow. At the maximum legal application rate, low ash MBM (1.14 mg L-1) and TD
30
biosolids (2.43 mg L-1) had the highest losses of P. Thermally dried biosolids and LS
31
biosolids exceeded maximum allowable concentrations (MAC) for manganese, but all
32
treatments remained below the MAC for copper and iron, at the maximum legal application
33
rate. Anaerobically digested biosolids, and high and low ash MBM would appear to have
34
potential for landspreading, but these results are indicative only and should be verified at
35
field-scale.
36
37
Keywords: Meat and bone meal; biosolids; land application; surface runoff; metals; dissolved
38
reactive phosphorus.
39
40
1. Introduction
41
42
Biosolids are the by-product of urban wastewater treatment, whereas meat and bone meal
43
(MBM) is derived through the processing of the residues from the slaughtering of farmyard
44
animals. When spread on arable or grassland, and provided that they are treated to the
45
approved standards, they may offer an excellent source of nutrients and metals required for
46
plant and crop growth. They can be used as an aid in the development of a soil’s physical and
47
chemical characteristics. They increase water absorbency and tilth, and may reduce the
48
possibility of soil erosion (Meyer et al. 2001). Land application of biosolids and MBM to
49
agricultural land can be relatively inexpensive in countries such as the Republic of Ireland
50
(hereafter referred to as Ireland) and the U.S.A, as such by-products are defined as wastes.
51
An alternative, but costly, option in such countries is to pay tipping fees for their disposal
52
(McFarland et al. 2007; Sonon and Gaskin 2009). For countries that acknowledge their
53
nutrient replacement potential (e.g. the U.K), there is an associated cost for their usage.
2
54
55
1.1 Meat and Bone Meal
56
57
Initially across the European Union (EU), the application of MBM to land was prohibited,
58
(European Commission 2000), but in recent years this stipulation has been relaxed and the
59
application of MBM is now allowed provided certain criteria, detailed in Table 1, are adhered
60
to (European Commission 2006; European Commission 2002). European Commission
61
regulation No. 181 of 2006 (European Commission 2006) allows Member States to apply
62
stricter national rules (European Commission 2000) and in Ireland, the land application of
63
organic fertilisers composed of Category 2 and 3 MBM materials (Table 2) is prohibited (S.I.
64
No. 253 of 2008). In 2010, 135,000 tonnes of MBM was produced from nine rendering plants
65
approved by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (DAFF) in Ireland (DAFF
66
2011) and as land application of MBM is not currently permitted, it is either incinerated, used
67
in the cement industry, or used in the manufacture of fertiliser. As the world reserves of
68
phosphate are diminishing and new reserves become more inaccessible, price increases will
69
inevitably ensue (Cordell et al. 2009), thereby making MBM a more desirable alternative to
70
synthetic fertilisers.
71
72
1.2 Biosolids
73
74
The amount of sewage sludge being applied to land in the EU has dramatically increased
75
(Fig. 1). This is as a result of Directive 91/271/EEC (EEC 1991), which states that the sludge
76
produced from wastewater treatment plants “shall be reused wherever appropriate” and the
77
Landfill Directive, 1999/31/EC (EC 1999), which requires that, by 2014, the disposal of
78
biodegradable municipal waste via landfill is to be reduced to 85 % of the total amount
3
79
produced in 1995. Consequently, the land application of biosolids provides a sustainable and
80
beneficial alternative to landfilling. Although Germany and the U.K. are two of the largest
81
producers of sewage sludge in the EU, Ireland, the U.K. and Spain are at the forefront of EU
82
countries in terms of the percentage of sludge reused on agricultural lands (Fig. 1).
83
84
In Ireland, the application rate of biosolids to land is governed by EU Directive 86/278/EEC
85
(EEC 1986), and is enacted in the “Codes of Good Practice for the Use of Biosolids in
86
Agriculture” (Fehily Timoney and Company 1999) (Table 1), which set out limits for metal
87
application, and S.I. 610 of 2010, which sets out nutrient (P and N) limits for various crops
88
grown in Ireland. These guidelines do not consider the relationship between biosolids
89
application rate, nutrient availability, and surface runoff of nutrients, suspended sediment
90
(SS) and metals. Generally, when applying biosolids based on these guidelines and depending
91
on the nutrient and metal content of the biosolids, P becomes the limiting factor for
92
application. In the U.S.A., the application of biosolids to land is governed by The Standards
93
for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge (U.S. EPA 1993), and is applied to land based on
94
the nitrogen (N) requirement of the crop being grown and is not based on a soil test
95
(McDonald and Wall 2011). Therefore, less land is required for the disposal of biosolids than
96
in countries where it is spread based on P content. Evanylo (2006) suggests that when soil P
97
poses a threat to water quality in the U.S.A., the application rate could be determined on the P
98
needs of the crop. A consequence of excessive application rates could be nutrient losses
99
where an application is followed by a rainfall event, or excessive heavy metals transfer from
100
spreading lands along the export continuum to a waterbody with subsequent adverse effects
101
to the environment (Navas et al. 1999).
102
4
103
Two knowledge gaps concerning the application of biosolids and MBM to soil exist: (1) the
104
development of a simple method to determine their maximum legal application rate and (2)
105
the development of a simple, quick and relatively realistic laboratory-based method to
106
determine the impact of land application of biosolids and MBM on the release of P and
107
metals to surface runoff. A novel test, wherein an intact soil, placed in a beaker, which has
108
received a surface application of organic waste material and is then overlain with water,
109
continuously stirred to simulate overland water flow may be used to give an indication of the
110
potential impact of biosolids and MBM applications on surface water runoff of nutrients and
111
metals.
112
113
Therefore, the aims of this study were to: (1) develop a simple, novel method to calculate the
114
maximum legal application rate of biosolids and MBM to land (2) use a novel, quick,
115
laboratory-based method to determine the impact of land applications of three types of
116
biosolids (anaerobically digested (AD), thermally dried (TD) and lime stabilised (LS)) and
117
two types of MBM (high ash and low ash content), applied at the maximum legal and double
118
the maximum legal application rate, on P and heavy metal release.
119
120
2. Materials and Methods
121
122
2.1 Biosolids and MBM collection and characterisation
123
124
Three types of biosolids – AD, TD and LS - were collected from three wastewater treatment
125
plants in Ireland. Two types of MBM samples, one with low ash content and one with high
126
ash content, were collected from a slaughterhouse in the west of Ireland. The biosolids and
127
MBM samples were stored in a cold room at a temperature of 10oC prior to testing for P,
128
nitrogen (N), and metal (cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), lead (Pb), mercury
5
129
(Hg), nickel (Ni) and zinc (Zn)) contents in accordance with standard methods (APHA 1995)
130
(Table 3).
131
132
2.2 Soil Preparation and Analysis
133
134
The soil used in this study was collected from a dairy farm in Co. Galway, Ireland (ITM
135
reference 552075, 717769). Cores with an internal diameter of 0.1 m and a depth of 0.12 m
136
were used to collect undisturbed grassed soil samples from the site. The cores were pushed
137
into the ground and were then carefully extruded from the soil so as not to disturb the soil
138
contained within. Although no attempt was made to remove the grass from the surface of the
139
soil cores, the grass was trimmed to a height of approximately 3 cm above the soil surface.
140
The water content of the soil was approximately 27% and the intact cores were stored at
141
approximately 10oC before testing (normally < 2 d). Classification of the soil used in study is
142
presented in Table 4. A 2:1 ratio of deionised water to soil was used to determine the soil pH
143
(n=3). Soil samples (n=3), taken from the top 0.1 m from the same location, were air dried at
144
40oC for 72 h, crushed to pass a 2 mm sieve and analysed for P using M3 extracting solution
145
(Mehlich 1984) and Morgan’s P (Pm; the national test used for the determination of plant
146
available P in Ireland) using Morgan’s extracting solution (Morgan 1941). The organic matter
147
(OM) of the soil was determined by the loss of ignition (LOI) after BSI (1990).
148
149
2.3 Determination of maximum legal loading rate
150
151
In Ireland, a soil test P Index, which comprises a series of P ranges, four in total and based on
152
the Pm content of the soil, describes the level of P saturation in a soil. A soil with a P Index
153
of 1 (0-3 mg L-1 Pm for grassland) has a very low P content and therefore can have the
6
154
highest amount of P spread on it, while a soil with a P Index of 4 (>8 mg L-1 Pm for
155
grassland) has a very high P content and should not be spread with organic wastes or
156
amended with synthetic fertilizers. The soil used in this study had a P Index of 1. The
157
maximum legal application rate (in tonnes ha-1 y-1) for each amendment used in the present
158
study was determined based on the P index of the soil, the legal limits of the N, P and metal
159
application (after Fehily Timoney and Company 1999; Table 1), the dry solids (DS) content,
160
and nutrient and metal concentration of the amendment (either biosolids or MBM; Table 3).
161
A flow chart of the methodology is presented in Fig. 2.
162
163
Both the biosolids and the MBM were applied at the maximum legal and double the
164
maximum legal land application rate to be applied to a P index 1 soil, based on DS content of
165
amendment (Table 5). In all cases, P proved to be the limiting factor of all the nutrients and
166
heavy metals in terms of determining the legal application rate for each treatment.
167
168
2.4 Runoff test
169
170
The following treatments were carried out in triplicate (n=3): grassland only treatment (the
171
study control); grassland receiving TD, LS and AD biosolids; and grassland receiving high
172
ash and low ash-content MBM.
173
174
Intact soil cores (collection method detailed in Section 2.2), 0.04 to 0.05 m in depth, were
175
placed in 1-L capacity Pyrex cylinders. The treatments were then applied to the soil (t=0 h)
176
and left for a period of 24 h to allow the treatment to interact with the soil. After 24 h, the
177
samples were then saturated by the gradual addition of deionised water over a 24-h period.
178
This was conducted until slight ponding of water occurred on the soil surface. At t=48 h, 500
7
179
ml of deionised water was added to the breakers. A paddle was then lowered to mid-depth in
180
the overlying water and rotated at 20 rpm for 30 h to simulate overland flow and at time
181
intervals of 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 24 and 30 h, 2.5 ml of water was removed at mid-depth of
182
the overlying water, filtered through 0.45 µm filters and stored at 4oC until testing (normally
183
conducted within 1 d of collection). The samples were tested colorimetrically for dissolved
184
reactive phosphorus (DRP) in accordance with the standard methods (APHA 1995) by a
185
nutrient analyser (Konelab 20, Thermo Clinical Labsystems, Finland). The mass release of
186
DRP to the overlying water was calculated based on the concentration of the overlying water,
187
the volume reduction due to sample withdrawal and the area of the exposed soil. At the end
188
of each test, 15 ml of supernatant water was removed from each beaker and filtered through a
189
0.45-µm filter prior to testing for metal content (Cr, Cu, iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), Ni and
190
Zn). Measurements of pH and dissolved oxygen (DO) were also taken at the 1, 8 and 30-h
191
intervals and were measured using a pH probe (WTW SenTix 41 probe with a pH 330 meter,
192
WTW, Germany) and a DO probe (WTW Oxi 315i meter with a CellOx 325 oxygen sensor,
193
WTW, Germany), respectively.
194
195
2.5 Statistical Analysis
196
197
Two-sample t tests were used to determine the statistical difference in P release between P
198
index 1 and double the P Index 1 application rates (at the 95 % confidence interval) for each
199
of the treatments used (Minitab 16TM; Minitab Inc., UK). It was also used to establish if, at a
200
given loading rate, there was a difference in P release between the different treatments.
201
202
3. Results
203
8
204
3.1 Phosphorus release
205
206
Fig. 3 shows the DRP concentrations and the mass of DRP at both application rates (Table 5)
207
in the overlying water over the study duration. All treatments, with the exception of the study
208
control, released 90 % of the cumulative DRP within the first 5 to 10 h. The treatments which
209
had the lowest DRP release, at the maximum legal application rate for a P index 1 soil, were
210
(in ascending order of DRP release): AD biosolids, which had maximum concentrations of
211
DRP of 0.36 mg L-1 and mass of P release of 22.1 mg m-2; LS biosolids (0.46 mg L-1 and 28.0
212
mg m-2); high ash MBM (0.69 mg L-1 and 43.1 mg m-2); low ash MBM (1.14 mg L-1 and 70.5
213
mg m-2); and TD biosolids (2.43 mg L-1 and 148.4 mg m-2). The same pattern was obtained
214
from the treatments applied at twice the maximum legal rate. At both application rates, the
215
TD biosolids released more than double the mass/concentration released by the highest of the
216
other treatments. There was no significant difference between the AD and LS biosolids
217
applied at either rate (p=0.516 and p=0.421, respectively), but there was a significant
218
difference between both types of MBM and the AD and LS biosolids applied at both the
219
maximum legal and double the maximum legal application rates (p<0.05).
220
221
3.2 Metals
222
223
The concentrations of Cu, Fe and Mn are presented in Fig. 4-6. With the exception of TD
224
and LS biosolids, all concentrations of metals were below the legal limits for the abstraction
225
of drinking water (75/440/EEC; EEC 1975) when the biosolids and MBM were applied at the
226
maximum legal rate. The concentrations of Cr, Ni and Zn, also tested in this study, were
227
below the discharge limits (results not shown). Thermally dried biosolids exceeded the limits
228
for Mn (Fig. 6) when applied at the maximum legal limit; this, combined with its high mass
9
229
release of DRP (Fig. 3), indicates that it may not be safely used for land application.
230
However, the tests in this study are indicative only, and plot/field scale testing would need to
231
be conducted to confirm this finding. Anaerobically digested biosolids, low ash and high ash-
232
content MBM remained within the limits at both application rates.
233
234
3.3 pH and DO measurements
235
236
The addition of biosolids and MBM increased the pH of the supernatant water at all times (1,
237
8 and 30 h) during the test (results not shown). Lime stabilised biosolids produced the largest
238
increase in pH, producing values of approximately 10 for both application rates versus the
239
study control (7.5).
240
241
The addition of MBM and biosolids to the grass reduced the DO of the supernatant water.
242
Thermally dried biosolids removed the most DO from overlying water (75 – 80 % versus the
243
control) after 8 h at the maximum legal and twice the maximum legal application rate (results
244
not shown). This was followed by the LS biosolids, which removed between 65 – 70 % at
245
both application rates; low ash MBM at 60 – 65 %; high ash MBM at 50 – 55 % and AD
246
biosolids at 20 – 50 %.
247
248
4. Discussion
249
250
Maximum legal application rates of biosolids and MBM to P index 1 soil tested at laboratory-
251
scale, showed that, with the exception of TD and LS biosolids, adherence to guidelines
252
governing application rates based on nutrient and metal content can ensure minimal losses of
253
nutrients and metals to surface runoff. However, to ensure correct application rates, regular
10
254
soil, biosolids and MBM testing is crucial to minimise incidental losses (where an application
255
is followed by a rainfall event). This experiment was conducted on soil with a low P content.
256
Soil metal content, degree of P saturation, and other parameters, may affect the buffering
257
capacity of the soil. Therefore, the results obtained in the present study are specific to one soil
258
type. The application rates in the present study which had the lowest release of DRP (3.3 and
259
0.8 t DS ha-1, respectively, for AD biosolids and high ash content MBM) were low compared
260
to other studies, and had the AD and high ash content MBM been applied on the basis of their
261
N content, the application rates would have been 14.7 and 2.5 t DS ha-1, respectively, which
262
could potentially give rise to surface runoff of P. For example, Joshua et al. (1998) found that
263
over a 3-y period following a one-time application of AD biosolids, applied at rates of 0, 30,
264
60 and 120 t DS ha-1, that both control (no application) and biosolids-amended plots were
265
high in Fe, Al and Mn, which indicated that biosolids had no significant impact on potential
266
metal release.
267
268
Although the focus of the present study was to determine the potential pollution threat
269
following landspreading of MBM and biosolids, end-users are also interested in their ability
270
to fertilise soil. There is a good body of literature which has examined their fertilisation
271
potential. Siddique and Robinson (2004) mixed AD biosolids, poultry litter, cattle slurry and
272
an inorganic P fertiliser with 5 soil types at rates equivalent to 100 mg P kg-1 soil and,
273
following incubation at 25oC for 100 d, found that biosolids and poultry litter had a slower
274
rate of P release compared with cattle slurry and inorganic P fertiliser. This may indicate that
275
they may have good long-term fertilisation potential. In a field-scale study, Jeng et al. (2006)
276
applied MBM at application rates of 500, 1000 and 2000 kg MBM ha-1 to spring wheat and
277
barley, along with a base fertilizer of 30 kg N ha-1 applied to a study control. The yield of
278
spring wheat increased linearly with increasing application rates of MBM in comparison to
11
279
the control. Further applications beyond 500 kg MBM ha-1 did not result in additional yields
280
when the MBM was applied to barley. Jeng et al. (2006) also noted that supplementary
281
mineral P resulted in no increase in the yield when 500 kg MBM ha-1 was applied. Chen et al.
282
(2011) found that there was no difference in grain yields over a 4-y period between plots of
283
spring barley and oats when treated with MBM and a mineral fertilizer applied at rates of 43,
284
64 and 86 kg P ha-1.
285
286
The metal analysis in the present study shows that when spread at the maximum legal limit,
287
only TD biosolids exceed the legal discharge limits for Mn (Fig. 6). However, like the other
288
results quoted in this study, these results are indicative only and need to be verified at field-
289
scale. A limitation of the runoff test is that it is the same mass of water that is present on the
290
soil for the duration of the test and, consequently, it does not mimic overland flow. Therefore,
291
the results achieved in the runoff test may be at variance to those from field-scale runoff
292
experiments. Stehouwer et al. (2006) applied AD biosolids to land at a rate of 134 t DS ha-1
293
(much higher than the rates applied in the present study; Table 5) and determined from
294
groundwater samples, that acidity generated from the application of the biosolids aided the
295
mobilisation of Zn, Ni, Cu and Pb to a depth in excess of 1 m.
296
297
Release of pathogens into the environment is another concern associated with the land
298
application of biosolids (Gerba and Smith, 2005). Zerzghi et al. (2010a) conducted a study on
299
plots that were treated with 20 annual land applications of 8 and 24 t DS ha-1 of AD Class B
300
liquid biosolids (containing 8 % DS) in order to establish the potential for soil microbial
301
activity. Surface soil samples (0-30 cm), analysed 10 mo after the final application, showed
302
no bacterial or viral pathogens present. In the same study, Zerzghi et al. (2010b) found that
12
303
the microbial activity increased with increasing application rate of biosolids on the plots, but
304
the bacterial diversity of the soil was not impacted negatively following the applications.
305
306
One of the major stumbling blocks in the use of biosolids and MBM as a low-cost fertiliser is
307
the issue of public perception (Apedaile 2001). In Ireland, companies that produce products
308
for the food and drinks industry will not allow the use of the raw materials produced from
309
agricultural land which has been treated with biosolids (FSAI 2008; Board Bia 2009). This
310
limits their use as a fertiliser at the current time.
311
312
5. Conclusions
313
314
The results of this study show that AD biosolids, and high ash and low ash-content MBM
315
may be applied to land within maximum legal application limits without any adverse risk of
316
runoff of P or metals. Thermally dried biosolids released high amounts of DRP and Mn into
317
the supernatant water in a runoff test. Lime stabilised biosolids released low amounts of DRP
318
into the supernatant water, but exceeded the legal limit for Mn (when applied at the
319
maximum legal application rate, based on a P index 1 soil) and Fe (when applied at twice the
320
maximum legal application rate). The runoff test is a simple, quick test for the determination
321
of the potential risk of nutrient and metal loss following application of biosolids or MBM to
322
an intact grassland core. The results, while indicative only, allow comparison to be made
323
between amendments when applied at the same rate. The findings of this study need to be
324
verified at laboratory-scale (using a rainfall simulator), plot and field-scale. In addition,
325
further research is required to determine their effect on the physical and chemical properties
326
of soil.
327
13
328
Acknowledgements
329
330
The first author gratefully acknowledges the award of the EMBARK scholarship from the
331
Irish Research Council for Science, Engineering and Technology (IRCSET) to support this
332
study. The authors would also like to thank Brian Cloonan, Western Proteins, Ballyhaunis
333
and David Gahan, SEDE Ireland, for their advice and assistance. The authors would also like
334
to thank Cornelius O’Flynn.
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
14
353
References
354
355
Apedaile, E (2001). A perspective on biosolids management. Canadian Journal of Infectious
356
Diseases, 12, 202–204.
357
358
APHA (1995). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. Washington:
359
American Public Health Association.
360
361
Bord Bia. (2009). Egg quality assurance scheme standard producer / rearer requirements,
362
Revision 03.
363
http://www.bordbia.ie/industryservices/quality/Documents/Egg_Quality_Assurance_Scheme.
364
pdf Accessed 18 June 2012
365
366
BSI (1990). Determination by mass-loss on ignition. British standard methods of test for soils
367
for civil engineering purposes. Chemical and electro-chemical tests. BS 1377:1990:3.
368
London: British Standards Institution.
369
370
Cordell, D., Schmid-Neset, T., White, S., & Drangert, J-O. (2009). Preferred future
371
phosphorus scenarios: a framework for meeting long-term phosphorus needs for global food
372
demand. In: K. Ashley, D. Mavinic & F. Koch (Eds.), International conference on nutrient
373
recovery from wastewater streams. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: IWA.
374
375
Chen, L., Kivela, J., Helenius, J., & Kangas, A. (2011). Meat bone meal as fertiliser for
376
barley and oat. Agricultural and Food Science - The Scientific Agricultural Society of
15
377
Finland, MTT Agrifood Research Finland 20(3). http://www.mtt.fi/afs/pdf/mtt-afs-
378
v20n3p235.pdf Accessed 19 June 2012
379
380
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (2011) Annual Report 2010.
381
http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/publications/2011/AnnualReport2010DAFF0
382
41011.pdf Accessed 19 June 2012
383
384
Enterprise Ireland (2011) EnviroCentre.ie. Animal by-products legislation - An explanatory
385
guide. http://www.envirocentre.ie/includes/documents/Animal%20By-
386
Products%20March%202011.pdf Accessed 19 June 2012
387
388
EPA (2003). Urban waste water discharges in Ireland - a report for the years 2000 and 2001.
389
http://www.epa.ie/downloads/pubs/water/wastewater/EPA_urban_waste_water_discharge_20
390
00_2001.pdf Accessed 19 June 2012
391
392
EPA (2004). Urban waste water discharges in Ireland with population equivalents greater
393
than 500 persons. A report for 2002 and 2003.
394
http://www.epa.ie/downloads/pubs/water/wastewater/EPA_urban_waste_water_discharge_20
395
02_2003.pdf Accessed 19 June 2012
396
397
EPA (2007). Urban waste water discharges in Ireland - a report for the years 2004 and 2005.
398
http://www.epa.ie/downloads/pubs/water/wastewater/UWWT_Report_2004_2005.pdf
399
Accessed 19 June 2012
400
16
401
EPA (2009). Urban waste water discharges in Ireland for population equivalents greater than
402
500 persons - a report for the years 2006 and 2007.
403
http://www.epa.ie/downloads/pubs/water/wastewater/web%20version(low).pdf Accessed 19
404
June 2012
405
406
EC (1999). Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste.
407
http://www.central2013.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Downloads/Document_Centre/OP_Resour
408
ces/Landfill_Directive_1999_31_EC.pdf Accessed 19 June 2012
409
410
EC (2000). Council Decision of 4 December 2000 concerning certain protection measures
411
with regard to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and the feeding of animal protein
412
2000/766/EC). Official Journal of the European Communities 07.12.2000 (L 306/32).
413
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biosafety/tse_bse/docs/d00-766.pdf Accessed 19 June 2012
414
415
EC (2002). Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European parliament and of the council of
416
3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for
417
human consumption. http://eur-
418
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/consleg/2002/R/02002R1774-20070101-en.pdf Accessed
419
19 June 2012
420
421
EC (2006). Commission Regulation (EC) No 181/2006 of 1 February 2006 implementing
422
Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 as regards organic fertilisers and soil improvers other than
423
manure and amending that Regulation. Official Journal of the European Union 02.02.2006 (L
424
29/31).
425
17
426
EC (2011a). EUROSTAT .
427
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=ten000
428
30&plugin=0 Accessed 19 June 2012.
429
430
EC (2011b). EUROSTAT.
431
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=ten000
432
31&plugin=0 Accessed 19 June 2012.
433
434
EEC (1975) Council Directive 75/440/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the quality required
435
of surface water intended for the abstraction of drinking water in the Member States.
436
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/consleg/1975/L/01975L0440-19911223-en.pdf
437
Accessed 19 June 2012.
438
439
EEC. (1986) Council Directive of 12 June 1986 on the protection of the environment, and in
440
particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture (86/278/EEC).
441
http://www.efma.org/PRODUCT-STEWARDSHIP-PROGRAM-10/images/86278EEC.pdf
442
Accessed 19 June 2012.
443
444
EEC. (1991). Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water
445
treatment.
446
http://www.igemportal.org/Resim/Council%20Directive%20Concerning%20Urban%20Wast
447
ewater%20Treatment.pdf Accessed 19 June 2012.
448
449
Evanylo, G.K. (2006) Land application of biosolids. In K.C. Haering, G.K. Evanylo (Eds.)
450
The mid-Atlantic nutrient management handbook (pp. 226 – 251).
18
451
http://www.mawaterquality.org/capacity_building/mid-
452
atlantic%20nutrient%20management%20handbook/MANMH_complete.pdf Accessed 19
453
June 2012.
454
455
Fehily Timoney and Company (1999). Codes of good practice for the use of biosolids in
456
agriculture - guidelines for farmers.
457
http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/Environment/Water/FileDownLoad,17228,en.pdf
458
Accessed 19 June 2012.
459
460
Food Safety Authority of Ireland (2008). Food safety implications of land-spreading
461
agricultural, municipal and industrial organic materials on agricultural land used for food
462
production in Ireland. www.fsai.ie/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=8226. Accessed 19
463
June 2012.
464
465
Gerba, C.P., & Smith, J.E. (2005). Sources of pathogenic microorganisms and their fate
466
during land application of wastes. Journal of Environmental Quality 34, 42-48.
467
468
Ippolito, J.A., Barbarick, K. A., & Brobst, R. B. (2009). Fate of biosolids Cu and Zn in a
469
semi-arid grassland. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 131, 325-332.
470
471
Jeng, A.S., Haraldsen, T.K., Grønlund, A., & Pedersen, P.A. (2006). Meat and bone meal as
472
nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer to cereals and rye grass. Nutrient Cycle in Agroecosystems
473
76, 183-191.
474
19
475
Joshua, W.D., Michalk, D.L., Curtis, I.H., Salt, M., & Osborne, G.J. (1998). The potential for
476
contamination of soil and surface waters from sewage sludge (biosolids) in a sheep grazing
477
study, Australia. Geoderma 84, 135-156.
478
479
McDonald, N., Wall, D. (2011). Soil specific N advice – utilising our soil nitrogen resources.
480
National
2011,
Athlone.
481
http://www.teagasc.ie/publications/2011/1050/Agrienvironment_Proceedings.pdf
Accessed
482
June 19, 2012.
Agri-environment
Conference
2011
10
November
483
484
McFarland, M.J., Vutran, M., Vasquez, I.R., Schmitz, M., & Brobst, R.B. (2007). Land
485
applied biosolids restore disturbed rangelands. Biocycle 48, 34-38.
486
487
Melich, A. (1984). Mehlich 3 soil test extractant: A modification of Mehlich 2 extractant.
488
Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analytics 15, 1409-1416.
489
490
Meyer, V.F., Redente, E.F., Barbarick, K.A., & Brobst, R. (2001). Biosolids applications
491
affect runoff water quality following forest fire. Journal of Environmental Quality 30, 1528-
492
1532.
493
494
Morgan, M.F. (1941). Chemical soil diagnosis by the universal soil testing system.
495
Connecticut Agricultural Experimental Station Bulletin 450. Connecticut, New Haven.
496
497
Navas, A., Machn, J., & Navas, B. (1999). Use of biosolids to restore the natural vegetation
498
cover on degraded soils in the badlands of Zaragoza (NE Spain). Bioresource Technology 69,
499
199-205.
20
500
501
Statutory Instrument (2008). S.I. No. 253 of 2008, Diseases Of Animals Act 1966
502
(Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies) (Fertilisers & Soil Improvers) Order 2008.
503
The Stationary Office. http://www.attorneygeneral.ie/esi/2008/B26298.pdf Accessed June 19,
504
2012.
505
506
Statutory Instrument 610 of 2010. European communities (good agricultural practice for
507
protection of waters) regulations 2010. The Stationary Office.
508
http://www.environ.ie/en/Legislation/Environment/Water/FileDownLoad,25133,en.pdf
509
Accessed April 19th, 2012.
510
511
Siddique, M.T., & Robinson, J.S. (2004). Differences in phosphorus retention and release in
512
soils amended with animal manures and sewage sludge. Soil Science Society of Am Journal
513
68, 1421-1428.
514
515
Stehouwer, R., Day, R.L., & MacNeal, K.E. (2006). Nutrient and trace element leaching
516
following mine reclamation with biosolids. Journal of Environmental Quality 35, 1118-1126.
517
518
Sonon, L.S., & Gaskin, J. (2009). Metal concentration standards for land application of
519
biosolids and other by-products in Georgia. Learning for Life Bulletin 1353.
520
521
U.S. EPA (1993). Standards for the use or disposal of sewage sludge; Final Rules.
522
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/biosolids/upload/fr2-19-93.pdf Accessed April 26th,
523
2012.
524
21
525
Zerzghi, H., Gerba, C.P., Brooks, J.P., & Pepper, I.L. (2010a). Long-term effects of land
526
application of Class B biosolids on the soil microbial populations, pathogens, and activity.
527
Journal of Environmental Quality, 39, 402-408.
528
529
Zerzghi, H., Brooks, J.P., Gerba, C.P., & Pepper, I.L. (2010b). Influence of long-term land
530
application of Class B biosolids on soil bacterial diversity. Journal of Applied Microbiology
531
109, 698-706.
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
22
551
Captions for Figures
552
553
Fig. 1 Percentage of sludge produced landspread for a range of European countries. Data for
554
Germany, Greece, Poland, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom obtained from the
555
Eurostat website (European Commission, 2011a; European Commission, 2011b). Data for
556
Ireland taken from reports on the urban waste water discharges in Ireland published by the
557
EPA (EPA, 2003; EPA, 2004; EPA, 2007 and EPA, 2009).
558
559
Fig. 2 Flow chart for the determination of the maximum application rate of biosolids or meat
560
and bone meal to be applied to land.
561
562
Fig. 3 Release of DRP into overlying water for both the control and the treatments over the
563
30-h test period.
564
565
Fig. 4 Copper concentrations present in overlying water at the end of 30 h after the start of
566
the runoff test. The concentrations measured for applications at the agronomic rate and twice
567
the agronomic rate are denoted by ‘1’ and ‘2’, respectively. The dashed line represents
568
allowable concentration limit as per Council Directive 75/440/EEC (EEC, 1975).
569
570
Fig. 5 Iron concentrations present in overlying water at the end of 30 h after the start of the
571
runoff test. The concentrations measured for applications at the agronomic rate and twice the
572
agronomic rate are denoted by ‘1’ and ‘2’, respectively. The dashed line represents allowable
573
concentration limit as per Council Directive 75/440/EEC (EEC, 1975).
574
575
Fig. 6 Manganese concentrations present in overlying water at the end of 30 h after the start
576
of the runoff test. The concentrations measured for applications at the agronomic rate and
577
twice the agronomic rate are denoted by ‘1’ and ‘2’, respectively. The dashed line represents
578
allowable concentration limit as per Council Directive 75/440/EEC (EEC, 1975).
23
579
Table 1. Limit values for metal concentrations in sludge and soil.
Copper
Limit values
(Cu)
Nickel (Ni)
Lead (Pb)
Zinc (Zn)
Cadmium
Chromium
Mercury
(Cd)
(Cr)
(Hg)
--------------------------------------------- mg kg-1 --------------------------------------------European Uniona
For concentrations of
heavy metals in soil
For heavy metal
concentrations in sludge
for use in agriculture
50 - 140
1,000 1,750
30 - 75
50 - 300
300 -400
750 - 1,200
150 – 300
2,500 4,000
1-3
-
1 - 1.5
20 - 40
-
16 - 25
-------------------------------------------- kg ha-1y-1 -----------------------------------------For amount of heavy
metal that may be
12.0
3.0
15.0
30.0
0.15
-
0.1
7.5
3.0
4.0
7.5
0.05
3.5
0.1
applied annually to soil
Ireland
For average annual rate
of addition of metal
(over a 10 yr period)
580
581
a
b
b
Limit values taken from Directive 86/278/EEC (EEC, 1986)
Limit values taken from (Fehily Timoney and Company, 1999)
582
24
583
Table 2. Explanation of different Category 1, 2 and 3 meat and bone meal (Enterprise
584
Ireland, 2011)
585
Category
1
Waste includes
Very high risk material, including BSE-infected (or suspected of being
infected) carcasses, animal parts that have been given prohibited substances,
and floor waste where specific risk material is created.
2
Medium risk material, including animals that have died on a farm, digestive
tract content, and the animal by-products that exceed allowable levels of
specific substances (e.g. therapeutic drugs).
3
Lower risk material, including material which is fit for human consumption
(catering waste, raw meat and fish, hides and skins); pieces of slaughtered
animals that are fit for human consumption but, for commercial reasons, are
not permitted for human consumption; or, due to manufacturing or
packaging defects, animal by-products derived from the processing of
materials intended for human consumption; and blood from non-diseased
ruminants.
586
587
25
Table 3. Metals and nutrient content for treatments used in this study. Standard deviations, where tested, are in brackets.
Nutrients
Metals
Waste
type
OM
%
Anaerobically
Tot-P
WEP
Tot-N
------- mg kg-1 dry solids -------
Dry
Cu
Matter
Ni
Pb
Zn
Cd
Cr
Hg
------------------------------------ mg kg-1 dry solids ------------------------------------
%
52.1(0.83)
6916
73.8(9.5)
6.8
21.6(0.7)
169.4
30.0
27.3
576.1
0.7
30.0
<0.5
Thermally dried
81.2(0.04)
7600
413.4(54.4)
30.8
86.1(0.0)
356.7
22.2
66.2
640.3
0.7
25.2
1.3
Lime stabilised
43.9(3.62)
6332
301.6(53.0)
3.1
27.1(1.3)
361.8
20.6
23.0
428.2
0.8
25.4
0.5
73.8(0.95)
27.9
1749.0(38.3)
39.7
92.1(0.2)
6.4
0.5
1.9
67.9
<0.3
1.1
<0.3
53.7(0.64)
31.1
1021.2(25.0)
59.1
91.8(0.5)
10.6
1.5
1.9
86.2
<0.3
3.1
<0.3
digested
Meat and Bone
Meal (High ash)
Meat and Bone
Meal (Low ash)
26
Table 4. Classification of soil used in this study. Standard deviations are in brackets.
___________________________________________
WEP (g kg-1)
0.013 (0.001)
-1
Morgan’s P (mg L )
1.5 (0.5)
Lime requirement
6.1 (0.4)
Potassium (mg L-1)
87.6 (2.0)
Magnesium (mg L-1)
258.1 (3.1)
Organic matter (%)
18.3 (0.6)
__________________________________________
27
Table 5. Application rates of biosolids and meat and bone meal (MBM) to the soil in this
study using a P index 1 soil.
___________________________________________________________________________
Waste type
Maximum legal
Double the maximum legal
application rate
application rate
Wet weight
Wet weight
Dry solids
Dry solids
____________________ tonnes ha-1 ____________________
AD biosolids
14.8
3.3
29.6
6.6
TD biosolids
3.3
3.0
6.5
6.0
LS biosolids
18.0
5.2
35.9
10.4
High ash MBM
0.9
0.8
1.7
1.6
Low ash MBM
0.8
0.7
1.5
1.4
___________________________________________________________________________
28
% of Sludge produced which is landspread
Fig 1
29
Fig 2
Sample soil from
proposed site.
Determine soil test P of soil sample
and give indicative index (Table 5)
Determine dry solids (DS;
%), nutrient and metal
content (kg t-1 DS) of
amendment
For metals:
For nutrients:
Determine maximum spreading rate
-1
Determine maximum spreading rate
-1
(t DS ha y ) by dividing maximum
(t DS ha-1 y-1) by dividing maximum
heavy metal addition (kg ha-1 y-1;
nutrient addition required for a
Table 1) by heavy metal content of
specific crop (kg ha-1 y-1) by mean
amendment (kg t-1 DS; Table 3)
nutrient content of amendment (kg t-1
DS; Table 3)
Maximum spreading rate based on
-1
Maximum spreading rate based on
-1
nutrient content (t ha-1 y-1)
metal content (t ha y )
Spreading rate based on minimum of
metal and nutrient spreading rate (t
ha-1 y-1)
30
Fig 3
Control
Thermally Dried
400
6
5
300
3
200
2
100
1
0
0
Anaerobically Digested
Lime Stabilised Biosolids
400
6
5
300
4
3
200
2
100
1
0
0
Meat & Bone Meal (Low Ash)
Meat & Bone Meal (High Ash)
400
6
5
300
4
3
200
2
100
1
0
0
0
5
10
15 20 25 30
0
5
10
15 20 25 30
Time from start of test (hours)
31
Concentration of DRP in overlying water (mg/L)
Mass DRP released in overlying water at time t (mg/m2)
4
Fig 4
32
Fig 5
33
Fig 6
34
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