An Overview of Biosolids Science and Research
Virginia Biosolids Council Info Session July 12, 2018
Greg Evanylo School of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Virginia Tech Introduction • Restoration of degraded soils may be accomplished with locally-generated EQ biosolids. • Objective: Evaluate EQ biosolids in field studies Urban Garden Field Study Odiney Alvarez-Campos; SPES, VT
• Objectives: To compare the effects of various EQ biosolids products and inorganic fertilizer on: ØVegetable crop yield ØSoil chemical properties ØLeachate nitrate concentrations Urban Garden Field Research
Clay soil texture pH = 7.73 3 ppm P (very low) 56 ppm K (medium) Treatments: Soil Amendments
• Fertilizer – N, P, K (soil test recommendations) • Bloom – dewatered, air-dried, cured – 1x & 5x ag N rate • Bloom + Mulch blend – 1x & 5x ag N rate • Biosolids compost – 1x & 5x ag N rate • Heat-dried, pelletized biosolids – 1x ag N rate
Pellets Compost Bloom EQ Biosolids Composition
Parameter Heat- Bloom Bloom Compost dried +Mulch Organic N (%) 4.34 2.89 2.34 2.46 Inorganic N (%) 0.57 0.31 0.53 0.43 P (%) 2.66 3.09 1.89 1.33 Fe (%) 3.28 8.26 5.44 2.67 Fall 2016 Vegetable Production Results: Cabbage yield
6 ) t o
l a p / ab g k (
4 t a b c h a b c g i
e a b c b c W
c
s 2 c s a m o i B 0
r 1 -1 1 5 -5 5 d e - t- - t- e iz h m s h m s i l c o c o r ti l o l o d r u lo p u lo p t- e B m B m a F M o M o e + C + C H m m o o lo lo B B T r e a tm e n ts Summer 2017 Vegetable Production Results: Zucchini yield
1 5 ) t o l p / g
k a (
1 0
t a b h g i
e ab ab ab ab W
b s 5 b s a m o i B 0
r 1 -1 1 5 -5 5 d e - t- - t- e iz h m s h m s i l c o c o r ti l o l o d r u lo p u lo p t- e B m B m a F M o M o e + C + C H m m o o lo lo B B T r e a tm e n ts Soil P (Jul 2017) and C (Oct 2017)
Trts P added Olsen P SOC lbs P/ac ppm % Fert 165 39 ab 0.72 b BM-1x 556 20 c 1.1 b Bloom-1x 1035 38 ab 1.2 b Compost-1x 396 25 c 1.1 b BM-5x 1450 29 bc 2.2 a Bloom-5x 1964 43 a 1.9 a Compost-5x 953 37 ab 2.0 a Heat-dried 271 24 c 0.78 b 1 5 0 F ertiliz er
B lo o m + M u lc h -1 )
TreatmentL effects on Nitrate-N Loss / 1 0 0 B lo o m -1 g m
( C o m p o s t- 1
e
1 5 0 t
a 1 5 0 F ertiliz er B lo o m + M u lc h -5 r F ertiliz er t 5 0 i B lo o m + M u lc h -1 B lo o m -5 N ) B lo o m + M u lc h -1 L ) / 1 0 0 B lo o m -1 C o m p o s t- 5 g L / 1 0 0 B lo o m -1 m g ( 0 C o m p o s t- 1 H e a t-d rie d e m t ( 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 C o m p o s t- 1 1 1 1 1 1 a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0B lo0o m0+ M0 u l0c h -05 0 0 e r /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 2 2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 t / / t 5 0 1 1 1 5 3 4 0 3 2 1 0 5 5 1 6 4 9 5 i / 1 2 / / 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 a 8 / / 0 2 /2 /1 /0 /0 /3 / / / / / / / / B lo o m + M u lc h -5 8 9 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 B 0lo o1m -51 4 4 5 N r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 t 5 0 i B lo o m -5 N D a t eC o m p o s t- 5
0 H e a t-d rie d C o m p o s t- 5
6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /20 /2 /2 /2 /2 H e a t-d rie d /1 1 1 /5 /3 4 0 3 2 1 0 5 5 1 6 4 9 5 8 /1 /2 0 2 /2 /1 /0 /0 /3 /2 /1 /1 /1 /2 /1 /1 /2 8 9 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 1 4 4 6 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 01 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 D a t e /1 1 1 /5 /3 4 0 3 2 1 0 5 5 1 6 4 9 5 8 /1 /2 0 2 /2 /1 /0 /0 /3 /2 /1 /1 /1 /2 /1 /1 /2 8 9 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 1 4 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 D a t e Treatment Effects on Nitrate-N Mass Loss
Treatment N (lbs/ac) Fertilizer 109 ab Bloom+Mulch-1 58 b Bloom-1 60 b Compost-1 61 ab Bloom+Mulch-5 122 a Bloom-5 93 ab Compost-5 105 ab Heat-dried 64 ab Turfgrass Field Study Chenglin Zhu and Gary Felton, UMD
To compare effects of EQ biosolids and inorganic fertilizer on soil properties of simulated highway roadside soil used to grow various turfgrass mixtures. Amendments (5) Turfgrass mixes (2) Bloom MD SHA & residential blends BSS Amendments- 5x agron N rate BM Study established fall 2016 Compost (deer) 4 replications Fertilizer Grass and Soil Samples Collected in July 2017
Soil organic carbon increased from 1.22 to 2.58 % with amendments. Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Effects
Ksat before and after Year 1 applications
70.00
60.00
50.00 K before application 40.00
30.00 K after first year of application 20.00
10.00 Hydraulic Conductivity (unit: μm/s) Hydraulic
0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Plot Location Each data point represents average of four plots. Temporal Soil Bulk Density 2.00
1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80 BulkDensity (g/cm3) 0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Plot position
Bulk Density before application Buik Density after 1st year application Treatment Effects on Mehlich 3 Soil P
Mean P, mg/kg 120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00 A B C D E Bloom BSS BM Compost Fert Field Study Conclusions
• EQ biosolids products may be applied to disturbed urban soils at mineland reclamation rates with relatively low nitrate N leaching and P runoff risks.
• Higher EQ biosolids application rates may support better plant growth in urban, low fertility soils. THANKS TO W3170 Research Updates
• Revisited Time Bomb Effect in honor of retirement of Tom Granato, MWRDGC • Granato, Tian, Cox, Evanylo, Ippolito, Chaney • USEPA screening tool – Liz Resek • 250 additional pollutants in biosolids to be considered for risk modeling/screening; tool should be ready to use shortly • PFAAs – Purdue University Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Acids (PFAAs) in Waste-derived Fertilizers
Rooney Kim Lazcano et al Ph.D. Candidate Ecological Sciences and Engineering Interdisciplinary Program Poly- & perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) today’s ‘elephant in the room’
• PFASs with chain lengths from 4 to 16 C
PFOA C8: Perfluorooctanoic acid PFOS C8: Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
• Ubiquitous (5-60 ng/mL avg in blood in 2012) • Terminal microbial metabolites • Persistent like PCBs BUT much more mobile • Level of concern are at the ppt level Per- and polyfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs)
• Anthropogenic chemicals F F F O • Hydrophilic and liphophobic F F F F O H
• High chemical and thermal stability Hydrophilic n = 1–9
• Lower surface tension Perfluoroalkyl carboxylates (PFCAs)
• Usage: phobic tails - headgroups • Stain-resistant carpets and fabrics F F F O − • Non-stick cookware Hydro & F S O • Flame retardants F F F O - Oleo • Aqueous film forming foams n = 2, 4, 6 Perfluoroalkyl sulfonates (PFSAs)
25 Brand name Description Type of the fertilizers Bay State Fertilizer Tumble-dried granular biosolids Hou-Actinite Granular biosolids Heat-dried biosolids Milorganite Heat-dried granular biosolids Composted biosolids OceanGro Granular biosolids Cake and soil blend VitAg Granular biosolids Non-biosolid-based composts Elite Lawn Biosolids with plant material (composted) Dillo Dirt Biosolids with residential yard trimmings Delaware biosolids Biosolids Rockland biosolids Biosolids with woodchips Burlington biosolids Biosolids with wood, yard and food waste TAGRO potting soil Biosolids with maple sawdust and aged bark Promix Peat/compost based growing mix Country soil Mushroom compost
Burlington Biosolid Compost New plant life Mushroom compost Delaware Biosolid Compost mushroom Rockland Biosolid Compost New plant life manure Manure and peat OCRRA Food Compost 26 Gardener’s pride Manure EKO compost Compost with untreated wood products OCRRA, WeCare Food compost 27 28 Summary
• Commercial biosolids-based fertilizers contain higher concentrations of total PFAAs than nonbiosolid-based fertilizers. • Compost-based fertilizers with food have higher PFAAs concentrations than w/o food due to potential contamination during food processing. • The total concentrations of PFAAs, especially long chain PFAAs, has decreased from 2014 (Milorganite).
29 Acknowledgement
• Dr. Linda Lee • Dr. Michael Mashtare • Dr. Youn Jeong Choi • Dr. Chloe de Perre • Peyman Yousefi • Heather Trim on behalf of Zero Waste Washington • Purdue Lynn Fellowship • USDA – Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant • DuPont
30 W3170 Research Updates • Trace organics – George O’Connor, UF • Thermal drying, composting reduce antibiotic conc’s • Possible 15th risk pathway – ARGs • Predators at greatest risk for bioavailable tr orgs WWTP nutrient recovery by micro-algae for bio-plastic production – Kuldip Kumar, MWRDGC W3170 research Updates
• WERF project odor – Chip Elliott, PSU • Remediation of Pb-contaminated urban soils with biosolids and other P-containing residuals – Nick Basta, OSU • EQ product development from SF Biosolids - Manon Fisher, SFPUC & Sally Brown, UW • Soil health – Jim Ippolito, CSU • Regional and state association reports • Fisher, Kester (CASA), Maile Lono-Batura (NW Biosolids), Andrew Carpenter (NEBRA), Bill Toffey (MABA)