Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 473–484 | Cite as

Assessment of the performance of different compost models to manage urban household organic solid wastes

Original Paper


The environmental, cultural, socio-economic and political conditions of each community greatly affect the municipality’s effort and decision-making in managing household wastes. Composting at home can be used as a sound method of SWM, can manage the waste at source itself thereby can increase their recycling. And vermicomposting is a viable and completely feasible option at household level, provided it is acceptable to family members to handle the worms and to remove worm-casts subsequently. In this regard, the present paper gives a methodological framework for assessing the management of urban household organic wastes using different compost models to influence the actual efficiency and effectiveness of a municipality’s collection and management services. The current study also deals with the challenges of solid waste management with a focus on the segregation of compostable wastes from the non-compostable ones and their composting, recycling or disposal. The non-compostable wastes can be left for recycling and re-use by the concerned authorities. The composting behavior and the efficiency of different compost models have been dealt with, and it is concluded that vermicomposting model is the best option. Urban residents can be educated to vermicompost not only their entire kitchen wastes but also garden wastes to reduce the burden on the municipal councils.


Solid waste management (SWM) Urban solid waste (USW) Electrical conductivity C:N ratio Earthworm Compost 


  1. Ahmed SA, Ali M (2004) Partnerships for solid waste management in developing countries: linking theories to realities. Habitat Int 28:467–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alamgir M, McDonald C, Roehi KE, Ahsan A (2005) Integrated management and safe disposal of MSW in least developed asian countries—a feasibility study, WasteSafe, Khulna University of Engineering and Technology, Asia Pro Eco Programme of the European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  3. Ali A (2003) Waste management—developing world and countries in transit. In: Christensen TH, Cossu R, Stegmann R (eds) Proceedings of Sardinia 2003, 9th international waste management and landfill symposium. S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  4. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association and Water Environment Federation (APHA-AWWA-WEF) (1998) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 20th edn. APHA, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  5. Berkün M (1991) Solid waste characteristic and removal planning in the Eastern Black Sea Region. Research project no. 91112001, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey (in Turkish)Google Scholar
  6. Damodaran N, Robinson A, David E, Kalas-Adams N (2003) Urban solid waste generation and management in India. In: Christensen TH, Cossu R, Stegmann R (eds) Proceedings of Sardinia 2003, 9th international waste management and landfill symposium. S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  7. Diaz LF, Savage GM, Eggerth LL (1993) Composting and recycling municipal solid waste. CalRecovery, Inc., USAGoogle Scholar
  8. Epstein E (1993) Neighborhood and worker protection for composting facilities: issues and actions. In: Hoitink HAJ, Keener HM (eds) Science and engineering of composting: design, environmental, microbiological and utilization aspects. Renaissance Publications, Worthington, USA, pp 319–338Google Scholar
  9. Epstein E (1997) The science of composting. Technomic Publishing, Inc., Lancaster, p 83Google Scholar
  10. Frederickson J, Butt KR, Morris RM, Danial C (1997) Combining vermiculture with traditional green waste composting systems. Soil Biol Biochem 29(3–4):725–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Galli E, Tomati V, Grappelli A, de Lena G (1990) Effect of earth worm cast on protein synthesis in Agaricus bisporus. Biol Fertl Soil 9:1–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Garg P, Gupta A, Satya S (2006) Vermicomposting of different types of waste using Eisenia foetida: a comparative study. Bioresour Technol 97(3):391–395Google Scholar
  13. Hamoda MF, Abu Qdais HA, Newham J (1998) Evaluation of municipal solid waste composting kinetics. Resour Conserv Recycling 23:209–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hand P (1988) Earthworm biotechnology. In: Greenshields R (ed) Resources and application of biotechnology: the new wave. MacMillan, USAGoogle Scholar
  15. Hand P, Hayes WA, Satchell JE, Frankland JC (1988) The vermicomposting of cow slurry. In: Edward, Neuhauser (eds) Earthworms in waste and environmental management. SPB Academic Publishing, Netherlands. ISBN 90-5103-017-7Google Scholar
  16. Hartenstein R, Hartenstein F (1981) Physico-chemical changes effected in activated sludge by the earthworm Eisenia fetida. J Environ Qual 10:377–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hediger W (2000) Sustainable development and social welfare. Ecol Econ 32:481–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kale RD (1988) Earthworm: cinderella of organic farming. Prism Book Pvt. Ltd., Banglore, p 88Google Scholar
  19. Kale RD (2002) Vermicomposting technology in India: an answer to shortages in nutrient supplies. In: Edwards CA (ed) Earthworms in the processing and utilization of organic wastes, chap 22. J.G. Press, PAGoogle Scholar
  20. Kale RD, Vinayak K, Bagyaraj DJ (1986) Suitability of neem cake as an additive in earthworm feed and its influence on the establishment of microflora. J Soil Biol Ecol 6:98–103Google Scholar
  21. Kaviraj, Sharma S (2003) Municipal solid waste management through vermicomposting employing exotic and local species of earthworms. Bioresour Technol 90:169–173Google Scholar
  22. Katarina K (1997) Department of environmental planning and design, the landfill groups. ISSN:1402-1757; ISRN:LTU-LIC-1997/16-SEGoogle Scholar
  23. Lemieux PM, Lutes CC, Santoianni DA (2004) Emissions of organic air toxics from open burning: a comprehensive review. Prog Energy Combustion Sci 30:1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Macfadyen A (1963) The contribution of the fauna to total soil metabolism. In: Doekson J, Van der Drift J (eds) Soil organisms. North Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, pp 3-17Google Scholar
  25. Manivannan S, Ramamoorthy P, Parthasarathi K, Ranganathan LS (2004) Effect of sugar industrial wastes on growth and reproduction of earthworms. J Exp Zoo India 7:29–37Google Scholar
  26. Masciandaro G, Ceccanti B, Garcia C (2000) ‘In situ’ vermicomposting of biological sludges and impacts on soil quality. Soil Biol Biochem 32:1015–1024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McKinley VL, Vestal JR, Eralp AE (1985) Microbial activity in composting. Biocycle 26(10):47–50Google Scholar
  28. Mee DL, Topping G (1998) Black Sea pollution assessment. In: GEF Black Sea environmental programme. Black Sea environmental series, vol 10. UN PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  29. Ndegwa PM, Thompson SA (2001) Integrating composting and vermicomposting in the treatment and bioconversion of biosolids. Bioresour Technol 76:107–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ndegwa PM, Thompson SA, Das KC (2000) Effects of stocking density and feeding rate on vermicomposting of biosolids. Bioresour Technol 71:5–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Neuhauser EF, Loehr RC, Malecki MR (1998) The potential of earthworms for managing sewage sludge. In: Edwards CA, Nauhauser EF (eds) Earthworms in waste and environmental management. SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague, pp 9–20Google Scholar
  32. Olsen SR, Cole CV, Watanabe FS, Dean LA (1954) Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, Circular 939Google Scholar
  33. Pargal S, Gilligan D, Huq M (2000) Policy research working paper: private provision of a public good. Social Capital and Solid Waste Management in Dhaka, Bangladesh, Report to the World Bank, Latin America and Caribbean Region (unpublished)Google Scholar
  34. Parthasarathi K (2007) Influence of moisture on the activity of Perionyx excavatus (Perrier) and microbial-nutrient dynamics of pressmud vermicompost. Iran J Environ Health Sci Eng 8(3):147–156Google Scholar
  35. Ronald EG, Donald ED (1977a) Earthworms for ecology and profit. In: Scientific earthworm farming, vol 1. Bookworm Publishing Company, Ontario. ISBN0-916302-059Google Scholar
  36. Ronald EG, Donald ED (1977b) Earthworms for ecology and profit. In: Scientific earthworm farming, vol 2. Bookworm Publishing Company, Ontario. ISBN 0-916302-01-6Google Scholar
  37. Sharholy M, Ahmad K, Mahmood G, Trivedi RC (2008) Municipal solid waste management in Indian cities—a review. Waste Manage 28(2):459–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shekdar (1999) Municipal solid waste management—the Indian perspective. J Indian Assoc Environ Manage 26:100–108Google Scholar
  39. Shivayogimath CB, Lokeshappa B, Doddamani SS (2007) Municipal solid waste management in Raichur city. In: Proceedings of the international conference on sustainable solid waste management, Chennai, India, p 549Google Scholar
  40. Singhal S, Pandey S (2001) Solid waste management in India: status and future directions. TERI Inf Monit Environ Sci 6:1–4Google Scholar
  41. Sinha RK, Herat Sunil, Agarwal Sunita, Asadi Ravi, Carretero Emilio (2002) Vermiculture and waste management: study of action of earthworms Elsinia foetida, Eudrilus euginae and Perionyx excavatus on biodegradation of some community wastes in India and Australia. Environmentalist 22:261–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Srinivas R (2003) State of the environment report and action plan, 2003, KarnatakaGoogle Scholar
  43. Syers JK, Sharpley AN, Keeny DR (1979) Cycling of nitrogen by surface casting earthworms in a pasture ecosystem. Soil Biol Biochem 11:181–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tanaka M (2007) Waste management for a sustainable society. J Mater Cycles Waste Manage 9:2–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. TERI (1998) Pilot testing of an innovative bio-process for stabilization of and energy recovery from municipal solid waste. Tata Energy Research Institute, New Delhi (Report no. 95BM51. Submitted to NEDO, Industrial Technology Department, Japan)Google Scholar
  46. Tomati U, Galli E, Pasetti L, Volterra E (1995) Bioremediation of olive mill waste waters by composting. Waste Manage Res 13:509–518Google Scholar
  47. Tripathy G, Bharadwaj P (2005) Management of organic waste by earthworms Eisenia foetida and Lampito mauritii in arid environment. J Appl Biol Sci 31(2):150–159Google Scholar
  48. Walkey JA, Black JA (1934) Estimation of organic carbon by the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci 37:29–31Google Scholar
  49. Wang H, Nie Y (2001) Municipal solid waste characteristics and management in China, vol 51. Technical Paper, Air and Waste Management Association, pp 250–263Google Scholar
  50. Warman PR, Termeer WC (1996) Composting and evaluation of racetrack manure, grass clippings and sewage sludge. Bioresour Technol 55:95–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wong JMC, Fang M, Li GX, Wong MH (1997) Feasibility of using coal ash residue as co-composting materials for sewage sludge. Environ Technol 18:563–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yousuf TB (2005) Sustainability and replication of community based composting—a case study of Bangladesh. PhD Thesis, Loughborough University, UKGoogle Scholar
  53. Zerdani I, Faid M, Malki A (2004) Digestion of solid tannery wastes by strains of Bacillus species isolated from compost in Morocco. Int J Agric Biol 6(5):758–761Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Ravi Kumar
    • 1
  • Ambika Jayaram
    • 1
  • R. K. Somashekar
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Environmental ScienceBangalore UniversityBangalore 56India

Personalised recommendations