Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 174–184 | Cite as

Nutrient recovery from compostable fractions of municipal solid wastes using vermitechnology

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Abstract

Vermicomposting of organic fraction of compostable municipal waste solids (CMWS) spiked with cow dung at ratio 0, 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100 % was done using earthworm Eisenia fetida. Pre-composting for 3 weeks followed by vermicomposting caused decrease (fold) in pH (1.06–1.17), organic carbon (1.07–1.36) and C:N ratio (1.60–2.89) and substantial increase (fold) in total N (1.50–2.45), total phosphorous (1.37–1.96), total potassium (1.12–2.09) and trace elements—Ca, Fe, Mn and Zn (1.02–1.32) in waste mixtures. The wastes with 40–60 % fraction of CMWS showed high decomposition and mineralization rate than other treatments. The biomass gain and cocoon production in E. fetida were also monitored in all experimental vermibeds. The earthworm showed better growth rate and reproduction pattern in vermibeds with 40–60 % CMWS. The C:N ratio and chemical composition of end product suggested the suitability of vermicomposting technique to recover valuable plant nutrients from negligible community waste solids for sustainable soil fertility management programme.

Keywords

Vermicomposting Municipal solid waste Waste recycling Soil fertility Earthworm 

References

  1. 1.
    Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) (2000) Management of municipal solid waste. Central Pollution Control Boards, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shekdar AV (1999) Municipal solid waste management—the Indian perspective. J Indian Assoc Environ Manag 26(2):100–108Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    UNEP (2009) Developing integrated solid waste management plan—training manual. UNEP DTIE International Environmental Technology Centre, Osaka, p 176Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dominguez J, Edwards CA (2010) Relationships between composting and vermicomposting: relative values of the products. In: Edwards CA (ed) Vermiculture technology, 1st edn. CRC Press, USA, pp 11–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dominguez J (2004) State-of-the art and new perspectives on vermicomposting research. In: Edwards CA (ed) Earthworm ecology, 2nd edn. CRC Press, USA, pp 401–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Loehr RC, Neuhauser EF, Malecki MR (1985) Factors affecting the vermistabilization process. Water Res 19(10):1311–1317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gomez-Brandon M, Lazcano C, Lores M, Dominguez J (2011) Short-term stabilization of grape marc through earthworms. J Hazard Mater 187:291–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kaviraj Sharma S (2003) Municipal solid waste management through vermicomposting employing exotic and local species of earthworms. Bioresour Technol 90:169–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    John Paul JA, Karmegum N, Daniel T (2011) Municipal solid waste (MSW) vermicomposting with an epigeic earthworm, Perionyx ceylanensis Mich. Bioresour Technol 102:6769–6773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Singh RP, Singh P, Araujo ASF, Ibrahim MH, Sulaiman O (2011) Management of urban solid waste: vermicomposting a sustainable option. Resour Conserv Recycl 55:719–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nelson DW, Sommers LE (1996) Total carbon and organic carbon and organic matter. In: Page AL, Miller RH, Keeney DR (eds) Method of soil analysis. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp 539–579Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jackson ML (1975) Soil chemical analysis. Prentice Hall of India, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Anderson JM, Ingram JS (1993) Tropical soil biology and fertility. A handbook of methods. Commonwealth Agriculture Bureau, OxonGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Simard RR (1993) Ammonium acetate extractable elements. In: Martin R, Carter S (eds) Soil sampling and methods of analysis. Lewis Publisher, Florida, pp 39–43Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    APHA–AWWA–WPCF (1994) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 15th edn. American Public Health Association, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Diaz LF, Savage GM, Eggerth LL, Golueke CG (1996) Solid waste management for economically developing countries. International Solid Waste Association, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ndegwa PM, Thompson SA, Das KC (2000) Effects of stocking density and feeding rate on vermicomposting of biosolids. Bioresour Technol 71:5–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hartensein R, Hartenstein F (1981) Chemical changes affected in activated sludge by the earthworm Eisenia fetida. J Environ Qual 10:377–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kavian MF, Ghatneker SD (1991) Bio-management of dairy effluents using culture of red earthworms (Lumbricus rubellus). Indian J Environ Prot 11:680–682Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vinotha SP, Parthasarthi K, Rangnathan LS (2000) Enhanced phosphatase activity in earthworm casts is more of microbial origin. Curr Sci 79(9):1158–1159Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pramanik P, Ghosh GK, Ghosal PK, Banik P (2007) Changes in organic—C, N, P and K and enzymatic activities in vermicompost of biodegradable organic wastes under liming and microbial inoculants. Bioresour Technol 98:2485–2495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hanc A, Pliva P (2013) Vermicomposting technology as a tool for nutrient recovery from kitchen bio-waste. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag. doi:10.1007/s10163-013-0127-8 Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Suthar S (2010) Recycling of agro-industrial sludge through vermitechnology. Ecol Eng 36:1028–1036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pramanik P, Chung YR (2011) Changes in fungal population of fly ash and vinasse mixture during vermicomposting by Eudrilus eugeniae and Eisenia fetida: documentation of cellulose isozymes in vermicompost. Waste Manag 31:1169–1175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nair J, Sekiozoic V, Anda M (2006) Effect of pre-composting on vermicomposting of kitchen waste. Bioresour Technol 97:2091–2095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Morais FMC, Queda CAC (2003) Study of storage influence on evolution of stability and maturity properties of MSW composts. In: Proceeding of the fourth international conference of orbit association on biological processing of organics: advances for a sustainable society part II, Perth, 2003Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tripathi G, Bhardwaj P (2004) Decomposition of kitchen waste amended with cow manure using epigeic species (Eisenia fetida) and an anecic species (Lampito mauritii). Bioresour Technol 92:215–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Edwards CA, Bohlen PJ (1996) The biology and ecology of earthworms, 3rd edn. Publ. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Suthar S (2007) Vermicomposting potential of Perionyx sansibaricus (Perrier) in different waste materials. Bioresour Technol 97:2474–2477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Neuhauser EF, Loehr RC, Makecki MR (1988) The potential of earthworms for managing sewage sludge. In: Edwards CA, Neuhauser EF (eds) Earthworm in waste and environmental management. SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague, pp 9–20Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Edwards CA, Dominguez J, Neuhauser EF (1998) Growth and reproduction of Perionyx excavatus (Perr.) (Megascolecidae) as factors in organic waste management. Biol Fertil Soils 27:155–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kaur A, Singh J, Vig AP, Dhaliwal SS, Rup PJ (2010) Cocomposting with and without Eisenia fetida for conversion of toxic paper mill sludge to a soil conditioner. Bioresour Technol 101:8192–8198CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Surendra Suthar
    • 1
  • Kapil Kumar
    • 1
  • Pravin K. Mutiyar
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Environment and Natural ResourcesDoon UniversityDehradunIndia
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of TechnologyNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations