Advertisement

Life cycle assessment of passively aerated composting in gas-permeable bags of olive mill waste

  • Francesco Castellani
  • Alessandro Esposito
  • Jutta Geldermann
  • Roberto Altieri
LCA OF WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
  • 55 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

In Italy, composting olive mill waste has become a common practice, since it mitigates the environmental problems associated with spreading the waste on land. Compost can be used to prepare growth media for plant nursery cultivation as a substitute for peat, a non-renewable resource whose extraction has long raised environmental concerns. Here, we investigate two common composting procedures—open windrow and static-pile in gas-permeable bags—and compare them to evaluate their environmental impact.

Methods

We perform a cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment (LCA) in accordance with ISO 14040 and 14044. The LCA considers carbon storage in the soil after 100 years, fugitive greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and the impacts avoided by substituting for peat. We use cumulative energy demand, global warming potential (GWP), acidification potential, and eutrophication potential indicators in a contribution analysis and explore how the re-use of olive pits for energy production and reduction of commercial fertilizers improves the environmental balance. We also present a scenario analysis that indicates how parameter fluctuations affect the results.

Results and discussion

Our study shows that peat’s impacts can be significantly reduced from 1162.3 to 96.3 kg CO2-eq/Mg for open windrow compost or 43.1 kg CO2-eq/Mg for static-pile compost in gas-permeable bags. For static-pile composting, the lack of volatile organic compound and ammonia emissions and the detection of oxygen concentrations above 12% vol. suggest fully aerobic conditions. Fugitive greenhouse gas emissions were the most important contributions to the GWP. In the contribution analysis for static-pile composting, the avoidance of compost spreading and the carbon storage effect (due to compost usage) contributed 54% of the overall impacts to GWP and between 21 and 45% to the other indicators.

Conclusions

This LCA study illustrates how horticulturists can improve their resource management practices by recycling olive mill waste materials. Proper management of composting unit aeration can reduce fugitive GHG emissions.

Keywords

By-product Composting Greenhouse gas LCA Olive mill waste Peat 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are especially grateful to Vitale Stanzione of ISAFOM-CNR, Perugia, Italy, for collaborating in data collection and to PAM srl, Pistoia, Italy, for the collaboration in technical operations.

Funding information

This research was carried on within the framework of “SANS-OIL” project, funded by Regione Toscana, Italy (PSR 20072013), and it was partially supported by the DFG RTG 1703 “Resource Efficiency in Interorganizational Networks.

References

  1. Alburquerque J, Gonzálvez J, García D, Cegarra J (2004) Agrochemical characterisation of ‘alperujo’, a solid by-product of the two-phase centrifugation method for olive oil extraction. Bioresour Technol 91(2):195–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altieri R, Esposito A, Nair T (2011) Novel static composting method for bioremediation of olive mill waste. Int Biodeterior Biodegradation 65(6):786–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amlinger F, Peyr S, Cuhls C (2008) Green house gas emissions from composting and mechanical biological treatment. Waste Manag Res 26(1):47–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersen JK, Boldrin A, Christensen TH, Scheutz C (2010a) Greenhouse gas emissions from home composting of organic household waste. Waste Manag 30(12):2475–2482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andersen JK, Boldrin A, Christensen TH, Scheutz C (2010b) Mass balances and life-cycle inventory for a garden waste windrow composting plant (Aarhus, Denmark). Waste Manag Res 28(11):1010–1020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arvanitoyannis IS, Kassaveti A (2007) Current and potential uses of composted olive oil waste. Int J Food Sci Tech 42(3):281–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Aziz R, Chevakidagarn P, Danteravanich S (2016) Environmental impact evaluation of community composting by using life cycle assessment: a case study based on types of compost product operations. Walailak J Sci Techn 13(3):221–233Google Scholar
  8. Blonk H, Kool A, Luske B, Ponsioen T, Scholten J (2010) Methodology for assessing carbon footprints of horticultural products. A study of methodological issues and solutions for the development of the Dutch carbon footprint protocol for horticultural products. Blonk Milieu Advies BV, GoudaGoogle Scholar
  9. Boldrin A, Andersen JK, Møller J, Christensen TH, Favoino E (2009) Composting and compost utilization: accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming contributions. Waste Manag Res 27(8):800–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boldrin A, Hartling KR, Laugen M, Christensen TH (2010) Environmental inventory modelling of the use of compost and peat in growth media preparation. Resour Conserv Recycl 54(12):1250–1260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bong CPC, Lim LY, Ho WS, Lim JS, Klemeš JJ, Towprayoon S, Ho CS, Lee CT (2016) A review on the global warming potential of cleaner composting and mitigation strategies. J Clean Prod 146:149–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brandão M, Levasseur A (2011) Assessing temporary carbon storage in life cycle assessment and carbon footprinting: outcomes of an expert workshop. Publications Office of the European Union, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  13. Buratti C, Barbanera M, Testarmata F, Fantozzi F (2015) Life cycle assessment of organic waste management strategies. An Italian case study J Clean Prod 89:125–136Google Scholar
  14. Cadena E, Colón J, Sánchez A, Font X, Artola A (2009) A methodology to determine gaseous emissions in a composting plant. Waste Manag 29(11):2799–2807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chilosi G, Esposito A, Castellani F, Stanzione V, Aleandri MP, Tomassini A, Dell’Unto D, Vannini A, Altieri R (2017) Characterization and use of olive mill waste compost as peat surrogate in substrate for cultivation of Photinia potted plants: assessment of growth performance and in vitro suppressiveness. Waste Biomass Valorization 9(6):919–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Christensen TH, Gentil E, Boldrin A, Larsen AW, Weidema BP, Hauschild M (2009) C balance, carbon dioxide emissions and global warming potentials in LCA-modelling of waste management systems. Waste Manag Res 27(8):707–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clavreul J, Guyonnet D, Christensen TH (2012) Quantifying uncertainty in LCA-modelling of waste management systems. Waste Manag 32(12):2482–2495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cleary J (2004) Greenhouse gas emissions from peat extraction in Canada. A life cycle perspective. MSc Thesis. Department of Geography, McGill University, MontréalGoogle Scholar
  19. Cleary J, Roulet NT, Moore TR (2005) Greenhouse gas emissions from Canadian peat extraction, 1990-2000: a life-cycle analysis. AMBIO: J Hum Environ 34(6):456–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Colón J, Martínez-Blanco J, Gabarrell X, Artola A, Sánchez A, Rieradevall J, Font X (2010) Environmental assessment of home composting. Resour Conserv Recycl 54(11):893–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Couwenberg J (2011) Greenhouse gas emissions from managed peat soils: is the IPCC reporting guidance realistic. Mires and Peat 8(2):1–10Google Scholar
  22. Ecoinvent (2013) Ecoinvent database v3.01. Life cycle inventories of production systems. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, ZurichGoogle Scholar
  23. EPA (2011) Method for estimating greenhouse gas emission reductions from compost from commercial organic waste. California Air Resources Board (ARD), California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), USA. Available at: \url{https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/protocols/localgov/pubs/compost_method.pdf}
  24. Favoino E, Hogg D (2008) The potential role of compost in reducing greenhouse gases. Waste Manag Res 26(1):61–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fernandes L, Sartaj M (1997) Comparative study of static pile composting using natural, forced and passive aeration methods. Compost Sci Util 5(4):65–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Finnveden G (1999) Methodological aspects of life cycle assessment of integrated solid waste management systems. Resour Conserv Recycl 26(3):173–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Flessa H, Ruser R, Dörsch P, Kamp T, Jimenez M, Munch J, Beese F (2002) Integrated evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions (CO2, CH4, N2O) from two farming systems in southern Germany. Agric Ecosyst Environ 91(1–3):175–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Grönroos J, Seppälä J, Koskela S, Kilpeläinen A, Leskinen P, Holma A, Tuovinen J-P, Turunen J, Lind S, Maljanen M, Martikainen PJ (2013) Life-cycle climate impacts of peat fuel. Calculation methods and methodological challenges. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(3):567–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Guinée J, Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, de Koning A, van Oers L, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Suh S, Udo de Haes H, de Bruijn H, van Duin R, Huijbregts M (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment: operational guide to the ISO standards. Eco-efficiency in industry and science, v. 7. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  30. Hansen TL, Bhander GS, Christensen TH, Bruun S, Jensen LS (2006) Life cycle modelling of environmental impacts of application of processed organic municipal solid waste on agricultural land (EASEWASTE). Waste Manag Res 24(2):153–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Haug RT (1993) The practical handbook of compost engineering. Lewis Publishers, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  32. Hauschild M, Wenzel H (1998) Environmental assessment of products, vol 2, Scientific background. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. He Y (2000) Measurements of N2O and CH4 from the aerated composting of food waste. Sci Total Environ 254(1):65–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Helin T, Holma A, Soimakallio S (2014) Is land use impact assessment in LCA applicable for forest biomass value chains? Findings from comparison of use of Scandinavian wood, agro-biomass and peat for energy. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(4):770–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. IPCC (2007) Intergovernmental panel on climate change. Climate change 2007: synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Edited by Pachauri, R. K. and Reisinger, A. Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  36. IPCC (2013) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories: Wetlands. GenevaGoogle Scholar
  37. ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental management -- life cycle assessment -- principles and frameworkGoogle Scholar
  38. ISO 14044 (2006) Environmental management -- life cycle assessment -- requirements and guidelinesGoogle Scholar
  39. ISTAT (2015) Istituto Nazionale di Statistica. Rapporto Annuale 2015. La situazione del PaeseGoogle Scholar
  40. Italian Law n. 574 (1996) Nuove norme in materia di utilizzazione agronomica delle acque di vegetazione e di scarichi dei frantoi oleari (New rules on agronomic utilization of olive mill wastewater and olive mill discharge). In: Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 265, 12 November 1996, RomaGoogle Scholar
  41. Klöpffer W (1997) In defense of the cumulative energy demand. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2(2):61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Leton TG, Stentiford EI (1990) Control of aeration in static pile composting. Waste Manag Res 8(1):299–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Martínez-Blanco J, Colón J, Gabarrell X, Font X, Sánchez A, Artola A, Rieradevall J (2010) The use of life cycle assessment for the comparison of biowaste composting at home and full scale. Waste Manag 30(6):983–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Miller JH, Jones N (1995) Organic and compost-based growing media for tree seedling nurseries. Forestry series. World Bank technical paper (no. PB--96-117189/XAB; WORLD BANK TP--264). International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Washington, DC (United States)Google Scholar
  45. Murayama S, Asakawa Y, Ohno Y (1990) Chemical properties of subsurface peats and their decomposition kinetics under field conditions. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 36(1):129–140Google Scholar
  46. Nasini L, de Luca G, Ricci A, Ortolani F, Caselli A, Massaccesi L, Regni L, Gigliotti G, Proietti P (2016) Gas emissions during olive mill waste composting under static pile conditions. Int Biodeterior Biodegradation 107:70–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Niaounakis M, Halvadakis CP (2006) Olive processing waste management. Literature review and patent survey, 2nd edition. Waste Management Series, volume 5, Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  48. Pagga U, Beimborn DB, Boelens J, de Wilde B (1995) Determination of the aerobic biodegradability of polymeric material in a laboratory controlled composting test. Chemosphere 31(11):4475–4487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Recchia L, Boncinelli P, Cini E, Vieri M, Pegna FG, Sarri D (2011) Multicriteria analysis and LCA techniques: with applications to agro-engineering problems. Green energy and technology, Springer, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Regina K, Budiman A, Greve MH, Grønlund A, Kasimir Å, Lehtonen H, Petersen SO, Smith P, Wösten H (2016) GHG mitigation of agricultural peatlands requires coherent policies. Clim Policy 16(4):522–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Saer A, Lansing S, Davitt NH, Graves RE (2013) Life cycle assessment of a food waste composting system. Environmental impact hotspots J Clean Prod 52:234–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sierra J, Martì E, Montserrat G, Cruañas R, Garau M (2001) Characterisation and evolution of a soil affected by olive oil mill wastewater disposal. Sci Total Environ 279(1):207–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Smith A, Brown K, Ogilvie S, Rushton K, Bates J (2001) Waste management options and climate change. Final report to the European Commission, DG Environment. AEA Technology. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  54. Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Alley RB, Berntsen T, Bindoff NL, Chen Z, Chidthaisong A, Gregory JM, Hegerl GC, Heimann M, Hewitson B, Hoskins BJ, Joos F, Jouzel J, Kattsov V, Lohmann U, Matsuno T, Molina M, Nicholls N, Overpeck J, Raga G, Ramaswamy V, Ren J, Rusticucci M, Somerville R, Stocker TF, Whetton P, Wood RA, Wratt D (2007) Technical summary. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  55. Torrellas M, Antón A, Ruijs M, García Victoria N, Stanghellini C, Montero JI (2012) Environmental and economic assessment of protected crops in four European scenarios. J Clean Prod 28:45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. van Haaren R, Themelis NJ, Barlaz M (2010) LCA comparison of windrow composting of yard wastes with use as alternative daily cover (ADC). Waste Manag 30(12):2649–2656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Veeken A, de Wilde V, Hamelers B (2002) Passively aerated composting of straw-rich pig manure: effect of compost bed porosity. Compost Sci Util 10(2):114–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Viel M, Sayag D, Peyre A, André L (1987) Optimization of in-vessel co-composting through heat recovery. Biological Wastes 20(3):167–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Waddington JM, Plach J, Cagampan JP, Lucchese M, Strack M (2009) Reducing the carbon footprint of Canadian peat extraction and restoration. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 38(4):194–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zeman C, Depken D, Rich M (2002) Research on how the composting process impacts greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. Compost Sci Util 10(1):72–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of GöttingenGöttingenGermany
  2. 2.Istituto per i Sistemi Agricoli e Forestali del Mediterraneo (ISAFOM)Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR)PerugiaItaly

Personalised recommendations