Advertisement

Vermicomposting of Distillery Residues in a Vertical-Flow Windrow System

  • Ales HancEmail author
  • Tereza Hrebeckova
  • Stanislav Kuzel
Original Paper
  • 18 Downloads

Abstract

The present study evaluated the feasibility and processes occurring in a vertical-flow windrow vermicomposting system of distillery residues together with wheat straw. There were differences between the very top and lower layers. The top and so youngest layer showed the greatest humidity and electrical conductivity among the layers. It was characterized by partially decomposed organic matter with a great amount of earthworm biomass (2.5 g kg−1), which was confirmed by parameters such as Ctot (34%), Ntot (2.25%), and C/N (15.3). On the other hand, the lower layers were characterized by greater maturity, which was documented by a lower content of microbial biomass and activity of hydrolytic enzymes, as well as a slightly alkaline pH (7.6–7.9), and lesser values for N–NH4+ (22–84 mg kg−1) and dissolved organic carbon (5228–6564 mg kg−1), which was indirectly proportional to the ion-exchange capacity (57–60 mmol+ 100 g−1). Among the examined macronutrients, potassium showed the greatest content. The total contents of P and Mg increased directly with the age of the vermicomposted material, which was related to the loss of organic matter. The proportion of the available contents of P, K, and Mg constituted on average in all of the layers 11, 64, and 10%, respectively, of the total content. On the basis of the detected parameters, the top layer is suitable for a new windrow and for the preparation of aqueous extracts. The older layers are suitable for use as an organic fertilizer.

Keywords

Distillery residues Vermicomposting Layers Chemical and biological properties 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Iva Labastova from family grower distillery in Cesov for experiment maintenance and Christina Baker Starrman for revision of the English text.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic under NAZV Project No. QJ1530034 and by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports under FAFNR S-Grant.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

  1. 1.
    Satyawali, Y., Balakrishanan, M.: Wastewater treatment in molasses based alcohol distilleries for COD and color removal: a review. J. Environ. Manag. 86, 481–497 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ogbonna, J.C.: Fuel ethanol production from renewable biomass resources. In: Pandey, A. (ed.) Concise Encyclopedia of Bioresource Technology, pp. 346–361. Food Products Press, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Muktham, R., Bhargava, S.K., Bankupalli, S., Ball, A.S.: A review on 1st and 2nd generation bioethanol production—recent progress. J. Sustain. Bioenergy Syst. 6, 72–92 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wilkie, A.C., Riedesel, K.J., Owens, J.M.: Stillage characterization and anaerobic treatment of ethanol stillage from conventional and cellulosic feedstocks. Biomass Bioenergy 19, 63–102 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    van Haandel, A.C., Catunda, P.F.C.: Profitability increase of alcohol distilleries by the rational use of byproducts. Water Sci. Technol. 29, 117–124 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pant, D., Adholeya, A.: Biological approaches for treatment of distillery wastewater: a review. Biores. Technol. 98, 2321–2334 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mohana, S., Acharya, B.K., Madamwar, D.: Distillery spent wash: treatment technologies and potential applications. J. Hazard. Mater. 163, 12–25 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bustamante, M.A., Moral, R., Paredes, C., Pérez-Espinosa, A., Moreno-Caselles, J., Pérez-Murcia, M.D.: Agrochemical characterisation of the solid by-products and residues from the winery and distillery industry. Waste Manage. 28, 372–380 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kannan, A., Upreti, R.K.: Influence of distillery effluent on germination and growth of mung bean (Vigna radiata) seeds. J. Hazard. Mater. 153, 609–615 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Choudhary, P., Raj, A., Bharagava, R.N.: Environmental pollution and health hazards from distillery wastewater and treatment approaches to combat the environmental threats: a review. Chemosphere 194, 229–246 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Singh, P.N., Robinson, T., Singh, D.: Treatment of industrial effluents—distillery effluent. In: Pandey, A. (ed.) Concise Encyclopedia of Bioresource Technology, pp. 135–141. Food Products Press, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wagh, M.P., Nemade, P.D.: Treatment of distillery spent wash by using chemical coagulation (CC) and electro-coagulation (EC). Am. J. Environ. Protect. 3, 159–163 (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Prajapati, A.K., Chaudhari, P.K.: Physicochemical treatment of distillery wastewater—a review. Chem. Eng. Commun. 202, 1098–1117 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Epstein, E.: The Science of Composting. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton (1997)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dominguez, J., Edwards, C.A.: Relationship between composting and vermicomposting. In: Edwards, C.A., Arancon, N.Q., Sherman, R. (eds.) Vermiculture Technology, pp. 11–25. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Edwards, C.A.: Low technology vermicomposting systems. In: Edwards, C.A., Arancon, N.Q., Sherman, R. (eds.) Vermiculture Technology, pp. 11–25. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lim, S.L., Lee, L.H., Wu, T.Y.: Sustainability of using composting and vermicomposting technologies for organic solid waste biotransformation: recent overview, greenhouse gases emissions and economic analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 111, 262–278 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Swati, A., Hait, S.: A comprehensive review of the fate of pathogens during vermicomposting of organic wastes. J. Environ. Qual. 12, 16–29 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sinha, R.K., Agarwal, S., Chauhan, K., Valani, D.: The wonders of earthworms and its vermicompost in farm production: Charles Darwin’s ‘friends of farmers’, with potential to replace destructive chemical fertilizers from agriculture. Agric. Sci. 1, 76–94 (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    EN 13037.: Soils improvers and growing media—Determination of pH, CEN Brussels (1999)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    EN 13651.: Soil improvers and growing media—extraction of calcium chloride/DTPA (CAT) soluble nutrients (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Váchalová, R., Borová-Batt, J., Kolář, L., Váchal, J.: Selectivity of ion exchange as a sign of soil quality. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 45, 2673–2679 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bligh, E.G., Dyer, W.J.: A rapid method of total lipid extraction and purification. Can. J. Biochem. Phys. 37, 911–917 (1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Šnajdr, J., Cajthaml, T., Valášková, V., Merhautová, V., Petránková, M., Spetz, P., Leppänen, K., Baldrian, P.: Transformation of Quercus petraea litter: successive changes in litter chemistry are reflected in differential enzyme activity and changes the microbial community composition. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 75, 291–303 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Oravecz, O., Elhottová, D., Krištůfek, V., Šustr, V., Frouz, J., Tříska, J., Márialigeti, K.: Application of ARDRA and PLFA analysis in characterizing the bacterial communities of the food, gut and excrement of saprophagous larvae of Penthetria holosericea (Diptera: bibionidae): a pilot study. Folia Microbiol. 49, 83–93 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Baldrian, P.: Microbial enzyme-catalyzed processes in soils and their analysis. Plant Soil Environ. 55, 370–378 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Štursová, M., Baldrian, P.: Effects of soil properties and management on the activity of soil organic matter transforming enzymes and the quantification of soil-bound and free activity. Plant Soil 338, 99–110 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kandeler, E., Gerber, H.: Short-term assay of soil urease activity using colorimetric determination of ammonium. Biol. Fertil. Soils 6, 68–72 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kandeler, E.: Nitrate reductase activity. In: Schinner, F., Ohlinger, R., Kandeler, E., Margesin, R. (eds.) Methods in Soil Biology, pp. 176–179. Springer, Berlin (1996)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Singh, N.B., Khare, A.K., Bhargava, D.S., Bhattacharya, S.: Effect of initial substrate pH on vermicomposting using Perionyx excavatus (Perrier, 1872). Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 4, 85–97 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Castkova, T., Hanc, A.: Change of the parameters of layers in a large-scale grape marc vermicomposting system with continuous feeding. Waste Manag. Res. (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242x18819276 Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yadav, A., Garg, V.K.: Recycling of organic wastes by employing Eisenia fetida. Bioresour. Technol. 102, 2874–2880 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hidayati, N., Ali, U., Murwani, I.: Chemical composition of vermicompost made from organic wastes through the vermicomposting and composting with the addition of fish meal and egg shells flour. J. Pure App. Chem. Res. 6, 127–136 (2017)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Talashilkar, S.C., Bhangarath, P.P., Mehta, V.B.: Changes in chemical properties during composting of organic residues as influenced by earthworm activities. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 47, 50–53 (1999)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hanc, A., Castkova, T., Kuzel, S., Cajthaml, T.: Dynamics of a vertical-flow windrow vermicomposting system. Waste Manag. Res. 35, 1121–1128 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Torres-Climent, A., Gomis, P., Martín-Mata, J., Bustamante, M.A., Marhuenda-Egea, F.C., Pérez-Murcia, M.D., Pérez-Espinosa, A., Paredes, C., Moral, R.: Chemical, thermal and spectroscopic methods to assess biodegradation of winery-distillery wastes during composting. PLoS ONE (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138925 Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Castkova, T., Hanc, A.: Change of the parameters of layers in a large-scale grape marc vermicomposting system with continuous feeding, In: Proceedings Sardinia 2017/Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, pp. 1–11. S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliary, Italy (2017)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Thompson, W., Leege, P., Millner, P., Watson, M.E.: Test methods for the examination of composts and composting. The US composting council, US government printing office, Bethesda (2003)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zmora-Nahum, S., Markovitch, O., Tarchitzky, J., Chen, Y.: Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) as a parameter of compost maturity. Soil Biol. Biochem. 37, 2109–2116 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hue, N.V., Liu, J.: Predicting compost stability. Compost Sci. Util. 3, 8–15 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Barois, I., Lavelle, P.: Changes in respiration rate and some physicochemical properties of a tropical soil during transit through Pontoscolex corethrurus (glossoscolecidae, oligochaeta). Soil Biol. Biochem. 18, 539–541 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Aria, M., Monroy, F., Domínguez, J.: C to N strongly affects population structure of Eisenia fetida in vermicomposting system. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 42, 127–131 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Domínguez, J., Edwards, C.A.: Relationship between composting and vermicomposting. In: Edwards, C.A., Arancon, N.Q., Sherman, R. (eds.) Vermiculture Technology. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton (2011)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gómez-Brandón, M., Lores, M., Dominguéz, J.: Changes in chemical and microbiological properties of rabbit manure in a continuous-feeding vermicomposting systém. Bioresour. Technol. 128, 310–316 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Fernández-Gómez, M.J., Díaz-Raviña, M., Romero, E., Nogales, R.: Recycling of environmentally problematic plant waste generated from greenhouse tomato crops through vermicomposting. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 10, 697–708 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Fernández-Gómez, M.J., Romero, E., Nogales, R.: Feasibility of vermicomposting for vegetable greenhouse waste recycling. Bioresour. Technol. 101, 9654–9660 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Nogales, R., Cifuentes, C., Benítez, E.: Vermicomposting of winery wastes: a laboratory study. J. Environ. Sci. Health B 40, 659–673 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Romero, E., Fernández-Bayo, J., Díaz, J.M.C., Nogales, R.: Enzyme activity and diuron persistence in soil amended with vermicompost derived from spent grape mars treated with urea. Appl. Soil. Ecol. 44, 198–204 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Pramanik, P., Ghosh, G.K., Ghosal, P.K., Banik, P.: Changes in organic—C, N, P and K and enzyme activities in vermicompost of biodegradable organic wastes under liming and microbial inoculants. Bioresour. Technol. 98, 2485–2494 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agro-Environmental Chemistry and Plant NutritionCzech University of Life Sciences PraguePrague 6Czech Republic
  2. 2.Department of AgroecosystemsUniversity of South Bohemia in Ceske BudejoviceCeske BudejoviceCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations