Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 18, pp 17490–17498 | Cite as

Humification process in different kinds of organic residue by composting and vermicomposting: have microbioreactors really accelerated the process?

  • Paulo R. Dores-Silva
  • Maria D. Landgraf
  • Maria O. O. Rezende
Research Article
  • 121 Downloads

Abstract

The organic matter existing in nature presents as a complex system of various substances. The humic fraction refers to the humic substances (HS) and consists of humic acids (HA), fulvic acids (FA), and humins, according to solubility in aqueous solution. The physical and chemical characteristics of HA, FA, and humins depend on many factors, among which is the type of original organic material. Two processes for the stabilization of organic materials are known worldwide: composting and vermicomposting. Cattle manure, rice straw, sugarcane bagasse, and vegetable wastes from leaves were the organic residues chosen for the composting and vermicomposting processes. In this study, the differences between the HS extracted from such composted and vermicomposted residues were evaluated. The so-extracted HS were evaluated by spectroscopy in the regions of infrared and ultraviolet-visible, and pyrolysis coupled with gas chromatography with mass spectrometric detection is applied. Thus, we expect that the results obtained here indicate which of the two processes is more efficient in the biotransformation of organic residues in a short period with respect to the HS content. It was also observed that the basic units of the humic fractions generated (although they presented different degrees of maturation) are the same. Altogether, the data reported here bring to light that the structures of the HS are very similar, differing in quantities. These results can still be extrapolated to several other raw materials, since the most variable organic matrices were used here to allow this data extrapolation. In addition, the process seems to lead to the formation of more aliphatic substances, counterpoising what is found in the literature.

Keywords

Vermicomposting Composting Microbioreactors Humic substances Pyrolysis Humification 

Notes

Funding information

M. O. O. Rezende thanks FAPESP (process number 2007/50776-4 and 2011/13918-0), CNPq (process number 306715/2013-9), and CAPES for financial support.

References

  1. Bernal MP, Alburquerque JA, Moral R (2009) Composting of animal manures and chemical criteria for compost maturity assessment. A review. Bioresour Technol 100(22):5444–5453.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.11.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Castaldi P, Alberti G, Merella R, Melis P (2005) Study of the organic matter evolution furing municipal solid waste composting aimed at identifying suitable parameters for the evaluation of compost maturity. Waste Manag 25:209–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cunha TJF, Novotny EH, Madari BE, Martin-Neto L, Rezende MOO, Canelas LP, Benites VM (2009) Spectroscopy characterization of humic acids isolated from Amazonian dark earth soils (Terra Preta de Índio). In: Woods WI, Teixeira WG, Lehmann J, Steiner C, Winkler Prins A, Rebellato L (eds) Amazonian dark earths: Wim Sombroek’s vision, vol 20. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 363–372.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9031-8_20
  4. Dores-Silva PR, Landgraf MD, Rezende MOO (2013) Processo de Estabilização de Resíduos Orgânicos: Vermicompostagem Versus Compostagem. Quim Nova 36(5):640–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dores-Silva PR, Da Silva BM, Zozolotto TC, Landgraf MD, Rezende MOO (2014) Understanding the vermicompost process in sewage sludge: a humic fraction study. Int J Agric For 4(2):94–99.  https://doi.org/10.5923/j.ijaf.20140402.08 Google Scholar
  6. Dores-Silva PR, Landgraf MD, Rezende MOO (2015) Chemical differentiation of domestic sewage sludge and cattle manure stabilized by microbioreators: study by pyrolysis coupled to gas chromatography coupled to mass spectroscopy. J Braz Chem Soc 26(5):860–868.  https://doi.org/10.5935/0103-5053.20150046 Google Scholar
  7. Droussi Z, D’Orazio V, Hafidi M, Ouatmane A (2009) Elemental and spectroscopic characterization of humic-acid-like compounds during composting of olive mill by-products. J Hazard Mater 163:1289–1297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Freixo AA, Canellas LP, Machado FLO (2002) Propriedades espectrais da matéria orgânica leve-livre e leve intra-agregado de dois Latossolos sob plantio direto e preparo convencional. R Bras Ci Solo 26:445–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jayakumar P, Sakthivel N (2012) Microbial diversity of vermicompost bacteria that exhibit useful agricultural traits and waste management potential. Spring 1:26.  https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-1-26 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kononova MM (1982) Materia Orgánica del Suelo: Su Naturaleza, Propiedades y Métodos de Investigación. Oikos-tau, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  11. Laird DA, Chappell MA, Martens DA, Wersha RL, Thompson M (2008) Distinguishing black carbon from biogenic humic substances in soil clay fractions. Geoderma 143:1–2, 15,115–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Landgraf MD, Silva SC, Rezende MOOR (1998) Mechamism of metribuzin herbicide sorption by humic acid samples from peat and vermicompost. Anal Chim Acta 368:155–164.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-2670(98)00049-x
  13. Landgraf MD, Alves MR, Silva SC, Rezende MOO (1999) Caracterização de ácidos húmicos de vermicomposto de esterco bovino compostado durante 3 e 6 meses. Quím Nova 22(4):483–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Landgraf MD, Messias RA, Rezende MOO (2005) A Importância Ambiental da Vermicompostagem: Vantagens e Aplicações. In: 1° edição. São Carlos, RimaGoogle Scholar
  15. Lazcano C, Gómez-Brandón M, Domínguez J (2008) Comparison of the effectiveness of composting and vermicomposting for the biological stabilization of cattle manure. Chemosphere 72:1013–1019.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2008.04.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lehmann J, Kleber M (2015) The contentious nature of soil organic matter. Nature 528:60–68.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16069 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Maie N, Watanabe A, Hayamizu K, Kimura M (2002) Comparison of chemical characteristics of type A humic acids extracted from subsoils of paddy fields and surface ando soils. Geoderma 106:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Melo LCAI, SilvaII CA, DiasIII BO (2008) Caracterização da Matriz Orgânica de Resíduos de Origens Diversificadas. Rev Bras Ciênc Solo 32(1):101–110 Viçosa Jan./Feb.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-06832008000100010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Parthasarathi K, Balamurugan M, Ranganathan L (2008) Influence of vermicompost on the physico-chemical and biological properties in different types of soil along with yield and quality of the pulse crop-blackgram. J Environ Health Sci Eng 5:51–58Google Scholar
  20. Schnitzer M, Khan SU (1972) Humic substances in the environment. Marcel Dekker, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Schulten HR, Schnitzer M (1993) A state of the art structural concept of humic substances. Naturwissenschaften 80:29–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sen B, Chandra TS (2007) Chemolytic and solid-state spectroscopic evaluation of organic matter transformation during vermicomposting of sugar industry wastes. Bioresour Technol 98:1680–1683.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2006.06.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shah RU, Abid M, Qayyum MF (2015) Dynamics of chemical changes through production of various composts/vermicompost such as farm manure and sugar industry wastes. Int J Recycl Org Waste Agric 4:39–51.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40093-015-0083-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stevenson FJ (1994) Humus chemistry: genesis, composition, reactions, 2nd edn. J. W. & Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Sutton R, Sposito G (2005) Molecular structure in soil humic substance: the new view. Environ Sci Technol 39:9009–9015.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es050778q CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Trevisan S, Francioso O, Quaggiotti S, Serenella N (2010) Humic substances biological activity at the plant-soil interface: from environmental aspects to molecular factors. Plant Signal Behav 5(6):635–643.  https://doi.org/10.4161/psb.5.6.11211 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wang X, Lu X, Li F, Yang G (2014) Effects of temperature and carbon-nitrogen (C/N) ratio on the performance of anaerobic co-digestion of dairy manure, chicken manure and rice straw: focusing on ammonia inhibition. Wenjun Li, Editor. PLoS One 9(5):e97265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wu TY, Lim SL, Lim PN, Shak KPY (2014) Biotransformation of biodegradable solid wastes into organic fertilizers using composting or/and vermicomposting. Chem Eng Trans 39:1579–1584Google Scholar
  29. Zhang J, Dou S, Song X (2009) Effect of long-term combined nitrogen and phosphorous fertilizer application on 13C CPMAS NMR spectra of humin in a Typic Hapludoll of Northeast China. Eur J Soil Sci 60:966–973CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paulo R. Dores-Silva
    • 1
    • 2
  • Maria D. Landgraf
    • 1
  • Maria O. O. Rezende
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Chemistry of São CarlosUniversity of São PauloSão CarlosBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Neuroscience, School of MedicineUniversity of California San DiegoLa JollaUSA

Personalised recommendations