Programa de Doctorado en Ciencia y Tecnologa Ambientales Life cycle - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DE BARCELONA

Programa de Doctorado en Ciencia y Tecnología Ambientales Roberto Quirós Vargas

1

Life cycle assessment of municipal solid waste technologies, organic waste, and compost application to crops

Directores:

• Dr. Xavier Gabarrell Durany
• Dr. Gara Villalba Méndez

• Introduction, objectives and methodology

2

Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 6 Chapter 7

• Technologies to treat municipal solid waste
• Environmental assessment of three fertilizers

applied in horticultural crops

• Environmental assessment of two home compost

with low and high gaseous emissions

• Life cycle assessment of fertilizers applied in a

crop sequence

• Discussion, conclusions and future perspectives

CONTENT

Chapter 5

• Guidelines for compost production

3

Introduction, objectives and methodology

FROM VEGETABLES TO VEGETABLES

CHAPTER 1

CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF INCREASING IN WASTE GENERATION

4

Chapter 1. Introduction

Population increasing Industrial activities increasing Urban infraestructure increasing Increase in waste generation

Collapse of landfills Impacts  GWP  Leachate

EUROPEAN UNION LEGISLATION AND WASTE FRAMEWORK

• EU

Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC

5

• Landfill

Directive 1999/31/CE

Chapter 1. Introduction

Landfill Incineration Recycling Composting

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE IN EUROPEAN UNION BY TREAMENT

6

EU-27 24% incinerated 39% recycled o composted

EU 27 2010

Source: Eurostat, 2014

37% landfilled

Chapter 1. Introduction

ORGANIC MATTER AND MINERAL FERTILIZERS IN FIGURES

• In EU-27, MSW generation was 252 millions tonnes in 2010.
• MSW with a organic matter content of 30-40%.
• A potential COMPOST production of 35-40 million tonnes.
• In EU-27 MINERAL FERTILIZER consumption was about was 18

million tonnes in 2010.

• Part of this…

7

Chapter 1. Introduction

Source: Eurostat, 2012

OBJECTIVES

8

• 1. To assess the organic fiber

resulting autoclaving unsorted municipal solid waste. 2. To compare the environmental and agronomical performance of there fertilization treatments applied in horticultural open field crops.

• 3. To assess two home

compost with low and high gaseous emissions of the composting process.

• 4. To assess organic and

mineral fertilizers applied in a crop sequence.

Chapter 1.Objectives

9

METHODOLOGY (Life Cycle Assessment)

Chapter 1. Methodology

LCA

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT (LCA)

10

Chapter 1. Methodology GOAL AND SCOPE

• Functional unit
• Boundaries
• Quality of data
• Main assumptions

INVENTORY ANALYSIS Input and outputs of energy, water and materials related to FU IMPACT ASSESSMENT

• Classification
• Characterization
• Calculation

INTERPRETATION

METHODOLOGIES FOR IMPACT CALCULATION

11

Category Acronyms Units

Abiotic depletion potential ADP Kg Sb eq. Acidification potential AP Kg SO2 eq. Eutrophication potential EP Kg PO4 eq. Global warming potential GWP Kg CO2 eq. Ozone layer depletion potential OLDP Kg CFC-11 Photochemical oxidation potential POP Kg C2H4 eq. Climate change CC Kg CO2 eq. Photochemical oxidation formation POF Kg NMVOC Terrestrial acidification potential TA Kg SO2 eq. Freshwater eutrophication potential FE Kg P eq. Marine eutrophication potential ME Kg N eq. Fossil depletion potential FD Kg oil eq.** Cumulative energy demand CED MJ eq.

CML 2001 University of Leiden ReCipe 2008 University of Leiden and Pré Consultant

**Oil crude feedstock, 42 MJ per kg, in ground

METHODOLOGIES FOR IMPACTS CALCULATION

Chapter 1. Methodology

LCA GENERAL METHODOLOGY APPLIED FOR CASE STUDIES

12

Chapter 1. Methodology

Goal and scope Inventory SimaPro ReCipe CML Impact categories calculation Interpretation

Data were experimentally obtained from laboratory trials and real scale (GICOM and IRTA)

CHAPTER 2

LCA of alternative methods to treat

• rganic fabric of

unsorted MSW

CHAPTER 3

Environmental and agronomical assessment of three fertilizers

CHAPTER 4

Environment assessment of two home compost

CHAPTER 6

Life cycle assessment of fertilizer applied in a crop sequence

13

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES FOR THE CULTIVATION PHASE PLOT LOCATION AND EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

14.2 m M3 M2 M1 9.5 m HC1 HC2 HC3 9.5 m IC1 IC2 IC3 9.5 m Well Tank pipes water storage Primary pipes Secondary pipes Mineral fertilizer Home compost Industrial compost

 Plot size ~ 440 m2  Three blocks of ~ 146 m2  Three replicates of ~ 48 m2

Location

Experimental Field

Santa Susana, Barcelona 41°38′27′′N, 2°43′00′′E,

Chapter 1. Methodology

Mineral Fertilizer Home compost Industrial compost

CHAPTER 2

• The application of alternative methods for treating the
• rganic fiber produced from autoclaving unsorted

municipal solid waste: Case study of Catalonia.

14

INTRODUCTION

15

• Waste problem…
• New technologies to reach EU goals
• Autoclaving a novel technology to treat unsorted MSW
• For countries with NO selective waste collection system
• To treating the residual fraction from Eco Parks

Chapter 2. Introduction

RESIDUAL FRACTION FRON ECOPARKS

AUTOCLAVING TECHNOLOGY DEFINITION AND OPERATION CONDITIONS

• 2. MAIN CHARACTERISTICS

Recovering over 95% of the residues Separate biodegradable materials Reduce waste volume up to 80% Compaction of plastics No odors, no liquid emissions Sterilization of pathogens

• 3. OPERATION CONDITONS

(FULL SCALE FACILITY)

Volume: 35 m3 Capacity: 4 tonnes / hour Pressure: 6 bars Temperature: 145 ºC Cycle time: 30 minutes. Electrical consumption: 120 kwh/tonne Thermal consumption: 167 kwh/tonne

Water consumption:125 Liters /tonne

• 1. DEFINITION
• Autoclaving is a hydrothermal process that

takes place in a moist environment with high pressures and temperature. (Papadimitriou, 2007).

16

Chapter 2. Introduction

AUTOCLAVING PROCESS

1

17

Chapter 2. Introduction

• Arrival of unsorted waste stream
• Waste is placed on the conveyor for sorting
• Manual separation of bulky waste
• Autoclaving process take place high pressure
• Separation of organic fiber (<3% impurities)
• Separation of recyclable fractions: PET, mixed

plastic, metals, textils, and impropers (stones)

2 3 4 5

18

OBJECTIVE

• To

assess the environmental performance of the organic fiber from autoclaving process.

OBJECTIVE

Chapter 2. Objective

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND FUNCTIONAL UNIT

19

Chapter 2. Methodology

Autoclaving and sorting TW

Passive Piles

CCW

Areated piles

CT

Tunnels

ADC –T ADC-M Incineration Landfill unsorted MSW unsorted MSW unsorted MSW Organic fiber 5 alternatives for biological treatments Reference technologies

Functional Unit: 1 tonne of unsorted MSW

B IOLOGICAL TECHNOLOGIES CONSIDERED FOR THE PROCESING OF THE ORGANIC FIBER FROM AUTOCLAVING

CCW (confined windrow composting) TW (turning windrow) ADC (anaerobic digestion + composting) CT (composting in tunnels)

• Simple
• No gaseous emissions

treatment

• Low investment
• Complex
• Gaseous emissions

treatment

• High investment

20

Chapter 2. Methodology

Low energy consumption High energy consumption

MASS AND ENERGY BALANCE SYSTEM BOUNDARIES

A

21

B C ADC-T ADC-M TW CCW CT Technologies Chapter 2. Methodology

Processes Stages Flow Units CT CCW TW ADC-T ADC-M

Waste kg 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Water L 130 130 130 130 130 Electricity kWh 120 120 120 120 120 Thermal kWh 167 167 167 167 167 Mixed sub-products kg 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Water L 130 130 130 130 130 Mixed sub-products kg 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Electricity kWh 25 25 25 25 25 Organic fiber kg 547 547 547 547 547 Mixed plastic fraction kg 301 301 301 301 301 PET kg 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 Ferrous metals kg 22 22 22 22 22 Non-ferrous metals kg 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 Refuse kg 124 124 124 124 124 Organic fiber kg 547 547 547 547 547 Bulking agent kg 328 328 328 187 187 Water L 0.31 0.08 n/a 0.07 0.07 Electricity from grid kWh 118 36 5 25 18

• Elec. self generation

kWh n/a n/a n/a 53 35 Diesel L 1 5 3 2 2 NH3 kg 0.06 1.09 2.35 0.13 0.13 VOC kg 0.20 3.40 3.12 0.47 0.47 N2O kg 0.041 0.04 0.137 0.019 0.019 CH4 kg 0.19 0.92 2.39 1.31 1.31 CO2 kg 214 214 214 186 201 Biogas m³ n/a n/a n/a 113 75 Compost kg 332 327 322 311 311 Bulking agent kg 328 328 328 67 108 Biological treatments Imputs Outputs Autoclaving Inputs Outputs Sorting Inputs Outputs

22

INVENTORIES PER TECHNOLOGY

High yield for organic fiber 55% Mixed plastic fraction 30% CT: Complex technology

• High

electricity consumption.

• Low gaseous emissions

TW: Simple technology

• Low

energy consumption

• Highest emissions

Chapter 2. Methodology Common processes - same

• utputs and inputs

Properties Units Compost from organic fiber References parameters

Moisture %, wb

63 30-40

Organic matter %, db

78 ≥ 35

pH (extract 1:5 w:v)

• 8.06

6.5-8

Electrical conductivity mS · cm-1 (extract 1:5 w:v)

3.1 ≤6

N-Kjeldhal %, db

2.86 ≥2

Dinamic respiration index mg O2 · g-1 OM h-1

0.50 1.00

Salmonella (presence / absence in 25 g)

Absence Absence

Escherichia coli (CUF / g)

Absence <10 Heavy metals

Class A Class B Class C Zinc (Zn) mg · kg-1

387 200 500 1,000

Copper (Cu) mg · kg-1

148 70 300 400

Nickel (Ni) mg · kg-1

22 25 90 100

Chromium (Cr) mg · kg-1

43 70 250 300

Lead (Pb) mg · kg-1

54 45 150 200

Cadmium (Cd) mg · kg-1

0.5 0.7 2 3 Spanish legislation

23

Biologically stable Compost Class B (Royal Decree 825/2005)

CHARACTERIZATION OF COMPOST FROM ORGANIC FIBER

Chapter 2. Results

RESULTS IMPACT ASSESSMENT PER PROCESS AND CATEGORY

 Electricity had the highest impacts in most categories from 40% (OLDP) to 85% (AP).  Heat contribute from 12% (EP) to 54% (OLDP)  Mixed plastic to incineration was accounted as avoided burdens 54% (EP) to 96% (OLDP).  Recyclable fractions also represented a significative contribution to systems.

24

Chapter 2. Results

• a. Autoclaving process
• b. Sorting process

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% ADP AP EP GWP OLDP POP CED Electricity Heat Water consumption Water treatment

• 110%
• 80%
• 50%
• 20%

10% ADP AP EP GWP OLDP POP CED Electricity Recycling Refuse Mixed Plastics

• b. Acidification potential (AP)
• 0.50

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 ADC-M ADC-T CCW CT TW

Kg SO4 eq.

• d. Global warming potential (GWP)
• 110
• 70
• 30

10 50 90 130

ADC-M ADC-T CCW CT TW

Kg CO2 eq.

• c. Eutrophication potential (EP)
• 0.15

0.05 0.25 0.45 0.65 0.85 ADC-M ADC-T CCW CT TW

Kg PO4 eq.

IMPACTS FOR BIOLOGICAL PROCESSES BY TECHNOLOGY, STAGE AND CATEGORY

25

• For ADP and GWP

Electricity highest contributor

• AP and EP

Emissions of NH3 of the composting process TW and CCW are open systems without gaseous treatment

• Avoided bordens

Electricity cogenerated for ADC-T and ADC-M in all categories

• Compost as fertilizer

Avoided burdens for all technologies

Chapter 2. Results

• a. Abiotic depletion potential (ADP)
• 0.40
• 0.20

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 ADC-M ADC-T CCW CT TW

Kg Sb eq.

Compost as fertilizer Electricity Electricity cogenerated Diesel Process emissions

CONCLUSIONES

• Autoclaving is a suitable alternative for the

treatment of unsorted MSW.

• Organic fiber from autoclaving can be

processed through biological treatment to produce compost.

• ADC

had the best environmental performance in the most categories considered.

26

Chapter 2. Conclusions

CHAPTER 3

27

• Environmental and agronomical assessment of three

fertilization treatments applied in horticultural open fields crops .

OBJECTIVE

• To assess the environmental and agronomical

performance of three fertilization treatments applied in horticultural cauliflower crops

HOME COMPOST (HC) INDUSTRIAL COMPOST (HC) MINERAL FERTILIZER (MF)

28

Chapter 3. Objective

CROP, CULTIVATION PERIOD TIME AND WEATHER CONDITIONS

• Plantation: October 2011
• Harvesting: February 2012
• Crop duration: 125 days

WEATHER

• Mediterranean weather
• Average temperature: 12 °C
• Evapotranspiration: 955 mm
• Rainfall: 618 mm

Chapter 3. Methodology

CROP PERIOD TIME CAULIFLOWER

30

SYSTEMS DEFINITION AND FUNCTIONAL UNIT

• Collection and transport of waste
• Production process
• Gaseous emissions
• Raw materials extraction
• Production process
• Gaseous emissions
• Collection of LRFV and PW
• Production process
• Gaseous emission
• Road (building and

maintenance)

• Truck and fuel

(consumption)

• Fertirrigation stage
• Infraestructure
• Infraest. waste management
• Management stage
• Machinery and tools
• Irrigation
• Post application emissions
• Phitosanitary substance
• Nursery

Cultivation phase Transport phase IC production phase HC production phase MF production phase

Chapter 3. Methodology

FUNCTIONAL UNIT: 1 TONNE CAULIFLOWER · HECTARE-1

Properties Units Industrial compost Home compost References parameters

Moisture %, wb

17 50 30-40

Organic matter %, db

65 75 ≥ 35

pH (extract 1:5 w:v)

• 7.40

8.97 6.5-8

Electrical conductivity mS · cm-1 (extract 1:5 w:v)

2.52 1.72 ≤6

N-Kjeldhal %, db

2.47 1.66 ≥2

Dinamic respiration index mg O2 · g-1 OM h-1

0.89 0.43 1.00

Salmonella (presence / absence in 25 g)

Absence Absence Absence

Escherichia coli (CUF / g)

Absence <10 <10 Heavy metals

Class A Class B Class C Zinc (Zn) mg · kg-1

186 194 200 500 1,000

Copper (Cu) mg · kg-1

51 50 70 300 400

Nickel (Ni) mg · kg-1

19 9 25 90 100

Chromium (Cr) mg · kg-1

13 13 70 250 300

Lead (Pb) mg · kg-1

35 26 45 150 200

Cadmium (Cd) mg · kg-1

0.3 0.2 0.7 2 3 Spanish legislation

COMPOSTS CHARATERIZATION

31

COMPOST CLASS A BIOLOGICALLY STABLE

Chapter 3. Results

RESULTS YIELD AND QUALITY PARAMETERS

Yield and quality parameter Industrial compost Home compost Mineral fertilizer Yield (tonnes · m-2 ) 4.5 6.8 8.6 Diameter (cm) 13 16.5 15.9 Dry weight (kg) 1.13 1.37 1.34

Highest values

32

Chapter 3. Results

IMPACTS PER FERTILIZATION TREAMENT AND CATEGORY

33

Chapter 3. Results

• a. Industrial composting (IC)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

ADP AP EP GWP OLDP POP CED

• b. Home compost (HC)
• 20%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

ADP AP EP GWP OLDP POP CED

• c. Mineral fertilizer (MF)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

ADP AP EP GWP OLDP POP CED

Cultivation management Cultivation fertirrigation Compost transport Compost process NH3 and VOC’s emissions Collection organic waste Fuel Cultivation management (Secondary pipe and emissions) Cultivation fertirrigation Compost transport Compost process N2O and VOC’s emissions Collection organic waste (Fuel consumed) Cultivation management Secondary pipe and crates Cultivation fertirrigation Mineral fertilizer transport Fuel Mineral fertilizers production

• a. Abiotic Depletion Potential
• b. Acidification Potential
• c. Eutrophication Potential
• d. Global Warming Potential
• d. Ozone Layer Depletion Potential
• e. Cumulative Energy Demand

2 4 6 8

IC HC MF kg Sb eq

4 8 12

IC HC MF kg SO2 eq

• 3
• 1

1

IC HC MF kg PO4 eq

• 300
• 200
• 100

100 200 IC HC MF

kg CO2 eq

1 2 3

IC HC MF kg C2H4 eq

5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000

IC HC MF MJ eq

TOTAL IMPACTS PER FERTILIZATION TREATMENT AND CATEGORY

HOME COMPOST HAD THE BEST ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE FOR ALL CATEGORIES CONSIDERED

34

Chapter 3. Results

SENSITIVITY ANALISIS FOR GLOBAL WARMING INDICATOR PROXIMITY PRINCIPLE

EU Waste Framework “Proximity Principle”:.

MF vrs IC 152 km

35

Chapter 3. Results MF vrs HC 353 km

IC HC MF

CONCLUSIONS

• Mineral fertilizer (MF) had a higher yield than

home compost (HC) and industrial compost (IC).

• HC had better quality parameters (diameter

and weight of fruits) than MF and IC.

• HC showed the lowest impacts when

considering the avoided burdens of waste to landfill.

36

Chapter 3. Conclusions

CHAPTER 4

37

• Environmental assessment of two home composts with

high and low gaseous emissions of the composting process

COMPOST DEFINITION AND EMISSIONS

• Compost: The final product
• f the aerobic degradation
• f the organic matter by

microorganisms.

• During the process CO2 and
• ther

gaseous emissions are emitted.

38

CH4 N2O

Greenhouse gases (GWP)

NH3

Eutrophication (EP) Acidification (AP)

VOC’s

Photochemical oxidation (POP) Chapter 4. Introduction

FACTORS THAT AFFECT GASEOUS EMISSIONS AND OPTIMAL PARAMETERS

39

Chapter 4. Introduction

Main factors that affects the gaseous emissions Waste stream quality Production management Environment temperature Waste feed rate Mixing frequency Parameters

• f

production process Moisture Temperature

Parameter Optimal values Moisture 40-60% Temperature 35-60 ºC pH 6-7.5 OM content 30-40% C/N ratio 25-35 DRI 1 g · Kg OM · h-1 Impurities <3% Free of pathogens Heavy metals Waste feed rate High Mixing frequency High Production process Others production management Final product

OBJECTIVE LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT

• Objective: Compare two home composts with

different management of the production process

• The two home composts were produced as

follows: High emission (HC-HE) produced by a family of Barcelona city Low emission (HC-LE) produced by experts

40

Chapter 4. Objective

SYSTEM DEFINITION AND FUNCTIONAL UNIT

41

VV VV

Chapter 4. Methodology

Functional Unit: 1 tonne of cauliflower / hectare

Stages Element Flow Units (ton-1· LFRV) HC-LE HC-HE

Inputs

Collection of LRFV and PW LRFV collection bin PP 0.048 0.048 kg Composter HDPE 3.122 3.122 kg Transport (composter) Transport 1.561 1.561 tkm Plastic container collection HDPE 0.004 0.004 kg Plastic collection. Cleaning HDPE 0.006 0.006 L Garden clipper Stell 0.174 0.174 kg Bag for PW collection PP 0.047 0.047 kg Shovel Stell 0.017 0.017 kg Wood 0.009 0.009 kg Mixing tool Iron 0.078 0.078 kg Watering can PP 0.002 0.002 kg Gloves Cotton 0.007 0.007 kg Transport national Transport 0.213 0.213 tkm Transport regional Transport 0.008 0.008 tkm Water consumption Moistening water Tap water 50.870 50.870 L Energy consumption Electricity consumption (clipper) Electricity 5.991 5.991 kWh

Outputs

Methane CH4 0.295 1.350 kg Volatile organic compunds VOC's 0.320

• kg

Nitrous oxide N2O 0.200 1.160 kg Ammonia NH3 0.025 1.300 kg Waste management in landfill Wood 0.009 0.009 kg Cotton 0.007 0.007 kg Plastic mix 4.380 4.380 kg Transport to landfill Transport 0.002 0.002 tkm Amount Composter and tools Gasesous emissions Waste dumped

INVENTORIES ENERGY AND MATERIALS (INPUTS AND OUTPUTS)

Same inventories for both composts Compost differed only in the gaseous emissions of the composting process

42

Chapter 4. Methodology

43

COMPOST CHARACTERIZATION

Properties Units High emissions Low emission References parameters

Moisture %, wb

50 44 30-40

Organic matter %, db

75 49 ≥ 35

pH (extract 1:5 w:v)

• 8.97

6.50 6.5-8

Electrical conductivity mS · cm-1 (extract 1:5 w:v)

1.72 5.00 ≤6

N-Kjeldhal %, db

1.66 2.40 ≥2

Dinamic respiration index mg O2 · g-1 OM h-1

0.43 1.11 1.00

Salmonella (presence / absence in 25 g)

Absence Absence Absence

Escherichia coli (CUF / g)

<10 <10 <10 Heavy metals

Class A Class B Class C Zinc (Zn) mg · kg-1

194 156 200 500 1,000

Copper (Cu) mg · kg-1

50 44 70 300 400

Nickel (Ni) mg · kg-1

9 9 25 90 100

Chromium (Cr) mg · kg-1

13 9 70 250 300

Lead (Pb) mg · kg-1

26 28 45 150 200

Cadmium (Cd) mg · kg-1

0.2 0.3 0.7 2 3 Spanish legislation Home compost

COMPOST CLASS A BIOLOGICALLY STABLE

Chapter 4. Results

IMPACTS ANALYSIS PER COMPOST TYPE, STAGES AND CATEGORY

Chapter 4. Results

Machinery Post-cultivation emissions Fertirrigation Compost process Irrigation Nursery

Machinery had the highest impacts in Abiotic depletion, Ozone layer and CED. Compost process (emissions) had the highest impacts in Global warming and Photochemical Oxidation. Machinery had the highest impacts for Abiotic depletion, Ozone Depletion and CED Compost process (emissions) had the highest impacts in Acidification, Eutrophication, Global Warming and Photochemical Oxidation

RESULTS TOTAL IMPACTS PER COMPOST TYPE AND CATEGORY

45

Chapter 4. Results

Home compost with low emissions Home compost with low emissions

• 1.0

1.0 3.0 5.0

Kg SO2 eq.

Acidification potential

• 4.0
• 3.0
• 2.0
• 1.0

0.0

Kg PO4 eq.

Eutrophication potential

• 800
• 600
• 400
• 200

Kg CO2 eq.

Global warming potential

Category Units HC-LE HC-HE

Acidification Kg SO2 eq. 1.56 4.82 Eutrophication Kg PO4 eq.

• 3.57
• 2.86

Global Warming Kg CO2 eq.

• 692
• 203

NH3; 52 N2O; 6 CH4; 5

CONCLUSIONS

• Differences in gaseous emissions (NH3, N2O

and CH4)

• f

the composting process represented differences in AP, EP and GWP.

• This research highlighted the compost

management production to guarantee a better quality compost with low emissions to reduce environmental burdens.

46

Chapter 4. Conclusions

CHAPTER 6

Life cycle assessment of organic and mineral fertilizers in a crop sequence of cauliflower and tomato

47

INTRODUCTION

48

Intensive use of fertilizers and pesticides Environmental impacts generation Good agricultural practices Crop sequence Increase soil fertility Minimize weed and diseases

Agriculture contributes in 13.5% in GHG emission (IPCC, 2007)

Chapter 6. Introduction

Several crops are grown in a same land for a time period

METHODOLOGY LCA, ISO 14044

49

Chapter 6. Metholodogy

OBJECTIVE To assess organic and mineral fertilizers in a crop sequence of cauliflower and tomato.

Date 10-sep-11 06-oct-11 08-feb-12 09-feb-12 10-jun-12 11-jun-12 24-oct-12 Crop Horticultural stage

Planting Harvesting Planting Harvesting

Crop duration (days) Specie

• Irrigation system
• Density (pl · m-2)

Fruts yields (tonne · ha-1) Industrial compost

• Home compost
• Mineral fertilizer
• Horticultural inactivity GAP

122

Cauliflower

125

Tomato

135 Brassica oleracea Micro-sprinkler 2.01 Lycopersicon esculentum Dripping 0.5 4.5 6.8 8.6 35.7 28.0 37.6

Compost application

CROP SEQUENCE DESCRIPTION

50

Chapter 6. Methodology

Cultivation

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION FUNCTIONAL UNIT AND BOUNDARIES

51

Production Transport Production Cauliflower Tomato Production Cauliflower Tomato Transport

Home compost Mineral fertilizer Industrial compost

Functional Unit: 1 m2 of cultivated area

52

COMPOST ALLOCATION TO CROPS (ISO 14044)

Crop sequence Cauliflower Tomate Fertilization treatments IC HC IC HC IC HC Compost applied (Tonnes · ha-1 ) 11 16 Crop duration (days) 125 135 Time allocation (Tonnes · ha-1 ) 1.88 2.74 2.03 2.96

• Time allocation allocates compost according to duration of crops
• The quantity of compost allocated was similar within a same crop
• HC > IC (quantity of compost applied)
• Tomato > cauliflower (time duration)

Chapter 6. Results

53

N APPLIED TO CROPS BY SOURCES

N sources to crops ( g N · m-2 )

Crop

Cauliflower Tomato

Fertilization treatment

IC HC MF IC HC MF

N from rainfall water 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 N from irrigation water 2.8 2.8 2.4 7.9 7.7 7.5 N Compost 2.8 2.3

• 3.0

2.5

• Mineral fertilizer (MF)
• 1.0
• 10.3

N total (IC and HC) 6.0 5.6

• 11.1 10.3
• N total (MF)

3.8 17.9

622 and 133 (L·m-2) 100 and 300 (L·m-2) 26 g N · L-1

IC HC N organic 2.5% 1.7% Moisture 39.7% 50.3%

• N applied was similar for a same crop
• N to tomato > N to cauliflower
• Tomato is a high nutritional demand crop
• Tomato was grown in summer season
• Cauliflower was affected by rainfall water.

Chapter 6. Results

A B C

N BALANCE

54

• N APPLIED < N UPTAKE
• Soil represent a natural stock of N from previous crops
• MINERAL FERTILIZER was not enough to full nutrient

requirements of crops, so additional impacts should be taken into account for soil loss soil stability.

Chapter 6. Results

Crop / treatment

CAULIFLOWER TOMATO IC HC MF IC HC MF

N APPLIED (g · m-2)

6 6 4 11 10 18

N UPTAKE (g · m-2)

28 26 27 22 16 21

N BALANCE ( g · m-2)

• 22
• 20
• 21
• 11
• 5
• 3

55

IMPACTS PER TREATMENT, STAGE AND CATEGORY

Irrigation (electricity to pump water).  Climate Change  Freshwater eutrophication  Fossil depletion  Cumulative energy demand Compost production (emissions of VOC’s and NH3)  Photochemical oxidation  Terrestrial acidification Irrigation (electricity to pump water)  Climate change  Freshwater eutrophication  Fossil depletion Machinery (plots preparation)  Photochemical oxidation  Fossil depletion Irrigation (electricity to pump water).  Freshwater eutrophication  Cumulative energy demand Mineral fertilizer production  Climate change  Terrestrial acidification  Fossil depletion

TOMATO

Chapter 6. Results

Fertirrigation Compost production Machinery Irrigation Mineral fertilizer production

• 15
• 5

5 15 25 35

Coliflor Tomate Cycle

Kg CO2 eq. / day x 10-3

CLIMATE CHANGE 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Coliflor Tomate Cycle

kg NM VOC eq. /day x 10-4

PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDATION

• 0.5

0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 Coliflor Tomate Cycle

Kg SO2 eq. / day X 10-4

TERRESTRIAL ACIDIFICATION 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 Coliflor Tomate Cycle

Kg P eq. /day X 10-5

FRESHWATER EUTROPHICATION

• 1.0

1.0 3.0 5.0 7.0 9.0

Coliflor Tomate Cycle

Kg oil eq. / day x 10-3

FOSSIL DEPLETION

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

Coliflor Tomate Cycle

MJ eq. / day x 10-1

CUMULATIVE ENERGY DEMAND

CROP SEQUENCE VERSUS SINGLE CROPS

IMPACTS / DAY

• Single crops

 Cauliflower / 125 days  Tomato / 135 days

• Crops sequence (Cauliflower +

tomato) / 365 days

 Crop sequence had the best environmental performance in all categories  Home compost showed the lowest impacts

56

Chapter 6. Results

Industrial compost Home compost Mineral fertilizer

CONCLUSIONS

• The yields differences in tomato crop were smaller than

cauliflower crop when comparing mineral fertilizer with home compost and industrial compost.

• Cauliflower crop had a better environmental performance

than tomato.

• Home compost had lower impacts than industrial compost

and mineral fertilizer in all categories considered.

• The crop sequence showed a better environmental

performance than single crops.

57

Chapter 6. Conclusions

58

Conclusions and future actions

CHAPTER 7

58

• Autoclaving represents an alternative for the

treatment unsorted MSW in countries with no selective waste collection system and for the residual fraction from Ecoparks.

• Compost a renewable resource represents an

alternative for sustainable use of the organic fraction

• f RSM.
• Good management practices for the composting

production contributes in lower gaseous emissions (CH4, N2O, NH3 , VOC’s).

CONCLUSIONS

59

Chapter 7. Conclusions

Autoclave d compost Mineral Fertilizer Incinerati

• n

Landfill kg CO2 eq.

• 961

293

• 481

1301

• 1500
• 1000
• 500

500 1000 1500

kg CO2 eq./ tonne of compost

• a. Autoclaved compost

Industrial compost Mineral Fertilizer Landfill kg CO2 eq.

• 169

225 748

• 400
• 200

200 400 600 800

kg CO2 eq. / tonne of compost

• b. Industrial compost

Home compost Mineral Fertilizer Landfil kg CO2 eq.

• 641

137 806

• 800
• 600
• 400
• 200

200 400 600 800 1000

kg CO2 eq. / tonne of compost

• c. Home compost

GWP INDICATOR BY TECHNOLOGY (kg CO2 eq. · tonne of waste)

 Compost from autoclaving had the best result. (AC> MF> Landfill)  Compost from

• rganic fiber was

two times better than incineration.  IC and HC had better performance than MF and landfill.  HC was four times lower than IC.

60

Chapter 7. Conclusions

GWP INDICATOR FOR CAULIFLOWER AND TOMATO (kg CO2 eq. · tonelada de fruta)

Fruit Units IC HC MF Cauliflower Kg CO2 eq. · tonne of fruit-1

• 268
• 405

290 Tomate Kg CO2 eq. · tonne of fruit-1 91 6 338

Cauliflower < Tomato for the three fertilization treatments. HC had the fewer indicator: HC < IC < MF

61

Chapter 7. Conclusions

• Evaluate autoclaving and the biological treatment processes

for different waste fractions compositions.

• Apply the compost from the organic fiber of autoclave in open

field crops to observe its effects in fruit yields and quality parameters.

• Incorporate new crops in the sequence to trace the nitrogen

mineralization in soil to study fruit yields and quality parameters.

• Spread the scope of this research for the others sustainable

development axis (economic and social).

FUTURE ACTIONS

62

Chapter 7. Future actions

RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS

63

The application of alternative methods for treating the organic fiber produced from autoclaving unsorted municipal solid waste: Case study of Catalonia Roberto Quiros et al., 2013. Environmental and agronomical assessment of three fertilization treatments applied in horticultural open fields crops. Roberto Quirós et al., 2014. Environmental assessment of two home composts with high and low gaseous emissions of the composting process. Roberto Quirós et al., 2014.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

64

• My directors Xavier Gabarrell and Gara Villalba.
• Pere Muñoz (IRTA), Xavier Font (GICOM), Ramón Villanova (E2HANCE

PROJECT).

• Professors of Chemical Engineering and staff (secretaries) for their

collaboration in the doctoral process.

• Doctoral mates from Sostenipra who already finished their doctorate or in the

finishing process : Esther, David, Ana, Pere, Elena, Violeta, Julia, Montse, Farah, Sara, Tito, Hoque, Katherine, Sergio, Ileana, Eva and Joan Manuel.

• My friends of IRTA and Inèdit.
• Classmates of Chemical Engineering with whom I shared my study years.

For all many thank!

Supporting information

65

USE OF ORGANIC MATTER IN CROPS

66

Chapter 1. Introduction

Improve soil nutrient properties Elimination of pests and diseases Improve crop yields Carbon sequestration Erosion prevention Increase water retention Improve biological properties

Compost

Increase in the price of mineral fertilizers Shortage of

• rganic

matter in soil Impacts

CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF THE UNSORTED MSW, OFMSW AND ORGANIC FIBER

67

Parameter Dry matter (%, w.b.) * pH Electrical Conductivity (μS cm-1) N Kjeldahl (%, d.b.)** N-NH3 (%, d.b.) P (%, d.b.) K (%, d.b.) Organic fiber 46.0 5.65 3.94 2.14 0.10 0.58 0.47 Unsorted MSW 63.2 6.87 2.48 1.70 0.12 0.44 0.56 OFMSW 20.4 5.62 2.58 2.53 0.07 0.58 1.14

HEAVY METALS FOR UNSORTED MSW, OFMSW AND ORGANIC FIBER

68

Metal Cd Cr Cr(VI) Cu Hg Ni Pb Zn Organic fiber (mg kg-1, dry basis) 1.1 79 <0.5 79 <0.01 40 111 304 Unsorted MSW (mg kg-1, dry basis) 1.1 31 110 <0.01 33 103 279 OFMSW (mg kg-1, dry basis) 0.41 13 93 <0.01 13 26 253 Spanish legislation (Class A) 0.7 70 70 0.4 25 45 200 Spanish legislation (Class B) 2 250 300 1.5 90 150 500 Spanish legislation (Class C) 3 300 400 2.5 100 200 1000

Table 2. Heavy metal content of the unsorted MSW, OFMSW and organic fiber

• btained from the autoclaving process. Values for MSW and the OFMSW are

calculated from average values (Huerta-Pujol et al., 2011b). Spanish legislation for compost according to Ministerio de la Presidencia (2005).

DIFFERENCES FOUND IN THE TWO HOME COMPOST

69

Moisture during the process

Compost with high emissions Compost with low emissions

Bulking agent Mixing frequency Compost refining Weather conditions Low (adjusted and controlled) ~50% High > 70% Wet material (wood chips) No refining after process Low Lots of rain (additional moisture ) Dry material (prunning waste) Refining after process High No presence of rainwater water into composter

Main factors Chapter 4. Results

70

Fertirrigation: Primary pipe Climate Change, Fossil Depletion and CED. Compost production: Emissions of VOC’s and NH3

Photochemical Oxi, Terrestrial

• Acid. and Marine Eutrop.

Nursery: Emissions of PO4 Freshwater Eutrophication

Machinery : Land preparation Climate change, Photochemical Oxi., Terrestrial Acid. Emission of cultivation: Compost applied (NH3) TA, ME Nursery: Emissions of PO4

Freshwater Eutrophication

Machinery: Land preparation CC , POF , TA , ME Fertirrigation: Secondary pipe FD , CED Nursery: Emissions of PO4 FEW

IMPACTS PER TREATMENT, CROP, STAGE AND CATEGORY

CAULIFLOWER

Chapter 6. Results

Fertirrigation Compost production Machinery Emissions of cultivation Nursery Irrigation

DETAIL OF INVENTORIES CULTIVATION PHASE FOR CAULIFLOWER CROP

71

Amounts per functional unit (FU) Stages and substages Material Lifespan Units · FU-1 IC HC MF

• 1. Cutivation_fertirrigation stage

1.1 Equipment and tools Water irrigation pump Steel 20 years kg 3.27E-03 1.13E-02 3.92E-02 Water extraction pump Steel 20 years kg 3.27E-03 1.13E-02 3.92E-02 Water storage tank Steel 50 years kg 1.65E-01 5.71E-01 1.98E+00 Water storage tank Concrete 50 years m3 2.77E-03 9.57E-03 3.31E-02 Fertilizer storage tank LDPE 10 years kg 1.47E-02 5.09E-02 1.76E-01 Electrovalves LDPE 10 years kg 4.58E-04 1.59E-03 5.49E-03 Microsprinklers PVC 1 years kg 2.49E-03 8.63E-03 2.99E-02 Spaghetti pipes LDPE 1 years kg 8.00E-03 2.77E-02 9.58E-02 Primary pipes LDPE 10 years kg 6.61E-03 2.29E-02 7.92E-02 Secondary pipes LDPE 1 years kg 8.30E-02 2.87E-01 9.95E-01 Tank pipes PVC 1 years kg 3.10E-03 1.07E-02 3.71E-02 Supports rods Steel 20 years kg 7.48E-02 2.59E-01 8.96E-01 1.2Waste management kg 2.89E-01 4.85E-01 7.33E-01 2.Cultivation_management stage 2.1 Pesticides kg 1.73E-01 1.15E-01 9.07E-02 2.2 Machinery and tools Tractor 7200 h kg 5.74E-01 1.85E+01 2.68E-01 Diesel consumption kg 3.10E+01 6.36E+03 1.50E+01 Plough 300 h kg 2.83E-01 1.91E-01 1.34E-01 Tow 6000 h kg 4.10E-02 3.29E+01 0.00E+00 Fertilizer spreader 800 h kg 7.04E-03 5.66E+00 0.00E+00 Furrow opener 1190 h kg 3.39E-01 2.25E-01 1.77E-01 Spray bag 1000h kg 1.00E-01 6.64E-02 5.25E-02 Ancillary equipment kg 3.96E+00 6.28E+00 9.31E+00 2.2 Irrigation Water m3 2.40E+02 1.60E+02 1.08E+02 Electricity used (water pump) MJ 1.74E+02 1.15E+02 7.87E+01 Electricity used (well pump) MJ 1.24E+02 8.13E+01 5.60E+01 2.3 Emissions (NH3) From water g 2.75E+02 1.81E+02 1.27E+02 From compost g 4.59E+02 4.54E+02 0.00E+00 From mineral fertilizer g 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 5.30E+05 2.4 Nursery plant 4.63E+03 3.06E+03 2.42E+03

FUNCTIONAL UNIT: 1 TONNE OF CAULIFLOWER · HECTARE-1

GUIDELINES FOR COMPOST PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

72