Quality Standards for Urban Waste Composts: the Need for Biological - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Quality Standards for Urban Waste Composts: the Need for Biological Susceptibility Data

Sónia Chelinho & J. P. Sousa

NAXOS2018

circlecompost.com Vecteezy.com Vecteezy.com www.be2o.nl

I.

• I. EU Cir

ircula lar Economy Package

Needs

 Quality Harmonization of Fertilizers (e.g. UWC

*)

 Compliance with European Recycling Targets

Problems

 Lack of information / mistrust  Competition with other organic fertilizers  Market Rejection

Solutions

 Certification of the environmental quality of

UWC

 Increased added value  Stimuli of UWC production / flow

Sónia Chelinho & José Paulo Sousa

* Urban Waste Composts

• I. Effects Evaluation and UWC

Quality

Sónia Chelinho & José Paulo Sousa

External dose





Contaminant fraction absorved by target-

• rganisms (bioavailability)?

 Toxicity level?

pH – 7.5 % OM: 53 [Cu] – 300 ppm [Hg] – 0.8 ppm

…  Actual regulation: based on

physic-chemical analysis (D.L 103/2015; Saveyn & Eder, 2014)

http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu

 Effects on ecological receptors ?  Food safety?

• I. Goals

Sónia Chelinho & José Paulo Sousa

• To evaluate the impact of soil amendment with

five UWCs in using ecotoxicological tests with representative soil organisms.

• To develop an environmental quality certification

system for the use of UWCs in agricultural systems.

Working hypothesis

• The application of low quality UWCs (from

mixed urban wastes) will be associated with higher hazard (ecotoxicity).

• I. Soil Ecotoxicological test in brief

Sónia Chelinho & José Paulo Sousa

 Evaluation of effects derived from exposure to

chemical/stressors using soil inhabitants (chemical vs

biological system interaction);

 Estimation of concentration where no effects are

• bserved;

 Extrapolation to define exposure levels considered safe for populations and ecosystems.



[ [ No Observed Effects]

www.ladailypost.com

M&M. Summary of Test-Materials and Doses

Sónia Chelinho & José Paulo Sousa

5 UWC

 2 from source separated urban organic wastes (SS1 and SS2)  3 from organic fraction of mixed urban wastes (MW1, MW2, MW3)

 1 natural soil (pH=5.85; OM=2.9%; sandy loam)

Soil-UWC dilutions (0.7*, 2.1, 6.3, 18.9 and 56.7%)

** 0.7% = Maximum Annual Dose (MAD**) for mixed-waste- composts (10t /ha)

* Average soil density of 1.5 g soil / cm3; 10cm incorporation

3,33% = MAD** for source-separated-composts (50 t/ha)

*PT legislation (DL 103/2015)

M&M. Test-Battery

Sónia Chelinho & José Paulo Sousa

Species Common name (Taxonomic group) Endpoint

Eisenia andrei Earthworms (Annelida) Avoidance Behaviour Reproduction Folsomia candida Colembolans (Arthropoda) Avoidance Behaviour Reproduction Enchytraeus crypticus Enchytraeids (Annelida) Reproduction Lactuca sativa Lettuce (Magnoliophyta) Germination and Growth. Triticum aestivum Wheat (Magnoliophyta)

• R. Earthworms reproduction

Sónia Chelinho & José Paulo Sousa

 Low UWC doses (up to 6.3%):

Reproduction similar to the control.

* Statistically lower than the control (Anova, Dunnet Test, p <0.05)

• R. Ranking of ecotoxicity (1-Most; 5-

Least)

Sónia Chelinho & José Paulo Sousa

Test-species Common name (Taxonomic group) Endpoint SS1 SS2 MW1 MW2 MW3

Eisenia andrei Earthworm (Annelida) Avoidance behaviour 1 5 2 4 3 Reproduction / Mortality 1 5 2 4 3 Folsomia candida Collembola (Arthropoda) Avoidance 3 4 1 5 2 Reproduction 1 5 4 2 3 Enchytraeus crypticus Enchytraeis (Annelida) Reproduction 1 5 2 4 3 Lactuca sativa Lettuce (Magnoliophyta) Germ./Growt h 1 5 2 3 4 Triticum aestivum Wheat (Magnoliophyta) Germ./Growt h 1 5 2 3 4

• D. Species sensitivity and UWC Toxicity

Sónia Chelinho & José Paulo Sousa

Wheat < Lettuce < Enchytraeids < Collembolans < Earthworms













SS2< MW1 < MW3 < MW1 < SS1

 No direct relationship between

metal concentration and observed toxicity.

MW1 > MW3 > MW2 > SS1 > SS2 (“Expected” range of toxicity) SS1 > MW1 > MW3 > MW2 > SS2 (Observed range of toxicity)

Parameter (unit) SS1 SS2 MW1 MW2 MW3 pH 8.1 8.3 7.2 7.8 7.1 EC (mS cm/1, 25ºC)

7.4 3.1 6.64 4.3 5.17

Salinity (25ºC)

4.1 1.6 3.6 2.3 2.7

OM (%) 42.73 46.74 37.26 43.62 44.21 Total N (%) 2.87 1.51 1.65 1.63 1.89 NO3- (mg/kg) 45 634 1500 720 892 NH4+ (mg/kg) 84 54 46 58 80 C/N 8.05 13.64 9.21 11.34 8.87 Cd (mg/kg) 2.78* 1.68 4.18* 2.98 2.78 Pb (mg/kg) 44 43 235 197 242 Cu (mg/kg) 41 26 204 184 336 Cr (mg/kg) 28 34 100 63 107 Ni (mg/kg) 21 19 67 52 34 Zn (mg/kg) 98 64 149 149 151 Hg (mg/kg) 0.06 0.06 0.37 0.61 0.37

* Above PT legislation limits (Dl 103/2015)

• D. Physic-chemical Characterization

 Probable cause: UWC High salinity

Sónia Chelinho & José Paulo Sousa

 The application of the recommended doses of UWC (0.7 and 2.1%, i.e.,

MAD and 3xMAD), seems to be beneficial for the organisms when compared with the control;

 However, in scenarios of over-application or application of high

salinity UWCs, there might be significant ecotoxicological effects (e.g. soil invertebrates);

 Physical-chemical characterization of UWCs does not reflect the

potential environmental risk associated with their application;

 The inclusion of the biological effects assessment in the quality

characterization of UWC is essential;  Future work: Field trial with the UWC with highest associated risk.

• C. Conclusions & Future

Work

Sónia Chelinho & José Paulo Sousa

https://www.facebook.com/labsolos https://www.facebook.com/CFEUC  sonia.chelinho@iav.uc.pt

TH THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!

http://blog.globalsoilbiodiversity.org/