Quantitative changes in sulphur fractions during Co-composting of pine bark with green plant material

• Autorzy: Jakubus M. , Graczyk M.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Composting pine bark alone and with additives is an interesting alternative to recycling waste as compost. Our study was focused on the exploration of various sulphur fractions (total, plant available, easily mineralisable organic and residual) in four composts during a progressive composting process. Composts used for the study were prepared using Scots pine (Pinus silvestris L.) bark and chopped green plant material (GPM, i.e., a mixture of green parts of buckwheat (Fagopylum esculentum L.), peas (Pisum sativum L.), serradela (Ornithopus perpusillus L.) and vetch (Vicia sativa L.) harvested before flowering). They were prepared according to the scheme: C1 - pine bark, C2 - pine bark mixed with urea (a dose of urea equivalent to 1kg N per 1 m3 of pine bark), C3 – pine bark mixed with GPM (0.5 Mg of GPM per 1 m3 of pine bark) and C4 - pine bark mixed with GPM (3.5 Mg of GPM per 1 m3 of pine bark). The composting process lasted 203 days and comprised 6 stages. It was found that compost prepared from pine bark and green plant material (C4) contained the highest amounts of sulphur and their changes were significant during the composting process. Although it is not routinely applied in such studies, the use of PCA to summarize the influence of composts and stages was found to be a valuable tool. The PCA data proved that with regard to the plant-available sulphur and easily mineralisable organic sulphur, the composting process could be shortened to 80 days with no deterioration of compost quality. Total and residual sulphur contents showed a similar pattern. The amounts of sulphur extracted with CH3COOH and KCl as well as and their changes observed during the composting process were comparable. However, the solution of Kcl may be considered as a more sensitive extractor of sulphur in composts.

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Environmental Studies
• Rocznik: 2019
• Tom: 28
• Numer: 4
• Opis fizyczny: p.2633-2644,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Jakubus M.

• Department of Soil Science and Land Protection, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Poznan, Poland

autor

Graczyk M.

• Department of Mathematical and Statistical Methods, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Poznan, Poland

Bibliografia

• 1. VALENTIN L., KLUCZEK-TURPEINEN B., WILLFOR S., HEMMING J., HATAKKA A., STEFFEN K., TUOMELA M. Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) bark composition and degradation by fungi: Potential substrate for bioremediation. Bioresource Technology, 101, 2203, 2010.
• 2. CHUPIN L., MAUNU S.L., REYNAUD S., PIZZI A., CHARRIER B., BOUHTOURY F.C. Microwave assisted extraction of maritime pine (Pinus pinaster) bark: Impact of particle size and characterization. Industrial Crops and Products, 65, 142, 2015.
• 3. MIRANDA I., GOMINHO J., MIRRA I., PEREIRA H. Chemical characterisation of barks from Picea abies and Pinus sylvestris after fractioning into different particle sizes. Industrial Crops and Products, 36, 395, 2012.
• 4. GU W., ZHANG F., XU P., TANG S., XIE K., HUANG X., HUANG Q. Effects of sulphur and Thoibacillus thioparus on cow manure aerobic composting. Bioresource Technology, 102, 6529, 2011.
• 5. JAKUBUS M. Evaluation of compost by selected chemical and biological methods. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 21 (11a), 3464, 2012.
• 6. JAKUBUS M. Evaluation of maturity and stability parameters of composts prepared with sewage sludge. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 22 (11a), 3398, 2013.
• 7. JAKUBUS M., GRACZYK M. Evaluation of usability of single extractors in chemical analysis of composts at the assistance of principal component analysis. Biometrical Letters, 52 (2), 115, 2015.
• 8. HELLO K.M., MOHAMMAD A., SAGER A. Solid urea sulphate catalyst for hydrolysis of cellulose. Waste Biomass and Valorization, 8, 2630, 2017.
• 9. XIONG X., YAN-XIA L., MING Y., FENG-SONG Z., WEI L. Increase in complexation ability of humic acids with the addition of ligneous bulking agents during sewage sludge composting. Bioresource Technology, 101,9650, 2010.
• 10. MUPAMBWA H.A., LUKASHE N.S., MNKENI S. Sustability of fly ash vermicompost as a component of pine bark growing media: Effects on media physicochemical properties and ornamental marigold (Tagetes ssp) growth and flowering, Compost Science and Utilization, 25 (1), 48, 2017.
• 11. SZULC W., RUTKOWSKA B., SOSULSKI T., SZARA E., STEPIEŃ W. Assessment of sulphur demand of crops under permanent fertilization experiment. Plant, Soil and Environment, 60 (3), 135, 2014.
• 12. KOPRIVA S., CALDERWOOD A., WECKOPP S.C., KOPRIVOVA A. Plant sulphur and big data. Plant Science, 241, 1, 2015.
• 13. BAO Y., GUAN L., ZHOU Q., WANG H., YAN L. Various sulphur fractions changes during different manure composting. Bioresource Technology, 101, 7841, 2010.
• 14. ZAKIKHANI H., YUSOP M.K., HANAFI M.M., OTHMAN R., SOLTANGHEISI A. Sulphur and molybdenum fractionation in marine and reverie alluvium paddy soils, Chemical Speciation and Bioavailability, 28 (1-4), 170, 2016.
• 15. SCHERER H.W., WELP G., FÖRSTER S. Sulphur fractions in particle-size separates as influenced by longterm application of mineral and organic fertilizers. Plant, Soil and Environment, 58, 242, 2012.
• 16. BUCIOR-KWACZYŃSKA A. The possibility of applying the EM- PCA procedure to lake water. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 27 (1), 19, 2017.
• 17. CZEKAŁA J. Changes of the values of selected parameters taking place during composting of pine bark with plants. Journal of Research and Applications in Agricultural Engineering, 57 (3), 41, 2012.
• 18. CZEKAŁA J. Dynamic of changes of carbon and nitrogen compounds in the composting process of pine bark.. Journal of Research and Applications in Agricultural Engineering, 58 (3), 81, 2013.
• 19. BUTTERS B., CHENERY E.M. A rapid method for determination of the total sulphur in soils and plants. Analyst, 84, 239, 1959.
• 20. BARDSLEY C.E, LANCASTER J.D.. Determination of reserve sulfur and soluble sulfates in soils. Soil Society of America Proceedings, 24, 265, 1960.
• 21. BLAIR G.J., LEFROY R.D.B., CHINOIM N., ANDERSON G.C. The development of a soil test for sulphur. Norwegian Journal of Agricultural Science Suppl., 15, 83, 1994.
• 22. LISLE L., LEFROY R., ANDERSON G., BLAIR G. Methods for the measurement of sulphur in plants and soil. Sulphur in Agriculture, 18, 45, 1994.
• 23. ELANDT R. Mathematical statistics for agricultural investigations. Warszawa, Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 595, 1964 [In Polish].
• 24. JOHNSON R.A., Wichern D.W. Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis. Pearson, USA 765, 2012.
• 25. BOX G.E.P., HUNTER J.S., HUNTER W.G. Statistics for Experimenters. USA John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 633, 2005.
• 26. FAHRMEIR L., TUTZ G. Multivariate Statistical Modelling Based on Generalized Linear Models, New York, Springer, 518, 2001.
• 27. HARDLE W., SIMAR L. Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis. New Yok, Springer, 577, 2003.
• 28. SEBER G.A.F. Multivariate Observations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 686, 2004.
• 29. JAKUBUS M. Sulphur in environment. Poznań University of Agriculture. 48, 2006 [In Polish].
• 30. KOPITTKE P.M., DALAL R.C., FINN D, MENZIES N.W. Global changes in soil stocks of carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and sulphur as influenced by long-term agricultural production. Global Change Biology, 23, 2509, 2017.
• 31. GU W., SUN W., LU Y., LI X., XU P., XIE K., SUN L., WU H. Effect of Thiobacillus tioparus 1904 and sulphur addition on odour emission during aerobic composting. Bioresource Technology, 249, 254, 2018.
• 32. BARDHOD J., RUMPEL C., DIGNAC M.-F. Composting with additives to improve organic amendments. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 38, 17, 2018.
• 33. TABATABAI M.A. Sulfur. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 3. Chemical Methods-SSSA Book series No. 5. Soil Science of America and American Society of Agronomy, USA, 48, 1996.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.15244/pjoes/92127