Next Article in Journal
Evaluating Indoor Air Phthalates and Volatile Organic Compounds in Nail Salons in the Greater New York City Area: A Pilot Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Closing the Nutrient Loop—The New Approaches to Recovering Biomass Minerals during the Biorefinery Processes
Previous Article in Journal
Ecosystem Health Responses of Urban Agglomerations in Central Yunnan Based on Land Use Change
Previous Article in Special Issue
Determining Optimal Temperature Combination for Effective Pretreatment and Anaerobic Digestion of Corn Stalk
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 19
10.3390/ijerph191912405
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Evaluation of the Impact of Activated Biochar-Manure Compost Pellet Fertilizer on Volatile Organic Compound Emissions and Heavy Metal Saturation

by
Minsoo Kim
1,
Changyoon Jeong
2,*,
Minjeong Kim
3,
Joohee Nam
4,
Changki Shim
4 and
Joungdu Shin
5,*
1
Department of Environmental Engineering, University of Seoul, Seoul 02504, Korea
2
Red River Research Station, Agricultural Center, Louisiana State University, 262 Research Station Driver, Bossier City, LA 7112, USA
3
Organic Agriculture Division, National Institute of Agricultural Science, Wanjugun 55365, Korea
4
Eco-Friendly Environment & Microorganism Research Institute, Gyeonggi-Do Agricultural Research & Extension Services, Wanjugun 55365, Korea
5
Bio-Technology of Multidisciplinary Sciences, Co., 204 Ho JBTP R&D Center, 224 Wanjusan 6 Ro, Bondonggeup, Wanjugun 55315, Korea
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(19), 12405; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912405
Submission received: 22 August 2022 / Revised: 26 September 2022 / Accepted: 28 September 2022 / Published: 29 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Agriculture Waste Resource Treatment Technology)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
For this experiment, pelletized activated biochar made of rice hullsor palm bark with swine manure compost was prepared to demonstrate the significant benefits of applying activated biochar-manure compost pellet fertilizer (ABMCP) inmitigating volatile organic compounds (VOCs), odor emission, and heavy metal saturation. Morphology and surface area analysis indicated that the activated rice hull biochar-manure compost pellet (ARP) had a significantly lower surface area, porous volume, and Fe content the activated palm biochar-manure compost pellet (APP). However, the ARP presented great potential to mitigate VOCs and odorant emissions. Our results indicated that the ARP reduced total reduced sulfur (TRS) and volatile fatty acids (VFAs) emissions by 69% and 93%, respectively. Heavy metals such as Pb, As, and Cd were not detected in the leachates fromthe ARP, APP, and swine manure compost. These results suggest that ABMCP can be a potential adsorbent to control VOCs and odorant emissions andpromote sustainable swine manure management and agricultural application.

1. Introduction

Swine manure compost contains a large amount of nitrogen (e.g., ammonia and amines), phosphorous (e.g., phosphoric acid), potassium (e.g., K2O), and various other trace substances, which are essential nutrients for crop growth. Therefore, applying manure compost to croplands increases soil fertility and crop productivity [1]. However, most of the swine manure in South Korea is not directly applied in farmland but converted into manure compost or liquid fertilizer [2]. In Japan, over 90% of swine manure is transformed into manure compost [3]. Composting is the most common stable and efficient treatment of animal waste including swine manure [4]. However, the composting of swine manure or its land application is generally not favored by the public due to the emission of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) associated with foul odors during the composting process and land application of composted products [4]. A variety of odor-causing substances such as ammonia, amines, organic acids such as propionic acid and butyric acid, and reduced sulfur compounds are the most common compounds released during the process of manure composting [5,6,7]. These odorous substances and VOCs affect the environment and create economic problems [8,9]. Especially severe incidences of VOCs or odor emission compounds have resulted in the closure of a composting facility and aban on manure composting [10]. More than 300 potential odorous VOCs are released from swine manure and facilities [11,12], and VOCs are a significant class of odorous compounds consisting of reduced sulfur compounds, volatile fatty acids (VFAs), phenols, indoles, amines, inorganic ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide. Although the detected VOC concentrations are under the odor detection threshold during the manure composting process, both organic and inorganic sulfides, indoles, and phenols are major compounds that contribute to odorous emissions [13].
Apart from VOCs and odor-causing substances, an additional limiting factor in using manure compost is the concentration of heavy metals [14]. Several studies presented that the long-term application of swine manure increased the concentrations of heavy metals such as cadmium, copper, and zinc in soil [15,16,17]. When fertilizers with swine manure compost were applied to soil, heavy metals accumulated in croplands, affecting soil health and food safety in cereal crop production [18]. Ultimately, the accumulation of heavy metals in agricultural soils not only pollutes the agroecosystem but may also have adverse effects on human health.
Biochar, a well-known highly porous organic material with a heterogenous surface, is produced via slow pyrolysis of biomass at relatively high temperatures without or with limited oxygen. Three main structural factors affect the adsorption characteristics of activated biochar, namely surface area, functional groups, and iron oxide content. After activation with KOH, the aromatic, hydrophobic, and non-polar properties of the biochar enhance to form an aromatized non-polar surface, and the aromatic properties are enhanced by increasing the pyrolysis temperature. The external surface of activated biochar is similar to the shape of a porous sponge with a mesoporous–microporous structure [19]. Several studies have used activated carbon to control the VOC emissions and odor removal from the air and improve water pollution [20]. Due to its large surface area and porosity driven by its physicochemical properties and surface chemistry, activated biochar has previously been adapted to mitigate VOCs and odorant emissions [21]. Biochar can decrease VOCs by more than 50% based on surface adsorption and reduce heavy metals such as Pb, Ni, Cu, Zn, As, Cr, and Cd [22]. Zhang et al. reported that biochar’s removal capacity of VOCs declined with increasing pyrolysis temperature, and both surface area and residual organic matter content play a key role in controlling the sorption capacities [23]. A few studies have documented that activated biochar can hold nutrients for extended periods and release nutrients slowly, controlling the transport of various pollutants in water and the atmosphere [24,25,26,27]. There is a limited number of studies on mitigating VOC emissions and heavy metal saturation (leaching) with the application of the pelletized activated biochar blended with manure in soils. Sessa et al. reported that pine-bark-based biochar significantly increased the adsorption of CO2 and toluene as model VOCs due to the derived microstructure, such as increased BET-specific surface [28]. Among the chemically activated biochar, the variety activated with K2CO3 exhibited the highest holding capacity. Activated biochar-manure compost pellet fertilizer (ABMCP) is defined as pelletized activated biochar based on rice hulls or palm bark combined with swine manure compost and supplemented with major nutrients.
In this study, we evaluated the impacts of two ABMCP on VOC emissions, various odorants, and heavy metals leaching soils. It is hypothesized that applying ABMCP mitigates the potential emissions of VOCs, TRS, and VFAs and reduces heavy metal contaminations in the soils.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Preparation of the ABMCP

In this study, we used different feedstocks to produce two varieties of biochar: activated rice hull biochar and palm biochar. Rice hull and swine manure compost was obtained from a cooperative agricultural union in Korea. Commercially available activated palm biochar was purchased from U-Gi Industry Co., GoChang, Jeon Buk, Republic of Korea. The activated rice hull biochar was prepared from rice hull biochar treated with 6 M KOH (1:2 ratios, 6 M KOH/biochar) through a pyrolysis process at 800 °C for 3 h in the absence of air. The materials were pelletized by mixing each activated biochar with swine manure compost in the 4:6 ratios reported earlier [29,30].
Fertilizers were mixed with the activated rice hull biochar-manure compost and the activated palm biochar-manure compost during the pelletizing process to prepare slow-release fertilizer. The characteristics of the materials are summarized in Table 1. The two types of ABMCP showed variation in their C, H, O, N, and S contents before and after mixing in swine manure compost. The N contents of the activated rice hull biochar-manure compost pellet (ARP) and the activated palm biochar-manure compost pellet (APP) exceeded 8–9% of total nitrogen content compared to rice hull biochar, swine manure compost, activated rice hull biochar, and activated palm biochar because of the supplemented nutrients.

2.2. Experimental Setup, Odor, and VOC Analysis

A diagram of the experimental setup to capture and concentrate the odorants from swine manure compost is provided in Figure 1. Swine manure compost and two types of ABMCP (20 g each) were placed individually in 0.2 L glass reactors. In each reactor, the moisture content was maintained at 30–35% (w/w). Air was flown at 16 mL min−1 through the headspace above samples in each glass reactor to release the odorants from the composting material. The air flushing was initiated one hour before taking each gas sample.
The VFAs emitted from each sample were extracted by exposing an 85 µm polyacrylate-coated solid-phase micro-extraction (SPME) fiber in the headspace of the reactor for 1 h. Then, the exposed SPME fibers were directly injected into the input port of a gas chromatography device equipped with a flame ionization detector (Shimadzu Scientific Instrument, GC-2010, Kyoto, Japan) for quantity analysis. The odorants extracted from the headspace using the SPME fiber and quantified cation were conducted via the gas chromatography device equipped with the flame ionized detector GC (FID). The dry air gas standards were produced by a permeation chamber in which base gas was flownover a tube with a known flow rate of 72 mL min−1 for the calibration. A detailed description of the SPME fiber calibration process was described by Kim et al. [31].
In addition, other odorous substances were analyzed by connecting the instrument to a flow meter. Sulfur-based odorous substances were monitored using the total reduced sulfur (TRS) analyzer (Teledyne Model 102E, Teledyne API, San Diego, CA, USA), and nitrogen oxide (N2O) was measured with the N2O analyzer (Teledyne Model T320U, Teledyne API, San Diego, CA, USA). VOC emissions were also detected with a portable VOC analyzer (ppbRAE 3000, RAE System, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA). The laboratory temperature was maintained at 20 ± 2 °C during the experiment. The measured TRS, VOCs, and N2O values were evaluated by comparing the emission flux values (J) calculated from the following Equation (1).
Mass balance equation: QinCin + JA = QoutCout
where Qin and Qout are the influent and effluent gas flow rates (mL min−1). Cin and Cout are the influent and effluent gas concentration (mL m−3). J is the emission flux (L min−1), and A is the surface area (cm2).
Since the influent gas (Cin) used high-purity nitrogen, the measures of TRS, VOCs, and N2O were close to zero (Cin ≈ 0 mL m−3). Thus, the amount of influent and effluent gas was the same (Qin = Qout). It was calculated by simplifying as shown in Equation (2).
J = QoutCout/A

2.3. Biochar Characteristics and Elemental Composition

The surface morphology of the ABMCP was analyzed by the field emission scanning electron microscope (FE-SEM, Hitachi, SU8010, Tokyo, Japan). Biochar-manure compost pellets were held on an adhesive carbon tape on an aluminum stub followed by sputter coating with gold prior to viewing. Elemental composition analysis of the biochar powders and pellets was carried out via X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy (XRF, S2 Ranger, Bruker AXS GmbH, Karlsruhe, Germany). The N2adsorption–desorption isotherm measurements of the materials were analyzed with a Micromeritics sorption analyzer (Tristar II 3020, Micromeritics Instrument Corporation, Norcross, GA, USA) using N2 gas at −196.15 °C. Prior to the measurements, the samples were degassed at 299.85 °C under vacuum. The surface area and pore volume were calculated using the Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) and the Barrett–Joyner–Halenda (BJH) equations, respectively.

2.4. Analysis of Heavy Metals in the Leachates

A cylindrical plastic reactor (1L) was used for the heavy metal elution test. The reactor has several 5 mm diameter holes to allow water to leach out from the bottom. Twenty grams of ABMCP and swine manure compost were weighed and put into the reactor, and 100 mL of deionized water was passed through the reactor once a week. The collected leachate from the reactor passed through a 0.2 µm syringe filter (Advantech Toyo Kaisha, Ltd., Cellulose Acetate Membrane Filter, Tokyo, Japan) to remove the suspended matter from leachate samples. The filtered water samples were treated with acid for further analysis. Concentrations of the heavy metals were measured using an inductively coupled plasma–atomic emission spectrometer (ICP-AES, ICPE-9800, Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan). Ten different heavy metals (As, Ca, Cd, Cu, Fe, K, Ni, Pb, Si, and Zn) were measured.

2.5. Statistical Analysis of Data

The experiment had a completely randomized design with 3 replications. The data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) using SAS version 9.0 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC, USA). The least significant difference (LSD, p < 0.05) test was applied to assess the differences among the means. All data were represented as standard deviation.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Characteristics of the ABMCP

The measured hydrogen/carbon (H/C) ratios were 0.105 in the ARP and 0.104 in the APP, respectively (Table 1). These biochar materials satisfied the criterion that H/C values must beless than 0.7 to be considered biochar according to standards provided by the International Biochar Initiative [32]. Aromatic ratios such as H/C and oxygen/carbon (O/C) ratios indicate the structural transformations [33] and surface hydrophilicity of biochar [34], such as the greater extent of functional groups containing O and H. H/C and O/C ratios are used in biochar classification to estimate the stability of biochar in soil, which is an international standard to calculate the carbon sequestration potential. The AMBCPs were suitable materials for soil carbon sequestration.
Surface area and porosity are essential parameters for the physical properties of biochar, and they play a crucial role in many biochar applications, especially for environmental remediation purposes. The surface morphology of the ABMCP made of rice hulls and palm bark are shown in Figure 2. There were apparent differences between the ARP and APP. The surface of the APP made of palm bark was more heterogeneous than the surface of the ARP from rice hulls. The ARP consisted of small particles and was smother, whereas the APP had an irregular shape. The surface structure of the ARP is more orderly, with smaller flakes than that of the APP. This difference is due to the different feeding stocks. Thus, the odorous substances and chemicals are exposed to relatively higher contact areas in the ARP compared to the APP.
The elemental XRF analysis confirmed that the carbon and potassium contents in the activated rice hull biochar increased up to 17.2% and 77.8%, respectively, compared with those of the rice hull biochar (Table 1 and Table 2). This may be attributed to the 6 M KOH treatment process for chemical activation. The elemental composition in ABMCP were Ca > K > Fe > Cl, which accounted for ~90% of the total elemental content (Table 2). The BET surface area of the APP was nearly 2.4 times higher compared with that of the ARP, indicating potentially less odor emission in the APP compared with the holding capacity of the ARP.
The N2 adsorption–desorption isotherms for the used materials are shown in Figure 3. The specific surface area, pore volume, and average pore size are summarized in Table 3. The surface area of the APP was seven times greater than that of the surface area of the ARP (Figure 3 and Table 3). In addition, the pore volume of activated palm biochar was nearly 3.5 times greater than that of the rice hull biochar observed in the FE-SEM image. In contrast to the above parameters, the APP’s average pore size was half the ARP’s. This indicates the larger surface area and implies that the APP shows higher potential to reduce odor emission compared to the ARP. However, the measured TRS and N2O emissions were not in agreement with the analyzed physical parameters (Figure 4). This may be due to the contribution of different physicochemical properties in the studied biochar.
The pores can be divided into nanopores (pore diameter < 0.9 nm), micropores (0.9 nm < pore diameter < 2 nm), and macropores (pore diameter > 50 nm). Generally, the surface area and total pore volume of biochar are commonly distributed within the ranges of 8 to 132 m2 g−1 and 0.016 to 0.083 cm3 g−1, respectively [35]. When a suitable precursor and preferable pyrolysis parameters are selected, the surface area and total pore volume of biochar can reach up to 490.8 m2 g−1 [36] and 0.25 cm3 g−1, respectively [37]. The measured surface areas from the activated rice hull biochar and palm biochar were 206.0 and 720.7 m2 g−1, and total pore volumes were 0.163 and 0.578 cm3 g−1, respectively (Table 3). This indicated that the ARP and APP were significantly improved in the distribution of pore sizes and morphological structure. The capability of the ARP and APP to adsorb VOCs and heavy metals was significantly enhanced via the activation process. The activated biochar enhanced cation exchange capacity, water holding capacity, and adsorption capacity, which increased due to the improved surface area and porosity [38].

3.2. Impacts of the ABMCP on Odor Emission of TRS and N2O

The average emission of TRS was 54.0 m3 m−2 h−1 in ARP treatment and 65.6 m3 m−2 h−1 in APP treatment compared with 159.0 m3 m−2 h−1 in the control (Figure 4). This suggests that the generation of sulfur-based odorous substances such as H2S and CS2 (carbon disulfide) from swine manure compost can be reduced by ARP and APP application. In addition, the reduction inN2O emission was more significant in the ARP treatment than in the APP treatment. The ARP also shows a high removal efficiency in N2O emission from swine manure compost. N2O emissions from the ARP and the APP treatments were 2.9 and 3.9 compared to 34.1 m3 m−2 h−1 from the control, with the average removal efficiency of 85% in ARP treatment and 79% in APP treatment (Figure 4).
Many studies on H2S adsorption using activated carbon (AC) have been performed because AC effectively decreases odor emissions under different environmental conditions [39,40]. Much research has been carried out on the use of biochar derived from agricultural byproducts in mitigating environmental pollutants [41,42]; however, limited information is available on biochar with H2S sorption and its binding mechanisms.
Adding 10% biochar reduced NH3, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and total volatile organic compounds (TVOCs) contents by 20.04%, 16.18%, and 17.55%, respectively, and decreased the N loss rate by 8.27% compared to the control [43]. Previous studies have shown that biochar powder reduced the H2S and NH3 emissions compared to the pelletized form [44]. Plant-biomass-based biochar made from materials such as oak and coconut shells had considerably greater sorption capacity for dimethyl disulfide and dimethyl trisulfide than livestock-manure-based biochar [45]. Shang et al. also concluded that the removal capacity of H2S in rice-hull biochar was greater than in camphor biochar and bamboo biochar [46]. Similarly, our results showed that the removal efficiency of the ARP in total reduced sulfur (TRS) was 9% higher than the removal efficiency of the APP (60%) in this study.

3.3. Impacts of the ABMCP on VFAs Concentration and VOC Emission

Activated biochar with manure pellets is a potential cost-effective option to mitigate VOCs. The results of VOC emission showed that the average flux with ARP and APP treatments were 1233.7 and 1579.4 m3 m−2 h−1, respectively (Figure 5). This indicates that VOC emission with ARP treatment was about 21.9% less than that of the APP treatment. This indicates that the adsorption capacity of produced biochar entirely depends on the characteristics of feedstocks. Zhang et al. indicated that VOC sorption capacity from various types of biochar ranged from 5.58 to 91.2 mg g−1 [23]. Furthermore, it was reported that the effect of applied biochar in a vineyard was sustained for seven years according to measured soil functionality in a long-term field experiment [47].
The removal efficiency of volatile fatty acids (VFAs) concentration in ARP and APP treatments was93% and 88%, respectively (Figure 5). We note that the ARP seems to exhibit higher efficiency for the removal of VFAs compared to the removal efficiency of APP treatment. Duran et al. reported that the elevated biochar application rate reduced lower quantities of VFAs and other odors [48]. The 10% bamboo biochar (BB) amendment showed the stimulation of microbial activities that accelerated organic waste degradation and reduced VFAs and odor emission [23]. Awasthi et al. also presented that biochar application addition reduced the maximum VFA accumulations during wheat-straw biosolid composting [49].

3.4. Reduction in Heavy Metals from the Leachates through ABMCP Saturation

The application of ABMCP in cropland was used to evaluate the potential heavy metal contaminations in the agro-environmental system. As, Cd, and Pb were not detected in the leachates from swine manure compost, ARP, or APP treatment (Table 4). The high ratio of XRF analysis confirmed that Ca, K, Fe, and Si concentrations increased in the leachates from APP treatment compared to those from swine manure compost. On the other hand, micronutrients such as Ca and Fe concentrations in the leachates from ARP treatment were lower than those from APP treatment. However, these detected heavy metal contents were below the standard values in regulation provided in the Soil Environment Conservation Act [50] and Waste Control Act [51]. We conclude that ARP treatment demonstrated enhanced capabilities in controlling VOC emissions and heavy metal saturation.

4. Conclusions

In this study, odor and VOC emission were evaluated during the incubation of the ARP and APP. Although the ARP had lower surface area, pore volume, and sulfur content, it was highly effective in reducing odorants emission from swine manure compost and outperformed the APP. Overall, the average TRS and N2O flux from swine manure compost was 159.0 and 34.1 m3 m−2 h−1, respectively. The average removal efficiency of N2O was85% in the ARP and 79% in the APP treatments. The average VFA emission was 9 mg kg−1 from swine manure compost treatment. The TRS and VFA emissions were reduced by 69% and 93%, respectively, with ARP treatment, and by 60% and 88% with APP treatment. Heavy metals such as, Cd, and Pb were not detected in the leachates from swine manure compost and ABMCP treatments. These results confirm that ABMCP, especially that made of activated rice hull biochar, shows great potential for improving odor management in the animal manure compost industry and sustainable agricultural environment. The potential effects of ABMCP in the field, especially for the mitigation of VOCs, odor emission, and the retention of heavy metals in the soil, require further investigation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.S.; investigation, M.K. (Minsoo Kim); writing—original draft preparation, M.K. (Minsoo Kim); writing—review and editing, C.J.; visualization, J.N.; project administration, M.K. (Minjeong Kim); funding acquisition, C.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research is funded by the Research Program of the National Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea (project no. PJ017058032022).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We are thankful to the National Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Rural Development Administration.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Kang, T.W.; Halder, J.N.; Kim, S.; Yoon, Y.; Lee, M. Nutrient Composition and Heavy Metal Contents of Matured Livestock Liquid Fertilizer in Korea. J. Korea Org. Resour. Recycl. Assoc. 2017, 25, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Lee, J.H.; Febrisiantosa, A. Improvement of nitrogen balance (land budget) in South Korea in terms of livestock manure: A review. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 462, 012011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Yuan, T.; Huang, W.; Lei, Z.; Zhao, Z.; Zhang, Z. Effects of different alkalis on hydrolysis of swine manure during dry anaerobic digestion and resultant nutrients availability. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2017, 123, 138–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zang, B.; Li, S.; Michel, F.C.; Li, G.; Zhang, D.; Li, Y. Control of dimethyl sulfide and dimethyl disulfide odors during pig manure composting using nitrogen amendment. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 224, 419–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Tsai, C.J.; Chen, M.L.; Ye, A.D.; Chou, M.S.; Shen, S.H.; Mao, I.F. The relationship of odor concentration and the critical components emitted from food waste composting plants. Atmos. Environ. 2008, 42, 8246–8251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Maulii-Duran, C.; Artola, A.; Font, X.; Sánchez, A. A systematic study of the gaseous emissions from biosolids composting: Raw sludge versus anaerobically digested sludge. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 147, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hansen, M.; Kasper, P.; Adamsen, A.; Feilberg, A. Key Odorants from Pig Production Based on Improved Measurements of Odor Threshold Values Combining Olfactometry and Proton-Transfer-Reaction Mass Spectrometry (PTR-MS). Sensors 2018, 18, 788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lee, S.W.; Daud, W.M.A.W.; Lee, M.G. Adsorption characteristics of methyl mercaptan, dimethyl disulfide, and trimethylamine on coconut-based activated carbons modified with acid and base. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2010, 16, 973–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zhao, S.; Yi, H.; Tang, X.; Gao, F.; Zhang, B.; Wang, Z.; Zuo, Y. Methyl mercaptan removal from gas streams using metal-modified activated carbon. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 87, 856–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Blazy, V.; de Guardia, A.; Benoist, J.C.; Daumoin, M.; Lemasle, M.; Wolbert, D.; Barrington, S. Odorous gaseous emissions as influence by process condition for the forced aeration composting of pig slaughterhouse sludge. Waste Manag. 2014, 34, 1125–1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lo, Y.C.M.; Koziel, J.A.; Cai, L.; Hoff, S.J.; Jenks, W.S.; Xin, H. Simultaneous chemical sensory characterization of volatile organic compounds and sim-volatile organic compounds emitted from swine manure using solid phase microextraction and multidimensional gas chromatography-mass spectrometry-olfactometry. J. Environ. Qual. 2008, 37, 521–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Schiffman, S.S.; Bennett, J.L.; Raymer, J.H. Quantification of odors and odorants from swine operations in North Carolina. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2001, 108, 213–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Parker, D.B.; Gilley, J.; Woodbury, B.; Kim, K.H.; Galvin, G.; Bartelt-Hunt, S.L.; Li, X.; Snow, D.D. Odorous VOC emission following land application of swine manure slurry. Atmos. Environ. 2013, 66, 91–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wang, W.; Zhang, W.; Wang, X.; Lei, C.; Tang, R.; Zhang, F.; Yang, Q.; Zhu, F. Tracing heavy metals in ‘swine manure-maggot-chicken’ production chain. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 8417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zhou, S.; Liu, J.; Xu, M.; Lv, J.; Sun, N. Accumulation, availability, and uptake of heavy metals in a red soil after 22-year fertilization and cropping. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 15154–15163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Guan, D.X.; Sun, F.S.; Yu, G.H.; Polizzotto, M.L.; Liu, Y.G. Total and available metal concentrations in soils from six long-term fertilization sites across China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 31666–31678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Guo, T.; Lou, C.; Zhai, W.; Tang, X.; Hashmi, M.Z.; Murtaza, R.; Li, Y.; Liu, X.; Xu, J. Increased occurrence of heavy metals, antibiotics and resistance genes in surface soil after long-term application of manure. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 635, 995–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Qaswar, M.; Yiren, L.; Jing, H.; Kaillou, L.; Mudasir, M.; Zhenzhen, L.; Hongqian, H.; Xianjin, L.; Jianhua, J.; Ahmed, W.; et al. Soil nutrients and heavy metal availability under long-term combined application of swine manure and synthetic fertilizers in acidic paddy soil. J. Soils Sediments 2020, 20, 2093–2106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zhu, L.; Zhao, N.; Tong, L.; Lv, Y. Structural and adsorption characteristics of potassium carbonate activated biochar. RCS Adv. 2018, 8, 21012–21019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Inyang, M.; Dickenson, E. The potential role of biochar in the removal of organic and microbial contaminants from potable and reuse water: A review. Chemosphere 2015, 134, 232–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Le-Minh, N.; Sivret, E.C.; Shammay, A.; Stuetz, R.M. Factors affecting the adsorption of gaseous environmental odors by activated carbon: A critical review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 48, 341–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Nguyen, M.K.; Lin, C.; Hoang, H.G.; Sanderson, P.; Dang, B.T.; Bui, X.T.; Nguyen, N.H.; Vo, D.N.; Tran, H.T. Evaluate the role of biochar during the organic waste composting process: A critical review. Chemosphere 2022, 229, 134488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Zhang, X.; Gao, B.; Zheng, Y.; Hu, X.; Creamer, A.E.; Annable, M.D.; Li, Y. Biochar for volatile organic compound (VOC) removal: Sorption performance and governing mechanisms. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 245, 606–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Dari, B.; Nair, V.D.; Harris, W.G.; Nair, P.K.R.; Sollenberger, L.; Mylavarapu, R. Relative influence of soil-vs. biochar properties on soil phosphorus retention. Geoderma 2016, 280, 82–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Pourhashem, G.; Rasool, Q.Z.; Zhang, R.; Medlock, K.B.; Cohan, D.S.; Masiello, C.A. Valuing the air quality effects of biochar reductions on soil NO emissions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 9856–9863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Sizmur, T.; Fresno, T.; Akgül, G.; Frost, H.; Moreno-Jiménez, E. Biochar modification to enhance sorption of inorganics from water. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 246, 34–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Yuan, P.; Wang, J.; Pan, Y.; Shen, B.; Wu, C. Review of biochar for the management of contaminated soil: Preparation, application and prospect. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 659, 473–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kim, H.; Yun, S.; An, N.; Shin, J. Effect of KOH concentrations and pyrolysis temperatures for enhancing NH4-N adsorption capacity of rice hull activated biochar. Korean J. Environ. Agric. 2020, 39, 171–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sessa, F.; Merlin, G.; Ganu, P. Pine bark valorization by activated carbons production due to be used as VOCs adsorbents. Fuel 2002, 318, 123346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Shin, J.; Choi, E.; Jang, E.; Hong, S.; Lee, S.; Ravindran, B. Adsorption characteristics of ammonium nitrogen and plant responses to biochar pellet. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Kim, H.; Nochetto, C.; McConnell, L.L. Gas-phase analysis of trimethylamine, propionic and butyric acids, and sulfur compounds using solid-phase microextraction. Anal. Chem. 2002, 74, 1054–1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Klasason, K.T. Biochar characterization and a method for estimating biochar quality from proximate analysis results. Biomass Bioenergy 2017, 96, 50–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wang, X.; Zhou, W.; Liang, G.; Song, D.; Zhang, X. Characteristics of maize biochar with different pyrolysis temperatures and its effects on organic carbon, nitrogen and enzymatic activities after addition to fluvo-aquic soil. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 538, 137–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Tan, X.; Liu, Y.; Zeng, G.; Wang, X.; Hu, X.; Gu, Y.; Yang, Z. Application of biochar for the removal of pollutants from aqueous solutions. Chemosphere 2015, 125, 70–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Leng, L.; Xiong, Q.; Yang, L.; Li, H.; Zhou, Y.; Zhang, W.; Jiang, S.; Li, H.; Huang, H. An overview on engineering the surface area and porosity of biochar. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 763, 144204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Chen, B.; Zhou, D.; Zhu, L. Transitional adsorption and partition of nonpolar and polar aromatic contaminants by biochars of pine needles with different pyrolytic temperatures. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 5137–5143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Yang, H.; Huan, B.; Chen, Y.; Gao, Y.; Li, J.; Chen, H. Biomass-based Pyrolytic Poly generation system for bamboo industry waste: Evolution of the char structure and the pyrolysis mechanism. Energy Fuels 2016, 30, 6430–6439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Weber, K.; Quicker, P. Properties of biochar. Fuel 2018, 217, 240–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bagreev, A.; Bandosz, T.J. Study of hydrogen sulfide adsorption on activated carbons using inverse gas chromatography at infinite dilution. J. Chem. Phys. B 2000, 104, 8841–8847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bashkova, S.; Armstrong, T.R.; Schwartz, V. Selective catalytic oxidation of hydrogen sulfide on activated carbons impregnated with sodium hydroxide. Energy Fuels 2009, 23, 1674–1682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Chun, Y.; Sheng, G.; Chiou, C.T.; Xing, B. Compositions and sorptive properties of crop residue-derived chars. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 4649–4655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Inyang, M.; Gao, B.; Yao, Y.; Xue, Y.; Zimmerman, A.R.; Pullammanappallil, P.; Cao, X. Removal of heavy metals from aqueous solution by biochars derived from anaerobically digested biomass. Bioresour. Technol. 2012, 110, 50–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Li, Y.; Ma, J.; Yong, X.; Luo, L.; Wong, J.W.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, H.; Zhou, J. Effect of biochar combined with a biotrickling filter on deodorization, nitrogen retention, and microbial community succession during chicken manure composting. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 343, 126137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Chen, B.; Koziel, J.A.; Lee, M.; O’Brien, S.C.; Li, P.; Brown, R.C. Mitigation of acute hydrogen sulfide and ammonia emissions from swine manure during three-hour agitation using pelletized biochar. Atmosphere 2021, 12, 825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hwang, O.; Lee, S.R.; Cho, S.; Ro, K.S.; Spiehs, M.; Woodbury, B.; Silva, P.J.; Han, D.W.; Choi, H.; Kim, K.Y.; et al. Efficacy of different biochars in removing odorous volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted from swine manure. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2018, 6, 14239–14247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Shang, G.; Li, Q.; Liu, L.; Chen, P.; Huang, X. Adsorption of hydrogen sulfide by biochars derived from pyrolysis of different agricultural/forestry wastes. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2016, 66, 8–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Giagnoni, L.; Maienza, A.; Baronti, S.; Vaccari, F.P.; Genesio, L.; Taiti, C.; Martellini, T.; Scodellini, R.; Cincinelli, A.; Costa, C.; et al. Long-term soil biological fertility, volatile organic compounds and chemical properties in a vineyard soil after biochar amendment. Geoderma 2019, 344, 127–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Duan, Y.; Awasthi, S.K.; Liu, T.; Zhang, Z.; Awasthi, M.K. Response of bamboo biochar amendment on volatile fatty acids accumulation reduction and humification during chicken manure composting. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 291, 121845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Awasthi, M.K.; Awasthi, S.K.; Wang, Q.; Wang, Z.; Lahori, A.H.; Ren, X.; Chen, H.; Wang, M.; Zhao, J.; Zhang, Z. Influence of biochar on volatile fatty acids accumulation and microbial community succession during biosolids composting. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 251, 158–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Korea Ministry of Environment. Soil Environment Conservation Act; Act No. 15102; Korea Ministry of Environment: Sejong City, Korea, 2017.
  51. Korea Ministry of Environment. Wastes Control Act; Act No. 15103; Korea Ministry of Environment: Sejong City, Korea, 2018.
Ijerph 19 12405 g001 550
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the set of the experiments: (a) reactor for VFAs, TRS, VOCs, and N2O analysis; (b) reactor for heavy metals in the leachates.
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the set of the experiments: (a) reactor for VFAs, TRS, VOCs, and N2O analysis; (b) reactor for heavy metals in the leachates.
Ijerph 19 12405 g001
Ijerph 19 12405 g002 550
Figure 2. FE-SEM images of the activated biochar-manure compost pellets made of (a) rice hulls (ARP); (b) palm bark (APP).
Figure 2. FE-SEM images of the activated biochar-manure compost pellets made of (a) rice hulls (ARP); (b) palm bark (APP).
Ijerph 19 12405 g002
Ijerph 19 12405 g003 550
Figure 3. N2adsorption–desorption isotherm of the different types of used materials. ARP: activated rice hull biochar-manure compost pellet. APP: activated palm biochar-manure compost pellet.
Figure 3. N2adsorption–desorption isotherm of the different types of used materials. ARP: activated rice hull biochar-manure compost pellet. APP: activated palm biochar-manure compost pellet.
Ijerph 19 12405 g003
Ijerph 19 12405 g004 550
Figure 4. Total reduced sulfur (TRS) and N2O flux from swine manure compost and ABMCP. Error bars indicate standard error. ARP: activated rice hull biochar-manure compost pellet. APP: activated palm biochar-manure compost pellet.
Figure 4. Total reduced sulfur (TRS) and N2O flux from swine manure compost and ABMCP. Error bars indicate standard error. ARP: activated rice hull biochar-manure compost pellet. APP: activated palm biochar-manure compost pellet.
Ijerph 19 12405 g004
Ijerph 19 12405 g005 550
Figure 5. Volatile organic compound (VOC) flux and volatile fatty acids (VFAs) concentration from swine manure compost, ARP, and APP. Error bars indicate standard error. ARP: activated rice hull biochar-manure compost pellet. APP: activated palm biochar-manure compost pellet.
Figure 5. Volatile organic compound (VOC) flux and volatile fatty acids (VFAs) concentration from swine manure compost, ARP, and APP. Error bars indicate standard error. ARP: activated rice hull biochar-manure compost pellet. APP: activated palm biochar-manure compost pellet.
Ijerph 19 12405 g005
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of rice hull biochar, activated rice hull biochar, activated palm biochar, and their manure compost pellet materials.
Table 1. Characteristics of rice hull biochar, activated rice hull biochar, activated palm biochar, and their manure compost pellet materials.
MaterialsRice Hull Biochar
(%)		Activated Rice Hull Biochar
(%)		Activated Palm Biochar
(%)		Swine Manure Compost
(%)		ARP 1
(%)		APP 2
(%)
C44.361.574.318.832.537.6
H1.11.21.06.43.43.9
O8.910.77.619.122.024.6
N0.60.31.00.59.48.1
SN.D. 3N.D.1.30.60.70.7
Others45.126.314.854.632.025.1
1 ARP: activated rice hull biochar-manure compost pellet. 2 APP: activated palm biochar-manure compost pellet. 3 N.D.: not detected.
Table
Table 2. XRF result of rice hull biochar, activated rice hull biochar, activated palm biochar, and their manure compost pellet materials.
Table 2. XRF result of rice hull biochar, activated rice hull biochar, activated palm biochar, and their manure compost pellet materials.
MaterialsRice Hull Biochar
(%)		Activated Rice Hull Biochar
(%)		Activated Palm Biochar
(%)		ARP 1
(%)		APP 2
(%)
Calcium (Ca)10.16.228.749.639.3
Potassium (K)18.877.82.629.427.0
Iron (Fe)1.51.935.97.016.9
Chlorine (Cl)N.D.N.D.N.D.8.29.9
Silicon (Si)64.912.315.72.31.4
Sulfur (S)0.7N.D.7.9N.D.1.2
Phosphorus (P)0.6N.D.N.D.1.11.2
Manganese (Mn)3.01.21.7N.D.N.D.
Titanium (Ti)N.D. 3N.D.4.6N.D.N.D.
Others0.40.62.92.43.1
1 ARP: activated rice hull biochar-manure compost pellet. 2 APP: activated palm biochar-manure compost pellet. 3 N.D.: not detected.
Table
Table 3. BET result of rice hull biochar, activated rice hull biochar, activated palm biochar, and their manure-compost pellet materials.
Table 3. BET result of rice hull biochar, activated rice hull biochar, activated palm biochar, and their manure-compost pellet materials.
CharacteristicsRice Hull BiocharActivated Rice Hull BiocharActivated Palm BiocharARP 1APP 2
BET Surface Area
(m2 g−1)		54.8 ± 1.07206.0 ± 2.35720.7 ± 2.3212.8 ± 0.0192.3 ± 0.36
Total pore volume
(at BJH desorption)
(cm2 g−1)		0.0307 ± 0.0050.163 ± 0.0110.578 ± 0.0020.0454 ± 0.0040.109 ± 0.02
Average pore size
(at BJH desorption)
(nm)		2.24 ± 0.033.17 ± 0.043.21 ± 0.0110.6 ± 0.255.01 ± 0.15
1 ARP: activated rice hull biochar-manure compost pellet. 2 APP: activated palm biochar-manure compost pellet.
Table
Table 4. Heavy metals and light metals concentration (mean ± standard deviation, n = 3) in the leachates from swine manure compost and ABMCP.
Table 4. Heavy metals and light metals concentration (mean ± standard deviation, n = 3) in the leachates from swine manure compost and ABMCP.
Heavy MetalsSwine Manure Compost
(mg L−1)		ARP 1
(mg L−1)		APP 2
(mg L−1)		Method Detection Limit
(mg L−1)		Soil Environmental Conservation Act
(mg kg−1)		Waste Management Act
(mg L−1)
AsN.D. 3N.D.N.D.0.08251.5
CdN.D.N.D.N.D.0.00140.3
Cu0.36 ± 0.150.30 ± 0.180.01 ± 0.010.0021503
Ni0.009 ± 0.010.074 ± 0.030.004 ± 0.030.002100-
PbN.D.N.D.N.D.0.012003
Zn1.37 ± 0.690.48 ± 0.290.59 ± 0.370.001300-
Fe5.07 ± 2.603.17 ± 2.0415.7 ± 10.60.001--
Ca17.9 ± 12.06.70 ± 3.4231.2 ± 22.70.001--
K784 ± 53.61964 ± 102.42128 ± 161.90.002--
Si1.29 ± 0.482.04 ± 1.421.30 ± 0.730.002--
1 ARP: activated rice hull biochar-manure compost pellet. 2 APP: activated palm biochar-manure compost pellet. 3 N.D.: not detected.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kim, M.; Jeong, C.; Kim, M.; Nam, J.; Shim, C.; Shin, J. Evaluation of the Impact of Activated Biochar-Manure Compost Pellet Fertilizer on Volatile Organic Compound Emissions and Heavy Metal Saturation. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 12405. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912405

AMA Style

Kim M, Jeong C, Kim M, Nam J, Shim C, Shin J. Evaluation of the Impact of Activated Biochar-Manure Compost Pellet Fertilizer on Volatile Organic Compound Emissions and Heavy Metal Saturation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(19):12405. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912405

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kim, Minsoo, Changyoon Jeong, Minjeong Kim, Joohee Nam, Changki Shim, and Joungdu Shin. 2022. "Evaluation of the Impact of Activated Biochar-Manure Compost Pellet Fertilizer on Volatile Organic Compound Emissions and Heavy Metal Saturation" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 19: 12405. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912405

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop