Effect of C:N Ratio on Microbial Activity and N Retention: Bench-scale Study Using Pulp and Paper Biosolids |
| |
Authors: | Kevin L. Larsen Daryl M. McCartney |
| |
Affiliation: | Department of Civil and Geological Engineering, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada |
| |
Abstract: | ![]() The effect of C:N ratio on the performance of bench-scale composting systems treating pulp and paper biosolids was investigated. The biosolids used were obtained from the Pine Falls Paper Company located in Manitoba. The biosolids, on a wet basis, consisted of 41% primary biosolids, 21% secondary biosolids, and 39% deinking plant sludge. The biosolids were mixed with bark to achieve an initial moisture content of 60%, resulting in a recipe consisting of 1.09 kg of bark per kg of biosolids on a dry basis. Four reactors (treatments) were run with C:N ratios of 107 (control; no N supplement), 55, 29, and 18. Each treatment was replicated three times. Sulfur coated urea was used as the N supplement. Parameters monitored included C:N ratio, N recovery, material compaction, temperature, qualitative odor observations, and volatile solids reduction. The relative microbial activity was observed in-directly using volatile solids removal and the relative heat generation data. The data showed a strong negative linear relationship between C:N ratio and relative heat generation (r2=0.98) and between C:N ratio and volatile solids removal (r2=0.84 for all four treatments; and r2=1.0 for C:N = 29 to 107). The data also showed a strong nonlinear relation between N retention and C:N ratio (% retention = 101(1-0.92C:N); r2 = 0.71; n = 12). Qualitative odor observations and N losses suggested that a C:N ratio of 18 was too low, therefore a performance comparison was made between the C:N-107 and the C:N-29 treatments. It was observed that the mean volatile solids removal was 28.6% higher in the C:N-29 treatments as compared to the C:N-107 control. While this difference is significant from a bench-scale perspective, the authors question the practical significance of the difference and recommend further investigation. |
| |
Keywords: | |
|
|