留言板

尊敬的读者、作者、审稿人, 关于本刊的投稿、审稿、编辑和出版的任何问题, 您可以本页添加留言。我们将尽快给您答复。谢谢您的支持!

姓名
邮箱
手机号码
标题
留言内容
验证码

新型酸化方式对农业废弃物堆肥氮转化的影响

张陆 王宏戈 王惟帅 王选 郭伟婷 刘双 王红 马林

张陆, 王宏戈, 王惟帅, 王选, 郭伟婷, 刘双, 王红, 马林. 新型酸化方式对农业废弃物堆肥氮转化的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报 (中英文), 2023, 31(5): 796−806 doi: 10.12357/cjea.20220746
引用本文: 张陆, 王宏戈, 王惟帅, 王选, 郭伟婷, 刘双, 王红, 马林. 新型酸化方式对农业废弃物堆肥氮转化的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报 (中英文), 2023, 31(5): 796−806 doi: 10.12357/cjea.20220746
ZHANG L, WANG H G, WANG W S, WANG X, GUO W T, LIU S, WANG H, MA L. Effects of new acidification methods on nitrogen conversion during agricultural waste composting[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2023, 31(5): 796−806 doi: 10.12357/cjea.20220746
Citation: ZHANG L, WANG H G, WANG W S, WANG X, GUO W T, LIU S, WANG H, MA L. Effects of new acidification methods on nitrogen conversion during agricultural waste composting[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2023, 31(5): 796−806 doi: 10.12357/cjea.20220746

新型酸化方式对农业废弃物堆肥氮转化的影响

doi: 10.12357/cjea.20220746
基金项目: 河北省重点研发计划项目(20373806D)、中国科学院科技服务网络计划项目(KFJ-STS-QYZD-160)、中国科学院青年创新促进会(2021095)、河北省现代农业产业技术体系奶牛产业创新团队项目(HBCT2018120206)和河北省现代农业产业技术体系蛋肉鸡产业创新团队项目(HBCT2018150209)资助
详细信息
    作者简介:

    张陆, 主要从事农业生态学研究。E-mail: 164192510@qq.com

    通讯作者:

    马林, 主要从事农业生态学和养分管理研究。E-mail: malin1979@sjziam.ac.cn

  • 中图分类号: X712

Effects of new acidification methods on nitrogen conversion during agricultural waste composting

Funds: This study was supported by the Key Research and Development Program of Hebei Province (20373806D), the Science and Technology Service Network Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences (KFJ-STS-QYZD-160), the Youth Innovation Promotion Association of Chinese Academy of Sciences (2021095), Hebei Province Modern Agricultural Industrial Technology System Dairy Cow Industry Innovation Team Project (HBCT2018120206), and Hebei Province Modern Agricultural Industrial Technology System Egg Broiler Industry Innovation Team Project (HBCT2018150209).
More Information
  • 摘要: 酸化是减少堆肥过程中氮素损失的有效手段, 而传统无机酸酸化具有成本高、二次污染严重等缺点, 探究新型酸化工艺对减少堆肥过程中的养分流失和环境污染具有重要意义。本研究以食品残渣(果渣、豆渣)为基质, 通过乳酸菌厌氧发酵制备了一种富含乳酸(70 mmol∙L−1)和乳酸菌(×106 cfu∙mL−1)的酸性调理剂, 用于农业废弃物(猪粪、小麦秸秆)酸化堆肥试验, 设置两种新型酸化方式处理: 添加30%酸性调理剂处理(MA)和添加3%酸性调理剂的厌氧自酸化处理(LA), 同时以不加酸处理(CK)、添加硫酸处理(SA)作为对照。通过分析堆肥过程中理化性质和氮素形态等变化发现, 3种酸化方式的堆肥产品均达到腐熟标准(发芽指数>80), 其中MA处理的腐熟程度最优(发芽指数=117.8%); MA、SA和LA处理的总氮损失较CK分别显著降低14.0%、25.6%和22.2% (P<0.05), 其中NH3挥发量较CK分别显著减少26.0%、36.5%和54.9% (P<0.05); 酸化处理提高了NH4+含量, 促进了硝化过程, 又间接增强了反硝化过程, MA和LA处理显著减少23.1%和69.4%的N2O排放(P<0.05), 而SA处理抑制了N2O的还原, 增加18.3%的N2O排放; 同时MA、SA和LA处理总环境代价相较于CK分别显著降低34.5%、11.0%和55.9% (P<0.05), 且MA和LA每减少1 kg活性氮排放分别需要18.4元和0.9元, 远低于SA处理(91.3元)。综上所述, MA、LA处理可作为降低堆肥过程中氮损失的可行方法, 本研究为堆肥酸化保氮技术提供了理论依据。
  • 图  1  不同酸化方式下堆肥过程中的理化性质变化

    CK: 对照; MA: 添加酸性调理剂; SA: 添加硫酸; LA: 添加乳酸菌的自我酸化。CK: control; MA: adding acid conditioner; SA: adding sulphuric acid; LA: self-acidification with lactic acid bacteria.

    Figure  1.  Variation of physicochemical properties during composting under different acidification methods

    图  2  不同酸化方式下堆肥过程中的氮素形态变化

    CK: 对照; MA: 添加酸性调理剂; SA: 添加硫酸; LA: 添加乳酸菌的自我酸化。CK: control; MA: adding acid conditioner; SA: adding sulphuric acid; LA: self-acidification with lactic acid bacteria.

    Figure  2.  Variation of N forms during composting under different acidification methods

    图  3  不同酸化方式下堆肥过程中NH3与N2O的排放

    CK: 对照; MA: 添加酸性调理剂; SA: 添加硫酸; LA: 添加乳酸菌的自我酸化。CK: control; MA: adding acid conditioner; SA: adding sulphuric acid; LA: self-acidification with lactic acid bacteria.

    Figure  3.  Emission of NH3 and N2O in composting process under different acidification methods

    图  4  不同酸化处理方式堆肥过程不同氮素损失形式的占比变化

    CK: 对照; MA: 添加酸性调理剂; SA: 添加硫酸; LA: 添加乳酸菌的自我酸化。CK: control; MA: adding acid conditioner; SA: adding sulphuric acid; LA: self-acidification with lactic acid bacteria.

    Figure  4.  Variation in the proportions of different forms of nitrogen loss during composting under different acidification methods

    图  5  不同酸化方式的环境代价与经济效益

    CK: 对照; MA: 添加酸性调理剂; SA: 添加硫酸; LA: 添加乳酸菌的自我酸化。CK: control; MA: adding acid conditioner; SA: adding sulphuric acid; LA: self-acidification with lactic acid bacteria.

    Figure  5.  Environmental burden and economic benefits of different acidification methods

    表  1  试验材料的理化性状

    Table  1.   Physical and chemical properties of experimental materials

    试验材料
    Material
    含水率
    Moisture content (%)
    有机质a
    Organic matter (%)
    总氮a
    Total nitrogen (%)
    NH4+含量a
    NH4+ content (g·kg −1)
    pH
    电导率
    Electrical conductivity
    (mS·cm −1 )
    猪粪
    Pig manure
    70.39±0.5844.10±0.522.90±0.0412.38±1.297.83±0.097.70±0.42
    小麦秸秆
    Wheat straw
    12.48±0.4989.09±0.280.54±0.030.28±0.057.48±0.053.82±0.07
    苹果渣
    Apple pomace
    82.81±0.5898.04±0.140.81±0.025.67±0.09
    豆渣
    Bean dregs
    79.95±4.1495.73±0.072.64±0.017.07±0.04
      “a”: 基于物料干重; “—”: 表示未检测。“a”: based on dry weight of material; “—”: not measured. n=3.
    下载: 导出CSV

    表  2  酸化剂及活性氮气体(NH3、N2O)的环境代价

    Table  2.   Environmental burden of acidifiers and reactive nitrogen gases (NH3, N2O)

    影响类型
    Impact category
    酸性调理剂
    Acid conditioner
    硫酸
    Sulfuric acid
    NH3 N2O 食品残渣处理
    Food residue disposal
    人类健康 Human health62217467692015.8
    生态系统 Ecological system46.21119777.53.34
    资源 Resource2.710.43402.370.06
    总影响 Total impact671186874100019.2
      环境代价单位为mPt, 表示单位排放因子。The unit of environmental burden is mPt, indicating unit emission factor.
    下载: 导出CSV

    表  3  酸性剂制备经济成本

    Table  3.   Economic cost of acid condictioner preparation

    ¥∙kg−1 
    酸试剂类型
    Acid type
    材料费
    Material cost
    电费
    Electricity cost
    人工费
    Labor cost
    总成本
    Total cost
    酸性调理剂
    Acid conditioner
    0.0030.0170.0170.036
    硫酸
    Sulfuric acid
    48.9
      硫酸为浓度98%的工业硫酸。Sulfuric acid is 98% industrial sulfuric acid.
    下载: 导出CSV

    表  4  酸性调理剂制备过程中酸度$[{\rm{C}}_{({\rm{H}}^+)}]$及乳酸和乳酸菌量的变化

    Table  4.   Changes of $[{\rm{C}}_{({\rm{H}}^+)}] $ (acidity), content of lactica acid and bacterial count during preparation process of acid conditioner

    时间
    Time (h)
    $[{\rm{C}}_{({\rm{H}}^+)}] $
    (mol∙L−1)
    乳酸含量
    Lactic acid content
    (mmol∙L−1)
    乳酸菌活菌数
    Lactic acid bacteria
    count (×106 cfu∙mL−1)
    pH
    00.01±0.002.30±0.410.34±0.064.53±0.03
    120.04±0.0055.39±0.8224.00±5.893.56±0.04
    240.05±0.0162.39±1.2317.00±0.413.44±0.03
    480.08±0.0164.45±4.124.63±3.683.33±0.02
    720.09±0.0170.21±16.133.67±6.023.30±0.05
    下载: 导出CSV
  • [1] CUI X H, GUO L Y, LI C H, et al. The total biomass nitrogen reservoir and its potential of replacing chemical fertilizers in China[J]. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2021, 135: 110215 doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2020.110215
    [2] WANG Q, WANG Z, AWASTHI M K, et al. Evaluation of medical stone amendment for the reduction of nitrogen loss and bioavailability of heavy metals during pig manure composting[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2016, 220: 297−304 doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2016.08.081
    [3] CAO Y B, WANG X, BAI Z H, et al. Mitigation of ammonia, nitrous oxide and methane emissions during solid waste composting with different additives: a meta-analysis[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019, 235: 626−635 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.288
    [4] LU Y S, GU W J, XU P Z, et al. Effects of sulphur and Thiobacillus thioparus 1904 on nitrogen cycle genes during chicken manure aerobic composting[J]. Waste Management, 2018, 80: 10−16 doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2018.08.050
    [5] CAO Y B, WANG X, LIU L, et al. Acidification of manure reduces gaseous emissions and nutrient losses from subsequent composting process[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2020, 264: 110454 doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110454
    [6] SHAN G C, LI W G, GAO Y J, et al. Additives for reducing nitrogen loss during composting: a review[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2021, 307: 127308 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127308
    [7] PAN J T, CAI H Z, ZHANG Z Q, et al. Comparative evaluation of the use of acidic additives on sewage sludge composting quality improvement, nitrogen conservation, and greenhouse gas reduction[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2018, 270: 467−475 doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2018.09.050
    [8] WU J, HE S Z, LIANG Y, et al. Effect of phosphate additive on the nitrogen transformation during pig manure composting[J]. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2017, 24(21): 17760−17768 doi: 10.1007/s11356-017-9285-x
    [9] MAO H, ZHANG T, LI R, et al. Apple pomace improves the quality of pig manure aerobic compost by reducing emissions of NH3 and N2O[J]. Scientific Reports, 2017, 7: 870 doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-00987-y
    [10] 程志翔. 食品加工制造企业固体废弃物处置分析[D]. 上海: 上海海洋大学, 2019

    CHENG Z X. Analysis of solid waste disposal in food processing and manufacturing enterprises[D]. Shanghai: Shanghai Ocean University, 2019
    [11] GEZAE DAFUL A, GÖRGENS J F. Techno-economic analysis and environmental impact assessment of lignocellulosic lactic acid production[J]. Chemical Engineering Science, 2017, 162: 53−65 doi: 10.1016/j.ces.2016.12.054
    [12] 曹玉博, 张陆, 王选, 等. 畜禽废弃物堆肥氨气与温室气体协同减排研究[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2020, 39(4): 923−932 doi: 10.11654/jaes.2020-0104

    CAO Y B, ZHANG L, WANG X, et al. Synergistic mitigation of ammonia and greenhouse gas emissions during livestock waste composting[J]. Journal of Agro-Environment Science, 2020, 39(4): 923−932 doi: 10.11654/jaes.2020-0104
    [13] ZHANG J M, BU Y S, ZHANG C C, et al. Development of a low-cost and high-efficiency culture medium for bacteriocin lac-B23 production by Lactobacillus plantarum J23[J]. Biology, 2020, 9(7): 171 doi: 10.3390/biology9070171
    [14] WANG X, BAI Z H, YAO Y, et al. Composting with negative pressure aeration for the mitigation of ammonia emissions and global warming potential[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018, 195: 448−457 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.146
    [15] ZHAO Y, ZHAO Y, ZHANG Z C, et al. Effect of thermo-tolerant actinomycetes inoculation on cellulose degradation and the formation of humic substances during composting[J]. Waste Management, 2017, 68: 64−73 doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.06.022
    [16] BERNAL M P, ALBURQUERQUE J A, MORAL R. Composting of animal manures and chemical criteria for compost maturity assessment. A review[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2009, 100(22): 5444−5453 doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2008.11.027
    [17] HUIJBREGTS M A J, STEINMANN Z J N, ELSHOUT P M F, et al. ReCiPe2016: a harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level[J]. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2017, 22(2): 138−147 doi: 10.1007/s11367-016-1246-y
    [18] ELWELL D L, HONG J H, KEENER H M. Composting hog manure/sawdust mixtures using intermittent and continuous aeration: ammonia emissions[J]. Compost Science & Utilization, 2002, 10(2): 142−149
    [19] GU W J, ZHANG F B, XU P Z, et al. Effects of sulphur and Thiobacillus thioparus on cow manure aerobic composting[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2011, 102(11): 6529−6535 doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2011.03.049
    [20] FANGUEIRO D, HJORTH M, GIOELLI F. Acidification of animal slurry— A review[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2015, 149: 46−56
    [21] GARCÍA C, HERNÁNDEZ T, COSTA F. Study on water extract of sewage sludge composts[J]. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 1991, 37(3): 399−408 doi: 10.1080/00380768.1991.10415052
    [22] 常瑞雪, 王骞, 甘晶晶, 等. 易降解有机质含量对黄瓜秧堆肥腐熟和氮损失的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 2017, 33(1): 231−237 doi: 10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2017.01.032

    CHANG R X, WANG Q, GAN J J, et al. Influence of easily-degraded organic matter content on maturity and nitrogen loss during composting of cucumber vine[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2017, 33(1): 231−237 doi: 10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2017.01.032
    [23] LI R H, WANG Q, ZHANG Z Q, et al. Nutrient transformation during aerobic composting of pig manure with biochar prepared at different temperatures[J]. Environmental Technology, 2015, 36(7): 815−826 doi: 10.1080/09593330.2014.963692
    [24] NIE E Q, GAO D, ZHENG G D. Effects of lactic acid on modulating the ammonia emissions in co-composts of poultry litter with slaughter sludge[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2020, 315: 123812 doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123812
    [25] FUKUMOTO Y, SUZUKI K, KURODA K, et al. Effects of struvite formation and nitratation promotion on nitrogenous emissions such as NH3, N2O and NO during swine manure composting[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2011, 102(2): 1468−1474 doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.09.089
    [26] JIANG J S, HUANG Y M, LIU X L, et al. The effects of apple pomace, bentonite and calcium superphosphate on swine manure aerobic composting[J]. Waste Management, 2014, 34(9): 1595−1602 doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2014.05.002
    [27] 赵梦竹, 潘燕辉, 马金珠, 等. 餐厨垃圾和污泥联合好氧堆肥中的氮素转化及损失[J]. 兰州大学学报(自然科学版), 2016, 52(3): 301−306, 312

    ZHAO M Z, PAN Y H, MA J Z, et al. Nitrogen transformation and loss during the co-composting of food waste and sludge[J]. Journal of Lanzhou University (Natural Sciences), 2016, 52(3): 301−306, 312
    [28] CHEN M L, HUANG Y M, LIU H J, et al. Impact of different nitrogen source on the compost quality and greenhouse gas emissions during composting of garden waste[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2019, 124: 326−335 doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2019.03.006
    [29] YANG F, LI G X, SHI H, et al. Effects of phosphogypsum and superphosphate on compost maturity and gaseous emissions during kitchen waste composting[J]. Waste Management, 2015, 36: 70−76 doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2014.11.012
  • 加载中
图(5) / 表(4)
计量
  • 文章访问数:  356
  • HTML全文浏览量:  154
  • PDF下载量:  57
  • 被引次数: 0
出版历程
  • 收稿日期:  2022-09-28
  • 录用日期:  2022-11-03
  • 网络出版日期:  2022-11-25
  • 刊出日期:  2023-05-10

目录

    /

    返回文章
    返回