Qualitative assessment of compost engendered from municipal solid waste and green waste by indexing method

Figures & data

Table 1a. A comparative analysis of MSW generated in Srinagar

Waste constituent	CPCB – NEERI*	ERA**	TTPL	Average
Biogenous	61.77% (WM)	58.5%	41.19%	53.82%
Recyclables	17.76%	10.3%	19.54%	15.87%
Inert	20.47	31.2	39.27%	30.31%
Moisture	30% (WM)	25.88%	–	43%
Calorific value	1264 kcal/kg	1579 kcal/kg	–	1421 kcal/kg

*Central Pollution Control Board-National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, **Economic Reconstruction Agency (J&K) and TTPL: Tide Technocrats Private Limited

Table 1b. Chemical characteristics of waste at source and trenching ground

Location	Moisture (%)	Volatile solids %	C %	H %	N %	O %	S %	P2O5%	Ash %	Calorific Value Kcal/Kg	C/N ratio
At source	32.27	40.42	28.80	6.85	1.09	48.95	0.66	0.78	12.06	1800.93	27.03
At trenching ground	25.88	45.00	28.28	6.23	1.25	52.36	0.64	0.68	9.79	1579.43	23.47

Figure 1. Composition particulars in case of enrichment of input-mixtures by effective micro-organisms.

Table 2. Criteria for allocating “weighing factor” to fertility parameters, heavy metals, and “score values” to analytical data

Fertility parameters (% dry matter)	Score Value (Si)						Weighing factor (Wi)
	5	4	3	2	1	0
TOC	>20.0	15.1–20.0	12.1–15	9.1–12	<9.1	-	5
TN	>1.25	1.01–1.25	.81–1.0	0.51–0.80	<0.31	-	3
TP	>.60	0.41–0.60	0.21–0.40	0.11–0.20	<0.11	-	3
TK	>1.00	0.76–1.0	0.51–0.75	0.26–0.50	<0.26	-	1
C:N	<10.10	10.1–15	15.1–20	20.1–25	>25	-	3
Heavy metal (mg/kg DM)
Zn^2+	<151	151–300	301–500	501–700	701–900	>900	1
Cu^2+	<51	51–100	101–200	201–400	401–600	>600	2
Cd^2+	<0.3	0.30–0.60	0.70–1.0	1.10–2.0	2.0–4.0	>4.0	5
Pb^2+	<51	51–100	101–150	151–250	251–400	>400	3
Ni^2+	<21	21–40	41–80	81–120	121–160	>160	1
Cr^3+	<51	51–100	101–150	151–250	251–350	>350	3

Figure 2. Pictorial summary of research work.

Table 3. Nutrient status and heavy metal content of the different compost combinations generated from MSWC, CWC and GWC

Parameters	MSWC		CWC		GWC		*FCO-2003
	Without EM	With EM	Without EM	With EM	Without EM	With EM
	Mean ±SD	Mean ±SD	Mean ±SD	Mean ±SD	Mean ±SD	Mean ±SD
pH	8.36 ± 0.06	7.90 ± 0.26	8.43 ± 0.28	7.28 ± 0.17	8.75 ± 0.19	8.45 ± 0.13	6.5–7.5
EC(dS/m)	0.53 ± 0.018	0.909 ± 0.024	1.08 ± 0.04	1.39 ± 0.0344	0.590 ± 0.034	0.720 ± 0.03	<4
TOC (% DM)	17.0 ± 1.09	13.00 ± 0.88	13.75 ± 1.71	13.60 ± 1.95	10.88 ± 0.85	5.25 ± 0.13	>12
N (% DM)	1.0 ± 0.03	2.00 ± 0.80	1.13 ± 0.10	1.66 ± 0.12	0.57 ± 0.06	1.01 ± 0.03	>0.8
P (% DM)	1.32 ± 10.80	0.98 ± 13.82	1.11 ± 91.29	1.03 ± 96.26	2.19 ± 281.3	1.77 ± 18.25	>0.4
K (% DM)	0.84 ± 0.06	0.84 ± 0.06	0.79 ± 0.02	0.81 ± 0.04	0.77 ± 0.04	0.79 ± 0.02	>0.4
C/N	16 ± 0.80	8 ± 0.50	14.±0.96	8 ± 0.5	24 ± 1.11	11 ± 0.53	20
Heavy metals (mg/kg DM)
Zn^2+	183.00 ± 2.75	154.00 ± 1.36	166.00 ± 1.08	73.00 ± 2.32	90.00 ± 1.26	75.13 ± 2.10	≤1000
Cu^2+	494.00 ± 4.99	391.00 ± 1.12	267.00 ± 6.22	135.00 ± 7.33	200.00 ± 6.06	165.00 ± 33.67	≤300
Cd^2+	3.00 ± 0.65	2.00 ± 0.66	2.20 ± 0.62	2.00 ± 0.63	1.00 ± 0.89	0.90 ± 1.07	≤5
Cr^3+	83.00 ± 1.00	79.00 ± 1.29	85.00 ± 0.84	81.00 ± 0.41	45.00 ± 1.25	35.13 ± 1.55	≤50
Ni^2+	18.00 ± 0.66	15.0 ± 0.51	11.00 ± 0.72	8.00 ± 0.95	8.00 ± 0.99	5.70 ± 1.19	≤50
Pb^2+	10.00 ± 1.19	10.00 ± 1.47	6.00 ± 0.62	6.00 ± 0.55	1.00 ± 0.01	1.00 ± 0.01	≤100

*Fertilizer Control Order of India (FCO, 2003), SD = Standard deviation, MSWC: Municipal solid waste compost, CWC; Combined waste compost and GWC: Green waste compost.

Table 4. Fertility and clean index determined from different treatments for degradation of different waste categories for their marketability and applicable in different areas

Compost category	Treatments	FI	CI	Class	Remarks
MSWC	Without EM	2.73	2.80	RU-1	Poor quality
	With EM	2.21	3.00	RU-1	Poor quality
GWC	Without EM	3.13	4.01	C	Good quality
	With EM	3.47	4.06	B	Very good quality
CWC	Without EM	3.27	3.00	D	Medium quality
	With EM	3.17	3.20	D	Medium quality
Standard
Quality Control Compliance
Complying for heavy metal parameters		>3.5	>4.0	A	Best quality. “High manurial value potential and low heavy metal content and can be used for high-value crops, such as in organic farming”
Complying with heavy metal parameters		3.1–3.5	>4.0	B	Very good quality. “Medium fertilizing potential and low heavy metal content”
Complying with heavy metal parameters		>3.5	3.1–4.0	C	Good quality. “High fertilizing potential and medium heavy metal content”
Complying with heavy metal parameters		3.1–3.5	3.1–4.0	D	Medium quality. “Medium fertilizing potential and medium heavy metal content”
Complying with heavy metal parameters		<3.1	–	RU-1	“Should not be allowed to enter market due to low fertilizing potential. However, these can be used as soil conditioners”

Table

MSW	Municipal Solid Waste
GW	Green Waste
CW	Combined Waste
MSWC	Municipal Solid Waste Compost
GWC	Green Waste Compost
CWC	Combined Waste Compost
FCO	Fertilizer Control Order
EM	Effective Micro-organisms
SMC	Srinagar Municipal Corporation
CI	Clean Index
FI	Fertility Index
TOC	Total Organic Carbon
C: N ratio	Carbon: Nitrogen Ratio
NPK	Nitrogen, Phosphorous, Potassium
EC	Electrical Conductivity
NEERI	National Environmental Engineering Research Institute
TTPL	Tide Technocrats Private Limited
ERA	Economic Reconstruction Agency
CPCB	Central Pollution Control Board
MT	Metric ton
SW	Solid waste