EVALUATION OF BIOCHAR SOIL AMENDMENTS IN REDUCING SOIL AND WATER POLLUTION ...

149 Pages·2013·6.31 MB·English

EVALUATION OF BIOCHAR SOIL AMENDMENTS IN REDUCING SOIL AND
WATER POLLUTION FROM PATHOGENS IN POULTRY MANURE

By
Shoieb Akaram Arief Ismail

TITLE

Department of Bioresource Engineering
Macdonald Campus, McGill University
Montreal, Quebec

A thesis submitted to McGill University in partial fulfillment of
the requirements of the degree of Master of Science
March, 2013
©SHOIEB AKARAM, 2013
This thesis is dedicated to my lovely parents, Mr and Mrs Arief Ismail, my dear sibling, Sumaiya
Nausheen, my brother in law, Mr Asif Syed and to all my friends who accompanied me in this
journey.

ii
ABSTRACT

This project addresses concerns from the Canadian public about the quality of water in regions
where many agricultural operations are located. In regions where numerous intensive livestock
operations (ILOs) are found, manure is disposed by land-spreading and consequently elevated
concentrations of fecal coliforms may find their way into surface waters. Fecal coliforms are
endemic in poultry and are difficult to eradicate from production facilities. Poultry manure is a
reservoir of Campylobacter jejuni, Escherichia coli (including O157:H7) and Salmonella spp.
Biochar, the charcoal produced from pyrolysis of biomass, is gaining global recognition due to
its unique properties when applied as a soil amendment. Biochar possesses a large surface area
and develops high surface charge as it weathers in soil. Biochar could play a potentially
important role in controlling the mobility of pathogens in soil and water environment. Its half-
life is estimated to be hundreds of years so it is expected that its role in reducing agricultural
pollution could be very long-lasting, and hence very cost-effective.
In this study we investigated the effectiveness of biochar in preventing the leaching of fecal
coliforms into surface water. The target organisms in this study were Escherichia coli (E .coli)
and total coliform. E. coli is widely recognized as the indicator organism for presence of fecal
coliform and total coliforms to determine disinfection rate. The study was divided into two
components, namely laboratory study and field study.
In laboratory study, the effectiveness of three different types of biochar (variation based on
production temperature, time and raw material) in adsorption and desorption of E. coli was
studied. In adsorption test, a comparative analysis was carried out to understand the differences
between biochar, soil amended biochar (soil to biochar ratio of 99:1) and un-amended soil in the
removal of E. coli. The statistical analysis showed the adsorption of E. coli was significantly
higher (P < 0.0001) in the soil amended biochar treatment. The soil amended biochar and the un-
amended soil treatments were further subjected to desorption to test their retention capacity. The
statistical analysis showed that two types of soil amended biochars (slow pyrolysis biochar and
fast pyrolysis biochar) retained E. coli significantly better. The adsorption capacity of biochar
was directly proportional to its porosity and inversely proportional to its ash content. The two
iii
types of soil amended biochar were shortlisted based on sorption and retention capacity and were
used as treatments in the field study.
A sixty-day study was conducted using field lysimeters to evaluate the effectiveness of soil
amended biochar in removing or reducing the leaching of fecal coliforms (E. coli) from poultry
manure. Lysimeter with only soil was used as control and the shortlisted biochars (slow pyrolysis
biochar and fast pyrolysis biochar) were used as treatments. In the biochar-amended treatments,
the top 0.05 m of soil was amended with biochar in a proportion of 1:99 biochar:soil. Poultry
manure was spread over the soil in all lysimeters. The lysimeters were protected from natural
rainfall, and the simulated rainfall was applied as 4 events over a sixty day period. Both soil (3
sampling depths) and leachate samples were collected and analyzed at predetermined time
intervals. In the experiment, E. coli and total coliform were found to leach down through the soil
profiles, and their concentrations decreased with soil depth and time. The statistical analysis of
soil samples and leachate showed that the concentration of E. coli in the treatments at the three
sampling depths and in the leachate were significantly different from control (P ≤ 0.05), which is
attributed to the effectiveness of the treatments in reducing the leaching of fecal coliforms.
However, the concentration of total coliforms was significant (P ≤ 0.05) on certain intervals and
insignificant in the others; this can be attributed to already present total coliforms in the soil
system and effectiveness of the treatments to hinder coliform transport. Soil biochar amendment
was thus seen to be effective in reducing the leaching of fecal coliforms through soil profiles and
providing fecal coliforms free leachate.

iv
RÉSUMÉ

Ce projet répond aux préoccupations du public canadien au sujet de la qualité de l'eau dans les
régions où de nombreuses exploitations agricoles sont présentes. Dans les régions où l’on trouve
de nombreuses exploitations d'élevage intensif (EEI), le fumier est épandu sur les champs, et par
conséquent les concentrations élevées de coliformes fécaux peuvent se retrouver dans les eaux de
surface. Les coliformes fécaux sont endémiques chez les volailles et sont difficiles à éradiquer
des sites de production. Le fumier de volaille contient Campylobacter jejuni, Escherichia coli (y
compris du O157: H7), et Salmonella spp.
Le biochar, un charbon produit par pyrolyse de la biomasse, gagne de plus en plus de
reconnaissance à l’échelle mondiale en raison de ses propriétés uniques lorsqu'il est utilisé
comme amendement de sol. Le biochar pourrait jouer un rôle potentiellement important dans le
contrôle de la mobilité des agents pathogènes dans le sol et l'eau. Sa demi-vie est estimée à des
centaines d'années. Par conséquent, son rôle dans la réduction de la pollution agricole pourrait
s’étendre sur une longue période, et donc être très rentable.
Dans cette étude, nous examinons l'efficacité du biochar dans la prévention de la lixiviation des
coliformes fécaux dans l'eau de surface. Les organismes ciblés dans cette étude sont Escherichia
coli (E coli.) et les coliformes totaux. E. coli est reconnu comme étant l’organisme indicateur de
la présence de coliformes fécaux et les coliformes totaux comme étant révélateur du taux de
désinfection. L'étude est composée de deux parties, l’une effectuée en laboratoire et l’autre sur le
terrain.
Dans l'étude en laboratoire, l'efficacité d’absorption et de désorption d’E. coli de trois différents
types de biochar (les variations étant basées sur la température, la durée et les matières premières
utilisées dans la production) a été étudiée. Par le moyen de tests d’adsorption, une analyse
comparative a été effectuée afin de déterminer la différence entre du biochar pur, un sol amendé
par du biochar et un sol non-amendé dans leur efficacité d’élimination d’E. coli. Les analyses
statistiques ont montré que le biochar comme amendement du sol joue un rôle important dans
l'adsorption d’E. coli. Le sol amendé par du biochar et le sol non-amendé ont ensuite été soumis
à un test de désorption afin de tester leur capacité de rétention. Les analyses statistiques ont
v
démontré que deux types de sol amendés de biochar (l’un issu de la pyrolyse lente et l’autre de la
pyrolyse rapide) retenaient E. coli. La capacité d'adsorption du biochar s’est révélée être
directement proportionnelle à sa porosité et inversement proportionnelle à sa teneur en cendres.
Les deux types de biochars ont été sélectionnés et utilisés comme traitements dans l'étude de
terrain.
L'étude de terrain a été réalisée sur des lysimètres pendant soixante jours afin d’évaluer
l’efficacité du biochar dans l’élimination et la réduction du lessivage des coliformes fécaux (E.
coli) venant du fumier de volaille. Le témoin contenait seulement du sol et le biochar sélectionné
(l’un issu de la pyrolyse lente et l’autre de la pyrolyse rapide) a été utilisé comme traitement. Le
biochar a été mélangé avec 5 cm de sol en partant de la surface (rapport de sol a biochar de
99:1). Le fumier de volaille a été répandu sur le sol dans tous les lysimètres. Les lysimètres ont
été protégés de la pluie afin de simuler l'irrigation. L'irrigation a été simulée en 4 événements au
cours des soixante jours. Le sol (3 profondeurs d'échantillonnage) et les échantillons de lixiviat
ont été prélevés et analysés à des intervalles temporels prédéterminés. Dans cette étude, E. coli et
les coliformes totaux se sont infiltrés à travers les profils de sol, et leurs concentrations ont
diminués avec le temps et la profondeur du sol. Les analyses statistiques (P ≤ 0.05) des
échantillons de sol et des lixiviats ont montré que la concentration d’E. coli dans les traitements
aux trois profondeurs et dans le lixiviat étaient différente du contrôle, ce qui est attribué à
l'efficacité des traitements de réduction du lessivage des coliformes fécaux. Cependant, la
concentration de coliformes totaux était significatif (P ≤ 0.05) sur certains intervalles et
insignifiant sur d’autres, ce qui peut être lié a une présence antérieure de coliformes totaux dans
le sol et a l'efficacité des traitements qui suggèrent un taux de désinfection efficace. Le sol
amendé de biochar a donc été considéré comme étant efficace dans la réduction du lessivage des
coliformes fécaux a travers les profils de sol ; et efficace dans l’apport de lixiviat sans coliformes
fécaux.

vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It was an immense pleasure and pride to work under the supervision of Dr. Shiv O Prasher. His
diligence, support and guidance played a vital role in completing my masters’ degree. I thank
him for being an excellent supervisor and I should say he is very patient and caring which really
helped me concentrate on my research with little pressure which helped me in being more
motivated and focussed on my work. I also would like thank him for providing me with funding.
He is a role model I would always look up to and it would be a pleasure to work with him in the
future.
I would like to thank Liliane and David Stewart foundation for their financial support. I also
would like to thank Dr Martin Chenier for providing me access to his laboratory and providing
guidance.
I would like to thank Dr Brian Driscoll and Dr Darwin for their insightful suggestions which
were very significant in my completion.
I would like to immensely thank Ms Candice Young for guiding me with experimentation and
troubleshoot. I also would like to thank Mr Barry Husk, CEO Blueleaf inc. for providing me with
support and suggestion.
I would like to thank Ms Sedigheh Zarayan for assisting in procurement of materials and being a
mother like figure to me with much care. I would like to thank Dr Georges T Dodds for helping
me complete my thesis.
I would like to thank Mr Azhar baig who helped me troubleshoot and my other colleague for
being very understanding and helpful. I also want to thank Ms Ekaterina Yakushina for
providing support during my field study.
I would like to thank my brother in law Mr Asif Syed and my sister in USA for their support and
love. I would like to thank my family and friends back home and around the world for supporting
me and making me feel comfortable in a country which was foreign to me.
I express my gratitude to Susan Gregus (Administrative Assistant of the Department of
Bioresource Engineering) for her administrative and secretarial help. I would also like to thank
Ms Jennifer who helped me translate the abstract to French.
vii
CONTRIBUTION OF AUTHORS

The authorship for the two manuscripts making up this thesis is as follows
i. S.A. Arief Ismail and S.O. Prasher
ii. S.A. Arief Ismail and S.O. Prasher
All the authors are from the Department of Bioresource Engineering, McGill University,
Montreal. All the fieldwork, analysis of data, and preparation of above manuscripts were
completed by the candidate, S.A. Arief Ismail, under the supervision of Dr. Shiv O. Prasher,
James McGill Professor, Department of Bioresource Engineering. Dr. Prasher provided the
necessary funds, supervisory guidance, and assistance to carry out this research.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE .............................................................................................................................................. I
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. III
RÉSUMÉ ....................................................................................................................................... V
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................... VII
CONTRIBUTION OF AUTHORS............................................................................................ VIII
TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................. IX
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................... XIII
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... XV
1. CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 THE ISSUE ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 TARGET PATHOGENS ........................................................................................................... 2
1.3 PROPOSED REMEDIAL PRACTICE .......................................................................................... 3
1.4 OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................................................... 4
2. CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................... 6
2.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION .............................................................................................. 6
2.2 POULTRY MANURE AS FERTILIZER .................................................................................... 10
2.3 MICROBIAL TRANSPORT .................................................................................................... 11
2.3.1 Overview ................................................................................................................... 11
2.3.2 Role of macropores in transport ............................................................................... 12
2.3.3 Role of water content in porous media and porosity in transport ............................ 12
2.3.4 Role of overall size of microbes ................................................................................ 13
2.4 ADSORPTION CAPACITY OF MICROBES IN SOIL MEDIA ...................................................... 15
2.5 INTRODUCTION TO BIOCHAR .............................................................................................. 17
2.5.1 What is biochar ......................................................................................................... 17
2.5.2 History of biochar ..................................................................................................... 17
ix
2.5.3 Production of biochar ............................................................................................... 18
2.6 PROPERTIES OF BIOCHAR ................................................................................................... 20
2.6.1 Structural property.................................................................................................... 20
2.6.2 Physical & chemical properties ................................................................................ 21
2.6.3 Pore size and particle size distribution of biochar ................................................... 23
2.7 APPLICATION OF BIOCHAR ................................................................................................. 24
2.7.1 Mitigation of climate change .................................................................................... 25
2.7.2 Waste management ................................................................................................... 25
2.7.3 Energy production .................................................................................................... 25
2.7.4 Soil amendment ......................................................................................................... 25
2.8 BEHAVIOUR OF BIOCHAR WITH MICROBIAL COMMUNITY ................................................. 26
PREFACE TO CHAPTER 3 ........................................................................................................ 28
3. CHAPTER THREE
REMOVAL OF ESCHERICHIA COLI BY SOIL BIOCHAR AMENDMENT.......................... 29
3.1 ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................ 29
3.2 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 29
3.3 MATERIALS AND METHODS ............................................................................................... 31
3.3.1 Characterization of biochar and soil ........................................................................ 31
3.3.2 Hydraulic conductivity .............................................................................................. 34
3.3.3 Experimental design.................................................................................................. 34
3.3.4 Batch adsorption/desorption experiment .................................................................. 35
3.3.5 Enumeration of E. coli .............................................................................................. 36
3.3.6 Statistical analysis .................................................................................................... 36
3.4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................................. 37
3.4.1 Characterization of biochar ...................................................................................... 37
3.4.2 Hydraulic conductivity .............................................................................................. 40
3.4.3 Enumeration of E. coli .............................................................................................. 40
3.5 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 44
PREFACE TO CHAPTER 4 ........................................................................................................ 45
x