lastID = -289537
Skip to main content Skip to top navigation Skip to site search
Top of page
  • My citations options
    Web Back (from Web)
    Chicago Back (from Chicago)
    MLA Back (from MLA)
Close action menu

You need to login to use this feature.

Please wait a moment…
Please wait while we update your results...
Please wait a moment...
Description: Access Water
Context Menu
Description: Book cover
COMPARING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE AERATION IN CONTROLING EMISSIONS FROM COMPOSTING PROCESSES
  • Browse
  • Compilations
    • Compilations list
  • Subscriptions
Tools

Related contents

Loading related content

Workflow

No linked records yet

X
  • Current: 2022-06-14 20:25:13 Adam Phillips
  • 2022-06-14 20:25:12 Adam Phillips
  • 2020-03-27 00:07:19 Adam Phillips
  • 2020-03-27 00:07:18 Adam Phillips
  • 2020-01-31 21:10:44 Administrator
  • 2020-01-31 21:10:43 Administrator
  • 2020-01-31 21:10:42 Administrator
Description: Access Water
  • Browse
  • Compilations
  • Subscriptions
Log in
0
Accessibility Options

Base text size -

This is a sample piece of body text
Larger
Smaller
  • Shopping basket (0)
  • Accessibility options
  • Return to previous
Description: Book cover
COMPARING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE AERATION IN CONTROLING EMISSIONS FROM COMPOSTING PROCESSES

COMPARING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE AERATION IN CONTROLING EMISSIONS FROM COMPOSTING PROCESSES

COMPARING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE AERATION IN CONTROLING EMISSIONS FROM COMPOSTING PROCESSES

  • New
  • View
  • Details
  • Reader
  • Default
  • Share
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • New
  • View
  • Default view
  • Reader view
  • Data view
  • Details

This page cannot be printed from here

Please use the dedicated print option from the 'view' drop down menu located in the blue ribbon in the top, right section of the publication.

screenshot of print menu option

Description: Book cover
COMPARING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE AERATION IN CONTROLING EMISSIONS FROM COMPOSTING PROCESSES
Abstract
Odor is released from composting processes with the discharge of process air and with fugitive emissions from bed surfaces. Untreated exhaust may cause off-site odor complaints. In the case of enclosed processes, inadequate air handling systems may contribute to corrosion and excessive occupational exposure to air toxics. The air handling challenges, as discussed in this paper, relate to both aerated static pile and agitated bed composting processes, treating biosolids, animal waste, or other organic waste materials.A portion of the total pollutant mass may be captured for treatment by drawing the process air into the pile process under negative pressure and discharging the exhaust through an odor control process such as a biofilter. However, the process aeration blowers must handle the hot corrosive exhaust air plus condensate, instead of handling clean air, resulting in higher operational costs than with positive aeration. It is not possible to capture all of the exhaust through negative aeration, due to the following losses: convective surface emissions and diffusion due to high bed temperatures; intermittent collection during on-off cycles of process aeration blowers; and material handling activities.This paper presents the results of full-scale experiments at two facilities in which the emissions from positive and negative aeration were compared under otherwise similar operating conditions, in order to evaluate the odor control benefit of negative aeration.Solid waste Authority of Palm Beach County – Enclosed agitated bed facilityCity of Columbus, Ohio – Outdoor aerated static pile facilityBoth facilities process 25 dry tons per day of undigested sludge. For both facilities surface emissions were sampled using isolation flux chambers and odor concentration was analyzed using ASTM Method 679–91. Some discrepancies in odor emissions results suggest that the isolation flux chamber may under-estimate the odor emissions from a compost pile surface.Although the odor emission rates at the two facilities differed significantly, it was concluded that negative aeration could capture 65 to 69 percent of pile surface emissions. When all odor sources are considered, negative aeration with treatment of process exhaust provides significant reduction in odor emissions as compared with no capture or treatment, but not as such reduction as total enclosure and treatment of all exhaust.
Odor is released from composting processes with the discharge of process air and with fugitive emissions from bed surfaces. Untreated exhaust may cause off-site odor complaints. In the case of enclosed processes, inadequate air handling systems may contribute to corrosion and excessive occupational exposure to air toxics. The air handling challenges, as discussed in this paper, relate to both...
Author(s)
Mark GouldPatrick D. Byers
SourceProceedings of the Water Environment Federation
SubjectSession 4 Emissions from Biosolids Processing and Composting Facilities
Document typeConference Paper
PublisherWater Environment Federation
Print publication date Jan, 2002
ISSN1938-6478
SICI1938-6478(20020101)2002:5L.357;1-
DOI10.2175/193864702785140032
Volume / Issue2002 / 5
Content sourceOdors and Air Pollutants Conference
First / last page(s)357 - 371
Copyright2002
Word count371

Purchase price $11.50

Get access
Log in Purchase content Purchase subscription
You may already have access to this content if you have previously purchased this content or have a subscription.
Need to create an account?

You can purchase access to this content but you might want to consider a subscription for a wide variety of items at a substantial discount!

Purchase access to 'COMPARING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE AERATION IN CONTROLING EMISSIONS FROM COMPOSTING PROCESSES'

Add to cart
Purchase a subscription to gain access to 18,000+ Proceeding Papers, 25+ Fact Sheets, 20+ Technical Reports, 50+ magazine articles and select Technical Publications' chapters.
Loading items
There are no items to display at the moment.
Something went wrong trying to load these items.
Description: Book cover
COMPARING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE AERATION IN CONTROLING EMISSIONS FROM COMPOSTING PROCESSES
Pricing
Non-member price: $11.50
Member price:
-289537
Get access
-289537
Log in Purchase content Purchase subscription
You may already have access to this content if you have previously purchased this content or have a subscription.
Need to create an account?

You can purchase access to this content but you might want to consider a subscription for a wide variety of items at a substantial discount!

Purchase access to 'COMPARING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE AERATION IN CONTROLING EMISSIONS FROM COMPOSTING PROCESSES'

Add to cart
Purchase a subscription to gain access to 18,000+ Proceeding Papers, 25+ Fact Sheets, 20+ Technical Reports, 50+ magazine articles and select Technical Publications' chapters.

Details

Description: Book cover
COMPARING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE AERATION IN CONTROLING EMISSIONS FROM COMPOSTING PROCESSES
Abstract
Odor is released from composting processes with the discharge of process air and with fugitive emissions from bed surfaces. Untreated exhaust may cause off-site odor complaints. In the case of enclosed processes, inadequate air handling systems may contribute to corrosion and excessive occupational exposure to air toxics. The air handling challenges, as discussed in this paper, relate to both aerated static pile and agitated bed composting processes, treating biosolids, animal waste, or other organic waste materials.A portion of the total pollutant mass may be captured for treatment by drawing the process air into the pile process under negative pressure and discharging the exhaust through an odor control process such as a biofilter. However, the process aeration blowers must handle the hot corrosive exhaust air plus condensate, instead of handling clean air, resulting in higher operational costs than with positive aeration. It is not possible to capture all of the exhaust through negative aeration, due to the following losses: convective surface emissions and diffusion due to high bed temperatures; intermittent collection during on-off cycles of process aeration blowers; and material handling activities.This paper presents the results of full-scale experiments at two facilities in which the emissions from positive and negative aeration were compared under otherwise similar operating conditions, in order to evaluate the odor control benefit of negative aeration.Solid waste Authority of Palm Beach County – Enclosed agitated bed facilityCity of Columbus, Ohio – Outdoor aerated static pile facilityBoth facilities process 25 dry tons per day of undigested sludge. For both facilities surface emissions were sampled using isolation flux chambers and odor concentration was analyzed using ASTM Method 679–91. Some discrepancies in odor emissions results suggest that the isolation flux chamber may under-estimate the odor emissions from a compost pile surface.Although the odor emission rates at the two facilities differed significantly, it was concluded that negative aeration could capture 65 to 69 percent of pile surface emissions. When all odor sources are considered, negative aeration with treatment of process exhaust provides significant reduction in odor emissions as compared with no capture or treatment, but not as such reduction as total enclosure and treatment of all exhaust.
Odor is released from composting processes with the discharge of process air and with fugitive emissions from bed surfaces. Untreated exhaust may cause off-site odor complaints. In the case of enclosed processes, inadequate air handling systems may contribute to corrosion and excessive occupational exposure to air toxics. The air handling challenges, as discussed in this paper, relate to both...
Author(s)
Mark GouldPatrick D. Byers
SourceProceedings of the Water Environment Federation
SubjectSession 4 Emissions from Biosolids Processing and Composting Facilities
Document typeConference Paper
PublisherWater Environment Federation
Print publication date Jan, 2002
ISSN1938-6478
SICI1938-6478(20020101)2002:5L.357;1-
DOI10.2175/193864702785140032
Volume / Issue2002 / 5
Content sourceOdors and Air Pollutants Conference
First / last page(s)357 - 371
Copyright2002
Word count371

Actions, changes & tasks

Outstanding Actions

Add action for paragraph

Current Changes

Add signficant change

Current Tasks

Add risk task

Connect with us

Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Connect to us on LinkedIn
Subscribe on YouTube
Powered by Librios Ltd
Powered by Librios Ltd
Authors
Terms of Use
Policies
Help
Accessibility
Contact us
Copyright © 2024 by the Water Environment Federation
Loading items
There are no items to display at the moment.
Something went wrong trying to load these items.
Description: WWTF Digital Boot 180x150
WWTF Digital (180x150)
Created on Jul 02
Websitehttps:/­/­www.wef.org/­wwtf?utm_medium=WWTF&utm_source=AccessWater&utm_campaign=WWTF
180x150
Mark Gould# Patrick D. Byers. COMPARING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE AERATION IN CONTROLING EMISSIONS FROM COMPOSTING PROCESSES. Alexandria, VA 22314-1994, USA: Water Environment Federation, 2018. Web. 6 Jun. 2025. <https://www.accesswater.org?id=-289537CITANCHOR>.
Mark Gould# Patrick D. Byers. COMPARING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE AERATION IN CONTROLING EMISSIONS FROM COMPOSTING PROCESSES. Alexandria, VA 22314-1994, USA: Water Environment Federation, 2018. Accessed June 6, 2025. https://www.accesswater.org/?id=-289537CITANCHOR.
Mark Gould# Patrick D. Byers
COMPARING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE AERATION IN CONTROLING EMISSIONS FROM COMPOSTING PROCESSES
Access Water
Water Environment Federation
December 22, 2018
June 6, 2025
https://www.accesswater.org/?id=-289537CITANCHOR