4.6 Article

Static and Dynamic Investigations on Leaching/Retention of Nutrients from Raw Poultry Manure Biochars and Amended Agricultural Soil

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 13, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su13031212

关键词

poultry manure biochar; nutrients; sequential extraction; leaching; adsorption

资金

  1. TUNISIAN MINISTRY OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
  2. ERASMUS+ International Credit Mobility Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that biochar derived from raw poultry manure can slowly release phosphorus and potassium nutrients, making it effective for improving poor soils. Compared to other biochars, poultry manure biochar has a slower release rate and sustainable nutrient release.
In this study, nutrients release/adsorption from/by raw poultry manure-derived biochar produced at a pyrolysis temperature of 600 degrees C (RPM-B) was assessed under static and dynamic conditions. Batch sequential leaching experiments of RPM-B for a total contact time of 10 days showed that both phosphorus and potassium were slowly released but with higher amounts compared to various other animal- and lignocellulosic-derived biochars. The cumulated released P and K amounts were assessed to 93.6 and 17.1 mg g(-1), which represent about 95% and 43% of their original contents in the RPM-B, respectively. The column combined leaching/adsorption experiments showed that amending an alkaline sandy agricultural soil with two doses of RPM-B (at 5% and 8% w:w) resulted in an efficient retention of NO3-N and NH4-N, and on the contrary, important leached amounts of PO4-P, K+, Mg2+, and Ca2+ but with relatively slow kinetic release rates for a long period. Even after 40 days of dynamic leaching, these latter nutrients continued to be released with kinetic rates lower than 10 mg kg(-1) d(-1). Thus, compared to synthetic fertilizers, RPM-B valorization as organic amendment for poor semiarid soils could be considered as an attractive, eco-friendly, and sustainable waste recycling option.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据