4.4 Article

A method for measuring low-weight carboxylic acids from biosolid compost

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
卷 35, 期 2, 页码 516-521

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.2134/jeq2004.0443

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Concentration of low-weight carboxylic acids (LWCA) is one of the important parameters that should be taken into consideration when compost is applied as soil improver for plant cultivation, because high amounts of LWCA can be toxic to plants. The present work describes a method for analysis of LWCA in compost as a useful tool for monitoring compost quality and safety. The method was tested on compost samples of two different ages: 3 (immature) and 6 (mature) months old. Acids from compost samples were extracted at high pH, filtered, and freeze-dried. The dried sodium salts were derivatized with a sulfuric acid-methanol mixture and concentrations of 11 low-weight fatty acids (C-1-C-10) were analyzed using headspace gas chromatography. The material was analyzed with two analytical techniques: the external calibration method (tested on 11 LWCA) and the standard addition method (tested only on formic, acetic, propionic, butyric, and iso-butyric acids). The two techniques were compared for efficiency of acids quantification. The method allowed good separation and quantification of a wide range of individual acids with high sensitivity at low concentrations. Detection limit for propionic, butyric, caproic, caprylic, and capric acids was 1 mg kg(-1) compost; for formic, acetic, valeric, enanthoic and pelargonic acids it was 5 mg kg(-1) compost; and for iso-butyric acid it was 10 mg kg(-1) compost. Recovery rates of LWCA were higher in 3-mo-old compost (57-99%) than in 6-mo-old compost (29-45%). In comparison with the external calibration technique the standard addition technique proved to be three to four times more precise for older compost and two times for younger compost. Disadvantages of the standard addition technique are that it is more time demanding and laborious.

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

4.4
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