See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/322056124

Application of validated mathematical model of composting process for study

the effect of air flow rate on process performance

Article · December 2017

DOI: 10.7251/JEPM1709062M

CITATIONS READS

0 71

3 authors, including:

Nesib Mustafić Ivan Petric

University of Tuzla University of Tuzla
6 PUBLICATIONS   9 CITATIONS    14 PUBLICATIONS   239 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Nesib Mustafić on 14 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

DOI 10.7251/JEPM1709062M
UDC 631.81:519.711

ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC PAPER

Application of validated mathematical model of composting

process for study the effect of air flow rate on process
performance
Nesib Mustafić | Ivan Petrić | Ervin Karić

University of Tuzla, Department of Abstract

Chemical Engineering, Tuzla,
The objectives of this study were to develop and validate the mathematical
Bosnia and Herzegovina.
model (kinetic and reactor model) of composting process, as well to used
Correspodence: validated model in order investigate the effects of the air flow rate on organic
Nesib Mustafić, University of matter conversion, carbon dioxide concentration and mixture temperature. The
Tuzla, Department of Chemical
Engineering, Tuzla, Bosnia and mathematical model incorporated two microbial populations that metabolized
Herzegovina. composting material which was split into two different fractions according to its
degradability (easily-degradable and hardly-degradable). Comparisons of
Email: [email protected]
simulation and experimental results for five dynamic state variables
Key words: demonstrated that the model has very good predictions of the composting
air flow rate, composting, kinetic process. Simulations with validated model showed that among three dynamic
model, reactor model, simulation,
state variables (organic matter conversion, carbon dioxide concentration,
mixture temperature), carbon dioxide concentration is the most sensitive while
organic matter conversion is the least sensitive to the change of air flow rate.

1. INTRODUCTION

Composting can be defined as the aerobic microbiological transfer, and organic matter conversion into CO2 and
decomposition of organic matter, to produce a stable, humic substances. There is a lack of uniformity among
pasteurized product that is beneficial to apply to soil and current models for composting process [11]. Only a few
plants [1]. During the composting process, the composting models are based on microbial kinetics. Some
biodegradable organic compounds are broken down models consider only one substrate and only one microbial
whereas part of the remaining organic material is population [5, 9], while the other models consider several
converted into humic-like substances [2]. This process substrates and several microbial populations [8, 10].
consumes oxygen and emits carbon dioxide, water vapor Taking into account the disadvantages of these models,
and heat resulting in a volume reduction of the waste and there is a need to develop a new model that can help to
pathogen destruction when a good control is performed improve prediction and optimization of the process
[3]. performance.
Growth of biomass is described as complex kinetics, The first objective of this study is to develop the
usually Monod type, in regard to substrate [4-7] and mathematical model (kinetic model and reactor model) of
oxygen [4]. Oxygen is necessary for microbial activity the composting process based on microbial kinetics. The
because the composting is aerobic process. Ventilation and case study is the mixture of poultry manure and wheat
supplying compost mass with oxygen can be carried out straw. The model will be validated by comparisons of the
inverting the mass, convection air flow and mechanical simulation data and experimental data obtained in the
ventilation. Passive ventilation convection is highly laboratory reactor. Comparison of simulation and
dependent on the porosity of the compost mass. A lack of experimental results will show if model is efficient for
oxygen results in the decay process. Oxygen consumption further analysis and optimization of process. The second
during composting depends on the humidity, which objective of this study is to use the validated model in
significantly affects the microbial activity. order to investigate the effects of the air flow rate on
The main influencing factors for composting process are organic matter conversion, carbon dioxide concentration
pH, moisture content, C/N ratio, oxygen, temperature, etc. and mixture temperature. Based on the maximum values
The mathematical formulation of the physical and of these variables, the optimum air flow rate can be
biological laws that govern the composting process was determined.
described in the reference [8]. This model of the
composting ecosystem includes mass transfer, heat

J.eng.process.meng. 9 (1) 62–68 (2017)

https://doi.org/10.7251/JEPM1709062M Open Access Journal Journal homepage: www.jepm.tfzv.ues.rs.ba
63 |M U S T A F I Ć E T A L . APPLICATION OF VALIDATED MATHEMATICAL…

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS The oxygen density is calculated by the following

equation (based on data [13]):
2.1. Mathematical model, constants/parameters and O  1.4012  0.0041 T
solution method 2

(9)
The growth rate of microbial population is described by The equation (9) is valid in the range between 0-70°C.
[10]: Correction factor for temperature is described by the
dmx ,i following equation [12]:
 i  mx ,i  kd ,i  mx ,i
dt (1)
where: mx,i - mass of microbial population i (kg), μi - T  (80  T )
specific growth rate of microbial population i (h-1), - kT  0  T  80 C
specific death rate of microbial population i (h-1), t - time 1600
(h), i - index for different fraction of substrate (1 = easily T  (60  T )
degradable fraction, 2 = hardly degradable fraction). kT  60 C  T  80C
The degradation rate of substrate fraction i is given by [2]: 20  (80  T ) (10)
dmS ,i 1  dm  Correction factor for moisture content is described by the
   x ,i    i  mx ,i following equation [14]:
dt YX i / Si  dt  (2)
where: - yield coefficient, cells produced/fraction 1
consumed (kg kg-1), βi - microbial maintenance coefficient k H 2O  ( 17.684ww 7.0622 )
of microbial population i (kg kg-1h-1). e 1 (11)
The specific growth of microbial population i can be
calculated as follows: where: ww - mass fraction of water in the mixture (-).
 mOM ,i  The mass fraction of water in the mixture (wt %) is
i   max,i     k O  kT  k H O
 2
calculated as follows:
 K S ,i  mOM ,i
2
 (3) mw
ww   100
where: - maximum specific growth of microbial population mS ,1  mS , 2  mIM  mw
i (h-1), - saturation constant of microbial population i (kg (12)
kg-1), mOM,i - organic matter content in fraction i (-), - where: mw - mass of water in composting mixture (kg).
correction factor for oxygen (-), kT - correction factor for Mass balance of oxygen is derived as follows:
temperature (-), - correction factor for moisture content.
The microbial maintenance coefficient of microbial
dmO2  dm dm  q

 YO2 / S   S ,1  S ,2   air  mO2, ,in  mO2 ,out 
population i can be written as [5]: dt  dt dt  V
(13)
 mOM ,i 
 i   max,i     kO  kT  k H O
 2
 K S ,i  mOM ,i where: YO2 / S - oxygen yield coefficient, O2 consumed /
2
 (4)
where: βmax,i - maximum microbial maintenance coefficient substrate consumed (kg kg-1), qair - air flow rate (m3 h-1),
of microbial population i (kg kg-1). mO2 , ,in - inlet oxygen mass (kg), mO2 , ,out - outlet oxygen
The mass fraction of organic matter content i (wt %) is
calculated as follows: mass (kg).
Mass balance of carbon dioxide is derived as follows:
mS ,i
wi   100
mS ,1  mS , 2  mIM
where: mIM - mass of inorganic matter (kg).
(5)
dmCO2  dm dm  q

 YCO2 / S   S ,1  S , 2   air  mCO2, ,in  mCO2, ,out 
dt  dt dt  V
(14)
Correction factor for oxygen is described by the following
equation [6]:
where: - carbon dioxide yield coefficient, CO2
cO2 produced/substrate consumed (kg kg-1), - inlet carbon
kO2  (6)
dioxide (kg), - outlet carbon dioxide mass (kg).
kO2 ( 0)  ( KO2  cO2 )
The volume fraction of carbon dioxide in exhaust air (vol
where: - correction factor for oxygen concentration in %) can be calculated as follows:
atmospheric air (20.95 vol %), - half velocity constant for mCO2
oxygen (vol %), - volume fraction of oxygen in exhaust CO   100
air (vol %).
2
 CO  V
2 (15)
The volume fraction of oxygen in exhaust air (vol %) can
The carbon dioxide density is calculated by the following
be calculated as follows [12]:
equation (based on data [13]):
mO2
O   100 CO  1.9376  0.0057  T
2
O  V 2 (16)
2 (7) Mass balance of water is derived as follows:
where: V - volume of composting mixture (m3), - mass of
 dmS ,1 dmS ,2 
  qair   a  rair ,in  rair ,out 
dmw
oxygen (kg), - oxygen density (kg m-3). The volume of  YW / S   
mixture is given by: dt  dt dt 
(17)
V  0.85 VR  
where: - water yield coefficient, H2O produced/substrate
(8) consumed (kg kg-1), - density of dry air (kg m-3), rair,in -
where: is VR - reactor volume (m3), - porosity (-). humidity ratio of inlet air (kg kg-1), rair,out - humidity
ratio of outlet air (kg kg-1).

J.eng.process.meng. 9 (1) 62–68 (2017)

https://doi.org/10.7251/JEPM1709062M Open Access Journal Journal homepage: www.jepm.tfzv.ues.rs.ba
64 |M U S T A F I Ć E T A L . APPLICATION OF VALIDATED MATHEMATICAL …
The density of dry air is calculated by the following equations. The Runge-Kutta-Fehlberg method was applied
equation (based on data [13]): in order to obtain a numerical solution of the model. The
a  1.271 0.0035 T model was implemented in the numerical software
package POLYMATH 6.0 [19].
(18)
The humidity ratios of inlet and outlet air are calculated by
the following equation (based on data [13]): 2.2. Experimental materials and experimental
methods
rair  0.1158 0.0072 T  0.0001 T 2 (19)
The equations (18-19) are valid in the range between 20- Moisture content, organic matter content (dry basis), pH
70°C. Heat balance is derived as follows: and electrical conductivity for poultry manure are 72.59
dmS ,1 dmS , 2 %, 78.07 %, 8.17 and 3.34 dS m-1, respectively. Moisture
H R,1   H R,1   qair   a  (hin  hout )  Q content, organic matter content, pH and electrical
dT dt dt conductivity for wheat straw are 10.87 %, 87.91%, 7.18

dt cP,w  mw  cP,IM  mIM  cP,S1  mS ,1  cP,S 2 mS , 2 and 1.91 dS m-1, respectively. Moisture content, organic
(20) matter content, pH and electrical conductivity for
where: T - temperature of composting mixture (°C), HR - composting mixture (poultry 83%, straw 27%, on dry
heat of reaction, heat produced/substrate consumed (J kg- basis) are 69.11 %, 80.22 %, 7.40 and 3.10 dS m-1,
1
), - enthalpy of inlet air (J kg-1), - enthalpy of outlet air respectively. The experiment was conducted using a
(J kg-1), - heat loss by conduction through the reactor composting reactor made of polyethylene, insulated with a
wall (J h-1), cP,w - specific heat capacity of water (J kg-1°C- layer of polyethylene foam. Other details about the
1),
cP,IM - specific heat capacity of inorganic matter (J kg- composting reactor can be found in literature [15]. The
1
°C-1), cP,S - specific heat capacity of substrate (J kg-1 °C-1). reactor was aerated using an air compressor with air flow
The enthalpies of inlet and outlet air are calculated by the rate of 0.9 L min-1 kg-1 (measured by air flow meter).
following equation (based on data [13]): Temperature was measured at 15-min intervals using the
h  17844 1007.2  T (21) thermocouple type T and the acquisition module. Mixing of
The equation (21) is valid in the range between 20-70°C. composting mixtures was performed several times per
The heat loss by conduction through the reactor wall is day. The samples were taken from the top, middle and
given as: bottom of the mixture in order to obtain representative
samples. The moisture content and the organic matter
Q  U  A  T  Ta  (22) content of the sample were analyzed by standard methods
where: U - overall heat transfer coefficient (J h-1m-2°C-1), A [20]. The following equation [21] was used to calculate
- heat transfer area (m2), Ta - ambient temperature. the organic matter conversion, XOM (%):
The specific heat capacities are calculated by the following
equation [15]:
X OM 
wOM , m  100
 wOM , p  100
c p  1.48  0.64  wIM  4.18  ww wOM ,m  100  wOM , p 
(23)
(25)
where: wIM - inorganic matter content (-), ww - dry-basis
where: wOM,m – mass fraction of organic matter content at
moisture content (-).
the beginning of the process (mass %) and wOM,p – mass
With the assumption about known initial elementary
fraction of organic matter content at each sampling (mass
composition of the substrate, the degradation of organic
%). Oxygen and carbon dioxide concentration were
part of the substrate is presented by the equation [14]:
determined by an Orsat analyzer.
 4a  b  2c  3d  b  3d
Ca HbOc Nd    O2  aCO2  H 2O  dNH 3
 4  2 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
(24)
The comparisons between the model and experimental
where: a, b, c and d are indices which describe the molar data are shown in Figures 1-5. The deviations between the
fraction of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, model and experimental results for temperature occurred
respectively. The values in the equation (24) are mostly during the cooling phase of the process (Figure 1).
calculated using the known molecular formula of the Mature compost and poultry manure added to the
substrate. Physical, thermodynamic and stoichiometric composting mixture made the process begin within a few
constants/parameters were measured from the hours because microorganisms adapted quickly to a new
experiment, calculated from literature data and/or taken environment. The maximum simulated temperature was
original or adjusted data from available literature 66.9°C, whereas the maximum experimental temperature
[5,7,12,14-18]: mX,1(0) = 0.01 kg, mX,2(0) = 0.0006 kg, was 64.8°C. After reaching a thermophilic peak, cooling of
μmax,1 = 0.260 h-1, μmax,2 = 0.13 h-1, kd,1 = 0.03 h-1, kd,2 = the substrate started and the simulation results showed
0.05 h-1, βmax,1 = 0.48 kg kg-1h-1, βmax,2 = 0.38 kg kg-1h-1, faster cooling in comparison to the experimental data. This
YX 1 / S1 = 0.35 kg kg-1h-1, YX 2 / S 2 = 0.35 kgX2 kgS2-1, KS,1 = is because each of the reactions (which normally occur
during the biodegradation process) was not taken into
0.5 kg kg-1, KS,2 = 0.5 kg kg-1, kO2 ( 0) = 0.96189, K O2 = account during the modeling. The limited precision of the
thermodynamic parameters might have also contributed to
0.75 %, YO2 / S1 = 1.228 kg kg-1, YO2 / S 2 = 1.296 kg kg-1, the deviations. As commonly done in other studies, a
single heat yield coefficient was used. A slight increase in
YCO 2 / S1 = 1.743 kg kg-1, YCO 2 / S 2 = 1.793 kg kg-1, YH 2O / S1 temperature after the tenth day of the process indicates
= 0.400 kg kg-1, = 0.495 kg kg-1, HR,1 = 15244 J the beginning of the second phase with degradation of
YH 2 O / S 2
hardly degradable organic fractions. It seems that the
kg-1, HR,2 = 16722 J kg-1, VR = 0.032 m3, ϕ = 0.85, ε = model is particularly sensitive to the value of overall heat
0.4, qair = 0.18 m3h-1, Ta = 21.4°C, cP,w = 4200 J kg-1 °C-1, transfer coefficient, so it should be measured
cP,IM = 840 J kg-1 °C-1, cP,S1 = 1340 J kg-1 °C-1, cP,S2 = 1403 J experimentally (not calculated). The agreement between
kg-1 °C-1, UA = 4546.8 J h-1 °C-1. the model predictions and experimental data for carbon
The mathematical model consists of eight ordinary dioxide concentration is shown in Figure 2. The deviations
differential equations of the first order and corresponding that occurred between 72nd and 120th hour can be

J.eng.process.meng. 9 (1) 62–68 (2017)

https://doi.org/10.7251/JEPM1709062M Open Access Journal Journal homepage: www.jepm.tfzv.ues.rs.ba
65 |M U S T A F I Ć E T A L . APPLICATION OF VALIDATED MATHEMATICAL…
explained by decreased microbial activity during this time
interval as well as by daily opening of the reactor for
sampling. The maximum and mean difference between the
model and experimental results for carbon dioxide
concentration are similar to the results in the reference
[8]. The agreement between the model and experimental
data for oxygen concentration is shown in Figure 3.
Oxygen concentration has declined sharply in the first 72
h. The fluctuation of oxygen concentration is related to
microbial activities during the composting process. The
results in Figure 3 showed that the minimum of simulated
oxygen concentration (12.96%) is close to the
experimental value (12.30%). Oxygen concentrations
obtained by the model and experiment showed excellent
agreement during the whole process. Some small
Figure 2. Comparison of model and experimental
deviations between the model and experimental data are
results for carbon dioxide concentration
probably caused by a decomposition of the hardly
degradable fraction, by an excessive aeration, and by the
fact that oxygen concentration was measured in exhaust
air (not in composting material). Oxygen concentration is
measured at the exit of reactor and not in the material,
and this fact also contributes to deviation between
simulated and experimental data. Deviations can be also
explained with variations in the rate of mass transfer
between liquid and gas phases, due to drying of substrates
[10]. Comparison of experimental and simulated data for
organic matter content showed very good agreement
(Figure 4). Some small deviations were noticed between
the third and the ninth day. The simulated organic matter
content was lower than the experimental values between
the third and the ninth day. Observed deviations can be
explained by transition between the first and the second
phase of the process where the most of the easily Figure 3. Comparison of model and experimental
degradable fraction was decomposed due to high process results for oxygen concentration
rate, while a small part of the hardly degradable fraction
was decomposed due to low process rate.Comparison of
model and experimental results for the moisture content
showed that the model generally follows the profile of
moisture content during the experiment (Figure 5). The
deviations that occurred are most likely a result of
material mixing. The simulation and experimental results
of the final moisture content were 55.89% and 59.43%,
respectively. The reason why the experimental results
were higher than the simulation results is due to the fact
that some amount of water was condensed on the inside
of the reactor's lid and returned to composting mass. This
agrees with the findings in the reference [6].

Figure 4. Comparison of model and experimental

results for organic matter content

Figure 1. Comparison of model and experimental

results for mixture temperature

Figure 5. Comparison of model and experimental

results for moisture content

J.eng.process.meng. 9 (1) 62–68 (2017)

https://doi.org/10.7251/JEPM1709062M Open Access Journal Journal homepage: www.jepm.tfzv.ues.rs.ba
66 |M U S T A F I Ć E T A L . APPLICATION OF VALIDATED MATHEMATICAL …
Maximum and mean differences between simulation and Therefore, it is crucial to control the air flow rate. The
experimental results for are shown in Table 1. The influence of air flow rate on organic matter conversion,
aeration rate affects microbial activity, substrate carbon dioxide concentration and mixture temperature are
degradation rate as well as temperature variation in the given in Figures 2-4. Among three dynamic state
composting process. Too little aeration can lead to variables, carbon dioxide concentration is the most
anaerobic conditions, however, too much aeration can lead sensitive while organic matter conversion is the least
to excessive cooling, preventing the thermophilic sensitive to the change of air flow rate.
conditions required for optimum rates of decomposition.

Table 1. Maximum and mean differences between simulation and experimental results for temperature, CO2
concentration, O2 concentration, organic matter content and moisture content

Reference Temperature (°C) CO2 (%) O2 (%) OM (%) MC (%)

Max. Mean Peak Max. Mean Max. Mean Max. Mean Max. Mean

[9] 13.3 4.1 3.3 8.86 1.77 - - - - - -

[22] 16.5 4.2 0.5 - - 0.11 0.02 0.14 0.05 - -

This paper 14.19 6.03 1.66 1.57 0.43 1.0 0.45 2.61 1.23 6.17 1.78

Figure 6. Profiles of organic matter conversion with Figure 8. Profiles of temperature of mixture with air
air flow rates flow rates

Table 2. Effects of air flow rates on maximum

conversion of organic matter, maximum
concentration of carbon dioxide and maximum
temperature of mixture

Air flow Maximum Maximum Maximum

rate conversion concentration temperature
(m3 h-1) of organic of carbon of mixture
matter dioxide (°C)
(%) (%)
0.06 38.26 16.87 52.77
0.08 40.16 16.39 60.92
0.10 41.24 14.30 64.04
Figure 7. Profiles of carbon dioxide concentration 0.18 41.70 8.17 65.51
with air flow rates 0.25 41.49 5.86 66.45
0.60 40.04 2.39 65.78

The values of maximum organic matter conversion,

maximum concentration of carbon dioxide and maximum Results showed that air flow rate has strong effects on
temperature of mixture for different values of air flow both organic matter conversion and the mixture
rates are given in Table 2. temperature up to 0.08-0.10 m3 h-1. Above these values,
changes of organic matter conversion and the mixture
temperature are not significant. Maximum value of final
organic matter conversion (41.70%) was obtained with air
flow rate of 0.18 m3 h-1. Above this value of air flow rate
the maximum value of final organic matter conversion
decreases slowly. The maximum mixture temperature of
65.51°C, obtained with air flow rate of 0.18 m3 h-1 is not

J.eng.process.meng. 9 (1) 62–68 (2017)

https://doi.org/10.7251/JEPM1709062M Open Access Journal Journal homepage: www.jepm.tfzv.ues.rs.ba
67 |M U S T A F I Ć E T A L . APPLICATION OF VALIDATED MATHEMATICAL…
much lower than mixture temperature of 66.45°C, 1250.
obtained with air flow rate of 0.25 m3 h-1. Therefore, air 7. Liang, Y., Leonard, J.J., Feddes, J.J.R., & McGill,
flow rate of 0.18 m3 h-1 (or 0.97 l min-1 kgOM-1) should be W.B. (2004). A mathematical model of ammonia
taken as an optimum, especially if taking into account the volatilization in composting. Transactions of the
economical aspect (i.e. a lower energy costs for aeration). ASAE, 47, 1667-1680.
This value of air flow rate is similar to the values in the 8. Kaiser, J. (1996). Modelling composting as a
references [10, 23]. microbial ecosystem: a simulation approach.
Ecological Modeling, 91, 25-37.
4. CONCLUSIONS 9. Xi, B., Wei, Z., & Liu, H. (2005). Dynamic
simulation for domestic solid waste composting
1. Kinetic model (Monod microbial kinetics with processes. Journal of the American Science, 1,
correction factors) and reactor model (mass 34-45.
balances, heat balance, stoichiometry) were 10. Solé-Mauri, F., Illa, J., Magrí, A., Prenafeta-Boldú,
developed for the composting process of the F., & Flotats, X. (2007). An integrated
mixture of poultry manure and wheat straw. biochemical and physical model for the
2. Comparison of simulation results and composting process. Bioresource Technology, 98,
experimental data for five dynamic state variables 3278-3293.
demonstrated that the model has very good 11. Courvoisier, P., & Clark, G., (2010). A numerical
predictions of the composting process. integrated model of composting processes using
3. Simulations with validated model showed that finite elements methods. In: XVII World Congress
among three dynamic state variables (organic of the International Commission of Agricultural
matter conversion, carbon dioxide concentration, and Biosystems Engineering (CIGR). Québec City,
mixture temperature), carbon dioxide Canada, June 13-17 2010, pp. 1-10.
concentration is the most sensitive while organic 12. Baptista, M., Antunes, F., Souteiro Gonçalves, M.,
matter conversion is the least sensitive to the Morvan, B., & Silveira, A. (2010). Composting
change of air flow rate. kinetics in full-scale mechanical-biological
4. According to simulation results, the optimum treatment plants. Waste Management, 30, 1908-
value for air flow rate is 0.18 m3 h-1 (0.97 l min- 1921.
1 kgOM-1). 13. ASHRAE (American Society of Heating,
5. Future work will be oriented to model modification Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers),
as well to application of the model on (2005). Handbook of Fundamentals. ASHRAE,
determination of the optimal values of other inlet 6.1-6.17. Atlanta, GA.
process parameters and optimal profiles of 14. Haug, R.T. (1993). The Practical Handbook of
dynamic state variables. Compost Engineering. Boca Ratan, FL., USA:
Lewis Publishers.
REFERENCES 15. Agnew, J.M., & Leonard, J. (2003). The physical
properties of compost. Compost Science &
1. Gomes, A. P., & Pereira, F. A. (2008). Utilization, 11, 238-264.
Mathematical modeling of a composting process 16. Ebeling, J.M., & Jenkins, B.M. (1985). Physical
and validation with experimental data. Waste and chemical properties of biomass fuels.
Management & Research, 26, 276-287. Transactions of the ASAE, 28, 898-902.
2. Veeken, A., & Hamelers, B. (1999). Effect of 17. Fontenelle, L.T., Corgié, S.C., & Walker, L.P.
temperature on hydrolysis rates of selected (2011). Integrating mixed microbial population
biowaste components. Bioresource Technology, dynamics into modeling energy transport during
69(3), 249-254. the initial stages of the aerobic composting of a
3. Keener, H.M. (1998). Composting Principles and switchgrass mixture. Bioresource Technology,
Practices for Design and Operation. The Ohio 102, 5162-5168.
State University, Ohio, USA:Compost Association. 18. Perry, R.H., & Green, D.W. (1997). Perry's
4. [4] Hamelers, H.V.M. (1993). A theoretical model Chemical Engineers' Handbook. New York, USA:
of compost kinetics. In: Hoitink, H.A.J., Keener, McGraw-Hill.
H.M. (Eds.), Science and Engineering of 19. Shacham, M., Cutlip, M.B., & Elly, M. (2004).
Composting: Design, Environmental, Microbial POLYMATH, Educational Version 6.0. USA: The
and Utilization Aspects. Renaissance Publications, CACHE Corporation.
Worthington, Ohio, pp. 36-58. 20. APHA (American Public Health Association),
5. Stombaugh, D.P., & Nokes, S.E. (1996). (1995). Standard Methods for the Examination of
Development of a biologically based aerobic Water and Wastewater. APHA, Washington, DC.
composting simulation model. Transactions of the 21. Külcu, R., & Yaldiz, O. (2004). Determination of
ASAE, 39(1), pp. 239-250. aeration rate and kinetics of composting some
6. Seki, H. (2002). A new deterministic model for agricultural wastes. Bioresource Technology, 93,
forced-aeration composting processes with batch 49-57.
operation. Transactions of the ASAE, 45, 1239- 22. Mohee R., White R.K., & Das K.C. (1998).

J.eng.process.meng. 9 (1) 62–68 (2017)

https://doi.org/10.7251/JEPM1709062M Open Access Journal Journal homepage: www.jepm.tfzv.ues.rs.ba
 68 |M U S T A F I Ć E T A L . APPLICATION OF VALIDATED MATHEMATICAL …
Simulation Model for Composting Cellulosic
(Bagasse) Substrates. Compost Science &
Utilization, 6(2), 82-92.
23. Petric, I., & Selimbašić, V. (2008). Development
and validation of mathematical model for aerobic
composting process. Chemical Engineering
Journal, 139(2), 304-317.

J.eng.process.meng. 9 (1) 62–68 (2017)

https://doi.org/10.7251/JEPM1709062M Open Access Journal Journal homepage: www.jepm.tfzv.ues.rs.ba
View publication stats