CORE FUND PROJECT - FINAL REPORT FOR 2013/14
Project title:
Centre for Integrated Biowaste Research (CIBR)
Project leader(s): Dr Jacqui Horswell
Duration: Ex-FRSt funding, continues until 2017
List the capabilities developed and by whom (include students)
CIBR core capabilities
• Microbiology
o Public and environmental health risk assessments.
o Assessments of waste processing technologies for microbial reduction.
o Generating environmental fate, transport and effects data for microbes.
• Ecotoxicology Team - Building an ecotoxicological platform that provides the
science to underpin risk assessments for contaminants found in biowastes:
o develop chemical and biological assays to characterise the effects of
micro-pollutants;
o provide data to inform the risk assessment and management of emerging
organic contaminants in biowastes that are being land applied including the
impacts of mixtures of contaminants;
o generate environmental fate, transport and toxicity data to assist the risk
assessment and management of high priority chemicals.
• Environmental life cycle assessment (LCA)
o A framework that can help establish the environmental impacts associated
with a product or service, for example, using it to assess options for
biosolids reuse.
• Cost benefit analysis (CBA)
o Systematic process for calculating and comparing benefits and costs of a
project, for example, using it to assess the economics of biosolids reuse
options.
• Soil science
o Assessing fit for purpose re-cycling/re-use of biowastes.
o How different waste treatment processes affect soil fertility and
productivity.
o Long-term field trials in a forest, glass house pot trials with native plants,
and laboratory studies.
o Use of biowastes in rehabilitating and restoring degraded soils.
• Forest ecology
o Impact of biowaste land application on forest biodiversity and functions.
o Identifying and manipulating ecological processes for improving forest use
of biowastes and minimising the environmental risks.
o Enhancing carbon sequestration in forests and soils through beneficial use
of biosolids.
o Best management practices for applying biosolids to forest plantations.
• Social science and cultural knowledge and approaches
o Community engagement methods including stakeholder analysis,
relationship building, in-depth interview and survey design, collaborative
planning hui, community dialogue workshop design and facilitation,
collaborative hui informed by Tikanga.
o ‘Fit for purpose’ community-engagement framework to support local
council decision-making.
o Sustainable behaviour change, new curriculum science education for
engaging teachers, students, whānau and households in addressing wicked
problems.
o Supporting iwi development, enterprise and waste management.
Capability development - students
[Withheld under section 9(2)(a) of the OIA]
[Withheld under section 9(2)(a) of the OIA]
[Withheld under section 9(2)(a) of the OIA]
[Withheld under section 9(2)(a) of the OIA]
[Withheld under section 9(2)(a) of the OIA]
[Withheld under section 9(2)(a) of the OIA]
[Withheld under section 9(2)(a) of the OIA]
[Withheld under section 9(2)(a) of the OIA]
[Withheld under section 9(2)(a) of the OIA]
[Withheld under section 9(2)(a) of the OIA]
[Withheld under section 9(2)(a) of the OIA]
[Withheld under section 9(2)(a) of the OIA]
[Withheld under section 9(2)(a) of the OIA]
[Withheld under section 9(2)(a) of the OIA]
[Withheld under section 9(2)(a) of the OIA]
[Withheld under section 9(2)(a) of the OIA]
[Withheld under section 9(2)(a) of the OIA]
[Withheld under section 9(2)(a) of the OIA]
Completed students
[Withheld under section 9(2)(a) of the OIA] [Withheld under section 9(2)(a) of the OIA]
[Withheld under section 9(2)(a) of the OIA]
[Withheld under section 9(2)(a) of the OIA]
[Withheld under section 9(2)(a) of the OIA]
[Withheld under section 9(2)(a) of the OIA]
List the external research or grant proposals submitted (include $ value) and any
research funding obtained that have been made possible as a result of CF investment
in the project, include proposals awaiting funding decisions:
Grant proposals submitted
Funding body
Project title
Funding
Successful/declined/pending
requested
[Withheld under
[Withheld under [Withheld under Declined
section
section
section
9(2)(b)(ii) of the
9(2)(b)(ii) of the
9(2)(b)(ii) of the
OIA]
OIA]
OIA]
[Withheld under
[Withheld under [Withheld under Declined
section
section
section
9(2)(b)(ii) of the
9(2)(b)(ii) of the
9(2)(b)(ii) of the
OIA]
OIA]
OIA]
[Withheld under
[Withheld under [Withheld under Declined
section
section
section
9(2)(b)(ii) of the
9(2)(b)(ii) of the
9(2)(b)(ii) of the
OIA]
OIA]
OIA]
List all external research revenue obtained seeded by this CF project:
Co-funding and subcontracting
Funding type
Organisation name
Amount
[Withheld under
Co-funding
[Withheld under section 9(2)(b)(ii) of the OIA] section 9(2)(b)(ii) of
the OIA]
Co-funding
[Withheld under section 9(2)(b)(ii) of the OIA] [Withheld under
section 9(2)(b)(ii) of
the OIA]
Co funding
[Withheld under section 9(2)(b)(ii) of the OIA] [Withheld under
section 9(2)(b)(ii) of
the OIA]
Co-funding
[Withheld under section 9(2)(b)(ii) of the OIA] [Withheld under
section 9(2)(b)(ii) of
the OIA]
Co-funding
[Withheld under section 9(2)(b)(ii) of the OIA] [Withheld under
section 9(2)(b)(ii) of
the OIA]
Co-funding
[Withheld under section 9(2)(b)(ii) of the OIA] [Withheld under
section 9(2)(b)(ii) of
the OIA]
Sub-contract
[Withheld under section 9(2)(b)(ii) of the OIA] [Withheld under
section 9(2)(b)(ii) of
the OIA]
Sub-contract
[Withheld under section 9(2)(b)(ii) of the OIA] [Withheld under
section 9(2)(b)(ii) of
the OIA]
Sub-contract
[Withheld under section 9(2)(b)(ii) of the OIA] [Withheld under
section 9(2)(b)(ii) of
the OIA]
Co-funding
[Withheld under section 9(2)(b)(ii) of the OIA] [Withheld under
section 9(2)(b)(ii) of
the OIA]
Show commercial benefits from the investment, list any new products or services
made possible by CF, both actual and potential (be realistic, not far fetched) and
estimate revenue, clients and timeframe for achieving this: [Withheld under section 9(2)(b)(ii) of the OIA]
How does your research contribute to ESR’s IMPACT/s?
The CIBR programme contributes specifically to
Outcome 4 by improving the safer use
of biowastes.
The key impact area for outcome 4 is
Reducing morbidity and mortality rates from
contaminated water by:
Decreasing exposure to hazardous substances and water-borne pathogens, and
Decreasing environmental contamination from grey water and biowaste: CIBR has
assessed waste processing technologies, such as vermicomposting to improve biowastes
quality, reduce risks and enhance their reuse as soil fertiliser or amendment. We have
characterised chemical and microbial levels in biowaste and found that levels of key
contaminants of concern are similar to those found overseas. Environmental fate,
transport and effects data for priority chemicals and mixtures of these chemicals has
found that compounds such as triclosan (an antimicrobial used in hand soaps and
toothpastes) can cause ecotoxicological impacts in the environment. Microbiological
contaminants in biowastes can be managed by process controls such as anaerobic
digestion, followed by land treatment site management (e.g. withholding periods).
Information for national and regional water policy: CIBR provides the science that
underpins the development of national guidelines for sustainable waste re-use (e.g. the
Organic Waste Guidelines currently under development); provides advice and peer review
of human health impacts for resource consent applications and district planning, with
respect to land application of wastes; CIBR team members sit on national and
international advisory groups, boards and Steering Committees (e.g. Australia/New
Zealand Biosolids Partnership; NZ Land Treatment Collective; BRANZ).
List anything else that can demonstrate value from this CF investment:
Science Quality:
Indicator
Number
Peer-reviewed journal articles accepted for science
15
publication
Masters or doctorate theses
6
Published conference proceedings
55
Keynote presentations
2
Commissioned Reports:
22
Workshop/hui
14
Number of non peer reviewed published articles
18
Executive summary – Three to four sentences giving an overview of your project and
the results obtained. This will be used for the board report so keep in mind that not
everyone is an expert in your field.
Three key achievements:
1.
Manuka: ESR has been working with Lincoln University on a joint project to
explore the benefits of applying biosolids to manuka plantations. Biosolids
are carbon-rich and contain high concentrations of valuable nutrients that are
effective for the rebuilding of soil that has become degraded from pine
forestry. NZ native
Leptospermum scoparium (manuka) is widely used in
land restoration projects in New Zealand due to its hardy, tolerant nature. It
addition, manuka components have economic value through commercial
production of honey and essential oil-related products. This makes
establishment of manuka plantations a viable option, particularly if this can
be achieved on low quality or degraded land. We have shown that some of
the negative effects of biosolids and dairy waste addition to soil can be
mitigated by planting of manuka. In the ESR led part of the project we
demonstrated that manuka can increase the die-off of waste-borne pathogens
in soil, this work also led to a successful Pioneer fund project. Lincoln
University work showed that manuka can interfere with the nitrogen cycle in
soil, significantly reducing the evolution of nitrous oxide a potent greenhouse
gas, and reduce nitrate leaching that poses a threat to groundwater. Results
indicate that the most effective use of a waste such as biosolids would be
during establishment of manuka seedlings in degraded soil, rather than being
continually added as a fertiliser during manuka production. This new
knowledge could provide additional economic benefits through commercial
production of manuka honey and provide a more cost-effective beneficial re-
use of biosolids, and mitigate some of the environmental impacts of waste
application to land.
2.
CIBR workshop – ESR organised the second CIBR end-user workshop
“Advancing resource recovery/reuse from biowastes” in April. Over 60
representatives from District and Regional Councils, Biosolids industry and
other end-users attended. Presentations were made by all parties, including
an international speaker Mr Tung Nygen from Sydney Water who gave the
keynote address. The workshop also included presentations of the latest
research from the CIBR team and facilitated discussions on the new “Organic
materials” guidelines, an initiative involving Jacqui Horswell from ESR and
in partnership with WaterNZ and WasteMINZ.
3.
Up the Pipe solutions – In this Ministry for the Environment co-funded project
we went back ‘up the pipe’ to involve school children in research projects to
better understand and reduce the waste that goes down our drains. ESR led
the social/cultural component that developed a ‘vehicle’ to engage students
in science and expand young minds, and generated resources, activities and
approaches. The resources support behaviour change initiatives by
encouraging students to be ‘change instigators’ within their whānau.
Minimising contaminants in biowastes will ultimately support higher rates of
waste recovery and re-use. This project has seeded two research proposals
(outlined above), resulted in a number of popular media articles (e.g.
Consumer magazine and North and South) and radio interviews (e.g. RNZ
Morning report)); provided track record for ESR in the area of “Science
citizenship” and positions us for participation in the “Science in Society
strategic plan” recently launched by MBIE. We have developed a network of
key stakeholder relationships in this area including New Zealand Centre for
Educational Research (NZCER), Enviroschools, EcoStore, and a number of
schools.
4.
Australia and New Zealand Biosolids partnership – Jacqui Horswell
continues to contribute to the governance of this partnership as a board
member by directing initiatives within Australasia. This has resulted in
commercial benefits and raising the profile of the New Zealand collaborators
including CIBR. Jacqui and Lisa Langer presented papers on community
engagement for biosolids decision-making and up the pipe solutions to the
AWA Biosolids and Source Management National Conference in Melbourne.
The research was well received and it highlighted that the social and cultural
research performed by CIBR is well ahead of research within the Australian
biosolids and source management industries. The Australians are keen to
receive community ‘buy-in’ and think of communities as requiring education
rather than seeking sustainable solutions with communities. The conference
presentations provided an opportunity to signal CIBR expertise in this area
and hopefully it will mean the Australians will seek more input if community
discontent arises in the future.
Project report – Make this a stand-alone final report suitable to include in a
consolidated report to the ESR Board. Include brief background, what you did, what you
found, conclusions (2-3 pages). This is the opportunity to tell a success story that ESR
can use in Briefing and other communications.
The CIBR is a virtual centre, combining the expertise of 8 New Zealand research
institutes, universities and research partners dedicated to developing both the biophysical
and social science behind appropriate and sustainable beneficial reuse of organic,
biodegradable waste such as sewage sludge, industrial and agricultural waste;
kitchen/food waste; and green waste. Led by ESR, CIBR brings together a multi-
disciplinary team of scientists and researchers from ESR, Scion, Cawthron Institute,
Landcare Research, Lincoln University, Lowe Environmental Impact, Northcott Research
Consultants Ltd. and Kukupa Research.
CIBR science
The ‘reduce, reuse, recycle’ message from government is a compelling reason for
communities to look at sustainable options for waste management. Each year, New
Zealanders send around 3.2 million tonnes of waste to landfill, over a tonne of rubbish
per household. The organic waste stream comprises more than 62% of the total waste
stream going to landfill in New Zealand, and at around 700,000 tonnes per year, it is
growing (Ministry for the Environment, Indicator update, October 2012; INFO 654). The
burden on the environment and the dollar cost to councils is increasing with resource
consent applications and the physical act of burying the material. These wastes are
carbon-rich and generally contain high concentrations of valuable nutrients which, if
properly treated and/or processed, can have added value through resource recovery. An
example is the re-use of organic wastes as a sustainable soil conditioner that has the
potential to provide valuable physical (e.g. increased water holding capacity, infiltration
and aeration), biological (e.g. beneficial organisms) and chemical (e.g. essential plant
nutrients and ability to mitigate chemical contaminants) attributes.
However, some organic wastes can also contain a range of micro-contaminants such as
heavy metals, agrichemicals, pathogens, pharmaceuticals and personal care products, thus
management requires technical guidance and regulation to ensure minimal
environmental/public health risk and maximum value recovery.
Despite having science-based regulations or guidelines to facilitate beneficial reuse of
many organic wastes (e.g. Guidelines for the Safe Application of Biosolids to Land in
New Zealand, New Zealand Standard for Composts, Soil Conditioners and Mulches
(NZS 4454:2005)), progress has been slow towards achieving the NZ Waste Strategy
target of improving the efficiency of resource use and diversion of organic wastes from
landfill. In part this is because land application of biowastes, especially the more
contentious wastes such as sewage sludge, hinges on the outcomes of
integrating both biophysical and social science; there is also insufficient understanding of
the risks (perceived and otherwise) with some wastes and no nationwide consistency of
approach. Some guidelines are outdated and in need of review as new science is now
available on quality criteria such as contaminant limits. CIBR provides the science that
underpins the development of national guidelines such as the new Organic Wastes
Guideline currently being developed in collaboration with WaterNZ, WasteMINZ, CIBR
and the Land Treatment Collective. These new guidelines will increase reuse of waste by
clarifying and streamlining regulatory processes to facilitate greater beneficial re-use of
organic wastes.
Working with our two case-study communities (Kaikōura and Mokai), we have
development a blueprint for successful community engagement, which has guided the
implementation of biosolids solutions in our case study regions, and provided a basis for
regional planning, national guidelines and policy directions.
Four years of most successful community engagement hui and underlying biophysical
research for the Kaikōura case study culminated in community recommendations for land
applications of 1500 tonnes of stockpiled biosolids, Following an invitation by the
Kaikōura District Council CEO, the CIBR social and cultural team presented the
Kaikōura case study community engagement report to the Kaikōura District Councillors.
The councillors unanimously accepted the CIBR report paving the way for the Council to
implement the research and the community recommended biosolids reuse options. The
team continue to have dialogue with the Council and Te Rūnanga o Kaikōura to discuss
plans to spread biosolids on land at the Wastewater Treatment Plant and plant it with
native species. CIBR will present manuka research to a forth coming rūnanga meeting to
present knowledge and research capability on the establishment of native species.
The Mokai case study was somewhat challenging. More complex cultural and local
government arrangements meant that much of the social research was focused on more
hypothetical scoping for iwi enterprise around beneficial reuse, rather than actual
decision support. Highlights included deepening our understanding of’ tapu to noa’
cultural management frameworks, a waste survey with Mokai households, and a
‘willingness to pay’ exercise conducted by
[Withheld under section 9(2)(a) of the OIA] in
the final hui.
[Withheld under section 9(2)(a) of the OIA] was involved in a very
successful extension of the ‘Up the Pipe’ and greywater exercise with Tirohanga Primary
School, and the Principal
[Withheld under section 9(2)(a) of the OIA], helped us develop
‘Up the Pipe’ resources for primary school level. Based on the survey results, the students
also designed posters for the Mokai marae to highlight good practices for care of the
Marae’s newly upgraded septic tank systems. Research into vermicomposting and septic
tank waste were several highlights of the biophysical science research, but overall there
was not the same degree of integration between the social and biophysical sciences, and
science, iwi, council and community partnerships that characterised the success of
Kaikoura. We would also like to acknowledge the recent passing and enormous support
of the late
[Withheld under section 9(2)(a) of the OIA] who was a keen champion of the
Mokai work.
Integration of biophysical, economic, social and cultural science including Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA) and economic modelling were demonstrated within the two case
studies. The lessons learned from community engagement in the two case studies and
past research has led to the development of a community engagement framework for end-
users.
Our long-term field trial has been investigating the sustainability of biosolids land
application in plantation forests. Biosolids from Nelson have been applied to a radiata
pine forest on Rabbit Island since 1996. Research has focussed on the effects on tree
growth, nutrition, soil and the ecosystem environmental quality. This trial is providing
important information on the sustainability of land treatment of biowastes and its
economic outcomes, resulting in improved soil fertility and stand productivity (by 35%)
and increased soil fertility. Long-term biosolids land application has transformed the
forest site from relatively low to moderately high productivity without causing significant
adverse effect on the environment.
Our extensive ecotoxicology platform allows us to characterise range of contaminants
commonly detected in biowastes such as biosolids. This is underpinned by chemical
analysis allowing us to provide biowaste producers and regulators with a comprehensive
risk assessment of the environmental and public health impacts of waste water and waste
solids.
A key focus of our research is to understand the impacts of mixtures of contaminants in
biowastes on the environment. We investigated how the mixtures of copper, zinc, and
triclosan (antimicrobial used in bodycare products) effects soil microbes and key
indicator species (e.g. earthworms). We found that the presence of co-contaminants in
complex waste materials such as biosolids may combine to produce synergistic or
additive ecotoxicological impacts upon soil function and health indicators. Further work
into mixtures using ‘in vitro’ laboratory bioassays (such as zebra fish) has demonstrated
that the chemicals tested showed toxicity and the potential to interact with other
chemicals. The research identified high risk chemicals including the disinfectant
chloroxylenol, the UV filter/sunscreen agent octyl-methoxycinnamate, and the
antimicrobial chemical triclosan. A series of experiments were conducted using an
earthworm standard toxicity test with mixtures of triclosan, bisphenol A (BPA, a
plasticiser) and carbamazepine (a psychiatric drug). On-going research continues to
assess the potential toxicity of a wider range chemicals commonly found in biosolids,
particularly the long-term chronic impacts (e.g. effects on reproduction) of individual
chemicals and mixtures. In the future guidelines should acknowledge and take into
account the combination of chemicals present in organic wastes and develop new risk
assessment procedures that incorporate thresholds for mixtures of chemical contaminants.
We have continued to extend our capability in ‘ecotoxicology; and developed new assays
to assess oxidative stress and influence on thyroid function that provide new information
on the potential environmental effects of contaminants and contaminant mixtures
associated with biowastes and that have led to new international collaboration.
The CIBR programme has been developing smarter ways of mitigating potential
environmental impacts of contaminants present in biowastes. Biosolids can be combined
with wood waste or pyrolysed wood-waste (biochar) to reduce leaching of nitrate.
Research has shown that most nitrate leaching occurs as a single pulse immediately
following biosolids addition. Mixing biosolids with sawdust or biochar can adsorb the
free nitrate present in the biosolids thereby eliminating the pulse of nitrate though to
groundwater. Using biochar results in the long-term increase of soil carbon, which has
agronomic and environmental benefits. The nitrogen leaching from biosolids may also be
reduced by some NZ native plants. Preliminary results indicate that manuka and kanuka
can reduce both nitrification (which leads to nitrate leaching) and denitrification (which
leads to nitrogen loss and nitrous oxide emissions).
The high cadmium (Cd) concentration in biosolids can result in unacceptable plant uptake
of this toxic heavy metal. CIBR has found that mixing biosolids with other biowastes
such as lignite can significantly reduce plant Cd-uptake. Biowastes such as compost can
also reduce Cd-accumulation in plants grown in other Cd-contaminated soils. Most NZ
soils contain elevated Cd concentrations through the repeated application of
superphosphate fertiliser.
The CIBR has worked this year on development of a strategic plan and formed a
Business Development Working Group to support revenue growth. A new Business
Leader has been appointed (Rob Lei from Scion) with broader expertise and linkages to
the ‘whole’ waste sector to reflect the CIBR’s wider focus from biosolids to all
biowastes.
