Composting methods comparison

Army conducted an economic evaluation of windrow composting versus the aerated static pile, and a mechanically agitated invessel composting system (MAIV). 

The results of this economic evaluation show that windrow composting treatment costs are less than aerated static pile or mechanical composting. The MAIV composting system is comparable on a cost-per-ton basis to incineration at 290/ton of soil treated compared to 300/ton for incineration. The greatest cost savings in comparison to incineration are seen by the windrow composting system at 187/ton. The aerated static pile system treatment only costs are estimated at 236/ton. All estimates 

In addition to the cost savings demonstrated by windrow composting in comparison to other composting methods, there are other, less quantifiable, advantages associated with the use of a windrow system. For example, the windrow system has significantly less process control requirements, and so has less equipment subject to downtime that could lead to system performance variations. Also, the windrow system has demonstrated RDX (99.8% removal) and HMX (96.8% removal) reduction. The other composting systems have not shown this level of destruction. 

---

Chapter 2 gives an overview of corrrpostable polymer rrraterials starting with defirritiorts, arrd explaining differences in comparison with biodegradable pofymers. It discusses origin (synthetic and natural), structures and methods of preparation of corrrpostable polymers. The producers of compostable polymer rrraterials and their websites are giverr. 

PLA is advantaged in each comparison. It is interesting to note that the fossil resource differs with each of the disposal methods. Neither polystyrene nor PET can be composted or degraded in anaerobic digestion. 

---