Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

ISSN: 1096-2247 (Print) 2162-2906 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uawm20

A Fuzzy Composting Process Model

Xiaosheng Qin , Guohe Huang , Guangming Zeng , Amit Chakma & Beidou Xi

To cite this article: Xiaosheng Qin , Guohe Huang , Guangming Zeng , Amit Chakma & Beidou Xi
(2007) A Fuzzy Composting Process Model, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association,
57:5, 535-550, DOI: 10.3155/1047-3289.57.5.535

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.3155/1047-3289.57.5.535

Published online: 29 Feb 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 428

Citing articles: 29 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uawm20
TECHNICAL PAPER ISSN:1047-3289 J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 57:535–550
DOI:10.3155/1047-3289.57.5.535
Copyright 2007 Air & Waste Management Association

A Fuzzy Composting Process Model

Xiaosheng Qin and Guohe Huang
Sino-Canada Center of Energy and Environmental Research, North China Electric Power
University, Beijing, People’s Republic of China; and Environmental System Engineering Program,
Faculty of Engineering, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatoon, Canada

Guangming Zeng
College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Hunan University, Changsha, People’s
Republic of China

Amit Chakma
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Beidou Xi
Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing, People’s Republic of China

ABSTRACT membership functions. The results indicated that the un-

Composting processes are normally complicated with a
variety of uncertainties arising from incomplete or impre-
cise information obtained in real-world systems. Previ-
ously, there has been a lack of studies that focused on
developing effective approaches to incorporate such un-
certainties within composting process models. To fill this
gap, a fuzzy composting process model (FCPM) for simu-
lating composting process under uncertainty was devel-
oped. This model was mainly based on integration of a
fractional fuzzy vertex method and a comprehensive
composting model. Degrees of influence by projected un-
certain factors were also examined. Two scenarios were
investigated in applying the FCPM method. In the first
scenario, model simulation under deterministic condi-
tions was conducted. A pilot-scale experiment was pro-
vided for verifications. The result indicated that the pro-
posed composting model could provide an excellent
vehicle for demonstrating the complex interactions that
occurred in the composting process. In the second sce-
nario, application of the proposed FCPM was conducted
under uncertainties. Six input parameters were considered
to be of uncertain features that were reflected as fuzzy
IMPLICATIONS
The research outputs demonstrated a number of deviations
between model simulation and real composting reactions
because of existence of a variety of uncertainties arising
from incomplete or imprecise information. This implies that
the simulation outputs that are normally obtained through
deterministic composting models (with crisp-value param-
eters) can hardly be used to describe all of the possible
system responses. The proposed method showed better
applicability in dealing with such problems and could gen-
erate satisfactory outputs with less computational efforts
being required.
certainties projected in input parameters will result in
significant derivations on system predictions; the pro-
posed FCPM can generate satisfactory system outputs,
with less computational efforts being required. Analyses
on degree of influence of system inputs were also pro-
vided to describe the impacts of uncertainties on system
responses. Thus, suitable measures can be adopted either
to reduce system uncertainty by well-directed reduction
of uncertainties of those high-influencing parameters or
to reduce the computational requirement by neglecting
those negligible factors.
INTRODUCTION
Composting is an effective approach for converting or-
ganic substrates to stable humus-like products via biolog-
ical degradation. Its process is affected by a variety of
biochemical and physical factors (e.g., constituents, pH,
and water content of solid wastes) and operating condi-
tions (e.g. C/N ratio, aeration rate, and reaction temper-
ature). Although effects of these factors have been stressed
by many experiments, it is often difficult to gain an in-
depth understanding into their interactions and the asso-
ciated process dynamics. Analytical and/or numerical
simulation models have been widely used for handling
such complexities. In addition, composting processes are
also complicated with a variety of uncertainties arising
from incomplete or imprecise information obtained in
real world systems. For example, a measure through ex-
periments may be imprecise because of the existence of
human-induced, systematic, and/or random errors; some
parameters can hardly be quantified as deterministic
numbers because of insufficient information sources,
complex on-site conditions, and/or varying human pref-
erences. These lead to difficulties in generating a complete
spectrum of potential modeling results that are crucial for

Volume 57 May 2007 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 535
Qin, Huang, Zeng, Chakma, and Xi
proper design, control, and operation of composting sys-
tems. The reasons are as follows: (1) converting the un-
certainties into recognizable mathematical expressions is
influenced by availability and characteristic of the uncer-
tain information; (2) mapping the uncertainties into sys-
tem responses is complicated with process dynamics and
system nonlinearities; (3) controlling a composting pro-
cess without considering the uncertainties may lead to
deviated or even false operating conditions. Thus, effec-
tive approaches that can incorporate such uncertainties
within composting process models are desired.
In the past decades, a number of efforts were made in
developing various composting models. Two main ap-
proaches were generally developed: analytical models and
numerical models. The analytical models were primarily
based on mass balance and energy conservation princi-
ples and/or experiential biodegradation kinetics. For ex-
ample, Keener et al.1 developed an analytical model to
examine the interactions among biological and physical
factors based on kinetic expressions, where impacts of
temperature, depth of composting bulk, and biological
degradation rate on system performances were investi-
gated; Kaiser2 analyzed the thermodynamics and kinetics
of composting processes and proposed a model that re-
flected mass transfer, heat transfer, and biotransforma-
tion of organic materials; Stombaugh and Nokes3 devel-
oped a model based on Monod microbial growth kinetics;
this model was presented as differential equations for
describing microbial, substrate, moisture, and tempera-
ture profiles in composting processes. Mohee and White4
developed a dynamic composting model to examine bio-
degradation processes based on the knowledge of physical
and chemical reactions. More recently, Bari and Koenig5
studied a kinetics analysis of forced aeration composting
processes operated under different aeration modes. Xi et
al.6 developed a two-stage modeling approach for describ-
ing inoculation effects on composting processes. Numer-
ical approaches can also be found in Nakasaki et al.7 and
Das and Keener.8 Most of the previous studies achieved
successes in modeling specific portions of the composting
processes from either a biological or physiochemical
point of view. In fact, the composting process generally
has significant temporal variations because of the dy-
namic features of many process components and their
interactions. Design of a cost-effective composting system
should, thus, be based on modeling efforts from a more
comprehensive point of view.
Another complexity of the composting process is the
existence of uncertainties in many modeling parameters
and their interrelationships. However, almost all of the
previous models were deterministic ones. The main ap-
proaches for process simulation under uncertainty in-
clude interval, stochastic, and fuzzy models.9 –12 In the
interval analysis approach, each of the uncertain param-
eters is assumed to have upper and lower limits without a
probability structure. This method is especially useful
when system uncertainties were highly unknown. It has
been widely used in optimization problems of water qual-
ity planning and solid waste management.13–15 Probabi-
listic methodology is another measure to address uncer-
tainties. It has been widely used in environmental
modeling systems during the past decades and has been
536 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association
regarded as an effective framework for tackling uncertain-
ties. 14 With this approach, uncertainties associated with
the modeling inputs are described by probability distribu-
tion, such that the modeling outputs can be characterized
as probabilistic information. Most of the previous efforts
focused on the technique of Monte Carlo simulation.16,17
Such a method involved repeated generations of pseudo-
values for uncertain parameters drawn from known prob-
ability distributions, so as to produce probability and cu-
mulative distribution curves. In many engineering
practices, there is a shortage of information for establish-
ing probability density functions,18 leading to limited
applicability of the stochastic methods.
Another approach based on fuzzy set theory has been
proved to be more practical. It is a method that facilitates
the analysis of systems with uncertainties being derived
from vagueness or fuzziness rather than randomness
alone. Thus, uncertainties can be handled in a direct way
without a large number of realizations. The fuzzy model-
ing approach has been successfully applied in many fields,
such as risk assessment, decision analysis, engineering
design, and optimization.19 –23 For example, Hanss24 pro-
posed a so-called fuzzy transformation method and ap-
plied it to the simulation and analysis of a model for the
friction interface between the sliding surfaces of a bolted
joint connection under uncertainties. Li et al.17 proposed
a modified fuzzy vertex (FV) method to reflect parameter
uncertainties in simulating contaminant flow and trans-
port in porous media to examine the fate of petroleum
contaminants in groundwater.
Generally, the previous applications of fuzzy arith-
metic were mostly based on the FV method. Uncertain
parameters were tackled as fuzzy sets, and the subsequent
arithmetical operations were implemented through dis-
cretizing the membership domain. Uncertainties of the
modeling results could then be represented as fuzzy sets.
However, the number of simulation runs could become
extremely high when many uncertain parameters and/or
␣-cut levels were investigated; this could lead to high
computational requirements and hinder applicability of
such methods. In addition, the traditional fuzzy methods
could hardly quantify respective effects of each uncertain
parameter to the overall modeling outputs.
Therefore, as an extension to previous efforts and an
attempt to tackle the above problems, the objective of this
research is to develop a fuzzy composting process model
(FCPM) through the advancement of a fractional FV
method and the formulation of an integrated composting
process model. The FCPM is capable of handling system
dynamics, nonlinearities, and uncertainties. More impor-
tantly, it is useful when the related information is not
readily available for supporting uncertainty analyses of
the complexities through conventional stochastic meth-
ods. The objective entails the following: (1) the develop-
ment of a fractional FV method for addressing uncertain-
ties represented in deterministic model parameters; (2)
the attempt to integrate biological kinetics, mass conser-
vation, water/energy balances, and oxygen content into a
general framework, under uncertain system conditions,
which will result in the development of an innovative
integrated, dynamic composting-process model; (3) the
development of a FCPM based on integration of proposed
Volume 57 May 2007

fuzzy approaches and dynamic composting models; and
(4) the verification of the proposed modeling system
through a pilot-scale laboratory experiment.
EXPERIMENTAL WORK
With the fuzzy approaches, the uncertain parameters in
the compost model can be quantified as fuzzy sets, lead-
ing to a FCPM. The whole system integrates the fractional
FV (FFV) method, kinetics of composting processes, water
balance, and mass/energy conservations.
FFV Method
In fuzzy set theory, a membership function ␮A (x) is used
to represent the degree to which an element belongs to
the set in question.25 The membership function of any
fuzzy set A may conveniently be expressed for all x⑀X in
canonical form19:
冦
f A 共x兲 when x⑀关a,b兲
1 when x⑀关b,c兴
␮ A 共x兲 ⫽ g 共x兲 when x⑀共c,d兴 (1)
A
0 otherwise
where a, b, c, d ⑀ X and a ⱕ b ⱕ c ⱕ d, fA is a real-valued
function that is increasing and right continuous, and gA
is a real-valued function that is decreasing and left
continuous.
There are many approaches for generating member-
ship functions; among them, the Gaussian membership
function is commonly used by many researchers.22 A
Gaussian fuzzy set can be defined by specifying three
numbers: (1) the most credible value, (2) the lowest pos-
sible value, and (3) the highest possible value. These num-
bers can be acquired through approaches such as inter-
views, round-table meetings, and questionnaire surveys.
The most credible value is assigned a membership value of
1, and any number that falls short of the lowest possible
value or exceeds the highest possible value will get a
membership grade of 0. The intermediate membership
grades can be obtained by interpolation based on the
Gaussian distribution curve.
The ␣-level cut (defined as A␣ ⫽ {x ␮A(x) ⱖ ␣}) is a set
of elements that belong to fuzzy set A at least to degree ␣,
and this degree is also called the degree of confidence or
the degree of plausibility. The FV method was first pro-
posed by Dong and Shah.26 The basic idea is to divide
input membership domain into a series of equally spaced
␣-cuts; for each ␣-cut, the upper and lower points, as well
as the interior points of each fuzzy variable, are selected;
through model simulation, with different combinations
of those points being used as input values, output mem-
bership domain can be given by the maximum and min-
imum values of model results at each ␣-cut levels. Dong
and Shah27 noted that the maximum or minimum value
of the response function might not occur at the bounds of
the interval. The extremum of the function within the
interval must be included, or an incorrect result will be
obtained. In the FV method, all of the possible combina-
tions of the interior points from all of the ␣-cuts are
evaluated. However, the number of function evaluations
of the FV method increases with the numbers of both
Volume 57 May 2007
Qin, Huang, Zeng, Chakma, and Xi
␣-cuts and variables. The total number of function that
needs to be evaluated for n variables and m ␣-cuts can be
estimated based on the following equation:
冘
m
PN ⫽ 共2j ⫺ 1兲 n (2)
j⫽1
where PN is the number of evaluation, and j is the jth
␣-cut level. Obviously, the number of function evalua-
tions will become unmanageable for problems with
large numbers of uncertain variables or ␣-cuts. Mean-
while, if an insufficient number of ␣-cuts is used, the
interior extremum might still be missed. Therefore, a
method that can reduce the number of function evalu-
ations but still ensure the solution containing the ex-
tremum of the function within the bounds of the fuzzy
variables is desired. In addition, influence of uncer-
tainty on model outputs from an individual input pa-
rameter was not well handled through the FV method.
Over the last decades, improvement of this method has
already been an objective of a number of studies.27 The
transformation method was such an effort that has
been proved to be successful in many applications.24 In
this study, a modified version of the vertex method,
FFV, is developed based on fuzzy transformation and
degree-of-influence (DI) determination.
Fuzzy Transformation
For a fuzzy-parameterized simulation model, each fuzzy
parameter (xi) can be decomposed into m ␣-cuts, leading
to PAi ⫽ {xi(1), xi(2), . . . , xi(m)}. The xi( j) (j ⫽ 1, 2, . . . , m)
represents a fuzzy interval at the jth ␣-cut level, denoted as
xi( j) ⫽ [ ai( j), bi( j) ]. The ai( j) and bi( j) are the lower and upper
bounds at the jth ␣-cut level, respectively. Obviously,
when j ⫽ 1, then ai(1) ⫽ bi(1) . Assume an equal distance
over ␮ axis between each pair of neighboring ␣-cut levels,
the membership grade ␮j at ␣-cut j can be given by ␮j ⫽
(m ⫺ j)/(m ⫺ 1). In the conventional FV method, the
input-value vector (cij, i ⫽ 1, 2, . . . , n; j ⫽ 1, 2, . . . , m)
consists of interior points at the jth ␣-cut level. Thus the
ith input variable can be given as follows:17
c ij ⫽ T i,j
1 2
, T i,j k
, . . . ,T i,j 2j ⫺ 1
, . . . , ,T i,j ,
k ⫽ 1, 2, . . . , 2j ⫺ 1, (3)
k
where Ti,j is the kth element of cij, representing a parameter
for the kth interior point, which is defined as follows:
冦
a i共j ⫺ k ⫹ 1兲 1⬍k⬍j⫺1
共1兲 共1兲
k
T i,j ⫽ a i or bi k⫽j (4)
共k ⫺ j ⫹ 1兲
b i j ⫹ 1 ⱕ k ⱕ 2j ⫺ 1.
According to definitions in eq 4, the number of
model evaluation at the jth ␣-cut level would be (2j ⫺ 1)n.
When the number of input variables is large, the resulting
computational requirement would then limit the applica-
bility of the FV method.
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 537
Qin, Huang, Zeng, Chakma, and Xi

Figure 1. Selections of interior points for (a) FV and (b) FCPM methods.

冘
Based on the concept of fuzzy transformation n
⳵f
method that proposed by Hanss,24 interior extremum can df ⫽ 共p៮ 兲dx i , (7)
also be obtained based on a more efficient selection of ⳵x i
i⫽1
internal points. For such an improved selection scheme,
the input-value vector c1j (i ⫽ 1, 2, . . . , n; j ⫽ 1, 2, . . . , m)
where df is the total differential, which can be interpreted
consisted of interior points at the jth ␣-cut level, and ith
as an approximation of the overall change rate of the
input variable can be given as follows:
function value f(p៮ ) when the input parameters xi are
changed by dxi around x៮ i. Each input change dxi individ-
c 1j ⫽ 共I i,j
1 2
, I i,j r
, . . . , I i,j j
, . . . , I i,j 兲 共r ⫽ 1, 2, . . . , j兲, (5) ually contributes dfi to the overall change rate df. If the
change rate dxi of the ith input parameters is assumed to
be a constant percentage c of its corresponding peak
r
where Ii,j is the rth element of cij, defined by the following value, dxi can be replaced by cx៮ i. Thus, eq 10 converts as
equations:28 follows:

冘冋 册
冦
a i共j兲
n
r⫽1 ⳵f
df ⫽ c x៮ i 䡠 共p៮ 兲 (8)
r⫺1 ⳵x i
⫽ 共I ⫹I 2ⱕrⱕj⫺1
r r
I i,j i,j ⫺ 1 i,j ⫺ 1 /2 (6) i⫽1

b i共j兲 r⫽j
Based on eq 10, the normalized change rate ␳i of each
input parameter is given as follows:
Figure 1 shows the selection schemes of interior points of
both FV and FFV methods. Based on eq 6, the number of
x៮ i 䡠 兩⳵f/⳵x i 兩 x ⫽ p៮
interior points at the jth ␣-cut level for FFV method is j. ␳i ⫽
Thus, the number of model evaluation at the jth ␣-cut
冘
n

level for the FFV method becomes jn. 关x៮ i 䡠 兩⳵f/⳵x i 兩 x ⫽ p៮ 兴 (9)
i⫽1

DI Determination
The influence measure is critical for quantifying the
proportion to which the uncertainty of a single model
parameter contributes to the overall uncertainty of the
model output. It can provide more valuable information
in describing system uncertainties. If the model function
f is available in analytical form, its total differential df can
be easily determined and used to compute the degrees of
influence for each fuzzy input parameter.24
Let xi (i ⫽ 1, 2,.., n) be one of the fuzzy input param-
eters, with peak value at x៮ i. Based on differential calculus,
the total differential at point p៮ ⫽ (x៮ 1, x៮ 2, . . . , x៮ n) can be
described as follows:
where ␳i is interpreted as the DI for input parameter i,
n
satisfying ¥i⫽1 ␳i ⫽ 1. It is used for quantifying the influ-
ence of the ith varying parameter (xi) on the overall vari-
ation (df) of the problem output, that is, f(x1, x2,.., xn).
Solution Algorithm
The proposed FFV method was based on a reduced num-
ber of interior-point combinations, showing a more effi-
cient algorithm and, thus, a better applicability in real
applications. Figure 2 shows a general framework of the
proposed method. Detailed pseudocode can be described
as the following steps:

538 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association Volume 57 May 2007
 Qin, Huang, Zeng, Chakma, and Xi

biological reactions of the composting system. Associated

thermal, physical, and chemical reactions should also be
accounted for in constructing an effective and compre-
hensive modeling system. The Monod equation that has
been widely used expresses the microbial growth rate as a
function of nutrient that limits microbial growth.29 Ex-
pression of this equation is of the same form as the
Michaelis-Menton equation for enzyme kinetics but was
derived empirically.30 The limiting nutrient can be sub-
strate, nitrogen, phosphorous, or any other similar elec-
tron acceptors. As an extension to Monod equation, the
Contois equation of growth is more effective in describing
the process of high-density cell fermentations.31 Thus, the
Contois equation of growth is used in this study for de-
scribing microbial kinetics.32 It can be written as follows:

␮ s ⫽ ␮ smax 冉 SX
K sX ⫹ S 冊
⫺ bX, (10)

where ␮s is the specific growth rate (1/h); X is the biomass

concentration (kg/m3); S is the substrate concentration
Figure 2. Block diagram of FCPM method. (kg/m3); ␮smax is the maximum specific growth rate (1/h);
Ks is the half saturation constant (value of S at which ␮s
First, build fuzzy numbers A1, A2, . . . ., An for uncer-
equals a half of ␮smax); and b is endogenous decay con-
tain input parameters x1, x2, . . . , xn and denote an element
stant (1/h).
of Ai by xi, i ⫽ 1, 2, . . . , n, where n is the total number of
Substrate utilization is described by the ratio of the
uncertain input parameters. The output y can be related
specific growth rate to yield coefficient, Yx/sec, which can
to input x1, x2, . . . , xn through the model simulator (i.e.,
be determined by experiment. Thus, the rate of substrate
mapping y ⫽ f[x1, x2, . . . , xn]).
utilization can be expressed by the following equations:
Second, discretize the range of membership grade
[0,1] into a finite number of ␣-cuts (␣1, ␣2, . . . , ␣m), which
are evenly distributed.
Third, arrange combinations of the m ␣-cut level for n rs ⫽
dS
dt
⫽⫺
rx
Yx/s
⫽⫺
␮smax SX
Yx/s KsX ⫹ S冉⫹
b
Yx/s
X. 冊 (11)
input parameters. Interior points on fuzzy intervals at
each ␣-cuts can be defined based on eqs 8 and 9. where rs is the rate of substrate utilization (kg/m3䡠h) and rx
Fourth, run the simulation model for each of the is the rate of biomass growth (kg/m3䡠h). Item ␮s max/Yx/s
combination and obtain all possible values for the output in eq 10 is often denoted as k⬘, that is, the maximum
y, denoted as yk (k ⫽ 1, 2, . . . , p). specific substrate-utilization rate (1/T); and b/Yx/s is called
Fifth, analyze these results regarding the same output kd, that is, microbial maintenance coefficient (1/h). Thus,
membership value based on the same ␣-cuts (␣1, ␣2, . . . , formula 10 can be derived as follows:
␣m) as those for input parameters. The upper and lower
bounds of the output value at each ␣-cut level can be
given by the maximum and minimum values of yq (q ⫽ 1,
2, . . . , j) (which is obtained in step 4 at the same ␣-cut
r s ⫽ ⫺k⬘ 冉 SX
KsX ⫹ S 冊
⫹ kdX. (12)
level; j is the number of interval and boundary points at
the jth ␣-cut level). According to Haug,33 constant k⬘ is represented by
Sixth, the final solution to the fuzzy number B can be multiplicative subfactors of temperature, oxygen, free air
obtained based on analysis of upper and lower bounds of space, and moisture constant as follows:
the output values at different ␣-cut levels.
Last, is the determination of DI based on a total
differential method. k⬘ ⫽ k 䡠 k T 䡠 k moisture 䡠 k FAS 䡠 k O 2, (13)
Generally, a specific simulation model is required be-
fore the proposed fuzzy approach can be used. In this study, where kT is the temperature correction, kmoisture is the
a comprehensive composting model that is capable of ad- moisture content correction, kFAS is the free airspace cor-
dressing gradients of substrate, water, oxygen, and biomass, rection, and kO2 is the oxygen concentration correction.
as well as fluctuation of temperature levels, will be devel- These corrections are described in detail as follows.
oped. Such a modeling system is based on the knowledge of
microbial kinetics, mass, and energy conservations. The Temperature Correction kT
The relationship between microbial-specific growth rate
Kinetics of Composting Processes ␮s and temperature in compost bulk is described by equa-
The complex and dynamic interactions within bioconver- tion as follows33:
sion are fundamental components for properly describing when T ⱕ TM

Volume 57 May 2007 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 539
Qin, Huang, Zeng, Chakma, and Xi

kT ⫽
␮s
␮ ss
⫽ exp ⫺ 再 冉
EA 1
⫺
1
RA T ⫹ 273 Ts ⫹ 273 冊冎 (14)
Therefore, Kparticle should be incorporated in the oxygen
correction equation, with an empirical relationship being
given as follows:
when TM ⱕ T ⱕ TL
Vol%O 2
k O2 ⫽ 䡠K , (19)
KO ⫹ Vol%O2 particle
␮ TL ⫺ T
kT ⫽ ⫽ (15)
␮ sm T L ⫺ T M
where Kparticle is particle size coefficient (ranging from 0 to
1). The value of Kparticle can be determined based on
and when T ⱖ TL, ␮s ⫽ 0 and kT ⫽ 0, experiment.
where ␮ss and ␮sm the microbial specific growth rates
(1/h) at the preference temperature Ts and medium
Water Balance and Mass/Energy Conservation
threshold temperature TM (°C), respectively; T is the tem-
Mass Balance. The mass balance of substrate, biomass,
perature of the composting bulk (°C); TL is the maximum
and water during time t ⫺ 1 to t can be described as
allowable temperature for microbial activities; EA is the
follows:34
activate energy of composting bulk (J/mol), and R is the
universal gas constant (J/mole䡠K)
dPI
⫽ PI t ⫺ 1 ⫺ PI t , (20)
The Moisture Content Correction kmoisture dt
Based on experimental results, the relationship between
microbial maximum specific growth rate and water con- where PI is a general term representing S (mass of organic
tent in compost bulk is identified as follows: when water substance, kg), X (mass of microorganisms, kg), and W
content w is lower than critical value wa, which is critical (mass of water in the reactor, kg), respectively; t is the
for microbial growth, then ␮s ⫽ 0 and kmoisture ⫽ 0; when time period (h).
w is greater than wa, we have the following:
Water Balance. Water content in the composting bulk is
␮s w ⫺ wa correlated to evaporation rate and airflow rate. The con-
k moisture ⫽ ⫽ . (16) servation equation of water content is given as follows31:
␮ smax K a ⫹ w

dW W
When w is greater than the suitability index w1 (empiri- ⫽ ⫺␭jq , (21a)
cally set as 60%), we have the following: dt M

␮s w ⫺ wa w2 ⫺ w 18 ps 273
k moisture ⫽ ⫽ 䡠 j⫽ 䡠 䡠 , (21b)
␮ smax K a ⫹ w w 2 ⫺ w 1
(17) 22.4 p 0 ⫺ p s T ⫹ 273

where q is the flow rate of air supply (m3/h); ␭ is the satura-

where w2 is the maximum allowable index for water con-
tent (empirical value 80%).
The Oxygen Concentration Correction kO2
The oxygen concentration is limited by diffusion of the
particle matrix. A Monod-type expression can be used to
simulate the oxygen limitations, given as follows:
tion ratio of vapor; M is the total mass of compost bulk,
equals S ⫹ X ⫹ W ⫹ U (U is the nondegradable content); j is
the saturated water vapor content (kg/Nm3); ps is the satu-
ration vapor pressure (Pa); po is the air pressure (Pa); and T is
the temperature of composting bulk (°C). The relationship
between saturation vapor pressure and air pressure can be
found in Mohee and White4 and Xi et al.35

Vol%O 2 Energy Conservation. Energy conservation is addressed

k O2 ⫽ , (18)
KO ⫹ Vol%O2 through the thermal balance within the composter, de-
scribed as follows:
where Vol%O2 is the percentage of oxygen in the incom-
ing air. If the substrates are well mixed, the oxygen levels
in the FAS between composting particles are assumed to C cM
dT
dt
⫹ h1冉dS dX
dt
⫹
dt
⫽ h2 冊
dW
dt
⫹ 共T a ⫺ T兲

冋 冉 冊册
be identical. The half velocity coefficient Ko is calculated
through the relationship between the flow rate and oxy- dW dS dX
⫻ qC a ⫹ KF ⫺ C w ⫺ Cs ⫹ (22)
gen concentration in the exhaust gas. Empirical value is dt dt dt
generally set to be 2%.31
In real composting reactions, oxygen concentrations where Cc is the heat capacity of compost bulk [kJ/(kg䡠°C)];
in the exhaust air are normally maintained above 6%, h1 is the heat quantity generated by unit dry organic
preventing the composting bulk from becoming faculta- (kJ/kg); h2 is the potential heat of water evaporation (kJ/
tive or anaerobic. However, particle sizes also exert diffu- kg); T is the temperature of compost bulk (°C); Ta is the
sion resistances in composting bulk. Significant errors will temperature of inflow air (°C); q is the rate of air supply
be generated without considering this critical effect. (m3/h); Cw is the heat capacity of water [kJ/(kg䡠°C)]; Ca is

540 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association Volume 57 May 2007

the heat capacity of air [kJ/(kg䡠°C)]; Cs is the heat capacity
of volatile organic; K is the thermal conductivity coeffi-
cient of compost facilities (kJ/m2䡠h䡠°C); and F is the total
thermal dispersion area of compost facility (m2).
On the left hand side of eq 22, CcMdT/dt is the heat
change caused by temperature change of compost bulk;
h1(dS/dt ⫹ dX/dt) is the energy variation for microbial cell
synthesis and substrate degradation. On the right hand
side, h2dW/dt is the energy loss by water evaporation; (Ta
⫺ T)[qCa ⫹ KF ⫺ CwdW/dt ⫺ Cs(dS/dt ⫹ dX/dt)] is the
energy variation because of temperature change of air,
water, and volatile organic, as well as system heat loss.
The thermal conductivity coefficient of compost facility
can be estimated by equations provided by Xi et al.35
Oxygen Concentration in Exhaust Air. The oxygen concen-
tration in exhaust air is related to oxygen uptake rate,
airflow rate, and initial oxygen concentration. It can be
calculated as follows:
a v 273 ⫹ T ⌬S
z ⫽ z0 ⫹ 䡠 䡠 , (23)
q 273 ⌬t
where z0 is the initial oxygen concentration (%); q is the
airflow rate (m3/h); and av is the required oxygen amount
(under standard conditions) for decomposing unit mass
of substrate (Nm3/kg).
Fuzzy Composting Process Model
Combination of the FFV method and the dynamic com-
posting model leads to formation of an FCPM. It is com-
plicated with many differential equations, where a num-
ber of parameters are highly interrelated. Generally, the
interactions between system inputs and outputs can be
conceptualized into the following expression:
Y OU ⫽ ␸共X IN , P IN , t兲, (24)
where XIN is the vector of system inputs/parameters that
considered to be uncertain, such as initial water content
and yield coefficient; PIN is the deterministic system in-
puts such as airflow rate; t is the composting time; and
YOU is the vector of system outputs such as temperature
and substrate concentration.
The objective of the FCPM method is to generate a set
of fuzzy-valued outputs. The manipulation process entails
fuzzification of input parameters, simulations under dif-
ferent scenarios, and generation of fuzzy membership
functions of various model outputs. For composting pro-
cesses, the fuzzy input parameters are assumed to have
symmetric quasi-Gaussian distributions, given as follows:
再
␮共x兲 ⫽ e ⫺ 共x ⫺ m៮ 兲 for兩x ⫺ m
៮ 兩 ⱕ 3␦
2 /2␦ 2
␮共x兲 ⫽ 0 for x ⬎ m
៮ ⫹ 3␦ or x ⬍ m
៮ ⫺ 3␦,
(25)
where m៮ and ␦ denote the mean value and the standard
deviation of the Gaussian distribution.
Volume 57 May 2007
Qin, Huang, Zeng, Chakma, and Xi
Suppose there are n independent fuzzy-valued input
parameters xi with the membership function ␮j(xi) at the
jth ␣-cut level, i ⫽ 1, 2, . . . , n, j ⫽ 1, 2, . . . , m. The fuzzy
modeling system for composting process (FCPM) can be
formulated as follows:
关共y 1共1兲 , y 1共2兲 , . . . , y 1共m兲 兲, . . . , 共y 共1兲 共2兲
k , yk ,
. . . , y 共m兲 共1兲 共2兲 共m兲
k 兲, 共y p , y p , . . . , y p 兲
⫽ ␾兵关共x 1共1兲 , x 1共2兲 , . . . , x 1共m兲 兲, . . . , 共x i共1兲 , x i共2兲 ,
. . . , x i共m兲 兲, 共x 共1兲 共2兲 共m兲
n , x n , . . . , x n 兲兴, P, t其, (26)
where yk is the kth element among p model outputs.
The composting process is often affected by a variety
of biochemical and physical factors, as well as their inter-
actions. During simulations, they are generally described
through a number of interrelated differential equations.
Consequently, the partial derivatives of model function
on specific inputs are not always available in single ana-
lytical forms. This leads to difficulties in calculating the
DI of input parameters through total differential method.
However, the partial derivative of model function fj
(x1, x2, . . . , xn) (j ⫽ 1, 2, . . . , m) on variable xi can often
be approximated based on the following equations:
⳵f i
共x៮ ,x៮ , . . . , x៮ n 兲
⳵x i 1 2
兩f j 共x៮ 1 ,x៮ 2 , . . . , x៮ n 兲 ⫺ f⬘j 共x៮ 1 ,x៮ 2 , . . . , x៮ n )兩
⬇ (27)
⌬x i
where xi is one of the fuzzy input parameters (i ⫽ 1, 2, . . .
, n); fj is one of the system outputs (j ⫽ 1, 2, . . . , 6); x៮ i is
the peak value of parameter xi; ⌬xi is a small change of
parameter xi; fj⬘ is the change of model output generated
by the change of parameter xi; n is the number of input
parameters; and m is the number of output items.
Thus, the total differential at the peak point P៮ ⫽
(x៮ 1,x៮ 2, . . . , x៮ n) can be given as follows:
冘冋 册
n
兩f j 共x៮ 1 ,x៮ 2 , . . . , x៮ n 兲 ⫺ f⬘j 共x៮ 1 ,x៮ 2 , . . . , x៮ n 兲兩
df j ⫽ 䡠 c 䡠 x៮ i
i⫽1 ⌬x i
(28)
DI can then be derived by the following equation:
兩f j 共x៮ 1 ,x៮ 2 , . . . , x៮ n )⫺f⬘j (x៮ 1 ,x៮ 2 , . . . , x៮ n )兩䡠x៮ i /⌬x i
␳ ij ⫽
冘
n
[兩f j (x៮ 1 ,x៮ 2 , . . . , x៮ n )⫺f⬘j (x៮ 1 ,x៮ 2 , . . . , x៮ n )兩䡠x៮ i /⌬x i ]
i⫽1
(29)
where ␳ij is the degree of influence of input parameter i that
contributes to the overall uncertainty of the model output j.
Generally, the FCPM method is not only capable of
handling uncertainties associated with composting pro-
cess but also having lower computational requirements. A
quantitative analysis in terms of the impacts of different
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 541
Qin, Huang, Zeng, Chakma, and Xi

through a fine mesh screen near the bottom of the reac-

tor. The leachate from the composting bulk is collected
and recycled through drum rotations, aiming at preventing
the composting bulk from drying out too fast. Thermocou-
ple sensors are used for temperature measurements. An ox-
ygen analyser (MD-520E) is used for oxygen detection.
Composting raw materials were collected from local
communities. Initial moisture content of the compost
mixtures was adjusted to ⬃52.4 –57.5% (g H2O/g wet sol-
ids); initial substrate of raw materials was measured at
⬃35%. The airflow was controlled at ⬃0.020 – 0.033 m3/
h䡠kg. During experiment, ⬃150 g of solid waste samples at
three different locations were collected for measuring sub-
strate and water. Water content was obtained by calculat-
ing weight loss of the sample after drying in the oven at
101 °C for 24 hr. Volatile solids content was determined
by baking samples at 550 °C for ⱖ6 hr in a muffle furnace.

Figure 3. Schematic diagram of experimental reactor.
factors can also be investigated through this method.
Thus, effective precautions can then be taken to either
decrease the influence of sensitive factors or neglect those
that are insensitive.
RESULTS
Pilot-Scale Composting System
A pilot-scale composter was constructed from a cylindri-
cal polyvinyl chloride tube with an effective volume of
⬃250 L. Detailed schematic diagram of the experimental
reactor is presented in Figure 3. The air is flowing upward
Model Development
Adaptations and assumptions for the modeling system are
listed as follows. First, based on the experimental results
of testing samples, the composting bulk takes ⬃3 days to
reach temperature peak and 15 days to reach mature.
Thus, 360 hr (15 days) are handled as the temporal do-
main. Second, the interactions of particles and moisture
are beyond the scope of this study; thus, FAS was assumed
to be constant. Third, airflow rate has significant impacts
on the composting performance. Proper levels should be
maintained to provide sufficient oxygen concentration, as
well as to prevent undesired loss/gain of water and heat.
Based on the results of test runs, the airflow rate with a range
from 0.02 to 0.05 m3/h䡠kg is considered to be suitable.
A number of experiments are conducted for parameter
estimation under different factorial designed scenarios, for
example, under varied levels of initial moisture content,
initial biomass, and airflow rate. A list of the estimated
coefficients is listed in Table 1. Other coefficients and pa-
rameters are estimated from the experimental results of
other researchers or from related literature. 33 For example,
␮smax is estimated from laboratory composting experiments
assuming logarithmic growth.3 Y is estimated by regression
analysis of experimental results under different levels of

Table 1. Coefficients and parameters used in the application.

Parameters Notation Default Unit

Maximum specific growth rate ␮smax 0.18 h⫺1

Half velocity constant for degradable substrate Kc 24 g/kg
Yield coefficient Y 0.50 kg/kg
Activate energy of compost bulk EA 29 kJ/mol
Universal gas constant RA 8.314 J/(mol 䡠 K)
Critical value of water content wa 15%
Half velocity coefficient of oxygen correction Ko 0.066 g/kg
Moisture correction coefficient Ka 4.0%
Flow rate of air supply q 0.033 m3/(h 䡠 kg)
Heat productivity generated by unit dry organic h1 1.76 ⫻ 104 kJ/kg
Latent heat of water evaporation h2 2.44 ⫻ 103 KJ/kg
Heat capacity of water Cw 4.2 kJ/(kg䡠°C)
Heat capacity of air Ca 1.4 kJ/(kg䡠°C)
Heat capacity of volatile organics Cs 2.1 kJ/(kg䡠°C)
Oxygen requirement per unit substrate av 0.891 m3/kg

542 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association Volume 57 May 2007

Figure 4. Comparisons between simulation and experimental results: (a) total mass, (b) substrate content, (c) microbial content, (d) oxygen
content, (e) temperature, and (f) water content.
moisture, temperature, and airflow rate based on the study
result of Xi et al.31 Heat quantity generated by unit organic
in compost bulk, i.e., h1, is ⬃17.4 MJ/kg for hydrocarbon
compounds, 23.4 MJ/k for proteins, and 39.3 MJ/kg for fat
(based on the composition of solid waste used in pilot scale
model, h1 for organic substrate in this study is estimated as
17.6 MJ/kg). Values for potention thermal of water evapo-
ration and heat capacity for water, compost bulk, and air,
Cw, Cc, and Ca, respectively, were found in Haug33 (detailed
description of these coefficients and parameters are also
shown in Table 1).
Two scenarios will be investigated by applying the
proposed FCPM. The first scenario is initiated to investi-
gate interactions among total mass weight, substrate con-
tent, microbial biomass, oxygen concentration, tempera-
ture level, and water content under deterministic
conditions. Experimental data under the same condition
will be used for verifying the results from simulations. The
second scenario aims to examine the impacts of uncer-
tainties in both model parameters and initial conditions
through the FCPM method.
DISCUSSION
Model Simulation under Deterministic
Conditions
Figure 4 shows the simulated outputs under a determin-
istic condition (w0 ⫽ 55%, X0 ⫽ 1%, and q ⫽ 0.033
m3/h䡠kg) through the proposed composting model. The
results include profiles of total mass, substrate concentra-
tion, biomass, oxygen concentration, temperature level,
Volume 57 May 2007
Qin, Huang, Zeng, Chakma, and Xi
and moisture content. In comparison, results obtained
from the pilot-scale experiment under the same condi-
tions are also presented.
The profiles of different composting indicators in Fig-
ure 4, a–f, describe a typical composting process. From
Figure 4, a and b, the total mass and substrate content
decrease continuously over the composting time horizon,
showing a typical pattern of biodegradation reaction.
Generally, the growth of microorganisms consists of three
typical stages, that is, exponential, stationary, and death
stages. Dissimilarly, the result in Figure 4c (biomass con-
tent) demonstrates a monotonously increasing trend.
This is because of the fact that the content of biomass is
also affected by the total weight of the composting bulk,
which is continuously decreasing throughout the study
period. Figure 4d presents the oxygen concentration in
the outlet gas from the composting reactor. It is indicated
that a rapid decrease of oxygen concentration occurs in
the first 48 hr; afterward, it returns rapidly to the ambient
level of 20.9%. The fluctuation of oxygen level is consis-
tent with that of the biological activities over different
composting stages. Temperature profiles are shown in
Figure 4e. At the early stage (in 48 hr), the temperature
level increases rapidly until a peak level is reached; then,
the high temperature levels last for ⬃3 days and decline
gradually to the ambient level. The profile of water con-
tent is shown in Figure 4f, indicating a deceasing pattern
similar to that of substrate degradation. This is because of
the direct water loss through evaporation.
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 543
Qin, Huang, Zeng, Chakma, and Xi
The results in Figure 4 also indicate that the simu-
lated outputs are consistent with those from the experi-
mental measurements. For example, on day 15, the re-
duced total mass and degraded substrate mass are ⬃57.5
and 25.8 kg, respectively; in comparison, the measured
levels are 52.7 and 25 kg, respectively. The relative deri-
vations are only 0.08 and 0.031, respectively. Results in
Figure 4d indicate that the minimum oxygen concentra-
tion obtained from simulation (15.13%) is close to that
from experiment (13.67%). Similarly, the peak tempera-
ture level from simulation (63 °C) is also in good accor-
dance with that from experiment (64 °C). However, a
number of unconformities are also observed. For example,
the oxygen concentration obtained from experiment
takes a few more hours to reach the minimum level com-
pared with that obtained from simulation. This is because
of the fact that the real composting reactions are normally
subjected to more heat loss (caused by imperfect heat
insulation) than the ideal ones, leading to reduced bioac-
tivities and delayed oxygen consumptions. This also re-
sults in a delay of temperature to reach the ambient level
at the final stage of the composting process. For example,
it takes 15 days for the simulated temperature to reach the
ambient level, whereas the observed one takes only 13
days. In addition, the simulated moisture contents also
indicate large deviations compared with the experimental
data. As shown in Figure 4f, an apparent intersection is
observed on day 9. Before the time of this point, the
measured water content is much higher than the simu-
lated one; afterward, it becomes much lower.
Results from Figure 4 demonstrate the ability of the
proposed model to predict substrate decomposition and
biomass growth, as well as the interactions among tem-
peratures, oxygen concentrations, and water contents.
Most of the predicted outputs are consistent with the
results obtained from experiment. It also implies that
different composting parameters are highly interrelated.
For example, an increasing biomass growth normally cor-
responds with decreasing substrate content; a rapid sub-
strate degradation rate generally occurs in high tempera-
ture range and corresponds with a high oxygen uptake
rate; a peak temperature corresponds with a minimum
oxygen concentration.
Results in Figure 4 also demonstrate a number of
deviations between model simulation and real reactions
because of the existence of a variety of uncertainties. For
example, in composting experiment, the accuracy of tem-
perature prediction is often affected by measuring errors
(e.g., improper human operations or instrumental errors).
The initial reaction conditions and many model parame-
ters usually exhibit rather high degrees of uncertainties
arising from incomplete or imprecise information. Con-
sequently, the simulation outputs that are normally ob-
tained through deterministic models (with crisp-value pa-
rameters) can hardly be used to describe all of the possible
system responses. To bridge this gap, the FCPM method
will be proposed, with detailed analysis being provided in
the following scenario.
Simulation under Uncertainty
In the second set of simulations, impacts of uncertainties
will be investigated through the proposed FCPM method.
544 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association
Six parameters that are critical to composting processes are
selected as fuzzy input numbers; they include the maximum
specific growth rate ␮smax, half velocity constants for de-
gradable substrate Kc, yield coefficient Y, initial biomass
concentration X0, initial water content W0, and initial tem-
perature T0. Their membership functions are assumed to
have quasi-Gaussian distributions, with six ␣-cut levels (i.e.,
0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, and 1) being considered. The detailed
membership functions are shown in Figure 5. Six system
outputs will be investigated, that is, reduced total mass,
substrate, biomass, and water content, as well as tempera-
ture level and oxygen concentration.
Figure 6 shows the simulated fuzzy outputs over five
time points (i.e., days 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15), with different
fuzzy membership functions being demonstrated. It is
indicated that the output values under various ␣-cut lev-
els can be obtained from analyzing the derived fuzzy
membership functions. For example, on day 9, the water
content is varying from 22.1% to 43.39% under ␣-cut
level of 0.4; the interval will decrease to 26.13% to 36.66%
when the system become more deterministic (under ␣-cut
level of 0.8); the water content will converge into 31.04%
when the ␣-cut level turns into 1. This indicates that the
degrees of uncertainties of the outputs (i.e., ␣-cut values)
are directly related to those of the input parameters. The
results corresponding with the ␣-cut level at 1 are identi-
cal to the results that one would get if only the mean
values are considered as crisp settings for the input pa-
rameters. Inversely, the result obtained under ␣-cut level
at 0 corresponds with the highest system uncertainties.
For example, Figure 6c shows the biomass growth at dif-
ferent time points; the water content on day 6 under the
most uncertain condition (␣ ⫽ 0) is ranging from 5% to
25%, whereas it becomes deterministic (18%) under the
most ideal condition (␣ ⫽ 1).
The results in Figure 6 also demonstrate that the
output curves are in irregular shapes. For example, the
fuzzy membership functions of the oxygen outputs on
day 3 (Figure 6d) and temperatures on days 3 and 6
(Figure 6e) demonstrate strong nonsymmetric shapes
compared with the quasi-Gaussian shapes of input pa-
rameters. However, the fuzzy membership functions of
temperature output on days 9, 12, and 15 are still in fine
symmetric quasi-Gaussian shapes. This is because of the
nonlinearities of the composting models. Figure 6 also
demonstrates a time-varying effect in terms of the fuzzy
membership functions. As shown from Figure 6, a–f,
the degrees of uncertainties in terms of total mass,
oxygen concentration, and temperature levels are de-
creasing over time, whereas the degrees of uncertainties
of substrate, biomass, and water contents exhibit in-
creasing patterns. For examples, the fuzzy interval of
oxygen concentration on the third day ranges from
14.49% to 19.65% under ␣-cut level at 0; in compari-
son, the interval reduces to the range from 20.02% to
20.90% on day 15. The results in Figure 6 also imply
that the change rate of the individual output is consis-
tent with the distance between the curve peaks at dif-
ferent time points. For example, the water content in
Figure 6f changes rapidly (⬃9.15% per day) between
days 3 and 6, indicating a high biodegradation rate;
however, the rate reduces to 5.41% per day from day 6
Volume 57 May 2007

Figure 5. Membership functions of input parameters: (a) initial water content, (b) initial temperature, (c) initial microbial content, and
(d) maximum growth rate.
to day 9 and reaches a minimum level (2.47% per day)
after day 12.
The results in Figure 6 demonstrate that the uncer-
tainties projected in model input parameters and initial
conditions will significantly impact the predicted out-
puts. As shown in Figure 6, the fuzzy outputs under the
Volume 57 May 2007
Qin, Huang, Zeng, Chakma, and Xi
less uncertain conditions (␣ ⬍ 0.4) generally exert ⬎50%
derivations compared with the corresponding mean val-
ues. Particularly, the minimum possible rate of total mass
reduction (shown in Figure 6a) under ␣-cut levels at 0 on
day 6 is ⬃84.97% lower than the level of the mean value;
the minimum temperature level (shown in Figure 6f)
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 545
Qin, Huang, Zeng, Chakma, and Xi

Figure 6. Simulation results through FCPM method: (a) total mass reduction, (b) mass percentage of substrate, (c) microbial mass percentage,
(d) output oxygen concentration, (e) temperature, and (f) water content.

546 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association Volume 57 May 2007
 Qin, Huang, Zeng, Chakma, and Xi

Table 2. Comparisons between outputs with FCPM and FV methods in day 3.

␣-Cut Level

Output Items Methods 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Relative Error

Total mass reduction (%) FCPM (0.10, 32.6) (2.63, 26.75) (4.48, 24.37) (6.32, 22.33) (8.74, 20.11) (15.02, 15.02) 0
FV (0.10, 32.6) (2.63, 26.75) (4.48, 24.37) (6.32, 22.33) (8.74, 20.11) (15.02, 15.02)
Substrate content (%) FCPM (29.80, 36.76) (30.96, 34.82) (31.37, 34.21) (31.70, 33.82) (32.04, 33.44) (32.73, 32.73) 0
FV (29.80, 36.76) (30.96, 34.82) (31.37, 34.21) (31.70, 33.82) (32.04, 33.44) (32.73, 32.73)
Microbial content (%) FCPM (2.17, 8.31) (2.78, 7.46) (3.15, 7.09) (3.55, 6.75) (4.09, 6.36) (5.40, 5.40) 0.0012
FV (2.17, 8.32) (2.78, 7.46) (3.15, 7.09) (3.55, 6.75) (4.09, 6.36) (5.40, 5.40)
Temperature (oC) FCPM (28.67, 67.71) (38.81, 66.01) (44.53, 65.36) (50.18, 64.84) (56.96, 64.31) (63.22, 63.22) 0.0005
FV (28.66, 67.71) (38.81, 66.02) (44.53, 65.36) (50.18, 64.84) (56.96, 64.31) (63.22, 63.22)
Water content (%) FCPM (41.77, 56.45) (45.44, 55.34) (46.81, 54.81) (47.90, 54.28) (49.01, 53.56) (51.27, 51.27) 0
FV (41.77, 56.45) (45.44, 55.34) (46.81, 54.81) (47.90, 54.28) (49.01, 53.56) (51.27, 51.27)
Outlet oxygen content FCPM (14.68, 19.65) (14.99, 18.70) (15.10, 18.03) (15.60, 17.27) (15.44, 16.23) (15.79, 15.79) 0.0035
FV (14.49, 19.65) (14.93, 18.70) (15.05, 18.03) (15.38, 17.27) (15.44, 16.23) (15.79, 15.79)

under ␣-cut levels at 0.2 on day 3 is ⬃69.97% lower than
the mean level; and the maximum possible level of water
content (shown in Figure 6f) under ␣-cut levels at 0.4 on
day 15 is ⬃60.07% higher than the level of the mean
value. Therefore, neglecting uncertainties in simulation
will often lead to a lack of information regarding system
responses. This is especially true in situations when ap-
plying models under deterministic considerations. In
comparison, the FCPM method could predict system out-
puts under different possibilistic levels, with more useful
information being provided. Therefore, it could effec-
tively communicate implicit knowledge into dynamic
simulations and, thus, obtain reliable and applicable
model outputs.
Comparison between FCPM and FV Methods
The traditional fuzzy modeling approach (FV) generally
has high computational requirements. The proposed
FCPM approach is developed based on reduced interior-
point distributions, leading to significantly reduced cal-
culations. The reduction percentage can be estimated by
the following equation:
the two methods. The relative derivations of biomass
content, temperature, and oxygen concentration are
0.12%, 0.05%, and 0.35%, respectively. Comparisons for
the other time points also demonstrate similar relations.
These results imply that the FCPM has a satisfactory ac-
curacy level and is, thus, applicable to practical problems.
Analysis on DI
DI is provided to describe the impacts of uncertainties of
model input parameters on system responses. However,
the DI levels are different over time because of the dy-
namic features of composting systems. Figure 7 shows the
results of DI for the input parameters on day 3. It is
indicated that their DI levels are significantly different.
For example, DIs of the initial water content (W0) dem-
onstrate moderate influences on the outputs of total mass
reduction (␳ ⫽ 27.6%) and water content (␳ ⫽ 35.5%);
however, it shows a much higher level of influence on
substrate content (␳ ⫽ 67.6%) and negligible influences
on biomass, temperature, and oxygen concentration. The
DIs of the yield coefficient (y) indicate significant impacts
on most of the system outputs (from 16.8% to 42.4%); in
comparison, the initial biomass content has a much lower

冘 冘
n n
influence (e.g., DI on temperature levels is only 0.69%).
共2i ⫺ 1兲 m ⫺ jm This is because of the fact that the microorganisms have
i⫽1 j ⫽ 1 excellent reproductive capacities, leading to less signifi-
r reduced ⫽ , (30)

冘
n cant influences on biodegradation reactions.
共2i ⫺ 1兲 m
i⫽1
where r is the reduction rate for calculation numbers; n is
the number of ␣-cut levels; and m is the number of fuzzy
input parameters. In this study, n ⫽ 6 and m ⫽ 6, so the
calculation number is 2.43 ⫻ 106 for the traditional FV
method and 6.72 ⫻ 104 for the FCPM method where the
rreduction is as high as 97.24%.
The accuracy of the FCPM method was verified by
comparing its results with those obtained through the FV
method. Table 2 shows the system outputs (of day 3 under
different ␣-cut levels) from the FCPM and FV methods.
The results of total mass reduction, substrate content, and
water content under all of the ␣-cut levels are identical for
The results in Figure 7 demonstrate that the proposed
FCPM method is effective in quantifying the proportion
to which the uncertainty of each single model parameter
contributes to the overall uncertainty of the model out-
put. Consequently, those sensitive parameters that may
lead to errors or unreasonable predictions on system out-
puts can be determined. Thus, special efforts should be
made to accurately define those sensitive parameters be-
fore any simulations and result analysis be conducted. For
example, the initial water content and yield coefficient
could lead to significant derivations on predictions of
substrate content (DI levels are 67.7% and 16.8%, respec-
tively); if inaccurate input value or biased fuzzy distribu-
tions are defined before simulation, significant deriva-
tions will occur. Therefore, practical arrangements can be

Volume 57 May 2007 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 547
Qin, Huang, Zeng, Chakma, and Xi

Figure 7. The DIs of uncertain parameters on model outputs in day 3.

made to efficiently reduce system uncertainties by a well- insensitive fuzzy parameters. For example, when a sensi-
directed reduction of the uncertainties of those parame- tive parameter (e.g., W0) is not considered fuzzy, a signif-
ters showing high DI levels. icantly different curve would be generated; conversely,
Another remarkable conclusion that can be drawn when an insensitive parameter (e.g., X0) is neglected, no
from Figure 7 is that the negligible influential parameters significant variation would occur.
may be neglected to reduce the labor of calculation. For
example, in Figure 7, extravagant expenses for a prefera- CONCLUSIONS
bly exact identification of the parameter X0 can be con- In this study, an FCPM was developed for simulating the
sidered as a waste of effort, because the influence of its composting process under uncertainty. This model was
variation on most of the outputs (especially for tempera- mainly based on integration of an FFV method and a
ture prediction) can be neglected; without this factor, the comprehensive composting model. DIs by projected un-
calculation number could reduce ⬃69.46%. certain factors were also investigated.
To further demonstrate the advantage of the pro- Two scenarios were investigated in applying the
posed method in reducing the computational require- FCPM method. In the first scenario, model simulation
ment, system responses under seven scenarios are inves- under deterministic conditions was conducted. A pilot-
tigated. These scenarios are established for examining the scale experiment was provided for verifications. The result
fuzzy outputs of substrate contents on day 3, with the indicated that the proposed composting model could pro-
respective fuzzy inputs being defined as follows1: (1) all of vide an excellent vehicle for demonstrating the complex
the six parameters are fuzzy; (2) initial water content (W0) interactions that occurred in the composting process. In
is deterministic, whereas the others are fuzzy; (3) yield the second scenario, application of the proposed FCPM
coefficient y is deterministic, whereas the others are fuzzy;
(4) initial temperature T0 is deterministic, whereas the
others are fuzzy; (5) maximum degradable rate ␮s is de-
terministic, whereas the others are fuzzy; (6) half velocity
of degradable substrate Kc is deterministic, whereas the
others are fuzzy; and (7) initial biomass content X0 is
deterministic, whereas the others are fuzzy.
The solutions are shown in Figure 8, indicating sim-
ilar results as compared with those in Figure 7. The system
response under scenario 1 shows the largest difference
compared with that under scenario 2; scenario 4 ranks the
second in term of the level of difference. The responses
under scenarios 3, 5, 6, and 7 are relatively close to that
under scenario 1. Quantitatively, in reference to the result
of scenario 1, the average relative deviations [average rel-
ative deviation ⫽ (result of comparing scenario ⫺ result of
reference scenario) ⫻ 100%] under scenarios 1 to 7 are
3.79%, 0.77%, 0.50%, 0.92%, 0.43%, and 0.13%, respec-
tively. These results are consistent with those generated
through the total differential method.
The results in Figure 8 demonstrate different system Figure 8. Results of substrate content under different scenarios in
responses under different combinations of sensitive and day.

548 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association Volume 57 May 2007

was conducted under uncertainties. Six input parameters
(the maximum specific growth rate, half velocity for de-
gradable substrate, yield coefficient, initial biomass con-
centration, water content, and temperature) were consid-
ered to be of uncertain features (reflected as fuzzy
membership functions in quasi-Gaussian shapes). The re-
sults indicated that the uncertainties projected in input
parameters will result in significant derivations on system
predictions.
Comparisons between FCPM and FV methods dem-
onstrated that the FCPM can generate satisfactory system
outputs, with less computational efforts being required.
Analyses on degree of influence of system inputs were also
provided to describe the impacts of uncertainties on sys-
tem responses. Thus, suitable measures can be adopted
either to reduce system uncertainty by well-directed re-
duction of uncertainties of those high-influencing param-
eters or to reduce the computational requirement by ne-
glecting those negligible factors.
The developed FCPM is valuable in evaluating the
dynamic derivations of composting parameters under un-
certainty. The acquired information would be especially
useful for managers to determine whether fluctuations of
the composting performances are because of unavoidable
system uncertainties or human-induced factors. Accord-
ingly, proper controls can be taken for mitigating any
adverse effects.
NOMENCLATURE
␮A (x) ⫽ fuzzy membership grade of fuzzy set A
fA ⫽ a real-valued function that is increasing
and right-continuous
gA ⫽ a real-valued function that is decreasing
and left-continuous
PN ⫽ number of evaluations for FV method
PA ⫽ fuzzy ␣-cut set
xi(j) ⫽ a fuzzy interval at the jth ␣-cut level for
the ith fuzzy parameter
ai(j), bi(j) ⫽ lower and upper bounds of input values
at the jth ␣-cut level
ci ⫽ input-value vector at the jth ␣-cut level
j
and ith input variable
Ti,j ⫽ the kth element of cij in FV method
k
r
Ii,j⫽ the rth element of cij in FFV method
␳i ⫽ DI for input parameter i
␮s ⫽ specific growth rate (1/h)
X ⫽ biomass concentration (kg/m3)
S ⫽ substrate concentration (kg/m3)
␮smax ⫽ maximum specific growth rate (1/h)
Ks ⫽ the half saturation constant
b ⫽ endogenous decay constant (1/h)
rs ⫽ rate of substrate utilization (kg/m3䡠h)
rx ⫽ rate of biomass growth (kg/m3䡠h)
k⬘ ⫽ the maximum specific substrate-utiliza-
tion rate (1/T)
kd ⫽ microbial maintenance coefficient (1/h)
kT, kmoisture ⫽ temperature and moisture corrections,
respectively
kFAS, kO2 ⫽ free-airspace and oxygen-concentration
corrections
Volume 57 May 2007
Qin, Huang, Zeng, Chakma, and Xi
␮ss, ␮sm ⫽ microbial specific growth rates (1/h) at
temperatures Ts and TM (oC),
respectively
Ts ⫽ preference temperature (oC)
TM, TL ⫽ medium threshold temperature (oC) and
maximum allowable temperature (oC)
EA ⫽ activate energy of composting bulk (J/
mol)
R ⫽ universal gas constant (J/mole䡠K)
w, wa ⫽ moisture content and critical moisture
content
w1, w2 ⫽ suitability index and maximum allow-
able index for water content
Kparticle ⫽ particle size coefficient
W ⫽ mass of water in the reactor (kg)
PI ⫽ a general term representing S, X, and W
t ⫽ time period (h)
␭ ⫽ saturation ratio of vapour
M ⫽ total mass of the compost bulk (kg)
j ⫽ saturated water vapor content (kg/Nm3)
ps, p0 ⫽ saturation vapor pressure (Pa) and air
pressure (Pa)
Cc ⫽ heat capacity of compost bulk (kJ/ kg䡠°C)
h1 ⫽ heat quantity generated by unit dry or-
ganic (kJ/kg)
h2 ⫽ potential heat of water evaporation (kJ/kg)
Ta ⫽ temperature of inflow air (°C)
Cw, Ca, Cs ⫽ heat capacity of water, air, and volatile
organics (kJ/kg䡠°C)
K ⫽ thermal conductivity coefficient of the
composting facility (kJ/m2䡠h䡠°C)
F ⫽ total thermal dispersion area of com-
post facility (m2)
z0 ⫽ initial oxygen concentration (%)
av ⫽ required oxygen amount
XIN ⫽ vector of uncertain system inputs/
parameters
PIN ⫽ vector of deterministic system inputs
YOU ⫽ vector of system outputs
m៮ , ␦ ⫽ mean value and the standard deviation
of Gaussian distribution
P៮ ⫽ total differential at the peak point
␳ij ⫽ DI of input parameter i that contributes
to uncertainty of the model output j.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by the Major State Basic
Research Development Program (2005CB724201 and
2005CB724207) and the Natural Science and Engineer-
ing Research Council of Canada. The authors thank the
anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and
suggestions.
REFERENCES
1. Keener, H.M.; Marugg, C.; Hansen, R.C.; Hotink, H. Optimizing the
Efficiency of the Composting Processes; In: Science and Engineering of
Composting; The Ohio State University: Columbus, OH, 1993; pp 59-
94.
2. Kaiser, J. Modelling Composting as a Microbial Ecosystem: a Simula-
tion Approach; Ecol. Model. 1996, 91, 25-32.
3. Stombaugh, D.P.; Nokes, S.E. Development of a Biologically Based
Aerobic Composting Simulation Model; Trans. ASAE 1996, 39, 239-
250.
4. Mohee, R.; White, R.K. Simulation Model for Composting Cellulosic
(Bagasse) Substrates; Compost Sci. Util. 1998, 6, 82-92.
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 549
Qin, Huang, Zeng, Chakma, and Xi
5. Bari, Q.H.; Koenig, A. Effect of Air Recirculation and Reuse on Com-
posting of Organic Solid Waste; Resour. Conserv. Recy. 2001, 33, 93-
111.
6. Xi, B.D.; Huang, G.H.; Qin, X.S.; Liu, H.L. Two Stages Kinetics of
Municipal Solid Waste Inoculation Composting Processes; J. Environ.
Sci. 2004, 16, 520-524.
7. Nakasaki, K.; Kato, J.; Akiyama, T.; Kubota, H. A New Composting
Model and Assessment of Optimum Operating for Effective Drying of
Composting Materials; J. Fermentation Technol. 1987, 65, 441-447.
8. Das, K.; Keener, H.M. Numerical Model for the Dynamic Simulation of
a Large Scale Composting System; Trans. ASAE 1997, 40, 1179-1189.
9. Isukapalli, S.S. Uncertainty Analysis of Transport-Transformation Models;
Ph.D. dissertation; The State University of New Jersey: New Brunswick,
NJ, 1999.
10. Guo, H.C.; Liu, L.; Huang G.H. A Stochastic Water Quality Forecasting
System for the Yiluo River; J. Environ. Inform. 2003, 1, 18-32.
11. Qin, X.S.; Huang, G.H.; Jiang, X.Y.; Xi, B.D.; Liang, Z.W.; Christine,
W.C. Fuzzy Approach for Dynamic Simulation of Composting Process
under Uncertainty. Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 2004, 14, 18-24.
12. Hu, Z.Y.; Chan, C.W.; Huang, G.H. Simulation of the Fate of Contam-
inant in Groundwater Under Uncertainty Using Optimized Linear
Interpolation; J. Environ. Inform. 2005, 6, 93-102.
13. Huang, G.H.; Moore, R.D. Grey Linear Programming, Its Solving Ap-
proach, and Its Application; Int. J. Systems Sci. 1993, 24, 159-172.
14. Luo, B.; Yin, Y.Y.; Huang, G.H.; Huang, Y.F. Uncertainty Analysis for
Distribution of Greenhouse Gases Concentration in Atmosphere; J.
Environ. Inform. 2004, 3, 89-94.
15. Yang, X.H.; Yang, Z.F.; Shen, Z.Y. GHHAGA for Environmental Sys-
tems Optimization; J. Environ. Inform. 2005, 5, 36-41.
16. Lahkim, M.B.; Garcia, L.A;. Stochastic Modeling of Exposure and Risk
in a Contaminated Heterogeneous Aquifer, 1: Monte Carlo Uncer-
tainty Analysis; Environ. Eng. Sci. 1999, 16, 315-328.
17. Li, J.B.; Huang, G.H.; Chakma, A.; Zeng, G.M.; Liu, L. Integrated
Fuzzy-Stochastic Modeling of Petroleum Contamination in Subsur-
face; Energ. Source. 2003, 25, 547-563.
18. Wood, K.L.; Antonsson, E.K. Modeling Imprecision and Uncertainty
in Preliminary Engineering Design; Mech. Mach. Theory 1990, 25,
305-324.
19. Klir, G.J. The Role of Constrained Fuzzy Arithmetic in Engineering. In
Uncertainty Analysis in Engineering and Sciences: Fuzzy Logic, Statistics,
and Neural Network Approach; Ayyub, B.M.; Gupta, M.M., Eds.; Kluwer
Academic Publishers: Norwell, MA, 1997; pp 1-19.
20. Sasikuman, K.; Mujumdar, P.P. Fuzzy Optimization Model for Water
Quality Management of a River System; J. Water Resour. Plng. Mgmt.
1998, 124, 79-88.
21. Bosma, W.J.P., Bellin, A.; Rinaldo, A. Linear Equilibrium Adsorbing
Solute Transport in Physically and Chemically Heterogeneous Porous
Formations, 2, Numerical Results; Water Resour. Res. 1993, 29, 4013-
4043.
22. Dou, C.; Woldt, W.; Bogardi, I.; Dahab, I. Steady State Groundwater
Flow Simulation with Imprecise Parameters; Water Resour. Res. 1995,
31, 2709-2719.
23. Zeng, Y.; Trauth, K.M. Internet-Based Fuzzy Multicriteria Decision
Support System for Planning Integrated Solid Waste Management; J.
Environ. Inform. 2005, 6, 1-15.
24. Hanss, M. The Transformation Method for the Simulation and Anal-
ysis of Systems with Uncertain Parameters; Fuzzy Set. Syst. 2002, 130,
277-289.
550 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association
25. Zadeh, L.A. The Concept of a Linguistic Variable and Its Application to
Approximate Reasoning; J. Inform. Sci. 1975, 8, 199-249.
26. Dong, W.; Shah, H.C. Vertex Method for Computing Functions of
Fuzzy Variables; Fuzzy Set. Syst. 1987, 24, 65-78.
27. Wood, K.L.; Otto, K.N.; Antonsson, E.K. Engineering Design Calcula-
tions with Fuzzy Parameters; Fuzzy Set. Syst. 1992, 52, 1-20.
28. Hanss, M.; Klimke, A. On the Reliability of the Influence Measure in
the Transformation Method of Fuzzy Arithmetic; Fuzzy Set. Syst. 2004,
143, 371-390.
29. Molz, F.J.; Widdowson, M.A.; Benefield, L.D. Simulation of Microbial
Growth Dynamics Coupled to Nutrient and Oxygen Transport in
Porous Media; Water Resour. Res. 1986, 22, 1207-1216.
30. Nelson, D.L., Cox, M.M. Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry, 3rd ed.;
Worth Publishers: New York, NY, 2000.
31. Xi, B.D.; Liu, H.L.; Zeng, G.M.; Huang, G.H.; Bai, Q.Z. Composting
MSW and Sewage Sludge with Effective Complex Microorganisms; J.
Environ. Sci. 2002, 14, 264-268.
32. Yilmaz, A.H. Modelling of the Anaerobic Decomposition of Solid
Wastes; Energy Sources 2003, 25, 1063-1072.
33. Haug, R. T. Development of Simulation Models. In The Practical Hand-
book of Compost Engineering; Lewis Publishers: New York, NY, 1993; pp
385-436.
34. Xi, B.D.; Huang, G.H.; Qin, X.S.; Liu, H.L. Two Stages Kinetics of
Municipal Solid Waste Inoculation Composting Processes; J. Environ.
Sci. 2004, 16, 520-524.
35. Xi, B.D.; Wei, Z.M.; Liu, H.L. Dynamic Simulation for Domestic Solid
Waste; J. Am. Sci. 2005, 1, 34-45.
About the Authors
Guohe Huang is a research professor and an environmental
scientist (Canadian Research Chair, Tier 1) at Environmen-
tal System Engineering Program, Faculty of Engineering,
University of Regina. Xiaosheng Qin is the Ph.D. candidate
at Environmental System Engineering Program, Faculty of
Engineering, University of Regina. Guangming Zeng is the
research professor (head of department) at the College of
Environmental Science and Engineering, Hunan University.
Amit Chakma is a research professor and an environmen-
tal/chemical scientist at the Department of Chemical Engi-
neering, University of Waterloo. Beidou Xi is an environ-
mental researcher majoring in solid waste management at
the Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences.
Address correspondence to Guohe Huang, Faculty of Engi-
neering, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
S4S 0A2; phone: ⫹1-306-585-4095; fax: ⫹1-306-585-4855;
e-mail: huangg@env.uregina.ca.
Volume 57 May 2007