Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 552–560 | Cite as

Acute toxicity tests using earthworms to estimate ecological quality of compost and digestate

  • Alberto Pivato
  • Maria Cristina Lavagnolo
  • Barbara Manachini
  • Roberto Raga
  • Giovanni Beggio
  • Stefano Vanin


Ecological quality of compost and digestate, used as fertilizers for agricultural use, was assessed through an acute ecotoxicological bioassay testing the earthworm Eisenia fetida (Annelida). The test evaluates the earthworm’s attitude to dig within 15 min into a soil medium constituted by a mixture of a standardized soil and different concentrations of compost/digestate. According to different classes of behavior responses, the sample is classified as good or bad quality (ON/OFF). The validity of this test was confirmed comparing the observations with the results from a standard chronic test developed by OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). Considering samples from different plants and at different stages of degradations, the replicates, the number of tested concentrations and the measured endpoints (ability to dig, mortality, growth, reproduction), a total of 996 observations were analyzed. The chronic test on earthworms uses the same media as in the acute one and measures the endpoints of mortality and growth within 28 days and reproduction within further 28 days. Thus, the test proposed here can be considered a not expensive and quick laboratory test and its implementation in quality assurance (QA) and quality of product (QC) schemes would enhance the protection of soil fauna. This last purpose is very important considering that, concerning the biological indicators of the quality of compost and digestate, the most important studies focused on the use of plants and microorganisms and scarce attention has been paid to soil invertebrates.


Digestate Compost Ecotoxicity tests Worms Fertilizer Agriculture application 



The authors would like to thank Matteo Rossi, Jessica Girotto and Antonia Rieple, who performed the test on many compost and digestate samples.


  1. 1.
    Pivato A, Vanin S, Raga R, Lavagnolo MC, Barausse A, Rieple A, Laurent A, Cossu R (2016) Use of digestate from a decentralized on-farm biogas plant as fertilizer in soils: an ecotoxicological study for future indicators in risk and life cycle assessment. Waste Manag J 49:378–389. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2015.12.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alvarenga P, Mourinha C, Farto M, Palma P, Sengo J, Morais MC, Cunha-Queda C (2016) Quality assessment of a battery of organic wastes and composts using maturity, stability and enzymatic parameters. Waste Biomass Valoriz 7:455–465. doi: 10.1007/s12649-015-9468-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Teglia C, Tremier A, Martel J-L (2011) Characterization of solid digestates: part 1, review of existing indicators to assess solid digestates agricultural use. Waste Biomass Valoriz 2:43–58. doi: 10.1007/s12649-010-9051-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Teglia C, Tremier A, Martel J-L (2011) Characterization of solid digestates: part 2, assessment of the quality and suitability for composting of six digested products. Waste Biomass Valoriz 2:113–126. doi: 10.1007/s12649-010-9059-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Domene X, Sol L, Ramırez W, Alcaniz JM, Andres P (2011) Soil bioassays as tools for sludge compost quality assessment. Waste Manage 31:512–522. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2010.10.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    EC n.1907/2006. Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EECGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    European Council (EC), Directive EEC 91/689. Hazardous Waste Council Directive, Official Journal of the European Union, L 377, 12 December 1991Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pelosi C, Joimel S, Makowski D (2013) Searching for a more sensitive earthworm species to be used in pesticide homologation tests—a meta-analysis. Chemosphere 90:895–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Van Gestel CAM (2012) Soil ecotoxicology: state of the art and future directions. Zookeys 176:275–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    EC n.283/2013. Commission Regulation (EU) No 283/2013 of 1 March 2013 setting out the data requirements for active substances, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market. Off J Eur Union 93: 1–84Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    EC n.284/2013. Commission Regulation (EU) No 284/2013 of 1 March 2013 setting out the data requirements for plant protection products, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market Text with EEA relevance. Off J Eur Union 93: 85–152Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    EFSA, Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR), 2016. DRAFT Scientific Opinion addressing the state of the science on risk assessment 2 of plant protection products for in-soil organisms. Accessed 18 May 2016)
  13. 13.
    Sarigiannis D, Hansen U (2012) Considering the cumulative risk of mixtures of chemicals—a challenge for policy makers. Environ Health 11(Suppl 1):S18. doi: 10.1186/1476-069X-11-S1-S18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Perrodin Y, Boillot C, Angerville R, Donguy G, Evens E (2011) Ecological risk assessment of urban and industrial systems: a review. Sci Total Environ 409(24):5162–5176. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.08.053 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pivato A, Barausse A, Zecchinato F, Palmeri L, Raga R, Lavagnolo MC, Cossu R (2015) An integrated model-based approach to the risk assessment of pesticide drift from vineyards. Atmos Environ 111:136–150. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.04.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lombardo A, Franco A, Pivato A, Barausse A (2015) Food web modeling of a river ecosystem for risk assessment of down-the-drain chemicals: A case study with AQUATOX. Sci Total Environ 508:214–227. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.11.038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grechi L, Franco A, Palmeri L, Pivato A, Barausse A (2016) An ecosystem model of the lower Po river for use in ecological risk assessment of xenobiotics. Ecol Model 332:42–58. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2016.03.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhou J, Chang VW-C, Fane AG (2013) An improved life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) approach for assessing aquatic eco-toxic impact of brine disposal from seawater desalination plants. Desalination 308:233–241. doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2012.07.039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sarakinos HC, Bermingham N, White PA, Rasmussen JB (2000) Correspondence between whole effluent toxicity and the presence of priority substances in complex industrial effluents. Environ Toxicol Chem 19(1):63–71. doi: 10.1002/etc.5620190107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gotvajn AZ, Zagorc-Koncan J (1998) Whole effluent and single substance approach: a tool for hazardous wastewater management. Water Sci Technol 37(8):219–227. doi: 10.1016/S0273-1223(98)00252-2 Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals (222/2004) Earthworms reproduction test (Eisenia fetida/Eisenia andrei). OECD library, adopted 13 April 2004Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dlgs 217/06 (Italian Legislative Decree 217/06), Gazzetta ufficiale, n.141 del 20 giugno 2006, Accessed Nov 2015
  23. 23.
    Pivato A, Raga R, Lavagnolo MC, Vanin S, Barausse A, Palmeri L, Cossu R (2016) Assessment of compost dosage in farmland through ecotoxicological tests. J Mater Cycles Waste Manage 18(2):303–317. doi: 10.1007/s10163-014-0333-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pivato A, Raga R, Vanin S, Rossi M (2014) Assessment of compost quality for its environmentally safe use by means of an ecotoxicological test on a soil organism. J Mater Cycles Waste Manage 16(4):763–774. doi: 10.1007/s10163-013-0216-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals (222/2016) Earthworms reproduction test (Eisenia fetida/Eisenia andrei). OECD library, adopted 29 July 2016Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DII, Department of Industrial EngineeringUniversity of PadovaPaduaItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento Scienze e Tecnologie Biologiche Chimiche e Farmaceutiche “STEBICEF” Via Archirafi, 18PalermoItaly
  3. 3.Department of Biological Sciences, School of Applied SciencesUniversity of HuddersfieldHuddersfieldUK

Personalised recommendations