Test Methods for the Examination of Composting and Compost (TMECC) is a comprehensive laboratory manual that provides detailed protocols for the composting industry to evaluate the physical, chemical, and biological properties of composting feedstocks, materials in process, and compost products.
TMECC protocols:
Universal standardized methods to characterize compost are needed by compost producers, state regulatory and permitting agencies, compost product marketing specialists, state and commercial testing laboratories, agriculturalists, horticulturalists, landscapers, landscape architects, civil engineers, researchers on climate change and many more.
Major updates to the TMECC are underway! Learn more here.
Preface
Includes list of past and present reviewers
Introduction
Introduces the TMECC and major updates from previous versions.
1.2 The Composting Process (To be updated in 2026)
1.2-A Key Process Variables
1.3 Composting Technology Groups (To Be Updated In 2026)
1.3-A Operation Characteristics
Sample collection and laboratory preparation
Compost sampling, shipping, chain of custody, laboratory sample storage and preparation
This section covers sampling procedures for compost and composting feedstock.
Review of sampling design schemes adapted from sampling procedure documents provided by Dr. William F. Brinton, Woods End Research Laboratory, Inc.
This method discusses tools and key sampling processes to improve consistency and laboratory accuracy.
Adapted from the US EPA’s Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, SW-846, Third Edition, September, 1986. Consideration and importance were placed on sampling composted solid waste rather than sampling sediments, sludge, or soils for waste analysis. Most information remained unchanged. The majority of the information on sampling was taken from Chapter Nine, Volume II of the U.S. EPA Solid Waste – 846 Manual.
Adapted from USEPA SW-846, this method discusses sampling strategies to improve precision, which is achieved by collecting the appropriate number of samples that are uniformly distributed across the entire volume of compost. Precision is improved by increasing the number of samples, while maintaining a sampling pattern to guarantee a spatially uniform distribution.
This method discusses critical steps in the sampling process preceding laboratory analysis to improve data quality which are sample planning and collection, sample handling and preservation, and laboratory sample preparation. These three steps are further discussed in this chapter.
This section covers laboratory sample handling and preparation for physical, chemical and biological laboratory analysis. Digestion and extraction methods will be moved into this chapter in 2026.
A composite sample is blended and subdivided in the field at the time of sampling.
Sample heterogeneity can be attributed to variations in physical, biological and chemical characteristics across and within sub-samples. Sample variability is often stratified across aggregate sizes. Segregation of a sample according to aggregate size fractions facilitates differentiation of these factors across material size fractions and their corresponding degrees of degradation and other forms of heterogeneity.
Inert materials include metals, hard and film plastics, glass shards, sharps (sewing needles, straight pins and hypodermic needles), and large stones and wood fragments. Inert removal prior to acid digestion decreases the incidence of inflated metal analysis.
A milled sample can be well mixed to create a relatively homogeneous material. From this milled material, small aliquots of 1 to 2 g can be analyzed for metals and other constituents with high precision relative to the entire milled sample.
Sample homogeneity is increased by thoroughly blending and milling a sample. The technique improves precision of elemental and chemical analyses by homogenizing a sample aliquot that represents the bulk sample.
Describes modifications available for sample preparation.
Physical Examination
Air capacity, ash, bulk density, wettability, manmade contamination, total solids, moisture, water holding
This chapter covers the measurement of moisture content, volume weights (bulk density), porosity, water-holding capacity, and air capacity (free air space) of compost materials. When large air spaces are present, high water penetration and aeration can occur. If average air space dimension diminishes and total air space remains unchanged, retention of water increases and the potential for water penetration or flow decreases.Free airspace for composting should be greater than 60% initially, and at least 35% during curing. Free airspace less than 60% initially and 35% during curing inhibits air flow through the pile and will result in accumulation of carbon dioxide and consequent formation of anaerobic conditions; the latter lead to odors from volatile organic acids, sulfides, and amines. formation. Free airspace during odor treatment, if a biofilter is used, should be about 80-90%.
+ Method 3.1-A: Quick-Test for Bulk Density, Porosity/Pore Space, Free Airspace and Water Holding Capacity of Compost (Unsieved)
This method provides a quick estimate for compost bulk density, porosity/pore space percent, free airspace percent, and water holding capacity. Approximately 5 hours are required to complete a run, whereas 24 hours are required to perform the method described under Method 3.10-D: Bulk Density, Water-Holding Capacity, and Air Capacity of Compost Material, Modified ASTM D 2980-71.
+ Method 3.1-B: Quick-Test for Bulk Density, Porosity/Pore Space, Free Airspace and Water Holding Capacity of Compost (Sieved)
This method is identical to Method 3.1-A with exception of an additional step in sample preparation which requires sample sieving.
+ Method 3.1-C: Field Density, Free Air Space and Water-Holding Capacity
Field test using a typical bucket provides an inexpensive, quick approximation of density and porosity for feedstock blends and in-process composting material for process management. This field procedure is useful for evaluating the need for bulking agents.
This chapter covers the measurement of ash content and volatile solids content for compost materials and feedstocks. Carbon dioxide and other gasses are evolved when the biodegradable volatile solids portion, or organic matter, of material is combusted at 550°C. The ash residue is the mineral fraction of compost that remains in the fixed solids, or inorganic content of total solids. Biodegradable volatile solids and ash content in feedstock and compost are two of three material categories in total solids, or dry matter. Total solids, or dry matter include organic matter, ash or fixed solids (ash, inorganic matter, or minerals), and volatile solids that are not readily biodegradable.
+ Method 3.2-A: Unmilled Material Ignited at 550°C without Inerts Removal
Quick-Test to determine moisture, total solids content, total ash, and volatile solids content in the presence of excess air and reported on an oven dried basis of an unsieved, as-received finished or in-process compost or feedstock sample. This test is recommended for samples where no consideration need be given to inert materials and biodegradable materials that do not degrade during the retention time allowed for composting.
+ Method 3.2-B: Milled Material Ignited at 550°C with Inerts Removal
Analytical test to determine ash contents (and organic matter) by combustion at 550°C in the presence of excess air and reported on an oven-dried basis from an air-dried (36°C), sieved and milled compost sample from which non-biodegradable or biodegradable materials that do not readily humify have been removed.
Compensation for inert materials and biodegradable materials that do not degrade during the retention time for composting prior to combustion is accomplished during sample preparation.
+ Method 3.2-C: Unmilled Material Ignited at 550°C with Inerts Removal
A test to determine moisture, total solids content, and biodegradable volatile solids content (organic matter) by combustion in the presence of excess air and reported on an oven-dried basis of a sieved, as-received finished or in-process compost, or feedstock sample.
The test employs a calculated weighting method to compensate for inert materials and for biodegradable materials that do not degrade during the retention time allowed for composing.
Refer to Method 3.1: Air Capacity for procedures to measure bulk density.
Bulk density is weight per unit volume of compost and is based on as-received moisture per unit volume at as-received moisture can be used to estimate transportation requirements.
Bulk density is used for conversion from application rate in mass per unit area to thickness of application layer (e.g., tons per acre to inches).
As compost matures, its organic carbon content decreases due to chemical and biological conversions of organic carbon to carbon dioxide. As this occurs, structural support provided by various carbon compounds degrades and collapses, causing the remaining inorganic materials to compact.This process concentrates materials, both biodegradable and non-biodegradable. The result is a higher unit of mass per unit volume in aged, composted material than that of the original feedstock blends.
This chapter covers proposed tests to measure wettability characteristics of compost.The ability of water to wet depends upon the surface characteristics of the material.
+ Method 3.4-A: Wicking Rate of Compost
The wettability threshold is determined by establishing whether a sample of compost can re-wet to more than 35 percent moisture by capillarity. A series of prepared compost samples with varying moisture contents are exposed to water. The rate and amount of water absorption by each sample is measured. The wettability threshold is reached when the time required to rewet the compost sample exceeds a predetermined maximum allowable time period.
+ Method 3.4-B: Water-Drop Penetration Rate
Compost subsamples are placed in petri dishes and water drops are applied to the surface. The time for droplets to infiltrate is recorded across samples with varying moisture contents, and average penetration times are reported.
This chapter covers the quantification of film plastics in air-dried composted materials.
+ Method 3.5-A Film Plastic Surface Area Determinations Using Digital Processing
This is a proposed method of digital scanning and image processing to quantify the relative surface area of film plastic present per unit volume of compost.
This section covers the quantification of glass shards, metal fragments and hard plastics in finished compost.
+ Method 3.6-A: Wet Sieving Technique
A destructive wet sieve technique for rapid quantification of foreign matter in finished compost. Replicated aliquots of as-received compost are wet-sieved to isolate glass shards, metal fragments and hard plastics. The presence of foreign matter relative to a bulk sample of compost material is determined and reported as a percentage.
Sharps are stainless steel hypodermic needles, and steel sewing needles and straight pins that can pose a human and animal puncture hazard with unprotected exposure. Although some of these items can harbor pathogens, possible infection will be eliminated by the Process to Further Reduce Pathogens (PFRP, US EPA 40 CFR Part 503). When appropriate, compost product intended for sale or distribution shall be treated for the effective removal of sharps, including steel sewing needles and straight pins, stainless steel hypodermic needles, wire snip ends, and metal shavings. Treatment shall take place after product particle size and texture is reduced to a fine, uniform soil-like material – characteristic of stable to very stable compost and may be by a combination of the following provisions:
This section covers the quantification of man-made inert materials in compost.
+ Method 3.8-A: Classification Of Inerts
Inerts may be classified for each sieve size fraction. Size fractions can include 50, 25, 16, 9.5, 6.3, 4 and 2 mm. Inerts are hand sorted and classified for each size fraction.
Man-made inert content greater than 4 mm are determined by passing compost through a sieve. Material remaining on the sieve is visually inspected and sorted. Clearly identifiable man-made inerts, including glass, metal, and hard plastic, are separated. After the inerts > 4 mm and sharps > 2 mm are removed, the sample is milled and an aliquot is used for heavy metals analysis and other tests that require finely milled sample aliquots.
This chapter covers the determination of total solids and moisture content of feedstocks and composts. Total solids, or dry matter, in composting feedstocks and compost includes combustible or biodegradable organic material, volatile solids and inorganic material, and fixed solids making up the ash remaining when organic matter is oxidized by combustion.
Total solids determination does not include trash that is removed during feedstock recovery operations or during compost finishing. Trash includes stones, carbonate concretions, and manufactured inert materials, such as metal fragments, glass shards, sharps, leather, textiles, hard plastic and film plastic.
+ Method 3.9-A: Total Solids and Moisture at 70±5 °C
An aliquot of a well-mixed, as-received, bulk sample is weighed, then oven dried at 70±5°C to steady state and re-weighed. The remaining dry solids fraction represents total solids, and the evaporated fraction represents percent moisture.
+ Method 3.9-B: Total Solids and Moisture at 105 °C
An aliquot of a well-mixed, as-received, bulk sample is weighed, oven dried to steady state and re-weighed. The remaining dry solids fraction represents the total solids, and the evaporated fraction represents the moisture content.
This method conforms to the sample drying temperature required under EPA Chapter 40, CFR Part 503. Total solids and moisture content of in-process material, finished compost products, and regulated feedstocks (e.g., biosolids, etc.) are determined with the same procedure.
+ Method 3.9-C: Air-drying at 36 °C
An aliquot of a well-mixed, as-received moist sample is air-dried at 36 °C. The remaining air-dry solids fraction is further processed as prescribed in analytical protocols, i.e., inert removal, sample milling, and total solids determinations.
+ Method 3.9-D: On-Site Approximation of Total Solids and Moisture by Microwave
An aliquot of well-mixed, as-received moist, bulk feedstock is weighed, oven dried using a microwave oven to steady state, and re-weighed. The remaining dry solids fraction represents the total solids, and the evaporated fraction represents percent moisture. The microwave method is not analytically precise and therefore discouraged for use in place of TMECC Methods 3.9-A: Total Solids and Moisture at 70±5 °C or 3.9-B: Total Solids and Moisture at 105 °C for laboratory sample preparation.
This chapter covers the measurement of water-holding capacity of compost.
+ Methods 3.10-A and 03.10-B: Quick-Test for Bulk Density, Porosity/Pore Space, Free Airspace and Water Holding Capacity of Unsieved (or Sieved) Compost
Quick-Test to determine volume weights (bulk density), porosity/pore space, water holding capacity, and air capacity (free air space) performed on unsieved, as-received compost material.
This method provides a quick estimate for compost bulk density, porosity/pore space percent, free airspace percent, and water-holding capacity. Approximately five hours are required to complete a run,
+ Method 3.10-C: Field Density, Free Air Space And Water-Holding Capacity
This test is designed to provide a rough approximation for field diagnostic use and requires a bucket, scale, and water.
+ Method 3.10-D: Bulk Density and Water-Holding Capacity, of Water-Saturated Compost, Modified ASTM D 2980-71
Analytical test to determine volume weights (bulk density) and water-holding capacity, performed on sieved, as-received compost material. A sample of known volume and mass of material is transferred to a burette and saturated with water. Excess water is drained. The resulting sample weight gain due to retained moisture represents the relative water holding capacity of the material.
Saturated volume weights, water holding capacity, bulk density, compost volumes and air volume are determined on both weight and volume basis from these data.
+ Method 3.10-E: Quick-Test to Approximate Water-Holding Capacity of Compost
This test provides a very quick estimate for water-holding capacity. Approximately one hour is required to complete a run.
Chemical Properties
Macro and micronutrients, heavy metals, carbon, CEC, EC, pH, digestion techniques, spectrometry, ICP
This section covers the measurement of total organic carbon content of composting feedstocks and compost.
+ Method 4.1-A: Combustion with CO2 Detection
This method uses a carbon analyzer to determine total organic carbon in compost. The analyzer operates on the principle of total combustion of a sample in an oxygen-rich atmosphere of a resistance furnace. The CO2 produced by the combustion is swept into an oxygen stream through anhydrone tubes to scrub H2O vapor from the stream. The CO2 stream is then fed into the infrared detector and the amount of CO2 produced is measured.
+ Method 4.2-A: Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, Semi-Micro Kjeldahl Technique
This test covers the determination of organic nitrogen with a semi micro-Kjeldahl method including the optional nitrate reduction step needed to measure total nitrogen.
+ Method 4.2-B: Nitrate Nitrogen Determination
This test covers two common techniques for the determination of nitrate nitrogen; Nitrate by Ion Chromatography and Nitrate by Colorimetry.
+ Method 4.2-C: Ammonium Nitrogen Determination
This test covers two common techniques for the determination of ammonium nitrogen; Ammonium by Ion-Selective Electrode and Ammonium by Colorimetry.
+ Method 4.2-D: Total Nitrogen by Wet Oxidation
Total Nitrogen using wet chemical techniques .
+ Method 4.2-E: Total Nitrogen by Combustion (Dumas) Oxidation.
Automated dry combustion technique measuring all nitrogen forms. Preferred to Method 4.2-D because of increased accuracy, speed, and reduced hazardous chemical waste.
This chapter covers tests for determinations of phosphorus in compost and compost feedstocks. Phosphorus is a macronutrient that is contained in compost and required for plant growth. It is taken up by plants as phosphate ions. Most of the total soil P is part of chemical compounds that have limited solubility.
+ Method 4.3-A: Total Phosphorus by ICP-AES
An air-dried, milled sample is digested and the relative P content of the digestate is determined by inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy analysis. Concentration is reported on a sample dry weight basis.
+ Method 4.3-B: Water-Soluble Phosphorus
A mixture of as-received compost and deionized water is blended at ambient laboratory temperature. The mixture is shaken, centrifuged, and filtered. Phosphorus content is determined using inductively coupled plasma emission spectroscopy. Concentration is reported on a dry weight basis.
+ Method 4.3-C: Water-Extractable Phosphorus (WEP)
This method provides a standardized measure of water-extractable P in compost and other organic residuals (e.g., biosolids, food waste, manure) for use as an index of dissolved P runoff loss potential following recent land applications.
This chapter covers tests for determinations of potassium in compost and compost feedstocks. Potassium is a macronutrient required for plant growth, and is a cofactor for several important enzyme activities.
+ Method 4.4-A: Total Potassium
An air-dried, milled sample is digested and the potassium content of the digestate is determined using inductively coupled plasma emission spectroscopy.
+ Method 4.4-B: Water-Soluble Potassium using ICP
A mixture of as-received compost and deionized water is blended at ambient laboratory temperature. The mixture is shaken, centrifuged, and filtered. Potassium content is determined using inductively coupled plasma emission spectroscopy. Concentration is reported on a sample dw basis.
This chapter covers the determination of elements that are considered secondary and micronutrients for plant growth.
Method 4.5-Mg: Magnesium
Method 4.5-Ca: Calcium
Method 4.5-S: Sulfur
Method 4.5-Na: Sodium
Method 4.5-B: Boron
Method 4.5-Cl: Chloride
Method 4.5-Co: Cobalt
Method 4.5-Cu: Copper
Method 4.5-Fe: Iron
Method 4.5-Mn: Manganese
Method 4.5-Mo: Molybdenum
Method 4.5-Zn: Zinc
This chapter covers methods of digestion and determination for heavy metals and hazardous elements in compost.
Method 4.6-As: Arsenic
Method 4.7-Be: Beryllium
Method 4.6-Cd: Cadmium
Method 4.6-Cu: Copper
Method 4.6-Cr: Chromium
Method 4.6-Pb: Lead
Method 4.6-Hg: Mercury
Method 4.6-Mo: Molybdenum
Method 4.6-Ni: Nickel
Method 4.6-Se: Selenium
Method 4.6-Sr: Strontium
Method 4.6-V: Vanadium
Method 4.6-Zn: Zinc
This chapter covers the determination of elements not considered to be potential pollutants by the US EPA and the USDA nor considered to be essential for plant growth.
Method 4.7-Al: Aluminum
Method 4.7-Sb: Antimony
Method 4.7-Ba: Barium
Method 4.7-Cn: Cyanides
Method 4.7-Ag: Silver
Method 4.7-Tl: Thallium
This chapter covers the measurement of total carbonates, the sum of carbonates and bicarbonates in compost.
+ Method 4.8-A: Calcium Carbonate Equivalency
Method A provides an approximate measure of lime equivalency in compost by extracting carbonates with hydrochloric acid, releasing CO₂, and back-titrating the remaining acidity with standardized NaOH to a phenolphthalein endpoint. While suitable for routine compost assessment, the method has limitations with dark samples, requires careful handling, and results must be field-verified before use in soil pH adjustment planning.
This chapter covers the measurement of cation exchange capacity for finished compost.
+ Method 4.9-A: CEC by Ammonium Displacement After Washing
The displacement method may be applied to all sample types including those high in soluble salts. Exchange sites in the sample are saturated with either ammonium or sodium cations by leaching with an acetate buffer containing either of these ions. The sample is washed with ethanol and then leached quantitatively with a replacement solution of sodium chloride where ammonium is the saturating cation. The replacement solution is analyzed with distillation and titration techniques or colorimetrically for ammonia.
+ Method 4.9-B: CEC by Direct Displacement
After washing the sample with ethanol to remove all traces of ammonium ions, the sample is quantitatively transferred to a distillation flask. Sodium chloride and a base are then added and ammonia is distilled directly from the treated sample and titrated.
This chapter covers the determination of the electrical conductivity (EC) of compost. Electrical conductivity is an indicator test that infers the concentration of ions in compost and other media. The measurement indicates the propensity of a compost extract to conduct electricity. Conductivity varies with both the number and type of ions contained in the solution.
+ Method 4.10: 1:5 Slurry Method, Mass Basis
A compost sample at as-received moisture is blended with deionized water at a ratio of 1:5. The sample is shaken and the EC of the 1:5 sample slurry extract is measured.
The method described in this chapter determines the pH of compost and compost feedstocks. pH influences many factors in compost, including but not limited to, the element mobility, plant health, and microbial populations.
+ Method 4.11-A: 1:5 Slurry pH (Update 2025)
A slurry of compost and deionized water is mixed at a 1:5 compost dry mass to water mass ratio. The sample is shaken and then liquid and solid fractions are separated. The pH is measured in the liquid fraction with an electrometric pH meter. The measurement of pH is expressed as the negative log of the hydrogen ion activity.
+ Method 4.12-A: Microwave-Assisted Nitric Acid Digestion of Compost, US EPA 3051 Modified for Compost
This procedure is based upon US EPA SW846 Method 3051 approved for biosolids and composts containing biosolids. It is approved for use in digesting samples for determining all metals regulated under US EPA 40 CFR 503.
+ Method 4.12-B: Nitric Acid Digestion of Compost and Soils
This procedure is based upon US EPA SW846 Method 3050 approved for biosolids and composts containing biosolids. It is approved for use in digesting samples for determining most metals regulated under US EPA 40 CFR 503, except mercury.
+ Method 4.12-C: Dry Ash Sample Digestion for Plant Nutrients
This method, based on AOAC Method 985.01, is a common procedure for the determination of plant tissue nutrient content. It is not approved for use in digesting samples for determining metals in materials that are regulated under US EPA 40 CFR 503.
+ Method 4.12-D: Water-Soluble Elements
This method quantifies water soluble elements readily released or loosely sorbed by compost solids using a 1:20 dilution.
+ Method 4.12-E: Aqua Regia Procedure
This method is typically used to extract total metals from the soil. This procedure is not approved for use in digesting samples for determining metals in materials that are regulated under US EPA 40 CFR 503.
+ Method 4.12-F: 1:5 Extraction Solution Procedure
This procedure provides an extraction solution for determinations of nitrate and ammonium nitrogen, sulfate sulfur, chloride, electrical conductivity, and electrometric pH. Briefly, a compost and water slurry is created, shaken, and centrifuged or filtered.
This section covers the determination of elemental concentrations from a prepared digest solution by use of atomic absorption spectrophotometry.
+ Method 4.13-A: Cold Vapor AAS Technique for Mercury in Compost
Compost is digested with concentrated nitric acid, diluted, and oxidized with potassium permanganate and persulfate before mercury is reduced to elemental form with SnCl₂ and quantified by cold vapor atomic absorption at 253.7 nm against calibration standards. Because compost generally contains higher mercury concentrations than water, smaller sample volumes and additional dilutions are often required, with detection limits of about 70 ng/mL for cold vapor AA compared to 400 ng/mL for ICP-AES.
+ Method 4.13-B: Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry Methods, US EPA Method 7000A from Document SW846
Compost samples are digested and then metal concentrations can be measured using atomic absorption spectrometry by either direct aspiration (flame) or furnace procedures, with calibration curves constructed from standards. The furnace method provides lower detection limits but requires careful background correction, blank burns, and attention to memory effects, while the flame method emphasizes instrument setup, lamp selection, and calibration according to manufacturer instructions.
This chapter covers elemental determinations using Inductively Coupled Plasma techniques based on US EPA Method 6010A.
+ Method 4.14-A: Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectroscopy, US EPA Method 6010A
Samples are digested following TMECC Method 04.12, transferred to tubes, loaded into the autosampler, and analyzed by ICP-AES under programmed conditions that account for inter-element spectral interferences, background correction, and within-run calibration using standards. Quality control includes the use of blanks, spikes, replicates, and certified reference materials, with calibration verified and normalized at regular intervals to ensure accuracy and precision.
Indicator ratios, Enzymes, Biological assays, Odor, Organic Matter, Respirometry, Weed Seeds
This chapter provides discussion on the measurement of ash and volatile solids content for compost feedstocks, in-process material and compost products. The referenced chapters include the following:
This chapter covers the calculation of compost indicators, which are observable qualities that signal the maturity and stability of compost.
Method 5.2-A: Carbon to Nitrogen Ratio
The carbon to nitrogen ratio is an indication of nitrogen availability for the process of biological degradation. The carbon to nitrogen ratio in compost is not a stand-alone indicator of stability or maturity, so other indicators must be considered.
Method 5.2-B: Carbon to Phosphorus Ratio
Method 5.2-C: Ammonium to Nitrate Ratio
Method 5.2-D: Carbon to Sulfur Ratio
Method 5.2-E: Cadmium to Zinc Ratio
Method 5.2-F: Agricultural Index
Method 5.2-G: CCQC Maturity Index
This test is appropriate for use as a teaching-aid, i.e., K-12. It covers a method to make qualitative estimates of compost stability and maturity using color as the principal indicator.
+ Method 5.3-A Field Approximation of Compost Color and Odor
Determining the color of compost is used for field diagnostics to aid in approximating compost stability. The color of a representative sample is compared to those in the compost color assessment chart; there are five shades of brown, from light to dark.
This chapter covers the determination of enzyme activity and enzyme content in compost.
+ Method 5.4-A Phosphatases
These methods measure compost enzyme activities (acid phosphatase, alkaline phosphatase, and phosphodiesterase) by incubating samples with specific phosphate substrates at controlled pH and temperature, extracting the released p-nitrophenol, and quantifying it colorimetrically.
+ Method 5.4-B Dehydrogenases
Dehydrogenase activity in compost is measured by determining the amount of triphenyl released when compost is incubated with triphenyl-tetrazolium chloride. The triphenyl released is extracted with methanol. The triphenyl in the compost filtrate is measured colorimetrically.
+ Method 5.4-C Proteases
Protease activity in compost is measured by determining the leucine released when compost is incubated with 2 mM benzyloxycarbonyl-phenylalanyl-leucine at
pH 8.0 in Tris buffer. The leucine released is reacted with ninhydrin reagent and the absorption of the reactant is measured colorimetrically.
+ Method 5.4-D Cellulases
Cellulase activity in compost is measured by determining the amount of glucose released when compost is incubated with carboxymethyl cellulase in acetate buffer. The mixture is centrifuged and the supernatant decanted and reacted with anthrone agent. The absorbance of the glucose-anthrone supernatant is measured colorimetrically.
+ Method 5.4-E Peroxidases
Peroxidase activity in compost is measured by determining the amount of H2O2 decomposed when sterile compost supernatant is mixed with 0.06% H2O2 and 0.5% dianisidine in methanol. The oxidized o-dianisidine is measured using a spectrometer. The peroxidase enzymes are extracted from compost by mixing it with phosphate buffer, centrifuged, and filtered.
This section covers qualitative bioassay techniques to screen for the presence of phytotoxins in compost using seed germination and growth.
+ Method 5.5-A: Seedling Emergence and Relative Growth
Seedling emergence and relative vigor are assessed in prepared media through direct seeding using distilled water as the moisture source
+ Method 5.5-B: In-Vitro Germination and Root Elongation
This method evaluates two germination parameters: germination rate and root (radicle) elongation.
+ Method 5.5-C: Earthworm Bioassay: Minnesota “Z” Test
The bioassay consists of placing Eisenia fetida (earthworms) in compost samples with and without added cellulose. The test compost is considered toxic if earthworms die after exposure.
This chapter reviews test protocols for making qualitative and semi-quantitative measures of compost odor emissions.
+ Method 5.6-A: Seedling Emergence and Relative Growth
This test is appropriate for use as a K-12 teaching-aid performed in conjunction with Method 5.3-A Field Assessment of Compost Color. Compost odor is a quick test used for field diagnostics to aid in approximating compost stability and maturity. The odor of a representative sample is compared to those in the compost odor assessment chart, five classes of indicative odors. A sample odor is classified by assigning a value from one to five. The table odor value is matched to that most closely resembling compost odor. A table odor value of one to five, i.e., no odor to raw material odor, is assigned to the compost sample.
This covers the determination of organic matter content in compost.
+ Method 5.7-A: Loss-On-Ignition (LOI) – Organic Matter
A direct determination method that indicates organic matter content by quantifying the amount of solid material combusted relative to the original oven dried sample.
+ Method 5.7-B: Humic Substances— Humic and Fulvic Acid
Humic substances are solubilized with a strong base and extracted. Fractionation and purification are performed to separate fulvic acids from humic acids. Determinations are performed with spectrophotometers following the principle that organic matter absorbs in the ultra violet, visible, and especially the infrared regions.
+ Method 5.7-C: Calculations for Organic Matter Decomposition
This method covers the determination of organic matter decomposition of batch process compost. The protocol is not suitable for use with continuous flow-type composting technologies.
These tests cover the indirect determination of microbial activity in compost by measuring carbon dioxide produced or oxygen consumed as a proxy for respiration rates in a compost sample. Microbial respiration rate is used as an indicator of compost stability that ranges from uncomposted organic materials to finished compost, which has completed the composting process and achieved stability.
+ Method 5.8-A: Specific Oxygen Uptake Rate (SOUR)
Oxygen consumption during composting is influenced primarily by the rate of aerobic biological activity. Since aerobic activity is a function of the amount and forms of carbon available in the compost sample, oxygen uptake rate is also related to the biological stability of compost.
+ Method 5.8-B: Carbon Dioxide Evolution Rate
The amount of carbon dioxide released biologically from a compost sample as a result of standardized incubation is reported per unit of time and volume or weight. This test is used to estimate the relative stability (biological activity) and maturity index of compost.
+ Method 5.8-C: In-Situ Oxygen Refresh Rate
This test is used to monitor or evaluate the relative rate of oxygen uptake by a compost under field conditions.
+ Method 5.8-D: Dewar Self-Heating Test
The self-heating test is based on Dewar flask measurement and evaluates compost stability and maturity, provided specific conditions and equipment are applied. The method may be used under field conditions where stable temperatures of 20 °C to 25 °C can be maintained. Because results are expressed as temperature, they are more easily understood by users and consumers. The Dewar test does not provide quantitative data. Like all respiration methods, this test provides a relative indicator of the extent of organic matter decomposition during composting.
+ Method 5.8-E: Solvita® Maturity Index
An indexing system devised to rank compost maturity by indirectly measuring biological activity, or respiration, and chemical stability. The test is used to evaluate the composting process as well as compost products to help verify marketing claims for compost product shipments.
+ Method 5.8-F: Biologically Available Carbon
This test determines the potential of carbon in a compost sample to decompose under optimized conditions. It can be used to assess whether the decomposition process might continue at a rate that raises temperature when compost is incorporated into potting mixes or agricultural soils. Optimization of all edaphic parameters, except carbon, promotes the highest possible respiration rate, where carbon remains the only limiting factor.
Determination of weed-seed content may improve understanding of weed infestations that arise from composts and potting media. The origin may be hypothesized by examining the botanical composition of the weed species present within the region of a composting facility. Properly prepared compost is relatively weed-seed free. Weed-seed in a compost indicates that the material may not have been adequately processed or that the finished compost was contaminated from the air or stored on or mixed with material containing weed-seed.
Even though weed-seeds might be deposited onto the surface of curing piles, the presence of significant numbers of viable weed-seeds in compost might indicate that ordinary seed destruction processes failed during composting.
Viable weed-seed determination is useful for product quality assurance in specialized markets that are sensitive to weeds in substrates (e.g., horticultural and mulch). Weed-free compost reduces the time and expense of weeding and is a more marketable product.
+ Method 5.9-A: Shields Rinse Method
Compost is prepared by repeated soaking in deionized water until the soluble salts and readily available carbon compounds are reduced to non-toxic concentrations. The prepared compost is filtered and spread onto a layer of sand and incubated for three weeks. Emerged weed-seedlings are counted, recorded, and removed.
+ Method 5.9-B: Peat Moss Dilution Method
A quantitative procedure that standardizes the conductivity of compost by dilution with limed peat. The test determines the content of viable weed-seeds and germinable plant parts. The test requires approximately 14 days and compost diluted to a standard conductivity volume.
This chapter covers the determination of volatile fatty acids content of compost
+ Method 5.10: Volatile Fatty Acids in Compost Extract by Gas Chromatography
Compost is pretreated by vacuum distillation or by passing it through a cation exchange column. Samples of the aqueous solvent are extracted from the sample, acidified and analyzed quantitatively with a gas chromatograph.
Synthetic Organic Compounds
Lab testing for herbicides, pesticides, VOCs
This chapter presents key points of compost sample collection, handling and analysis for a wide range of synthetic organic compounds.
This chapter covers the determination of volatile fatty acids content of compost
+ Method 6.1: Chlorinated Herbicides
+ Method 6.2: Dioxin & Furans
Sample Preparation
US EPA Method 8280A—Extraction and Cleanup Procedures. Follow the procedure outline for Soil Samples.
Sample Cleanup
US EPA Method 8280A—Carbon Column Cleanup.
Sample Analysis
US EPA Method 8280A—The Analysis of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans. This method is appropriate for the determination of tetra-, penta-, hexa-, hepta-, and octachlorinated dibenzo-p dioxins (PCDDs) and dibenzo furans (PCDFs) This method uses high-resolution capillary column gas chromatography/low resolution mass spectrometry (HRGC/LRMS). The resolution is 2-10 ppb.
US EPA Method 8290—The Analysis of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans. This analytical method calls for the use of high-resolution gas chromatography, gas chromatography and high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRGC/HRMS) on purified sample extracts.
+ Method 6.3: Organochlorine Pesticides
Sample Preparation
US EPA Method 3540C—Soxhlet Extraction for volatiles, non-volatiles, and semivolatiles.
Sample Cleanup
US EPA Method 3610B—Alumina Cleanup or US EPA Method 3620B—Florisil Cleanup. To eliminate the material of higher boiling point that could plug-up injection ports it might be necessary to use US EPA Method 3640—Gel-Permeation Cleanup and US EPA Method 3660—Sulfur Cleanup, if the sample contains elemental sulfur.
Sample Analysis
US EPA Method 8081A—Organochlorine Pesticides, Halowaxes and PCBs as Aroclors by Gas Chromatography: Capilliary Column Technique.
+ Method 6.4: Organophosphorus Pesticides
Sample Preparation
US EPA Method 3540C—Soxhlet Extraction for volatiles, non-volatiles, and semivolatiles.
US EPA Method 3550B—Ultrasonic Extraction for non-volatiles and semivolatiles.
Sample Cleanup
US EPA Method 3620B—Florisil Cleanup and if the sample contains elemental sulfur then use US EPA Method 3660B—Sulfur Cleanup.
Sample Analysis
US EPA Method 8141B—Organophosphorus Pesticides by Gas Chromatography Capillary Column Technique.
+ Method 6.5: Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Sample Extraction and Preparation
US EPA Method 3540C—Soxhlet Extraction for volatiles, non-volatiles, and semivolatiles.
Sample Cleanup—Use the following methods according to EPA guidelines.
US EPA Method 3665A—Sulfuric Acid/Permanganate followed by one of the following procedures:
US EPA Method 3620B—Florisil,
US EPA Method 3630C—Silica-Gel, or
US EPA Method 3610B—Alumina Cleanup.
Sample Analysis
US EPA Method 8081B—Organochlorine Pesticides by Gas Chromatography: Capilliary Column Technique.
+ Method 6.6: Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Sample Preparation
US EPA Method 3540C—Soxhlet Extraction, or
US EPA Method 3541A—Automated Soxhlet Extraction
Sample Cleanup
US EPA Method 3610B—Alumina Cleanup or
US EPA Method 3620B—Florisil Cleanup.
US EPA Method 3640A—Gel-Permeation Cleanup to eliminate the material of higher boiling point that plug injection ports.
Sample Analysis
US EPA Method 8270D—Semivolatile Organic Compounds by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS): Capillary Column Technique.
+ Method 6.7: Volatile Organic Compounds
Sample Preparation
US EPA Method 3540C—Soxhlet Extraction, or
US EPA Method 3541A—Automated Soxhlet Extraction
Sample Analysis
US EPA Method 8011—1, 2-Dibromoethane and 1, 2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane by Gas Chromatography. These compounds have been tentatively classified as known or suspected human or mammalian carcinogens. This procedure was derived for drinking and ground water and is not tested for compost or waste solids.
US EPA Method 8015C—Nonhalogenated Volatile Organics by Gas Chromatography. This method is suitable for measuring acrylamide, diethyl ether, ethanol, methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone and paraldehyde. Samples may be analyzed by direct injection from the headspace of a compost sample or via purge-and-trap refer to method US EPA 5030.
US EPA Method 8021A—Aromatic and Halogenated Volatiles by Gas Chromatography Using Photoionization and/or Electrolytic Conductivity Detectors. This method is used to determine the concentration of various aromatic volatile organic compounds that include benzene, chlorobenzene, 1,2 dichlorobenzene, 1,3 dichlorobenzene 1,4 dichlorobenzene, ethylbenzene, toluene and xylenes. Samples may be analyzed by direct injection from the headspace of a compost sample or via purge-and-trap refer to method US EPA 5030.
US EPA Method 8031—Acrylonitrile by Gas Chromatography
US EPA Method 8032A—Acrylamide by Gas Chromatography
US EPA Method 8033—Acetonitrile by Gas Chromatography with Nitrogen-Phosphorus Detection
US EPA Method 8260C—Volatile Organic Compounds by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS).
Pathogens
Coliforms, salmonella, E. coli, parasitic helminths, viruses
This chapter presents a summary of pathogen testing in compost.
This chapter covers detection and quantification techniques for coliform bacteria.
+ Method 7.1-A: Total Coliforms
The method described herein will determine the presence and quantity of total coliforms in a compost sample. Combined application of two traditional culture methods, spread plating and a Most Probable Number method, facilitates the quantification of coliforms over a very broad range while surpassing several inherent limitations associated with each method.
+ Method 7.1-B: Fecal Coliforms
The method described herein will determine the presence and quantity of fecal coliforms in compost. Combined application of two traditional culture methods, spread plating and a Most Probable Number method, facilitates the quantification of fecal coliforms over a very broad range while surpassing several inherent limitations associated with each method.
+ Method 7.1-C: Escherichia Coli
The method described herein will determine the presence and quantity of E. coli in compost. Combined application of two traditional culture methods, spread plating and MPN, facilitates the quantification of fecal coliforms over a very broad range while surpassing several inherent limitations associated with each method.
This chapter covers the detection and quantification techniques for Salmonella spp. in compost samples
+ Method 7.2-A: Detection Test and Quantification Procedure for Salmonella in Compost
The test is based on the observation of well-defined bands of salmonellae cells (ImmunoBand) that have become immobilized in motility medium by polyvalent H (flagellar) antibodies. The quantification procedure is based on a Most-Probable Number MPN format.
+ Method 7.2-B: Enrichment and Quantification of Salmonella in Compost
A preliminary enrichment step is first performed to detect even a single viable Salmonella cell in a compost sample, after which positive samples are quantified using an additional 30 g of material. Quantification is carried out either by a five-day, five-tube Most Probable Number method for low concentrations or by a faster, two-day spread plating technique for higher concentrations, though plating is less reliable for compost due to stress on injured but viable cells.
+ Method 7.2-C: Confirmation Protocols for Presumptive Salmonella Isolates
Salmonella colonies are tested biochemically by inoculating TSI and MIL agar tubes, incubating, and observing characteristic reactions such as acid butt, alkaline slant, H₂S production, motility, and indole negativity. Colonies showing these traits are then confirmed serologically using slide agglutination with poly-O and group-specific antisera.
This chapter covers the determinations for fecal streptococci and enterococci in compost.
+ Method 7.3-A: Enterococcus
The fecal streptococci/enterococci quantification method combines traditional spread plating techniques with a Most Probable Number system for more rapid and sensitive quantification.
This chapter describes the detection, enumeration, and determination of viability of parasitic helminths in compost.
+ Method 7.4-A: A Viable Ascaris Ova in Compost
This method is adapted from US EPA Document 625r92013. Control of Pathogens and Vector Attraction in Sewage Sludge, Appendix I. Test Method for Detecting, Enumerating, and Determining the Viability of Ascaris Ova in Sludge. This method is used to concentrate pathogenic Ascaris ova from wastewater, sludge and compost. Samples are processed by blending with buffered water containing a surfactant. The blend is screened to remove large particulates. The solids in the screened portion are allowed to settle out and the supernatant is decanted. The sediment is subjected to density gradient centrifugation using magnesium sulfate (specific gravity 1.20). This flotation procedure yields a layer likely to contain Ascaris and some other parasitic ova if present in the sample. Small particulates are removed by a second screening on a small mesh size screen. Proteinaceous material is removed using an acid-alcohol/ethyl acetate extraction step. The resulting concentrate is incubated until control Ascaris eggs are fully embryonated. The concentrate is then microscopically examined for the categories of Ascaris ova on a Sedgwick-Rafter counting chamber.
The Standards and Practices Committee of the Compost Research and Education Foundation ensures scientific accuracy, consistency, and innovation by reviewing and maintaining the Test Methods for Examination of Composting and Compost
The Standards and Practices Committee is a volunteer group of experts dedicated to advancing compost science and industry best practices. Operating under the Compost Research and Education Foundation (CREF), this committee provides guidance on compost testing and evaluation standards, with a key focus on reviewing and updating the Test Methods for the Examination of Composting and Compost (TMECC).
Learn more about the TMECC III Edition and current contributors and reviewers here.
The 1st edition of the TMECC was jointly published by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Composting Council Research and Education Foundation (CCREF). The TMECC Project was initiated by The Procter and Gamble Company in mid 1995 under the direction of Phil B. Leege, and adopted by the Composting Council Research and Education Foundation in late 1995 under the leadership of Dr. Charles Cannon, former Executive Vice President of the Composting Council.
TMECC evolution and the TMECC Project was categorized by six developmental stages:
i) draft of methods;
ii) compilation of methods;
iii) content peer-review;
iv) round-robin testing;
v) addition of interpretation and end-use guidelines; and vi) maintenance and addenda distribution.
The initial draft of methods was completed in December 1995 and the enhanced compilation of methods was completed in December 1997. TMECC content peer-review was initiated in March1998 and formally completed in August 2001. Proficiency testing is underway and was
implemented as follows: a preliminary round-robin using triplicate samples from 15 composting facilities and three laboratories was carried out in 2000 through collaboration with the USCC’s Seal of Testing Assurance (STA) program and USDA-ARS-BARC-SASL; in 2001 and 2002, round robin-testing was expanded to include 23 laboratories through collaboration between Compost Analysis Proficiency (CAP), STA and the TMECC Project.
This manual builds upon the foundational work of numerous contributors from previous editions of the Test Methods for the Examination of Composting and Compost (TMECC).
We gratefully acknowledge the following contributions:
Paul Adler (USDA-ARS, Kearneysville, WV) reviewed chapters 3.1 Water Holding Capacity, 3.2 Ash, 3.4 Wettability, 3.7 Process to Reduce Sharps, 3.9 Total Solids and Moisture, 4.10 Electrical Conductivity for Compost, and 4.11 Electrometric pH Determinations for Compost. Kevin Aiello (Middlesex County Utilities Authority, Sayreville, NJ) reviewed chapters 4.9 Cation Exchange Capacity for Compost, 4.10 Electrical Conductivity for Compost, and 4.11 Electrometric pH Determinations for Compost. Kim A. Anderson (Holm Research Center, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID) reviewed chapters 2.2 Laboratory Sample Preparation, 3.6 Glass Shards, Metal Fragments and Hard Plastics, and 3.8 Man Made Inerts. Smund Asdal (Division Landvik, Apelsvoll, Norway) reviewed chapter 5.5 Biological Assays.Vihita Beharee (University of Natal, South Africa) reviewed chapters 4.9 Cation Exchange Capacity for Compost, 4.10 Electrical Conductivity for Compost, and 4.11 Electrometric pH Determinations for Compost. Trello Beffa (Universite Neuchatel, Switzerland) reviewed chapters 7.1 Coliform Bacteria, 7.2 Salmonella, and 7.3 Enterococci. Vicki Bess (BBC Laboratories, Inc., Tempe, AZ) reviewed chapters 4.9 Cation Exchange Capacity for Compost, 4.10 Electrical Conductivity for Compost, 4.11 Electrometric pH Determinations for Compost, and 5.5 Biological Assays. Werner Bidlingmaier (Bauhaus Universität, Weimar, Germany) reviewed chapters 2.2 Laboratory Sample Preparation, 3.8 Man Made Inerts, 4.9 Cation Exchange Capacity for Compost, 4.10 Electrical Conductivity for Compost, and 4.11 Electrometric pH Determinations for Compost. Paul R. Bloom (University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN) reviewed chapter 4.1 Organic Carbon. John Bouwkamp (University of Maryland, College Park, MD) reviewed chapter 5.2 Indicator Ratios. Gary Breitenbeck (Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA) reviewed chapters 2.1 Field Sampling of Compost Materials, 2.2 Laboratory Sample Preparation, 3.6 Glass Shards, Metal Fragments and Hard Plastics, and 3.8 Man Made Inerts. William F. Brinton, Jr. (Woods End Research Laboratory, Mount Vernon, ME) authored chapter 2.1 Field Sampling of Compost Materials, reviewed chapters 2.1 Field Sampling of Compost Materials, 3.1 Water Holding Capacity, 5.1 Biodegradable Volatile Solids, 5.3 Color, 5.4 Enzyme Activity and Analysis, 5.6 Odor, 5.7 Organic Matter, and 5.9 Viable Weed in Compost, and authored chapters 5.2-G Indicator Ratios, 5.4-B Enzyme Activity and Analysis, 5.7-B Organic Matter, 5.8-E Respirometry, and 5.9-B Viable Weed in Compost. Marcus Buchanan (Buchanan Associates, Scotts Valley, CA) authored chapter 5.2-G Indicator Ratios. Tracy Butler (USDA-ARS-BARC, Beltsville, MD) reviewed chapter 5.5-A Biological Assays.Rufus L. Chaney (USDA-ASR-BARC, Beltsville, MD) authored chapters 4.12-E Digestion Techniques and 5.2-E Indicator Ratios. Paul Chu (A&L Eastern Lab, Richmond, VA) reviewed chapters 4.1 Organic Carbon, 4.2 Nitrogen, 4.3 Phosphorus, 4.4 Potassium, 4.5 Secondary and Micronutrient Content, 4.6 Heavy Metals and Hazardous Elements, and 4.12 Digestion Techniques. Bruce Cook (University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN) reviewed chapter 5.8-B Respirometry. Teresa A. Crenshaw (Delaware Department of Agriculture, Dover, DE) reviewed chapter 2.1 Field Sampling of Compost Materials. Gerald A. Croteau (E&A Environmental Consultants, Inc., Bothel, WA) authored chapters 5.3-A Color and 5.6 Odor.William E. Dancer (University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN) authored chapter 4.12-A Digestion Techniques and served as reviewer/author for chapter 4.13-A Atomic Absorption Spectrometry, and reviewed chapter 4.14 Inductively Coupled Plasma Analysis. Nat Dellavalle (Dellavalle Laboratory, Fresno, CA) reviewed chapter 4.2 Nitrogen.Roger Eliason (University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN) authored chapter 4.12-A Digestion Techniques, reviewed chapters 3.1 Water Holding Capacity, 4.13 Atomic Absorption Spectrometry, 4.14 Inductively Coupled Plasma Analysis, and 5.1 Biodegradable Volatile Solids. David Elwell (Ohio State University, Wooster, OH) reviewed chapter 5.8-A Respirometry. Eliot Epstein (E&A Environmental Consulting, Stoughton, MA) reviewed chapter 5.2 Indicator Ratios. Joann Ernst (Environmental Education and Testing Services Inc., Bellingham, WA) reviewed chapters 4.10 Electrical Conductivity for Compost, 4.11 Electrometric pH Determinations for Compost, 6.3 Organochlorine Pesticides, and 6.4 Organophosphorus Pesticides, and authored chapter 7.2-A Salmonella. Greg Evanylo (Virginia Polytech and State University, Blacksburg, VA) reviewed chapters 4.9 Cation Exchange Capacity for Compost, 4.10 Electrical Conductivity for Compost, and 4.11 Electrometric pH Determinations for Compost.Brenda F. Farrell (Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX) authored chapters 5.4 Enzyme Activity and Analysis and 5.10-A Volatile Fatty Acids, and reviewed chapters 5.10 Volatile Fatty Acids, 6.0 Analysis of Synthetic Organic Chemicals in Compost, 6.1 Chlorinated Herbicides, 6.2 Dioxin/Furans, 6.3 Organochlorine Pesticides, 6.4 Organophosphorus Pesticides, 6.5 Polychlorinated Biphenyls, and 6.6 Semivolatile Organic Compounds. Mark A. Flock (Brookside Laboratory, Inc., New Knoxville, OH) reviewed chapters 2.2 Laboratory Sample Preparation, 4.1 Organic Carbon, 4.2 Nitrogen, 4.3 Phosphorus, 4.4 Potassium, 4.5 Secondary and Micronutrient Content, 4.6 Heavy Metals and Hazardous Elements, 4.12 Digestion Techniques, and 4.13 Atomic Absorption Spectrometry.Frank R. Gouin (University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD) reviewed chapters 3.1 Water Holding Capacity, 3.2 Ash, 3.4 Wettability, 3.7 Process to Reduce Sharps, 3.9 Total Solids and Moisture, 5.1 Biodegradable Volatile Solids, 5.2 Indicator Ratios, and 5.5-B Biological Assays, and authored chapter 5.2-B Indicator Ratios. Marcella E. Grebus (University of California, Riverside, CA) reviewed chapters 5.5-A Biological Assays and 5.8-A Respirometry. Francisco Gutererres (CA Integrated Waste Management Board, Sacramento, CA) reviewed chapters 2.1 Field Sampling of Compost Materials, 3.1 Water Holding Capacity, 3.2 Ash, and 3.8 Man Made Inerts.Thomas R. Halbach (University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN) authored chapters 3.10-E and 5.5-C Biological Assays, and reviewed chapters 3.9 Total Solids and Moisture, 5.5-A Biological Assays, and 5.7 Organic Matter. Kari Hanninen (University of Jyuaskyla, Finland) reviewed chapter 2.1 Field Sampling of Compost Materials. Dean Hanson (Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR) reviewed chapters 3.6 Glass Shards, Metal Fragments and Hard Plastics and 3.8 Man Made Inerts. T. Hernandez (Murcia, Spain) reviewed chapter 5.4 Enzyme Activity and Analysis. Henricus A. Hoitink (Ohio State University, Wooster, OH) authored chapters 4.3-A Phosphorus and 5.8-A Respirometry.David T. Ingram (USDA-ARS-BARC, Beltsville, MD) reviewed chapters 7.0 Introduction to Pathogen Testing, 7.1 Coliform Bacteria, 7.2 Salmonella, and 7.3 Enterococci.Mark King (Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Augusta, ME) reviewed chapters 2.2 Laboratory Sample Preparation, 3.6 Glass Shards, Metal Fragments and Hard Plastics, and 3.8 Man Made Inerts. Janice Kotuby-Amacher (Utah State University, Logan, UT) reviewed chapters 4.1 Organic Carbon, 4.2 Nitrogen, 4.3 Phosphorus, 4.4 Potassium, 4.5 Secondary and Micronutrient Content, 4.6 Heavy Metals and Hazardous Elements, and 4.12 Digestion Techniques.Yuncong Li (University of Florida, Gainesville, FL) reviewed chapters 2.2 Laboratory Sample Preparation, 3.9 Total Solids and Moisture, 4.9 Cation Exchange Capacity for Compost, 4.10 Electrical Conductivity for Compost, and 4.11 Electrometric pH Determinations for Compost. John Loane (California Integrated Waste Management Board, Sacramento, CA) reviewed chapters 2.2 Laboratory Sample Preparation, 3.6 Glass Shards, Metal Fragments and Hard Plastics, and 3.8 Man Made Inerts. Tina Logan (Thornton Laboratory, Tampa, FL) reviewed chapters 2.2 Laboratory Sample Preparation, 3.6 Glass Shards, Metal Fragments and Hard Plastics, and 3.8 Man Made Inerts. Clifford B. Low (Perry Labs, Watsonville, CA) reviewed chapters 2.2 Laboratory Sample Preparation, 3.6 Glass Shards, Metal Fragments and Hard Plastics, and 3.8 Man Made Inerts.John A. MacLeod (Canada Research Center, Charlottetown, PEI, Canada) reviewed chapters 2.2 Laboratory Sample Preparation, 3.6 Glass Shards, Metal Fragments and Hard Plastics, and 3.8 Man Made Inerts. Martha Mamo (University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE) reviewed chapters 4.1 Organic Carbon and 4.2 Nitrogen. Charles M. McGinley (St. Croix Sensory, Inc., St. Croix, WI) reviewed chapter 5.6 Odor. Mark Meckes (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH) reviewed chapter 7.0 Introduction to Pathogen Testing. Frederick C. Michel Jr. (Ohio State University, Wooster, OH) authored chapter 5.10-A Volatile Fatty Acids and reviewed chapters 5.4 Enzyme Activity and Analysis, 5.8-A Respirometry, 5.8-B Respirometry, 5.8-E Respirometry, and 5.10 Volatile Fatty Acids. Robert O. Miller (Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO) reviewed chapters 2.1 Field Sampling of Compost Materials, 4.10 Electrical Conductivity for Compost, and 4.11 Electrometric pH Determinations for Compost, and authored chapter 5.5-A Biological Assays. Robert C. Munter (University of Minnesota Research Analytical Laboratory, Department of Soil, Water and Climate, St. Paul) authored chapters 2.2 Laboratory Sample Preparation, 3.2 Ash, 3.9-A Total Solids and Moisture, 3.10-D, 4.1 Organic Carbon, 4.2 Nitrogen, 4.9 Cation Exchange Capacity for Compost, 4.11 Electrometric pH Determinations for Compost, and 4.12 Digestion Techniques, and reviewed chapters 4.3 Phosphorus, 4.4 Potassium, 4.5 Secondary and Micronutrient Content, 4.6 Heavy Metals and Hazardous Elements, 4.10 Electrical Conductivity for Compost, 5.5-A Biological Assays, 5.7 Organic Matter, and 5.8-A Respirometry. Vicki Normandin (IAS Labs, Phoenix, AZ) reviewed chapters 4.1 Organic Carbon, 4.2 Nitrogen, 4.3 Phosphorus, 4.4 Potassium, 4.5 Secondary and Micronutrient Content, 4.6 Heavy Metals and Hazardous Elements, and 4.12 Digestion Techniques.Michael R. Overcash (North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC) reviewed chapters 6.0 Analysis of Synthetic Organic Chemicals in Compost, 6.1 Chlorinated Herbicides, 6.2 Dioxin/Furans, 6.3 Organochlorine Pesticides, 6.4 Organophosphorus Pesticides, 6.5 Polychlorinated Biphenyls, and 6.6 Semivolatile Organic Compounds. Monica Ozores-Hampton (University of Florida, Immokalee, FL) reviewed chapters 4.10 Electrical Conductivity for Compost and 4.11 Electrometric pH Determinations for Compost.Lois Parker (A&L Great Lakes Laboratories, Inc., Fort Wayne, IN) reviewed chapters 4.2 Nitrogen, 4.10 Electrical Conductivity for Compost, 4.11 Electrometric pH Determinations for Compost, 4.12 Digestion Techniques, 5.5-A Biological Assays, 5.7 Organic Matter, and 5.8-B Respirometry. Stuart Pettygrove (University of California, Davis, CA) reviewed chapters 4.10 Electrical Conductivity for Compost and 4.11 Electrometric pH Determinations for Compost.C. A. Adinarayana Reddy (Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI) reviewed chapters 7.0 Introduction to Pathogen Testing, 7.1 Coliform Bacteria, 7.2 Salmonella, and 7.3 Enterococci. Frank Schaefer (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH) reviewed chapter 7.4 Parasitic Helminths. Ewald Schnug (Federal Agricultural Research Center, Braunschweig, Germany) reviewed chapters 4.1 Organic Carbon, 4.2 Nitrogen, 4.3 Phosphorus, 4.4 Potassium, 4.5 Secondary and Micronutrient Content, 4.6 Heavy Metals and Hazardous Elements, 4.10 Electrical Conductivity for Compost, 4.12 Digestion Techniques, 4.13 Atomic Absorption Spectrometry, and 5.7 Organic Matter. Frank Shields (Soil Control Lab, Watsonville, CA) authored chapters 4.8 Inorganic Carbon, 4.12-F Digestion Techniques, 5.2-F Indicator Ratios, 5.2-G Indicator Ratios, 5.9-A Viable Weed in Compost, and 5.8-F Respirometry, and reviewed chapters 4.2 Nitrogen, 4.3 Phosphorus, 4.4 Potassium, 4.5 Secondary and Micronutrient Content, 4.10 Electrical Conductivity for Compost, 4.11 Electrometric pH Determinations for Compost, 5.2 Indicator Ratios, 5.5 Biological Assays, 5.7 Organic Matter, 5.8-B Respirometry, 5.9 Viable Weed in Compost, and 7.1-B Coliform Bacteria. Aziz Shiralipour (University of Florida, Gainesville, FL) authored chapter 5.5-B Biological Assays and reviewed chapters 5.9 Viable Weed in Compost and 5.10 Volatile Fatty Acids. Soil Microbial Systems Laboratory (USDA-ARS-BARC, Beltsville, MD) authored chapters 7.0 Introduction to Pathogen Testing, 7.1 Coliform Bacteria, 7.1-A Coliform Bacteria, 7.1-B Coliform Bacteria, 7.1-C Coliform Bacteria, 7.2-B Salmonella, 7.2-C Salmonella, and 7.3-A Enterococci. Dan M. Sullivan (Oregon State University, OR) reviewed chapters 5.8-B Respirometry and 5.8-E Respirometry. Michael S. Switzenbaum (University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA) authored chapter 5.2-G Indicator Ratios and reviewed chapters 5.4 Enzyme Activity and Analysis and 5.10 Volatile Fatty Acids. Robin Szmidt (The Scottish Agricultural College, Aberdeen, Scotland UK) reviewed chapters 4.10 Electrical Conductivity for Compost and 4.11 Electrometric pH Determinations for Compost.Wayne H. Thompson (Washington State University Extension, WA; Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service, TX) authored chapters 3.4 Wettability, 3.5 Film Plastics, 3.6 Glass Shards, Metal Fragments and Hard Plastics, 3.9-B Total Solids and Moisture, 3.9-C Total Solids and Moisture, 3.9-D Total Solids and Moisture, 3.10-D, 4.10 Electrical Conductivity for Compost, 4.11 Electrometric pH Determinations for Compost, 4.12-D Digestion Techniques, 5.5-A Biological Assays, and 7.4 Parasitic Helminths, and served as technical editor for chapters 4.12-F Digestion Techniques, 5.8-B Respirometry, 5.8-F Respirometry, and 7.1-B Coliform Bacteria.Torleiv Næss Ugland (Apelsvoll Research Centre, Apelsvoll, Norway) reviewed chapter 5.5 Biological Assays.Maartin van de Kamp (University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA) reviewed chapters 2.2 Laboratory Sample Preparation and 3.8 Man Made Inerts. James West (Soil and Plant Laboratory, Santa Clara, CA) reviewed chapters 2.2 Laboratory Sample Preparation, 3.6 Glass Shards, Metal Fragments and Hard Plastics, and 3.8 Man Made Inerts. Ann M. Wolf (Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA) reviewed chapters 4.10 Electrical Conductivity for Compost and 4.11 Electrometric pH Determinations for Compost.
Contact Us
We invite stakeholders, researchers, TMECC users, and compost advocates to participate in our mission. Whether through partnership or volunteering, your voice can help shape the future of composting standards.
Have questions about the TMECC or committee activities or want to get involved?
Shelby Hoglund
Standards and Practices Committee Chair
TMECC Program Manager
Email: shelbyhoglund@compostfoundation.org
Michele Francis
TMECC Associate Program Manager
Email: michelefrancis@compostfoundation.org
The Test Methods for the Examination of Composting and Compost (TMECC) is the industry standard for evaluating compost quality and performance. It provides the trusted methods used by producers, regulators, consultants, and researchers to ensure compost is safe, reliable, and effective.
