Advertisement

Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 804–815 | Cite as

The effects of flue gas desulfurization gypsum (FGD gypsum) on P fractions in a coastal plain soil

  • Kun He
  • Xiaoping LiEmail author
  • Longli Dong
Soils, Sec 2 • Global Change, Environ Risk Assess, Sustainable Land Use • Research Article
  • 219 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

In order to explore the possibility of using FGD gypsum in controlling P loss due to agricultural runoff, the effects of FGD gypsum on the P fraction were studied in the Yangtze River Delta coastal plains. The field experiments were conducted to identify (1) different application rates of FGD Gypsum to the P losses and (2) formation of Ca-P complexes in the soil in response to FGD gypsum applications.

Materials and methods

The field experiments consisted four rates of FGD gypsum (0, 15, 30, and 45 t/ha) in triplicate. FGD gypsum was obtained from a coal burning power plant. The “S” multi-point sampling method was used to collect samples of the uppermost soil interval in July and December of 2015. The total phosphorus (TP) in soil and plants was determined using the sulfuric acid-perchloric acid digestion method. The available phosphorus (AP) was determined using the sodium bicarbonate extraction-molybdenum-antimony anti-spectrophotometric method. The soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) in the soil leachate was determined using the molybdenum-antimony anti-spectrophotometric method. The Visual MINTEQ 3.0 model was used to simulate the forms and distribution of the P fractions in the soil solution.

Results and discussion

The results indicated that the soil P fractions changed with application rats of FGD gypsum while the total soil P showed no significant change. The concentrations of SRP in the leachate also decreased in average of 27.5, 41.9, and 54.5%, respectively, with increasing FGD gypsum rates. The amounts of Ca2-P, Ca8-P, and Ca10-P of the calcium phosphates in the soil were significantly increased over the ranges of 44.3–68.6, 34.1–70.1, and 7.4–17.2%, while soil AP concentrations decreased. Visual MINTEQ modeling confirmed the speciation and fractionation of Ca-P compounds under the coastal plain soil conditions. The field experiments also showed that FGD gypsum applications did not affect the absorption of P by the vegetation.

Conclusions

Experiments indicated that FGD gypsum has been shown to react with P in soil, resulting in decrease of AP and SRP and formation of insoluble Ca-P compounds and thereby decreasing the potential of P losses with surface runoff. FGD gypsum appears to be a more viable soil amendment than commercially mined gypsum to potentially achieve reductions in P losses and eutrophication of receiving waters.

Keywords

Coastal plain soil Flue gas desulfurization gypsum (FGD gypsum) Phosphorus fractions P loss 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the National Public Project of Environmental Protection (No. 201109023) and the Shanghai Science and Technology Commission (15dz1207904).

References

  1. Administration SEP (1995) Environmental quality standard for soils (GB15618–1995). Standards Press of China, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  2. Bao SD (2000) Analysis of soil and Agrochemistry. China Agriculture Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  3. Brauer D, Aiken GE, Pote DH, Livingston SJ, Norton LD, Way TR, Edwards JH (2005) Amendment effects on soil test phosphorus. J Environ Qual 34:1682–1686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buckley ME, Wolkowski RP (2014) In-season effect of flue gas desulfurization gypsum on soil physical properties. J Environ Qual 43:322–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen LM, Dick WA (2011) Gypsum as an agricultural amendment: general use guidelines. The Ohio State University Extension Service, ColumbusGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen LM, Kost D, Tian Y, Guo X, Watts D, Norton D, Wolkowski RP, Dick WA (2014) Effects of gypsum on trace metals in soils and earthworms. J Environ Qual 43:263–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen L, Stehouwer R, Tong X, Kost D, Bigham JM, Dick WA (2015) Surface coal mine land reclamation using a dry flue gas desulfurization product: short-term and long-term water responses. Chemosphere 134:459–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen XH, Qian XY, Li XP, Zhang H, Hu SQ, He K, Li J (2017) Inhibiting effects and mechanism experiment of flue-gas desulfurization gypsum on soil phosphorus loss. Trans CSAE 33:148–154Google Scholar
  9. Cheng JR, Chen XH, Liu ZH, Li XP, Fu RB, Chen QY (2014) The experimental study on the process and effect to the FGD-gypsum as an improvement in coastal saline-alkali. China Environ Sci 34:1505–1513 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  10. Chhabra R, Abrol IP, Singh MV (1981) Dynamics of phosphorus during reclamation of sodic soils. Soil Sic 132:319–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chun S, Nishiyama M, Matsumoto S (2001) Sodic soils reclaimed with by-product from flue gas desulfurization: corn production and soil quality. Environ Pollut 114:453–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dick WA, Peerless D, Nester J (2013) Reducing phosphorus contributions to lake Erie by land application of gypsum. 2013 National Nonpoint Source Monitoring and Workshops, ClevelandGoogle Scholar
  13. Electric Power Research Institute (2011) Composition and leaching of FGD gypsum and mined gypsum. EPRI Technical Rep. 1022146. EPRI, Palo Alto, CAGoogle Scholar
  14. Electric Power Research Institute (2012) Flue Gas Desulfurization Gypsum Agricultural Network: Ohio Sites 1 (Mixed Hay) and 2 (Corn). 2012 TECHNICAL REPORT. 1025354. Palo Alto, California, USAGoogle Scholar
  15. Favaretto N, Norton LD, Joem BC, Brouder SM (2006) Gypsum amendment and exchangeable calcium and magnesium affecting phosphorus and nitrogen in runoff. Soil Sci Soc Am J 70:1788–1796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gu YC, Jiang BF (1990) The fraction method for determining soil inorganic P in calcareous soils. Soils 22:101–102Google Scholar
  17. He ZQ, Honeycutt CW, Cade-Menun BJ, Senwo ZN, Tazisong IA (2008) Phosphorus in poultry litter and soilenzymatic and nuclear magnetic resonance characterization. Soil Sci Soc Am J 72:1425–1433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuroda K, Okido M (2012) Hydroxyapatite coating of titanium implants using Hydroprocessing and evaluation of their osteoconducitivity. Bioinorg Chem Appl 10:693–730Google Scholar
  19. Li XN, Zhang Q, Chen MC, Zhang H (2005) Study on effect of using three soil conditioners to phosphorus validity of soda-alkali soil. J Soil Water Conserv 19:71–74 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  20. Li XP, Liu XC, Mao YM, Chen XH (2014) Effects of flue gas desulfurization (FGD) gypsum on desalination of reclaimed tidal flat soil. J Environ Eng Technol 4:502–507 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  21. Mao YM, Li XP, Dick WA, Chen LM (2016) Remediation of saline–sodic soil with flue gas desulfurization gypsum in a reclaimed tidal flat of southeast China. J Environ Sci 45:224–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mehmood A, Imran M, Rukh S, Akhtar MS, Khalid A, Khan KS, Rukh S (2015) Relationship of phosphorus uptake with its fractions in different soil parent materials. Int J Plant Sci 1:45–53Google Scholar
  23. Mishra A, Cabrera ML, Rem JA (2012) Phosphorus fractions in poultry litter as affected byflue-gas desulphurization gypsum and litter stacking. Soil Use Manag 28:27–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Misra SM, Tiwari KN, Prasad SV (2007) Reclamation of alkali soils: influence of amendments and leaching on transformation and availability of phosphorus. Commun Soil Sci Plan Anal 38:1007–1028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Murphy PNC, Stevens RJ (2010) Lime and gypsum as source measures to decrease phosphorus loss from soils to water. Water Air Soil Pollut 212:101–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Olsen SR, Cole CV, Watanable FS, Dean LA (1954) Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  27. Pote DH, Daniel TC, Moore PA, Nichols DJ, Sharpley AN, Edwards DR (1996) Relating extractable soil phosphorus to phosphorus losses in runoff. Soil Sci Soc Am J 60:855–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Qian XY, Shen GX, Huang LH, Gu HR, Massimo P (2010) Loss of soil phosphorus from rain-fed cropland and its affecting factors in Dongtan of Chongming. J Ecol Rural Environ 26:334–338Google Scholar
  29. Qu HP, Zhou LQ, Huang MF, Wei YL, Xie RL, Zeng Y, Liu XH, Zhu XH, Tan HW (2016) Phosphorus balance in paddy soils and its environmental effect under different phosphorus application rates. J Plant Nutr Fertil 22:40–47Google Scholar
  30. Rayan J, Hasan HM, Baasiri M, Tabbara HS (1985) Availability and transformation of applied phosphorus in calareous Lebanese soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 49:1210–1215Google Scholar
  31. Samadi A, Gilkes RJ (1998) Forms of phosphorus in virgin and fertilized calcareous soils of Western Australia. Aust J Soil Res 36:585–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shen J, Li R, Zhang F, Fan J, Tang C, Rengel Z (2004) Crop yields, soil fertility and phosphorus fractions in response to long-term fertilization under the rice monoculture system on a calcareous soil. Field Crop Res 86:225–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smith DB, Cannon WF, Woodruff LG, Solano F, Kilburn JE, Fey DL (2013) Geochemical and mineralogical data for soils of the conterminous United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Data Series 801, 19 p .https://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/801/
  34. Stout WL, Sharpley AN (2003) Effect of amending high phosphorus soils with flue-gas desulfurization gypsum on plant uptake and soil fractions of phosphorus. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 67:21–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stout WL, Sharpley AN, Landa J (2000) Effectiveness of coal combustion by-products in controlling phosphorus export from soils. J Environ Qual 29:1239–1244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Torbert HA, Watts DB (2014) Impact of flue gas desulfurization gypsum application on water quality in a coastal plain soil. J Environ Qual 43:273–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2014) Coal Combustion Residual Beneficial Use Evaluation: Fly Ash Concrete and FGD Gypsum Wallboard (Final). EPA530-R-14-001. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  38. United States Geological Survey (USGS) (2013) Minerals commodity summaries. http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/gypsum/mcs-2013-gypsu.pdf. Accessed 22 Aug 2013
  39. Wang J, Liu WZ,Mu HF, Dang TH (2010) Inorganic phosphorus fractions and phosphorus availability in a calcareous soil receiving 21-year superphosphate application. Pedosphere 20:304–310Google Scholar
  40. Watts DB, Dick WA (2014) Sustainable Uses of FGD Gypsum in Agricultural Systems: Introduction. J Environ Qual 43:246-252Google Scholar
  41. Xiang WS, Huang M, Li XY (2004) Progress on fractioning of soil phosphorus and availability of various phosphorus fractions to crops in soil. Soil Sci Plant Nutr 10:663–670 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  42. Xu XG, Li YY, Meng C, Jiao JX, Shi H, Zhang MY, Wu JS (2013) The characteristics of nitrogen and phosphorus leaching in a Paddy soil in subtropics. J Agro-Environ Sci 32:991–999 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  43. Zhang FJ, Xu X, Xiao GJ (2013) Influence of flue gas desulfurization gypsum on the availability of Phsophorus in sodic soil. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Occidentalis Sinica 22:151–156 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  44. Zhang YR, Gao M, Huang R (2014) Bio-availability of soil inorganic phosphorus in the hydro-fluctuation of three gorges reservoir. J Soil Water Conserv 28:222–226 (in Chinese) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Estuarine and Coastal ResearchEast China Normal UniversityShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.The Ecological Technology and Engineering SchoolShanghai Institute of TechnologyShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations