The effects of flue gas desulfurization gypsum (FGD gypsum) on P fractions in a coastal plain soil
- 219 Downloads
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.
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.
KeywordsCoastal plain soil Flue gas desulfurization gypsum (FGD gypsum) Phosphorus fractions P loss
This study was supported by the National Public Project of Environmental Protection (No. 201109023) and the Shanghai Science and Technology Commission (15dz1207904).
- Administration SEP (1995) Environmental quality standard for soils (GB15618–1995). Standards Press of China, BeijingGoogle Scholar
- Bao SD (2000) Analysis of soil and Agrochemistry. China Agriculture Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
- Chen LM, Dick WA (2011) Gypsum as an agricultural amendment: general use guidelines. The Ohio State University Extension Service, ColumbusGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Electric Power Research Institute (2011) Composition and leaching of FGD gypsum and mined gypsum. EPRI Technical Rep. 1022146. EPRI, Palo Alto, CAGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Gu YC, Jiang BF (1990) The fraction method for determining soil inorganic P in calcareous soils. Soils 22:101–102Google Scholar
- Kuroda K, Okido M (2012) Hydroxyapatite coating of titanium implants using Hydroprocessing and evaluation of their osteoconducitivity. Bioinorg Chem Appl 10:693–730Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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/
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Watts DB, Dick WA (2014) Sustainable Uses of FGD Gypsum in Agricultural Systems: Introduction. J Environ Qual 43:246-252Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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