Advertisement

Use of Coal Combustion by-Products (CCBP) in Horticultural and Turfgrass Industries

  • Maxim J. Schlossberg
  • William P. Miller
  • Stanislaw Dudka
Chapter

Abstract

Coal combustion by-products (CCBP) include fly ash, bottom ash (cinders) and various desulfurization by-products. They contain plant nutrients, have variable capacities to neutralize soil acidity, and may improve physical properties of mineral soils. They have been usefully applied in agricultural, horticultural, turfgrass and land reclamation settings. However, inherent traits of CCBP such as bulkiness, excess trace metal concentrations, inconsistent availability of P, and low content of N and K make CCBP an untenable fertilizer supplement. Likewise, utilization of municipal biosolids (sewage sludge) can be problematic due to trace metal levels and undesirable nutrient ratios. Therefore, this study was initiated in early 2000 to determine the feasibility of blended CCBP and biosolids/biosolid products for use as growth media for horticultural ornamentals and turfgrass sod. Trace element concentrations in mixes used for both soil amendment and sod media were below USEPA regulatory limits. In the sod production component, growth media were uniformly spread to heights of 2, 3, and 4 cm on compacted subsoil, sprigged with bermudagrass [Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. x C. transvaalensisBurrtDavy var. ‘TifSport’ (formerly Tift 94)], and maintained under ideal commercial sod field conditions. Following a maturation period of 99 d, sod was harvested and installed at the Georgia Experiment Station in Griffin. Remaining sod were destructively analyzed for determination of their physicochemical attributes. Field data collected from the ornamental beds showed yield and quality of flowers grown on CCBP-amended soil to outperform the commercially-amended soil under limited fertility conditions. Post-installation evaluations of sod made in April, 2001 did not reveal significant differences in rooting strength by mixture or sod thickness. All finished CCBPcontaining sod retained significantly more volumetric water (ψm<-80 kPa), while possessing 26–39% less gross (wet) weight than the control mix sod. The finished sod grown in selected combinations of bottom ash, fly ash, and biosolids possessed significantly greater biomass than the control sod mix, while requiring less supplemental fertilization. Utilization of the described CCBP-mixes as supplemental growth media in bermudagrass sod production was successful and may be a significant advantage when compared to some SE US soils. These experimental observations, in tandem with similar published results, indicate that utilization of CCBP in horticulture and turfgrass industries is technically feasible and environmentally-sound.

Keywords

Sewage Sludge Plant Available Water Calcium Carbonate Equivalency Compact Subsoil Municipal Compost 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Land Application of Agricultural, Industrial, and Municipal By-Products, Soil Sci. Soc. Am., Madison, WI, 2000, 107.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mattigod, S. V., Rai, D., Eary, L. E., and Ainsworth, C. C., Geochemical factors controlling the mobilization of inorganic constituents from fossil fuel combustion residues: I. Review of major elements, J. Environ. Qual., 19, 188, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Adriano, D. C., Page, A. L., Elseewi, A. A., Chang, A. C., and Straughan, I., Utilization and disposal of fly ash and other coal residues in terrestrial ecosystems: a review, J. Environ. Qual., 9, 333, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Furr, A. K., Parkinson, T. F., Hinrichs, R. A., Van Campen, D. R., Bache, C. A., Gutenmann, W. H., St. John, L. E., Pakkala, I. S., and Lisk, D., National survey of elements and radioactivity in fly ashes: adsorption of elements by cabbage grown in fly ash-soil mixture, J. Environ. Sci. Tech., 11, 1194, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schumann, A. W., Plant nutrient supply from ash-biosolid mixtures, Ph.D. thesis, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 1997.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Matsi, T., and Keramidas, V. Z., Fly ash application on two acid soils and its effect on soil salinity, pH, B, P, and on ryegrass growth and composition, Environ. Poll., 104, 107, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Molliner, A. M., and Street, J., Effect fly ash and lime on growth and composition of corn (Zea mays L.) on acid sandy soils, J. Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Florida, 41, 217, 1982.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schumann, A. W., and Sumner, M. E., Plant nutrient availability from mixtures of fly ashes and biosolids, J. Env. Qual., 28, 1651, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hill, M. J., and Lamp, C. A., Use of pulverized fuel ash from victorian brown coal as a source of nutrients for a pasture species, Aust. J. Exp. Agric. Anim. Husb., 20, 377, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Elseewi, A. A., Straughan, I. R., and Page, A. L., Sequential cropping of fly-ash amended soils: effects on soil chemical properties and yield and elemental composition of plants, Sci. Total Environ., 15, 247, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Elseewi, A. A., Bingham, F. T., and Page, A. L., Availability of sulfur in fly ash to plants, J. Environ. Qual., 7, 69, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Elseewi, A. A., Grimm, S. R., Page, A. L., and Straughan, I., Boron enrichment of plants and soils treated with coal ash, J. Plant Nutr., 3, 409, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Khan, M. R., and Khan, W. K., The effect of fly ash on plant growth and yield of tomato, Environ. Poll., 92, 105, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stout, W. L., Sharpley, A. N., and Pionke, H. B., Reducing soil phosphorous solubility with coal combustion by-products, J. Environ. Qual., 27, 111, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Summers, R., Clarke, M., Pope, T., and O’Dea, T., Western Australian fly ash on sandy soils for clover production, Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal., 29, 2757, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sajwan, K. S., Ornes, W. H., and Youngblood, T. J., The effect of fly ash/sewage sludge mixtures and application rates on biomass production, Environ. Sci. Health, A30, 1327, 1995.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Salter, P. J., and Williams, J. B., Effects of pulverized fuel ash on the moisture characteristics of soils, Nature, 213, 1157, 1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gangloff, W. J., Ghodrati, M., Sims, J. T., and Vasilas, B. L., Impact of fly ash amendment and incorporation method on hydraulic properties of a sandy soil, Water Air Soil Poll., 119, 231, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Campbell, D. J., Fox, W. E., Aitken, R. L., and Bell, L. C., Physical characteristics of sands amended with fly ash, Aust. J. Soil Res., 21, 147, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Patterson, J. C., and Henderlong, P. R., Turfgrass soil modification with sintered fly ash, in Proc. I“ Int. Turfgrass Res. Conf, Harrogate, England, 1970, 161.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Beard, J. B., Turfgrass: Science Culture, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1973.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Adriano, D. C., and Weber, J. T., Influence of fly ash on soil physical properties and turfgrass establishment, J. Environ. Qual. 30, 596, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    National Census Bureau, New privately owned housing units started in the South by purpose and design Onlinej., available at:http://www.census.gov /const/www/quarterly_starts_completions.pdf, 2000, verified 7 Jan. 2002.
  24. 24.
    McCarty, B., Landry, Jr., G., Higgins, J., and Miller, L., Sod Production in the Southern United States, Clemson Univ. Coop. Extension Service, Bull. EC702, 1999.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schlossberg, M. J., and Karnok, K. J., Root and shoot performance of three creeping bentgrass cultivars as affected by nitrogen fertility, J. Plant Nutr., 24, 535, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mehlich, A., Mehlich 3 soil test extractant: a modification of the Mehlich 2 extractant, Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal., 5, 1409, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    USEPA., Part 503. Fed. Reg., 58, 9387, 1993.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hanna, W. W., Carrow, R. N., and Powell, A. J., Registration of ‘Tift 94’ bermudagrass, Crop Sci., 37, 1012, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Klute, A., Water retention. Laboratory methods, in Physical and Mineralogical Methods, Klute, A., Ed., Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, WI, 1986, 643.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sparks, D.L., Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 3—Chemical Methods, Soil Sci. Soc. Am., Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, WI, 1993.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Behnke, P.A., The chemical composition of soils, in The Handbook of Soil Science, Sumner, M. E., Ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2000, chap. B 1.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bearce, B. C., Myers, S., Burch, M., Engstrom, B., and Smutna, L., Coal bottom ash as a growing medium for poinsettia, easter lily, and peperomia, in Proceedings: 12’ Int. Symposium on Coal Combustion By-Product (CCB) Management and Use, Orlando, American Coal Ash Association, 1997, 1, chap. 4.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wong, J. W. C., Lai, K. M., Fang, M., and Ma, K.K., Effect of sewage sludge amendment on soil microbial activity and nutrient mineralization, Environ. Int., 24, 935, 1998.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sikora, L. J., and Enkiri, N. K., Growth of tall fescue in compost/fertilizer blends, Soil Sci., 164, 62, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gentilucci, G., Murphy, J. A., and Zaurov, D. E., Nitrogen requirement for Kentucky bluegrass grown on compost amended soil, Int. Turf. Res. 1, 9, 382, 2001.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ruemmele, B. A., Engelke, M. C., White, R. H., and Lehman, V., Alternative sod production method for zoysiagrass, Int. Turf. Soc. Res. 1, 9, 910, 2001.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Castellanos, J. Z., and Pratt, P. F., Mineralization of manure nitrogen-correlation with laboratory indexes, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. 1, 45, 354, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Georgia Automated Environmental Monitoring Network, Historical temperature data, Georgia Agriculture Experiment Station, Griffin, GA. Available at: http://www.griffm.peachnet.edu/cgi-bin/GAEMN.pl?site=GAGRunit=Metricreport=hi, 2000, verified 25 Jan. 2002.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maxim J. Schlossberg
    • 1
  • William P. Miller
    • 1
  • Stanislaw Dudka
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Crop and Soil SciencesUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations