Characterization of PSMs

  • Chad J. Penn
  • James M. Bowen
Chapter

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter is to present the detailed laboratory methods and methodology of PSM characterization that are necessary for designing a P removal structure and screening PSMs for safety. Through the information in this chapter, laboratory personnel can follow detailed instructions for conducting a complete PSM characterization. At the most basic level, designing a P removal structure requires knowledge of the quantitative relationship between dissolved P added to a PSM and the P removed by the PSM, expressed on a mass basis. This can only be achieved by producing a flow-through “design curve” that is specific to a given retention time and inflow P concentration for the PSM of interest. This P removal design curve can either be measured directly or predicted from a chemical characterization: detailed methods for both are provided. Physical characterization methods necessary for designing a P removal structure are also provided. Last, methods of safety characterization of PSMs are given. The characterization methods given in this chapter will provide all of the necessary PSM inputs required to design a P removal structure. Instructions on how to obtain site inputs and how to design a P removal structure is given in Chap.  6.

Keywords

Phosphorus sorption material PSM characterization Flow-through Phosphorus removal curve Design curve Phosphorus sorption material PSM methods pH buffer index Phosphorus sorption material PSM safety 

References

  1. Canga, E., B. Iversen, and C. Kjaergaard. 2013. A simplified transfer function for estimating saturated hydraulic conductivity of porous drainage filters. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution 225: 1–13. doi: 10.1007/s11270-013-1794-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Hageman, P.L., P.H. Briggs, G.A. Desborough, P.J. Lamothe, and P.J. Theodorakos. 2000. Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) Leachate Chemistry Data for Solid Mine-Waste Composite Samples from Southwestern New Mexico and Leadville, Colorado. Reston, VA: US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey.Google Scholar
  3. Iyengar, S.S., L.W. Zelazny, and D.C. Martens. 1981. Effect of photolytic oxalate treatments on soil hydroxyl interlayered vermiculites. Clays and Clay Minerals 29: 429–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. McKeague, J., and J.H. Day. 1966. Dithionite and oxalate-extractable Fe and Al as aids in differentiating various classes of soils. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 46: 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Penn, C.J., J. Bowen, J.M. McGrath, G. Fox, G. Brown, and R. Nairn. 2016. Evaluation of a universal flow-through model for predicting and designing phosphorus removal structures. Chemosphere 151: 345–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Salarashayeri, A., and M. Siosemarde. 2012. Prediction of soil hydraulic conductivity from particle-size distribution. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 61: 454–458.Google Scholar
  7. USEPA. 1996. Method 3050B Acid Digestion of Sediments, Sludges, and Soils. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chad J. Penn
    • 1
  • James M. Bowen
    • 2
  1. 1.USDA Agricultural Research ServiceNational Soil Erosion Research LaboratoryWest LafayetteUSA
  2. 2.University of KentuckyLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations