Liming Characteristics of a High-Calcium Dry Flue Gas Desulfurization By-Product and a Class-C Fly Ash
- 1 Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA
- 2 Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA
- 3 Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA
- 4 Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA
- 5 Stable Isotope Laboratory, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA
Abstract
Due to coal’s availability and low cost, coal combustion continues to be the United States’ primary energy source. However, coal combustion produces large quantities of waste material. Some coal combustion by-products (CCBs) have chemical and physical characteristics that make them potentially useful as soil amendments. The objectives of this study were to characterize a relatively new, high-calcium dry flue gas desulfurization (DFGD) by-product and compare its agronomic liming potential to a Class-C fly ash (FA) and reagent-grade calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Calcium car-bonate equivalence (CCE), degree of fineness (DOF), and effective neutralizing value (ENV) for each CCB were determined using standard methods. The CCBs and CaCO3 were also incubated with an acidic (~4.5) clay sub-soil at application rates equiva-lent to 0, 0.5, 1, and 2 times the soil’s lime requirement and compared to an una-mended control. Soil pH was then measured periodically during a 40-day incubation. The ENV of 79.4% for the DFGD by-product and 57.3% for the FA were comparable to those of commercially available liming materials, but were significantly lower ( P < 0.05) than that of reagent-grade CaCO3. After 40 days of incubation at the 0.5× ap-plication rate, both CCBs raised the pH of the clay soil to only 5.0, while the CaCO3 raised the pH to 6.5. After 40 days at the 1× rate, all three materials had raised the soil pH to between 6.5 and 7.0, although the FA increased the soil pH more slowly than did the other two materials. At the 2× rate, both CCBs increased the soil pH to between 7.5 and 8.0, while the CaCO3 increased the soil pH to only 7.0. Both CCBs appear to be useful as soil liming materials, although care should be taken to avoid over-application, as this may make the soil too alkaline for optimum plant growth.
- U.S. Energy Information Agency (USEIA) (2015) Annual Energy Outlook 2015 with Projections to 2040. U.S. Department of Energy, Ed., U.S. Energy Information Administration, Washington DC.
- Luther, L. (2010) Managing Coal Combustion Waste (CCW): Issues with Disposal and Use. Congressional Research Service, Washington DC.
- American Coal Ash Association (ACAA) (2008) 2007 Coal Combustion Product (CCP) Production & Use Survey Results (Revised). American Coal Ash Association, Aurora, CO.
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2015) Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities. Washington DC.
- Wisconsin Electric (WE) (2013) Coal Combustion Products Utilization Handbook. Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Milwaukee, WI.
- Adriano, D.C., Weber, J., Bolan, N.S., Paramasivam, S., Koo, B. and Sajwan, K.S. (2001) Effects of High Rates of Coal Fly Ash on Soil, Turfgrass, and Groundwater Quality. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 135, 365-385.
- Kost, D.A., Bigham, J.M., Stehouwer, R.C., Beeghly, J.H., Fowler, R., Traina, S.J., Wolfe, W.E. and Dick, W.A. (2005) Chemical and Physical Properties of Dry Flue Gas Desulfurization Byproducts. Journal of Environmental Quality, 34, 676-686. http://dx.doi.org/10.2134/jeq2005.0676
- Foy, C.D. (1992) Soil Chemical Factors Limiting Plant Root Growth. Advances in Soil Sciences, 19, 97-149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-2894-3_5
- Heylar, K.R. and Porter, W.M. (1989) Soil Acidification, Its Measurement, and the Processes Involved. In: Robson, A.D., Ed., Soil Acidity and Plant Growth, Academic Press, San Diego, CA. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-590655-5.50007-4
- Clark, R.B., Ritchey, K.D. and Baligar, V.C. (2001) Benefits and Constraints for Use of FGD Products on Agricultural Land. Fuel, 80, 821-828. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0016-2361(00)00162-9
- United States Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) (2015) Official Series Description—Captina Series. https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/C/CAPTINA.html
- Gee, G.W. and Bauder, J.W. (1986) Particle-Size Analysis. In: Klute, A., Ed., Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical Methods, Agronomy Monograph No. 9, 2nd Edition, American Society of Agronomy/Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, 383-411.