4.4 Article

Using Flue Gas Desulfurization Gypsum to Remove Dissolved Phosphorus from Agricultural Drainage Waters

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Volume 41, Issue 3, Pages 664-671

Publisher

AMER SOC AGRONOMY
DOI: 10.2134/jeq2011.0294

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. University of Maryland Eastern Shore and the USDA Agricultural Research Service

Ask authors/readers for more resources

High levels of accumulated phosphorus (P) in soils of the Delmarva Peninsula are a major source of dissolved P entering drainage ditches that empty into the Chesapeake Bay. The objective of this study was to design, construct, and monitor a within-ditch filter to remove dissolved P, thereby protecting receiving waters against P losses from upstream areas. In April 2007, 110 Mg of flue gas desulfurization (FGD) gypsum, a low-cost coal combustion product, was used as the reactive ingredient in a ditch filter. The ditch filter was monitored from 2007 to 2010, during which time 29 storm-induced flow events were characterized. For storm-induced flow, the event mean concentration efficiency for total dissolved P (TDP) removal for water passing through the gypsum bed was 73 +/- 27% confidence interval (alpha = 0.05). The removal efficiency for storm-induced flow by the summation of load method was 65 +/- 27% confidence interval (alpha = 0.05). Although chemically effective, the maximum observed hydraulic conductivity of FGD gypsum was 4 L s(-1) but it decreased over time to <1 L s(-1). When bypass flow and base flow were taken into consideration, the ditch filter removed approximately 22% of the TDP load over the 3.6-yr monitoring period. Due to maintenance and clean-out requirements, we conclude that ditch filtration using FGD gypsum is not practical at a farm scale. However, we propose an alternate design consisting of FGD gypsum-filled trenches parallel to the ditch to intercept and treat groundwater before it enters the ditch.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available