4.7 Article

Modelling agronomic properties of Technosols constructed with urban wastes

Journal

WASTE MANAGEMENT
Volume 34, Issue 11, Pages 2155-2162

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2013.12.016

Keywords

Constructed Technosol; Urban vegetation; Pedological engineering; Wastes formulation; Agronomic properties; Dose-response curves

Funding

  1. ADEME (French Environmental Agency, SITERRE research project)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The greening of urban and suburban areas requires large amounts of arable earth that is a non-renewable resource. However, concentration of population in cities leads to the production of high amounts of wastes and by-products that are nowadays partly recycled as a resource and quite systematically exported out of urban areas. To preserve natural soil resources, a strategy of waste recycling as fertile substitutes is proposed. Eleven wastes are selected for their environmental harmlessness and their contrasted physico-chemical properties for their potential use in pedological engineering. The aim is (i) to demonstrate the feasibility of the formulation of fertile substrates exclusively with wastes and (ii) to model their physico-chemical properties following various types, number and proportions of constitutive wastes. Twenty-five binary and ternary combinations are tested at different ratios for total carbon, Olsen available phosphorus, cation exchange capacity, water pH, water retention capacity and bulk density. Dose response curves describe the variation of physico-chemical properties of mixtures depending on the type and ratio of selected wastes. If these mixtures mainly mimic natural soils, some of them present more extreme urban soil features, especially for pH and Poisen. The fertility of the new substrates is modelled by multilinear regressions for the main soil properties. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available