Land Application of Aluminum Water Treatment Residual to Bahiagrass Pastures: Soil and Forage Responses

Silveira, Maria L.; Driscoll, Julie L.; Silveira, Cristiane Prezotto; Graetz, D. A.; Sollenberger, Lynn E.; Vendramini, J. M. B.

doi:10.2134/agronj2012.0385

Cited by 12 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, Codling et al (2002) found that WTR application rates of 50 g kg −1 decreased water-soluble P and Mehlich 3-extractable phosphorus concentration by 98-99% and 87-90% respectively. Likewise, Silveira et al (2013) found that the treatments trialled (30 and 75 t ha −1 ) reduced water-extractable P in soil A and E horizons by more than 60% (e.g. 18.4 mg kg −1 in control soil A horizon, down to 7.3 and 2.8 mg kg −1 in 35 and 70 t ha −1 treatments respectively).…”

Section: Immobilisation Of Contaminants and Excess Nutrients In Soilmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…In order to address these issues, Zohar et al (2017) produced a WTR-organic composite that could potentially find use as a slow-release P fertiliser; this was achieved by initially using WTRs to treat soil leachate and dairy wastewater to remove P. A 9-week desorption experiment found that P was slowly released, initially at a rate of 30 mg kg −1 , which decreased to 10 mg kg −1 after 28 days and remained constant until the experiment concluded at 60 days. However, this preparation may not always be necessary as Silveira et al (2013) highlighted that WTRs were an adequate substitute for organic-rich fertiliser in all but P-deficient soils when growing bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum Flüggé).…”

Section: Immobilisation Of Contaminants and Excess Nutrients In Soilmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Potential Alternative Reuse Pathways for Water Treatment Residuals: Remaining Barriers and Questions—a Review

Turner

Wheeler²,

Stone³

et al. 2019

Water Air Soil Pollut

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Water treatment residuals (WTRs) are byproducts of the coagulation and flocculation phase of the drinking water treatment process that is employed in the vast majority of water treatment plants globally. Production of WTRs are liable to increase as clean drinking water becomes a standard resource. One of the largest disposal routes of these WTRs was via landfill, and the related disposal costs are a key driver behind the operational cost of the water treatment process. WTRs have many physical and chemical properties that lend them to potential positive reuse routes. Therefore, a large quantity of literature has been published on alternative reuse strategies. Existing or suggested alternative disposal routes for WTRs can be considered to fall within several categories: use as a pollutant and excess nutrient absorbent in soils and waters, bulk land application to agricultural soils, use in construction materials, and reuse through elemental recovery or as a wastewater coagulant. The main concerns and limitations restricting current and future beneficial uses of WTRs are discussed within. This includes those limitations linked to issues that have received much research attention such as perceived risks of undesirable phosphorous immobilisation and aluminium toxicity in soils, as well as areas that have received little coverage such as implications for terrestrial ecosystems following land application of WTRs.

show abstract

Section: Immobilisation Of Contaminants and Excess Nutrients In Soilmentioning

confidence: 85%

Section: Immobilisation Of Contaminants and Excess Nutrients In Soilmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential Alternative Reuse Pathways for Water Treatment Residuals: Remaining Barriers and Questions—a Review

Turner

Wheeler²,

Stone³

et al. 2019

Water Air Soil Pollut

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The relatively lesser total annual herbage accumulation in 2017 observed in the inorganic fertilizer treatments may be the result of the excessive rainfall experienced in August and September 2017, which may have resulted in significant N losses. Because the majority of the N present in the inorganic fertilizer is more easily susceptible to leaching, most likely bahiagrass total annual herbage accumulation was negatively affected from the excessive rainfall with the application of inorganic fertilizer (Silveira et al., 2013).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biosolids and biochar application effects on bahiagrass herbage accumulation and nutritive value

Silveira

Vendramini

et al. 2020

Agronomy Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pastures represent the major cropping system where biosolids are recycled in Florida, yet limited information is available documenting the agronomic benefits of biosolids recycling programs. A 2-yr experiment evaluated bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum Flügge) responses to application of biosolids and inorganic fertilizer applied either alone or in combination with biochar. Our hypothesis was that biochar could alter soil N and P dynamics, thus, affecting crop nutrient use efficiency. Treatments were a factorial arrangement of four fertilizer sources (inorganic fertilizer, thermally dried Class AA biosolids, aerobically digested Class B biosolids, and anaerobically digested Class B biosolids; surface-applied at 160 kg plant available N ha −1 yr −1 ) with or without biochar (applied at 1% wt basis). Bahiagrass total annual herbage accumulation was similar for biosolids and inorganic fertilizer treatments in 2017; however, inorganic fertilizer and aerobically digested Class B biosolids increased total annual herbage accumulation by as much as ∼29% relative to other sources in 2018. Biosolids and inorganic fertilizer increased bahiagrass crude protein (CP) concentration by as much as ∼22 and ∼39% in 2017 and 2018, respectively, compared to unfertilized treatment. No treatment effects were observed on in vitro digestible organic matter (IVDOM) concentration in 2017; however, in 2018 biosolids resulted in greater IVDOM than inorganic fertilizer. Data suggested no benefit of biochar on bahiagrass responses.Bahiagrass tissue mineral concentrations in both biosolids and inorganic fertilizer treatments were generally within sufficient range for optimum plant growth. Biosolids can be a viable alternative for sustainable bahiagrass production while reducing the dependence on inorganic fertilizer.Bahiagrass is a warm-season perennial grass species used for grazing and hay production in the southeastern United Abbreviations: AOAC, Association of Official Agricultural Chemists; CP, crude protein; IVDOM, in vitro digestible organic matter; PAN, plant available nitrogen.

show abstract

“…Contamination risks for recycling of wastes in agricultural soils must be assessed. They include accumulation of potentially toxic elements (PTEs) (Mossa et al, 2020; Wasserman et al, 2018), whereas WTR is commonly highlighted by presenting high total content of Al, Fe, and Mn which may generate deleterious effects on plant growth (Kluczka et al, 2017; Lombi et al, 2010; Silveira et al, 2013). In addition, loads of pathogenic organisms in BS must be monitored and kept under safe levels (Pereira et al, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Liming and co‐application of water treatment residuals with biosolids for conditioning sandy soils

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Application of water treatment residuals (WTR) and biosolids (BS) might ameliorate fragile soils. However, studies integrating impacts of waste preparation methods such as liming and grinding associated with co-application approaches for soil conditioning are lacking. The present study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of agricultural use of WTR as well as their co-application with BS to ameliorate a sandy soil through assessing impacts on selected soil quality indicators and on nutrient and potentially toxic element concentration in plant tissue in addition to the biomass yield of annual crops. The following treatments were evaluated: non-amended soil (control); drying plus grinding and liming WTR; WTR co-application with BS at 3:1 ratio; and a soil amendment commercially available in Brazil. All treatments were soil incorporated in the 0.0-0.2 m layer at 30 Mg ha À1 dose (dry mass). Selected soil physical, hydraulic, and chemical parameters were determined. Furthermore, nutrients and potentially toxic elements concentration in plant tissue as well as the agronomic performance of maize and ryegrass were measured. The co-application of WTR and BS increased the soil content of P, Zn, and Cu in the 0.0-0.1 m layer. The concentration of these nutrients also was greater in ryegrass tissue and promoted the biomass yield in 51%. WTR did not increase contaminants and did not decrease the P content in soil and in plant tissue, independently of drying plus grinding and liming. Considering the conditions investigated in our study, WTR/BS co-application was environmentally safe and effective in ameliorating soil quality.

show abstract

Land Application of Aluminum Water Treatment Residual to Bahiagrass Pastures: Soil and Forage Responses

Cited by 12 publications

References 30 publications

Potential Alternative Reuse Pathways for Water Treatment Residuals: Remaining Barriers and Questions—a Review

Potential Alternative Reuse Pathways for Water Treatment Residuals: Remaining Barriers and Questions—a Review

Biosolids and biochar application effects on bahiagrass herbage accumulation and nutritive value

Liming and co‐application of water treatment residuals with biosolids for conditioning sandy soils

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About