Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Removing phosphorus from drainage water the phosphorus removal structure

1,192 views

Published on

Full proceedings available at: http://www.extension.org/72839

We constructed a phosphorus (P) removal structure on a poultry farm in Eastern OK; this is a BMP that can remove dissolved P loading in the short term until soil legacy P concentrations decrease below levels of environmental concern. A P removal structure contains P sorbing materials (PSMs) and are placed in a location to intercept runoff or subsurface drainage with high dissolved P concentrations. As high P water flows through the PSMs, dissolved P is sorbed onto the materials by several potential mechanisms, allowing low P water to exit the structure. While they vary in form, P removal structures contain three main elements: 1) use of a filter material that has a high affinity for P, 2) containment of the material, and 3) the ability to remove that material and replace it after it becomes saturated with P and is no longer effective.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

Removing phosphorus from drainage water the phosphorus removal structure

  1. 1. C. Penn, J. Payne*, J. Vitale, J. McGrath and D. Haak Oklahoma State University University of Maryland Illinois River Watershed Partnership
  2. 2.  Occurs primarily via surface flow: - Particulate P – carried on eroded particles, not immediately bio- available - Dissolved P – 100% biologically available
  3. 3. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Trt 1 Trt 2 Trt 3 Trt 4 Trt 5 Coale, F.J. and R. Kratochvil 2011: Unpublished data Mehlich-3Phosphorus(mgkg-1) Plant optimum soil test P level Cessation of fertilizer applications
  4. 4.  Most traditional BMPs do: - target particulate P - veg buffers, riparian areas - prevent soil P from increasing - limit P applications
  5. 5.  Most traditional BMPs do not: - target dissolved P - difficult to target  High P soils will continue to produce dissolved P for years Runoff P vs. Soil Test P (Miami, OK) y = 0.0016x + 0.287 R2 = 0.89 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Soil Test P (ppm) RunoffP(ppm)
  6. 6.  PSM: -any material that chemically removes dissolved P from a solution, reducing soluble P.  Examples include: Al, Fe, Ca and Mg.  Many by-products contain P sorbing minerals.  Can be used for treatment of soil or manure; however, P is not removed from system.  Better use would be treatment of runoff
  7. 7. Acid mine drainage residuals Steel slag Drinking water treatment residuals Fly ash Waste recycled gypsum Photo Credit: K.D. Chamberlain Manufactured PSM
  8. 8. Material Availability Cost & Transportation Potential contaminants Alkalinity/acidity Soluble salts Total, acid soluble, and water soluble Na & heavy metalsSorption characteristics Physical Properties Particle size distribution and bulk density Hydraulic conductivity
  9. 9. High P water PSM layer Drainage layerClean water is released
  10. 10.  Effective PSM in sufficient quantity  P-rich water must flow thru PSM  Ability to retain and replace PSM
  11. 11.  Remove both particulate and dissolved P  Ability to remove PSM after saturation  Various metals and pesticides are removed
  12. 12. Ag runoff Urban runoff
  13. 13. Confined Bed • Good for large filter • Ideal for drainage swales that require high peak flow and non restricted drainage – Achieved through shallow PSM with large surface area
  14. 14.  Perforated steel box  Vertically positioned pipe inside box  Filled with steel slag  Small ditches or pond overflow  Drawback: small amount of material
  15. 15.  PSM over and under perforated pipes  Dam at end for slow retention time  Can use large amount of material  Low cost
  16. 16. DESIGN GUIDANCE
  17. 17.  Developed with lab flow through studies and validated with pilot scale filter  Developed a user friendly empirical model  Tested 16 different materials - add P at constant rate - vary retention time and P concentration - measure P in outflow
  18. 18. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 100 200 300 Premoved(mg/kg) P added (mg/kg) Aug 2012 Nov 2009
  19. 19. Site hydrology Targeted P removal PSM characterization Inputs Outputs Design parameters
  20. 20. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 50 100 150 200 CumulativePremoved(mgkg-1) P added (mg kg-1) Measured Predicted
  21. 21. EXAMPLE DESIGN
  22. 22. Creek flow direction poultry houses structure location Funding Source: USDA-NRCS CIG
  23. 23.  Drainage area: 9 acres  Slope: 6%  Peak flow rate; 2 yr, 24 hr storm: 1,000 gpm  Annual flow volume: 9 acre-ft  Typical dissolved P: 1 - 2 mg L-1  Annual dissolved P load: 49 lbs  Goal is to remove 45% of annual load
  24. 24. Step by step description found at: www.P-structure.blogspot.com  40 tons treated slag  To date: 67% of dissolved P trapped
  25. 25. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 20 40 60 80 100 Flow(gallonsperminute) Time (minutes) Peak Flow of 687 gpm Inflow range 2.25-11.3 mg of P per liter Removed 0.33lb of the 0.58lb P that entered
  26. 26. PSM Mass (Mg) Cumulative year 1 removal (%) Lifetime (yrs) Hydraulic conductivity (cm s-1) Area (m2) PSM depth (cm) WTR* 7 37 21 0.01 286 2.3 AMDR† 4 50 7 0.009 225 2.2 Fly ash‡ 3 (plus 95% sand) 50 3.6 0.03 (mixed with 95% sand) 406 13 >6.35 cm slag§ 171 21 1.4 1.0 190 50 Treated > 6.35 cm slag** 36 45 3.5 1.0 40 50
  27. 27.  Design software is completed  Interactive guidance based on user inputs  OSU is licensing software  NRCS standard (cost-share) will be completed after software is online  Commercialization is key to dissemination
  28. 28.  Golf course industry  Home-owners association  Storm water management  Ag industry  TMDLs  Nutrient credit brokers
  29. 29. Illinois River in Oklahoma
  30. 30. Why did the chicken cross the stream? To avoid creating a water quality violation!
  31. 31. Comparison to other BMPs • In the short term there is no BMP that can appreciably reduce soluble P losses where flow cannot be reduced – P “mining” with hay crops or corn to reduce soil P levels • Sharpley et al. (2009): only 4.6 mg/kg decrease per year in Mehlich-3 P with continuous corn • Not very fast
  32. 32. Comparison to other BMPs • Treatment wetlands – Require excessive retention time (days), thus requires many acres of space if high flow rates are to be treated • inefficient – P is not really removed from the system
  33. 33. ECONOMICS “IT DEPENDS”
  34. 34. Economics Example: Westville • Metal & custom fabrication: $2677 – ¼” carbon steel • Slag transportation, sieving, coating: $853 • Earth work for pad & berms: $846 • Paint, seed, & erosion mat: $613 • TOTAL: ~ $5000 • Includes profit from private companies except for metal painting and installation • Annual renewal estimated at $1213
  35. 35. Economics Example: Westville Year $ P removal (lbs.) Cumulative P removal cost ($/lb P) 1 4989 22 226.77 2 1213 22 140.95 3 1213 22 112.35 4 1213 22 98.05 5 1213 22 89.46 6 1213 22 83.74 7 1213 22 79.66

×