Soil Amendments Promote Vegetation Establishment and Control Acidity in Coal Combustion Waste

  • R. M. Danker
  • D. C. Adriano
  • Bon-Jun Koo
  • C. D. Barton
  • T. Punshon


The effects of adding various soil amendments and a pyrite oxidation inhibitor to aid in the establishment of vegetation and to reduce acid drainage (AD) from coal fly ash and coal reject (FA + CR*) were assessed in an outdoor mesocosm study. Preliminary greenhouse experiments and field observations at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site (SRS) indicated that plants would not survive in this material without altering its physical and chemical characteristics. Samples of mixed FA + CR were obtained from a field site at the SRS. The following treatments were used: Biosolid only (Treatment A), Biosolid + Surfactant (Treatment B), Topsoil + Surfactant (Treatment C), and Biosolid + Topsoil + Surfactant (Treatment D). Leaching was induced due to inadequate rainfall. Loblolly pine seedlings (Pinus taeda) inoculated with ectomycorrhizal fungi — Pisolithus tinctorius (Pt) and Scleroderma cepa (Sc) — were transplanted into each mesocosm tank. Soil solution samplers were installed in each unit at 15 and 41 cm depths. Samples were taken periodically and measured for pH, EC, and other parameters.

The results indicate that the addition of amendments can aid in the revegetation of a FA + CR landfill and control AD. Pine seedlings growing in treatments with biosolid application were significantly taller than the treatment without it; however, there were no significant differences concerning diameter, biomass, and plant tissue concentrations of Al, Fe, and Mn for the pines. Biosolid addition also appears to be effective for mitigating proton generation. Sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) and topsoil addition were not as important to plant survival and growth as biosolid addition; nonetheless, SLS and topsoil addition did not appear to be disadvantageous to growth in the treatment with biosolid addition (Treatment D). Based on leachate data, the topsoil + surfactant treatment had a much lower initial pH (pH ~ 3 or below) than the other treatments, and Al concentrations were correspondingly high. Electrical conductivity, in general, has been decreasing since the inseption of the study and appears to indicate that the addition of biosolid + surfactant (Treatment B) is the most effective treatment for inducing the lowest sulfate and metal concentrations. Preliminary results indicate that the use of amendments is essential for palant growth and establishment in pyrite enriched coal waste sites.


Sodium Lauryl Sulfate Pyrite Oxidation Coal Combustion Waste Savannah River Site Biosolid Application 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Punshon, T., Seaman J. C., and Sajwan, K. S., Introduction: The production and use of coal combustion products, in Chemistry of Trace Elements in Fly Ash, Sajwan, K.S., Alva, A.K. and Keefer, R.F., Eds., Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adriano, D. C., Trace Elements in Terrestrial Environments, Second Edition, Springer, New York, 2001, Chap. 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Adriano, D. C. and Weber, J. T., Influence of fly ash on soil physical properties and turfgrass establishment, J Environ. Qual., 30, 596, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Adriano, D. C., Page, A. L., Elseewi, A. A., Chang, A. C., and Straughan, I., Utilization and disposal of fly ash and other coal residues in terrestrial ecosystems: a review, J Environ. Qual., 9, 333, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carlson, C. L. and Adriano, D. C., Environmental impacts of coal combustion residues, J Environ. Qual., 22 (2), 227, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Keefer, R.F., Coal ashes — Industrial Wastes or Beneficial Byproducts? in Trace Elements in Coal and Coal Combustion Residues, Keefer, R. F. and. Sajwan, K. S., Eds., Lewis Publishers, Ann Arbor, 1993, 3–9.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rowe, C. L., Hopkins, W. A., and Coffman, V.R., Failed recruitment of southern toads (Bufo terrestres) in a trace element-contaminated breeding habitat: direct and indirect effects that may lead to a local population sink, Arch. Environ. Cont. Toxicol., 40, 399, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barton, C. D., Marx, D. C., Adriano, D. C., and Bartley, H., Use of a vegetative cover to control acidic drainage from coal combustion waste, in Proceeding of the American Society For Mining Reclamation; 19th Annual National meeting, Barnheisel, R. I., Ed., ASSMR, Lexington, KY, 2002.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Evangelou, V. P., and Zhang, Y. L., A review: pyrite oxidation mechanisms and acid mine drainage prevention, Crit. Rev. Env. Sci. Tec., 25 (2), 141, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nordstrom, D. K., Aqueous pyrite oxidation and the consequent formation of secondary iron minerals, in Acid sulfate weathering, Soil Science Society of America Special Publication 10, Kittrick, J.A., et al., Ed.,. Madison, WI, 1982.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kleinman, R., L., P., and Rastogi, V., Reducing acid mine drainage liabilities using bactericides & other control technologies, in 13th Annual National Meeting American Society for Surface Mining and Reclamation Workshop #8, 1996.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kleinman, R., L., P., and Erickson, P. M., Control of acid drainage from coal refuse using anionic surfactants, Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations 8847, 1983.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barton, C., Romanek, R., Seaman, J., and Paddock, L., Geochemistry of an abandoned landfill containing coal combustion waste: implications for remediation, in Chemistry of Trace Elements in Fly Ash, Sajwan, K.S., Alva, A.K. and Keefer, R.F., Eds., Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Blowes, D. W., Reardon, E. J., Jambor, J. L., and Cherry, J. A., The formulation and potential importance of cemented layers in inactive sulfide mine tailings, Geochem. Cosmochim. Acta, 55, 965, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nordstrom, D. K., Alpers, C. N., Ptacek, C. J., and Blowes, D W., Negative pH and extremely acidic mine waters from Iron Mountain, California, Environ. Sci. Technol., 34, 254, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thomas, G. W., Problems encountered in soil testing methods, in Soil Testing and Plant Analysis, Part 1, SSSA Spec. Publ. 2, SSSA, Madison, WI. 1967, 37–54.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thomas, G. W., and Hargrove, W. H., The chemistry of soil acidity, in Soil acidity and liming, 2nd Ed. Agronomy Monographs 12, ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Adams, F., Ed., Madison, WI, 1984, 3–56.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sparks, D. L., Environmental Soil Chemistry,CA Academic Press, San Diego, 1995, Chap. 10.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. M. Danker
    • 1
  • D. C. Adriano
    • 1
  • Bon-Jun Koo
    • 1
  • C. D. Barton
    • 2
  • T. Punshon
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Advanced Analytical Center for Environmental Sciences, Savannah River Ecology LaboratoryThe University of GeorgiaAikenUSA
  2. 2.Center for Forested Wetlands Research c/o Savannah River, Ecology LaboratoryUSDA Forest ServiceAikenUSA
  3. 3.Division of Life SciencesRutgers UniversityPiscatawayUSA

Personalised recommendations