m
 
(45 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{alert|''This page is an edit and testing page use by the wiki authors. It is not a content page for the Manual. Information on this page may not be accurate and should not be used as guidance in managing stormwater.''|alert-danger}}
 
{{alert|''This page is an edit and testing page use by the wiki authors. It is not a content page for the Manual. Information on this page may not be accurate and should not be used as guidance in managing stormwater.''|alert-danger}}
{{alert| This page is currently undergoing revision|alert-under-construction}}
+
{{alert|This page is in development|alert-under-construction}}
  
 
[[File:General information page image.png|left|100px|alt=image]]
 
[[File:General information page image.png|left|100px|alt=image]]
 +
test
 +
This page provides information on water treatment residuals. While providing extensive information on water treatment residuals, there is a section focused specifically on stormwater applications for water treatment residuals.
  
The Source Loading and Management Model (WinSLAMM) is a proprietary stormwater quality model originally developed for the USGS for the evaluation of non-point pollution in urban areas and pollutant removal at water quality BMPs. WinSLAMM uses experimentally derived runoff coefficients to predict runoff and associated pollutant loading from a number of land use types. A unique feature in WinSLAMM is that within defined land use types (e.g., commercial, residential, etc.), the program tracks loading from many different types of source areas (e.g., roofs, parking lots, etc.) and further distinguishes source areas using source area parameters (e.g., is the roof flat or pitched? Does the roof drain to a pervious surface?, etc.). WinSLAMM provides this level of specificity so that unique runoff coefficient and pollutant loading assumptions can be applied to sources areas within land use types, allowing for refinement of runoff and pollutant loading results.
+
==Overview and description==
  
WinSLAMM predicts pollutant removal at water quality BMPs based on correlation to experimental results (empirical) as well as modeling the generation and removal of particulates through sedimentation and filtration (physically based). By modeling hydraulic performance at BMPs and physically tracking the particle scale distribution (PSD) through BMPs, WinSLAMM is capable of modeling bypass from BMPs and is capable of predicting performance of BMPs in series (i.e., treatment trains). WinSLAMM is a continuous model which can produce results for long term simulations and produce results for individual rainfall events. It should be noted that WinSLAMM simulations are done in batch mode, which means that it is not modeling individual rainfall events in real-time, and accounting for antecedent moisture conditions for pervious runoff, the way that P8 does.
+
Water treatment residuals are the by-products from the coagulation and flocculation phase of drinking water treatment. These residuals are primarily sediment, metal (aluminum, iron or calcium) oxide/hydroxides, activated carbon, and lime removed from raw water during the water purification process ([[Soil amendments to enhance phosphorus sorption#References|Agyin-Birikorang et al.]], 2009). Research has shown that Aluminum (Al), Iron (Fe) and Calcium (Ca) based water treatment residuals have the potential to improve water quality treatment in bioretention systems. Due to the large number of water treatment facilities that use metal salt during the the water treatment process, water treatment residuals are widely available. Water treatment residuals are also generally available at a low cost.
  
WinSLAMM is a versatile program suitable for TMDL applications ranging from TMDL development, to demonstrating Waste Load Allocation (WLA) and permit compliance from individual municipal separate storm systems (MS4s). Download links for WinSLAMM and related documentation are provided below. As noted above, WinSLAMM is a proprietary model which needs to be licensed or purchased before use.
+
Water treatment residual benefits may include but are not limited to the following.
*[http://www.winslamm.com/winslamm_updates.html Model download]
+
*WTRs reduce soluble phosphorus (P) in soils, runoff, and land-applied organic wastes
*[http://www.winslamm.com/purchase.html Model purchase]
+
*WTR use in bioretention media is a sustainable alternative to disposal of WTRs at a landfill
*[http://www.winslamm.com/Select_documentation.html Model documentation]
+
*WTR use in bioretention media is a cost-effective media material
 +
*WTR improves <span title="the ability of a certain soil texture to physically hold water against the force of gravity"> '''water holding capacity'''</span> of soil
  
'''Note''': information provided in the following subsections does not reiterate or re-present information readily available in model documentation files. Instead, guidance provided in this document provides engineers and planners with recommendations for development of model inputs, provides guidance for interpreting and summarizing model results, provides supplementary information not included in model documentation, and provides examples showing how WinSLAMM can be used to demonstrate TMDL compliance.
+
==Applications for water treatment residuals in stormwater management==
 +
Water treatment residuals have potential applications for stormwater management. Below is a brief summary.
 +
*WTRs can be very effective in reducing soluable phosphorus
 +
*WTRs increases water holding capacity of soil
 +
*WTRs may reduce the bulk density and improve saturated hydraulic conductivity in <span title="the process in which a stress applied to a soil causes densification as air is displaced from the pores between the soil grains. Compaction is desired in construction practices and undesirable when promoting infiltration into soil."> [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Alleviating_compaction_from_construction_activities '''compacted soil''']</span>
  
==Applicability to demonstrating WLA compliance==
+
==Properties of water treatment residuals==
WinSLAMM is a continuous water quality model capable of summarizing runoff and associated [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Total_Suspended_Solids_(TSS)_in_stormwater total suspended solids] (TSS) and [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Phosphorus total phosphorus] (TP) generation, removal, and outflow loading from individual catchments, individual BMPs and junctions, or as a model wide summary. Additionally, because WinSLAMM models the particulate and pollutant particle-scale distribution through filtration and sedimentation BMPs and models hydraulic performance of BMPs based on watershed loading and BMP dimensions, the model is capable of accurately predicting pollutant removal through BMPs <span title="multiple BMPs that work together to remove pollutants utilizing combinations of hydraulic, physical, biological, and chemical methods"> '''in series'''</span> as well as predicting runoff and pollutant bypass from undersized <span title="a BMP that does not treat the full water quality volume"> '''undersized BMPs'''</span>. Due to this flexibility, WinSLAMM is capable of providing accurate pollutant removal estimates regardless of BMP network and subwatershed configuration, and is capable of demonstrating compliance to mass-based Water Quality Based Effluent Limits (WQBELs), concentration-based WQBELS, and areal-loading based WQBELS (e.g., lbs of TSS per acre per year) for both TSS and TP.
+
This section includes a discussion of chemical and physical properties of water treatment residuals, and potential contaminants in water treatment residuals.  
  
==Model inputs==
+
===Chemical-physical properties of water treatment residuals===
The following subsections outline data sources and special consideration related to model inputs, model setup, and model initialization. '''Note''': these subsections do not represent information readily available in [http://www.winslamm.com/Select_documentation.html Model documentation], but instead highlight data sources (e.g., spatial datasets), special consideration, and important notes for engineers and planners to consider while generating model inputs.
+
Water treatment residuals have a highly variable physical and chemical structure.
  
===Current file data: parameter files===
+
Noguera et al. (2003) varied particle size of coir dust, studying the properties of coir passing through sieves 0.125, 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 mm in diameter. They observed the following.
WinSLAMM requires a number of parameter files to generate runoff, particulate loading, and pollutant accumulation and washoff from source areas within each land use type. Each of the required parameters files is described briefly, below:
+
*As particle diameter increases, air content increased and water holding capacity decreased
 +
*<span title="a measure of the amount of salts in soil"> '''Electrical conductivity'''</span> and micro-element concentrations were greatest in the smallest diameter coir
 +
*Bulk density decreased from 0.122 to 0.041 g/cm<sup>3</sup> as particle size increased from <0.125 to >2 mm
 +
*Pore space increased from 92.3% to 97.3% as particle size increased from <0.125 to >2 mm
 +
*Water holding capacity (ml/l) decreased from 855 to 165, with the greatest change occurring with 0.5-1 mm particles
 +
*Shrinkage (volume loss on drying) decreased as particle size increased (38% to 15% as particle size increased from <0.125 to >2 mm)
 +
*Nutrient availability decreased with increasing particle size, but there were no significant differences between 0.125 and 2 mm. There was a large increase for the smallest particle size.
  
*''Rain File'' (".RAN"): specifies rainfall event date, duration, and depth for the modeled period.
+
Based on generally recommended plant specifications, the researchers concluded the 0.25-0.5 mm size appears most suited for plant growth, with some addition of larger particles recommended. Abad et al. (2005) similarly concluded that a mix of particle sizes is likely to be optimum for use of coir as a plant medium.
*''Runoff Coefficient File'' (“.RSVX”): specifies the runoff coefficient (Rv) for each source area as a function of rainfall event depth.
 
*''Particulate Solids Concentration File'' (“.PSCX”): specifies the particulate solids concentration (mg/L) for each source area as a function of rainfall depth.
 
*''Source Area PSD and Peak to Average Flow Ratio File'' (“.CSV”): specifies the particle scale distribution (PSD) file (“.CPZ”) and the peak-to-average flow ratio for each source area.
 
**''Particle Size Parameter Files'' (“.CPZ”): specifies the PSD for particulates generated from a WinSLAMM source area. Unique PSD “.CPZ” files can be applied to each source area.
 
*''Street Delivery File'' (“.STD”, six (6) files): specifies the washoff coefficient for street textures as a function of rainfall depth. Note: unique street delivery files can be applied to road surface sources areas for each of the six (6) land use types.
 
*''Pollutant Probability Distribution Files'' (“.PPDX”): specifies the particulate pollutant concentration associated with generated particulate (mg/kg) and the dissolved pollutant concentration (mg/L) for all modeled pollutant constituents from all source areas within each land use type.
 
  
The Rain File (“.RAN”), which specifies rainfall events, duration, and depth for the modeled period, is regionally specific and should be developed for the study area. The [https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/search National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] (NOAA) maintains a searchable database that can be used to search for hourly precipitation data based by city or geographic region (e.g., zip code). Local area airports (e.g., Minneapolis Saint Paul International Airport) are another resource that can be used to develop required precipitation data inputs. As described in model documentation, rainfall input “.RAN” files can be created within the Rainfall File Editor (“Utilities &rarr; Parameter Files &rarr; Rainfall Files”).
+
Another factor affecting chemical properties of coir are the conditions under which it is prepared. In particular, if soaking in a saline solution is used in the preparation of coir, concentrations of potassium, sodium, chloride can be very high and may interfere with plant growth.
  
The remaining parameter files (Runoff Coefficient File (“.RSVX”), Particulate Solids Concentration File (“.PSCX”), Source Area PSD and Peak to Average low Ratio File (“.CSV”), Particle Size Parameter Files (“.CPZ”), Street Delivery Files (“.STD”), and Pollutant Probability Distribution Files (“.PPDX”)) contain input values that must be generated from literature values, case studies, or water quality monitoring data. For this reason, default parameter files have been generated for several geographic locations across the United States and are provided in WinSLAMM documentation. Additionally, some state and local agencies have developed state-wide or regional WinSLAMM input parameter files. For this reason, it is recommended that the engineer or designer first determine if local or regional parameter files have been developed before utilizing default regional parameter files provided in the WinSLAMM model files. [http://www.winslamm.com/docs/05%20WinSLAMM%20v%2010.2%20User%27s%20Guide%20-%20Parameter%20Files.pdf Documentation] shows the six WinSLAMM parameter files regions. The “Great Lakes” region provides coverage for the majority of Minnesota and should be used if local or regional parameter files are not available for the study area.
+
The following table summarizes data  from the literature on physical and chemical properties of coir. Some general conclusions include the following.
 +
*Coir is slightly acidic but not as acidic as peat
 +
*Available nitrogen, phosphorus, calcium, magnesium, iron, copper, and zinc are low, while sodium, chloride, and potassium are high, particularly if the coir was prepared in a saline solution
 +
*Coir has a very high water holding capacity
 +
*Coir has a high germination index compared to compost (Lodolini et al., 2017)
 +
*Coir dust does not collapse when wet or shrink excessively as it dries (Cresswell)
  
'''Special Consideration(s)''':<br>
+
{{:Chemical and physical properties of coir}}
*The rainfall editor within WinSLAMM can be used to make Rain File(s) (“.RAN”) unique to the study area (“Utilities &rarr; Parameter Files &rarr; Rainfall Files”).
 
*Parameter files can be viewed and edited from “Utilities &rarr; Parameter Files”.
 
*Default parameter files unique to each “Parameter File Region” are included in WinSLAMM program files.
 
  
===Current file data: job control===
+
===Potential contaminants in water treatment residuals===
Job control parameters related to model run time are specified in the “Current File Data” window. Job control parameters are described briefly, below:
+
The largest source of potential contamination from Al-based or Fe-based water treatment residuals is the presence of the aluminum or iron itself which is essential for the phosphorus removal benefit. These metals have the potential to cause hazards from leaching. Excess aluminum in the environment is known to have negative impacts on aquatic environments. There are also risks to plants and the soil biota from aluminum leaching. The risk of aluminum leaching becomes a bigger concern at low pH levels (pH<5) due to the increase solubility of aluminum at these levels. Several studies have stated that since stormwater is typically at a neutral pH level, there is minimal  concern with Al leaching.
  
*''Start Date / End Date'': specifies the start and stop date of simulation.
+
==Effects of coir on physical and chemical properties of soil and bioretention media==
*''Start / End of Winter'' (mm/dd): specifies the date range that represents winter conditions. Winter conditions impact how runoff is generated as well as particle accumulation and washoff from road surfaces.
+
In this section we provide information on effects of coir on pollutant attenuation and on physical properties of soil and engineered media.
  
'''Special Consideration(s)''':<br>
+
===Effects of coir on retention and fate of phosphorus===
*The start date / end date must be within the date range in the Rain File (.RAN”).
+
There are limited studies on coir retention of phosphorus at concentrations typically found in stormwater runoff (less than 0.5 mg/L). Adsorption studies show that phosphorus adsorption at higher concentrations (greater than 1 mg/L) occurs through ion exchange and chemisorption being mechanisms for adsorption, with sulfate competing with phosphate for adsorption sites)(Takaijudin and Ghani, 2014; Kumar et al., 2010; Namasivayam and Sangeetha, 2004).
*Model documentation files suggest a winter start and end date of December 3 (12/03) to March 21 (03/21) for the “Great Lakes” parameter file region.
 
  
[[File: WinSLAMM pollutant selection window.png|300px|thumb|alt=image for WinSLAMM|<font size=3>WinSLAMM pollutant selection window</font size>]]
+
Shrestha et al. (2019) studied phosphorus leaching from columns containing mixtures of soil, compost, spent lime, and coir. Using tap water with no detectable phosphorus, they observed that adding coir (10% by weight) to a 70-20 soil-compost mix did not decrease phosphorus leaching compared to an 80-20 soil-compost mix. Similar results were observed for media with 40% compost. Hongpakdee and Ruamrungsri (2015) observed reduced phosphorus leaching at the flowering stage, possibly due to increased plant vigor and uptake in treatments containing coir. Herrera Environmental Consultants (2015) conducting flushing and leaching experiments for a variety of media mixtures, including mixtures containing coir. Mixtures of coir and granular activated carbon (GAC) or ash showed orthophosphorus concentrations of 0.021 and 0.052 mg/L, respectively, when flushed with solutions containing less than 0.004 mg/L. For leaching experiments, influent orthophosphate concentrations were 0.323 mg/L and effluent concentrations for coir-GAC and coir-ash mixtures were 0.025 and 0.164 mg/L, respectively. However, the researchers attributed retention of phosphorus to the GAC and ash rather than coir. The researchers also observed decreasing orthophosphorus leachate concentrations with time.
  
===Job control: pollutant selection===
+
Additional research is needed to understand the phosphorus retention or leaching from media containing coir. Research to date suggests coir will not retain phosphorus in stormwater runoff but will not significantly contribute to leaching from engineered media.
Accessed through the “Pollutants” tab on the main WinSLAMM model menu, the “Pollutant Selection” window defines which pollutant(s) included in the Pollutant Probability Distribution (“.PPDX”) file will be modeled and tracked in reported model outputs.
 
  
'''Special Consideration(s)''':<br>
+
===Effects of coir on retention and fate of other pollutants===
*For phosphorus TMDLs, it is recommended that the “particulate”, “dissolved”, and “total” radial options be selected.
+
There is limited research on retention and leaching of pollutants from coir. Shrestha et al. (2019) observed that media containing coir performed similar to spent lime for ammonium and nitrate retention and leached significantly less of these chemicals  than treatments containing compost. Herrera Environmental Consultants (2015) observed similar results and also observed that mixtures of coir and either granular activated carbon or ash reduced copper and zinc leaching compared to media mixtures consisting of just soil and compost. Because concentrations of potential pollutants are low in coir, leaching at concentrations of concern appears unlikely. An exception is coir that was soaked in salt water, which may contribute to high sodium, potassium, and chloride concentrations.
*Only pollutants included in the selected Pollutant Probability Distribution File (“.PPDX”) file will be included in the “Pollutant Selection” window.
 
  
===Job control: program options===
+
===Effects of coir on soil physical and hydraulic properties===
Job control parameters and options related to output generation within WinSLAMM “Program Options” (“Tools &rarr; Program Options”) should be reviewed by the engineer or designer before performing model simulation. The “Program Options” window is separated into three tabs. A brief discussion of each of the “Program Options” tab is provided below:
+
Coir has several properties that may improve soil physical and hydraulic properties (Cresswell; Noguera et al., 2003; Abad et al., 2005; Small et al., 2018; Lodolini et al., 2018; Arachchi and Somasiri, 1997).
 +
*Coir dust remains relatively hydrophylic (water attracting) even when it is air dry
 +
*Coir dust does not collapse when wet or shrink excessively as it dries
 +
*Increases water holding capacity
 +
*Increases soil porosity
 +
*Decreases soil bulk density
  
*''Default Current File Data'': specifies default parameter files applied to “Current File Data”
+
===Effects of coir on soil fertility, plant growth, and microbial function===
*''Default Model Options'': specifies several job control parameters and options related to model output. The designer or engineer should review the “Default Time Increment (min)”, which defines the time increment used to route flow and pollutant hydrographs between control practices. Additionally, if outflow hydrographs or particle size distribution files are required, the “Create Hydrograph and Particle Size Distribution .csv Files” radial button should be selected.
+
{| class="wikitable" style="float:right; border:3px; border-style:solid; border-color:#FF0000; margin-left: 10px; width:500px;"
*''Default Output File Options'': specifies optional result outputs for each of eleven (11) control practices. Reporting options should be reviewed by the engineer or designer based on reporting information required and control practices modeled before performing model simulation.
+
|-
 +
| style="text-align: center;"| '''Advantages of coir over peat (Source:Ministry of MSME, Government of India. 2016)'''
 +
|-
 +
| Requires lesser amount of lime due to high pH
 +
|-
 +
| Quick and easy rewetting after drying, while peat becomes hydrophobic on drying
 +
|-
 +
| Requires short time for irrigation to replace loss of water and drainage from pot, saving fertilizer due to non leaching of nutrients
 +
|-
 +
| Higher capillary wetting property
 +
|-
 +
| Able to provide aeration in base of mix
 +
|-
 +
| Very resilient and exceptional physical stability when wet or dried
 +
|}
  
===Land use===
+
Pure coir is not suitable for plant growth. It has a high C:N ratio (>100) and a high lignin content, resulting in slow decomposition and immobilization of plant nutrients. In addition, polyphenols and phenolics acids in the coir can be phytotoxic and inhibit plant growth (Ministry of MSME, Government of India, 2016).
Within WinSLAMM, drainage basins are modeled using one or more “land uses” (e.g., residential, commercial, etc.), which are represented by land use nodes within the model space. Within each land use, area is further delineated into “source areas” (e.g., roofs, sidewalks, etc.). Runoff and pollutant loading from drainage areas is impacted by the land use type, as well as the source area type. A complete list of land use and source area types in provided in the table below. Finally, each source area type is further characterized by a “source area parameters”. For example, the “source area parameter” for a roof source area define whether the roof is pitched or flat, whether the roof drains onto a pervious or impervious surface, etc. Developing this detail of input parameters is possible for small, development-scale study areas, but is not feasible for larger study areas (e.g., municipal-scale study areas). For this reason, WinSLAMM has a number of default “Standard Land Uses” which can be applied to any of the six (6) land use types.
 
  
Standard Land Use (SLU) types can be applied to any land use by right-clicking the land use and selecting “Apply Standard Land Use”. There are several SLU types for each land use. For example, the SLUs for commercial land use include “office park”, “strip commercial”, “downtown commercial”, and “shopping center” (see figure below on right). SLUs simplify land use modeling by applying default source area and source area parameters based on the selected SLU. With and SLU selected, the engineer or designer only needs to assign the acres of area in three different soil texture groups (sand, silt, and clay) and select “Create Land Use and Exit”. It is important for the designer or engineer to review land use assumptions and definitions applied within each modeled SLU. A complete list of SLUs, definitions, and modeling assumptions is provided within model documentation help files (see the “Standard Land Uses and Source Areas” section of the model help file).
+
When composted and added as an amendment to a growing media, coir improves plant growth, with coir outperforming peat in several studies. In the absence of composting, nitrogen and phosphorus additions will likely be necessary, depending on plant requirements. Calcium and magnesium additions may also be needed. Concentrations of other nutrients and micronutrients are generally acceptable for most plant species (Cresswell; Asiah et al., 2004; Noguera et al., 2003; Abad et al., 2002; Meerow, 1997; Lodolini et al., 2017; Hongpakdee and Ruamrungsri, 2015; Small et al., 2015; Scagel, 2003; Arachchi and Somasiri, 1997). Noguera et al. (2003) showed that, based on generally recommended plant specifications, 0.25-0.5 mm diameter coir particles appear most suited for plant growth, with some addition of larger particles recommended. Abad et al. (2005) similarly recommended a mix of particle sizes.
  
[[File:Example of applying standard land uses in WinSLAMM.png|400px|thumb|alt=image for WinSLAMM|<font size=3>Example of applying standard land uses in WinSLAMM</font size>]]
+
==Standards, classification, testing, and distributors==
  
{{:WinSLAMM land use and source area types}}
+
===Coir standards and specifications===
 +
{| class="wikitable" style="float:right; border:3px; border-style:solid; border-color:#FF0000; margin-left: 10px; width:400px;"
 +
|-
 +
| colspan="2" style="text-align: center;"| '''Recommended values for coir used in a growth media (Source: see reference list in this section)'''
 +
|-
 +
| pH
 +
| 5.2 - 6.8
 +
|-
 +
| Electrical conductivity (ms/cm)
 +
| 0.50 – 1.20 (lower part of range typically preferred)
 +
|-
 +
| Cation exchange capacity (meq/100g)
 +
| 20 - 40
 +
|-
 +
| Nitrogen (%)
 +
| 0.10
 +
|-
 +
| Phosphorus (%)
 +
| 0.01
 +
|-
 +
| Potassium (%)
 +
| 0.50
 +
|-
 +
| Copper (% minimum)
 +
| 1.5
 +
|-
 +
| C:N ratio (minimum)
 +
| 110
 +
|-
 +
| Lignin (%)
 +
| 30 - 35
 +
|-
 +
| Total organic matter (% minimum)
 +
| 75
 +
|-
 +
| Moisture (%)
 +
| 15 - 20
 +
|-
 +
| Ash content (%)
 +
| 1.0 - 1.5
 +
|-
 +
| Impurities
 +
| <3%
 +
|-
 +
| Fiber content
 +
| <2%
 +
|-
 +
| Expansion
 +
| > 12 l/kg
 +
|-
 +
| Water holding capacity
 +
| 3-4 l/kg
 +
|}
  
When modeling drainage areas using SLUs in WinSLAMM, user inputs include defining the area in each of the six (6) land use types, assigning appropriate SLU types, and determining the soil textures within each land use type. When possible, land use should be determined using record drawing or parcel data specific to the model area. When site-specific information is not available, land use information can be assigned from regional and national land use databases listed <span style="color:red">below</span>. Similarly, soil texture data should be specified using site-specific soil sampling data. When site-specific information is not available, it is recommended that the soil information be determined from publically available spatial soil datasets, such as the NRCS Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO). SSURGO soils data is available for download online through the [https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ Web Soil Survey].  A summary of soil textures related to hydrologic soil groups (HSGs) and Unified Soil Classifications can be found [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Design_infiltration_rates here].
+
Recommended specifications for coir when used in a growing media are shown in the adjacent table and include the following.
 +
*Moisture content less than 20%
 +
*Compression ratio 5:1
 +
*pH 5.4-6.0
 +
*Electrical conductivity less than 0.65 millimhos/cm (this ensures K, Na, Cl, Ca, and Mg contents are within acceptable limits)
 +
*Not be more than two years old and should not be decomposed
 +
*Golden brown in color
 +
*Free from other contamination, sand and other foreign materials
 +
*Free from weeds and seeds
  
'''Special Consideration(s)''':<br>
+
Coir should be composted or incorporated into media containing a nutrient (N and P) source, such as compost. Alternatively, liming or addition of microorganisms may enhance decomposition of coir, which subsequently aids in release of nutrients from the coir. The [http://coirboard.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Coir-Pith.pdf Ministry of MSME, Government of India] (2016) provide a discussion of different composting materials and methods, including specifications.
*Standard Land Use (SLU) types can be utilized for large study areas where analysis of individual source areas and source area parameters for each land use type is not feasible. SLU assumptions should be reviewed by the designer or engineer before applying to modeled land use types (see the “Standard Land Uses and Source Areas” section of the [http://www.winslamm.com/Select_documentation.html model help file]).
 
  
===Control practices===
+
References containing specifications are provided below. Note that most of these references include information on the packaged material (e.g. bags, blocks, briquettes), such as weight and size.
Structural (e.g., wet ponds, biofiltration, etc.) and non-structural (e.g., street sweeping) water quality BMPs are referred to in WinSLAMM as control practices. Control practices can be applied to the drainage system within the model space, or can be assigned directly to land use source areas. The table below provides a complete list of all control practices included in version 10.4 of WinSLAMM. As can be seen, all twelve (12) control practices can be modeled directly from source areas, but only eight (8) can be modeled within the drainage system model network. Reviewing control practices shows that the BMPs that cannot be modeled in the drainage system network include non-structural BMPs (e.g., street sweeping) and BMPs that are related to a specific source area type (e.g., cisterns typically treat roof areas, porous pavement applies to paved source areas such as parking lots, etc.).
+
*[http://www.coirexports-india.com/products/Product-Specification Coir Exports]
 +
*[http://coirpith.co.in/Coirpithproduct.html Coir pith]
 +
*[http://www.rudraexport.com/cocopeat.html Rudra]
 +
*[https://www.reiziger.com/reiziger-coco-coir-pith/specifications/ Reiziger]
 +
*[https://www.coco-peat.com/info/cocopeat-specifications Williams Enterprises]
 +
*[http://coirboard.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Coir-Pith.pdf Ministry of MSME, Government of India]
  
[[File: Control practices applied to source areas (left) and the drainage system (right).png|400px|thumb|alt=image for WinSLAMM|<font size=3>Control practices applied to source areas (left) and the drainage system (right)</font size>]]
+
===Distributors===
 +
Distributors of coir for use in bioretention media (e.g. horticultural use) can readily be found on the internet and we do not make specific recommendations. When purchasing coir, the following questions should be asked.
 +
*Were the husks loosened using fresh water or salt water?
 +
*If salt water was used, has the coir been desalinized (e.g. residual salt washed out)?
 +
*How was the coir dried (air or mechanical drying)?
 +
*If the material was compacted (e.g. bricks), does it meet specifications (see above)?
 +
*How long has the coir been left to mature (>6 months preferred)?
 +
*Does the coir meet specifications described above?
 +
*Has the coir been treated to prevent infestation?
 +
*Has the material been sieved to achieve desired particle size distribution?
  
{{:WinSLAMM control practice summary}}
+
===Test methods===
 +
Packaged coir is typically tested and meets specifications as described above. Standardized testing does not appear to exist for coir, but several methods for testing different characteristics appear to be appropriate.
  
[[File: Example of inputs required for the porous pavement control practice.png|300px|thumb|alt=image for WinSLAMM|<font size=3>Example of inputs required for the porous pavement control practice</font size>]]
+
The following references provide information on testing of coir.
 +
*The [http://coirboard.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Coir-Pith.pdf Ministry of MSME, Government of India] (2016) provide a discussion of test methods for pH, moisture content, ash content, organic matter and organic carbon content, electrical conductivity, total nitrogen, phosphorus content, C:N ratio, and potassium content.
 +
*[https://www.coco-peat.com/info/testing-methods Williams Enterprises] provides test methods for electrical conductivity, pH, moisture content, fiber content, impurities (sand), expansion or breakout volume, and water retention
 +
*[http://www.evergreencoirs.com/testing.html Evergreen Coirs] provides test methods for electrical conductivity, pH, impurities (sand), expansion volume, moisture, and weed content
  
WinSLAMM predicts pollutant removal at water quality BMPs based on correlation to experimental results (empirical) as well as modeling the generation and removal of particulate through sedimentation and filtration (physically based). To model hydraulic performance, filtration, sedimentation, infiltration, and other parameters unique to certain control practices (e.g., cleaning frequency for hydrodynamic separators), WinSLAMM requires many user-input parameters for each control practice (see example of user inputs required for the porous pavement control practice in Figure 23). It is critical that the designer or engineer review required inputs as well as removal algorithms and methodology applying to each control practice modeled. A complete description of model parameters for each control practice can be accessed through the help files within WinSLAMM. Additional information describing removal algorithms, referenced research, particle filtration and settling methodology, and processes unique to certain control practices (e.g., pond scour calculations from wet ponds) is provided model documentation.
+
==Effects of aging==
Because WinSLAMM requires control practice dimensions, actively models hydraulic loading and bypass, and tracks the particulate and associated pollutant PSD through control practices, WinSLAMM is capable of modeling bypass from undersized BMPs and treatment through BMPs in series (i.e., treatment trains).
+
Several studies have looked into the life cycle of water treatment residuals. Due to the high phosphorus adsorption capabilities WTRs in bioretention media will reach saturation capacity. Bayley et al. (2008) observed that during a land application study WTR was able to maintain its capacity to immobilize phosphorus and remained stable after 13 years. Zhao et al. (2009) estimated that Al-based WTR in constructed wetlands had a life cycle of 9-40 years based on a study designed to determine phosphorus removal from agricultural wastewater. Life cycles of WTR for phosphorus adsorption is largely dependent on many factors such as the influent phosphorus concentration, particle size, particle surface area, particle surface charge and pH. More research is needed on the life cycle of water treatment residuals used for stormwater phosphorus adsorption.
  
'''Special Consideration(s)''':<br>
+
==Storage, handling, and field application==
*To aid in model QAQC and transparency, it is recommended that control practices be modeled within the drainage system model network, rather than be applied to individual source areas within a land use type. Exceptions to this recommendation include control practices which cannot be modeled in the drainage network (e.g., cisterns) and control practices which only treat one source area within the land use group (e.g., a hydrodynamic separator which only treats runoff generated from the “parking lot” source area within a land use type).
+
*Store in a cool dry place
*The engineer or designer should review parameter definitions and related algorithms for all modeled control practices. Detailed descriptions of model parameters and related removal and loading calculations can be accessed through help files within the program.
+
*Keep away from weedkillers and other garden chemicals
*WinSLAMM does model scour (i.e., resuspension of previously-settled particles) from wet ponds. Pond scour methodology and relation to pond depth should be reviewed by the engineer or designer.
+
*If material is containerized, reseal after use
 +
*Recommended application rates are 10-15 tons per hectare.
  
==Model outputs==
+
There are few handling concerns. Dust may be an eye irritant. Examples of material and safety data sheets can be found at the following links.
 +
*[https://www.burpee.com/on/demandware.static/-/Sites-BURPEE-Library/default/v1576217273669/Images/Content/PDF/MSDS/Burpee_ecofriendly_natural&organicGardenCoir.pdf Organic garden coir]
 +
*[http://www.synturf.org/images/pso110-m.pdf Coconut fiber]
 +
*[https://www.amleo.com/images/art/PGH750-MSDS.pdf Fiber dust]
 +
*[http://www.globalhort.com/pdf/MSDS/growingMedium/Coco%20Products%20-%20Coco%20Agro.PDF Coco coir]
 +
*[http://www.ecofusion.net/datasheets/SDS%20-%20Coco%20Peat.pdf Coco peat]
  
[[File:Example of WinSLAMM output tab.png|300px|thumb|alt=image for WinSLAMM|<font size=3>Example of WinSLAMM output tab</font size>]]
+
==Sustainability==
 +
Water treatment residuals are a sustainable option as a bioretention media. Using metal salts as a coagulant is a common practice at water treatment plants all over the world making WTRs widely available. Landfilling is the most commonly used disposal method of these residuals in many countries. However, due to high disposal costs and limitations on available space, disposal of WTRs at landfills is not a efficient or sustainable option. In recent years a lot of research has been done to look into more sustainable disposal methods. Land application of WTRs is currently becoming the most common reuse method of disposal.
  
WinSLAMM provides a wide variety of model outputs which can be used by engineers and planners to evaluate and demonstrate WLA compliance. Model outputs can be printed to text files or viewed within the output summary window which launches after completion of a model run. Information that is presented in model output files is controlled by the user-assigned “Output Options” (File &rarr; Output Options). It is recommended that Option one (1) “Source Areas by Land Use for Each Rain – Complete Printout” be selected for a majority of reporting purposes related to WLA compliance. A summary of information provided in the output summary and output tabs which launch upon completion of a model run are described, below:
+
==References==
 +
*Agyin-Birikorang, S., O'Connor, G. A., & Obreza, T. A. (2009). Drinking Water Treatment Residuals to Control Phosphorous in Soils Soil and Water Science (Vol. SL300, pp. 7). University of Florida: University of Florida.
 +
*Bayley, R., Ippolito, J.,Stromberger, M., Barbarick, K., Paschke, M. (2008). Water Treatment Residuals and Biosolids Co‐applications Affect Phosphatases in a Semi‐arid Rangeland Soil. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. 39. 10.1080/00103620802432733.
 +
* Ippolito, J., Barbarick, K., Elliott, H. (2011). Drinking Water Treatment Residuals: A Review of Recent Uses. Journal of environmental quality. 40. 1-12. 10.2134/jeq2010.0242.
 +
*Keeley, J., Jarvis, P., Judd, S. J., (2014) Coagulant Recovery from Water Treatment Residuals: A Review of Applicable Technologies, Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 44:24, 2675-2719, DOI: 10.1080/10643389.2013.829766
 +
*Turner, T., Wheeler, R., Stone, A. et al. Potential Alternative Reuse Pathways for Water Treatment Residuals: Remaining Barriers and Questions—a Review. Water Air Soil Pollution. 230, 230. 10.1007/s11270-019-4272-0.
 +
* Xu D, Lee LY, Lim FY, et al. Water treatment residual: A critical review of its applications on pollutant removal from stormwater runoff and future perspectives. Journal of Environmental Management. 2020 Apr;259:109649. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109649.
 +
*Zhao, Y., Liu, R., AWE, O., Yang, Y., Shen, C. (2018). Acceptability of land application of alum-based water treatment residuals – An explicit and comprehensive review. Chemical Engineering Journal. 353. 10.1016/j.cej.2018.07.143.
 +
*Zhao, Y., Zhao, X., & Babatunde, A. (2009). Use of dewatered alum sludge as main substrate in treatment reed bed receiving agricultural wastewater: long-term trial. Bioresource Technology, 100, 644–648.
  
*''Output summary'': provides an overview of model results for the entire duration of the model run. The output shows the total runoff, particulate (TSS), and pollutant loading and removal with and without control practices. Summaries are provided in terms of mass (e.g., pounds removed), percent reduction (%), and concentration (e.g., mg/L of total phosphorus outflow both with and without control practices). The total area modeled (acres) is displayed as well as the total number of years modeled, allowing for quick calculation of commonly required WLA parameters (e.g., pounds of TSS reduction per year, areal loading of total phosphorus with and without control practices (lbs/acre/year), etc.).
 
*''Output tabs (“land uses”, “junctions”, “control practices”, and “outfall”)'': the individual outputs tabs provide model result summaries for each of the model element groups in WinSLAMM: “Land Use”, “Junctions”, “Control Practices”, and final model “Outfall”. Within each tab, runoff volume, particulate loading (mass and concentration) and pollutant loading (mass and concentration) for each modeled rainfall event are summarized for the selected element (e.g., selecting the “Junctions” tab will provide a summary of model variables at each modeled junction element). In addition to results presented for each individual rainfall event, the “Summary Table” within each model element tab provides a summary of model results for the entire model duration. Outputs on any selected tab can be exported to text and spreadsheet files which can be viewed outside of WinSLAMM by selecting “File &rarr; Print” with the tab selected. The figure on the right shows an example of the output tab for “Land Uses, Pollutants, Yields”, which shows the TP yield from sources areas within each land use for all modeled rainfall events.
 
  
'''Note''': pollutant summary (mass and concentration) is provided in each of the element tabs with the exception of “Control Practices” (only runoff and particulate loading are summarized for control practices). For this reason, if a summary of pollutant reduction is required at a given control practice, junction elements must be placed upstream and downstream of the control practice. Reduction can then be calculated as: [pollutant loading at upstream junction] – [pollutant loading at downstream junction]. For this reason, pollutant load reduction cannot be calculated at control practices applied to source areas.
+
[[Category:Level 2 - General information, reference, tables, images, and archives/Reference]]
 
 
'''Special Consideration(s)''':<br>
 
*It is recommended that option 1 “Source Areas by Land Use for Each Rain – Complete Printout” within “Output Options” (File &rarr; Output Options) be selected for a majority of WLA reporting purposes.
 
*Only pollutants selected within the “Pollutant Selection” window (see Section 5.2.3 and Figure 20) will be displayed on model outputs.
 
*By default, output reporting tabs display results for all modeled rainfall events. Options within “View” can be used to limit or change the outputs displayed (e.g., selecting “View &rarr; 2. Source Area, Junction, Control Practices, and Outfall Totals and Summaries” will limit output windows to display values summarized for the entire model duration, rather than for each modeled rainfall event).
 
*Pollutant summary is provided for all outputs tabs with the exception of “Control Practices” (see discussion in Section 5.0). For this reason, if pollutant reduction from individual control practices is required, junction elements must be placed upstream and downstream of the control practice. Reduction can then be calculated as: [pollutant loading at upstream junction] – [pollutant loading at downstream junction]. '''Note''': based on this methodology, pollutant reduction cannot be calculated for control practices modeled at source areas.
 
*Selecting “File &rarr; Print…” while viewing any output screen allows the output to be exported to text or spreadsheet files which can be viewed outside of WinSLAMM.
 
 
 
===Interpreting model outputs and calculating WLA reporting terms===
 
The table below provides a summary of how to generate common TSS and TP WLA reporting terms. WinSLAMM is a continuous model that provides a variety of detailed model outputs, and can therefore be used for a wide variety of WLA compliance review and reporting purposes. WinSLAMM reports particulate (i.e., TSS) loading and reduction at control practices, but does not report pollutant (e.g., dissolved and particulate phosphorus) loading and reduction. For this reason, pollutant loading and reduction at individual BMPs is required, loading and removal can be calculated by placing “junction” elements upstream and downstream of the control practice. Pollutant reduction can then be calculated outside of WinSLAMM as: [pollutant loading at upstream junction] – [pollutant loading at downstream junction].
 
 
 
{{:Using WinSLAMM to generate load reduction and WLA reporting terms}}
 
 
 
===QAQC of Model Results===
 
The engineer or designer should perform a thorough review of all model inputs and outputs. Model inputs should be generated using best available datasets, including record drawings, development data, bathymetric surveys, and best-available spatial land use, land cover, and soil databases. Upon model completion, results should be reviewed to ensure control practices were routed correctly and applied correctly to sources areas, subwatersheds were routed correctly, and that pollutant removal and areal loading results are within typical ranges based on BMP and land use type, respectively. A general model result QAQC list for WinSLAMM is provided in the table below. Additionally, a literature review of typical average annual event mean concentration (EMC) values is provided [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=TSS_and_TP_EMC_literature_values_for_TMDL_modeling here], and typical TSS and TP removal values for various BMP types is provided [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Typical_BMP_TSS_and_TP_removal_rates_from_Minnesota_Stormwater_Manual here].
 
 
 
{{:General WinSLAMM result QAQC list}}
 
 
 
{{:TSS and TP EMC literature values for TMDL modeling}}
 
 
 
{{:Typical BMP TSS and TP removal rates from Minnesota Stormwater Manual}}
 
 
 
<noinclude>
 

Latest revision as of 18:53, 3 December 2022

Warning: This page is an edit and testing page use by the wiki authors. It is not a content page for the Manual. Information on this page may not be accurate and should not be used as guidance in managing stormwater.
This site is currently undergoing revision. For more information, open this link.
This page is in development
image

test This page provides information on water treatment residuals. While providing extensive information on water treatment residuals, there is a section focused specifically on stormwater applications for water treatment residuals.

Overview and description

Water treatment residuals are the by-products from the coagulation and flocculation phase of drinking water treatment. These residuals are primarily sediment, metal (aluminum, iron or calcium) oxide/hydroxides, activated carbon, and lime removed from raw water during the water purification process (Agyin-Birikorang et al., 2009). Research has shown that Aluminum (Al), Iron (Fe) and Calcium (Ca) based water treatment residuals have the potential to improve water quality treatment in bioretention systems. Due to the large number of water treatment facilities that use metal salt during the the water treatment process, water treatment residuals are widely available. Water treatment residuals are also generally available at a low cost.

Water treatment residual benefits may include but are not limited to the following.

  • WTRs reduce soluble phosphorus (P) in soils, runoff, and land-applied organic wastes
  • WTR use in bioretention media is a sustainable alternative to disposal of WTRs at a landfill
  • WTR use in bioretention media is a cost-effective media material
  • WTR improves water holding capacity of soil

Applications for water treatment residuals in stormwater management

Water treatment residuals have potential applications for stormwater management. Below is a brief summary.

  • WTRs can be very effective in reducing soluable phosphorus
  • WTRs increases water holding capacity of soil
  • WTRs may reduce the bulk density and improve saturated hydraulic conductivity in compacted soil

Properties of water treatment residuals

This section includes a discussion of chemical and physical properties of water treatment residuals, and potential contaminants in water treatment residuals.

Chemical-physical properties of water treatment residuals

Water treatment residuals have a highly variable physical and chemical structure.

Noguera et al. (2003) varied particle size of coir dust, studying the properties of coir passing through sieves 0.125, 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 mm in diameter. They observed the following.

  • As particle diameter increases, air content increased and water holding capacity decreased
  • Electrical conductivity and micro-element concentrations were greatest in the smallest diameter coir
  • Bulk density decreased from 0.122 to 0.041 g/cm3 as particle size increased from <0.125 to >2 mm
  • Pore space increased from 92.3% to 97.3% as particle size increased from <0.125 to >2 mm
  • Water holding capacity (ml/l) decreased from 855 to 165, with the greatest change occurring with 0.5-1 mm particles
  • Shrinkage (volume loss on drying) decreased as particle size increased (38% to 15% as particle size increased from <0.125 to >2 mm)
  • Nutrient availability decreased with increasing particle size, but there were no significant differences between 0.125 and 2 mm. There was a large increase for the smallest particle size.

Based on generally recommended plant specifications, the researchers concluded the 0.25-0.5 mm size appears most suited for plant growth, with some addition of larger particles recommended. Abad et al. (2005) similarly concluded that a mix of particle sizes is likely to be optimum for use of coir as a plant medium.

Another factor affecting chemical properties of coir are the conditions under which it is prepared. In particular, if soaking in a saline solution is used in the preparation of coir, concentrations of potassium, sodium, chloride can be very high and may interfere with plant growth.

The following table summarizes data from the literature on physical and chemical properties of coir. Some general conclusions include the following.

  • Coir is slightly acidic but not as acidic as peat
  • Available nitrogen, phosphorus, calcium, magnesium, iron, copper, and zinc are low, while sodium, chloride, and potassium are high, particularly if the coir was prepared in a saline solution
  • Coir has a very high water holding capacity
  • Coir has a high germination index compared to compost (Lodolini et al., 2017)
  • Coir dust does not collapse when wet or shrink excessively as it dries (Cresswell)

Chemical and physical properties of coir.
Link to this table

Property Range found in literature1 Median value from literature
Total phosphorus (% dry wt) 0.036 - 0.41 0.036
Total nitrogen (% dry wt) 0.24 - 0.5 0.45
Total potassium (% dry wt) 0.4 - 2.39 0.819
Total carbon (%) 42 - 49 47.1
Total hydrogen (%) 4.4
pH 4.9 - 6.9 5.9
Cation exchange capacity (cmol/kg) 31.7 - 130 50
Electrical conductivity (ds/m) 39 - 2900 582
Total calcium (%) 0.18-0.47 0.40
Total magnesium (%) 0.11-0.47 0.36
Total copper (mg/kg) 3.1-10.3 4.2
Total zinc (mg/kg) 4.0-9.8 7.5
Total manganese (mg/kg) 12.5-92 17
Bulk density (g/cm3) 0.025 - 0.132 0.06
Water holding capacity (% by wt) 137 - 1100 566
Total pore space (%) 85.5 - 98.3 95.2

Primary references for this data:

  • Cresswell
  • Abad et al., 2002
  • Abad et al., 2005
  • Asiah et al., 2004
  • Kumar et al., 2010
  • Lodolini et al., 2017
  • Shrestha et al., 2019


Potential contaminants in water treatment residuals

The largest source of potential contamination from Al-based or Fe-based water treatment residuals is the presence of the aluminum or iron itself which is essential for the phosphorus removal benefit. These metals have the potential to cause hazards from leaching. Excess aluminum in the environment is known to have negative impacts on aquatic environments. There are also risks to plants and the soil biota from aluminum leaching. The risk of aluminum leaching becomes a bigger concern at low pH levels (pH<5) due to the increase solubility of aluminum at these levels. Several studies have stated that since stormwater is typically at a neutral pH level, there is minimal concern with Al leaching.

Effects of coir on physical and chemical properties of soil and bioretention media

In this section we provide information on effects of coir on pollutant attenuation and on physical properties of soil and engineered media.

Effects of coir on retention and fate of phosphorus

There are limited studies on coir retention of phosphorus at concentrations typically found in stormwater runoff (less than 0.5 mg/L). Adsorption studies show that phosphorus adsorption at higher concentrations (greater than 1 mg/L) occurs through ion exchange and chemisorption being mechanisms for adsorption, with sulfate competing with phosphate for adsorption sites)(Takaijudin and Ghani, 2014; Kumar et al., 2010; Namasivayam and Sangeetha, 2004).

Shrestha et al. (2019) studied phosphorus leaching from columns containing mixtures of soil, compost, spent lime, and coir. Using tap water with no detectable phosphorus, they observed that adding coir (10% by weight) to a 70-20 soil-compost mix did not decrease phosphorus leaching compared to an 80-20 soil-compost mix. Similar results were observed for media with 40% compost. Hongpakdee and Ruamrungsri (2015) observed reduced phosphorus leaching at the flowering stage, possibly due to increased plant vigor and uptake in treatments containing coir. Herrera Environmental Consultants (2015) conducting flushing and leaching experiments for a variety of media mixtures, including mixtures containing coir. Mixtures of coir and granular activated carbon (GAC) or ash showed orthophosphorus concentrations of 0.021 and 0.052 mg/L, respectively, when flushed with solutions containing less than 0.004 mg/L. For leaching experiments, influent orthophosphate concentrations were 0.323 mg/L and effluent concentrations for coir-GAC and coir-ash mixtures were 0.025 and 0.164 mg/L, respectively. However, the researchers attributed retention of phosphorus to the GAC and ash rather than coir. The researchers also observed decreasing orthophosphorus leachate concentrations with time.

Additional research is needed to understand the phosphorus retention or leaching from media containing coir. Research to date suggests coir will not retain phosphorus in stormwater runoff but will not significantly contribute to leaching from engineered media.

Effects of coir on retention and fate of other pollutants

There is limited research on retention and leaching of pollutants from coir. Shrestha et al. (2019) observed that media containing coir performed similar to spent lime for ammonium and nitrate retention and leached significantly less of these chemicals than treatments containing compost. Herrera Environmental Consultants (2015) observed similar results and also observed that mixtures of coir and either granular activated carbon or ash reduced copper and zinc leaching compared to media mixtures consisting of just soil and compost. Because concentrations of potential pollutants are low in coir, leaching at concentrations of concern appears unlikely. An exception is coir that was soaked in salt water, which may contribute to high sodium, potassium, and chloride concentrations.

Effects of coir on soil physical and hydraulic properties

Coir has several properties that may improve soil physical and hydraulic properties (Cresswell; Noguera et al., 2003; Abad et al., 2005; Small et al., 2018; Lodolini et al., 2018; Arachchi and Somasiri, 1997).

  • Coir dust remains relatively hydrophylic (water attracting) even when it is air dry
  • Coir dust does not collapse when wet or shrink excessively as it dries
  • Increases water holding capacity
  • Increases soil porosity
  • Decreases soil bulk density

Effects of coir on soil fertility, plant growth, and microbial function

Advantages of coir over peat (Source:Ministry of MSME, Government of India. 2016)
Requires lesser amount of lime due to high pH
Quick and easy rewetting after drying, while peat becomes hydrophobic on drying
Requires short time for irrigation to replace loss of water and drainage from pot, saving fertilizer due to non leaching of nutrients
Higher capillary wetting property
Able to provide aeration in base of mix
Very resilient and exceptional physical stability when wet or dried

Pure coir is not suitable for plant growth. It has a high C:N ratio (>100) and a high lignin content, resulting in slow decomposition and immobilization of plant nutrients. In addition, polyphenols and phenolics acids in the coir can be phytotoxic and inhibit plant growth (Ministry of MSME, Government of India, 2016).

When composted and added as an amendment to a growing media, coir improves plant growth, with coir outperforming peat in several studies. In the absence of composting, nitrogen and phosphorus additions will likely be necessary, depending on plant requirements. Calcium and magnesium additions may also be needed. Concentrations of other nutrients and micronutrients are generally acceptable for most plant species (Cresswell; Asiah et al., 2004; Noguera et al., 2003; Abad et al., 2002; Meerow, 1997; Lodolini et al., 2017; Hongpakdee and Ruamrungsri, 2015; Small et al., 2015; Scagel, 2003; Arachchi and Somasiri, 1997). Noguera et al. (2003) showed that, based on generally recommended plant specifications, 0.25-0.5 mm diameter coir particles appear most suited for plant growth, with some addition of larger particles recommended. Abad et al. (2005) similarly recommended a mix of particle sizes.

Standards, classification, testing, and distributors

Coir standards and specifications

Recommended values for coir used in a growth media (Source: see reference list in this section)
pH 5.2 - 6.8
Electrical conductivity (ms/cm) 0.50 – 1.20 (lower part of range typically preferred)
Cation exchange capacity (meq/100g) 20 - 40
Nitrogen (%) 0.10
Phosphorus (%) 0.01
Potassium (%) 0.50
Copper (% minimum) 1.5
C:N ratio (minimum) 110
Lignin (%) 30 - 35
Total organic matter (% minimum) 75
Moisture (%) 15 - 20
Ash content (%) 1.0 - 1.5
Impurities <3%
Fiber content <2%
Expansion > 12 l/kg
Water holding capacity 3-4 l/kg

Recommended specifications for coir when used in a growing media are shown in the adjacent table and include the following.

  • Moisture content less than 20%
  • Compression ratio 5:1
  • pH 5.4-6.0
  • Electrical conductivity less than 0.65 millimhos/cm (this ensures K, Na, Cl, Ca, and Mg contents are within acceptable limits)
  • Not be more than two years old and should not be decomposed
  • Golden brown in color
  • Free from other contamination, sand and other foreign materials
  • Free from weeds and seeds

Coir should be composted or incorporated into media containing a nutrient (N and P) source, such as compost. Alternatively, liming or addition of microorganisms may enhance decomposition of coir, which subsequently aids in release of nutrients from the coir. The Ministry of MSME, Government of India (2016) provide a discussion of different composting materials and methods, including specifications.

References containing specifications are provided below. Note that most of these references include information on the packaged material (e.g. bags, blocks, briquettes), such as weight and size.

Distributors

Distributors of coir for use in bioretention media (e.g. horticultural use) can readily be found on the internet and we do not make specific recommendations. When purchasing coir, the following questions should be asked.

  • Were the husks loosened using fresh water or salt water?
  • If salt water was used, has the coir been desalinized (e.g. residual salt washed out)?
  • How was the coir dried (air or mechanical drying)?
  • If the material was compacted (e.g. bricks), does it meet specifications (see above)?
  • How long has the coir been left to mature (>6 months preferred)?
  • Does the coir meet specifications described above?
  • Has the coir been treated to prevent infestation?
  • Has the material been sieved to achieve desired particle size distribution?

Test methods

Packaged coir is typically tested and meets specifications as described above. Standardized testing does not appear to exist for coir, but several methods for testing different characteristics appear to be appropriate.

The following references provide information on testing of coir.

  • The Ministry of MSME, Government of India (2016) provide a discussion of test methods for pH, moisture content, ash content, organic matter and organic carbon content, electrical conductivity, total nitrogen, phosphorus content, C:N ratio, and potassium content.
  • Williams Enterprises provides test methods for electrical conductivity, pH, moisture content, fiber content, impurities (sand), expansion or breakout volume, and water retention
  • Evergreen Coirs provides test methods for electrical conductivity, pH, impurities (sand), expansion volume, moisture, and weed content

Effects of aging

Several studies have looked into the life cycle of water treatment residuals. Due to the high phosphorus adsorption capabilities WTRs in bioretention media will reach saturation capacity. Bayley et al. (2008) observed that during a land application study WTR was able to maintain its capacity to immobilize phosphorus and remained stable after 13 years. Zhao et al. (2009) estimated that Al-based WTR in constructed wetlands had a life cycle of 9-40 years based on a study designed to determine phosphorus removal from agricultural wastewater. Life cycles of WTR for phosphorus adsorption is largely dependent on many factors such as the influent phosphorus concentration, particle size, particle surface area, particle surface charge and pH. More research is needed on the life cycle of water treatment residuals used for stormwater phosphorus adsorption.

Storage, handling, and field application

  • Store in a cool dry place
  • Keep away from weedkillers and other garden chemicals
  • If material is containerized, reseal after use
  • Recommended application rates are 10-15 tons per hectare.

There are few handling concerns. Dust may be an eye irritant. Examples of material and safety data sheets can be found at the following links.

Sustainability

Water treatment residuals are a sustainable option as a bioretention media. Using metal salts as a coagulant is a common practice at water treatment plants all over the world making WTRs widely available. Landfilling is the most commonly used disposal method of these residuals in many countries. However, due to high disposal costs and limitations on available space, disposal of WTRs at landfills is not a efficient or sustainable option. In recent years a lot of research has been done to look into more sustainable disposal methods. Land application of WTRs is currently becoming the most common reuse method of disposal.

References

  • Agyin-Birikorang, S., O'Connor, G. A., & Obreza, T. A. (2009). Drinking Water Treatment Residuals to Control Phosphorous in Soils Soil and Water Science (Vol. SL300, pp. 7). University of Florida: University of Florida.
  • Bayley, R., Ippolito, J.,Stromberger, M., Barbarick, K., Paschke, M. (2008). Water Treatment Residuals and Biosolids Co‐applications Affect Phosphatases in a Semi‐arid Rangeland Soil. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. 39. 10.1080/00103620802432733.
  • Ippolito, J., Barbarick, K., Elliott, H. (2011). Drinking Water Treatment Residuals: A Review of Recent Uses. Journal of environmental quality. 40. 1-12. 10.2134/jeq2010.0242.
  • Keeley, J., Jarvis, P., Judd, S. J., (2014) Coagulant Recovery from Water Treatment Residuals: A Review of Applicable Technologies, Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 44:24, 2675-2719, DOI: 10.1080/10643389.2013.829766
  • Turner, T., Wheeler, R., Stone, A. et al. Potential Alternative Reuse Pathways for Water Treatment Residuals: Remaining Barriers and Questions—a Review. Water Air Soil Pollution. 230, 230. 10.1007/s11270-019-4272-0.
  • Xu D, Lee LY, Lim FY, et al. Water treatment residual: A critical review of its applications on pollutant removal from stormwater runoff and future perspectives. Journal of Environmental Management. 2020 Apr;259:109649. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109649.
  • Zhao, Y., Liu, R., AWE, O., Yang, Y., Shen, C. (2018). Acceptability of land application of alum-based water treatment residuals – An explicit and comprehensive review. Chemical Engineering Journal. 353. 10.1016/j.cej.2018.07.143.
  • Zhao, Y., Zhao, X., & Babatunde, A. (2009). Use of dewatered alum sludge as main substrate in treatment reed bed receiving agricultural wastewater: long-term trial. Bioresource Technology, 100, 644–648.

This page was last edited on 3 December 2022, at 18:53.