Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Oct 21;17(20):7693.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph17207693.

Adsorption Media for the Removal of Soluble Phosphorus from Subsurface Drainage Water

Jessica K Hauda  1 , Steven I Safferman  1 , Ehsan Ghane  1
Affiliations

Adsorption Media for the Removal of Soluble Phosphorus from Subsurface Drainage Water

Jessica K Hauda et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. .

Abstract

Phosphorus (P) is a valuable, nonrenewable resource in agriculture promoting crop growth. P losses through surface runoff and subsurface drainage discharge beneath the root zone is a loss of investment. P entering surface water contributes to eutrophication of freshwater environments, impacting tourism, human health, environmental safety, and property values. Soluble P (SP) from subsurface drainage is nearly all bioavailable and is a significant contributor to freshwater eutrophication. The research objective was to select phosphorus sorbing media (PSM) best suited for removing SP from subsurface drainage discharge. From the preliminary research and literature, PSM with this potential were steel furnace slag (SFS) and a nano-engineered media (NEM). The PSM were evaluated using typical subsurface drainage P concentrations in column experiments, then with an economic analysis for a study site in Michigan. Both the SFS and generalized NEM (GNEM) removed soluble reactive phosphorus from 0.50 to below 0.05 mg/L in laboratory column experiments. The most cost-effective option from the study site was the use of the SFS, then disposing it each year, costing $906/hectare/year for the case study. GNEM that was regenerated onsite had a very similar cost. The most expensive option was the use of GNEM to remove P, including regeneration at the manufacturer, costing $1641/hectare/year. This study suggests that both SFS and NEM are both suited for treating drainage discharge. The use of SFS was more economical for the study site, but each site needs to be individually considered.

Keywords: agriculture; dissolved phosphorus; eutrophication; nano-engineered media; nonpoint-source pollution; orthophosphate; steel furnace slag; waste materials.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(a) Laboratory column and (b) diagram of phosphorus sorbing media (PSM) columns connected to the influent and effluent tanks.
Figure 2
Figure 2
(a) Flow diagram for scenarios A and B, and (b) flow diagram for scenario C. GNEM: generalized nano-engineered media and SFS: steel furnace slag.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Influent and effluent concentrations for the GNEM. SRP: soluble reactive phosphorous.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Influent and effluent concentrations for the SFS.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Comparison of SRP loading onto the GNEM and SFS media.
Figure 6
Figure 6
SRP removal for the GNEM under changing initial concentrations and empty bed contact times/hydraulic retention times (EBCTs/HRTs).
Figure 7
Figure 7
SRP removal for the SFS under changing initial concentrations and EBCTs/HRTs.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Comparison of phosphorous (P) removal by the monolithic and granular GNEM.
Figure 9
Figure 9
SRP concentration vs. cumulative SRP-sorbed graph for GNEM.
Figure 10
Figure 10
SRP concentration vs. cumulative SRP-sorbed graph for SFS.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Paytan A., McLaughlin K. The Oceanic Phosphorus Cycle. Chem. Rev. 2007;107:563–576. doi: 10.1021/cr0503613. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Beegle D. Agronomy Facts 6. Pennsylvania State University, College of Agricultural Sciences; State College, PA, USA: 1985. Comparing Fertilizer Materials.
    1. Gérard F. Clay minerals, iron/aluminum oxides, and their contribution to phosphate sorption in soils—A myth revisited. Geoderma. 2016;262:213–226. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.08.036. - DOI
    1. Cordell D., Drangert J.-O., White S. The story of phosphorus: Global food security and food for thought. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2009;19:292–305. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.10.009. - DOI
    1. Reijnders L. Phosphorus resources, their depletion and conservation, a review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2014;93:32–49. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.09.006. - DOI

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources