Top Banner
Comparison of Environmental Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and and CCA CCA CCA-TAG Meeting CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey B. Dubey 1 , T. Townsend , T. Townsend 1 , H. Solo-Gabriele , H. Solo-Gabriele 2 1 University of Florida, Dept. of Environ. Eng. University of Florida, Dept. of Environ. Eng. Sciences Sciences 2 University of Miami, Dept. of Civil, Arch. And University of Miami, Dept. of Civil, Arch. And Environ Engineering Environ Engineering August 18, 2005
55

Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

Dec 31, 2015

Download

Documents

Barnaby Lawson
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

Comparison of Environmental Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives

and and CCACCA

CCA-TAG MeetingCCA-TAG Meeting

B. DubeyB. Dubey11, T. Townsend, T. Townsend11, H. Solo-Gabriele, H. Solo-Gabriele22

11University of Florida, Dept. of Environ. Eng. SciencesUniversity of Florida, Dept. of Environ. Eng. Sciences22University of Miami, Dept. of Civil, Arch. And Environ University of Miami, Dept. of Civil, Arch. And Environ

EngineeringEngineering

August 18, 2005

Page 2: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

Research ObjectiveResearch Objective

Compare and contrast the potential Compare and contrast the potential environmental impact of wood treated with environmental impact of wood treated with arsenic and chromium free preservatives arsenic and chromium free preservatives with that from CCA-treated wood with that from CCA-treated wood

Page 3: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

Specific ObjectivesSpecific Objectives

1.1. Leachate characterization for heavy Leachate characterization for heavy metals in the leachate produced on co-metals in the leachate produced on co-disposal of pressure-treated wood in C&D disposal of pressure-treated wood in C&D and MSW landfill environmentand MSW landfill environment

2.2. Impact of surface water conditions on Impact of surface water conditions on chemical leaching and aquatic toxicity of chemical leaching and aquatic toxicity of pressure-treated wood pressure-treated wood

3.3. Impact on soil from pressure- treated Impact on soil from pressure- treated wood leachateswood leachates

Page 4: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

Pressure Treated Wood Being Pressure Treated Wood Being EvaluatedEvaluated

• ACQ : Alkaline Copper QuaternaryACQ : Alkaline Copper Quaternary• CBA : Copper Boron AzoleCBA : Copper Boron Azole• DOT : Disodium Octaborate DOT : Disodium Octaborate

Tetrahydrate Tetrahydrate • CCA : Chromated Copper ArsenateCCA : Chromated Copper Arsenate

Page 5: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

Leachate characterization for heavy Leachate characterization for heavy metals in the leachate produced on co-metals in the leachate produced on co-disposal of pressure-treated wood in disposal of pressure-treated wood in C&D and MSW environmentC&D and MSW environment

-Simulated C&D landfill environment-Simulated C&D landfill environment

-Leaching with MSW leachate-Leaching with MSW leachate

Disposal ScenariosDisposal Scenarios

Page 6: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

The county provideda large area near apaved road for locating the lysimeters.

Page 7: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

The driller used a 3-ft bucket auger.

Page 8: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

The hole prior to lysimeter installation. 15 ft deep.

Page 9: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,
Page 10: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,
Page 11: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,
Page 12: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,
Page 13: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,
Page 14: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

The annulus of the holes was backfilled with sand.

Page 15: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

Thermocouple wires were included for temperature measurement.

Page 16: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

Waste Composition for Simulated C&D Landfill Waste Composition for Simulated C&D Landfill

33%

30%

14%

12%

8%

1% 1%1%

UT Wood

Concrete

Roofing

Drywall

Cardboard

Ferrous

Insulation

Steel

Page 17: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

Waste Composition for Co-disposal of ACQ in Waste Composition for Co-disposal of ACQ in Simulated C&D LandfillSimulated C&D Landfill

5%1%

5%

23%

29%

14%

12%

8%

1% 1%1%

LBP

Hg Lamp

ACQ

UT Wood

Concrete

Roofing

Drywall

Cardboard

Non Ferrous

Insulation

Steel

Page 18: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

Waste Composition for Co-disposal of CCA in Waste Composition for Co-disposal of CCA in Simulated C&D LandfillSimulated C&D Landfill

5%1%

5%

23%

29%

14%

12%

8%

1%

1%1%

LBPHg LampCCAUT WoodConcreteRoofingDrywallCardboardNon FerrousInsulationSteel

Page 19: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

Cutting wood into smaller pieces

Page 20: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

ACQLead based paintCCA

Page 21: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

Loading the ColumnLoading the Column

Page 22: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,
Page 23: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

C&D Lysimeters

Page 24: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

C&D LBP, CCA, Hg lamps

• Wood blocks added during mixing

• Wood blocks throughout lysimeter

• Hg lamps were broken inside lysimeter, starting after first lift

LBP, CCA

LBP, CCA

LBP, CCA

LBP, CCA

LBP, CCA

LBP, CCA

LBP, CCA

LBP, CCA

LBP, CCA

LBP, CCA

River Rock

LBP, CCA

LBP, CCA

Hg lamps

Page 25: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

C&D LBP, ACQ, Hg lamps

• Same as C&D lysimeter with CCA wood, but ACQ treated wood used instead. LBP, ACQ

LBP, ACQ

LBP, ACQ

LBP, ACQ

LBP, ACQ

LBP, ACQ

LBP, ACQ

LBP, ACQ

LBP, ACQ

LBP, ACQ

River Rock

LBP, ACQ

LBP, ACQ

Hg lamps

Page 26: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

Compacting the WasteCompacting the Waste

Page 27: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,
Page 28: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

Water addition

Page 29: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

Filling sampling bottles

Page 30: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun

pH

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

C&D Control C&D CCA C&D ACQ

Page 31: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul

OR

P

-300

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

C&D Control C&D CCA C&D ACQ

Page 32: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

9/1/04 11/1/04 1/1/05 3/1/05 5/1/05 7/1/05

Ars

enic

(m

g/L

)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

C&D Control C&D CCA C&D ACQ

Page 33: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

9/1/04 11/1/04 1/1/05 3/1/05 5/1/05 7/1/05

Ch

rom

ium

(m

g/L

)

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.20

0.22

C&D Control C&D CCA C&D ACQ

Page 34: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

9/1/04 11/1/04 1/1/05 3/1/05 5/1/05 7/1/05

Bo

ron

(m

g/L

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

C&D Control C&D CCA C&D ACQ

Page 35: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

• Copper was below detect in all three C&D column leachates throughout the duration of experiment

Page 36: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

Batch Test Results

• Blocks of CCA and ACQ were leached in leachates from the control columns.

• The results were compared to results from leaching blocks using the TCLP and SPLP.

Page 37: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

Sawdust

TCLP SPLP C&D Leachate0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

TCLP SPLP C&D Leachate

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

mg

/L)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0100 gm Blocks

Arsenic Copper Chromium

As

Cu

Cr

Leaching of CCA Blocks

Page 38: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

100 gm Blocks

TCLP SPLP C&D Leachate

Co

ncen

trati

on

(m

g/L

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Copper Boron

TCLP SPLP C&D Leachate0

10

20

30

40

50

60Sawdust

Leaching of ACQ Blocks

Copper

Boron

Page 39: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

• Minimal leaching of copper observed suggesting that disposal of copper-based wood preservatives posses minimal impact to groundwater from copper leaching

• What will happen if the landfill gets aerobic over a long period??

Page 40: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

Leaching of treated wood sawdust Leaching of treated wood sawdust with MSW landfill leachatewith MSW landfill leachate

• Sawdust samples of CCA, ACQ, CBA and Borate treated wood was prepared from treated wood lumber

• 26 MSW landfill leachate samples were collected to use as the leaching fluid

• Batch leaching test of TCLP, SPLP and WET was also conducted for comparison

Page 41: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

Solid Waste Size Reduce toLess Than 1 cm

Leach 100 g for 18 hours at 30 RPM

Filter Solidsfrom Leachate

Analyze Leachate

X mg/L

Page 42: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

MSW TCLP SPLP WET

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

n (

mg

/L)

0.1

1

10

100

As Cr Cu CCA

Page 43: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

MSW TCLP SPLP WET

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

mg

/L)

1

10

100

Cu B ACQ

Page 44: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

CBA

MSW TCLP SPLP WET

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

mg

/L)

10

100

Cu B

Page 45: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

Borate

MSW TCLP SPLP WET

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

n (

mg

/L)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160Boron

Page 46: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

Summary of results for MSW Summary of results for MSW leaching studyleaching study

• Metals leach from pressure treated wood when leached with landfill leachate

• Leaching concentrations from the pressure treated wood vary with leachate quality

• Results indicate that the co-disposal of treated wood with municipal solid waste could impact the leachate quality

Page 47: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

Impact of surface water conditions Impact of surface water conditions on chemical leaching and aquatic on chemical leaching and aquatic toxicity of pressure-treated woodtoxicity of pressure-treated wood

Page 48: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

Parameters being measuredParameters being measured

• Total copper, free copper and toxicity Total copper, free copper and toxicity analysis using MetPlate and Algal analysis using MetPlate and Algal assay will be performed on each wood assay will be performed on each wood block leachateblock leachate

• Samples will also be analyzed for Samples will also be analyzed for TOC, TDS, alkalinity and anionsTOC, TDS, alkalinity and anions

Page 49: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

Some preliminary leaching dataSome preliminary leaching data

Average Total Copper (mg/L) Aquatic Toxicity EC50 (%)

Final pH Sample Type

DI NW-1 NW-2 DI NW-1 NW-2 DI NW-1 NW-2

CCA 1.50 0.25 0.46 9.3 68.8 35.3 5.38 6.89 5.51 ACQ 5.25 3.05 3.63 10.0 27.2 24.5 5.98 6.81 6.09 CBA 20.5 12.7 16.5 2.7 9.4 6.4 6.07 6.65 5.81

Page 50: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

Impact on soil from pressure- Impact on soil from pressure- treated wood leachatestreated wood leachates

Page 51: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

Decks have been set up at Solar Energy Research Park, UF

Page 52: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

Soil column in lab with three soils

Page 53: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

Parameters being analyzed

• Preservative components, pH, ORP, Conductivity in leachate and soil

• Soil samples being characterized for pH, OM, CEC, Grain size distribution etc.

Page 54: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

In summary

• Out of 4 experiments comparing the treated wood, two have been completed and two are underway

• Results from uncompleted experiments will be updated in the subsequent meetings

Page 55: Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Wood Treated with Three Different Arsenic-Free Preservatives and CCA CCA-TAG Meeting B. Dubey 1, T. Townsend 1,

Questions?Questions?