外文翻譯--利用大理石廢棄物作為改良劑來中和酸性土壤（英文）

1、Using marble wastes as a soil amendment for acidic soil neutralizationGulsen Tozsin a,*, Ali Ihsan Arol b, Taskin Oztas c, Ekrem Kalkan da Ataturk University, Faculty of Earth Sciences, Department of Mining Engineering,

2、25400 Oltu, Erzurum, Turkey b Middle East Technical University, Department of Mining Engineering, 06800 Ankara, Turkey c Ataturk University, Department of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 25240 Erzurum, Turkey d Ataturk

3、 University, Department of Geological Engineering, 25400 Oltu, Erzurum, Turkeya r t i c l e i n f oArticle history:Received 7 November 2013Received in revised form16 December 2013Accepted 22 December 2013Available online

4、 10 January 2014Keywords:Marble quarry wasteMarble cutting wasteSoil aciditySoil amendmentsa b s t r a c tOne of the most important factors limiting plant growth is soil pH. The objective of this study is todetermine the

5、 effectiveness of marble waste applications on neutralization of soil acidity. Marble quarrywaste (MQW) and marble cutting waste (MCW) were applied to an acid soil at different rates and theireffectiveness on neutralizat

6、ion was evaluated by a laboratory incubation test. The results showed thatsoil pH increased from 4.71 to 6.36 and 6.84 by applications of MCW and MQW, respectively. It wassuggested that MQW and MCW could be used as soil

7、amendments for the neutralization of acid soils andthus the negative impact of marble wastes on the environment could be reduced.? 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.1. IntroductionLiming is a common method to increa

8、se the pH of acid soils. The liming material reacts with carbon dioxide and water in the soil to yield HCO? 3 , which removes the Hþ and Al3þ from the solution, raising the soil pH (Safari and Bidhendi, 2007; M

9、uthukrishnan and Oleske, 2008). Naturally occurring minerals such as lime (pre- dominantly CaCO3) are commonly used to reclaim acid soils (Wang et al., 2011). Marble is a crystalline metamorphic limestone, basically con-

10、 taining calcite (CaCO3) and maybe dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2) (Segadães et al., 2005). Turkey has approximately 3872 million m3of valuable marble reserve (Celik and Sabah, 2008). On the other hand, as a result of the mar

11、ble production activities, marble- manufacturing industry produces high amount of waste. Waste generation continues from mining process to final product and is about 50% of mineral mined; the dried slurry product is quit

12、e fine. 90% of the particles are below 200 mm. The waste of marble can cause environmental problem and economic loss if it is not used. However, waste marble can be used as a neutralization material for acid soil (Arunta

13、s et al., 2010). Marble wastes are generated by quarries (marble quarry waste- MQW) and processing plants (marble cutting waste-MCW). Theproportion of marble discharged as waste during block production at the quarries is

14、 equal to 40e60% of the overall production volume. The waste generation rate at marble processing plants is around 30e35% and this varies according to shape and kind of blocks being cut (Celik and Sabah, 2008). The large

15、 amount of marble wastes is a serious problem for the industry and the environment because of being discarded into rivers and lagoons without any treatment. This type of waste has a good potential to be used as an amendm

16、ent for the neutralization of acid soils (Xenidis et al., 2002; Karasahin and Terzi, 2007; Bilgin et al., 2012). The objective of this incubation study is to determine the effectiveness of marble waste applications on ne

17、utralization of soil acidity. More specifically, this study aimed to investigate how soil pH changes resulting from MQW and MCW amendments varied with incubation time and thereby determine an optimum incuba- tion period

18、and optimum amendment ratios for the neutralization of acid soils.2. Materials and methods2.1. Soil and liming materialsA composite surface soil sample (0e20 cm) was taken from the Kelali garden, Inece village, Bulancak

19、town, Giresun, Turkey (38?1406000E, 40?5105400N). They were air-dried, passed through a 2- mm sieve and thoroughly mixed. Some chemical and physical properties of the soil samples are shown in Table 1. Particle size* Cor

20、responding author. Tel.: þ90 442 816 62 66; fax: þ90 442 816 33 32.E-mail address: gulsentozsin@gmail.com (G. Tozsin).Contents lists available at ScienceDirectJournal of Environmental Managementjournal homepage

21、: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman0301-4797/$ e see front matter ? 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.12.022Journal of Environmental Management 133 (2014) 374e377In each case,

22、the MQW and MCW doses were thoroughly mixed with 2 kg air-dried soil, and then adjusted to 70% of field capacity. Soils were incubated at 25 ?C and sub-sampled after 15, 30, 45, 60 and 75 days, respectively, for the dete

23、rmination of soil pH. Soil moisture content was adjusted gravimetrically every 2 days. At each sampling time, soil samples at two different points throughout the column were taken using a corer (V1 cm) and mixed, then th

24、e holes were leveled out. The samples taken from each column was thoroughly mixed and immediately extracted for pH analysis. At the end of the 75-day incubation, soil pH was determined.2.3. Statistical analysisThe treatm

25、ents (liming materials þ control (4), incubation pe- riods (5), application rates (3) were designed with three replicates in a factorial arrangement. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to determine the e

26、ffects of treatment, and the Duncan’s multiple comparison test procedure was used for mean compari- sons (SAS Institute Inc., 1989).3. Results and discussionThe chemical compositions of the AL, MQW and MCW are given in T

27、able 3. All three materials are rich in CaO, which is changed between 50.8 and 55.86%. Fig. 1 shows the X-ray diffraction pat- terns of the liming materials. Calcite mineral was the main component for AL and MQW, and dol

28、omite was the main compo- nent for MCW. No other minerals were present at detectable levels. The crystalline phases identified by XRD are in agreement with the results obtained by XRF (Table 3). The results of particle s

29、ize analysis of AL, MQW and MCW are given in Fig. 2. 80% of the particles were found to be less than 55 mm in diameter for AL (d80 ¼ 55 mm), 400 mm in diameter for MQW (d80 ¼ 400 mm) and 35 mm in diameter for M

30、CW (d80 ¼ 35 mm). Data was subjected to variance analysis (ANOVA) in order to determine the treatment effects. The ANOVA results indicated that all treatment effects were statistically significant at p < 0.01 lev

31、el (Table 4). However, all interactions: liming material (LM) ? incubation period (IP), LM ? application rate (AR), IP ? AR and LM ? IP ? AR were not statistically significant at p < 0.05 level. Results of this study

32、indicated that MQW and MCW, alternative to agricultural lime, significantly increased soil reaction under all conditions. However, the increasing rate in soil pH was dependent on incubation period and application rate.Th

33、e Duncan’s multiple comparison test results showed that the MQW was the most effective amendment and no significant dif- ference existed between the AL and MCW in terms of soil reaction (Table 5). On the average, while s

34、oil pH of the control was 4.71, it increased up to 6.26 with MQW. In evaluating the effect of incu- bation period of liming materials on soil pH, soil pH increased with increasing incubation period and there was no signi

35、ficant differ- ence in pH values at the longest two incubation periods (60 and 75 days). This meant that 60 days could be enough for incubation of liming materials for the soil and experimental conditions in this study.

36、The effect of application rate of marble wastes on soil pH changes was very clear, and increasing the application rate increased soil pH. Since the multiple comparison test results showed the overall effect of all treatm

37、ent factors, more detailed effects of liming materials and incubation periods were presented0.11101000.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Cumulative passing (%)Particle size (µm)ALMQWMCWFig. 2. Particle size distribution of AL, M

38、QW and MCW materials by laser diffraction.Table 4The ANOVA test results for treatment effects on soil pH. All interactions (LMxIP,LMxAR, IPxAR and LMxIPxAR were not significant at p < 0.05.Source of variation df F pLi

39、ming material (LM) 3 77.1 0.01Incubation period (IP) 4 23.6 0.01Application rate (AR) 2 40.1 0.01LM ? IP 12 1.257 0.26LM ? AR 2 0.010 0.99IP ? AR 8 0.418 0.91LM ? IP ? AR 8 0.443 0.89Table 5The Duncan’s multiple comparis

40、on test results for the means. Means shown by thesame letter in each category were not different at p < 0.05 significant level (a, b, cand d are the Duncan grouping letters).Treatments Levels Means of soil pHLiming ma

41、terial Control 4.71cAL 5.90bMQW 6.26aMCW 5.83bIncubation period 15 days 5.42d30 days 5.73c45 days 5.92b60 days 6.08a75 days 6.15aApplication rate 1:1 5.50c1.5:1 6.14b2.1 6.30aG. Tozsin et al. / Journal of Environmental M