# _ReadMe

Table_Description:
Double click on the Attached file filed to open a PDF with additional details on the contents of this database


Table_Description:
Provides a list of full citations for the data sources identified by the Source ID fields


Table_Description:
Measurements of chemical content in crops and crop yields grown in gypsum-amended soils. Field descriptions can be viewed in the table design view or in the status bar when you click on the field in datasheet view.


Table_Description:
Provides a crosswalk/linkages between the Crop and Soil media tables using the sample identification numbers (Sample_ID fields) of each media.


Table_Description:
A listing of data excluded from the database and the rationale for exclusion.


Table_Description:
Measurements of chemical content and material properties in Gypsum, including both FGD and mined. Field descriptions can be viewed in the table design view or in the status bar when you click on the field in datasheet view.


Table_Description:
Provides a crosswalk/linkages between the Gypsum and Crop media tables using the sample identification numbers (Sample_ID fields) of each media.


Table_Description:
Provides a crosswalk/linkages between the Gypsum and Leachate media tables using the sample identification numbers (Sample_ID fields) of each media.


Table_Description:
Provides a crosswalk/linkages between the Gypsum and Soil media tables using the sample identification numbers (Sample_ID fields) of each media.


Table_Description:
Measurements of chemical content and material properties found in leachate from FGD and mined gypsum laboratory leaching and field lysimeter studies. Field descriptions can be viewed in the table design view or in the status bar when you click on the field in datasheet view.


Table_Description:
Measurements of chemical content and material properties in soils, identified as pre- or post–gypsum application. Field descriptions can be viewed in the table design view or in the status bar when you click on the field in datasheet view.


Table_Description:
Measurements of chemical contents and material properties in water, including runoff from agricultural plots. Field descriptions can be viewed in the table design view or in the status bar when you click on the field in datasheet view.


# Crop

Publication:
Texas Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources 15:44-50

Authors:
Grichar, W.J., B.A. Besler, and K.D. Brewer

Additional QA/QC Type:
Experiment samples were performed in four replicates

Additional Comments:
original table gives units as %, but author sent corrected units of lbs/acre


Publication:
Flue Gas Desulfurization Gypsum Agricultural Network Ohio Sites 1 (Mixed Hay) and 2 (Corn)

Sources of Outside Funding:
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

Additional QA/QC Type:
interlaboratory comparison for consistency; no other QC samples reported


Additional Comments:
Washed based on communication with author


Sample Collection Method:
Within each plot a swath 1.3 m wide and 5.8 m long was harvested

Publication:
Flue Gas Desulfurization Gypsum Agricultural Network North Dakota Sites 3, 4, and 5 (Canola)

Authors:
W. Dick, D. Kost, T. DeSutter, L. Cihacek

Author Affiliation:
The Ohio State University; North Dakota State University


Additional Comments:
Unwashed based on communication with author


Authors:
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

Additional QA/QC Type:
Reagent blanks; appropriate SRMs; internal reference samples; experiments perfomed in replicate


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43(1):290-296

Authors:
Sheng, J., A. Adeli, J.P. Brooks, M.R. McLaughlin, and J. Read

Author Affiliation:
Institute of Agricultural Resources and Environment

Additional QA/QC Type:
Samples were performed in three replicate

Additional Comments:
"Harvest" used as header in Table 3, but yield noted in text of article


Publication:
The Ohio State University Extension Bulletin 945

Additional QA/QC Type:
Sulfur application experiments were performed in six replicates


Publication:
Flue Gas Desulfurization Gypsum Agricultural Network Wisconsin Arlington Research Station Fields 295 and 27 (Alfalfa)

Authors:
W. Dick, D. Kost, L.D. Norton, R.P. Wolkowski

Author Affiliation:
The Ohio State University; United States Department of Agriculture – Agricultural Research Service; University of Wisconsin-Madison

Additional QA/QC Type:
reagent blank, standard reference materials, proficiency testing, check samples, and interlaboratory comparison


Sample ID 1:
Field 295 - plot 305; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 27 - plot 107; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 27 - plot 307; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 295 - plot 107; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 295 - plot 207; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 295 - plot 307; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 27 - plot 104; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 295 - plot 302; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 27 - plot 204; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 295 - plot 102; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 295 - plot 306; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 27 - plot 402; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 27 - plot 304; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 295 - plot 303; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 295 - plot 406; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 27 - plot 406; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 295 - plot 206; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 27 - plot 102; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 27 - plot 303; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 295 - plot 403; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 295 - plot 402; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 27 - plot 403; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 27 - plot 206; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 27 - plot 103; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 295 - plot 103; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 295 - plot 203; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 27 - plot 202; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 295 - plot 105; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 295 - plot 304; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 295 - plot 407; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 27 - plot 106; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 295 - plot 201; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 295 - plot 101; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 27 - plot 301; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 27 - plot 401; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 27 - plot 407; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 295 - plot 106; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 27 - plot 101; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 295 - plot 405; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 295 - plot 202; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 27 - plot 203; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 27 - plot 207; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 295 - plot 205; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 27 - plot 404; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 295 - plot 404; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 27 - plot 201; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 27 - plot 105; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 27 - plot 205; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 295 - plot 104; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 295 - plot 204; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 27 - plot 305; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 27 - plot 405; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 295 - plot 401; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 27 - plot 306; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 27 - plot 302; July and August 2010


Sample ID 1:
Field 295 - plot 301; July and August 2010


Publication:
Flue Gas Desulfurization Gypsum Agricultural Network New Mexico Sites 1 (Alfalfa) and 2 (Sodic Soils)

Author Affiliation:
The Ohio State University; New Mexico State University


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:303-311

Authors:
DeSutter, T.M., L.J. Cihacek, and S. Rahman

Additional QA/QC Type:
Sulfur application experiments were performed in four replicates


Sample Collection Method:
removed 1 square meter from each plot using a hand shears

Publication:
Flue Gas Desulfurization Gypsum Agricultural Network North Dakota Sites 1 and 2 (Wheat)


Sample ID 2:
Ragsdale silty clay loam, mature grain analysis


Sample ID 2:
Ragsdale silty clay loam, mature stover analysis


Sample ID 2:
FGD 4.48 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 13.45 Mg/ha

Additional QA/QC Type:
standards, duplicates, spikes, and filter paper


Sample ID 2:
FGD 8.97 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 13.45 Mg/ha


Sample ID 2:
FGD 2.24 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 13.45 Mg/ha


Additional QA/QC Type:
water blank for runoff; no other QC samples reported


Sample ID 2:
FGD 4.4 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 13.4 Mg/ha


Sample ID 2:
FGD 11.1 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 8.9 Mg/ha


Sample ID 2:
FGD 2.2 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 13.4 Mg/ha


Sample ID 2:
FGD 8.9 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 13.4 Mg/ha


Additional Comments:
assumed negative value indicated non-detect since value was equal to the detection limit


Site ID:
TakFa district, Nakornsawan province, Thailand

Sample Collection Method:
Plants cut 2 cm above soil surface; ground air-dried soil

Publication:
Oriental Journal of Chemistry 29(3):1027-1032

Authors:
Yodthongdee, Y., P. Sooksamiti, J. Jakmunee, and S. Lapanantnoppakhun

Sources of Outside Funding:
Office of Primary Industries and Mines, Region 3 Chiang Mai, The Graduate School Chiang Mai University

Additional QA/QC Type:
Plant digestion duplicates, spiked soil and plant samples


Site ID:
Samko district, Ang-thong province, Thailand


Additional Comments:
assumed negative value indicated non-detect and set value to detection limit


Value Type:
Average (studies carried out in duplicate)

Publication:
Masters Theses & Specialist Projects. Paper 1199

Additional Comments:
Table 27 control value given as zero; author indicated that it was not detected and the detection limit was 0.1 ppb


Additional Comments:
comment from source: caused by a high concentration indication of 30.6 ppb for a single sample rep.


Sample Collection Method:
Chamber study; pulled gently from soil to not break roots

Publication:
Journal of Environmental Sciences 25(9):1858-1864

Authors:
Wang, K., W. Orndorff, Y. Cao, and W. Pan

Sources of Outside Funding:
U.S. Department of Agriculture (No. 6445-12630-003-00D)


Additional Comments:
Hg concentration in fescue at end of study


Publication:
Flue Gas Desulfurization Gypsum Agricultural Network 2008 Progress Report


Additional Comments:
Lithium not included in EPRI (2011d); Unwashed based on communication with author


Sample Collection Method:
Field study; one composite grass sample for each plot

Publication:
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

Authors:
Cheng, C.M., Y.N. Chang, K.R. Sistani, Y.W. Wang, W.C. Lu, C.W. Lin, J.H. Dong, C.C. Hu, and W.P. Pan

Additional Comments:
Same materials as Cheng et al. (2009); author confirmed unwashed and provided data behind Fig. 3


Sample Collection Method:
Chamber study; all corn plants in the chamber were collected

Additional Comments:
Same materials as Cheng et al. (2009); author confirmed unwashed; data point from text corresponding to Fig. 5


# Data_Exclusions

Exclude Reason:
Commercial (ND) data overlap with EPRI (2011d)


Exclude Reason:
FGD(OH) and Commercial (OH) data overlap with EPRI (2012b)


Exclude Reason:
FGD (NM) and Commercial (NM) data overlap with EPRI (2012c)


Exclude Reason:
FGD (IN) and Commercial (IN) data overlap with EPRI (2013f)


Exclude Reason:
Table 4-3 and 4-4 data overlap with EPRI (2011d)


Exclude Reason:
Table 4-5 and 4-6 data overlap with EPRI (2011d)


Exclude Reason:
Table 4-7 data overlap with EPRI (2012b)


Exclude Reason:
Tables 4-8 and 4-9 data overlap with EPRI (2011d)


Exclude Reason:
Tables A-1, A-2, and A-3 data overlap with EPRI (2011d) - except Lithium


Exclude Reason:
Tables A-4, A-5, and A-6 data overlap with EPRI (2011d) - except Lithium


Exclude Reason:
Tables B-1 and B-2 data overlap with EPRI (2011d)


Exclude Reason:
Tables C-1 and C-2 data overlap with EPRI (2011d) - except Lithium


Exclude Reason:
Table 2 data overlap with DeSutter and Cihacek (2009)


Exclude Reason:
Table 2-3 data overlap with DeSutter and Cihacek (2009)


Exclude Reason:
Table 2-2 data overlap with DeSutter and Cihacek (2009)


Exclude Reason:
Table 1 data, except copper and composite wallboard samples, overlap with Al-Abed et al. (2008)


Exclude Reason:
Some data overlap with Wang et al. (2013)


Exclude Reason:
Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 data, except lithium data, overlap with EPRI (2011c)


Exclude Reason:
Tables 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, except lithium data from 2008, overlap with EPRI (2011d)


Exclude Reason:
Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 overlap with EPRI (2012b), except for Table 1 Microwave Digest and ICP Analysis for FGD and Mined (hay)


Exclude Reason:
FGD/FA (AL-7W) and FGD/FA (AL-8W) samples contain fly ash


Exclude Reason:
Table 4 data are per ton of coal and are not useful


Exclude Reason:
Table 2 data overlap with Chen et al. (2008) except for potassium and sulfur


Exclude Reason:
Tables 2 and 3 data overlap with EPRI (2008), EPRI(2012b), EPRI (2013), and EPRI (2013f); excluded all but Wisconsin values from Table 3, Barium (mined) and Molybdenum (mined and FGD)


Exclude Reason:
Tables 1, 2, and 4 excluded Ca-treated and Mg-treated soil; included original, gypsum, and control


Exclude Reason:
Excluding yields given in bushels/acre; cannot convert bushels/acre without assuming a weight


Exclude Reason:
Excluding data from Table 3 for amorphous aluminum oxide-treated FGD gypsum


Exclude Reason:
Excluded samples, FGD S9 HF and FGD S9 LF, not representative of FGD gypsum as a whole


Exclude Reason:
Excluded FGD-CaSO3 from Table 2 and FGD-CaSO3 from Table 4


Exclude Reason:
Excluded FGD inlet, No. 1, FGD inlet, No. 2, and FGD inlet, No. 3 from Table 6, and gypsum from Table 11


Exclude Reason:
Excluded samples that are not FGD gypsum


Exclude Reason:
Excluded samples that were not FGD gypsum from Table 1


Exclude Reason:
Excluded data for FGD Fly Ash Mix Facility M in Table 2-3


Exclude Reason:
Excluded all but the B12A samples from Table 2


Exclude Reason:
Excluded Table 2, total mercury added in applied FGDG or GYP values


Exclude Reason:
Data excluded from Table 2 for Maximum potential leachability (total mg/kg x 20 kg/L); calculated; does not represent actual leachate measurement and likely overestimates release


Exclude Reason:
Excluded data from Table 4-1 which contains data related to harvest removal of sulfur by various crops at specific yields and the amount of gypsum required to replace the removed sulfur


Exclude Reason:
Excluded data in tables A-4, A-5, A-10, and A-11 which overlap with DeSutter et al. (2014) Table 3. DeSutter yields were corrected to 13.5% moisture.


Exclude Reason:
Excluded Table 3 nutrient uptake data which require conversions; the majority of constituents measured (e.g., potassium, iron, manganese) are not going to be of great importance to the evaluation.


Exclude Reason:
Excluded Table 3 leachable content of FGD gypsum (not leachate concentration)


Exclude Reason:
Excluded Table 2 leachable content of FGD gypsum (not leachate concentration)


Exclude Reason:
Excluded leachate data due to no final pH


Exclude Reason:
Data excluded from Table 2 for Maximum integrated framework; duplicate of the highest pH-dependent values aready captured from other tables in the study


Exclude Reason:
Excluded Table 2 mercury fractions; calculated values for fraction in FGD product, not relevant to analysis; also excluded total mercury from this table since they apply to size fractions of the FGD product instead of the whole sample


Exclude Reason:
Excluded EPA Method 1311 (TCLP) and EPA Method 1312 (SPLP) leachate data due to no final pH (initial only)


Exclude Reason:
Excluded EPA Method 1312 (SPLP) leachate data due to no final pH


Exclude Reason:
Excluded Figure 24 mercury emission concentrations; could not be converted into a useable form


Exclude Reason:
Table 2-1 data overlaps with Chen et al. (2014); all values agree with Chen except molybdenum (mined and FGD) and Barium (mined), used later source, Chen, for those values


Exclude Reason:
Table 3-1 Microwave Digest and ICP Analysis for FGD and Mined (hay study) excluded due to overlap with Kost et al. (2014) and differing values for just these data points; more recent data considered better for these


Exclude Reason:
Table 2 Mercury by ICP results presented as BDLs without detection limits; could not get detection limits from author


Exclude Reason:
Table 1 methylmercury values for Alabama FGDG and Ohio FGDG given as zero, contacted the author who indicated they were non-detects, but could not provide a detection limit


Exclude Reason:
Zero values in Soils Data 2009 2011 FGD Gypsum Watkinsville Data for EPA.xlsx, worksheet RSP09_11 Soil Rufus  gkg:  Sample ID 22, As mg/kg; Sample ID 109, K g/kg; Sample ID 112, K g/kg


Exclude Reason:
Excluded data from Table C-3 for tests on DaAW sample at various temperatures; values for high furnace temperatures are not useful for analysis


Exclude Reason:
Excluded data from Table 1 for as-received and before drier; kept dry basis, after drier data


Exclude Reason:
Excluded data from Tables 2, 3, and 4 for all but samples S1 and D11 since the other samples were at different points in the process, not the feedstock or final wallboard product


Exclude Reason:
Excluded data from Tables 1-3 that was replaced with data from the primary source Dontsova et al. (2005), and data from Table 6-1 which overlaps with various EPRI reports


Exclude Reason:
Excluded data for samples 245, 247, and 255 since they are not representative of the type of FGD gyspum we are looking at in this analysis


Exclude Reason:
Included only the minimum and maximum values since they were actual sampled results, and excluded the average values since they were calculated


# Gypsum

Publication:
Soil Science Society of America 72:1464-1470

Additional QA/QC Type:
Experiments were performed in four replicates


Authors:
Stout, W.L., A.N. Sharpley, W.J. Gburek, and H.B. Pionke

Additional QA/QC Type:
Samples were performed with four replicate


Site ID:
purchased from Tyler Grain & Fertilizer Company in Smithville, OH

Publication:
Flue Gas Desulfurization Gypsum Agricultural Network Ohio Sites 1 (Mixed Hay) and 2 (Corn)

Sources of Outside Funding:
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

Additional QA/QC Type:
interlaboratory comparison for consistency; no other QC samples reported


Site ID:
mined gypsum was from MK Minerals, Inc., Wathena, Kansas and was commercially available as pelletize

Publication:
Flue Gas Desulfurization Gypsum Agricultural Network Wisconsin Arlington Research Station Fields 295 and 27 (Alfalfa)

Authors:
W. Dick, D. Kost, L.D. Norton, R.P. Wolkowski

Author Affiliation:
The Ohio State University; United States Department of Agriculture – Agricultural Research Service; University of Wisconsin-Madison

Additional QA/QC Type:
reagent blank, standard reference materials, proficiency testing, check samples, and interlaboratory comparison


Site ID:
Pleasant Prairie Power Plant (We Energies, Milwaukee, Wisconsin)

Additional Comments:
Washed based on communication with author


Site ID:
Public Service Company of New Mexico’s San Juan Generating Plant

Value Type:
Average of single sample analyzed two times

Publication:
Flue Gas Desulfurization Gypsum Agricultural Network New Mexico Sites 1 (Alfalfa) and 2 (Sodic Soils)

Author Affiliation:
The Ohio State University; New Mexico State University

Additional Comments:
corrected obvious typo, was 21120 (2116 in EPRI 2008); Unwashed based on communication with author


Site ID:
local Intermountain Farmer Association retail store.

Value Type:
Average of single sample analyzed four times


Sample Collection Method:
collected in new, clean 5-gallon metal or plastic buckets with sealable lids

Publication:
Composition and Leaching of FGD Gypsum and Mined Gypsum

Additional QA/QC Type:
duplicates, triplicates (Hg), spikes, calibration standards, digestion blank, and certified reference material


Sample Collection Method:
crushed samples from 11 different mines provided by United States Gypsum


Sample Collection Method:
One 5 gallon bucket of washed FGD gypsum from Unit 3

Publication:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA-600/R-09/151

Authors:
D. Kosson, F. Sanchez, P. Kariher, L.H. Turner, R. Delapp, P. Seignette

Author Affiliation:
Vanderbilt University, ARCADIS, Turner Technology, LLC, Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands

Additional QA/QC Type:
standards, initial calibration verification, continuing calibration verification standards, instrument blanks, spikes


Sample Collection Method:
Composite of 3 daily samples of washed gypsum


Sample Collection Method:
Composite of 3 daily samples of unwashed gypsum


Sample Collection Method:
One 5 gallon bucket of washed FGD gypsum


Sample Collection Method:
One 5 gallon bucket of moist FGD gypsum before the water wash


Authors:
H.H. Schomberg, D.M. Endale, M.B. Jenkins, R.L. Chaney, and D.H. Franklin

Additional QA/QC Type:
standards, duplicates, spikes, and filter paper


Sample Collection Method:
One 5 gallon bucket of the unwashed fly ash/FGD gypsum material from unit 7


Sample Collection Method:
One 5 gallon bucket of unwashed gypsum from Unit 3


Sample Collection Method:
One 5 gallon bucket of dry FGD gypsum after water wash


Site ID:
North America (East coast, West coast, Central U.S., and mountianous West)

Sample Collection Method:
Composite of the raw powdered material used during each month to manufacture wallboard

Publication:
Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 16:317-339

Authors:
Yost, L.J., S.S. Shock, S.E. Holm, Y.W. Lowney, and J.J. Noggle

Additional QA/QC Type:
Certified reference materials – IAEA-405(Sediment) and NBS-1630 (Coal)


Preparation Method:
Digestion, Nitric and Hydroflouric Acids (EPA Method 3052)


Additional QA/QC Type:
A laboratory reagent blank (LRB) control sample was included with each digestion batch as a blank sample control and a standard reference control sample (SRM)was also included with each digestion batch.


Authors:
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

Additional QA/QC Type:
Reagent blanks; appropriate SRMs; internal reference samples; experiments perfomed in replicate

Additional Comments:
used in the rainfall simulation study; Washed based on communication with author


Sample Collection Method:
collected from material being loaded onto trucks to be transported to the field site


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:273-286

Additional QA/QC Type:
Samples were performed in four replicate


Sample Collection Method:
grayish powder, but also contained some rocks


Sample Collection Method:
pelletized for application by a commercial supplier


Sample Collection Method:
pelletized samples with a lignin coating


Preparation Method:
EPA Method 3050B (Kimbrough and Wakakuwa, 1989)

Sources of Outside Funding:
University of Maryland Eastern Shore, USDA Agricultural Research Service


Sources of Outside Funding:
Ohio Coal Development Office and The Ohio State University

Additional QA/QC Type:
Extraction samples performed with replicate and blank


Sample Collection Method:
Sampled from the horizontal belt vacuum filter in 1999 and from the absorber tank in 2007

Preparation Method:
Filtered, dried at 40 degrees C, homgenized

Authors:
Stergarsek, A., M. Horvat, J. Kotnik, J. Tratnik, P. Frkal, D. Kocman, R. Jacimovic, V. Fajon, M. Ponikvar, I. Hrastel, J. Lenart, B. Debeljak, and M. Cujez

Sources of Outside Funding:
Nuclear Safety Administration; P1-0143 and project L2-9023 Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology of the R Slovenia; Center of Excellence for Environmental Technologies, European Regional Development Fund

Additional Comments:
Samples were taken hourly over a period of 24h in 2007


Publication:
Texas Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources 15:44-50

Authors:
Grichar, W.J., B.A. Besler, and K.D. Brewer

Additional QA/QC Type:
Experiment samples were performed in four replicates


Preparation Method:
Digestion, Nitric and Hydrochloric Acid (EPA Method 3051A)

Publication:
Flue Gas Desulfurization Gypsum Agricultural Network 2008 Progress Report


Additional Comments:
Unwashed based on communication with author


Publication:
Journal of Hazardous Materials 192:1659-1666

Authors:
Alvarez-Ayuso, E., A. Gimenez, and J.C. Ballesteros

Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A08

Additional QA/QC Type:
Phytotoxicity tests were performed in triplicate; SRM 2695


Authors:
Alvarez-Ayuso, E., X. Querol, and A. Tomas


Sources of Outside Funding:
Research Fund for Coal and Steel (RFCS) EU research programme, Project Abetrap (RFS-CR-06006),


Analytical Method:
ICP-AES (EPA Method 6010B) or ICP-MS (EPA Method 6020)


Additional Comments:
wallboard feed; assumed washed based on use for wallboard manufacture


Sample Collection Method:
1x1 m wallboard samples collected over 4 weeks; crushed and seived  through 400-mesh (150 um)

Publication:
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

Authors:
Lee, J.Y., K. Cho, L. Cheng, T.C. Keener, G. Jegadeesan, and S.R. Al-Abed

Author Affiliation:
University of Cincinnati, Gradient Corporation, U.S. EPA

Sources of Outside Funding:
National Risk Management Research Laboratory of U.S. EPA

Additional Comments:
Unwashed based on Al-Abed contact (same material used in both articles)


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:273-291


Publication:
Environmental Science and Technology 42:1693-1698

Authors:
Al-Abed, S.R., G. Jegadeesan, K.G. Scheckel, and T. Tolaymat

Author Affiliation:
National Risk Management Research Laboratory

Sources of Outside Funding:
National Risk Management Research Laboratory

Additional Comments:
"unwashed" based on communication with author


Publication:
Oriental Journal of Chemistry 29(3):1027-1032

Authors:
Yodthongdee, Y., P. Sooksamiti, J. Jakmunee, and S. Lapanantnoppakhun

Sources of Outside Funding:
Office of Primary Industries and Mines, Region 3 Chiang Mai, The Graduate School Chiang Mai University

Additional QA/QC Type:
Plant digestion duplicates, spiked soil and plant samples


Publication:
Commission of the European Communities Technical Coal Research

Sources of Outside Funding:
European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC)


Publication:
The Ohio State University Extension Fact Sheet: ANR-20-05

Authors:
Dontsova, K., Y.B. Lee, B.K. Slater, and J.M. Bigham


Publication:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report: EPA-600/R-09/152

Additional QA/QC Type:
Blanks, instrument calibration samples, replicates, and matrix spikes; EPA Method 29 and Method 7470A

Additional Comments:
Wallboard manufacture simulation tests; assumed washed based on use for wallboard manufacture


Publication:
EERC 2007 Mercury and Air Toxic Element Impacts of Coal Combustion By-product Dispoal and Utilization


Sample Collection Method:
Collected each day during testing period and dewatering system operation

Authors:
Cheng, C.M., P. Hack, P. Chu, Y.N. Chang, T.Y. Lin, C.S. Ko, P.H. Chiang, C.C. He, Y.M. Lai, and W.P. Pan

Additional Comments:
Unwashed based on process diagram and sample point


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:263-272

Authors:
Chen, L., D. Kost, Y. Tian, X. Guo, D. Watts, D. Norton, R.P. Wolkowski, and W.A. Dick

Sources of Outside Funding:
The Ohio State University/The Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:273-292


Publication:
Compost Science & Utilization 16(4):285-300

Authors:
Tubail, K., L. Chen, F.C. Michel Jr., H.M. Keener, J.F. Rigot, M. Klingman, D. Kost, and W.A. Dick

Author Affiliation:
Al-Azhar University, The Ohio State University

Sources of Outside Funding:
Fulbright Scholarship, The Ohio State University


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:273-287


Author Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, Gobierno de Navarra

Additional QA/QC Type:
Crusting prevention experiment replicated four times.


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:273-293


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:246-252


Preparation Method:
Not Reported; samples analyzed by third party at the University of Georgia Soil, Plant, and Water Laboratory

Analytical Method:
Not Reported; samples analyzed by third party at the University of Georgia Soil, Plant, and Water Laboratory

Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:281-289

Authors:
Endale, D.M., H.H. Schomberg, D.S. Fisher, D.H. Franklin, and M.B. Jenkins

Sources of Outside Funding:
Southern Company, Duke Energy, The Tennessee Valley Authority, U.S. EPA, and USDA

Additional QA/QC Type:
Sulfur application experiments were performed in three replicates


Publication:
Compost Science & Utilization 16(4):285-297


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43(1):290-296

Authors:
Sheng, J., A. Adeli, J.P. Brooks, M.R. McLaughlin, and J. Read

Author Affiliation:
Institute of Agricultural Resources and Environment

Additional QA/QC Type:
Samples were performed in three replicate


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:273-282


Site ID:
(brand name Nutrasoft) was purchased from Agland Cooperative in Canfield, OH


Site ID:
Power Plant A, a high-sulfur bitmunious coal fired power plant with SCR and an LSFO FGD system

Publication:
U.S. DOE 2005 Topical Report, Task 1 Wallboard Plant Test Results

Additional QA/QC Type:
Method blanks and reagent blanks for the Ontario Hydro Method samples

Additional Comments:
Washed, based on assumption that FGD gypsum used in wallboard is washed


Preparation Method:
Digestion, 18.3 mΩ water at 100 degrees C

Publication:
Environmental Science and Technology 44:4012-4018


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:273-294


Publication:
Compost Science & Utilization 16(4):285-301


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:273-288


Sample Collection Method:
collected in powder form with wallboard, homogenized in rotary tumblers

Additional Comments:
One of two samples selected for relatively high mercury content; "unwashed" based on communication with author; Hg by DMA and other metals reported in Al-abed et al. (2008) for same sample


Sample Collection Method:
collected after fly ash collection using an electrostatic precipitator or fabric filter

Publication:
2014 Journal of Environmental Quality 43:253-262

Authors:
Briggs, C.W., R. Fine, M. Markee, and M.S. Gustin

Additional QA/QC Type:
Filter blanks; method blanks; routine Tekron equipment calibration; samples analyzed in triplicate


Sample Collection Method:
commercially available gypsum obtained nearby


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:273-284


Publication:
Compost Science & Utilization 16(4):285-302


Additional Comments:
converted value from percent using conversion factor of 10,000


Publication:
Compost Science & Utilization 16(4):285-298


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:273-283


Publication:
Compost Science & Utilization 16(4):285-303


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:273-289


Additional Comments:
Note two mercury analyses conducted on same sample; Unwashed based on Al-Abed contact (same material used in both articles)


Authors:
Rallo, M., M.A. Lopez-Anton, R. Perry, M.M. Maroto-Valer


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:273-301


Additional Comments:
"unwashed" based on communication with author; analytical method from Lee et al. (2009)


Site ID:
Plant B12 Unit A, coal:  Pennsylvania, Illinois

Additional QA/QC Type:
Samples were performed in three replicate; spiked controls


Publication:
Masters Theses & Specialist Projects. Paper 1199


Additional Comments:
Washed, based on assumption that FGD gypsum used in wallboard is washed; analyzed by URS


Sample ID 2:
Raw gypsum feed to dryer mill, as measured dry basis; Run 2


Sample ID 2:
Raw gypsum feed to dryer mill, as measured dry basis; Run 3


Sample ID 2:
Raw gypsum feed to dryer mill, as measured dry basis; Run 1


Authors:
Pekney, N.J., D. Martello, K. Schroeder, and E. Granite

Sources of Outside Funding:
U.S. DOE Postgraduate Research Program at the National Energy Technology Laboratory, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education

Additional Comments:
Wallboard samples from commercial wall board manufacturers; meet manufacturers specs (assumed to be washed)


Additional Comments:
FGD gypsum samples from commercial wall board manufacturers; meet manufacturers specs (assumed to be washed)


Sample Collection Method:
Wallboard samples timed so sampled feed was in wallboard

Value Type:
Average 3 replicates, 3 samples per plant

Authors:
Kairies, C.L., K.T. Schroeder, and C.R. Cardone

Additional QA/QC Type:
Analyses were performed in replicate, and 3 samples collected from plant

Additional Comments:
Assumed washed based on wallboard manufacture


Sample ID 2:
Matched samples (feed & wallboard); whole


Sample Collection Method:
Taken from waste streams at selected power plant

Additional QA/QC Type:
Blanks, instrument calibration samples, replicates, and matrix spikes; EPA Method 7470A


Publication:
Compost Science & Utilization 16(4):285-304


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:273-295


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:273-296


Publication:
Compost Science & Utilization 16(4):285-293


Publication:
Compost Science & Utilization 16(4):285-296


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:273-281


Authors:
Chen, L., C. Ramsier, J. Bigham, B. Slater, D. Kost, Y.B. Lee, and W.A. Dick


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:273-297


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:273-298


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:273-299


Publication:
Compost Science & Utilization 16(4):285-299


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:273-285


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:273-300


Publication:
Compost Science & Utilization 16(4):285-305


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:273-290


Additional Comments:
Lithium not reported in EPRI (2013f); Washed based on communication with author


Additional Comments:
Lithium not reported in EPRI (2012b); Washed based on communication with author


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:312-321

Authors:
Kost, D., L. Chen, X. Guo, Y. Tian, K. Ladwig, and W.A. Dick


Sample Collection Method:
Composite of samples collected during a 3-day sampling period

Authors:
Cheng, C.M., Y.N. Chang, K.R. Sistani, Y.W. Wang, W.C. Lu, C.W. Lin, J.H. Dong, C.C. Hu, and W.P. Pan

Additional Comments:
Same materials as Cheng et al. (2009); author confirmed unwashed


# Leachate

Authors:
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

Additional QA/QC Type:
Reagent blanks; appropriate SRMs; internal reference samples; experiments perfomed in replicate

Additional Comments:
Washed based on communication with author


Publication:
Flue Gas Desulfurization Gypsum Agricultural Network Wisconsin Arlington Research Station Fields 295 and 27 (Alfalfa)

Authors:
W. Dick, D. Kost, L.D. Norton, R.P. Wolkowski

Author Affiliation:
The Ohio State University; United States Department of Agriculture – Agricultural Research Service; University of Wisconsin-Madison

Sources of Outside Funding:
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

Additional QA/QC Type:
reagent blank, standard reference materials, proficiency testing, check samples, and interlaboratory comparison


Publication:
Flue Gas Desulfurization Gypsum Agricultural Network Ohio Sites 1 (Mixed Hay) and 2 (Corn)

Additional QA/QC Type:
interlaboratory comparison for consistency; no other QC samples reported


Sample Collection Method:
crushed samples from 11 different mines provided by United States Gypsum

Publication:
Composition and Leaching of FGD Gypsum and Mined Gypsum

Additional QA/QC Type:
duplicates, triplicates (Hg), spikes, calibration standards, digestion blank, and certified reference material


Sample Collection Method:
collected in new, clean 5-gallon metal or plastic buckets


Additional Comments:
final leachate pH was not available for this sample


Sample Collection Method:
grayish powder, but also contained some rocks

Additional QA/QC Type:
QA Approved; standards, recovery and acceptance limits, and holding time limits were used to asses QA/QC


Sample Collection Method:
pelletized samples with a lignin coating


Preparation Method:
Diffusion controlled leaching, functon of time, Kosson et al. (2002)

Sources of Outside Funding:
Ohio Coal Development Office and The Ohio State University

Additional QA/QC Type:
Extraction samples performed with replicate and blank


Preparation Method:
Method 1313 predecessor; Kosson et al. (2002)


Publication:
Journal of Hazardous Materials 192:1659-1666

Authors:
Alvarez-Ayuso, E., A. Gimenez, and J.C. Ballesteros

Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A08

Additional QA/QC Type:
Phytotoxicity tests were performed in triplicate; SRM 2695


Additional Comments:
original source had <0.0000; filled in 0.0001 based on detection limit for Sb by SW-846 1312 and ICP-MS given in USGS paper from 2000


Analytical Method:
EPA Method 6010b (ICP AES) or 6020 (ICP MS)

Publication:
EERC 2007 Mercury and Air Toxic Element Impacts of Coal Combustion By-product Dispoal and Utilization


Preparation Method:
18-hour SGLP (synthetic groundwater leaching procedure)


Preparation Method:
60-day SGLP long-term leaching (LTL) test


Additional Comments:
original source had 0.000; response from Warren Dick indicated to use <0.001 which is the lowest detection limit provided in table B-2


Publication:
Environmental Science and Technology 44:4012-4018

Additional Comments:
Material subjected to "repeated" leaching by processing sample through SPLP 4-5 times


Publication:
Masters Theses & Specialist Projects. Paper 1199


Sample Collection Method:
percolation samples taken from drainage hole in bottom of soil container

Publication:
2014 Journal of Environmental Quality 43:253-262

Authors:
Briggs, C.W., R. Fine, M. Markee, and M.S. Gustin

Additional QA/QC Type:
Detailed info provided, e.g., filter blanks; method blanks; routine Tekron equipment calibration; samples analyzed in triplicate


Publication:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA-600/R-09/151

Authors:
D. Kosson, F. Sanchez, P. Kariher, L.H. Turner, R. Delapp, P. Seignette

Author Affiliation:
Vanderbilt University, ARCADIS, Turner Technology, LLC, Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands

Additional QA/QC Type:
Peer reviewed ORD Research and Development Report, standards, initial calibration verification, continuing calibration verification standards, instrument blanks, spikes


Sample Collection Method:
One 5 gallon bucket of washed FGD gypsum


Sample Collection Method:
Composite of 3 daily samples of unwashed gypsum


Sample Collection Method:
Composite of 3 daily samples of washed gypsum


Sample Collection Method:
One 5 gallon bucket of unwashed gypsum from Unit 3


Sample Collection Method:
One 5 gallon bucket of washed FGD gypsum from Unit 3


Sample Collection Method:
One 5 gallon bucket of the unwashed fly ash/FGD gypsum material from unit 7


Sample Collection Method:
One 5 gallon bucket of moist FGD gypsum before the water wash


Sample Collection Method:
One 5 gallon bucket of dry FGD gypsum after water wash


# Soil

Publication:
Flue Gas Desulfurization Gypsum Agricultural Network Wisconsin Arlington Research Station Fields 295 and 27 (Alfalfa)

Authors:
W. Dick, D. Kost, L.D. Norton, R.P. Wolkowski

Author Affiliation:
The Ohio State University; United States Department of Agriculture – Agricultural Research Service; University of Wisconsin-Madison

Sources of Outside Funding:
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

Additional QA/QC Type:
reagent blank, standard reference materials, proficiency testing, check samples, and interlaboratory comparison


Sample Collection Method:
composite soil samples were taken from each of four quadrants of the plot area

Value Type:
Average of single sample analyzed two times

Publication:
Flue Gas Desulfurization Gypsum Agricultural Network New Mexico Sites 1 (Alfalfa) and 2 (Sodic Soils)

Author Affiliation:
The Ohio State University; New Mexico State University


Authors:
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

Additional QA/QC Type:
Reagent blanks; appropriate SRMs; internal reference samples; experiments perfomed in replicate


Publication:
Flue Gas Desulfurization Gypsum Agricultural Network Ohio Sites 1 (Mixed Hay) and 2 (Corn)

Additional QA/QC Type:
interlaboratory comparison for consistency; no other QC samples reported


Additional Comments:
Washed based on communication with author


Sample Collection Method:
top 30 cm of the profile in a grid-like pattern throughout the study area


Authors:
Chen, L., C. Ramsier, J. Bigham, B. Slater, D. Kost, Y.B. Lee, and W.A. Dick

Additional QA/QC Type:
Samples were performed in four replicate


Sample ID 2:
7.5-15 cm soil depth; Coastal Plains soil

Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:273-289


Sample ID 2:
5-7.5 cm soil depth; Coastal Plains soil


Sample ID 2:
2.5-5 cm soil depth; Coastal Plains soil


Sample ID 2:
0-15cm; FGD 0 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 0 Mg/ha

Additional QA/QC Type:
standards, duplicates, spikes, and filter paper


Sample ID 2:
0-15cm; FGD 0 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 13.45 Mg/ha


Sample ID 2:
0-15cm; FGD 4.48 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 13.45 Mg/ha


Sample ID 2:
0-15cm; FGD 8.97 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 13.45 Mg/ha


Sample ID 2:
0-15cm; FGD 8.97 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 0 Mg/ha


Sample ID 2:
0-15cm; FGD 2.24 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 13.45 Mg/ha


Publication:
Flue Gas Desulfurization Gypsum Agricultural Network North Dakota Sites 3, 4, and 5 (Canola)

Authors:
W. Dick, D. Kost, T. DeSutter, L. Cihacek

Author Affiliation:
The Ohio State University; North Dakota State University

Additional Comments:
Unwashed based on communication with author


Sample ID 2:
0-15 cm; Ammonium Sulfate (with N as urea)


Sample Collection Method:
randomly collected, composited, sub-sampled, air-dried, ground to pass through a 2-mm sieve

Publication:
Flue Gas Desulfurization Gypsum Agricultural Network North Dakota Sites 1 and 2 (Wheat)


Additional Comments:
result from STAR Laboratory at OSU; same sample also analyzed by DeSutter and the results were similar


Sample ID 2:
chromic luvisol with a loamy sand texture

Publication:
Journal of Hazardous Materials 192:1659-1666

Authors:
Alvarez-Ayuso, E., A. Gimenez, and J.C. Ballesteros

Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A08

Additional QA/QC Type:
Phytotoxicity tests were performed in triplicate; SRM 2695


Sample ID 2:
gleyic acrisol with a sandy loam texture


Sample ID 2:
5-7.5; FGD 2.24 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 13.45 Mg/ha


Sample ID 2:
2.5-5; FGD 8.97 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 13.45 Mg/ha


Sample ID 2:
5-7.5; FGD 8.97 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 13.45 Mg/ha


Sample ID 2:
2.5-5; FGD 2.24 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 13.45 Mg/ha


Sample ID 2:
7.5-15; FGD 0 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 0 Mg/ha


Sample ID 2:
2.5-5; FGD 0 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 13.45 Mg/ha


Sample ID 2:
2.5-5; FGD 4.48 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 13.45 Mg/ha


Sample ID 2:
5-7.5; FGD 8.97 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 0 Mg/ha


Sample ID 2:
5-7.5; FGD 0 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 13.45 Mg/ha


Sample ID 2:
2.5-5; FGD 8.97 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 0 Mg/ha


Sample ID 2:
7.5-15; FGD 2.24 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 13.45 Mg/ha


Sample ID 2:
5-7.5; FGD 0 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 0 Mg/ha


Sample ID 2:
2.5-5; FGD 0 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 0 Mg/ha


Sample ID 2:
5-7.5; FGD 4.48 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 13.45 Mg/ha


Sample ID 2:
7.5-15; FGD 8.97 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 13.45 Mg/ha


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A27


Sample ID 2:
7.5-15; FGD 4.48 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 13.45 Mg/ha


Sample ID 2:
7.5-15; FGD 0 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 13.45 Mg/ha


Sample ID 2:
7.5-15; FGD 8.97 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 0 Mg/ha


Sample ID 2:
0-2.5; FGD 4.48 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 13.45 Mg/ha


Sample ID 2:
0-2.5; FGD 2.24 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 13.45 Mg/ha


Sample ID 2:
0-15 cm; FGD 0 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 13.45 Mg/ha


Sample ID 2:
0-15 cm; FGD 0 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 0 Mg/ha


Sample ID 2:
0-15 cm; FGD 8.97 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 0 Mg/ha


Sample ID 2:
0-2.5; FGD 0 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 13.45 Mg/ha


Sample ID 2:
0-2.5; FGD 8.97 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 13.45 Mg/ha


Sample ID 2:
0-15 cm; FGD 2.24 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 13.45 Mg/ha


Sample ID 2:
0-15 cm; FGD 8.97 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 13.45 Mg/ha


Sample ID 2:
0-2.5; FGD 8.97 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 0 Mg/ha


Sample ID 2:
0-15 cm; FGD 4.48 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 13.45 Mg/ha


Sample ID 2:
0-2.5; FGD 0 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 0 Mg/ha


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:263-272

Authors:
Chen, L., D. Kost, Y. Tian, X. Guo, D. Watts, D. Norton, R.P. Wolkowski, and W.A. Dick

Sources of Outside Funding:
The Ohio State University/The Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center

Additional QA/QC Type:
Blanks and NIST reference materials used per 20 samples.


Additional Comments:
Washed based on communication with author (EPRI 2013f)


Additional Comments:
Washed based on communication with author (EPRI 2013)


Additional Comments:
Washed based on communication with author (EPRI 2012b)


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:273-293


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A17


Sample ID 2:
not specified; FGD 8.9 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 0 Mg/ha

Additional QA/QC Type:
water blank for runoff; no other QC samples reported


Sample ID 2:
not specified; FGD 0 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 13.4 Mg/ha


Sample ID 2:
not specified; FGD 2.2 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 13.4 Mg/ha


Sample ID 2:
not specified; FGD 4.4 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 13.4 Mg/ha


Sample ID 2:
not specified; FGD 8.9 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 13.4 Mg/ha


Sample ID 2:
not specified; FGD 0 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 0 Mg/ha


Site ID:
Samko district, Ang-thong province, Thailand

Publication:
Oriental Journal of Chemistry 29(3):1027-1032

Authors:
Yodthongdee, Y., P. Sooksamiti, J. Jakmunee, and S. Lapanantnoppakhun

Sources of Outside Funding:
Office of Primary Industries and Mines, Region 3 Chiang Mai, The Graduate School Chiang Mai University

Additional QA/QC Type:
Plant digestion duplicates, spiked soil and plant samples


Site ID:
TakFa district, Nakornsawan province, Thailand


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A18


Sample ID 2:
time after surface application 3 days; 0 - 10 cm


Sample ID 2:
time after surface application 17 days; 0 - 10 cm


Sample ID 2:
time after surface application 45 days; 0 - 10 cm


Sample ID 2:
time after surface application 61 days; 0 - 10 cm


Sample ID 2:
time after surface application 7 days; 0 - 10 cm


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:322-327

Sources of Outside Funding:
University of Wisconsin Consortium for Extension and Research in Agriculture and Natural Resources

Additional QA/QC Type:
Samples were performed in four replicates; blanks


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A19


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:273-295


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43(1):2118-2128

Authors:
Cox, J.W., J. Varcoe, D.J. Chittleborough, and J. van Leeuwen


Sample Collection Method:
surface soil (15 cm), air dried, sieved (4-mm)

Publication:
Soil Science Society of America 70:1788-1796

Authors:
Favaretto, N., L.D. Norton, B.C. Joern, and S.M. Brouder

Author Affiliation:
Universidade Federal do Parana, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Purdue University

Additional QA/QC Type:
Samples were performed in three replicates; blanks


Sample ID 2:
Miami silt loam; 5000 kg/ha CaSO4•2H2O + 176 kg/ha N


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43(1):290-296

Authors:
Sheng, J., A. Adeli, J.P. Brooks, M.R. McLaughlin, and J. Read

Author Affiliation:
Institute of Agricultural Resources and Environment

Additional QA/QC Type:
Samples were performed in three replicate


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:273-285


Publication:
Soil Science Society of America 72:1464-1470

Additional QA/QC Type:
Experiments were performed in four replicates


Preparation Method:
centrifuge extract from soil:water saturation paste


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A09


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:273-281


Sample ID 2:
bermuda-grass, Hartsells fine sandy loam


Sample ID 2:
alfalfa, Ringwood and Huntsville silt loams


Publication:
2014 Journal of Environmental Quality 43:253-262

Authors:
Briggs, C.W., R. Fine, M. Markee, and M.S. Gustin

Additional QA/QC Type:
Filter blanks; method blanks; routine Tekron equipment calibration; samples analyzed in triplicate


Publication:
Florida Institute of Phosphate Research Publication No. 01-020-092

Sources of Outside Funding:
Florida Institute of Phosphate Research (FIPR)

Additional QA/QC Type:
Samples were performed in three replicate; blanks


Publication:
Florida Institute of Phosphate Research Publication No. 01-020-098


Publication:
Florida Institute of Phosphate Research Publication No. 01-020-086


Analytical Method:
exchangeable cation summation (Warncke and Brown, 1998)


Sample Collection Method:
three samples divided into four subsamples

Publication:
Soil Science Society of America 66:92-98


Additional Comments:
assumed Cl was chloride, but no documentation to be sure


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:273-296


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A20


Analytical Method:
EPA Method 7196A (Cr VI by diphenylcarbazide/spec)


Publication:
Florida Institute of Phosphate Research Publication No. 01-020-084


Publication:
Florida Institute of Phosphate Research Publication No. 01-020-090


Publication:
Florida Institute of Phosphate Research Publication No. 01-020-096


Preparation Method:
Not Reported; samples analyzed by third party at the University of Georgia Soil, Plant, and Water Laboratory

Analytical Method:
Not Reported; samples analyzed by third party at the University of Georgia Soil, Plant, and Water Laboratory

Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:281-289

Authors:
Endale, D.M., H.H. Schomberg, D.S. Fisher, D.H. Franklin, and M.B. Jenkins

Sources of Outside Funding:
Southern Company, Duke Energy, The Tennessee Valley Authority, U.S. EPA, and USDA

Additional QA/QC Type:
Sulfur application experiments were performed in three replicates


Additional Comments:
Comment from Source: Plots in 2008 and 2009 were in the same field but in different areas and thus the soil textures for the Barnes I site, but not the Barnes II site, are reported.


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:273-291


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A21


Preparation Method:
saturated soil paste extract (Rhoades, 1996)


Publication:
Florida Institute of Phosphate Research Publication No. 01-020-094


Publication:
Florida Institute of Phosphate Research Publication No. 01-020-095


Analytical Method:
conductivity bridge (meter) (Rhoades, 1996)


Analytical Method:
ISE, after ionic strength and pH sample conditioning (Agarwal, 2002)

Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A29


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A32


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A36


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A40


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A80


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A84


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A56


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A72


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A64


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A88


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A48


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A60


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A76


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A52


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A68


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A44


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A22


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A39


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A35


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A31


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A83


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A79


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A87


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A67


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A51


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A71


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A75


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A59


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A47


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A43


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A55


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A63


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:273-288


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A10


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A26


Publication:
Soil Science and Plant Analysis 42:2537-2547

Authors:
DeSutter, T.M., J. Lukach, and L.J. Cihacek

Additional QA/QC Type:
Sulfur application experiments were performed in six replicates


Sample ID 2:
30 kg N ha as MAP and urea, and 49 kg P ha as MAP


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:303-311

Authors:
DeSutter, T.M., L.J. Cihacek, and S. Rahman

Additional QA/QC Type:
Sulfur application experiments were performed in four replicates


Sample ID 2:
30 kg N ha as monoammonium phosphate (MAP) and ammonium sulfate, and 49 kg P ha as MAP


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:273-286


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A12


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:273-292


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A13


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A23


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:273-294


Sample ID 2:
Final mercury concentration, cherry radish study, Table 22

Publication:
Masters Theses & Specialist Projects. Paper 1199


Sample ID 2:
Initial, pre-moistened bare soil (Table 19)


Sample ID 2:
Final, bare soil after 1 month (Table 19)


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Sciences 25(9):1858-1864

Authors:
Wang, K., W. Orndorff, Y. Cao, and W. Pan

Sources of Outside Funding:
U.S. Department of Agriculture (No. 6445-12630-003-00D)


Sample ID 2:
Before 520 mL/day irrigation, Earthgro soil


Sample ID 2:
After 520 mL/day irrigation rate, 30 days; Earthgro soil


Sample ID 2:
After 260 mL/day irrigation rate, 30 days; Earthgro soil


Sample ID 2:
After 130 mL/day irrigation rate, 30 days, Earthgro soil


Sample ID 2:
Before 260 ml/day irrigation, Earthgro soil


Sample ID 2:
Before 130 ml/day irrigation, Earthgro soil


Sample Collection Method:
sample depth (0-15 cm) homogenized soil cores

Additional Comments:
Mercury stability; experiments conducted in Rubbermaid tubs used for experiments; the increase in application rates represents 1, 10, and 80 yr of accumulation


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A24


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:273-298


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A25


Publication:
Florida Institute of Phosphate Research Publication No. 01-020-087


Publication:
Florida Institute of Phosphate Research Publication No. 01-020-099


Publication:
Florida Institute of Phosphate Research Publication No. 01-020-093


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:273-297


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:273-284


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A11


Publication:
Florida Institute of Phosphate Research Publication No. 01-020-089


Publication:
Florida Institute of Phosphate Research Publication No. 01-020-083


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A28


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:273-299


Publication:
Florida Institute of Phosphate Research Publication No. 01-020-091


Publication:
Florida Institute of Phosphate Research Publication No. 01-020-085


Publication:
Florida Institute of Phosphate Research Publication No. 01-020-097


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:273-287


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A14


Analytical Method:
chromate oxidation (Tiurin method) (Jackson, 1960)


Sources of Outside Funding:
Junta de Castilla y León, Project CSI05A16


Publication:
Journal of Environmental Quality 43:273-290


Publication:
Flue Gas Desulfurization Gypsum Agricultural Network 2008 Progress Report


Additional Comments:
Lithium not included in EPRI (2011d); Unwashed based on communication with author


Sample Collection Method:
composite of samples collected from the centers of four equally divided square sections

Publication:
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

Authors:
Cheng, C.M., Y.N. Chang, K.R. Sistani, Y.W. Wang, W.C. Lu, C.W. Lin, J.H. Dong, C.C. Hu, and W.P. Pan

Additional Comments:
Same materials as Cheng et al. (2009); author confirmed unwashed and provided data behind Fig. 3


Additional Comments:
Same materials as Cheng et al. (2009); author confirmed unwashed and provided data behind Fig. 5


# Water

Additional QA/QC Type:
water blank for runoff; no other QC samples reported


Sample ID 2:
FGD 8.9 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 13.4 Mg/ha


Sample ID 2:
FGD 2.2 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 13.4 Mg/ha


Sample ID 2:
FGD 4.4 Mg/ha; Poultry Litter 13.4 Mg/ha


Sample Collection Method:
collected for sediment and nutrient concentrations every 5 min.

Authors:
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

Additional QA/QC Type:
Reagent blanks; appropriate SRMs; internal reference samples; experiments perfomed in replicate

Additional Comments:
Washed based on communication with author


