Biopolymer composition for remediating degraded soils and for preventing soil erosion

Abstract

The said biopolymer is derived from corn cob waste. The said biopolymer is of specific charge, size, and length, to facilitate aggregation, and create, or improve soil structure, and thus reduce and/or prevent soil erosion, and remediate degraded soils. The said biopolymer is of equal, or better efficacy (for the same dose) as polyacrylamide.

Claims

1. A soil conditioner comprising a corn cob waste derived cellulose microfibrils biopolymer additive, wherein the soil conditioner is structured to modify a soil to water interface so that the composition controls erosion or water infiltration.

2. The biopolymer of claim 1 that can be used in addition to a soil conditioner as a flocculant for waste water, metal contaminated water, and municipal water, for treating potable water, and swimming pool water.

3. The polymer of claim that can be additionally used in food processing and animal feeds.

4. The polymer of claim 1 that can be additionally used in mining, biosolids dewatering, paper production, clarifying refined sugar and fruit juices and to thicken animal feeds.

5. The polymer of claim 1 that can be additionally used for construction site protection, road-cut protection, helicopter landing pads protection, and for remediating degraded soils with poor soil structure.

6. The soil conditioner of claim 1 which can also be derived from rice straw, wheat straw, and sugar bagasse, or any other cellulose source such as waste paper, plant biomass, algae, bacteria, and saw dust.

7. The soil conditioner of claims 1 and 2 wherein the soil conditioner comprises a flocculant.

8. The soil conditioner of claims 1 and 2 wherein the biopolymer additive is combined with water so that the additive in the water is in the range of 10 ppm to 20 ppm.

9. The soil conditioner of claims 1 and 2 which is treated with 0.001 to 0.01M sulfuric or phosphoric acid or any other acid/base/chemical entity conferring negative, positive charge or additional functionality to the biopolymer.

10. The soil conditioner of claims 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 additionally treated with 1 mM to 2.5 mM CaCl.sub.2 or smaller or greater concentration of CaCl.sub.2 or NaCl or any salt or ionic or non-ionic solvent.

11. The soil conditioner of claims 1 and 2 additionally treated with 1 mM to 2.5 mM CaCl.sub.2 or smaller or greater concentration of CaCl.sub.2 or NaCl or any salt or ionic or non-ionic solvent or salt.

12. The soil conditioner of claim 1 wherein the biopolymer additive is derived from waste stream substrates to produce cellulose microfibrils.

13. The soil conditioner of claims 1 and 2 wherein the biopolymer comprises extracted cellulose microfibrils so that the composition comprises the biopolymer from different substrates in combination with the synthetic additive like PAM.

Description

[0021] FIG. 1: a) Cellulose microfibrils bridged by Ca.sup.2+ ions to produce longer microfibrils; b) Prepared cellulose microfibrils bridging between negatively charged soil particles via cationic bridging.

[0022] FIG. 2: Flocculation efficacy of sandy loam as determined by decreasing absorbance as a function vfvffvvvfvfvfvfvvvvfof time.

[0023] FIG. 3: Flocculation efficacy of clay loam as determined by decreasing absorbance as a function of time.

[0024] FIG. 4: Weight of eroded sediment from sandy loam in g for the tap water control, and PAM compared to CMCC-I (Tap water containing biopolymer treated with 0.01 M H.sub.2SO.sub.4 (H.sub.3PO.sub.4) and 2.5 mM CaCl.sub.2

[0025] FIG. 5: Weight of eroded sediment from clay loam in g for the tap water control, and PAM compared to CMCC-I (Tap water containing biopolymer treated with 0.01 M H.sub.2SO.sub.4 (H.sub.3PO.sub.4) and 2.5 mM CaCl.sub.2

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0026] As discussed supra, the present invention comprises a biopolymer additive that, in combination with water, functions as a soil conditioner. The additive comprises cellulose microfibrils derived from agricultural waste e.g., corn cob waste and treated with acid and calcium chloride.

[0027] Conventionally and for the purpose of this disclosure, agricultural waste streams comprise corn cob waste, rice straw, wheat straw, and sugar bagasse. In addition, other sources of cellulose microfibrils may also be utilized such as waste paper, plant biomass, algae, bacteria, saw dust etc.

[0028] Cellulose microfibrils are often extracted by mechanical, and chemical disintegration processes. The homogenization process of extraction, causes cellulose to be degraded with a marked increase in surface area and lateral dimensions of 10-100 nm but reduced length compared to the length of cellulose microfibrils in pristine plant samples. Cellulose microfibrils also contain alternating crystalline and amorphous forms which increases cross linking and hence gel forming ability of cellulose microfibrils.

[0029] Acid hydrolysis is often included as a pre-treatment to reduce the number of homogenization cycles and conserve energy. Orts et al., [2000] tested the conditioning efficacy of cellulose microfibrils isolated from cotton using an acid hydrolysis pre-treatment step treating with 60% sulfuric acid at 60 C. for 30 minutes. It is known that acid hydrolysis pre-treatment dissolves the amorphous form, removing it and producing a much more crystalline end product. This would have resulted in reduction in the length and lateral dimensions of the microfibril thus reducing cross linkage and consequently gel forming ability of the cellulose microfibrils isolated by Orts et al., [2000] and would explain their less than optimum conditioning efficacy.

[0030] Therefore as part of our preferred embodiment, we first refine the isolation process for producing cellulose microfibrils without any acid hydrolysis pre-treatment step.

[0031] In the preferred embodiment, lignin and hemicellulose is first removed from the corn cob waste by treatment with NaOH and NaOCl to derive cellulose gel. The cellulose gel is then treated with concentrated urea solution and cryo crushing to isolate individual cellulose microfibrils. It is important to note that no concentrated acid is used for this purpose to prevent dissolution of cellulose microfibrils and their consequent reduction in length.

[0032] Our second step in optimizing the mass, charge, length, and lateral dimensions of cellulose microfibrils will involve treating with low concentrations of H.sub.2SO.sub.4/H.sub.3PO.sub.4 and low concentrations Ca.sup.2+ not exceeding 2.5 mM CaCl.sub.2. The cellulose microfibrils treated with dilute sulphuric acid or dilute phosphoric acid imparts them with negative charge density thus making them effective replacements for anionic PAM.

[0033] Finally, the cellulose microfibrils are treated with very low concentrations of CaCl.sub.2 to further impart flocculating efficacy to the cellulose microfibrils. Calcium has been shown to have a very positive effect on the soil conditioning efficacy of PAM by cationic bridging between negatively charged clay particles and anionic PAM. As shown in FIG. 1a, Ca.sup.2+0 will both bridge between individual microfibrils increasing their length and cross linking as well as enhance the ability of microfibrils to binding to negatively charged clay particles.

[0034] As shown in FIG. 1, Ca.sup.2+ will both bridge between individual microfibrils increasing their length and cross linking as well as enhance the ability of microfibrils to binding to negatively charged clay particles.

[0035] As shown in FIGS. 2 and 3, we have tested the flocculation efficacy of our biopolymer treatments as compared to PAM and found comparable or better flocculation efficacy.

[0036] Similarly, we have also tested their efficacy for reducing soil erosion in simulated soil furrows and found comparable or better efficacy than PAM.

[0037] Invitro germination tests for corn and sorghum seeds showed that our biopolymer did not impede germination in any way.

[0038] In addition, all treatments of biopolymer treated with 0.001 M to 0.01 M acid and 1 mM, 2 mM or 2.5 mM CaCl.sub.2 are water soluble and can be easily dried to a powder and thus prepared as solid or liquid formulations for easy field application.

EXAMPLE 1

Synthesis of Biopolymer

[0039] The synthesis procedure is novel and was carefully formulated to isolate cellulose microfibrils from corn cobs in individual microfibrils without reducing their length. The isolation of cellulose gel from corn cobs is based on Shogren et al., [2011]. Corn cobs free from corn kernels were air dried and ground to pass through a 2 mm screen. Ground corn cob powder in the amount of 220 g was added to 2 l of 1 M NaOH in a resin flask and heated at 80 degree C. while stirring slowly for 2 h. After cooling, suspension was filtered through Whatman 541 filter paper with 22 micron pore size. The residue was washed 3-4 times with water. The NaOH extraction was repeated two more times. The combined extract was added to 0.6% NaOCl and heated at 80 degree C. for 2 hours while stirring intermittently. The resulting white, water swollen gel was stored at 4 degree C. after cooling. One liter of cellulose gel suspension was diluted to 2% concentration and the suspension was made to a concentration of 8 M in urea. The suspension was heated to 70-80 degree C. and then centrifuged at 7000 rpm for 10 minutes. The precipitate was separated and washed with DI water five times to remove urea. The precipitate was cryo-crushed in a mortar and pestle using liquid nitrogen. Treatment with urea followed by cryo-crushing of the precipitate was repeated three times. The resulting precipitate was made to 2% concentration and blended in the waring blender for five minutes and filtered through a 60 mesh filter and stored at 4 degree C. This novel combination of treatment with urea, cryo-crushing is designed to separate individual microfibrils without reducing their length. The microfibril suspension was further treated with sulfuric acid and phosphoric acid to increase its charge density. For this, microfibril suspension was made to 2% concentration and sufficient sulfuric acid (or phosphoric acid) was added to make it to 0.01 M molar in concentration. The suspension was placed in a temperature controlled incubator shaker at 25 degree C. for 1 h. It was then washed with tap water three times and made to 2% concentration and filtered through 60 mesh filter. The acid treated microfibril suspension was further treated with CaCl.sub.2 by washing it three times. Calcium has a double charge and a small hydrating radius which favors flocculation. Its cations have 45 times more flocculating power than Na.sup.+, 25 times more than K.sup.+ and 1.7 times more than Mg.sup.2+ [Sojka et al., 2007]. Washing involved adding CaCl.sub.2 to make it to required concentration then placing the suspension in a temperature controlled water bath shaker at 25 degree C. for 1 h. The suspension was centrifuged and washed with tap water three times. The solid residue was again dispersed in tap water, filtered through a 60 mesh filter and store at 4 degree C. Thus two different samples of biopolymer were obtained: 1) biopolymer treated with 0.01 M H.sub.2SO.sub.4 and 2.5 mM CaCl.sub.2; and 2) biopolymer treated with 0.01 M H.sub.3PO.sub.4 and 2.5 mM CaCl.sub.2.

EXAMPLE 2

Lab Scale Testing of Flocculation Efficacy

[0040] 25 mg soil sample was added to 10 ml distilled water with and without biopolymer additive added at a concentration of 10 ppm. Two replicates were used for each measurement. The sample was mixed thoroughly in a vortex mixer and the suspension was pipetted into the cuvette from a stock solution. The suspension was stirred gently and then allowed to settle. The aliquots were withdrawn from the suspended samples, and their absorbance was measured at 400 nm wavelength at 3 s, 10 s, 30 s, 60 s, 300 s, 600 s, 900 s, and 1200 s i.e., up to 20 minutes using a UV-Vis spectrophotometer.

EXAMPLE 3

Lab Scale Soil Erosion Tests

[0041] The furrows were comprised of six foot lengths of polyurethane pipe insulation of 0.5 inch diameter cut into half cylinders and inclined on support scaffolding.

[0042] The slope of the simulated furrows was set at 10 degrees for all measurements. A 200 g coating of soil (clay loam, and sandy loam) was distributed along the length of the furrow. Soils were dried, sieved and re-moisturized to 18% (w:w) water contents to use in the formation of furrows. The surface of the soil was pressed into a concave shape to simulate an actual furrow. The outflow from the furrow was collected in a sampling vial at the bottom of the furrow. Water was directed down the furrow using a peristaltic pump to obtain water flow of 20 ml/minute. Additive free tap water as negative control and PAM at 10 ppm as a positive control were used. The amount of sediment collected in the vial was dried and measured for all four treatments, tap water (control), 10 ppm PAM, 10 ppm biopolymer treated with 0.01 M H.sub.2SO.sub.4 and 2.5 mM CaCl.sub.2 and 10 ppm biopolymer treated with 0.01 M H.sub.2SO.sub.4 and 2.5 mM CaCl.sub.2.

REFERENCES

[0043] Bouranis, D. L., A. G. Theodoropoulos, and J. B., Drossopoulos, 1995, Designing synthetic polymers as soil conditioners, Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 26:1455-1480. [0044] Coltrinari, E., 1994. Selective Recovery of Heavy Metals Using Xanthates, U.S. Pat. No. 5,320,759. [0045] Deans, J. R., 1993. Removing Polyvalent Metals from Aqueous Waste Streams with Chitosan and Halogenating Agents, U.S. Pat. No. 5,336,415. [0046] Kay-Shoemake, J. L., Watwood, M. E., 1996. Microbial ecology of polyacrylamide application in agricultural soils. In: Sojka, R. E., Lentz, R. D. (Eds.), Managing Irrigation-Induced Erosion and Infiltration with Polyacrylamide, Proceedings, 6-8 May, Twin Falls, Id., Univ. of Idaho Misc. Pub. 101-96, pp. 33-41 [0047] Maher, G. G., 1981. Flocculation of Coals with Water-soluble Starch Xanthates, U.S. Pat. No. 4,253,970. [0048] Meadows, G. W., 1956. Process for Conditioning Soil with Polysaccharide Xanthates, U.S. Pat. No. 2,761,247. [0049] Meadows, G. W., 1959. Cement and Method of Stabilizing Soil. U.S. Pat. No. 2,884,334. [0050] Menefee, E., Hautala, E., 1978. Soil stabilization by cellulose xanthate. Nature 275, 530-532. [0051] Murcott, S. E., Harleman, D. R. F., 1994. Method of Drinking Water Treatment with Natural Cationic Polymers, U.S. Pat. No. 5,543,056. [0052] Orts W. J., Robert E. Sojka and Gregory M. Glenn, 2000, polymer additives to reduce erosion-induced soil losses during irrigation, Industrial crops and products, 11: 19-29. [0053] Orts W. J., Robert Sojka, Gregory M. Glenn, and Richard A. Gross, 1999. Preventing soil erosion with polymer additives, Polymer news, 24:406-413. [0054] Orts W. J., Aicardo Roa-Espinosa, Robert Sojka, Gregory M. Glenn, Syed H. Imam, Kurt Erlacher, and Jan Skov Pederson, 2007. Use of synthetic polymers and biopolymers for soil stabilization in agricultural, construction, and military applications, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 19:58-66. [0055] Shogren, R. L., Peterson, S. C., Evans, K. O., and Kenar, J. A., 2011. Preparation and characterization of cellulose gels from corn cobs. Carbohydrate Polymers. 86: 1351-1357 [0056] Sojka, R. E., R. D. Lentz, T. J. Trout, C. W. Ross, D. L. Bjorneberg, and J. K. Aase. 1998. Polyacrylamide effects on infiltration in irrigated agriculture. J. Soil Water Conserv. 53:325-331. [0057] Sojka R. E., D. L. Bjorneberg, J. A. Entry, R. D. Lentz, and W. J. Orts, 2007, Polyacrylamide in agricultural and environmental land management, Advances in Agronomy, 92:75-162 [0058] Swanson, C. L., Wing, R. E., Doane, W. M., 1975. Removal of Heavy Metal Ions from Wastewater, U.S. Pat. No. 3,947,354. [0059] Theng, B. K. G., 1982, Claypolymer interactions: summary and perspectives, Clays and Clay Minerals, 30(1): 1-10. [0060] Weaver, M. O., F. H. Otey, and W. M. Doane, 1984, Effect of some anionic starches on the stability of soil particles in water, Starch, 36:56-60. [0061] Orts et al., 2013. Biopolymer additive U.S. Pat. No. 8,410,194B1