DOCSLIB.ORG

Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework (LEAF) How-To Guide

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework (LEAF) How-To Guide Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework (LEAF) How-To Guide Understanding the LEAF Approach and How and When to Use It SW-846 Update VI October 2017 NOTICE/DISCLAIMER The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA, or the Agency), through its Office of Land and Emergency Management and Office of Research and Development, funded the preparation of this report under EPA Contract Nos. EP-D-11-006 and EP-W-10-055. This report was subjected to the Agency’s peer and administrative review and was approved for publication as an EPA document. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations do not change or substitute for any statutory or regulatory provisions. This document does not impose legally binding requirements, nor does it confer legal rights, impose legal obligations, or implement any statutory or regulatory provisions. Mention of trade names or commercial products is not intended to constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Authors This document was prepared for the U.S. EPA Office of Land and Emergency Management and Office of Research and Development. This document was prepared and edited by Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG) for EPA under EPA Contracts EP-D-11-006 and EP-W-10-055. The authors of this guide are David S. Kosson (Vanderbilt University), Andrew Garrabrants (Vanderbilt University), Susan Thorneloe (EPA, Office of Research and Development), Daniel Fagnant (EPA, Office of Land and Emergency Management), Greg Helms (EPA, Office of Land and Emergency Management), Katie Connolly (ERG), and Molly Rodgers (ERG). Contributors and reviewers of this guide include Hans van der Sloot (Hans van der Sloot Consultancy, The Netherlands), Schatzi Fitz-James (EPA, Office of Land and Emergency Management), and Paul Lemieux (EPA, Office of Research and Development). Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework (LEAF) How-To Guide ii Notice/Disclaimer & Acknowledgements Table of Contents NOTICE/DISCLAIMER ............................................................................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................................................ ii List of Tables .............................................................................................................................................................................. vi List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................................................... vii List of Highlight Boxes ............................................................................................................................................................ ix Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................... x Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................................................ xi Key Definitions ........................................................................................................................................................................ xii 1. An Introduction to LEAF and this Guide .............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 What is the Purpose of this Guide? ................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Who Can Benefit from this Guide? .................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.3 What is LEAF? .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3.1 Why was LEAF Developed? ........................................................................................................... 1-3 1.3.2 Why Perform Leaching Tests? ....................................................................................................... 1-4 1.3.3 When Can LEAF be Used? .............................................................................................................. 1-4 1.4 What Topics Are Covered in this Guide? ..................................................................................................................... 1-5 2. Understanding the Leaching Process ................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 What is Leaching? .................................................................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 What is a Source Term? ....................................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 What is the Available Content of a COPC? ................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.4 How Does Leaching Occur? ................................................................................................................................................ 2-2 2.4.1 The Extent of Leaching Through Liquid-Solid Partitioning (LSP).................................................... 2-4 2.4.2 The Rate of Leaching (Mass Transport) ........................................................................................ 2-7 2.4.3 Leachability of a Material in the Field ........................................................................................... 2-7 3. An Overview of LEAF ................................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 U.S. EPA Method 1313: pH-Dependent LSP................................................................................... 3-3 3.1.2 U.S. EPA Method 1314: Percolation Column ................................................................................. 3-5 3.1.3 U.S. EPA Method 1315: Rates of Mass Transfer............................................................................ 3-8 3.1.4 U.S. EPA Method 1316: L/S-Dependent LSP ................................................................................ 3-10 3.1.5 Validation of LEAF Tests .............................................................................................................. 3-12 3.1.6 Relationship between LEAF and Single Point Tests (e.g., TCLP, SPLP) ......................................... 3-13 3.2 Building a Testing Program ............................................................................................................................................ 3-14 3.2.1 Material Collection for Leaching Tests ........................................................................................ 3-15 3.2.2 Analytical Parameters ................................................................................................................. 3-15 3.2.3 Suggested Best Practices for Conducting LEAF Tests .................................................................. 3-16 3.2.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control .............................................................................................. 3-17 Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework (LEAF) How-To Guide iii Table of Contents Table of Contents (Continued) 3.3 LEAF Data Management Tools ...................................................................................................................................... 3-21 3.3.1 Laboratory Data and Import Templates ..................................................................................... 3-21 3.3.2 Data Management with LeachXS™ Lite ...................................................................................... 3-22 3.3.3 Pre-Existing Leaching Data ......................................................................................................... 3-24 4. Developing Leaching Evaluations using LEAF ................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Applications of LEAF ............................................................................................................................................................ 4-2 4.1.1 Material Characterization ............................................................................................................. 4-2 4.1.2 Beneficial Use Evaluation .............................................................................................................. 4-3 4.1.3 Treatment Effectiveness ................................................................................................................ 4-3 4.1.4 Miscellaneous Uses ....................................................................................................................... 4-3 4.2 Developing an Assessment Framework ....................................................................................................................... 4-3 4.2.1 A Stepwise Assessment Approach ................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Topic: Soil Classification
    Programme: M.Sc.(Environmental Science) Course: Soil Science Semester: IV Code: MSESC4007E04 Topic: Soil Classification Prof. Umesh Kumar Singh Department of Environmental Science School of Earth, Environmental and Biological Sciences Central University of South Bihar, Gaya Note: These materials are only for classroom teaching purpose at Central University of South Bihar. All the data/figures/materials are taken from several research articles/e-books/text books including Wikipedia and other online resources. 1 • Pedology: The origin of the soil , its classification, and its description are examined in pedology (pedon-soil or earth in greek). Pedology is the study of the soil as a natural body and does not focus primarily on the soil’s immediate practical use. A pedologist studies, examines, and classifies soils as they occur in their natural environment. • Edaphology (concerned with the influence of soils on living things, particularly plants ) is the study of soil from the stand point of higher plants. Edaphologist considers the various properties of soil in relation to plant production. • Soil Profile: specific series of layers of soil called soil horizons from soil surface down to the unaltered parent material. 2 • By area Soil – can be small or few hectares. • Smallest representative unit – k.a. Pedon • Polypedon • Bordered by its side by the vertical section of soil …the soil profile. • Soil profile – characterize the pedon. So it defines the soil. • Horizon tell- soil properties- colour, texture, structure, permeability, drainage, bio-activity etc. • 6 groups of horizons k.a. master horizons. O,A,E,B,C &R. 3 Soil Sampling and Mapping Units 4 Typical soil profile 5 O • OM deposits (decomposed, partially decomposed) • Lie above mineral horizon • Histic epipedon (Histos Gr.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of Chemical Wet Scrubbers and Biofiltration For
    Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology J Chem Technol Biotechnol 80:1170–1179 (2005) DOI: 10.1002/jctb.1308 Comparison of chemical wet scrubbers and biofiltration for control of volatile organic compounds using GC/MS techniques and kinetic analysis James R Kastner∗ and Keshav C Das Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 30602, USA Abstract: Increasing public concerns and EPA air regulations in non-attainment zones necessitate the remediation of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) generated in the poultry-rendering industry. Wet scrubbers using chlorine dioxide (ClO2) have low overall removal efficiencies due to lack of reactivity with aldehydes. Contrary to wet scrubbers, a biofilter system successfully treated the aldehyde fraction, based on GC/MS analysis of inlet and outlet streams. Total VOC removal efficiencies ranged from 40 to 100% for the biofilter, kinetic analysis indicated that the overall removal capacity approached 25 g m−3 h−1, and aldehyde removal efficiency was significantly higher compared with chemical wet scrubbers. Process temperatures monitored in critical unit operations upstream from the biofilter varied significantly during operation, rising as much as 30 ◦C within a few minutes. However, the outlet air temperature of a high intensity scrubber remained relatively constant at 40 ◦C, although the inlet air temperature fluctuated from 50 to 65 ◦C during monitoring. These data suggest a hybrid process combining a wet scrubber and biofilter in series could be used to improve overall VOC removal efficiencies and process stability. 2005 Society of Chemical Industry Keywords: odor; volatile organic compounds (VOC); aldehydes; wet scrubber; biofilter; gas chromatography; mass spectrometry INTRODUCTION and odor complaints have resulted in the need for low Rendering operations convert organic wastes (feathers, cost, effective treatment options.
    [Show full text]
  • Basic Soil Science W
    Basic Soil Science W. Lee Daniels See http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/430/430-350/430-350_pdf.pdf for more information on basic soils! [email protected]; 540-231-7175 http://www.cses.vt.edu/revegetation/ Well weathered A Horizon -- Topsoil (red, clayey) soil from the Piedmont of Virginia. This soil has formed from B Horizon - Subsoil long term weathering of granite into soil like materials. C Horizon (deeper) Native Forest Soil Leaf litter and roots (> 5 T/Ac/year are “bio- processed” to form humus, which is the dark black material seen in this topsoil layer. In the process, nutrients and energy are released to plant uptake and the higher food chain. These are the “natural soil cycles” that we attempt to manage today. Soil Profiles Soil profiles are two-dimensional slices or exposures of soils like we can view from a road cut or a soil pit. Soil profiles reveal soil horizons, which are fundamental genetic layers, weathered into underlying parent materials, in response to leaching and organic matter decomposition. Fig. 1.12 -- Soils develop horizons due to the combined process of (1) organic matter deposition and decomposition and (2) illuviation of clays, oxides and other mobile compounds downward with the wetting front. In moist environments (e.g. Virginia) free salts (Cl and SO4 ) are leached completely out of the profile, but they accumulate in desert soils. Master Horizons O A • O horizon E • A horizon • E horizon B • B horizon • C horizon C • R horizon R Master Horizons • O horizon o predominantly organic matter (litter and humus) • A horizon o organic carbon accumulation, some removal of clay • E horizon o zone of maximum removal (loss of OC, Fe, Mn, Al, clay…) • B horizon o forms below O, A, and E horizons o zone of maximum accumulation (clay, Fe, Al, CaC03, salts…) o most developed part of subsoil (structure, texture, color) o < 50% rock structure or thin bedding from water deposition Master Horizons • C horizon o little or no pedogenic alteration o unconsolidated parent material or soft bedrock o < 50% soil structure • R horizon o hard, continuous bedrock A vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Azeotropic Dehydration for the Preservation of Shrimp. James Edward Rutledge Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School 1969 Evaluation of Azeotropic Dehydration for the Preservation of Shrimp. James Edward Rutledge Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses Recommended Citation Rutledge, James Edward, "Evaluation of Azeotropic Dehydration for the Preservation of Shrimp." (1969). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 1689. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/1689 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This dissertation has been 70-9089 microfilmed exactly as received RUTLEDGE, James Edward, 1941- EVALUATION OF AZEOTROPIC DEHYDRATION FOR THE PRESERVATION OF SHRIMP. The Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, PhJD., 1969 Food Technology University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan Evaluation of Azeotropic Dehydration for the Preservation of Shrimp A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Department of Food Science and Technology by James Edward Rutledge B.S., Texas A&M University, 1963 M.S., Texas A&M University, 1966 August, 1969 ACKNOWLEDGMENT The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation to his major professor, Dr, Fred H. Hoskins, for the guidance which he supplied not only in respect to this dissertation but also in regard to the author’s graduate career at Louisiana State University, Gratitude is also extended to Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of End-Of-Life Opportunities for Reverse Osmosis
    Assessment of End-of-Life Opportunities for Reverse Osmosis Membranes Will Lawler A thesis in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Chemical Engineering Faculty of Engineering March 2015 i. Abstract Reverse osmosis (RO) membranes are now core to modern desalination processes and are widely used around the world. Based on the increasing number of desalination plants, and the finite lifespan of the membranes, the resulting number of used RO modules to be discarded is becoming a critical challenge. The overall aim of this study is to identify, develop and assess alternative end-of-life options for used RO elements and investigate the associated technical readiness, environmental impact, financial considerations and legislative challenges. The assessed end-of-life alternatives include, direct reuse of the old membranes within lower throughput systems; chemical conversion into porous, ultrafiltration (UF) like filters; direct reuse or recycling of the various module components; various energy recovery techniques, and landfill disposal. The results show that direct reuse is a promising application that can be utilised with minimal additional treatment or infrastructure; however, module storage techniques are a critical consideration, particularly as membrane drying has a significant and irreversible impact on membrane performance due to pore collapse in the polysulfone support layer. The method for chemical conversion with controlled exposure to NaOCl has been optimised, resulting in promising organic and virus removal properties, comparable to commercially available 10 – 30 kDa molecular weight cut off UF membranes; however, there was significant variation in hydraulic performance, ranging from 8 – 400 L.m-2.h-1.bar-1.
    [Show full text]
  • Flash Column Chromatography Guide
    8.9 - Flash Column Chromatography Guide Overview: Flash column chromatography is a quick and (usually) easy way to separate complex mixtures of compounds. We will be performing relatively large scale separations in 5.301, around 1.0 g of compound. Columns are often smaller in scale than this and some of you will experience these once you move into the research lab. Column chromatography uses the same principles discussed in the TLC Handout, but can be used on a preparative scale. We are running flash columns since we will use compressed air to push the solvent through the column. This not only helps provide better separation, but also cuts down the amount of time required to run a column. Reading: For an excellent description, see LLP pages 205 - 214. Preparing and Running a Flash Column: 1) Determine the dry, solvent-free weight of the mixture that you want to separate. 2) Determine the solvent system for the column by using TLC (see TLC Handout). You should aim for Rf values between 0.2 and 0.3. If your mixture is complicated then this may not be possible. In complex cases, you will probably have to resort to gradient elution. This simply means that you increase the polarity of the solvent running through the column (eluent) throughout the course of the purification. This technique will be described in more detail later in the handout, but for the TLC analysis you should determine which solvent systems put the different spots in the 0.2 to 0.3 Rf range. 3) Determine the method of application to the column.
    [Show full text]
  • Application Note Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization Scrubbers Power: Environmental
    Application Note Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization Scrubbers Power: Environmental Coal fi red power plant emissions are a global concern. collects in the bottom of the absorber. A paste-like calcium The burning of coal produces sulfur dioxide (SO2). When sulfi te (CaSO3) sludge forms in the liquid. CaCO3 can be released into the atmosphere SO2 combines with water very diffi cult to remove if it settles out at the bottom of the to form sulfuric acid (H2SO4). Coal fi red power plants will absorber. More recent scrubber designs will blow outside use a fl ue gas desulfurization (FGD) scrubber to remove air through liquid to convert the sulfi te to sulfate in the the SO2 before release up the stack. The scrubbing following reaction. process is pH dependent. In this paper we will explore some of the challenges in this type of pH measurement. CaSO3 + H2O + 1/2O2 ► CaSO4 + H2O The FGD scrubber uses chemical reagents sprayed into The addition of air is referred to as forced oxidation. The the fl ue gas to react with the SO2. Many different reagents resulting calcium sulfate (CaCO4) crystallizes in the liquid have been used over the years. Examples include and is easily removed through fi ltration. An added benefi t ammonia, caustic, lime, limestone, and sodium carbonate. from the process is that CaCO4 (known as gypsum) can Due to cost, the most common reagents are Lime (CaO) be sold as additive for wallboard and cement production. and Limestone (CaCO3). Since both chemicals are very similar we will limit the scope of this paper to them.
    [Show full text]
  • Settling-Thickening Tanks
    Chapter 6 Settling-Thickening Tanks Pierre-Henri Dodane and Magalie Bassan Technology Learning Objectives • Understand in what contexts settling-thickening tanks are an appropriate treatment technology. • Understand the fundamental mechanisms of how settling-thickening tanks function. • Have an overiew of potential advantages and disadvantages of operating a settling-thickening tank. • Know the appropriate level of operations, maintenance and monitoring necessary to achieve solids-liquid separation in settling-thickening tanks. • Be able to design a settling-thickening tank to achieve the desired treatment goal. 6.1 INTRODUCTION Settling-thickening tanks are used to achieve separation of the liquid and solid fractions of faecal sludge (FS). They were fi rst developed for primary wastewater treatment, and for clarifi cation following secondary wastewater treatment, and it is the same mechanism for solids-liquid separation as that employed in septic tanks. Settling-thickening tanks for FS treatment are rectangular tanks, where FS is discharged into an inlet at the top of one side and the supernatant exits through an outlet situated at the opposite side, while settled solids are retained at the bottom of the tank, and scum fl oats on the surface (Figure 6.1). During the retention time, the heavier particles settle out and thicken at the bottom of the tank as a result of gravitational forces. Lighter particles, such as fats, oils and grease, fl oat to the top of the tank. As solids are collected at the bottom of the tank, the liquid supernatant is discharged through the outlet. Quiescent hydraulic fl ows are required, as the designed rates of settling, thickening and fl otation will not occur with turbulent fl ows.
    [Show full text]
  • Troubleshooting Activated Sludge Processes Introduction
    Troubleshooting Activated Sludge Processes Introduction Excess Foam High Effluent Suspended Solids High Effluent Soluble BOD or Ammonia Low effluent pH Introduction Review of the literature shows that the activated sludge process has experienced operational problems since its inception. Although they did not experience settling problems with their activated sludge, Ardern and Lockett (Ardern and Lockett, 1914a) did note increased turbidity and reduced nitrification with reduced temperatures. By the early 1920s continuous-flow systems were having to deal with the scourge of activated sludge, bulking (Ardem and Lockett, 1914b, Martin 1927) and effluent suspended solids problems. Martin (1927) also describes effluent quality problems due to toxic and/or high-organic- strength industrial wastes. Oxygen demanding materials would bleedthrough the process. More recently, Jenkins, Richard and Daigger (1993) discussed severe foaming problems in activated sludge systems. Experience shows that controlling the activated sludge process is still difficult for many plants in the United States. However, improved process control can be obtained by systematically looking at the problems and their potential causes. Once the cause is defined, control actions can be initiated to eliminate the problem. Problems associated with the activated sludge process can usually be related to four conditions (Schuyler, 1995). Any of these can occur by themselves or with any of the other conditions. The first is foam. So much foam can accumulate that it becomes a safety problem by spilling out onto walkways. It becomes a regulatory problem as it spills from clarifier surfaces into the effluent. The second, high effluent suspended solids, can be caused by many things. It is the most common problem found in activated sludge systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Chemical Industry Wastewater Treatment
    CHEMICAL INDUSTRY WASTEWATER TREATMENT Fayza A. Nasr\ Hala S. Doma\ Hisham S Abdel-Halim", Saber A. El-Shafai* * Water Pollution Research department, National Research Centre, Cairo, Egypt "Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt Abstract Treatment of chemical industrial wastewater from building and construction chemicals factory and plastic shoes manufacturing factory was investigated. The two factories discharge their wastewater into the public sewerage network. The results showed the wastewater discharged from the building and construction chemicals factory was highly contaminated with organic compounds. The average values of COD and BOD were 2912 and 150 mg02/l. Phenol concentration up to 0.3 mg/l was detected. Chemical treatment using lime aided with ferric chloride proved to be effective and produced an effluent characteristics in compliance with Egyptian permissible limits. With respect to the other factory, industrial wastewater was mixed with domestic wastewater in order to lower the organic load. The COD, BOD values after mixing reached 5239 and 2615 mg02/l. The average concentration of phenol was 0.5 mg/l. Biological treatment using activated sludge or rotating biological contactor (RBC) proved to be an effective treatment system in terms of producing an effluent characteristic within the permissible limits set by the law. Therefore, the characteristics of chemical industrial wastewater determine which treatment system to utilize. Based on laboratory results TESCE, Vol. 30, No.2 <@> December 2004 engineering design of each treatment system was developed and cost estimate prepared. Key words: chemical industry, wastewater, treatment, chemical, biological Introduction The chemical industry is of importance in terms of its impact on the environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Industrial Wastewater Treatment Technologies Fitxategia
    INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES Image by Frauke Feind from Pixabay licensed under CC0 Estibaliz Saez de Camara Oleaga & Eduardo de la Torre Pascual Faculty of Engineering Bilbao (UPV/EHU) Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering Industrial Wastewaters (IWW) means the water or liquid that carries waste from industrial or processes, if it is distinct from domestic wastewater. Desalination plant “Rambla Morales desalination plant (Almería - Spain)” by David Martínez Vicente from Flickr licensed under CC BY 2.0 IWW may result from any process or activity of industry which uses water as a reactant or for transportation of heat or materials. 2 Characteristics of wastewater from industrial sources vary with the type and the size of the facility and the on-site treatment methods, if any. Because of this variation, it is often difficult to define typical operating conditions for industrial activities. Options available for the treatment of IWW are summarized briefly in next figure. To introduce in a logical order in the description of treatment techniques, the relationship between pollutants and respective typical treatment technology is taken as reference. 1. Removal of suspended solids and insoluble liquids 2. Removal of inorganic, non-biodegradable or poorly degradable soluble content 3. Removal of biodegradable soluble content 3 Range of wastewater treatments in relation to type of contaminants. Source: BREF http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference/ 4 3.1. CLASSIFICATION OF INDUSTRIAL EFFLUENTS CLASSIFICATION OF EFFLUENTS
    [Show full text]
  • National University of Engineering Ge111
    NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING COLLEGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING PROGRAM GE111 – EDAPHOLOGY I. GENERAL INFORMATION CODE : GE111 – Edaphology SEMESTER : 5 CREDITS : 03 HOURS PER WEEK : 04 (Theory – Practices – Laboratory) PREREQUISITES : GE102 – Geography CONDITION : Mandatory II. COURSE DESCRIPTION Concept and importance of edaphological soil and its interest for Engineering. Detailed knowledge of the components, physical and chemical properties, genesis, classification and principles of cartography, of natural soils and anthropogenic urban soils. Principle of soil evaluation, as a starting point in studies of environmental planning, territorial planning and environmental impact assessment. Finally, it is intended that students understand the importance of soil as a non-renewable resource and the degradations to which its inappropriate use leads; It is also intended to train in the corrective and rehabilitating measures of degraded soils. III. COURSE OUTCOMES At the end of the course the student will: Organizes data for proper analysis and interpretation and calculations (soil densities, physical chemical and biological properties). Explains and determines the genesis of the soil, the physical properties of the soil, geo reference, physiographic units. Understand and apply densities, to determine the consistency of the soil, the probability of resistance in an earthquake. Interpret and perform types of soil sampling to take to the laboratory to determine their physical, chemical, and biological characteristics. Build models to determine the degree of contamination, is determined by the parameters, using the LMOs, ECAs, In soils. IV. LEARNING UNITS 1. SOIL GENESIS / 4 HOURS Objective of soil science: Interest in Engineering. Genesis. Pedological and edaphological approach. Factors of soil formation. Climate action. Properties of the soil affected by the climate.
    [Show full text]