james robert hutchinson by - amazon s3 · characteristics of strong creeping red ... owen for his...
Post on 02-Dec-2018
215 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
An Investigation into the Suitability of Recycled Sands
and Compost Materials for use on the Golf Course
by
James Robert Hutchinson
James Robert Hutchinson
4
A dissertation submitted to the
University of Central Lancashire
Faculty of Science and Technology
In partial fulfilment of the requirements
for the degree of
Bachelor of Science with Honours
In
BSc (Hons) Sports Turf Science and Management
19th
April 2013
An Investigation into the Suitability of
Recycled Sands and Compost
Materials for use on the Golf Course
by
James Robert Hutchinson
James Robert Hutchinson
5
Abstract:
The effects of recycled material on grass species within a winter teeing environment is an
area of limited research, one which provides the turf manager with little recommendations on
the ideal or immeasurable instructions on which materials to use. This research aims to
provide specific information in helping to form an integral part of winter tee management
strategy whilst highlighting a proposed use of recycled materials on a golf course.
The effects that two recycled materials (recycled sand and compost) had on the growth
characteristics of Strong Creeping Red Fescue (Festuca rubra rubra) and Perennial Ryegrass
(Lolium perenne) was investigated. Colour, NDVI, pot coverage, clippings dry weight was
observed using 200mm PVC growing tubes. Final shoot and root weights were used to
calculate total biomass for each treatment. The project was grown in a greenhouse
environment with average temperatures of 12 – 20°C. Pots were trimmed weekly to a height
of 15mm.
Results found significant differences (p<0.005) between treatments suggesting that turfgrass
growth and development is affected by recycled materials. NDVI readings, pot coverage,
clippings dry weight and total biomass increased significantly in the compost grown fescues
whereas no significant differences were noted in the ryegrass grown in either treatments.
James Robert Hutchinson
7
Acknowledgements:
I would firstly like to offer my sincerest gratitude to the R&A for their support throughout the
past four years. Without their financial assistance I could not have followed my dream to
become a scholar and an educated man. Equally, I offer my thanks to Fairhaven Golf Club for
their past, present and future support throughout my time on the course.
Thank you to British Seed Houses for supplying me with the seed to carry out this project.
I wish to express my gratitude to Myerscough College for giving me the opportunity to
pursue a Bachelor of Science degree. I would also like to offer my thanks to Myerscough’s
highly knowledgeable lab instructor, Dr Alan Birtles for his valuable time and awe –
Inspiring assistance, including his skills regarding coffee making; Also to Owen Mullen for
his time and agronomy advice. I would like to extend extra special gratitude to Dr Andy
Owen for his invaluable help since I started out on this path to academia and science five
years ago. I am enormously grateful to my dissertation guide, Dr Irene Weir, and her methods
in enabling this enthusiastic undergraduate to understand in – depth statistical analysis,
structured writing skills and general level six study – had I been allocated another guide then
I fear it may have been a very long year!
To Jean Hutchinson (Mam) for taking the time to proof read this dissertation.
To Mam and Dad who knew I could do it.
Finally, to Lynsey Hutchinson who has endured a ‘missing’ husband for the duration of this
BSc (Hons) degree and who is the sole reason I have decided to be the person I wanted to
become.
Declaration:
I declare the work in this dissertation to be my own and not a collaboration of others.
Literature compiled by other authors is acknowledged and appropriately referenced.
James Hutchinson.
19/04/2013
James Robert Hutchinson
8
Contents:
1 Abstract
2 Acknowledgements
3 Declarations
1.0 Introduction…………………………………………………...…………...……….Page 11
1.1 Recycled Sand………….……………………………………………………………..…12
1.2 Compost……………………………………………………………………...……..……12
1.3 Project’s Chosen Grass Species……………………….…………………………………13
1.3.1 Strong Creeping Red Fescue……………………………………………………….….13
1.3.2 Perennial Ryegrass…………………………………………………………………..…13
1.4 Winter Golf Tees………………………………………………………………………....14
1.5 Plant Health Measurement………………………………………………….………14 – 15
1.7 Aims and Objectives……………………………………….…………………….………16
2.0 Growing Mediums…………………..……………………………………………………17
2.1 Recycled Sand……………………………………………………………………..…….17
2.1.1 The Physical Properties of Sand………………………………………………………17
2.2 Compost/ Humus……………………………………………………………………18 – 19
3.0 Project’s Grass Species and Identification……………..………………………….…….20
3.1 Maxima Strong Creeping Red Fescue (Festuca rubra rubra spp.)……………..………20
3.2 Abermagic Perennial Ryegrass (Lolium perenne) and its Identification………...………21
4.0 Aims and Objectives Recap…..……………………………….…………………………22
James Robert Hutchinson
9
5.0 Materials and Methods……………………………………………………………..........23
5.1 Health and Safety………………………………………………………………..………23
5.2 Trial Site……………………………………………………………………………...….23
5.3 Growing Media……………………………………………………………………..........23
5.3.1 Recycled Sand…………………………………………………………………………23
5.3.2 Compost……………………………………………………………………………….23
5.4 Preparation of Plant Material……………………….…..…………………….…....24 – 26
5.5 Management of the Project………………………………………………………………26
5.6 Data Collection………………………….……………………………….………………27
5.7 Colour Assessment………………………………………………………………………27
5.8 NDVI Readings………………………………………………………………………….28
5.9 Pot Coverage……………………………………………………………………………..28
5.10 Clippings Dry Weight……………………………………………………………..........28
5.11 Total Biomass…………………………………………………………………………..29
6.0 Statistical Analysis……………………………………………………………………….30
7.0 Results………………………………………………………………………………...….31
7.1 Recycled Sand Laboratory Test…………………………………………………….31 - 32
7.2 Compost Laboratory Test…………………………………………………..………33 – 34
7.3 Particle Analysis……………………………………………………………………..…..35
7.4 Coverage Data……………………………………………………………………………36
7.5 NDVI Data…………………………………………………………………….…………37
James Robert Hutchinson
10
7.6 Clippings Data……………………………………………………………………………38
7.7 Biomass Data………………………………………………………………………….....39
7.8 Colour Assessment……………………………………………………………………….40
8.0 Discussion and Conclusion…………………………………………………….……41 - 45
8.1 Hypothesis……………………………………………………………………………….41
9.0 References…………………………………………………………..………….……46 - 50
10.0 Appendix…………………………………………………………………………...51 - 58
List of Plates:
Plate 1………………………………………………………………………………………..23
Plate 2…………………………………………………………………………………..……25
Plate 3………………………………………………………………………………………..26
Plate 4………………………………………………………………………………….…….28
Plate 5………………………………………………………..…………………………...….28
Plate 6…………………………………………………………………………………….….28
Plate 7………………………………………………………………………………………..29
Plate 8………………………………………………………………………………………..29
Plate 9……………………………………………………………………………..…………32
Plate 10………………………………………………………………………………………34
James Robert Hutchinson
11
1.0 Introduction:
Following a recent Royal and Ancient sustainability programme update targeting golf course
waste (R&A, 2012) and the relative lack of research within the turfgrass industry focusing
directly on the effects on recycled sand and compost on root and sward development, the
problem of what to do with recycled materials in a fine turf environment consequently arose
and had a significant impact regarding the decision making for this trial. The majority of
research in this area is focused on materials ideally suited to USGA or STRI specification
including soil mechanics (Dodgson, 2005; STRI, 2005) and turf quality (Handreck and Black,
2002).
The concept of applying recycled materials to turf surfaces has gained considerable
momentum in recent years with the arrival of the R&A’s aforementioned sustainable
programme. Products such as recycled sand and compost have been applied to golf courses
actively encouraging growth to winter surfaces including areas damaged by golfers taking
divots. However, their physiological effects to plant growth and development from seed have
not been measured.
Attaining successful seed germination and establishment is critical to the future performance
of any given surface as it affects turf quality, sward quality and the general overall
performance of a sward throughout the early stages of development, therefore having a direct
effect on how a grass might be able to deal with issues such as frost. Danneburger (2004)
found winter injury is often a combination of numerous factors, one of which is frost cover.
While continuous frost cover alone is not a common event for golf courses on the North –
West coast of England, freeze/ thaw cycles in winter can create a situation where excessive
water in and around grass crowns can create freeze injuries from the frost which has formed
from freezing water. This particular winter related research however, examines the
establishment responses of two types of sportsturf; strong creeping red fescue (Festuca spp.)
and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne spp.) growing in two different recycled materials
within a greenhouse environment, and whilst it is possible that the management carried out in
this research favoured specific cultivars, the research was conducted as close as possible to
reflect the management of a winter golf tee at Fairhaven Golf Course.
James Robert Hutchinson
12
1.1 Recycled Sand:
Sand – dominated rootzones are now extensively used in the creation of sportsturf pitches and
golf course environs. Typically, the rootzone is developed from a blend of sand with different
amendment materials, for example organic sources (Adams, 1986; Baker et al, 1997). The
purpose of the amendment materials is usually to increase nutrient and moisture content or
sometimes to improve extra stability (Baker et al, 1997; Waddington et al, 1974).
The characteristics of the rootzone mixtures have a major impact on soil physical properties
and can therefore govern the success or failure of newly constructed sportsturf areas. In
consequence, various recommendations for rootzone materials have been made (Baker, 1990;
USGA Green Section, 2013) with the main aims being to achieve adequate drainage rates and
an acceptable balance between pore spaces. In addition, on winter teeing grounds there is a
need to ensure adequate stability for situations where grass cover is lost through wear.
1.2 Compost:
The collection and dispersal of nutrient enriched (via fertiliser applications) greens, tees and
fairway clippings coupled with leaves and brown clubhouse waste (potato peelings) has
become an ever increasing problem within golf over the latter part of the last century and
indeed the earlier part of this century through a wide variety of issues including:
Poor tee management techniques
A demand for wider teeing areas
All year round golf
A demand for ‘cleaner’ tees via a lower cutting height
(Bulleted list taken from Taylor and Penrose (2000)).
Traditionally, fine turf clippings and general organic waste have formed an important part of
compost manufacture on the golf course and have been considered a valuable commodity
(Taylor and Penrose, 2000). The ability to buy in ready – made composts meant this practice
largely ceased over the last 30 years. Since that time, the disposal of this potentially useful
asset has become a hindrance to the golf course manager.
James Robert Hutchinson
13
Inappropriate disposal of grass waste can be a problem (Taylor, 1995). Indiscriminate
dumping of grass clippings behind trees or in the rough has become commonplace and as
grass cuttings break down, they release a whole range of products such as salts, sugars,
organic acids and other organic materials (Lawson, pers com, 2013; Taylor, 1995). This
combination of materials is concentrated to the extent that a pile of grass clippings will
scorch any underlying turf. If the subsequent liquid contaminates the soil it will render it
unsuitable for plant growth, again due to the build – up of salinity. Eventually, any toxic
materials may leach through the soil, but this may take considerable amount of time. Not only
is this bad practice leading to increased nutrification of the rough but it is potentially illegal
too (Lawson, pers com, 2013; Taylor, 1995; Taylor and Penrose, 2000). Even widespread
dispersal of clippings into the rough will increase the nutrient status of the soil, thus leading
to the sward becoming dominated by broad leaved grass species such as annual meadow
grass (Poa annua) and Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus) (Bechelet and Windows, 2007).
As with grass clippings, the major problem with leaves is that they are perceived as untidy,
particularly during leaf fall (Witteveen and Bavier, 2012). Leaf litter is clearly a problem
where it impacts on play in that it can have a smothering effect on the playing surfaces
leading to water retention – which in turn could give rise to disease (Sachs and Luff, 2002)
and its disposal thereafter should be given appropriate consideration.
1.3 Project’s Chosen Grass Species:
1.3.1 Strong Creeping Red Fescue:
Brede (2000) explains that fescue is a low growing and winter hardy grass species which
gives quick germination and attractive winter colour. Fescue’s fine blades and low fertility
requirements make it a good winter tee species whereas its dense striking sward is resistant to
wear and repairs rapidly after divoting.
1.3.2 Perennial Ryegrass:
Perennial rye is one of the most extensively used sportsturf species for it is fast recovery time
and its significant wear tolerance (Beard, 1973). These characteristics make this species of
grass ideal for winter tee usage. Funk (1983) indicates that with its fine texture, cold weather
tolerance and attractive appearance make it especially valuable for tees to provide an
attractive winter turf.
James Robert Hutchinson
14
1.4 Winter Golf Tees:
Winter teeing areas are often just mown – out patches of spare land where the objective is to
alleviate stress and wear from the main summer tees. However, White (2000) suggests that
winter tee construction methods have been the source of much discussion over the last few
years of golf course development; the trend has been to cap the tees with 10 – 15 cm of
compacted sand/ sand mix to create a better, more compaction resistant, growing and playing
environment (Brede, 2000). In many cases, the wrong sand is chosen leading to problems
with poor drainage and fine grass establishment, this leads on to the question: what is the
correct sand to use for a winter tee and at what rates as there are no specifications for a winter
tee. There are however, guidelines for the correct sands specifications which are to be used
on a green environment (Baker, 2006; USGA, 2013). One area where recycled materials may
be appropriate are the winter tees as fewer funds are made available for projects such as
these. Sands which do not fall directly in Baker’s and the USGA’s green specifications may
be of use in a more relaxed environment, such as a winter tee.
1.5 Plant health Measurement:
Plant health is an important feature of this research and will be assessed with an NDVI
(Normalised Difference Vegetation Index) meter. An ‘NDVI’ is an equation that takes into
account the amount of infrared reflected by plants. The NDVI for this dissertation is
calculated as follows: NDVI = (Channel 2 - Channel 1) / (Channel 2 + Channel 1). The
principle behind NDVI is that channel 1 is in the red – light region of the electromagnetic
spectrum (660 nm), where chlorophyll causes considerable absorption of incoming sunlight,
whereas channel 2 is in the near – infra red region (850 nm) where a plant’s spongy
mesophyll leaf structure creates considerable reflectance (Tucker, 1979; Jackson et al, 1983;
Tucker et al, 1991). As a result, vigorously growing healthy vegetation has low – red light
reflectance and high near – infrared reflectance, and hence, high NDVI values (Tucker et al,
1991), the NDVI values nearer to zero indicate poorer vegetation. Live green plants absorb
solar radiation, which they use as a source of energy in the process of photosynthesis. The
reason NDVI is related to vegetation is that healthy vegetation reflects very well in the near –
infra red part of the electromagnetic spectrum (USGS, 2013). Overall, NDVI provides an
estimate of the plants growth (vigour), vegetation health, biomass production and a means of
monitoring changes in vegetation over a period of time (USGS, 2013), in the case of this
experiment, 12 weeks.
James Robert Hutchinson
15
Turf colour assessment is a useful indicator of the general condition of the plants health.
Yellowing or chlorotic appearances are often an indication of nutritional deficiencies from
unfavourable growing conditions. Findings for colour assessment in this research were
reflected by Landschoot and Mancino (2000) who evaluated turf colour for visual against
instrumental methods; they discovered that turf which was a lighter colour of green was also
less dense i.e. less blades and less succulent than the turf which was a darker green colour.
Landschoot and Mancino (2000) and Pessarakli (2007) suggest colour is a relative assessment
and may often depend on management and fertilisation and that it is an important factor in the
assessment of turfgrass sward health. The colour is assessed in this trial using the ‘Birtles 0 –
5 Scale’ method (Figure3, page 17). It is possible however, that variations in colour between
different types of grasses may be due to genetic traits i.e. a cultivar may receive a low score
of ‘0’ if it is lime green (Rye) or a high score ‘5’ if it is dark green (Fescue). One or the other
may produce dead or chlorotic tissue as a consequence of unfavourable conditions (Gooding
and Gamble, 1990). Alternatively, a high score may be awarded if the growing conditions are
favourable. In this research however, it should be possible to asses turf sward trends in colour
change from germination through to the conclusion of the growth part of the experiment.
Cockerham (2008) suggests that turf density is affected by height of cut and mowing
frequency. Both Cockerham (2008) and Pessarakli (2007) propose that the height of cut
affects a number of turf – growing factors namely a reduction in carbohydrate production and
the depth of rooting. The severity of height mowing also has the potential to decrease the
plants rhizome and stolon number, weight and internode length; turf vigour gradually
decreases with decreasing plant size (Pessarakli, 2007). Turfgrasses however, are well
adapted to frequent mowing as leaf formation continues after each defoliation (Turgeon,
2008). Measurements of the photosynthetic activity of grass leaves have shown that newly
emerging leaves may use all the food they manufacture plus some photo – assimilates from
other leaves. Young, fully expanded leaves have the highest photosynthetic rate and
contribute photo – assimilates to various parts of the plant plus some for storage
(carbohydrate reserves), primarily in the crowns. Prior to the initiation of photosynthetic
activity, emerging leaves are totally dependent on carbohydrate reserves in storage organs
from other leaves (Danneberger, 1993; Turgeon, 2008). Hence, excessive defoliation from
mowing may severely reduce turf vigour. Mowing is considered the most basic and
significant main cultural practice that influences other operations such as fertilising and
irrigation (Danneberger, 1993).
James Robert Hutchinson
16
1.7 Aims and Objectives:
This research aims to collect results for NDVI, pot coverage, clippings dry weight and total
biomass. Pot coverage is a vital component to a winter tee as it represents visual quality and
divot recovery respectively. Whereas the scientifically based NDVI, clippings dry weight and
total biomass results can be directly related to the overall health of the turf stand.
The various aspects of critical winter teeing growth and the competencies required to enhance
the skill and qualities to sustain it are without a doubt a major part of a golf course manager’s
armoury. From observations of the researched literature, there seems to be a distinct lack of
references to the use of recycled sand and compost and its suitability to be used on golf
course winter tees, divot mixes or otherwise; both are being investigated by the Sports Turf
Research Institute (STRI) as a tool for the addition of nutrients in a growing medium
(Lawson, 2002; Lawson, 2005). The objective of this current work therefore was to examine
the potential influence these materials have on two different grass species in the on – going
winter tee construction trials at Fairhaven Golf Club with the intention of highlighting the
aforementioned gap by offering its findings to the golf course industry.
The photographs are taken by James Hutchinson. The diagrams are drawn by James
Hutchinson.
James Robert Hutchinson
17
2.0 Growing Mediums:
2.1 Recycled Sand: “(Recycled sand is a material that has been used before)” (Greenspec,
2012). In the case of this research, the recycled sand had previously been used on a golf
course as bunker sand and naturally occurring links sand. Sand however, comes in many
different forms, all of varying quality with a range of properties and physical characteristics,
so the challenge is to select the right one for sportsturf usage (Higgins, 2012). Welland
(2009) suggests that sand is an inorganic granular mineral composed of individual particles of
grains formed by the weathering and erosion of rock. Higgins (2012) concurs with Welland’s
(2009) statement and goes on to say that these small, finely divided pieces of rock will vary
in chemical composition depending on the source and condition of the parent rock from
which they were derived.
2.1.1: The Physical Properties of Sand:
As far as the UK is concerned, sand refers to a material which has a grain size distribution
between 0.063 to 2 mm (Baker, 2006). The majority of sands quarried here in the UK consist
mainly of silica dioxide (SiO2), otherwise known as silica, and its size, uniformity and shape
control its physical behaviour (Baker, 2006; Higgins, 2012). It is essential to be able to
outline the qualities required from the playing surface, i.e. stability, water retention or
drainage rates, and then to choose a size range which closely meets these criteria. Baker
(2006) mentions that for rootzone mix, the addition of organic amendments can be modified
to suit the individual sportsturf environment; nevertheless, the original characteristics of the
sand typically have a major influence on the mix that is produced.
For the majority of golf related constructions, the effect of grain shape is moderately small
compared to the importance of grain size and uniformity. STRI field and laboratory trials
have found that mixes containing rounded and elongated grains had lower values of porosity.
Conversely, hydraulic conductivity and air – filled pore space were greater when the sand
contained either angular or spherical particles (Baker, 2006; Hummel, 1995). A golf tee
therefore should be firm and level, root growth should not be constrained, and the moisture
content of the medium should not affect playing quality. The turf must receive and drain
away surplus water quickly and at the same time retain enough when irrigated so that
frequent watering is unnecessary.
James Robert Hutchinson
18
2.2 Compost/ Humus:
Humus refers to any organic matter that has reached a point of stability where it will break
down no further and might, if conditions do not change, remain as it is for centuries (Dent,
2011); however, conditions in a sportsturf environment do change and this can result in the
continuing decomposition of humus. It is consequently important that the correct compost is
used in any fine turf environment.
Humus contributes to recycled sand’s capacity to hold onto water and air – two essential
constituents for most sand organisms including red fescue and perennial ryegrass (Sachs and
Luff, 2002). Humus can hold between 80 – 90% of its weight in water, so sand rich in humus
is more drought resistant and subsequently is effective at holding mineral nutrients from
being washed away during periods of irrigation. As humus decays, it releases mild organic
acids, which dissolve soil minerals, freeing them for plant use. Certain metallic nutrients such
as iron and zinc react with soil chemicals to form insoluble compounds. Humus molecules
form a ring around the metal in a process called chelation. These chelates protect metal atoms
from being locked in the soil helping to keep the iron or zinc more available to the plant
(Bassirad. 2005; Plaster, 2008). Compost affects the plants health and its ability to take up
nutrients by chelation (Berg and McClaugherty, 2008).
Decomposition of dead plant material causes complex organic compounds to be slowly
oxidized or to break down into simpler forms (sugars and amino sugars, aliphatic and
phenolic organic acids), which are further transformed into microbial biomass (microbial
humus) or are reorganised, and further oxidised into humic assemblages (fulvic and humic
acids), which bind to minerals and metal hydroxides (Berg and McClaugherty, 2008; Plaster,
2008). There has been a long debate about the ability of grass plants to take up humic
substances from their root systems and to metabolise them. There is now a consensus about
how humus plays a hormonal role rather than simply a nutritional role in plant physiology.
Humus however, is a colloidal substance, and increases the soil’s cation exchange capacity,
hence its ability to store nutrients by chelation (Berg and McClaugherty, 2008; Handreck and
Black, 2002). While these nutrient cations are accessible to grass plants, they are held in the
soil safe from being leached by rain or irrigation (Handreck and Black, 2002).
James Robert Hutchinson
19
Composting, the initial stages of humus, is the aerobic decomposition of organic materials by
microorganisms under controlled conditions (Rynk et al, 1992). This process transforms the
original materials into a useable and valuable end product that can be used as a growing
medium or a soil and sand conditioner. Bertoldi (1996) comments that the composting
process and subsequently, humus, depends on the degradation of organic materials by
naturally occurring microorganisms. It is a dynamic and complicated ecological process in
which temperature, pH and nutrient availability are constantly changing (Brandli, 2006).
Chen et al. (1997) define composting to be a four stage process: mesophyllic; thermophyllic;
stabilisation and maturation. This is an in depth study in its own right, however, these
processes can be refined and explained thus: the initial mesophyllic phase lasts for a few
days, and is characterised as microbes growing at normal temperature (mesophiles) starting
degradation and generating heat. This heat begins the 1 – 6 week thermophyllic phase by
triggering the multiplication of other microbes and generates further metabolic heat
(thermophiles). It is during this phase that temperatures are 58°C or higher should be attained
for at least 12 hours in order for sanitisation to occur. Oxygen should be made available
during this phase (by turning the compost) in order for anaerobic decomposition to occur
(Brady and Weil, 1999). In the stabilisation phase thermophyllic activity declines and
temperatures drop to around 45 - 55°C, allowing fungal spores to invade the compost and to
carry out enzymic degradation (humification). In the final maturation stage little heat is
generated, and mesophyllic microorganisms and macro fauna colonise the compost (Brandli,
2006; Thompson, 2011). The four aforementioned stages lead subsequently on to humus
which is the desired end product for the compost part of the project.
James Robert Hutchinson
20
3.0 Project’s Grass and Identification:
3.1 Maxima 1 Strong Creeping Red Fescue (Festuca rubra rubra):
This particular species of fescue is used for winter teeing purposes and is native throughout
most of Europe and Great Britain (Aldous and Chivers, 2002). The USDA (2001) reports that
this species of fescue is also native to Asia and North America, in addition to Europe and that
it grows in temperate climates around the world. Strong creeping red fescue shows more
compatibility in mixtures with perennial rye than the other fine leaved fescues spp (Casler
and Duncan, 2003). It thrives under a wide range of conditions but is notable for its tolerance
to dry, rather poor soils. It is reasonably resistant to frost and drought and it tolerates surface
water during the winter. By forming strong rhizomes, it is able to close gaps in the grass
sward reasonably quickly, depending on weather conditions (DLF Trifolium, 2013; Aldous
and Chivers, 2002).
Strong creeping red fescue will not tolerate close mowing to 5 mm or less, but in a winter
teeing environment, 10 mm upwards, will produce rhizomes which are able to spread quickly
throughout the divot/ damaged area (Casler and Duncan, 2003). It is adapted to sandy,
gravelly, calcareous soils in cool temperate
climates such as the ones found on or near
Fairhaven Golf Club, North West coast of
England. It prefers a pH of 5.5 – 6.5 but can
survive considerable acidity. It will produce
better yields under irrigation and it is
climatically adapted to all the UK’s golf
courses that receive adequate moisture and
have well drained soils. Newly seeded areas
however, require protection from foot traffic
for up to a year or until the stand is well
established (USDA, 2012). Aldous and
Chivers (2002) indicate that these attributes
make strong creeping red fescue a good
cultivar for a winter tee grass species.
Figure 1: Creeping red fescue and its characteristics.
James Robert Hutchinson
21
3.2 Abermagic Perennial Ryegrass (Lolium perenne) and its Identification:
Perennial rye is found and used for turf purposes throughout the temperate world but most
extensively in the US and the UK (Casler and Duncan, 2003). Rye is also used in temperate
Europe, where it is naturalised, on winter games pitches, fairways and golf tees (Cornish and
Graves, 1989). It is sometimes used on its own but often in a mixture with red fescue (Beard,
1982).
Perennial rye is best adapted to cool, moist climates and on fertile, well drained soils, but has
a wide range of soil adaptability. It will tolerate extended periods of flooding (up to 25 days)
when temperatures are below 80°F (27°C) (Beard, 1973). Minimum annual rainfall
requirement is 45 – 63 cm. Perennial rye tolerates both acidic and alkaline soils, with a pH
range of 5 to 8, with an optimum pH of 6.5. During hot summers, rye becomes dormant and
will not tolerate climatic extremes of cold, heat or drought. Optimum growth occurs between
68 - 75 °F (20 - 25°C) (Beard, 1973). Mowing quality of rye is generally poor because of the
tough fibrous vascular bundles in the leaves, although modern cultivars have improved
mowing characteristics (Casler and
Duncan, 2003).
Modern rye varieties were bred for higher
maintenance tasks such as fairways and
golf tees and have one remarkable attribute
that makes it difficult to ignore: an
overwhelming fast establishment rate
(Elford, 2007). Perennial rye can establish
with more ease and less skill than any
other turfgrass (Elford, 2007)
Figure 2: Perennial rye and its characteristics.
James Robert Hutchinson
22
4.0 Aims and Objectives Recap:
The aim of the trial was to determine if two different recycled materials had an effect over
time on the growth and development of two different grass species; Strong Creeping Red
Fescue and Perennial Ryegrass, grown in a controlled environment. Growth and development
will be analysed by measuring NDVI, pot coverage, clippings dry weight and total biomass.
Turf colour will also be assessed.
James Robert Hutchinson
23
5.0 Materials and Methods:
5.1 Health, Safety and Ethics:
The analysis provided in this section was conducted at Myerscough College. Risk and
COSHH assessments were already in place for the procedures to be used (See appendix 10.10
for the full laboratory risk assessments). The student/ author carrying out all the laboratory
research had experience of working in this environment and was fully trained to carry out all
technical protocols related to the experiment (Birtles, pers com, 2012).
5.2 The trial site:
The project was conducted at Myerscough College. The location was chosen due to the easy
access to scientific equipment allowing the researcher to receive the maximum amount of
professional guidance whilst being easily accessible and safe and secure. Risk assessments
have been completed and are included in the appendix.
5.3 Growing Media:
5.3.1 Recycled Sand:
The RS used in the experiment is a combination of old bunker material and the natural ‘links’
sand which can be found beneath Fairhaven GC. Both have been used before as either
material for traps or for top dressing of new turf.
5.3.2 Compost: The majority of green and brown waste at Fairhaven GC is recycled to
produce compost; the compost used in this research was chosen at random from one of
Fairhaven’s three mature compost
heaps.
Plate 1: Recycled sand (left) and
compost (right) placed in Fairhaven’s
drying room ready for sieving from 4 –
2mm.
Recycled sand Compost
James Robert Hutchinson
24
5.4 Preparation of Plant Material:
The plants were grown in 70 mm diameter poly – vinyl chloride (PVC) irrigation pipe cut to
a depth of 200 mm, the depth of which is ample to correctly measure limited winter root
growth and above the minimum tee topsoil depth of 150 mm (200 mm loose). The depth of
the vessels represented the average mean depth of a rootzone found in a general winter golf
tee at Fairhaven Golf Club. One end of each individual pipe was secured with fine plastic
mesh and terram. Terram is a geosynthetic application which is specifically designed for
wrapping drainage systems to prevent mixing of the granular infill within the surrounding
soil. Terram also acts as a filter preventing fines within the moving water from entering the
system leading to failure through clogging (Terram, 2013). Both the mesh and terram were
secured using cable clips. After construction 32 were filled with 2 mm sieved recycled sand
and 32 were filled with 2 mm sieved compost. All were then compacted to 25 mm below the
top. The pots were then labelled thus:
Green: Rye and sand
Red: Rye and compost
Yellow: Fescue and sand
Blue: Fescue and compost
There were a total of 16 replicates for each treatment. The recommended sowing depth for
each cultivar was 10 – 15 mm as given by the supplier, British Seed Houses. In order to
establish a consistent sowing depth for the seed, each vessel was sown after compacting then
the remaining 10 – 15 mm was backfilled and consolidated. The sowing rate given by the
supplier was 35 – 50g for sowing and 25 – 35g for oversowing. Rye Sowing Rate Application
= 0.116g:
Radius = 3.5 cm
Area = 3.14
πr² = 3.142 × (3.5)² = 38.5. Seed rate = 30g/m². 30
100×100 = 0.003g/cm²
Seeds per tube = 0.003 × 38.5 = 0.116g.
Fescue Rate = 0.183g.
James Robert Hutchinson
25
A two weeks germination rate test prior to the experiment taking place (October 6th – 20th
)
returned figures of 80% fescue and 90% Rye. 60 seeds of each species were counted by hand
and split into two pots (30 seeds in each pot). At the end of the two weeks each pot was
checked and the germinated seeds counted.
Table 1: Number of seeds germinated from the two week experiment.
Pot Number/ Species: Amount of Seeds Germinated:
1 Fescue 23
2 Fescue 25
3 Rye 28
4 Rye 29
Fescue Equation: 23 and 25
average: 24.
24 ÷ 30 (number of seeds) = 0.8 ×
100 = 80.
Rye Equation: 28 and 29 average:
27.
27 ÷ 30 (number of seeds) = 0.9 ×
100 = 90.
Plate 2: After four days growth, the rye showed signs of germination whereas the fescue
started to germinate on day nine.
Due to the research being conducted during the coldest months of the year (December –
March), a greenhouse heated between 12 – 20°C with a sodium supplementation to natural
daylight photoperiod of 16hr day and 8hrs night was used in order to protect the new plants
as temperatures regularly fell below freezing during night time. Protecting the plants during
winter, and subsequent frosts, ensured the trial vessels were not damaged by freezing
temperatures.
James Robert Hutchinson
26
Both turf grasses were grown from seed to establishment for 12 weeks under a Phillips
horticultural incandescent photosynthetic grow lamp which outputted approximately 375
µmol m¯² sec¯¹. This was the only photosynthetic lamp and output available at the time of
establishment.
Arrangement in the greenhouse was via a randomised Latin Square (appendix10.1). Each tray
was moved clockwise one place each week to ensure all vessels had the same amount of light
by the end of the experiment.
Plate 3: Greenhouse arrangement. Four plastic trays containing 16 pots in each were moved
clockwise on a weekly basis.
5.5 Management of the Project:
The vessels were lightly and evenly watered twice per week via capillary matting during
establishment. No additional maintenance was provided other than an application of Scotts
Greensmaster liquid fertiliser 12:4:6 @1gm² during week five. It was agreed at this point that
the plants were looking mildly chlorotic and in need of a small application of fertiliser
(Birtles, pers com, 2013; Owen, pers com, 2013)
James Robert Hutchinson
27
5.6 Data Collection:
Data was collected weekly from 21/12/2012 for NDVI readings; pot coverage and clippings
dry weight, whilst total biomass dry weight was measured on completion of the experiment.
Subjective data was also collected on greenness. Careful individual cutting to 15 mm,
collection and overnight drying at 102°C (± 0.5) of each grass plant ensued – the height of 15
mm is reflective of tee mowing heights during the winter months.
5.7 Colour Assessment:
In this project, plant colour is based on subjective visual scores using the ‘Birtles 0 – 5 Scale’
method (Birtles, pers com, 2013). For instance, 0 equals straw brown colour whereas 5 equals
dark green (Figure 3)
0
1
2
3
4
5
Figure 3: 0 – 5 Birtles Scale.
James Robert Hutchinson
28
5.8 NDVI Readings:
All NDVI readings were taken with a hand held digital Fieldscout TCM 500 NDVI meter
prior to trimming the pots.
5.9 Pot Coverage:
Visual quality ratings were taken weekly on a 0 – 5 scale with 0 representing none or very
little grass coverage and 5 representing total pot coverage.
Plate 4: 1 rating, very little pot coverage Plate 5: 5 rating, total pot coverage
5.10 Clippings Dry Weight:
Clipping yield was collected weekly. All harvested clippings were dried at 102°C (±0.5) for
24 hours and weighed to 4 decimal places to quantify dry matter.
Plate 6: Harvested clippings ready for drying to 102°C ±0.5.
James Robert Hutchinson
29
5.11 Total Biomass Dry Weight:
Once the final clipping had been made, the tubes were moved into the ‘washing’ room at
Myerscough College where the roots and shoots were harvested and retained ready for
drying. Harvesting was undertaken by unscrewing the clip and removing the terram at the
bottom of the tube so as to expose the bottom of the rootzone. Any loose rootzone was gently
shaken off into a plastic container ready for sieving. The remaining rootzone was gently
prized out of the tube so as not to damage any root material and then placed into a 4mm and
then 2mm sieve respectively – A similar method was used by Gibbs et al, (2001) to remove
any root material prior to their root experiment analysis. Any root material captured by the 2
mm sieve was placed with its respective biomass container and room dried for 24 hours.
Sandy rootzone is a good growth medium as it is easy to remove particles from the root
system (Beard, 1992). Compost holds a significant amount of organic matter which the roots
attach themselves to, however, drying the compost prior to attempting to remove any root
material proved prudent as when the compost was pressed together gently between the
fingers it simply fell away.
All samples were dried in an oven at 102°C (± 0.5) for a minimum of 24 hours to drive out
any moisture. Dry weights of all the samples were recorded to 4 decimal places (d.p).
Plate 7: Dried fescue/ compost biomass example Plate 8: Dried rye/ compost biomass
example
James Robert Hutchinson
30
0
1
6.0 Statistical Analysis:
H – There will be no significant differences in NDVI readings, pot coverage, clippings
dry weight and total biomass dry weights between the different samples.
H – The healthier plants will be rye grown in the compost treatments.
Statistical significance of the results was analysed using Minitab 16 Statistical computer
software package to ensure that the figures were normal (parametric) and could thus be
statistically tested. The data was split into its separate treatments and individual sections and
the residuals plotted (residuals are the distance from the mean), then tested for normality
using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.; the test proved Coverage and NDVI data were not
normal thus a non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test was performed whereas clippings data and
biomass was normal and could thus be tested with ANOVA (general linear module).
The data collected for the project can be found in 10.2 and 10.3 of the appendix section.
James Robert Hutchinson
31
7.0 Results:
7.1 Recycled Sand Laboratory Test:
The characteristics of rootzones can be measured in numerous ways. For sportsturf use, the
size and uniformity, particle shape and chemical composition is required. The
aforementioned factors define the physical and chemical attributes of a rootzone in terms of
water retention, hydraulic conductivity, porosity and density.
Table 2: Recycled sand chemical analysis. Red figures indicate unacceptable, whereas green
indicates an acceptable level for sportsturf use (Baker, 2006).
pH Potassium
(mg/litre)
Phosphorus
(mg/litre)
Organic Matter
(%w/w)*
Mineral Matter
(%w/w)
Stone Sand Silt Clay
8.05 50 14 2.61 5 85 8 2
Table 3: Particle Size Distribution for recycled sand.
Sieve Size (mm) Weight Retained (g) % Retained % Passing
2.000 0.23 0.46 99.54
1.000 0.46 0.92 98.62
0.710 0.22 0.44 98.18
0.500 0.32 0.64 9.54
0.250 7.47 14.94 82.60
0.125 36.89 73.78 8.82
0.063 1.43 2.86 5.96
<0.063 2.98 5.96
50.00
*Note: Although the USGA and STRI encourage the use of organic matter in rootzones due to its valuable
assets, it is recognised that some sands may meet the physical properties guidelines without modification.
Therefore, the guidelines no longer specify a minimum organic matter percentage. However, it is widely
accepted by greenkeepers to be about 2.5 – 5% (Butler, 2007).
James Robert Hutchinson
32
Figure4: The project’s recycled sand’s D values: D90 = 300. D10 = 135.
300 (D90)/ 135 (D10) = 2.2. The figure 2.2 confirms uniformity and less likelihood of
interpacking (Baker, 2006).
Plate 9: The project’s recycled sand magnified × 140. Grain shapes are sub – angular and sub
– rounded suggesting less scope for interpacking (Baker, 2006).
James Robert Hutchinson
33
7.2 Compost Laboratory Test:
Table 4: Compost’s chemical analysis. Red figures indicate unacceptable, whereas green
indicates an acceptable level for sportsturf use (Baker, 2006).
pH Potassium
(mg/litre)
Phosphorus
(mg/litre)
Organic Matter
(%w/w)
Mineral Matter
(%w/w)
Stone Sand Silt Clay
7.23 425 48 5.92 4 83 11 2
Table 5: Particle size distribution for compost.
Sieve Size (mm) Weight Retained (g) % Retained % Passing
2.000 1.35 2.70 97.30
1.000 1.46 2.92 94.38
0.710 0.58 1.16 93.22
0.500 0.89 1.78 91.44
0.250 9.71 19.42 72.02
0.125 27.03 54.06 17.96
0.063 2.50 5.00 12.96
<0.063 6.48 12.96
50.00
James Robert Hutchinson
34
Figure 4: Compost D values: D90 = 465. D10 = 63.
465 (D90)/ 63 (D10) = 7.4. The figure 7.4 suggests a wide spread of sizes and the risk that
the particles will interpack (Baker, 2006).
Plate 10: Compost magnified ×140. Note the organic matter content around the sand particles
highlighting the cation exchange capacity of the material.
James Robert Hutchinson
35
7.3 Particle Analysis:
Table 6: The determination of the project’s particles. Figures highlighted in green indicate
comparisons to either the USGA or the STRI’s specifications. Figures highlighted in red do
not fall between the aforementioned guidelines (Baker, 2006).
Recycled Sand Compost
Bulk Density 153 (g/ml) 142 (g/ml)
Total Porosity 41.54 (%) 45.48 (%)
Air Filled Porosity 2.97 (%) 4.49 (%)
Hydraulic Conductivity 6.14 (cm/hr) 4.36 (cm/hr)
Organic Matter 2.61 (%w/w) 5.92 (%w/w)
The analysis indicates that the rootzones would not fall between the USGA and STRI’s
desirable properties guidelines for a golf green.
James Robert Hutchinson
36
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Fescue Rye
7.4 Coverage Data:
The data was tested by Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test. A non-parametric Kruskal-
Wallis test was performed as the data was not normally distributed. Kruskal-Wallis
determined statistical significance between the data and this showed that there was no
significance between rootzones on coverage. The data collected on species coverage showed
there was a significant difference.
Figure 5: Mean figures for rootzone Figure 6: Mean figures for species
Table 7: Kruskal-Wallis for pot coverage and rootzone/ species interaction.
Factors H DF Mean P Significant
Rootzone 3 2.04 1 1.834 0.153 X
4 2.54 1 1.666 0.111 X
Species 1 90.97 1 2.225 0.000
2 11. 1 1.275 0.000
No significant results (P=0.153 and P=0.111) are found between rootzones. Highly
significant results (P=0.000 and P=0.000) are found between species suggesting that rootzone
had no effect on rye, but had a significant effect of fescue.
1.55
1.6
1.65
1.7
1.75
1.8
1.85
Compost Sand
Species Rootzone
James Robert Hutchinson
37
0.147
0.148
0.149
0.15
0.151
0.152
Compost Sand
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Fescue Rye
7.5 NDVI Data:
The data was not normal (tested by a Kolmogorov-Smirnov). A non-parametric Kruskal-
Wallis was performed to determine statistical significance between the data and this showed
that there was no significance between NDVI versus rootzones. The data collected on NDVI
versus species showed that there was a significant difference.
Figure 7: Mean figures for rootzone Figure 8: Mean figures for species
Table 8: Kruskal-Wallis for NDVI and rootzone/ species interaction.
Factors H DF Mean P Significant
Rootzone 3 0.01 1 0.152 0.908 X
4 0.01 1 0.150 0.908 X
Species 1 65.31 1 0.184 0.000
2 65.32 1 0.120 0.000
The data indicates that no significant results are found between rootzones (P=0.908 and
P=0.908). Highly significant results are found between species (P=0.000 and P=0.000). This
suggests that rootzone had no effect on rye but had an effect on fescue.
Rootzone Species
James Robert Hutchinson
38
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
Fescue Rye
7.6 Clippings Data:
The data proved normal using a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Data was tested using an
ANOVA (General Linear Model). The data proved that there was no significant difference
between clippings dry weight versus rootzone. There was a significant difference between
species clippings dry weight versus species.
Figure 9: Mean figures for rootzone Figure 10: Mean figures for species
Table 9: ANOVA (general linear model) for rootzone versus dry weight of clippings data.
Grouping Information Using Tukey Method and 95.0% Confidence.
Factors Mean Standard Error Grouping
Rootzone 3 2.9 0.033 A
4 2.5 0.029 B
Species 1 2.9 0.040 A
2 2.6 0.026 B
Table 10: Means that do not share a grouping letter are significantly different.
The results indicate that fescue/ compost is significantly different to rye/ sand. This suggests
that the rootzone had an effect on fescue but not on rye.
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
Compost Sand
Rootzone Species N Mean Grouping Significant
3 1 160 3.0 A
3 2 160 2.8 B X
4 1 160 2.7 B X
4 2 160 2.4 C
Rootzone Species
James Robert Hutchinson
39
7.7 Biomass Data:
The data proved normal using a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Data was tested using an
ANOVA (General Linear Model).
Figure 11: Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.
This shows there is a difference between fescues and rye. It shows that the rootzone is not
having an effect on the rye but it is on the fescues.
Table 11: Means that do not share a grouping letter are significantly different.
rootzone species Mean1 SEMean1 N1 letters Significance
1 1 6.46687 0.070417 16 A comp fes
1 2 4.984071 0.050173 16 C comp rye X
2 1 6.188516 0.072193 16 B sand fes
2 2 4.925924 0.079455 16 C sand rye X
The results show that rootzone had no effect on rye but there was a significant difference
between the fescues. This shows that rootzone had an effect on fescue growth.
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
compost fescue compost rye sand fescue sand rye
C
B
mg's
A
C
James Robert Hutchinson
40
7.8 Colour Assessment:
The turf colour was a visual assessment which was subjectively scored on a 0 – 5 Birtles
Scale.
Figure 12: Colour assessment based on the Birtles Scale.
The chart shows a collective score for both materials and grass species and indicates that
there was little colour change throughout the research with a difference of 0.4 between both
cultivars. This suggests that neither rootzone had an effect on colour. Interestingly, colour
scores noticeably dropped during weeks five and six prior to the application of fertiliser, then
rose again after the application. Both species were looking mildly chlorotic during this
period.
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4
4.1
4.2
Week
1
Week
2
Week
3
Week
4
Week
5
Week
6
Week
7
Week
8
Week
9
Week
10
Turf Colour Assessment Chart
Vis
ual
Sco
res
James Robert Hutchinson
41
0
1
8.0 Discussion and Conclusion:
8.1 Hypothesis:
For this trial the H hypothesis could not be accepted as significant benefits were found.
Results from the trial showed the healthier plants to be the fescues over rye in both growing
mediums therefore the H hypothesis is rejected.
This research aimed to understand the effect that recycled materials had on two types of grass
cultivars, Maxima 1 strong creeping red fescue and Abermagic perennial rye, on a typically
constructed winter tee. The results highlighted the importance of rootzone selection on the
performance of grass species.
NDVI readings, pot coverage, biomass data and clippings data were influenced mainly by the
compost. The growing mediums also appeared to have significant effects on some of the
plants physical characteristics, in particular the fescue’s total biomass. The difference
between the subjective data collected on colour assessment showed that there were minimal
amounts of difference between cultivars. However, differences in leaf colour between
cultivars was of little significance as the cultivars performed as predicted in relation to one
another by the official STRI characteristic colour assessment (STRI, 2007). The results
therefore suggest that recycled materials (in particular, compost) had an effect on fescue, but
not on rye. Fescue was affected by recycled materials with highly significant differences
noted in all the scientific based results. Rye appeared to show no real differences in any
treatment and had only minimal differences in colour assessment.
With significant differences noted between cultivars in mind (the best performing in materials
with a higher organic matter content), Landschoot and Mancino (2000) cautioned that all
grasses that are given the same management as controlling factors may have favoured one
cultivar and limited another, since different cultivars may have different management traits.
For a turfgrass manager however, the research provides further evidence of plant
improvement with scientific investigation of recycled materials
James Robert Hutchinson
42
Today’s modern sports turf surfaces are mainly sand dominated structures where the
emphasis is on playing characteristics. Agronomists have identified sand as having the
majority of the desired properties for a model rootzone and that the main characteristics of
the sand should be a narrow particle size distribution (Baker, 2006). The particle size
analyses contain material which is too fine for a golf green environment, but are suitable for a
winter tee situation. Both materials had the majority of their particles within the 0.25 mm or
less range; the USGA suggests that only 20% of particles may fall within this range for a golf
green; a D90/D10 index of 2.2 and 7.4 for sand and compost respectively means that both are
not within the ‘acceptable range’ of 2 – 6 for a golf green’s drainage rates. This percentage
‘obstacle’ would not be a problem for a winter teeing environment where continuous porosity
with the underlying sand could continue. However, because sand has a lower water holding
capacity and a higher rate of plant nutrient leachate than many loam based mixtures, trials
with compost introduction could be analysed as a potential for water and nutrient retaining
properties (Baker, Binns and Cook, 1997).
Today, the majority of ‘high end’ golf tees are constructed using a mixture of sand and
organic matter. Amendments are included to sand chiefly to produce a growing medium that
has superior physical qualities than sand alone. Compost can be added to sand to retain water
or to increase infiltration rates and air – filled porosity (Handreck and Black, 2002; White,
2000). Compost has already been certified for use in USGA rootzones (Baker, Binns and
Cook, 1997). Therefore, as a practical replacement for unsustainable peat, the greenkeeping
industry could afford more research for compost integration into sand based rootzones. This
could not only highlight the attempts the industry is making towards a more sustainable
future but would also provide an ideal environment for soil life to become established.
Compost however, can vary not only with source, but also from group to group within a
source. Both the USGA and STRI indicate that untested composts must be shown to be
nonphytotoxic using a bentgrass bioassay on the compost excerpt.
The results for coverage, NDVI, clippings data and biomass data all suggested that rootzone
had an effect on fescue but not on rye. It is widely regarded that fescue varieties require less
water and nutrients than the majority of other sportsturf grasses (Beard, 1973; Beard, 1982;
Bechelet and Windows, 2007). Nevertheless, the question remains of why the rye grass
performed below the minimum level of acceptance for turf density and root mass, this maybe
where the ‘third rule’ is relevant. Cockerham (2008); Pessarakli (2007) and Turgeon (2008)
propose that the height of cut affects a number of factors, namely a reduction in carbohydrate
James Robert Hutchinson
43
production and root depth. Fescue has a slower growing bunch type of growth than rye which
grows fast and upwards. The third rule suggests that no more than a third of the grass plant
shall be removed at any one time. As the pots were trimmed once per week, the very nature
of the rye’s growth pattern meant approximately half the leaf area was removed at each cut.
Both Danneberger (1993) and Turgeon (2008) advise excessive defoliation will severely
reduce turf vigour and root mass. The severity of the clipping height and ratio suggests that
the rye grass could not thrive in such an environment and simply gave up. Fescue on the other
hand, succeeded over rye for the polar opposite reason. Its above-mentioned growth pattern
meant that it was content to be trimmed weekly since it was not only growing upwards but
outwards too and removal of minimal amounts of growth ensured it tillered effectively.
pH has an effect on availability of nutrients (Handreck and Black (2002). Many grass species
show a preference in regard to soil pH. Fine fescues are somewhat more tolerant to slightly
acid soils (6.0 – 6.5), whereas rye prefers an optimum pH of 6.5. The recycled sand and
compost gave a pH of 8.05 and 7.23 respectively indicating that had the research been
allowed to progress further, then changes in the pH may have had to be made to allow for a
less alkaline environment more suited to the projects grass species.
Assessment of shoot material showed a clear effect on plant growth and development after
twelve weeks; however, if the trial was assessed over a longer period of time, a better
understanding of the effects to shoot growth could be evaluated. This would be useful as the
research suggests the inclusion of composted materials enhance fescue growth. Further work
on this topic alone may allow for an enhanced understanding of the relationship between
turfgrass species and recycled materials to be developed. In addition to this Dunifon et al,
(2011) suggested that different rates of compost could be beneficial to gaining an improved
fescue sward, therefore increasing the chances of survival on a winter teeing environment.
This practice may help to provide a new insight into the relationship certain grass species
have with compost thus highlighting any other physiological developments that might occur
as a result in changes in functional diversity. Different concentrations of compost may also be
of interest to the greenkeeping industry as research in this field could collect a comparable set
of results to the ones noted in this trial.
James Robert Hutchinson
44
The significant differences have been determined between a range of grass species and
treatments within this trial. It would now be beneficial to research the most favourable
treatments to evaluate how they perform under similar growing conditions to other turf
related problems such as drought tolerance or the potential to suppress pathogen and disease.
STERF (2012) demonstrates compost control over fusarium patch in Scandinavia; they also
suggest that course managers along with scientists are also speculating that humus uptake is
the reason for this protection. This suggestion is supported by compost/ humus uptake
investigations undertaken by Shimozona et al., (2008) and Walters and Daniel (2007).
Turf plots with differing levels of compost amended sand rootzones could be established and
assessed over a longer period of time than this project’s 12 week trial. The turf plots could be
established with a variety of grass species including bent’s (Agrostis spp.) and meadow
grasses (Poa spp.), (both of which would be acceptable for a winter tee environment), of
which could be maintained with their respective cultural practices and winter cutting heights.
The trial plots would ideally be segregated from one another so as to limit the migration of
particles and soil life through irrigation, burrowing animals and earthworm activity.
Assessment of the plots may have to be slightly different to the assessments in this project,
although current methods used by agronomists would be sufficient to measure the effects of
the trials. The aforementioned trials could have a significant impact to the greenkeeping
industry as the majority of turf professionals would want to see quantifiable results prior to
implementing compost related applications.
The trial itself however, may have provided more rationality had it been carried out earlier in
the growing season i.e. September – November as this time of year is more closely related to
the trial’s aims and objectives. The very nature of the experiment intends to research cold
weather scenarios, herein lies the problem of growth as seed will not germinate unless the
environmental conditions are deemed suitable.
Preservation and safeguarding the quality of the environment is becoming an area of
greenkeeping which turf professionals are increasingly aware of. However, methods and
procedures such as the incorporation of compost into a rootzone specifically for a golf tee
will generate numerous questions relating to the impacts of surface quality and sustainability.
If the inclusion of independent field based research could be implemented to critically
analyse the approaches explained in this research project, the results may have the potential
to significantly reduce the costs and maintenance of winter teeing areas across the UK.
James Robert Hutchinson
45
Further research is required to determine the fundamentals of practically implementing this
style of management; any further research could enable the turf manger to move gradually
into a more environmentally controlled and diverse way of greenkeeping – resembling the
R&A’s ‘Managing Waste’ guidelines.
The potential of compost integration into the sand dominated rootzone of a winter tee remains
largely unexplored. For reasons explained in the aforesaid paragraphs, recycled sand and
compost could offer significant agronomic importance to the turfgrass manager with very
little damage to a golf course’s environs. However, whether the industry offers unity towards
this style of ‘antique’ management would surely remain to be seen as not all turf mangers are
quite so environmentally minded as the experimenter in this research.
This project concludes with the fact that fescue was affected differently by the treatments
whereas rye was not. This is clearly apparent with reference to NDVI, clippings dry weight,
pot coverage and total biomass results. Therefore it would be reasonable to recommend that
when trying to establish a turf surface, specific recycled materials would not be beneficial in
every case as different grasses could be inhibited by different types of recycled materials – as
fescue and rye proved in this particular case. This would imply that establishment of a mixed
sward such as Fescue and Lolium on a recycled material constructed winter tee could affect
the two different plants differently i.e. one plant could become dominant over the other
through the correct environment conditions being produced.
For the greenkeeping industry and its mentors to become more sustainable, it should adopt an
approach to golf course construction and maintenance which exploits scientific results;
results which promote the profits of introducing alternative techniques to the golf course and
its members. Understanding recycled sand and compost dynamics further within a winter tee
environment either for rootzone or a divot mix may help whether sustainable programmes are
really of benefit to the greenkeeping industry under ‘everyday’ circumstances. This theory
may facilitate a move away from the unsustainable approach with the hope of establishing
greater sustainable practitioners for the future of the greenkeeping industry.
James Robert Hutchinson
46
9.0 References:
Aldous, D.E. Chivers, I.H., 2002. Sports Turf and Amenity Grasses: A Manual for Use and
Identification. Landlinks Press.
Baker, S.W., 2006. Rootzones, Sands and Top Dressing Material for Sportsturf. STRI.
Baker, S.W. Binns, D.J. Cook, A., 1997. Performance of Sand – Dominated Golf Greens in
Relation to Rootzone Charateristics. Journal of Turfgrass Science. 73, 43 – 57.
Bassirad, H., 2005. Nutrient Acquisition by Plants: An Ecological Perspective. Springer.
Beard, J.B., 1973. Turfgrass: Science and Culture. New Jersey. Prentice Hall.
Beard, J.B., 1982. Turf Management for Golf Courses. Burgess Publication.
Bechelet, H. Windows, R., 2007. STRI Disturbance Theory: A Collection of Articles. STRI.
Berg, B. McClaugherty, C., 2008. Plant Litter: Decomposition, Humus Formation, Carbon
Sequestration. Springer.
Bertoldi, M.C., 1996. Science of Composting. Springer.
Brady, N.C. Weil, R.R.., 1996. The Nature and Properties of Soil. New Jersey. Prentice Hall.
Brandli, R.C., 2006. Organic Pollutants in Swiss Compost and Digestsate. The Biocycle
Guide. Springer.
Brede, D., 2000. Turfgrass Maintenance Reduction Handbook: Sports, Lawns and Golf. John
Wiley and Sons.
Butler, T., 2007. Organic Matter on Sand Based Rootzones. Pitchcare. [Online] Available at:
http://www.pitchcare.com/magazine/soil-organic-matter-on-sand-based-rootzones.html [Accessed
14 January, 2013].
Casler,M.D. Duncan, R.R., 2003. Fine- Leaved Fescues. Turfgrass Biology: Genetics and
Breeding. 23,pp.67 – 73.
Chen,Y. Hadar, Y. Inbar, Y., 1992. Composted Residues Reduce Peat and Pesticide Use.
Biocycle. 6,48 – 51.
James Robert Hutchinson
47
Christians, N., 2000. Fairway Grasses for Midwest Golf Courses: Diseases and Tough
Climatic Conditions Make Choices Tricky. Golf Course Management. 68(4), pp.49 – 56.
Christians, N. ed., 2011. Fundamentals of Turfgrass Management. John Wiley and Sons.
Dent, D., 2011. The Black Earth. London. Springer.
DLF Trifolium., 2013. Seeds and Science [online] Available at:
http://www.dlf.com/Turf/Species_and_varieties/Red_fescue.aspx [Accessed 25th March,
2013].
Dodgson, R.G., 2005. Sustainable Golf Courses: a guide to environmental stewardship.
Michigan. John Wiley and Sons.
Dunifon, S.N., Evanylo, G.K., Maguire, R.O., Goatley, J.M., 2011. Soil Nutrient and Fescue
(Festuca spp.) Responses to Compost and Hydroseed on a Disturbed Roadside. Compost
Science and Utilization. [online] Available at:
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/66238182/soil-nutrient-fescue-festuca-spp-
responses-compost-hydroseed-disturbed-roadside v 19, 3. p147 .[Accessed 29th March,
2013].
Elford, E.M.A., 2007. The Effects of Perennial Ryegrass Overseeding on Weed Suppression
and Sward Composition. University of Guelph.
Gershuny, G., 2011. Compost, Vermicompost and Compost Tea: Feeding the soil on the
organic farm. Noth East Organic Farming Association. Chelsea Green Publishing.
Gooding, M.J. Gamble, L.J., (1990) Colour evaluation of Poa pratensis Cultivars. J. Sports
Turf Res. Inst. 66, p134.
Graves R.M. Cornish, G.S., 1989. Golf Course Design. John Wiley and Sons.
Greenspec., 2012. Reclaimed Materials: why reclaim? [online] Available at:
http://www.greenspec.co.uk/reclaimed-materials.php [Accessed 23rd
November, 2012].
Handreck, K.A. Black, N. D., 2002. Growing Media For Plants And Turf. New Jersey.
UNSW Press.
Higgins, M., 2011. Sands for Sportsturf. Pitchcare. [online] Available at:
http://www.pitchcare.com/magazine/sand-for-sportsturf.html [Accessed 8th December 2012].
James Robert Hutchinson
48
Hubbard, J.C.E. ed., 1984. Grasses: A Guide to Their Structure, Identification, Uses and
Distribution Throughout the British Isles. Viking Penguin Inc. New York.
Hummel, N.W., 1995. Material Selection for USGA Greens. p. 133 – 143. In: Proc. Of 65th
Annual Michigan Turfgrass Conference Proceedings.
Jackson, R.D., P.N. Slater, and P.J. Pinter, 1983. Discrimination of growth and water stress in
wheat by various vegetation indices through clear and turbid atmospheres. Remote Sensing of
the Environment, v. 15, p.187-208.
Landschoot, P.J., Mancino, C.F., 1997. Assessment of the Minolta CR-310 Chroma Meter for
Predicting Nitrogen Status of Agrostis stolonifera. International Turfgrass Society Journal. 8,
711 – 718.
Lawson, D.M., 2000. Fertilisers for Turf. Bingley. STRI.
Lawson, D.M., 2005. Compost and Amenity Turf. International Turfgrass Bulletin. STRI
Meyer, W.A. Funk, C.R., 1989. Progress and Benefits to Humanity for Breeding Cool –
Season Grasses for Turf. Contributions from Breeding Forage and Turf Grasses. Crop
Science Society of America. 15,pp.31 – 48.
Pessarakli, M., 2007. Handbook of Turfgrass Management and Physiology. CRC Press.
Plaster. E.J., Soil Science and Management. Texas. Cengage Learning.
Rynk, R. Van De Kamp, M. Wilson, G.B. Singley, M.E. Richard, T.L. Kolega, J.J. Gouin,
F.R. Laiberly, J.G.L. Kay, D. Murphy, D.W. Hoitink, H.A.J. Brinton, F.W., 1992. On – Farm
Composting Handbook. Natural Resource, Agriculture and Engineering Service. Ithaca. New
York. USA.
Sachs, P.D. Luff, R.T., 2002. Ecological Golf Course Management. John Wiley and Sons.
Shimozona, N., Fukuyama, M., Kawaguchi, M., Iwaya – Inoue., Molla, A.H., 2008. Nutrient
Dynamics Through Leachate and Turfgrass Growth in Sands Amended with Food – Waste
Compost. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. 39pp 241 – 256.
STERF., 2012. Red Fescue Management. Guidelines Based on Greenkeeper’s Experiences.
[online] Available at:
http://sterf.golf.se/dynamaster/file_archive/130201/4a9d068608eb6dc1461a4c508026702c/R
James Robert Hutchinson
49
ed%20Fescue%20handbook%20final%201%20feb%202013.pdf [Accessed 29th
March,
2013].
STRI., 2005. STRI Guidelines, Golf Green Construction in the United Kingdom. Bingley.
STRI.
Taylor, R.S., 1995. A Practical Guide to Ecological Management of the Golf Course.
BIGGA. STRI. Bingley.
Taylor, R.S. Penrose, L., 2000. Waste Management: Best Practice Approach for English and
Welsh Clubs. STRI.
Terram., 2013. Geosynthetics you can Trust. [online] Available at:
http://www.terram.com/applications/drainage.html [Accessed 22nd March, 2013].
Thompson, K., 2011. Compost: The Natural Way to Make Food for Your Garden. Dorling
Kindersley.
Tucker, C.J., 1979. Red and photographic infrared linear combinations for monitoring
vegetation. Remote Sensing of the Environment, v. 8, p.127-150.
Tucker, C. J., W. W. Newcomb, S. O. Los, and S. D. Prince, 1991. Mean and inter-year
variation of growing-season normalized difference vegetation index for the Sahel 1981-
1989. International Journal of Remote Sensing, v. 12, p.1113-1115.
USDA., 2001. Agriculture Factbook 20012 – 2002. [online] Available at:
http://www.usda.gov/factbook/2002factbook.pdf [Accessed 17th December, 2012].
USGA., 2013. Green Section Recommendations for a Method of Putting Green Construction.
[online] Available at: http://www.usga.org/Content.aspx?id=26124 [Accessed 19th
March,
2013].
USGS., 2013. Science for A Changing World. [online] Available at:
http://ivm.cr.usgs.gov/whatndvi.php [Accessed 14th March 2013].
Waddington, D.V. Zimmerman, T.L. Shoop, G.J. Kardos, L.T. Duich, J.M., 1974. Soil
Modification for Turfgrass Areas. Physical Properties of Physically Amended Soils. Penn
State University Progress Report. 337.
James Robert Hutchinson
50
Walters, D., Daniell, T., 2007. Microbial Induction of Resistance to Pathogens, in Induced
Resistance for Plant Defence: A Sustainable Approach to Crop Protection. Blackwell
Publishing, Oxford, UK.
Welland, M., 2009. Sand: The Never Ending Story. University of California.
White, C.B., 2000. Turf Managers Handbook for Golf Course Construction, Renovation and
Grow – In. John Wiley and Sons.
Witteveen, G. Bavier, M. eds., 2012. Practical Golf Course Maintenance: The Magic of
Greenkeeping. John Wiley and Sons.
James Robert Hutchinson
51
10.0 Appendices:
B E H C A D G F
D C E B G F H A
H D C E F B A G
G A B H D E F C
F B D G C A E H
E H F A B G C D
A F G D H C B E
C G A F E H D B
10.1: Latin Square courtesy of Dr Alan Birtles
10.2: Colour, NDVI and coverage data.
Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment:
Week 2: Tube Number/ colour: Colour Score: NDVI: Coverage: Tube Number/ colour:Colour Score: NDVI: Coverage: Tube Number/ colour: Colour Score:NDVI: Coverage: Tube Number/ colour:Colour Score: NDVI: Coverage: Tube Number/ colour:Colour Score: NDVI: Coverage: Tube Number/ colour:Colour Score: NDVI: Coverage: Tube Number/ colour:Colour Score: NDVI: Coverage: Tube Number/ colour:Colour Score: NDVI: Coverage: Tube Number/ colour:Colour Score: NDVI: Coverage:
treatment speci Colour Score:NDVI: Coverage: Week 3: Week 4: Week 5: Week 6: Week 7: Week 8: Week 9: Week 10: Week 11:
blue 4 0.106 1 b 4 0.262 1 b 5 0.0256 1 b 5 0.0308 2 b 5 0.0296 1 b 4 0.039 2 b 5 0.0446 3 b 5 0.0524 4 b 5 0.589 4 b 5 0.62 4
blue 4 0.21 1 b 4 0.237 1 b 5 0.0197 1 b 5 0.0244 1 b 4 0.0308 1 b 5 0.0343 2 b 5 0.0362 2 b 5 0.043 3 b 5 0.515 4 b 5 0.557 4
blue 4 0.238 1 b 5 0.217 1 b 5 0.019 1 b 5 0.0262 1 b 4 0.0318 2 b 5 0.0362 2 b 5 0.0387 3 b 5 0.048 3 b 5 0.531 3 b 5 0.535 4
blue 4 0.211 1 b 4 0.28 1 b 4 0.0294 1 b 5 0.0286 2 b 5 0.04 2 b 5 0.0401 3 b 5 0.0475 3 b 5 0.053 4 b 5 0.605 4 b 5 0.59 4
blue 5 0.256 1 b 4 0.242 1 b 5 0.0223 1 b 5 0.0288 1 b 5 0.0379 2 b 4 0.0423 3 b 5 0.046 3 b 5 0.0548 4 b 5 0.604 4 b 5 0.63 4
blue 4 0.244 1 b 4 0.28 1 b 4 0.0302 1 b 5 0.0338 2 b 5 0.0423 2 b 5 0.046 3 b 5 0.0508 4 b 5 0.0603 4 b 5 0.649 5 b 5 0.654 5
blue 5 0.217 1 b 4 0.262 1 b 5 0.0256 1 b 5 0.028 1 b 5 0.0353 2 b 5 0.0362 3 b 5 0.0405 3 b 5 0.0497 4 b 5 0.562 4 b 5 0.628 4
blue 4 0.248 1 b 4 0.26 1 b 5 0.0248 1 b 5 0.0297 1 b 5 0.0353 2 b 4 0.0386 3 b 4 0.0368 3 b 5 0.0437 3 b 5 0.49 4 b 5 0.525 4
blue 4 0.169 1 b 4 0.197 1 b 5 0.0189 1 b 5 0.0231 1 b 5 0.03 1 b 4 0.0309 2 b 5 0.0364 3 b 5 0.046 3 b 4 0.515 3 b 5 0.559 4
blue 4 0.211 1 b 5 0.268 1 b 5 0.231 1 b 5 0.0266 2 b 5 0.0349 2 b 5 0.0361 3 b 5 0.041 3 b 4 0.0466 4 b 5 0.508 4 b 5 0.553 4
blue 4 0.217 1 b 5 0.223 1 b 4 0.231 1 b 5 0.026 1 b 5 0.0353 2 b 5 0.0392 3 b 4 0.041 4 b 5 0.0486 4 b 5 0.551 4 b 5 0.596 4
blue 4 0.222 1 b 5 0.217 1 b 5 0.211 1 b 5 0.0242 1 b 4 0.0302 1 b 5 0.0232 2 b 5 0.0324 3 b 5 0.039 3 b 5 0.427 3 b 4 0.44 3
blue 4 0.189 1 b 4 0.237 1 b 5 0.237 1 b 4 0.0302 2 b 5 0.0362 2 b 5 0.0386 3 b 5 0.0443 4 b 5 0.0579 4 b 5 0.608 4 b 5 0.619 5
blue 3 0.228 1 b 5 0.197 1 b 5 0.217 1 b 5 0.0262 1 b 4 0.0388 2 b 5 0.0434 2 b 5 0.0467 3 b 5 0.0544 4 b 5 0.602 4 b 5 0.625 5
blue 4 0.217 1 b 4 0.231 1 b 5 0.221 1 b 5 0.0286 2 b 4 0.0371 2 b 4 0.039 3 b 4 0.0443 4 b 5 0.0535 4 b 5 0.584 4 b 5 0.603 5
blue 4 0.217 1 b 5 0.286 1 b 5 0.224 1 b 4 0.0268 2 b 5 0.0342 2 b 4 0.0404 3 b 5 0.0399 3 b 5 0.0508 4 b 5 0.564 4 b 5 0.559 4
green 3 0.277 1 g 3 0.228 1 g 4 0.0197 1 g 3 0.0243 1 g 4 0.025 1 g 4 0.0261 2 g 4 0.0243 2 g 3 0.0297 2 g 3 0.346 2 g 3 0.209 1
green 3 0.28 1 g 3 0.248 1 g 3 0.0221 1 g 2 0.0228 1 g 3 0.0261 1 g 3 0.0254 1 g 3 0.0238 2 g 4 0.0298 1 g 3 0.313 2 g 4 0.283 2
green 3 0.222 1 g 3 0.221 1 g 3 0.0221 1 g 4 0.0209 1 g 3 0.0232 1 g 3 0.0222 1 g 3 0.0228 1 g 4 0.0264 1 g 4 0.243 2 g 5 0.474 3
green 3 0.222 1 g 3 0.203 1 g 3 0.0164 1 g 2 0.0191 1 g 3 0.0203 1 g 2 0.0177 1 g 2 0.0177 1 g 3 0.0228 1 g 4 0.221 1 g 3 0.189 1
green 3 0.209 1 g 3 0.221 1 g 3 0.0203 1 g 2 0.0185 1 g 3 0.0228 1 g 3 0.0227 1 g 3 0.0264 2 g 3 0.0282 2 g 3 0.313 2 g 2 0.227 2
green 4 0.239 1 g 3 0.227 1 g 3 0.0227 1 g 3 0.0227 1 g 3 0.0239 1 g 2 0.025 1 g 3 0.0228 2 g 3 0.0284 2 g 3 0.321 2 g 2 0.326 2
green 3 0.239 1 g 3 0.25 1 g 3 0.025 1 g 4 0.0239 1 g 2 0.0244 1 g 3 0.0262 1 g 3 0.0232 2 g 3 0.025 1 g 3 0.264 2 g 3 0.293 2
green 3 0.244 1 g 3 0.197 1 g 2 0.0197 1 g 2 0.0209 1 g 3 0.0184 2 g 2 0.0165 1 g 2 0.0178 1 g 3 0.0244 1 g 2 0.227 1 g 2 0.237 1
green 3 0.228 1 g 3 0.187 1 g 2 0.0197 1 g 3 0.0221 1 g 4 0.0222 1 g 2 0.0221 1 g 3 0.0203 2 g 4 0.024 1 g 3 0.239 1 g 2 0.226 1
green 3 0.203 1 g 3 0.209 1 g 3 0.177 1 g 4 0.0165 1 g 2 0.0148 1 g 2 0.0176 1 g 4 0.0165 1 g 3 0.0216 1 g 3 0.203 1 g 2 0.176 1
green 3 0.227 1 g 2 0.216 1 g 3 0.177 1 g 1 0.0185 1 g 2 0.0203 1 g 3 0.0194 1 g 3 0.0194 1 g 4 0.0244 1 g 3 0.25 1 g 2 0.256 2
green 3 0.19 1 g 3 0.184 1 g 3 0.169 1 g 4 0.0176 1 g 3 0.019 1 g 3 0.0197 1 g 2 0.0197 1 g 3 0.0246 1 g 3 0.24 1 g 3 0.243 2
green 3 0.21 1 g 3 0.203 1 g 2 0.216 1 g 5 0.0221 1 g 2 0.0221 1 g 3 0.0221 1 g 3 0.0191 1 g 3 0.0232 1 g 3 0.222 1 g 3 0.226 1
green 3 0.222 1 g 3 0.221 1 g 4 0.197 1 g 3 0.0191 1 g 2 0.0244 1 g 2 0.0194 2 g 2 0.0217 1 g 3 0.0264 2 g 3 0.279 1 g 2 0.306 2
green 3 0.21 1 g 3 0.222 1 g 3 0.184 1 g 5 0.0203 1 g 3 0.0269 2 g 3 0.025 2 g 3 0.0266 2 g 3 0.0338 2 g 3 0.362 2 g 3 0.367 2
green 3 0.197 1 g 2 0.228 1 g 3 0.228 1 g 4 0.024 2 g 3 0.0306 1 g 3 0.02872 2 g 3 0.0256 2 g 3 0.0303 2 g 3 0.329 2 g 4 0.319 3
red 4 0.217 1 r 3 0.216 1 r 3 0.0217 1 r 2 0.0232 1 r 3 0.025 1 r 3 0.0226 1 r 3 0.0206 2 r 2 0.0232 2 r 3 0.266 1 r 3 0.212 1
red 4 0.223 1 r 3 0.197 1 r 3 0.0175 1 r 2 0.0197 1 r 3 0.0184 1 r 4 0.0211 1 r 3 0.0178 1 r 4 0.0244 1 r 2 0.287 1 r 3 0.288 2
red 4 0.237 1 r 3 0.216 1 r 3 0.0223 1 r 2 0.0244 1 r 3 0.0228 1 r 2 0.0227 1 r 4 0.0239 2 r 3 0.025 2 r 3 0.254 1 r 4 0.227 2
red 4 0.169 1 r 3 0.216 1 r 4 0.0216 1 r 2 0.0211 1 r 3 0.0258 2 r 3 0.0227 2 r 4 0.0222 2 r 3 0.0298 2 r 3 0.296 2 r 3 0.29 2
red 4 0.161 1 r 3 0.155 1 r 3 0.019 1 r 3 0.0184 1 r 3 0.0232 1 r 3 0.0197 1 r 4 0.0209 1 r 4 0.0246 1 r 3 0.222 2 r 3 0.247 2
red 4 0.209 1 r 3 0.221 1 r 2 0.0197 1 r 3 0.0197 1 r 3 0.0228 2 r 2 0.0191 1 r 4 0.02 2 r 3 0.0239 1 r 3 0.263 1 r 2 0.245 1
red 4 0.182 1 r 3 0.145 1 r 3 0.0169 1 r 3 0.0197 1 r 2 0.0258 1 r 3 0.025 2 r 3 0.0123 2 r 4 0.0248 2 r 3 0.277 2 r 3 0.295 2
red 4 0.24 1 r 3 0.228 1 r 3 0.0221 1 r 2 0.0227 1 r 2 0.0271 1 r 2 0.0248 2 r 2 0.0217 2 r 4 0.0289 2 r 2 0.304 2 r 3 0.291 2
red 3 0.145 1 r 3 0.176 1 r 3 0.176 1 r 2 0.0203 1 r 2 0.0216 1 r 2 0.0221 1 r 3 0.0232 2 r 4 0.0227 2 r 3 0.275 1 r 2 0.211 2
red 3 0.169 1 r 3 0.198 1 r 3 0.21 1 r 3 0.0221 1 r 2 0.0178 1 r 2 0.0194 1 r 3 0.0152 1 r 3 0.0185 1 r 2 0.209 1 r 2 0.195 1
red 3 0.175 1 r 2 0.222 1 r 3 0.217 1 r 3 0.0203 1 r 3 0.0244 1 r 3 0.0227 1 r 3 0.0217 2 r 4 0.0226 1 r 3 0.222 1 r 3 0.221 2
red 3 0.203 1 r 3 0.203 1 r 3 0.248 1 r 4 0.0227 1 r 3 0.0271 2 r 3 0.0228 2 r 3 0.0141 1 r 3 0.0273 2 r 3 0.28 1 r 3 0.262 2
red 4 0.175 1 r 3 0.222 1 r 4 0.242 1 r 2 0.0216 1 r 2 0.0279 2 r 3 0.025 2 r 3 0.0232 2 r 3 0.0298 2 r 3 0.325 2 r 2 0.288 2
red 3 0.203 1 r 3 0.221 1 r 2 0.176 1 r 4 0.0222 1 r 2 0.0227 1 r 2 0.0221 1 r 2 0.0182 1 r 3 0.0244 1 r 3 0.264 1 r 3 0.226 2
red 3 0.197 1 r 3 0.203 1 r 2 0.217 1 r 5 0.0203 1 r 2 0.024 1 r 2 0.0209 2 r 3 0.0222 1 r 3 0.0258 2 r 3 0.253 1 r 2 0.245 2
red 3 0.168 1 r 3 0.176 1 r 3 0.15 1 r 4 0.0176 1 r 3 0.019 1 r 2 0.0209 2 r 2 0.0209 1 r 3 0.0303 1 r 3 0.282 1 r 2 0.245 2
yellow 4 0.26 1 y 4 0.277 1 y 5 0.0228 1 y 5 0.0248 1 y 5 0.0277 2 y 4 0.0228 1 y 5 0.0305 2 y 5 0.0405 2 y 5 0.45 3 y 5 0.467 3
yellow 5 0.266 1 y 4 0.288 1 y 4 0.0279 1 y 5 0.029 2 y 4 0.0323 1 y 5 0.0352 2 y 4 0.0346 2 y 5 0.0424 3 y 5 0.462 3 y 3 0.291 2
yellow 4 0.26 1 y 4 0.26 1 y 4 0.024 1 y 5 0.026 1 y 5 0.0308 2 y 5 0.0343 2 y 5 0.0355 3 y 5 0.0434 3 y 5 0.484 4 y 5 0.502 4
yellow 4 0.262 1 y 4 0.236 1 y 5 0.021 1 y 5 0.0242 1 y 4 0.0333 1 y 5 0.0338 2 y 5 0.0369 2 y 5 0.0386 3 y 5 0.475 3 y 3 0.456 4
yellow 4 0.299 1 y 4 0.299 1 y 5 0.028 1 y 5 0.0308 1 y 5 0.0343 2 y 5 0.0338 2 y 5 0.0406 2 y 5 0.0437 3 y 5 0.46 3 y 5 0.507 4
yellow 4 0.309 1 y 4 0.319 1 y 5 0.0304 1 y 4 0.0305 2 y 5 0.0379 2 y 5 0.0405 3 y 5 0.0401 3 y 5 0.0467 4 y 5 0.548 4 y 5 0.571 4
yellow 4 0.266 1 y 5 0.288 1 y 4 0.0246 1 y 5 0.0288 1 y 4 0.0362 1 y 4 0.0369 2 y 5 0.0406 2 y 5 0.045 3 y 5 0.482 4 y 5 0.537 3
yellow 4 0.266 1 y 4 0.277 1 y 5 0.024 1 y 4 0.0299 2 y 5 0.0375 2 y 5 0.0379 2 y 5 0.0405 2 y 5 0.045 3 y 5 0.513 4 y 5 0.541 4
yellow 4 0.197 1 y 3 0.197 1 y 5 0.0175 1 y 4 0.0217 1 y 4 0.0288 1 y 5 0.026 2 y 5 0.0282 2 y 5 0.0324 2 y 4 0.43 3 y 4 0.43 3
yellow 4 0.228 1 y 4 0.246 1 y 4 0.222 1 y 5 0.0228 1 y 4 0.0277 1 y 5 0.0269 2 y 5 0.0338 3 y 5 0.0401 3 y 5 0.472 4 y 5 0.527 4
yellow 4 0.236 1 y 5 0.28 1 y 5 0.242 1 y 5 0.0229 2 y 5 0.0357 2 y 5 0.04 3 y 5 0.0437 4 y 5 0.0523 4 y 5 0.555 4 y 5 0.589 4
yellow 4 0.242 1 y 5 0.24 1 y 4 0.248 1 y 5 0.0242 1 y 4 0.0302 1 y 5 0.0304 3 y 5 0.0351 3 y 5 0.0423 3 y 4 0.456 4 y 5 0.516 3
yellow 4 0.248 1 y 4 0.228 1 y 5 0.242 1 y 5 0.0242 1 y 4 0.0268 1 y 5 0.0266 2 y 5 0.0305 2 y 5 0.0388 3 y 4 0.444 3 y 4 0.414 3
yellow 4 0.266 1 y 5 0.299 1 y 4 0.304 1 y 5 0.0324 2 y 5 0.0392 2 y 5 0.0401 3 y 5 0.043 3 y 5 0.0497 4 y 5 0.548 3 y 5 0.576 4
yellow 4 0.277 1 y 4 0.269 1 y 5 0.26 1 y 4 0.0299 1 y 4 0.0352 2 y 5 0.0368 3 y 4 0.041 3 y 5 0.0503 4 y 5 0.536 4 y 5 0.541 4
yellow 4 0.223 1 y 5 0.21 1 y 4 0.211 1 y 5 0.0217 1 y 4 0.0262 1 y 4 0.026 3 y 4 0.0289 2 y 5 0.0343 3 y 4 0.364 3 y 4 0.394 3
James Robert Hutchinson
52
10.3: Clippings dry weight data.
Particle Size Analysis
Recycled Sand
Sieve size (mm) Wt.Retained (g) %
Retained
%
Passing
2.000 0.23 0.46 99.54
1.000 0.46 0.92 98.62
0.710 0.22 0.44 98.18
0.500 0.32 0.64 97.54
0.250 7.47 14.94 82.60
0.125 36.89 73.78 8.82
0.063 1.43 2.86 5.96
<0.063 2.98 5.96
50.00
10.4: Recycled sand’s particle size analysis.
Treatment: Treatment: Treatment: Treatment: Treatment: Treatment: Treatment: Treatment: Treatment: Treatment: Treatment:
28/12/12 Week 2: 4/1/13 week 3: 11/01/13 Week 4: 18/1/13 Week 5: 25/1/13 Week 6: 01/02/2013 Week 7: 08/2/13 Week 8: 15/2/13 Week 9: 22/2/13 Week 10: 1/3/13 Week 11: 8/3/2013 Week 12:
Pot Number: rootzone species CDW (g): Pot Number:CDW (g): Pot Number:CDW (g): Pot Number:CDW (g): Pot Number:CDW (g): Pot Number:CDW (g): Pot Number:CDW (g): Pot Number:CDW (g): Pot Number:CDW (g): Pot Number:CDW (g): Pot Number:CDW (g):
g 2 2 0.0142 b 0.0173 b 0.0116 b 0.0111 b 0.0116 b 0.0261 b 0.0274 b 0.03 b 0.0535 b 0.0678 b 0.0654
g 2 2 0.0019 b 0.0126 b 0.0074 ` b 0.008 b 0.0067 b 0.0074 b 0.017 b 0.0199 b 0.0296 b 0.0468 b 0.0543
g 2 2 0.0255 b 0.0161 b 0.0084 b 0.01 b 0.0134 b 0.0141 b 0.0208 b 0.0302 b 0.0441 b 0.051 b 0.0591
g 2 2 0.0194 b 0.0149 b 0.0098 b 0.0124 b 0.0132 b 0.0198 b 0.0224 b 0.0289 b 0.0337 b 0.0678 b 0.0735
g 2 2 0.0204 b 0.0215 b 0.0127 b 0.0102 b 0.0091 b 0.0195 b 0.0263 b 0.0341 b 0.0368 b 0.0733 b 0.0726
g 2 2 0.0094 b 0.0156 b 0.0107 b 0.0103 b 0.0154 b 0.0272 b 0.0274 b 0.0381 b 0.0566 b 0.0794 b 0.0713
g 2 2 0.0228 b 0.0168 b 0.0085 b 0.0107 b 0.0124 b 0.0246 b 0.0216 b 0.0244 b 0.0344 b 0.0538 b 0.0548
g 2 2 0.0155 b 0.0188 b 0.0087 b 0.0099 b 0.0113 b 0.0223 b 0.0178 b 0.0257 b 0.0294 b 0.0424 b 0.0395
g 2 2 0.0209 b 0.0095 b 0.0065 b 0.007 b 0.0052 b 0.0084 b 0.0157 b 0.0171 b 0.0348 b 0.0507 b 0.0521
g 2 2 0.0162 b 0.0191 b 0.0086 b 0.0104 b 0.0088 b 0.02 b 0.0174 b 0.0287 b 0.0381 b 0.0377 b 0.0449
g 2 2 0.0172 b 0.0171 b 0.0099 b 0.0106 b 0.0112 b 0.0202 b 0.0185 b 0.0312 b 0.0385 b 0.0555 b 0.0555
g 2 2 0.0191 b 0.0157 b 0.0103 b 0.0076 b 0.008 b 0.014 b 0.0134 b 0.0127 b 0.0124 b 0.0409 b 0.0251
g 2 2 0.0056 b 0.0199 b 0.0081 b 0.011 b 0.0092 b 0.0209 b 0.0213 b 0.0318 b 0.0562 b 0.0903 b 0.0652
g 2 2 0.0261 b 0.0084 b 0.0053 b 0.0068 b 0.0082 b 0.0209 b 0.0228 b 0.0398 b 0.0639 b 0.0908 b 0.0764
g 2 2 0.0233 b 0.003 b 0.0043 b 0.0062 b 0.0062 b 0.0148 b 0.026 b 0.031 b 0.0494 b 0.0675 b 0.0653
g 2 2 0.0251 b 0.0238 b 0.0097 b 0.0108 b 0.0146 b 0.0225 b 0.0219 b 0.03 b 0.0338 b 0.046 b 0.0455
g 2 2 0.0169 g 0.0217 g 0.0156 g 0.0079 g 0.0102 g 0.0183 g 0.0147 g 0.0178 g 0.0257 g 0.0247 g 0.0412
r 2 2 0.0043 g 0.0244 g 0.014 g 0.0062 g 0.0077 g 0.0111 g 0.0101 g 0.0119 g 0.0115 g 0.0205 g 0.0192
r 1 2 0.0082 g 0.0217 g 0.0116 g 0.0048 g 0.0093 g 0.0089 g 0.0092 g 0.0097 g 0.0151 g 0.014 g 0.0253
r 1 2 0.0044 g 0.021 g 0.0131 g 0.0059 g 0.0108 g 0.0068 g 0.0071 g 0.008 g 0.0101 g 0.0104 g 0.0072
r 1 2 0.001 g 0.0262 g 0.0142 g 0.0071 g 0.0072 g 0.0095 g 0.0065 g 0.009 g 0.0147 g 0.0165 g 0.0189
r 1 2 0.001 g 0.0177 g 0.009 g 0.0058 g 0.0105 g 0.0118 g 0.0107 g 0.0097 g 0.0178 g 0.0202 g 0.0189
r 1 2 0.0011 g 0.0217 g 0.0145 g 0.0087 g 0.0139 g 0.013 g 0.0128 g 0.0126 g 0.0131 g 0.0154 g 0.0113
r 1 2 0.0042 g 0.0159 g 0.0082 g 0.0065 g 0.0071 g 0.0105 g 0.0066 g 0.0069 g 0.0057 g 0.0141 g 0.0098
r 1 2 0.0018 g 0.0198 g 0.0071 g 0.0059 g 0.0065 g 0.0104 g 0.0071 g 0.0087 g 0.0119 g 0.0143 g 0.0089
r 1 2 0.0028 g 0.0255 g 0.0085 g 0.0061 g 0.0041 g 0.0074 g 0.0044 g 0.0055 g 0.0058 g 0.009 g 0.006
r 1 2 0.0024 g 0.0244 g 0.0109 g 0.0069 g 0.0076 g 0.0101 g 0.0071 g 0.0086 g 0.0119 g 0.0165 g 0.0097
r 1 2 0.0014 g 0.019 g 0.0116 g 0.0053 g 0.0055 g 0.0099 g 0.0044 g 0.0036 g 0.0134 g 0.0137 g 0.0109
r 1 2 0.0049 g 0.0138 g 0.0091 g 0.0072 g 0.0079 g 0.0082 g 0.0088 g 0.0065 g 0.0086 g 0.01 g 0.0079
r 1 2 0.0026 g 0.014 g 0.0081 g 0.0086 g 0.0088 g 0.0124 g 0.01 g 0.0101 g 0.0161 g 0.017 g 0.0136
r 1 2 0.0056 g 0.0179 g 0.0069 g 0.0066 g 0.0081 g 0.0129 g 0.0151 g 0.0161 g 0.0211 g 0.0238 g 0.022
r 1 2 0.0073 g 0.0179 g 0.0116 g 0.0098 g 0.0132 g 0.0167 g 0.0171 g 0.0199 g 0.0264 g 0.0236 g 0.023
r 0.024 r 0.0184 r 0.0101 r 0.0126 r 0.0214 r 0.0156 r 0.0151 r 0.0225 r 0.0216 r 0.0214
r 0.0361 r 0.0222 r 0.0093 r 0.012 r 0.0129 r 0.0117 r 0.013 r 0.0138 r 0.0188 r 0.0164
r 0.0206 r 0.022 r 0.0117 r 0.0189 r 0.0253 r 0.0199 r 0.0191 r 0.0286 r 0.0289 r 0.0182
r 0.0339 r 0.0212 r 0.0128 r 0.0142 r 0.0238 r 0.0192 r 0.0238 r 0.0296 r 0.0282 r 0.0296
r 0.0143 r 0.0186 r 0.0096 r 0.0133 r 0.0162 r 0.0156 r 0.0186 r 0.023 r 0.0198 r 0.0172
r 0.0231 r 0.0169 r 0.0128 r 0.0112 r 0.015 r 0.0101 r 0.016 r 0.0196 r 0.0162 r 0.018
r 0.0101 r 0.0184 r 0.01 r 0.0146 r 0.0209 r 0.0162 r 0.019 r 0.0281 r 0.0264 r 0.0268
r 0.0256 r 0.0164 r 0.0093 r 0.0188 r 0.0227 r 0.0162 r 0.0252 r 0.0302 r 0.029 r 0.0251
r 0.0258 r 0.0135 r 0.0067 r 0.0098 r 0.017 r 0.013 r 0.0161 r 0.023 r 0.0214 r 0.0169
r 0.0256 r 0.0161 r 0.009 r 0.0106 r 0.0166 r 0.0122 r 0.0149 r 0.0127 r 0.0153 r 0.015
r 0.0233 r 0.017 r 0.0097 r 0.0127 r 0.0159 r 0.0111 r 0.0099 r 0.0109 r 0.0193 r 0.0109
r 0.0193 r 0.016 r 0.0124 r 0.0173 r 0.0247 r 0.0198 r 0.0185 r 0.017 r 0.0211 r 0.0239
r 0.034 r 0.0152 r 0.0105 r 0.0161 r 0.0197 r 0.019 r 0.0205 r 0.0202 r 0.0212 r 0.0229
r 0.0213 r 0.0172 r 0.0112 r 0.0146 r 0.0229 r 0.018 r 0.0164 r 0.0135 r 0.0157 r 0.0146
r 0.0346 r 0.0138 r 0.0075 r 0.0106 r 0.0165 r 0.0137 r 0.0126 r 0.0143 r 0.022 r 0.0167
r 0.031 r 0.0112 r 0.0055 r 0.008 r 0.0106 r 0.008 r 0.0098 r 0.0141 r 0.0225 r 0.0233
y 0.0232 y 0.0144 y 0.01 y 0.0034 y 0.0102 y 0.0131 y 0.0138 y 0.0164 y 0.0267 y 0.0205
y 0.0274 y 0.0176 y 0.0103 y 0.011 y 0.0149 y 0.0148 y 0.0172 y 0.0188 y 0.0354 y 0.0123
y 0.0188 y 0.0098 y 0.0112 y 0.0057 y 0.0152 y 0.0098 y 0.0124 y 0.023 y 0.0207 y 0.0306
y 0.0181 y 0.017 y 0.0095 y 0.0089 y 0.0187 y 0.0145 y 0.0154 y 0.0224 y 0.0301 y 0.0326
y 0.0208 y 0.0151 y 0.0119 y 0.0117 y 0.019 y 0.0144 y 0.0092 y 0.0222 y 0.0277 y 0.0192
y 0.027 y 0.0172 y 0.0086 y 0.0164 y 0.0174 y 0.0202 y 0.0168 y 0.0243 y 0.0379 y 0.032
y 0.0189 y 0.015 y 0.0056 y 0.01 y 0.0164 y 0.0168 y 0.0157 y 0.0207 y 0.0308 y 0.0299
y 0.0202 y 0.0134 y 0.0093 y 0.0078 y 0.0193 y 0.0167 y 0.0151 y 0.0322 y 0.0386 y 0.0209
y 0.0136 y 0.0061 y 0.005 y 0.005 y 0.0063 y 0.0083 y 0.0062 y 0.0084 y 0.0183 y 0.023
y 0.0166 y 0.0103 y 0.008 y 0.0065 y 0.0084 y 0.007 y 0.0082 y 0.0162 y 0.0295 y 0.0293
y 0.0204 y 0.01 y 0.0081 y 0.0084 y 0.013 y 0.015 y 0.0219 y 0.0315 y 0.0538 y 0.0427
y 0.0194 y 0.0129 y 0.0058 y 0.009 y 0.0089 y 0.0107 y 0.0129 y 0.0218 y 0.0327 y 0.0203
y 0.0182 y 0.0125 y 0.0086 y 0.0046 y 0.0063 y 0.0096 y 0.0111 y 0.0139 y 0.0169 y 0.0201
y 0.0258 y 0.0116 y 0.0093 y 0.006 y 0.011 y 0.0139 y 0.0173 y 0.0254 y 0.0274 y 0.0194
y 0.0243 y 0.0126 y 0.0096 y 0.0091 y 0.0136 y 0.0177 y 0.0203 y 0.0266 y 0.0368 y 0.0325
y 0.0205 y 0.0135 y 0.0062 y 0.0053 y 0.0095 y 0.008 y 0.0104 y 0.0136 y 0.0162 y 0.0118
James Robert Hutchinson
53
Particle Size Analysis
Compost
Sieve size (mm) Wt.Retained (g) % Retained % Passing
2.000 1.35 2.70 97.30
1.000 1.46 2.92 94.38
0.710 0.58 1.16 93.22
0.500 0.89 1.78 91.44
0.250 9.71 19.42 72.02
0.125 27.03 54.06 17.96
0.063 2.50 5.00 12.96
<0.063 6.48 12.96
50.00
10.5: Particle size analysis for compost
Porosities
Material Sand Sand Sand Comp Comp Comp Ring No. 1 8 13 9 19 14 Soil column (cm) 5.78 5.87 6.07 5.84 5.93 5.92 Soil volume (ml) 132.36 134.42 139.00 133.74 135.80 135.57 Bulk density (g/ml) 1.53 1.54 1.53 1.43 1.42 1.41 Particle density (g/ml) 2.62 2.62 2.62
2.60 2.60 2.60 Weight ring (g) 335.00 329.84 333.18 333.84 368.07 370.60 Weight ring + soil (g) 588.65 589.59 599.57 578.97 616.47 618.93 Weight foil tray (g) 12.32 11.87 11.89 11.74 11.88 11.74 Weight tray + dry soil (g) 214.83 219.17 224.81 202.96 204.61 203.50 Organic matter (%) 2.61 2.61 2.61 5.92 5.92 5.92 Mineral matter (%) 97.39 97.39 97.39 95.94 95.94 95.94
Total porosity (%) 41.60 41.14 41.54 45.08 45.48 45.67 Water-filled porosity (%) 38.64 39.02 38.47 40.31 41.00 41.73 Air-filled porosity (%) 2.97 2.12 3.07 4.77 4.49 3.94 Gravimetric water content
(%)
25.25 25.30 25.11 28.19 28.88 29.50
10.6: Recycled material’s laboratory analysis.
James Robert Hutchinson
54
Hydraulic conductivity
Sand Sand Sand
Ring No. 1 8 13
Soil column (cm) 5.78 5.87 6.07
Water volume (ml) 4.62 4.05 4.13
Hydraulic head (cm) 11.76 11.56 11.47
Ring area (ml) 22.90 22.90 22.90
Collection time (secs) 60.00 60.00 60.00
Water viscosity 1.0801 1.0801 1.0774
Hydraulic conductivity (cm/hr) 6.39 5.79 6.14
10.7: Sand’s hydraulic conductivity.
Comp Comp Comp
55/45 55/45 55/45
9 19 14
5.84 5.93 5.92
3.08 3.30 2.38
11.62 11.66 12.02
22.90 22.90 22.90
60.00 60.00 60.00
1.0801 1.0801 1.0801
4.36 4.73 3.30
10.8: Compost’s hydraulic conductivity.
Organic matter analysis Sand Comp
100/0 0/100
Crucible No. 38 1
Wt. crucible (g) 24.08 26.17
Wt. crucible + soil (g) 47.10 46.28
Wt. soil (g) 23.02 20.11
Wt. crucible + soil after ashing (g) 46.50 45.09
Wt. loss on ignition (g) 0.60 1.19
Organic matter (%w/w) 2.61 5.92
10.9: Recycled materials organic matter analysis.
James Robert Hutchinson
55
MYERSCOUGH COLLEGE
RISK
ASSESSMENT
TITLE
Working within
a Laboratory
PROGRAMME
AREA
Laboratories
ASSESSMENT
UNDERTAKEN
Signed: A Birtle
Date: May 2012
ASSESSMENT REVIEW
Date: May 2013
STEP ONE STEP TWO STEP THREE
List significant hazards here:
Chemicals
Equipment
Bench gas supply and gas cylinders.
Broken glass and other sharp objects such as needles and
knives.
Clinical waste
Contaminated surfaces/equipment
Exposure to disease/infection
Slipping on wet surfaces.
Manual handling of equipment
Bunsen Burners and other heat
generating equipment.
Stools and waste bins.
List groups of
people who are at
risk from the
significant hazards
you have
identified.
Staff
Students
Cleaners
Visitors
List existing controls or note
where the information may
be found. List risks which
are not adequately controlled
and the action needed:
Chemical Safety Data Sheets are available on the
Staff Intranet for the stock
chemicals held.
Risk assessments for the use of specific equipment
and glassware are available
on the Staff Intranet.
A Practical Risk Assessment must be
completed prior to starting
an experiment. This will
include such things as the
concentrations of any
chemical being used, the
equipment that is to be used
and how the risks are to be
controlled within the
environment in which you
are working. The laboratory
staff can help and advise
with this process.
Students should have a basic understanding of
health and safety, COSHH
and the laboratory rules
before undertaking any
practical work. Important
James Robert Hutchinson
56
issues such as to where the nearest First Aider and First
Aid boxes are, where
emergency exits are, what to
do in an emergency,
chemical spillage or fire
need to be discussed.
‘In situ’ equipment that is
known to have a significant hazard should:
a) Be clearly identified as
such.
b) Not be used
unsupervised.
c) Have safety measures in
place to isolate the
hazard or restrict access.
Before each practical
commences, full
instructions will be given as
to how to carry out the
practical safely and any
dangers or precautions to be
taken should be highlighted.
Such precautions may
include:
1. Laboratory coats to be
worn at all times to
prevent contamination of
clothes and skin. If this
happens, the coat can be
removed and disposed of
by autoclaving,
incinerating or washing as
appropriate.
2. Disposable gloves to be
worn when necessary
except when using a
Bunsen burner, as they are
highly flammable.
3. Heat proof gloves to be
worn when necessary i.e.
when lifting things out of
ovens.
4. Protective goggles to be
worn when necessary.
5. Facemasks should be worn
when necessary,
James Robert Hutchinson
57
sometimes in conjunction with fume cupboards.
6. Long hair to be
tied/clipped back to
prevent contamination
from items used in
practical work.
7. Safe disposal of chemicals
- COSHH procedures
should be followed for
chemical disposal. If items
such as tissues have come
into contact with or been
used to mop up chemicals,
they should be rinsed in
the sink until the chemical
is diluted to a safe level
before disposing of. This
will prevent injury to
persons responsible for
emptying bins in the
laboratory.
8. Broken glass - broken
glass should be swept up
and put in the Broken
Glass box within the
laboratory.
9. Contaminated items -
contaminated items, such
as gloves and tissues that
have been used during a
dissection, should be
placed in a yellow hazard
bag for incineration.
10. The importance of
cleaning workbenches and
any equipment that maybe
contaminated by bacteria
or chemicals must be
stressed.
Correct procedures must
be followed if a spillage
occurs. This involves
following COSHH
procedures if necessary to
clear away the spillage
and, if necessary, using the
yellow ‘slippage’ warning
signs if the floor is wet,
thus preventing a fall.
James Robert Hutchinson
58
Students must inform the lecturer/person in charge
of all spillages.
11. Students should also be
made aware of correct
manual handling
procedures for moving
equipment as necessary.
12. When moving about the
laboratory, always plan
your route to avoid
tripping over stools and
waste bins.
It is the responsibility of
the member of staff in
charge of a class or a
student working
independently to ensure
that before they leave a
room that:
1. Benches are cleared and
free of spillages and
soiling.
2. All electrical items are
switched off.
3. Chemicals for disposal are
clearly identified.
4. Unused
chemicals/solutions have
stoppers in place.
5. Dissection equipment is
left soaking in a
disinfectant solution.
6. All faults are reported.
7. Any accidents or
potentially dangerous
incidences are reported.
10. 10: Laboratory health and safety/ risk assessment.
top related