Grantee Research Project Results
Cellulose Based Soil Medium as a Peat Moss Substitute
EPA Contract Number: 68D60035Title: Cellulose Based Soil Medium as a Peat Moss Substitute
Investigators: Handley, Mont A.
Small Business: Wabash Valley Products Inc.
EPA Contact: Richards, April
Phase: I
Project Period: September 1, 1996 through March 1, 1997
Project Amount: $51,000
RFA: Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) - Phase I (1996) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: Hazardous Waste/Remediation , SBIR - Waste , Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)
Description:
Consumers of horticultural sphagnum peat moss use the commodity at a per capita rate of twelve pounds per year. Sphagnum peat is harvested from wetlands by the "ditching and draining" method. Peat land bogs are highly acidic, highly sensitive ecosystems. The U.S. Bureau of Mines commodity specialist for peat, Raymond Cantrel, reported in a 1990 document that peat would be depleted in the US in as little as 20 years.NUPEAT will reduce the need to exploit these valuable wetlands, by supplying consumers with an attractive alternative to peat moss. NUPEAT is made entirely from waste paper or old newsprint (ONP). This project will determine the feasability of using NUPEAT as an alternative to sphagnum peat moss.
Supplemental Keywords:
small business, SBIR, engineering, chemistry, solid waste., RFA, Scientific Discipline, Waste, Water, Water & Watershed, Municipal, Environmental Chemistry, Economics and Business, Ecology and Ecosystems, Watersheds, wetlands, peat moss substitute, waste recycling, recycled waste paper, recycled paper, recycling, NUPEAT, peat moss substitue, cellulose based soil, horticulture, solid waste, sphagnum moss substitute, reuse, aquatic ecosystems, watershed sustainablility, aquatic habitat protectionProgress and Final Reports:
The perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.