Technical
polyethylene or polypropylene oxide-based, with water solubility differing according to type and are produced from mineral oils. Polyethylene-based PAGs are highly water soluble, are poorly miscible with mineral oils and are very polar. Their water solubility helps to provide biodegradability. Their technical properties are on par with those of mineral oil. They are mainly used in hydro-engineering, such as sluices and movable bridges.
Lubrication manufacturers and blenders offer nowadays HETG and HEES products which are inherently ageing and oxidation resistant, maintain a good viscosity- temperature relation and are generally compatible with hydraulic components, including seals and O-rings.
Benefits of using Biofluids
The benefits of using a biodegradable hydraulic fluid are considerable should the fluid leak, but it should also be understood how biodegradability can impact an hydraulic fluid’s performance. As stated previously, vegetable-based fluids are generally more readily biodegradable, but they will not provide comparable service life to that of a standard mineral hydraulic fluid. However, when compared to conventional, mineral-based fluids, synthetic-based fluids will likely offer extended service life, while also being more readily biodegradable.
Generally speaking, biodegradable oils should be maintained and monitored during use just like mineral-based oils. They must be kept cool, clean and dry (water- free) and their condition should be monitored on a regularly scheduled basis using readily available oil analysis techniques.
Little research has been published on turf damage to assess recovery from hydraulic fluid damage; even less on fine turf maintained at putting green or bowling green height.
M.L. Elliot and M. Prevatte published their research Comparison of Damage to 'Tifgreen' Bermudagrass by Petroleum and Vegetable Oil Hydraulic Fluids in the journal HortTechnology. In summary it stated:
“Petroleum and vegetable oil hydraulic fluids were spread on `Tifgreen' Bermudagrass at different volumes and different temperatures to simulate a turfgrass maintenance equipment leak. Initial damage, recovery, and effects for a 1- year period were compared among treatments.
All hydraulic fluid treatments resulted in 100% leaf necrosis (death of the plant cells) within 10 days of application. Turfgrass recovery was influenced primarily by the fluid volume. After recovery, only plots treated with petroleum hydraulic fluid were periodically chlorotic, (yellowing of the leaf due to lack of chlorophyll) resulting in lower turfgrass quality. Long-term negative effects of hydraulic leaks from golf course equipment may be reduced by using vegetable oil hydraulic fluid.”
William L. Berndt published his research Effect of Synthetic Hydraulic Fluid on Warm- Season Turfgrass in the journal Applied Turfgrass Science. It can be summarised as:
“Synthetic hydraulic fluid was compared to traditional hydraulic oils for its potential to cause turf injury. Effects of fluid type, volume, and temperature on area of injury, percent necrosis, and time to healing were investigated at Edison College via
twenty minutes of the spill. This treatment will disperse the hydraulic oil and reduce the severity of the damage, but be aware that it also can spread the problem over a slightly larger area.
Other treatments have been tested and applied, such as activated charcoal, calcined clay, granular dishwashing detergent, waterless skin cleaner and a non-ionic wetting agent and water. It has been reported that activated charcoal will absorb oil from spills, but will not increase breakdown, resulting in an unsightly, messy black residue within the damaged turf.
“Should a leak or spill occur, the quicker remedial action is taken, the quicker and better recovery will occur”
experiments on hybrid Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon L. [Pers.] x C. Transvaalensis Burtt-Davey) or seashore Paspalum (Paspalum vaginatum O. Swartz).
Synthetic fluid caused minimal shoot necrosis that healed within 10 days, while hydraulic oils caused 100% necrosis of shoots. Synthetic fluid applied on putting greens in the field caused an average of 70 cm² of injury with 17% necrosis after 5 days. Time to healing was 15 to 30 days. In contrast, hydraulic oils caused larger areas of injury with more necrosis and longer healing times.
Compared to hydraulic oils, synthetic fluid consistently caused less injury to warm- season turfgrasses and is a viable replacement for traditional hydraulic oil in turf management equipment.”
Roch Gaussoin of the University of Nebraska published his research Hydraulic oil spills: Reducing the damage in the journal Golf Course Management. It can be summarised as:
“Hydraulic oil spills have a disastrous effect on bentgrass golf greens. Depending on the type of oil used and the corrective action taken, recovery can occur within four weeks after the spill or take longer than two months. Prompt action, as well as the right choice in hydraulic oil, can significantly improve recovery.”
What the above studies and field observations revealed is that grass and soil is allowed to regenerate more quickly after spills of biodegradable vegetable-based and synthetic hydraulic fluids, with no residual environments effects.
On the other hand, with conventional hydraulic fluids, leaks or spills can contaminate nearby soil and groundwater. Re-seeding and germination of new grasses were not noticeably affected by contamination in the soil. However, the single best approach to protecting the environment, as well as mowing equipment and operations, is to prevent leaks and spills through good routine maintenance.
Should a leak or spill occur, the quicker remedial action is taken, the quicker and better recovery will occur. To improve recovery, it is suggested that the spilled area is treated with a liquid dishwashing detergent and flushed with water within
FEBRUARY/MARCH 2014 PC 133
Other products, such as oil emulsifiers and synthetic absorbents, are also available to alleviate damage caused by hydraulic fluid spills. Liquid dishwasher detergent was still the best corrective treatment.
Any of these techniques may help to reduce the severity of the damage, especially on longer turf. However, on greens, it is imperative to get a quick repair to maintain playability. For this, the above-mentioned techniques may be of limited value, depending on the location of the damage. Re-turfing or plugging can repair the area quickly and return it to play as soon as possible.
Without re-turfing, a hydraulic leak on a Creeping Bentgrass or Bentgrass/Poa Annua green will take four to six weeks to heal. On Bermudagrass, healing actually may be more rapid without re-turfing. However, playability will still be affected for a longer period.
The last option for repair is to overseed and topdress the affected area to promote healing. All the above studies indicated that seed germination was not impacted by oil residual. The biggest problem with this approach is the downtime that it requires. Small or out-of-play areas can easily be corrected by overseeding.
Obviously, it will be of great advantage to ensure surface disruption through spiking or aeration to create good seed-to-soil contact. Otherwise, seed germination will be significantly slower. After the repairs, nitrogen fertilisation in the repaired areas should be increased to promote more rapid healing. Further field testing showed that foliar applications with urea or ammonium sulphate on a weekly basis also helped to speed the healing process.
If turf or plugs are used to repair the spilled area, frequent, light topdressing will help to smooth the affected surface. Turfed areas may need to be watered two or three times daily depending on weather conditions.
Conclusion
Even with the best maintenance programme, there is still potential for a hydraulic fluid or lubricant spill, which is why a vegetable-based readily biodegradable or a synthetic-based hydraulic fluid in the turf maintenance machines could be a significant advantage.
The damaged area will recover after a spill much quicker, provided it is treated correctly and quickly. There is also no environmental impact, neither in the soil, nor in nearby open or subterranean waters.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156