Published January, 1981
IEffects of Municipal Waste Water on the Yield and Quality of Cotton
~
A. D. DAY, J. A. MCFADYEN,T. C. TUCKER,ANDC. B. CLUFF
ABSTRACT
In 1974and 1975, experimentswereconductednear Buckeye,Ari-
zonato study the influence of municipalwaste wateron the growth
andyield of cotton (Gossypium hirsutumL.). Twosourcesof irriga.
tion waterwereused:(i) pump waterfromlocal wells (control treat-
men0and(ii) municipalwaste waterandpump waterin a 50:50mix-
ture.
Cottonirrigated withthe wastewaterandpump watermixturegrew
taller withmorevegetativegrowththandid cottonthat wasirrigated
with pumpwater alone. Whencotton was irrigated with the waste
waterand pump water mixture,the yields of seed cotton and lint
cotton werehigherthan the yields fromcotton irrigated with pump
water. Cottonirrigated with waste waterand pumpwaterproduced
lint of the samequalityas did cottonirrigatedwithonlypump water.
Municipal wastewatercan be usedeffectively as a sourceof irriga-
tion waterandplant nutrientsin the commercial production of cotton
in Arizonaand, possibly, in similar environmentsthroughoutthe
world.When municipalwaste wateris mixedwith pump waterthat is
highin total solublesalts, the salt contentof the mixtureis lowered
andthe qualityof the irrigationwaterin the studyareais improved.
AdditionalIndex Words:irrigation water,waste,sewage,pollution.
Day, A. D., J. A. McFadyen,T. C. Tucker, and C. B. Cluff. 1981.
Effects of municipalwastewateron the yield andquality of cotton. J.
Environ. Qual. 10:47-49.
Buckeye,Arizona is an agricultural communitylocated
about 48 km(30 mi) west of Phoenixin central Arizona.
The BuckeyeIrrigation District consists of 7,290 ha
(18,000 acres) of farmland which are irrigated with
water furnished by the BuckeyeIrrigation Company.
This irrigation water is high in total soluble salts and
whenused as the only water source for growingfield
crops, maximum potential yields are not obtained. In
1962, the BuckeyeIrrigation Company began blending
treated municipalwaste water from the city of Phoenix
with well water for irrigation purposes. The amountof
waste water used for irrigation has increased steadily
since that date.
LITERATUREREVIEW
According to the Office of Water Program Operations, USEPA
(1974),the generalrequirementof different types of wastewatertreat-
mentpondsis that they meet secondarytreatment requirementswhich
include reduced biological oxygendemand(BOD)levels, low sus-
pendedsolids, and freedomfrom fecal coliforms. Researchindicates
that soil irrigated with sewagelagooneffluent does not constitute a
health hazard2 weeksafter irrigation (Bell andBole, 1978).
Dye(1958) noted that sewageeffluent from an activated sludge
treatment plant contained morenitrogen (N), phosphorus(P),
’Contribution from the Arizona Agric. Exp. Stn., Univ. of Ari-
zona, Tucson,AZ85721. Approvedfor publication as ArizonaAgric.
Exp. Stn. Res. Contrib. no. 3207. Received6 March1980. The re-
search reported in this paper wassupportedby funds providedby the
USDI,Office of WaterRes. and Technol., as authorized under the
WaterResourcesAct of 1964and by the State of Arizona.
~Agronomist and GraduateAssistant, Dep. of Plant Sciences; Soil
Scientist, Dep. of Soils, Water, &Engineering; and Hydrologist,
Water Resources Research Center; Univ. of Arizona, Tucson; re-
spectively.
potassium(K), the principal elementsfor plant growth,than irrigation
water from wells. Palazzo and Jenkens (1979) determined that the
K/Nratio of waste water was an important factor in determining
whetherK fertilization is needed.Wastewater-Nandfertilizer-N were
foundto be equally effective in stimulating forage production(Bole
and Bell, 1978). Irrigation with waste waterover extendedperiods did
not decreasefield cropyields or result in anymajordeleteriouseffects
on agriculturalsoils (Dayet al., 1972).Dayet al. (1979a)foundthat
addition to beinga source of irrigation water, treated municipalwaste
watercouldbe usedeffectively as a partial sourceof plant nutrients in
the commercialproduction of high yields of high quality wheat
(Triticum aestivumL.). Dayet al. (1979b)also foundthat yields
barley (Hordeumvulgare L.) pasture forage increased whenwaste
waterwasusedas a partial sourceof irrigation water.
Theobjectives of the researchreportedin this paperwere(i) to com-
pare the yield andquality of cotton (Gossypium hirsutumL.) irrigated
with a mixture of waste water and pumpwater with the yield and
quality of cotton irrigated with pumpwateralone, and (ii) to compare
the quality of a waste water and pumpwater mixturewith the quality
of pumpwater alone as a source of irrigation water for cotton pro-
duction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Representativefields of cotton on similar soil types andundersimi-
lar management practices near Buckeye,Arizonawere selected for re-
search conductedin 1974and 1975. Thesoil type wasa Gila loam. The
Gila series is a memberof the coarse-loamy, mixed, calcareous,
thermic family of TypicTorrifluvents. Theconventionalculture for
growingcotton on 96.5-cm(38-inch) beds was used. The crop was
planted in April and harvested in November each year. Approximately
122cm(48 in.) of irrigation water wererequired to producea cotton
crop. Twosources of irrigation water were used: (i) pumpwater from
local wells (control treatment) and (ii) municipalwaste water
pumpwater in a 50:50 mixture. Thepumpwater contained 4,600 ppm
total soluble salts, 21 ppmnitrate N, 22 ppmtotal N, and 0 ppmele-
mental P. The waste water and pumpwater mixture contained 3,400
ppmtotal soluble salts, 6 ppmnitrate N, 40 ppmtotal N, and 4 ppm
elementalP. Thetwosourcesof irrigation waterdiffered significantly
in the four quality characteristics. Thesuggestedfertilizer rate for
cotton in this area, 56 kg/ha of N fertilizer, wereapplied prior to
planting the cotton that wasirrigated with pumpwater increasing the
total N to 334 kg/ha. No N was applied to the cotton that was
irrigated with the waste water and pumpwater mixture although the
total N applied was488 kg/ha. All other cultural practices were
similar for cotton grownunder the two irrigation treatments. Theex-
perimental design was a Modified RandomizedCompleteBlock with
four replications. The design was modified to take advantage of
similar soil types andmanagement practices. Theindividual plot size
wasll.8 ms 027ft2).
Thefollowing data were obtained from 25-boll samples: (i) weight
of seedcotton, (ii) bolls per 500g, (iii) seed weight,(iv) seed
and (v) total numberof seeds. Other information obtained included:
(i) lint weight,(ii) lint percent,(iii) lint index,(iv) lint length,
strength, and(vi) lint fineness.In additionto these data, plant height,
seed cotton yield, and lint cotton yield wereobtainedfromthe field
plots. Thestandard analysis of variance wasapplied to all data and
treatment meanswere comparedusing the Student-Newman-Keuls’
Test as describedby Little andHills (1972).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In 1974and 1975, cotton grownwith the pumpwater-
waste water mixture producedmore seed cotton from 25
bolls than did cotton irrigated with only pumpwater.
Bolls per 500 g were the samein 1974and 1975for both
irrigation treatments. The seed weight was higher for
J. Environ. Qual., Vol. 10, no. 1, 1981 47
 Table l--Average yield components from 25-boll samples of Table 3--Average plant height, seed cotton yields, and lint
Deltapine 61 Cotton grown with two irrigation treatments. cotton yields for Deltapine 61 Cotton grown with
two irrigation treatments.
Weight Bolls Seed Total
Irrigation of seed per weight, Seed no. of Irrigation Plant
treatment Year cotton, g 500 g g index seeds treatment Year height Seed cotton yield Lint cotton yield
Pumpwater 1974 126.9b~" 99a 76.1 b 9.6a 791 b cm kg/ha % of kg/ha % of
(control) 1975 124.7b 100a 77.5b 10.5a 739b pump pump
1974-75 125.8 b 100a 76.8 b 10.1 a 765 b water water
avg. Pumpwater 1974 89b~" 4,341 b 100 1,745 b 100
Pump water 1974 136.9a 91a 86.5 a 10.3 a 844a (control) 1975 91 b 3,823 b 100 1,415 b 100
and waste water 1975 126.1a 99a 79.4a 10.3a 774a 1974-75 91 b 4,087 b 100 1,580 b 100
1974-75 131.5a 87a 83.0a 10.3a 809a avg
avg. Pump water 1974 119 a 4,996 a 115 1,845 a 106
Meansin the samecolumn, for the sameyear or years, followed by the and waste 1975 119 a 4,078 a 107 1,505 a 106
sameletter, are not different at the 5%level of significance using the water 1974-75 119 a 4,534 a 111 1,676 a 106
Student-Newman-Keuls’Test. avg
Meansin the same column, for the same year or years, followed by the
cotton irrigated with the pumpwater-waste water mix- sameletter, are not different at the 5%level of significance using the
ture than it was for cotton grown with pump water Student-Newman-Keuls’Test.
alone in both years. Cotton grown with the pump
water-waste water mixture produced a higher total had higher levels of total N than the pumpwater. Total
number of seeds than did cotton grown with pump N present in the pumpwater was 334 kg/ha, including
water alone in both 1974 and 1975 (Table 1). Lowersalt 56 kg/ha of N applied in agreement with the recom-
content of the pump water-waste water mixture may mendedfertilizer rate for Arizona. Total N present in
have enabled the plants irrigated with this water to pro- the pump water-waste water mixture was 488 kg/ha.
duce heavier seeds and a higher number of seeds than Almost all of the N in the pumpwater was in the form
plants irrigated with pumpwater alone. A plant growth of NO3-N, the form most available to plants. In the
constituent may have been present in the waste water pumpwater-waste water mixture, only a small percent-
and may have contributed to the increased seed size and age of the N was present as NOrNand the remainder
increased numberof seeds. was present as ammonia (Camp, Dresser, and McKee,
The lint weight was the same for cotton produced Environ. Science Div. April, 1980. Final report,
using the two irrigation sources in 1974 and 1976. In Phoenix Wastewater Treatment Facility Plant).
1974, cotton irrigated with the pumpwater-waste water High NO3-Nlevels in the pumpwater were a desirable
mixture had a lower lint percentage than cotton grown factor. However, the pumpwater was also high in total
with pumpwater alone; however, in 1975, there was no soluble salts. The quality of the irrigation water is in-
difference in lint percentage between the two irrigation fluenced by salt concentrations which lower the desira-
treatments. Lint index, lint length, lint strength, and lint bility of water for irrigation. Plant growth maybe in-
fineness were essentially the same for both irrigation hibited by excessive salt levels in irrigation water be-
treatments in 1974 and 1975 (Table 2). cause excessive salts decrease germination and limit
Cotton grown with the pumpwater-waste water mix- water uptake; and ions present in the salts mayproduce
ture was taller and produced more seed cotton and lint specific toxic effects on plants (Bernstein et al., 1955).
cotton than cotton irrigated with only pumpwater in The lower concentrations of salt present in the pump
1974 and 1975 (Table 3). Taller plants with more vegeta- water-waste water mixture indicated that the mixture
tive growth are not advantageous in cotton production. was of a higher quality than water from pumps in the
An increase in height promotes lodging and makes de- Buckeye area, despite the lower amount of NO~-N
foliation more difficult. An increase in vegetative present in the mixture. The pump water-waste water
growth results in more plant material in the cotton lint mixture was, therefore, more desirable for use in grow-
during harvesting, thus lowering the fiber quality. ing crop plants.
Results for analyses of pump water and the pump Municipal waste water can be used effectively as a
water-waste water mixture indicated that the mixture source of irrigation water and plant nutrients in the

Table 2--Average lint measurementsfor 25-boll samples for Deltapine 61 Cotton grownwith two irrigation treatments.
Lint Lint Lint
Lint Lint Lint length length strength Lint
Irrigation treatment Year weight percentage index (UHM) (M) (actual) fineness
g % -- cm -- PSI$ micronaire
Pumpwater (control) 1974 50.8a~" 40.1 a 6.4 a 2.84 a 1.45 a 3.26 a 5.54 a
1975 47.2 a 37.8 a 6.4 a 2.97 a 1.57 a 3.47 a 4.96 a
1974-75 avg 49.0 a 39.0 a 6.4 a 2.92 a 1.52 a 3.37 a 5.25 a
Pumpwater and waste water 1974 50.5 a 36.9 b 6.0 a 2.92 a 1.42 a 3.27 a 5.30 a
1975 46.8 a 37.1 a 6.1 a 3.02 a 1.57 a 3.70 a 5.00 a
1974-75 avg 48.7 a 37.0 b 6.1 a 2.97 a 1.50 a 3.49 a 5.15 a
Meansin the samecolumn, for the same year or years, followed by the sameletter, are not different at the 5%level of significance using the Student-
Newman-Keuls’Test.
Pressley Strength Index.

48 J. Environ. Qual., Vol. 10, no. 1, 1981

commercial production of cotton in Arizona. Waste
water had no significant detrimental effect on most cot-
ton fiber quality characteristics. When waste water was
mixed with pump water that was high in total soluble
salts, the salt content of the mixture was lowered and
the quality of the irrigation water was improved. The
use of municipal waste water in the commercial produc-
tion of cotton uses a municipal waste material effective-
ly and makes more conventional pump water available
for domestic purposes.