Publications

UNPAVED ROAD DUST MANAGEMENT
A Successful Practitioner's Handbook

Previous Chapter « Table of Contents » Next Chapter

References

References
Appendix A - Dust Scan Steering Committee
Appendix B - Scan Tour Assessment Forms
Appendix C - Example County Road Budget Proposal
Appendix D - Training Topics
Appendix E - Basics About Road Dust Suppressant Categories

REFERENCES

BOLANDER, P. and Yamada, A. 1999. Dust Palliative Selection and Application Guide. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (9977 1207 - SDTDC).
GEBHART, R.L., Denight, M.L., Grau, R.H. 1999. Dust Control Guidance and Technology Selection Key. Champaign, IL: US Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories. (USACERL Report 99/21).
Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low-Volume Local Roads (ADT ≤ 400), 1st Edition. 2001. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
HUNTINGTON, G. and Ksaibati, K. 2010. Gravel Road Management: Implementation Guide. Laramie, WY: Wyoming Technology Transfer Center.
IRWIN, K., Hall, F., Kemner, W., Beighley, E., Husby, P. 2008. Testing of Dust Suppressants for Water Quality Impacts. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
JONES, D. 1999. Dust and Dust Control on Unsealed Roads. PhD Thesis, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
JONES, D. 2008. Chemical Treatments on Unsealed Roads: Establishing a Chemical Treatment Program. Davis and Berkeley, CA: University of California Pavement Research Center.
JONES, D. 2008. Chemical Treatments on Unsealed Roads: Additive Selection Guide. Davis and Berkeley, CA: University of California Pavement Research Center.
JONES, D. 2008. Chemical Treatments on Unsealed Roads: Unsealed Road Evaluation Guide. Davis and Berkeley, CA: University of California Pavement Research Center.
JONES, D. 2008. Chemical Treatments on Unsealed Roads: Protocols for Researching the Performance of Additives. Davis and Berkeley, CA: University of California Pavement Research Center.
JONES, D. 2008. Chemical Treatments on Unsealed Roads: Fit-for-Purpose Certification of Additives. Davis and Berkeley, CA: University of California Pavement Research Center.
KOCIOLEK, A. 2013. Unpaved Road Chemical Treatments, State of the Practice Survey. Publication No. FHWA-CFL/TD-13-002, January 2013. Lakewood, CO, Federal Highway Administration, Central Federal Lands Highway Division.
Manual on Uniform Traffic Devices. Part 6: Temporary Traffic Control. 2009. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
PAIGE-GREEN, P. 1989. The Influence of Geotechnical Properties on the Performance of Gravel Wearing Course Materials. PhD Thesis, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.
Potential Environmental Impacts of Dust Suppressants: "Avoiding Another Times Beach": An Expert Panel Summary. 2004. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA/600/R-04/031).
RUSHING, J. and Tingle, J. 2006. Dust Control Field Handbook: Standard Practices for Mitigating Dust on Helipads, Lines of Communication, Airfields, and Base Camps. Vicksburg, MS: US Army Engineer Research and Development Center. (ERDC/GSL SR- 06-7). Vicksburg, MS: US Army Engineer Research and Development Center. (ERDC/GSL SR- 06-7).
SKORSETH, K. and Selim, A. 2000. Gravel Roads Maintenance and Design Manual. Washington DC: Federal Highway Administration.
SMITH, G.A., Makowichuk, P.B. and Carter, D.J.E. 1987. Guidelines for Cost Effective Use and Application of Dust Palliatives. Ottawa, Canada: Transportation Association of Canada.
STEEVENS, J., Suedel, B., Gibson, A., Kennedy, A., Blackburn, W., Splichal, D. and Pierce, J.T. 2007. Environmental Evaluation of Dust Stabilizer Products. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (ERDC/EL TR-07-13).
Unsealed Roads: Design Construction and Maintenance. 2009. Pretoria, South Africa: Department of Transportation. (Technical Recommendations for Highways, No. 20).

APPENDIX A - DUST SCAN STEERING COMMITTEE

Last Name	First Name	Agency	Title
STEERING TEAM
Albert	Steve	Western Transportation Institute - Montana State University	Director
Armstrong	Amit	Federal Highway Administration - Western Federal Lands Highway Division	Technology Deployment Engineer
Barnes	David	University of Alaska - Fairbanks	Civil Engineering Department Head
Bolander ^{(1) (2)}	Peter	USDA Forest Service	Geotechnical/Pavement Engineer
Drewes ^{(1) (2)}	Bruce	Idaho Technology Transfer Center	Center Manager
Duran ⁽²⁾	Matt	EnviroTech Services, Inc.	Vice President of Sales and Marketing
Fay ⁽²⁾	Laura	Western Transportation Institute - Montana State University	Research Scientist
Finger	Susan	US Geological Survey	Program Coordinator
Huntington ⁽²⁾	George	Wyoming Technology Transfer Center - University of Wyoming	Senior Engineer/Transportation Training Coordinator
James ⁽²⁾	David	University of Nevada - Las Vegas	Associate Vice Provost for Academic Programs
Jones ^{(1) (3)}	David	University of California Pavement Research Center - Davis	Associate Director/Principal Investigator/Research Engineer
Little ⁽¹⁾	Ed	US Geological Survey	Branch Chief
Main	Melvin	Midwest Industrial Supply, Inc.	Technical Support
Milne ⁽²⁾	Clark	Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities	Northern Region Maintenance Engineer
Nahra ^{(1) (2)}	Mark	Woodbury County, Iowa	County Engineer
Ramos-Reyes	Isabel	Federal Highway Administration - Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division	Technology/Safety Engineer
Rushing	John	U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center	Research Civil Engineer
Skorseth	Ken	South Dakota Local Technical Assistance Program - SD State University	Field Services Manager
Surdahl ^{(1) (2)}	Roger	Federal Highway Administration - Central Federal Lands Highway Division	Technology Delivery Engineer
Vitale ^{(1) (2)}	Bob	Midwest Industrial Supply, Inc.	CEO Markets Manager
Williams ^{(1) (4)}	Bethany	US Geological Survey	Biologist
Yamada	Alan	US Forest Service	Civil Engineer
Coordination & Logistics
Kociolek ^{(1) (2)}	Angela	Western Transportation Institute - Montana State University	Coordinator/Research Scientist
Scott ^{(1) (2)}	Andrew	Western Transportation Institute - Montana State University	Editor/Driver
Ulberg	Traci	Meetings Northwest, LLC	Logistics Support

(1) Traveled on the Scan
(2) Co-Author of this Handbook
(3) Lead Author of this Handbook
(4) Co-Author of the Handbook (Chapter 7)

APPENDIX B - SCAN TOUR ASSESSMENT FORMS

View larger version of Appendix B

Visual assessment form used on Scan to assess untreated road sections. (Developed by David Jones).

APPENDIX C - EXAMPLE COUNTY ROAD BUDGET PROPOSAL

WOODBURY COUNTY, IOWA UNPAVED ROAD MAINTENANCE PRACTICE, COST ANALYSIS, AND BUDGET REQUEST

This spreadsheet was prepared as an example of an unpaved road maintenance program. It includes a worksheet for calculating the cost of alternative road maintenance strategies.

In Iowa, granular surfaced roads have either gravel or crushed limestone for surfacing material. Other crushed rock or recycled products can be substituted for these aggregates provided they have an appropriate grading of coarse to fine material.

Standard county practice for maintenance of unpaved roads is to blade the roads every one to three weeks depending upon traffic and weather conditions, with gravel replacement as needed. This requires approximately 1.0 to 1.5 tons of gravel per mile per vehicle of the average daily traffic per year to maintain roads in an acceptable condition. Gravel loss is caused by traffic abrasion, loss of fines through dust and erosion, and by snow removal activities.

Woodbury County policy requires that roads with more than 200 vehicles per day or more than 12 houses per mile receive a dust palliative treatment. No efforts are made to stabilize the road. The example cost comparison in the attached spreadsheet does not include the cost of this surface treatment dust palliative. The addition of this palliative would influence the break even point for maintenance with no treatment vs. that with treatment. The cost of maintaining gravel roads increases with increasing traffic, especially when counts exceed 150 vehicles per day.

EXAMPLE COST COMPARISON MODEL SHEET

The following should be noted in the attached cost comparison model sheet:

This is an example only. When using this worksheet, practitioners will need to use their own numbers for wages, equipment costs, equipment productivity, and material costs. Carefully check the spreadsheet cells to be sure that values are carried forward in the correct order in the calculations.
Calculations of expenses should include all expenses anticipated for road maintenance and construction.
Full cost of staff including wages, benefits, and payroll taxes should be included.
Machine costs, if not documented, should be taken from a reliable source.
Comparative calculations should be adjusted for local construction prices.
Only direct agency costs are considered. Accident reduction and road user cost savings (e.g., vehicle operating costs) are not factored into the analysis, nor is the value of not having to deal with public complaints (with reduced maintenance and dust control provided by improved gravel roads, road administrators receive fewer complaints about road conditions).
Cost savings can be directed to improving other segments in the network.
Cost savings per mile increases with traffic count. Based on experience with other counties reviewed, gravel replacement may not be necessary for in excess of 15 years.
The life of treated roads, when treatment is done annually and fines are kept on the road surface, can exceed 20 years.

Summary of Results

Period	Annual Costs (2013 $)
Period	Untreated	Treated
First Year	$ 45,283	$ 45,259
5 Years	$ 13,574	$ 10,629
10 Years	$ 10,013	$ 6,848
15 Years	$ 8,827	$ 5,426
20 Years	$ 8,233	$ 4,714

Construction Data Sheet

Construction - Assumptions
Road has adequate base
5" of gravel placed per mile
Calcium chloride used in example calculations
0.25 gal/sq.yd applied late summer first year
Labor, Equipment and Materials for Construction	Hourly Pay or rate	Hourly Benefits	Total Pay & Benefits	Hours or Tons Per Year	Price	Tons Per Year	Sq.Yds Treated	Gallons Per Sq.Yd	Annual Maint. Cost
Motor Grader Operator	$ 19.24	$ 6.36	$ 25.60	16					$ 410
Truck Driver	$ 19.24	$ 6.36	$ 25.60	208					$ 5,328
Tanker Driver	$ 19.24	$ 6.36	$ 25.60	16					$ 410
Roller Operator	$ 19.24	$ 6.36	$ 25.60	16					$ 410
Motor Grader	$ 75.00	$ -	$ 75.00	16					$ 1,200
Dump Truck	$ 60.00	$ -	$ 60.00	208					$ 12,487
Water Tanker	$ 60.00	$ -	$ 60.00	16					$ 960
Roller	$ 35.00	$ -	$ 35.00	16					$ 560
Gravel (per ton)					$ 6.50	3122			$ 20,292
First Year Construction Cost - Untreated									$ 42,056
Calcium chloride (per sq.yd)					$ 0.35		14080	0.65	$ 3,203
First Year Construction Cost - Treated									$ 45,259

Maintenance Data Sheets

Untreated Road Maintenance - Assumptions
Maintenance is 50% in first year
Weekly blading - 15 minutes per mile
Annual rock hauled to road to replace loss 1 ton/ADT
April 1 to November 15 maintenance blading AADT is 200
1 hour round trip for gravel hauling
Labor, Equipment and Materials	Hourly Pay or rate	Hourly Benefits	Total Pay & Benefits	Hours or Tons Per Year	Price	Tons Per Year	Annual Maint. Cost
Motor Grader Operator	$ 19.24	$ 6.36	$ 25.60	23.89			$ 612
Truck Driver	$ 19.24	$ 6.36	$ 25.60	13.33			$ 341
Roller Operator	$ 19.24	$ 6.36	$ 25.60	13.33			$ 341
Motor Grader	$ 75.00	$ -	$ 75.00	23.89			$ 1,792
Dump Truck	$ 60.00	$ -	$ 60.00	13.33			$ 800
Water Tanker	$ 60.00	$ -	$ 60.00	13.33			$ 800
Roller	$ 35.00	$ -	$ 35.00	13.33			$ 467
Gravel (per ton)					$ 6.50	200	$ 1,300
Annual Maintenance (Untreated)	Construction	Maintenance	Total Cost				$ 6,453
Costs in first Year	$ 42,056	$ 3,227	$ 45,283				$ 45,283
Costs over 5 Years	$ 42,056	$ 25,812	$ 67,868				$ 13,574
Costs over 10 Years	$ 42,056	$ 58,078	$ 100,134				$ 10,013
Costs over 15 Years	$ 42,056	$ 90,343	$ 132,399				$ 8,827
Costs over 20 Years	$ 42,056	$ 122,609	$ 164,665				$ 8,233

Treated Road Maintenance - Assumptions
Grader maintenance once per year at rejuvenation
0.40 gal/sq.yd annual rejuvenation
Labor, Equipment and Materials	Hourly Pay or rate	Hourly Benefits	Total Pay & Benefits	Hours or Tons Per Year	Price	Tons Per Year	Sq.Yds Treated	Gallons Per Sq.Yd	Annual Maint. Cost
Motor Grader Operator	$ 19.24	$ 6.36	$ 25.60	4					$ 102
Roller Operator	$ 19.24	$ 6.36	$ 25.60	2					$ 51
Truck Driver	$ 19.24	$ 6.36	$ 25.60	1					$ 26
Motor Grader	$ 75.00	$ -	$ 75.00	4					$ 300
Roller	$ 35.00	$ -	$ 35.00	2					$ 70
Water Tanker	$ 60.00	$ -	$ 60.00	1					$ 60
Gravel (per ton)					$ 6.50	0			$ -
Calcium chloride (per sq.yd)					$ 0.35		14080	$0.40	$ 1,971
Annual Maintenance Cost	Construction	Maintenance	Total Cost						$ 2,580
Costs over 5 Years	$ 45,259	$ 7,885	$ 53,144						$ 10,629
Costs over 10 Years	$ 45,259	$ 23,224	$ 68,483						$ 6,848
Costs over 15 Years	$ 45,259	$ 36,126	$ 81,385						$ 5,426
Costs over 20 Years	$ 45,259	$ 49,028	$ 94,287						$ 4,714

Input Data Sheets

Benefit Rate Calculation	Days Per Year	Hours Per Day	Pay Rate	Hours per Year	Percentage or value	Hourly Rate
FICA			19.24		0.0765	$ 1.47
Retirement			19.24		0.0807	$ 1.55
Vacation	15	8	19.24	2080		$ 1.11
Holiday Pay	10	8	19.24	2080		$ 0.74
Sick Leave	12	8	19.24	2080		$ 0.89
Life Insurance				2080	$ 120.00	$ 0.06
Disability Insurance				2080	$ 1,126.00	$ 0.54
Hourly Benefit Value:						$ 6.36
Construction Productivity	Hours Per Mile	Tons per Load	Hours per Load	Tons per Mile	Truck Hours
Motor Grader	16
Water Tanker	16
Roller	16
Dump Truck		15	1	3122	208
Materials	Width	Thickness	Length	Unit Weight	Tons	Square Yards
Gravel per mile	25	0	5280	110	3122
Treated Square Yards	24		5280			14080
Maintenance Productivity: Untreated Road	Weeks Per Year	Hours Per Week	Hours Per Year	Grader Hours	Tons per Load	Hours per Load	Tons per Mile per Year	Loads per Year	Truck Hours
Motor Grader Hours-Maintenance Blading	32	0.33		10.56
Motor Grader Hours-Rock Spreading/Shaping			13.33	13.33
Total Motor Grader Hours per mile				23.89
Roller Hours			13.33
Truck Hours					15	1	200	13.33	13.33
Water Tanker Hours					15	1	200	13.33	13.33
Maintenance Productivity: Treated Road	Hours Per Mile	Tons per Load	Hours per Load	Tons per Mile	Truck Hours
Motor Grader	4
Roller	2
Water Tanker	1

APPENDIX D - TRAINING TOPICS

Air quality
1. Travel distances associated with dust
  1. Wind patterns and intensity
  2. Distance to the point of interest
2. Human health
  1. Respiratory issues
  2. Residences coated with dust, possibly leading to other health issues
  3. Accident risk due to drivers' reduced visibility
3. Livestock (and game) health
  1. Increased dental wear due to chewing vegetation coated in dust
  2. Respiratory issues
4. Crops (and other vegetation)
  1. Problems related to coating crops with dust
5. Equipment and Vehicle Damage
  1. Reduced life of air filters
  2. Damage related to dust throughout any machine exposed to dust
Water Quality
1. Runoff into adjacent waterways
2. Over-application of chemicals
3. Spills
Reduced Agency Costs
1. Less frequent routine blading due to stabilizing effects
2. Less surfacing material loss
3. Lowered dust loss, leading to less frequent regravelling
User Costs
1. Wet-weather performance issues
  1. Increased rutting due to higher moisture contents in the presence of hydrophilic treatments
  2. Increased accident risk due to slippery conditions
2. Dry-weather performance issues
  1. Improved visibility leading to safer travel
  2. Better crust formation reduces washboards (rhythmic corrugations)
  3. Retention of fines, preventing washboarding and raveling
  4. Tolerate some roughness but preserve a durable, drainable crust.
Understanding materials
1. The importance of testing
2. How material properties influence performance
3. Deciding between sources
Choosing an appropriate chemical treatment
1. Understanding additive categories
2. Choosing the right chemical treatment
3. Dealing with suppliers
Applying chemical treatments
1. Preparing the road
2. Safety and environmental considerations
3. Spray-on application process
4. Mix-in process
Maintaining treated roads
1. Preventing damage to crusts
2. Preparing the road
3. Rejuvenation treatments

Training Tip: Use pictures in addition to words when training

APPENDIX E - BASICS ABOUT ROAD DUST SUPPRESSANT CATEGORIES

Dust Suppressant Category	Attributes	Limitations	Application	Origin	Environmental Impact
Water and Water Absorbing
Water	Agglomerates the surface particles together Normally, readily available	Evaporates readily Controls dust generally for less than a day Generally the most expensive and labor intensive of the inorganic suppressants	Frequency depends on temperature and humidity; typically only effective from 1/2 to 12 hours	Any water source	Depends on water source
Calcium chloride (deliquescent)	Ability to absorb water is a function of temperature and relative humidity; for example, at 25°C (77°F) it starts to absorb water from the air at 29% relative humidity and at 38°C (100°F) it starts to absorb water at 20% relative humidity Significantly increases surface tension of water film between particles, helping to slow evaporation and further tighten compacted soil as drying progresses Treated road can be regraded and recompacted with less concern for losing moisture and density	Requires minimum humidity level to absorb moisture from the air Doesn't perform as well as MgCl2 in long dry spells Performs better than MgCl2 when high humidity is present Slightly corrosive to metal, highly to aluminum and its alloys, attracts moisture thereby prolonging active period for corrosion Rainwater tends to leach out highly soluble chlorides If high fines content in treated material the surface may become slippery when wet Effectiveness when less than 20% solution has performance similar to water	Generally 1 to 2 treatments per season Initial application; Flake @ 0.5 to 1.1 kg/m² (1.0 to 2.0 #/sy), typical application 0.9 kg/m² (1.7 #/sy) @ 77% purity Liquid 35 to 38% residual @ 0.9 to 1.6 l/m² (0.2 to 0.35 g/sy), typical application is 38% residual concentrate applied undiluted @ `1.6 l/m² (0.35 g/sy) - Follow-up:@ 1/2 to 1/3 initial dosage	Brine By-product in the form of brine from manufacture of sodium carbonate by ammonia-soda process and of bromine from natural brines Three forms: Flake, or Type I @ 77 to 80% purity Pellet, or Type II @ 94 to 97% purity Clear liquid @ 35 to 38% solids	Water quality impact: generally negligible if the proper buffer zone between treated area and water Fresh water aquatic impact: may develop at chloride concentrations as low as 400 ppm for trout up to 10,000 ppm for other fish species Plant impact: some species susceptible such as pine, hemlock, poplar, ash, spruce, and maple Potential concerns with spills of liquid concentrate
Magnesium Chloride (Deliquescent)	Starts to absorb water from the air at 32% relative humidity independent of temperature More effective than calcium chloride solutions for increasing surface tension, resulting in a vary hard road surface when dry Treated road can be regraded and recompacted with less concern for losing moisture and density	Requires minimum humidity level to absorb moisture from the air More suitable in drier climates In concentrated solutions very corrosive to steel (note: some products may contain a corrosive- inhibiting additive), attracts moisture thereby prolonging active period for corrosion Rainwater tends to leach out highly soluble chlorides If high fines content in treated material the surface may become slippery when wet Effectiveness when less than 20% solution has performance similar to water	Generally 1 - 2 treatments per season Initial application: 28 to 35% residual @ 1.4 to 2.3 l/m² (0.30 to 0.5 g/sy), typical application is 30% residual concentrate applied undiluted @ 2.3 l/m² (0.50 g/sy) Follow-up: @ 1/2 initial dosage	- Occurs naturally as brine (evaporated)	Water quality impact: generally negligible, function of the buffer zone between treated area and water Fresh water aquatic impact: may develop at chloride concentrations as low as 400 ppm for trout up to 10,000 ppm for other fish species Plant impact: some species susceptible such as pine, hemlock, poplar, ash, spruce, and maple Potential concerns with spills
Sodium Chloride (Hygroscopic)	Starts to absorb water from the air at 79% relative humidity independent of temperature Increases surface tension slightly less than calcium chloride Can be reworked with a grader if surface is moist	Requires minimum humidity level to absorb moisture from the air Moderately corrosive to steel in dilute solutions Tends not to hold up as well as a surface application	Generally 1 - 2 treatments per season Higher dosages than calcium treatment	Occurs naturally as rock salt and brines	Same as calcium chloride
Organic, Non Petroleum
Lignin Derivatives	Binds surface particles together Greatly increases dry strength of material under dry condition Retains effectiveness during long dry periods with low humidity With a high amounts of clay, it tends to remain slightly plastic permitting reshaping and additional traffic compaction Can be reworked with a grader if surface is moist	May cause corrosion of aluminum and its alloys Surface binding action may be reduced or completely destroyed by heavy rain, owing to solubility of solids in water Becomes slippery when wet, brittle when dry Difficult to maintain as a hard surface, but can be done under adequate moisture conditions Performance varies depending on tree species and extraction process	Generally 1 to 2 treatments per season Initial: 10 to 25% residual @ 2.3 to 4.5 l/m² (0.5 to 1.0 g/sy), typical application is 50% residual concentrate applied undiluted @ 2.3 l/m² (0.50 g/sy) or 50% residual concentrate applied diluted 1:1 w/water @ 4.5 l/m² (1.0 g/sy) May be advantageous to apply in two applications Also in powdered form mixed at 1kg to 840 liters (1 lb to 100 gallons) of water and then sprayed	Water liquor product of sulfite paper making process, contains lignin in solution Composition depends on tree species and chemicals used to extract cellulose; active constituent is neutralized lignin sulfuric acid containing sugar	Water quality impact: none Fresh water aquatic impact: BOD may be high upon spills/leaching into a small streams Plant impact: none Potential concern with spills
Tall Oil Derivatives	Adheres surface particles together Greatly increases dry strength of material under dry conditions	Surface binding action may be reduced or completely destroyed by long term exposure to heavy rain owing to solubility of solids in water Difficult to maintain as a hard surface	Generally 1 treatment every few years Initial: 10 to 20% residual solution @ 1.4 to 4.5 l/m² (0.3 to 1.0 g/sy); typical application 40 to 50% residual concentrate applied diluted 1:4 w/water @ 2.3 l/m² (0.50 gal/sy)	Distilled product of the kraft (sulfate) paper making process	Water quality impact: unknown Fresh water aquatic impact: BOD may be high upon spills/leaching into a small streams Plant impact: none Potential concern with spills
Molasses/Sugar Beet Extract	Provides temporary binding of the surface particles Can be reworked with a grader if surface is moist	Limited availability	Not researched	By-product of the sugar cane and sugar beet processing industry	Water quality impact: unknown Fresh water aquatic impact: unknown Plant impact: unknown, none expected
Vegetable Oils	Agglomerates the surface particles Can be reworked with a grader if surface is moist	Limited availability Oxidizes rapidly, then becomes brittle	Generally 1 treatment per season Application rate varies by product, typically 1.1 to 2.3 l/m² (0.25 to 0.50 g/yd²) The warmer the product, the faster the penetration Follow-up: apply at reduced initial dosages	Some products: canola oil, soybean oil, cotton seed oil, and linseed oil	Water quality impact: unknown Fresh water aquatic impact: some products have been tested and have a low impact Plant impact: unknown, none expected
Bio-fluids (Hydroscopic)	Agglomerates surface particles Can be used in freezing temperatures Can be reworked with a grader if surface is moist	Requires minimum humidity level to absorb moisture from the air Pricing closely tied to bio-diesel and grain markets, therefore volatile	Generally 2 to 6 treatments per season Initial: 0.3 gal/sq yd depending on road surface condition, and product Frequency depends on temperature and humidity	Can be manufactured or a by-product of bio-diesel manufacturing Plant or animal based, is renewable resource Glycerin	Water quality impact : none Fresh water quality impact: none Plant impact: none
Organic Petroleum/Petroleum Resins/Mineral Oils
Asphalt based	Binds and/or agglomerates surface particles because of asphalt adhesive properties Serves to waterproof the road	Under dry conditions some products may not maintain resilience If too many fines in surface and high in asphaltenes it can form a crust and fragment under traffic and in wet weather Some products are difficult to maintain	Generally 1 to 2 treatments per season Initial: 0.5 to 4.5 l/m² (0.1 to 1 g/sy) depending on road surface condition, dilution, and product Higher viscosity emulsions are used for more open-graded surface materials Follow-up: @ reduced initial dosages	Cutback asphalt: SC-70 Asphalt emulsion: SS-1, SS-1h, CSS- 1, or CSS-1h mixed with 5+ parts water by volume Modified asphalt emulsions Petroleum oils	Water quality impact : none after curing Fresh water quality impact: none after curing Plant impact: none, provided no direct application to plants Beware spills May have regulatory storage and reporting requirements
Petroleum Resins	Binds and/or agglomerates surface particles Petroleum additives reduce moisture sensitivity	Crust is difficult to maintain	Generally 1 to 2 treatments per season Initial: 0.5 to 4.5 l/m² (0.1 to 1 g/sy) depending on road surface condition, dilution, and product	Combination of lignin and petroleum	Water quality impact : none after curing Fresh water quality impact: none after curing Plant impact: none, provided no direct application to plants Beware spills May have regulatory storage and reporting requirements
Mineral oils and base oils	Agglomerates surface particles Applied neat - does not require dilution with water Treated road can be re-graded and re-compacted without reapplication	Many products fall under this category - lack of test data Temporary dust control	Generally 1 to 2 treatments per season Initial: 0.3 gal/sq yd depending on road surface condition, and product Follow-up: @ reduced initial dosages	Derived from crude oil solely through a physical separation process Emulsified oils Mineral oils Can also be industrial waste	Wide variety of ingredients in these products "Used" products are toxic Oil in products might be toxic Need product specific analysis Potential concerns with spills and leaching prior to the product "curing" May have regulatory storage and reporting requirements
Synthetic Polymer Emulsions
Synthetic Polymer Emulsions (Acrylates, polyvinyl acetates, polyvinyl chlorates, etc)	Binds surface particles through adhesive properties Can increase shear strength of material Can be used in stabilization and dust control applications	Difficult to maintain as a hard surface Can break down under UV light Performs best if mixed in	Generally 1 treatment every few years Initial: 5 to 15% residual solution @ 1.4 to 4.5 l/m² (0.3 to 1.0 g/sy); typical application is 40 to 50% residual concentrate applied diluted 1:9 w/water @ 2.3 l/m² (0.50 gal/sy)	Can be by-product of the adhesive manufacturing process Specifically formulated prime products to meet engineered specifications Typically 40 to 60% solids	Water quality impact: none Fresh water aquatic impact: generally low Plant impact: none Need product specific analysis
Synthetic Fluids
Synthetic Fluids ("Synthetic" defined by EPA environmental regulatory testing requirements [40 CFR 435])	Adhesive and cohesive binding mechanism Increases shear strength "Waterproofs material Dust control and material stabilization Does not require dilution with water Performs at extreme temperatures Can be reworked with a grader	None documented	Generally 1 treatment per season Initial: 0.2 gal/sq yd depending on road surface condition, and product Follow-up: @ reduced initial dosages	Manufactured specifically for dust control and surface stabilization Produced by the reaction of specific chemical feedstock	Water quality impact - none Fresh water quality impact - none Plant impact - none Meets EPA environmental based criteria for synthetic (sediment toxicity, biodegradability, PAH content, aquatic toxicity, and oil sheen free)
Electrochemical/sulfonated oils and Enzymes
Electrochemical derivatives, sulfonated oils, ionic stabilizers, and enzymes	Changes characteristics of clay size particles Generally effective regardless of climatic conditions Good compaction aid	Performance dependent on fine clay mineralogy Needs time to "set-up", that is react with the clay fraction Difficult to maintain if full strengthening reaction occurs Limited life span	Generally diluted 1 part product to anywhere from 100 to 600 parts water Diluted product then used to compact the scarified surface	Proprietary, sulfonated oils and ionic stabilizers are often sulfuric acid based	Need product specific analysis Some products are highly acidic in their undiluted form
Other, Mechanical
Clay Additives (Bentonite is most common)	Agglomerates with fine dust particles Generally increases dry strength of material under dry conditions	- The surface may become slippery when wet if too much is added and soil fines content increased to above 20%	Generally 1 treatment every 5 years Typical application rate is at 1 to 3% by dry weight	Mined natural clay deposits	Water quality impact: unknown Fresh water aquatic impact: none Plant impact: none