Old 05-28-2008, 09:58 PM
krankin krankin is offline
LawnSite Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Springdale, Arkansas
Posts: 1
Understanding the Difference-Hydrated Lime & Marking Chalk

Our local ballfield is being marked with Hydrated Lime. My son, the Catcher, had a pretty significant skin and respiratory reaction after a ballgame. My husband thought to look at the equipment storage and found the bags that they were using. I looked up the MSDS sheet and what the differences are between this and marking chalk and am very confused as to why they would be using this product in such a way. Is this a common practice?
Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2008, 10:48 PM
jmoore16135 jmoore16135 is offline
LawnSite Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 45
No, this is not common practice. I would suggest that you contact your leagues' equipment manager and president, and make them aware of the situation. Depending on who is responsible for the purchasing of the marking chalk, weather it is a park & rec district, or the league itself, it could take a few phone calls to find the person responsible for ordering the product. A form of lime is used for lining the fields but it is limestone that is used in the marking chalk.
CSFM (Certified Sports Field Manager)
CTP (Certified Turfgrass Professional)
STMA Member
Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2008, 09:17 AM
RD 12 RD 12 is offline
LawnSite Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Folsom, LA
Posts: 85
At our park we got away from chalking for the very same reason. I also think that painting lines look a lot better.
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Layout Style:

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1998 - 2012, LawnSite.comô - Grand View Media
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:53 PM.

Page generated in 0.11585 seconds with 8 queries