Airport pavement deicing and anti-icing are essential for maintaining flight safety, reducing runway excursion risks, and ensuring reliable winter operations. At the same time, airports must consider the long-term durability of their pavements, lighting systems, and aircraft-exposed components. This forces operators to balance operational efficiency against corrosion, environmental impact, and infrastructure preservation. Within this framework, non-chloride deicers such as Calcium Magnesium Acetate (CMA) have been discussed for decades as a potential alternative to chloride-based chemicals.
Characteristics and Chemical Advantages of CMA
Calcium Magnesium Acetate (CMA) is a non-chloride pavement deicer with significantly lower corrosivity compared with sodium chloride (NaCl) and calcium chloride (CaCl₂). Laboratory and field studies consistently show that CMA’s corrosive effect on metals and reinforced concrete is close to the level of tap water, making it a benchmark material for “low-corrosion” performance in many transportation research programs.
Recent technical papers continue to evaluate CMA’s behavior with varying Ca/Mg ratios, assessing its pavement interaction, dissolution rate, and environmental profile. These results reinforce CMA’s classification as one of the least corrosive chemical deicers available, which makes it especially attractive for corrosion-sensitive locations such as bridges, tunnel structures, or areas where aircraft components may be exposed.
CMA Adoption in Airports — Data and Reality
A key distinction must be made between acetate-based deicers as a category and CMA as a specific compound.
Although acetate-based pavement deicers are widely recognized in airport operations, public data does not support the claim that most airports use CMA. Instead:
- In modern airport pavement management, the dominant acetate products are potassium acetate (KAc), sodium acetate, and formate-based liquid deicers.
- EPA monitoring, industry surveys, and recent TRB/NCHRP research show that airport runoff typically contains KAc or formate, rather than CMA.
- CMA is referenced in standards as an acceptable non-chloride deicer, but actual large-scale use is limited and often restricted to specific, corrosion-sensitive zones or isolated pilot applications.
Conclusion based on evidence:
Most airports use acetate-based deicers, but the mainstream products are KAc and formate. CMA is not widely adopted and remains a niche or case-specific option.
Application Rates and Usage Approach — Why Airports Favor Anti-icing
Why Anti-icing Is Preferred
Modern airport winter operations emphasize anti-icing (preventing ice formation) rather than reactive de-icing. Applying chemical agents before precipitation:
- prevents ice from bonding tightly to pavement
- reduces the need for heavy mechanical removal
- lowers the overall chemical consumption
- improves runway availability and reduces operational delays
This approach aligns with FAA guidance and current airport best practices.
Typical Application Rates for Acetate-based Deicers
Industry field data and transportation department guidelines provide practical reference ranges:
Anti-icing (preventive application)
- ~0.5 gallon per 1,000 ft² (≈1.9 L per 93 m²)
De-icing (thin ice removal)
- 1–3 gallons per 1,000 ft² (≈3.8–11.4 L per 93 m²)
Recommended Use of CMA Specifically
If an airport chooses CMA—whether as a solid or dissolved liquid—the following operational principles apply:
- Emphasize anti-icing; CMA works best by preventing ice–pavement bonding.
- Use for thin-ice deicing only, as CMA melts slower than chloride salts and is less effective on thick ice.
- Always combine with mechanical clearing, since CMA does not provide rapid melt-off under severe icing.
These practices align with pavement management research and operational manuals from multiple transportation agencies.
Benefit and Cost Analysis
Material and Infrastructure Protection
CMA—and non-chloride deicers in general—dramatically reduce metal corrosion and concrete damage. Research programs report:
- significantly lower corrosion rates on steel and aluminum components
- reduced scaling and spalling of concrete pavements
- potential long-term cost savings from fewer repairs
For airports with older infrastructure or corrosion-sensitive assets, this is a meaningful advantage.
Environmental Benefits
Compared with chloride salts, CMA produces:
- lower soil and vegetation damage
- reduced salinity impact on surface water
- more favorable biodegradation and aquatic toxicity profiles
For airports facing strict environmental compliance, this is a major consideration.
Economic Considerations
Despite these advantages, recent industry analyses highlight persistent challenges:
- CMA is significantly more expensive than mainstream airport deicers.
- Its melting speed is slower, reducing its appeal for rapid-response operations.
- Large-scale replacement of KAc/formate with CMA remains economically impractical for most airports.
Therefore, many experts recommend selective or pilot use, particularly in areas where infrastructure protection outweighs cost concerns (bridges, decks, lighting housings, sensitive equipment zones).
Conclusion
CMA offers clear chemical and environmental advantages, particularly in corrosion-sensitive areas. However, its limited melting speed, higher cost, and the availability of more operationally efficient acetate/formate products have prevented it from becoming a mainstream airport runway deicer. CMA remains technically viable but situationally appropriate, best suited for targeted applications rather than widespread airport deployment.
