&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Research and Development
Robert S Ken Environmental Research
I- tilxiuitory
Ada OK 74820
Long-Term Effects of
Land Application of
Domestic
Wastewater:
Tooele, Utah,
Slow Rate Site
Volume 1:
Field Investigation
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution-sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-79-171a
August 1979
LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF LAND APPLICATION OF DOMESTIC
WASTEWATER: TOOELE, UTAH, SLOW-RATE SITE
Volume I: Field Investigation
by
James H. Reynolds, L. R. Anderson, R. W. Miller,
W. F. Campbell, and M. 0. Braun
Utah Water Research Laboratory
Utah State University
Logan, Utah 84322
Contract No. 68-03-2360
Project Officer
Curtis C. Harllh, Jr.
Wastewater Management Branch
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
ROBERT S. KERR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ADA, OKLAHOMA 74820
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Robert S. Kerr Environmental Re-
search Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for
publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recom-
mendation for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was established to coordinate the
administration of major Federal programs designed to protect the quality of
our environment.
An important part of the agency's effort involves the search for infor-
mation about environmental problems, management techniques, and new technolo-
gies through which optimum use of the nation's land and water resources can
be assured and the threat pollution poses to the welfare of the American peo-
ple can be minimized.
EPA's Office of Research and Development conducts this search through a
nationwide network of research facilities. As one of these facilities, the
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory is responsible for the man-
agement of programs including the development and demonstration of soil and
other natural systems for the treatment and management of municipal waste-
waters .
Although land application of municipal wastewaters has been practiced
for years, there has been a growing and widespread interest in this practice
in recent years. The use of land application received major impetus with the
passage of the 1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
The 1977 amendments to the Act gave further encouragement to the use of land
application and provided certain incentives for the funding of these systems
through the construction grants program. With the widespread implementation
of land application systems, there is an urgent need for answers to several
major questions. One of these questions regards the long-term effects of
land application on the soil, crops, groundwater, and other environmental
components. This report is one in a series of ten which documents the effects
of long-term wastewater application at selected irrigation and rapid infil-
tration study sites. These case studies should provide new insight into the
long-term effects of land application of municipal wastewaters.
This report contributes to the knowledge which is essential for the EPA
to meet the requirements of environmental laws and enforce pollution control
standards which are reasonable, cost effective, and provide adequate protec-
tion for the American public.
cjj
William C. Galegar
Director
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
111
-------
ABSTRACT
Application of wastewater to the land has been designated a viable alter-
native for wastewater treatment by the Water Pollution Act Amendments of 1972
(PL 92-500). However, very little information is available concerning the
long-term effects of applying wastewater to the land. The general objective
of this study was to determine the long-term effects of employing secondary
treated municipal wastewater as irrigation water. The study compared the
quality of soils, crops, groundwater, and applied water to a site receiving
normal irrigation water (control site) to a site (treated site) which had
utilized secondary treated municipal effluent for irrigation water during a
20-year period. Similar management practices were employed at both sites.
The treated municipal effluent applied as irrigation water to the treated
site was of a significantly poorer quality than the normal irrigation water
applied to the control site. The treated effluent mean biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD^) concentration was 14.1 mg/1 in 1976 and 16.0 mg/1 in 1977 com-
pared to a mean biochemical oxygen demand (BOD^) concentration of 1.6 mg/1
in 1976 and 2.5 mg/1 in 1977 of irrigation water applied to the control site.
The treated municipal effluent was higher in nutrients and heavy metals con-
centrations than the control site water. However, neither the treated site
nor control site was irrigated with water of poorer quality than recommended
irrigation water quality criteria.
The treated site has been irrigated with secondary treated municipal
effluent since 1957, however, soils analysis indicated no accumulation of
nitrogen, lead, zinc, copper, chromium, nickel, or soluble salts as a result
of the effluent application. Available phosphorus was the only soil parameter
which appeared in greater quantities in the treated site compared to the con-
trol site. The soils investigation in this study cannot provide any negative
aspects to the long-term use of secondary treated municipal effluent for
irrigation.
Economic plant cultivars, representing forage, root and seed crops, were
grown on the treated site and control site to determine the effects of long-
term irrigation with treated effluent on crop characteristics. Data were re-
corded on growth rate, fresh and dry weights, percent moisture, yield, cad-
mium, calcium, copper, iron, lead, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, sodium
and zinc. With few exceptions, all crops exhibited increased plant height and
yield when grown on the treated site. Generally, more variation was observed
between years than between treatments for most of the crops used in the experi-
ments. Chemical analyses of the edible plant portion generally indicated less
copper, iron and zinc, but more sodium in those plants growing on the treated
site than on the control site. These data (physical and chemical responses)
IV
-------
suggest that it is sufficiently safe to produce edible crops on land to which
sewage effluents have been applied. However, no bacteriological or virus
analyses were performed to determine pathogenic effects.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-03-2360 by
Utah State University under the partial sponsorship of the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency. This report covers a period from January, 1976, to June,
1978, and work was completed as of December, 1978.
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword ill
Abstract iv
Figures v±±±
Tables xi
List of Abbreviations and Symbols xxi
Acknowledgments xxii
1. Introduction 1
Nature of the Problem 1
Objectives 1
Scope 2
2. Conclusions 3
3. Recommendations 6
4. Methods 7
General 7
Site Selection 8
Site Description 9
Water Quality and Quantity 16
Soil Sampling 22
Plants 26
5. Results of Water Quality and Soil Investigation 36
Physical Description of Site 36
Water Quality 37
Soil Characteristics 55
6. Results of Plant Investigations 90
Introduction 90
Water Quality 91
Plant Results From Garden Plots 93
Implications For Long Term Effects 143
References 161
Appendices
A. Soil Investigation 165
B. Water Quality Data 178
C. Statistical Comparison of the 1976 Water Quality
Data With the 1977 Water Quality Data 273
vii
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Location map 12
2 Schematic of treated site 13
3 Schematic of control site 15
4 Location of surface water and soil sample stations .... 17
5 Location of soil sampling stations for determining the
chemical properties of soil at the treated site .... 23
6 Location of soil sampling station for determining the
chemical properties of soil at the control site .... 24
7 Garden plot at treated site (randomized block design),
1976 29
8 Garden plot at control site (randomized block design),
1976 30
9 Garden plot at treated site (randomized block design),
1977 31
10 Garden plot at control site (randomized block design),
1977 32
11 The NH^-N content in control and treated site soils
collected in June 1976 and in September 1976 67
12 The N03~N content in control and treated site soils
collected in June 1976 and September 1976 68
13 The total Kjeldahl nitrogen in soils from control and
treated site sampled September 1976 and June 1977 ... 72
14 Sodium bicarbonate-soluble phosphorus extracted from
the soils in the control and treated site (sampled
June 1976) 74
15 Influence of sewage effluent on first growth of alfalfa,
1976 94
Vlll
-------
FIGURES (CONTINUED)
Number Page
16 Influence of sewage effluent on first growth of alfalfa,
1977 95
17 Influence of sewage effluent on second growth of alfalfa,
1976 99
18 Influence of sewage effluent on second growth of alfalfa,
1977 100
19 Influence of sewage effluent on snap bean growth, 1976 . . . 104
20 Influence of sewage effluent on snap bean growth, 1977 . . . 107
21 Influence of sewage effluents on carrot growth, 1976 . . . .113
22 Influence of sewage effluent on carrot growth, 1977 . . . .115
23 Influence of sewage effluent on the growth of corn, 1976 . . .117
24 Influence of sewage effluent on the growth of corn, 1977 . . . 120
25 Influence of sewage effluent on the growth of lettuce,
1976 123
26 Influence of sewage effluent on the growth of lettuce,
1977 130
27 Influence of sewage effluent on the growth of onions,
1976 132
28 Influence of sewage effluent on the mean weekly growth
(height - cm) of peas, 1976 135
29 Influence of sewage effluent on the mean weekly growth
(height - cm) of peas, 1977 138
30 Influence of sewage effluent on the growth of potatoes . . . 142
31 Influence of sewage effluent on the mean weekly growth
(cm) of radish plants, 1976 144
32 Influence of sewage effluent on the mean weekly growth
(cm) of radish plants, 1977 146
33 Influence of sewage effluent on the mean weekly growth
(height - cm) of tomato, 1976 151
IX
-------
FIGURES (CONTINUED)
Number Page
34 Influence of sewage effluent on the growth (cm) of wheat,
1976 152
35 Influence of sewage effluent on the growth (cm) of wheat,
1977 154
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Summary of data on cities with a history of irrigation
with sewage effluent 10
2 Description of surface water sample stations 18
3 Water quality parameters monitored during the 1976 growing
season (May to November, 1976) 19
4 Water quality parameters monitored and sample frequency
during 1977 growing season (May to October, 1977) .... 20
5 Study of digestion of soil with nitric and perchloric acids
(4:1 nitric-perchloric) for heavy metal content as
affected by soil:acid ratio and digestion time .... 26
6 Comparisons of acid digestion procedures using either (1)
nitric acid alone or (2) a mixture of 4 parts nitric
and 1 part perchloric acid 27
7 Plants and seed type used in garden plots, 1976
8 Plants and seed type used in garden plots, 1977
9 Normal concentration ranges for the commonly found elements
in soils and plants
10 Procedures for preparing 1,000 ppm standard solutions ... 34
11 Instrument settings for atomic absorption analysis using
hollow cathodes 35
12 Summary of physical soil properties
13 Summary of water quality data collected during 1976 and
1977 growing seasons 39
14 Yearly average effluent quality of the Tooele, Utah,
wastewater treatment plant 44
XI
-------
TABLES (CONTINUED)
Number
15 Comparison of average organic and inorganic concentrations
of various parameters in water applied to the control
and treated sites
16 Comparison of average metals concentrations in water applied
to the control and treated sites with recommended limits
for irrigation water ............. 50
17 Residual organic concentrations measured at the treatment
plant, treated site, and control site ....... 51
18 Weight percentage of soil material (June 1976) larger than
and smaller than 2 mm diameter .......... 56
19 Weight percentage of soil material (September 1976) larger
than and smaller than 2 mm diameter ........ 57
20 Weight percentages of soil material (June 30, 1977) larger
than and smaller than 2 mm diameter ........ 58
21 Hydrometer textural analyses of the soil samples material
smaller than two millimeter diameter collected from
the Tooele soil sites June 30, 1977 ........ 59
22 Moisture percentages at field capacity (1/3 bar) and wilty
point (15 bars) for soil samples taken June 1976 . . . . 61
23 Field moisture contents of soil samples taken June 6,
1976 .................. 62
24 Field moisture content of soil samples taken from the deep
core drilling hole (Figure 5, location DH-4) at the
treated site during the week of June 14, 1976 ..... 63
25 Average ammonium-nitrogen and nitrate-nitrogen contents in
soils sampled June 1976 ............ 64
26 Average ammonium-nitrogen and nitrate-nitrogen contents in
soils sampled September 1976 .......... 65
27 Total nitrogen (Kjeldahl) contents in soils sampled
September 1976 ............... 69
28 Total nitrogen (Kjeldahl) contents in soils sampled
June 1977 ................. 70
xii
-------
TABLES (CONTINUED)
Number Page
29 Average total nitrogen (Kjeldahl) in the three top sampling
depths (0-2, 2-4, and 9-11 cm) and the three deepest
sampling depths (95-105, 195-205, and 295-305 cm) for
the control site and the treated site in soils sampled
in September 1976 and in June 1977 71
30 Concentration averages of phosphorus in the sodium bicarbonate
extract of Tooele soil sampled June 6, 1976 73
31 Comparison of the phosphorus extracted by the procedure
recommended for acidic soils (dilute HCl-NH^F) and that
recommended for calcareous and alkaline soils (0.5
normal NaHC03) 75
32 Combined nitrate plus ammonium nitrogen in soil moisture
extracts using suction cups 77
33 Soluble salt contents (conductivity) of soil moisture
extracts using suction cups 78
34 Average perchloric-nitric acid extractable trace metals
in Tooele soils sampled May 1976 and September 1976 . . . 80
35 Average perchloric-nitric acid extractable trace metals
in Tooele soils sampled June 1976, September 1976,
and June 1977 81
36 Comparisons of profile totals from 0 to 55 cm (22 inches)
of replication averages for trace metals in the
control and treated sites 83
37 Statistical summary for analysis of variance for the trace
metal content and less-than-2 mm portions for all soil
depths to 300 cm (118 inches) of soils in the control
and treated sites 84
38 Statistical summary for split plot analysis of variance
for the trace metal content and less-than-2 mm
portions for the top four depths of soils (0-32 cm)
in the Tooele sewage-effluent disposal study 85
39 Trace metal concentrations in various fractions of the
deep well profile 87
40 The copper and zinc extracted from Tooele soil samples
(collected June 1977) as influenced by soil depth and
by treatment with sewage effluent and compared to total
nitric perchloric acid extractable amounts in the soils . . 88
xiii
-------
TABLES (CONTINUED)
Number
Page
41 Summary of water ^quality of applied water to the control
and treated garden plots
42 Influence of sewage effluent on mean weekly growth
(height - cm) of first growth (first cutting) of
alfalfa, 1976 ................ 94
43 Influence of sewage effluent on mean weekly growth
(height - cm) of first growth (first cutting)
of alfalfa, 1977 ............... 95
44 Influence of sewage effluent on first harvest alfalfa
fresh and dry weights, percent moisture, and
leaf/stem ratios, 1976 ............. 96
45 Influence of sewage effluent on first harvest alfalfa
fresh and dry weights, percent moisture, and
leaf/stem (L/S) ratios, 1977 ........... 96
46 Combined analysis of first harvests of alfalfa fresh
weights for 1976 and 1977 ............ 97
47 Combined analysis of first harvests of alfalfa dry
weights for 1976 and 1977 ............ 97
48 Combined analysis of first harvests of alfalfa leaf/stem
(L/S) ratios for 1976 and 1977 .......... 98
49 Influence of sewage effluent on mean weekly growth
(height - cm) of second growth (second cutting)
of alfalfa, 1976 ............... 99
50 Influence of sewage effluent on mean weekly growth
(height - cm) of second growth (second harvest)
of alfalfa, 1977 ............... 100
51 Influence of sewage effluent on second harvest alfalfa
fresh and dry weights, percent moisture, and leaf /stem
ratios, 1976 ................ 101
52 Influence of sewage effluent on second harvest alfalfa
fresh and dry weights, percent moisture, and leaf/stem
ratios, 1977 ................ 101
53 Combined analysis of second harvest of alfalfa fresh
weights for 1976 and 1977 ............ 102
xiv
-------
TABLES (CONTINUED)
Number Page
54 Combined analysis of second harvests of alfalfa dry weights
for 1976 and 1977 102
55 Combined analysis of second harvests of alfalfa leaf/stem
(L/S) ratios for 1976 and 1977 103
56 Influence of sewage effluent on mean weekly growth
(height - cm) of snap beans, 1976 104
57 Influence of sewage effluent on fresh and dry weights of
plants, pods, and seeds of snap beans (harvested 1
meter or row), 1976 105
58 Influence of sewage effluent on yield components—number
of pods per plant, seeds per pod, and average seed wt
(gms)—and seed per meter of beans, 1976 106
59 Influence of sewage effluent on mean weekly growth
(height - cm) of snap beans, 1977 107
60 Influence of sewage effluent on fresh and dry weights
of bean plants, pods, and seeds—harvested 1 meter
of row, 1977 108
61 Influence of sewage effluent on yield components—number
of pods per plant, seeds per pod, seeds per meter,
and average seed wt (gms) of beans, 1977 108
62 Combined analysis of fresh weights of bean plants for
1976 and 1977 109
63 Combined analysis of dry weights of bean plants for
1976 and 1977 109
64 Combined analysis of bean pod fresh weights for 1976
and 1977 109
65 Combined analysis of bean pod dry weights for 1976 and
1977 110
66 Combined analysis of bean seed fresh weight for 1976
and 1977 110
67 Combined analysis of bean seed dry weight for 1976 and
1977 110
68 Combined analysis of bean seeds per pod for 1976 and 1977 . .
xv
-------
TABLES (CONTINUED)
Number Page
69 Influence of sewage effluent on mean weekly growth
(height - cm) of carrots, 1976 .... v. .... 112
70 Influence of sewage effluent on fresh and dry weights
percent moisture of shoots and roots and number of
plants per meter of. carrots, 1976 114
71 Influence of sewage effluent on mean weekly growth
(height - cm) of carrots, 1977 115
72 Influence of sewage effluent on fresh and dry weights,
percent moisture of shoots and roots, and number of
plants per meter of carrots, 1977 116
73 Carrot root/shoot (R/S) ratios for 1976 and 1977 116
74 Combined analysis of carrot tops fresh weights for
1976 and 1977 . ' . 118
75 Combined analysis of carrot root fresh weights for
1976 and 1977 118
76 Combined analysis of carrot tops dry weights for
1976 and 1977 118
77 Combined analysis of carrot root dry weights for
1.976 and 1977 119
78 Combined analysis of dry weights of carrot root/shoot
(R/S) ratios for 1976 and 1977 119
79 Influence of sewage effluent on the mean weekly growth
(cm) of corn, 1976 119
80 Influence of sewage effluent on fresh and dry weights
of corn plants and ears and percent moisture, 1976 ... 121
81 Influence of sewage effluent on components of yield in
corn, number of plants/meter, ears/meter, rows of
kernels/ear, and kernels/row, 1976 121
82 Influence of sewage effluent on the mean weekly growth
(height - cm) of corn, 1977 122
83 Influence of sewage effluent on fresh and dry weights .
of corn plants and ears and percent of moisture,
1977 122
-------
TABLES (CONTINUED)
Number Page
84 Influence of sewage effluent on components of yield in
corn, number of ears per meter, rows of kernels per
ear, kernels per row, and weight of 100 seeds, 1977 . . 124
85 Combined analysis of corn plant fresh weights for 1976
and 1977 125
86 Combined analysis of corn plant dry weights for 1976
and 1977 125
87 Combined analysis of corn ear fresh weights for 1976
and 1977 125
88 Combined analysis of corn ear dry weights for 1976 and 1977 . . 126
89 Combined analysis of corn ears per meter for 1976 and
1977 126
90 Combined analysis of corn kernel rows per ear for 1976
and 1977 126
91 Influence of sewage effluent on mean weekly growth
(height - cm) of lettuce, 1976 127
92 Influence of sewage effluent on fresh and dry weights
of lettuce plants (10 plants per replication per
treatment), 1976 128
93 Influence of sewage effluent on mean weekly growth
(height - cm) of lettuce, 1977 129
94 Influence of sewage effluent on fresh and dry weights
of lettuce plants (10 plants per replication per
treatment), 1977 131
95 Combined analysis of lettuce fresh weights for 1976
and 1977 131
96 Combined analysis of lettuce dry weights for 1976 and
1977 131
97 Influence of sewage effluent on mean weekly growth
(height - cm) of onions, 1976 132
98 Influence of sewage effluent on fresh and dry weights,
number of plants per meter, and percent moisture
in onions 133
xvii
-------
TABLES (CONTINUED)
Number
Page
99 Influence of sewage effluent on mean weekly growth
(height - cm) of peas, 1976 134
100 Influence of sewage effluent on fresh and dry weights
of plant, pods, and seeds of peas (harvested 1m- row),
1976 136
101 Influence of sewage effluent on yield components of peas,
number of plants per meter, number of pods per plant,
number of seeds per pod, average seed weight, and
seeds per meter, 1976 137
102 Influence of sewage effluent on mean weekly growth
(height - cm) of peas, 1977 138
103 Influence of sewage effluent on fresh and dry weights
of plants and percent moisture of peas, 1977 139
104 Influence of sewage effluent on yield components—number
of plants per meter, number of pods per plant, number
of seeds per pod, and seeds per meter, 1977 139
105 Combined analysis of pea plant fresh weights for 1976 and
1977 140
106 Combined analysis of pea plant dry weights for 1976 and
1977 140
107 Combined analysis of number of pea plants per meter for
1976 and 1977 140
108 Combined analysis of number of pea pods per plant for
1976 and 1977 141
109 Combined analysis of number of pea seeds per pod for
1976 and 1977 141
110 Influence of sewage effluent on mean weekly growth
(height - cm) of potatoes, 1976 142
111 Influence of sewage effluent on the number of U.S. No. 1,
2, and 3 grade of potatoes (total for five plants) . . . 143
112 Influence of sewage effluent on the mean weekly growth
(cm) of radish, 1976 144
xviii
-------
TABLES (CONTINUED)
Number Page
113 Influence of sewage effluent on the fresh and dry weights
(gms) and the root/shoot (R/S) ratio of radish, 1976 . . 145
114 Influence of sewage effluent on the mean weekly growth (cm)
of radish, 1977 146
115 Influence of sewage effluent on the fresh and dry weights
and the root/shoot (R/S) ratio of radish, 1977 .... 147
116 Combined analysis of radish tops fresh weights for 1976
and 1977 148
117 Combined analysis of radish tops dry weights for 1976 and
1977 148
118 Combined analysis of radish roots fresh weights for 1976
and 1977 148
119 Combined analysis of radish roots dry weights for 1976
and 1977 149
120 Combined analysis of fresh weights of radish root/shoot
(R/S) ratios for 1976 and 1977 149
121 Combined analysis of dry weights of radish root/shoot
(R/S) ratios for 1976 and 1977 149
122 Influence of sewage effluent on the mean weekly growth (cm)
of tomato, 1976 150
123 Influence of sewage effluent on the mean weekly growth
(height - cm) of wheat, 1976 150
124 Influence of sewage effluent on fresh and dry weights (gms)
of wheat plants and seed and percent moisture (harvested
1 meter of row), 1976 153
125 Influence of sewage effluent on yield components—average
number of plants meter, number of seeds per head, and
average seed weight of wheat, 1976 153
126 Influence of sewage effluent on the mean weekly growth
(height - cm) of wheat, 1977 154
127 Influence of sewage effluent on fresh and dry weights (gms)
of wheat plants and seed and percent moisture (harvested
1 meter of row), 1977
xix
-------
TABLES (CONTINUED)
Number
128 Influence of sewage effluent on yield components—number
of plants per meter, number of seeds per head, average
seed weight, and seeds per meter, 1977 155
129 Combined analysis of wheat plants fresh weights for 1976
and 1977 156
130 Combined analysis of wheat plants dry weights for 1976 and
1977 156
131 Combined analysis of fresh weights of 100 wheat seeds for
1976 and 1977 156
132 Combined analysis of dry weights of 100 wheat seeds for
1976 and 1977 157
133 Average mean value in percent and ppm (parts per million)
for calcium (Ca), potassium (K), nitrogen (N),
phosphorus (P), cadmium (Cd), copper (Cu), iron (Fe),
sodium (Na), lead (Pb), and zinc (Zn), respectively
for the various plants tested 158
xx
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
ac = acre m
Al = aluminum M-Ent.
Ar = arsenic m^/day
B = boron MF
BOD = five day biochemical Mg
oxygen demand mg/1
Ca = calcium Mn
Cd = cadmium MPN
Cl = chloride N
COD = chemical oxygen demand Na
Cr = chromium NH3~N
Cu = copper Ni
DO = dissolved oxygen
EC = electrical conductivity
Fe = iron Pb
ft = feet PCB
gal = gallons ppb
gpd = gallons per day ppm
gpm = gallons per minute SAR
HCB = hexachloro benzene Temp
Hg = mercury TKN
in. = inch Tot
K = potassium Zn
Kg/ha = kilogram per hectare Ug/1
km = kilometer ymhos/cm
Si = liter <
Ibs/acre = pounds per acre >
meter
M-Enterococcus
cubic meters per day
membrane filter
magnesium
milligram per liter
manganese
most probable number
nitrogen
sodium
ammonia nitrogen
nickel
nitrite nitrogen
nitrate nitrogen
lead
poly chlorinated biphenols
parts per billion
parts per million
sodium adsorption ratio
temperature
total Kjeldahl nitrogen
total
zinc
micrograms per liter
micromhos per centimeter
less than
greater than
xxi
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The cooperation and assistance of the City of Tooele, Utah, is greatly
appreciated. Special appreciation is extended to Mr. Keith Dymock, Superin-
tendent; Mr. James McCullough, Operator; and Mr. Bob Pannunzio, Operator, of
the Tooele, Utah, Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Mr. Martell L. Tonioli, the owner and operator of the farm where the
wastewater for this study was used for irrigation, was extremely helpful.
Mr. Tonioli provided historical data, assistance with crop planting and har-
vesting, and encouragement throughout the study. His willingness and co-
operation made this project possible.
This work was performed under a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contract Number 68-03-2360. The support of the Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory was greatly appreciated, especially the direction of
Dr. Curtis C. Harlin, Jr., who served as the EPA Project Officer.
xxi i
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
NATURE OF THE PROBLEM
Application of municipal wastewater to the land or using the soil
mantle as a "wastewater treatment system" has been designated a viable
alternative for wastewater treatment by the Water Pollution Act Amendment of
1972 (PL 92-500). Land application systems may be classified as (i) high rate
or rapid infiltration (ii) overland flow or (iii) slow rate or crop irriga-
tion. Many municipalities and industries have expressed interest in the
implementation of land treatment systems.
Land application of wastewater dates back to ancient Greece and has
been practiced in Europe and the United States prior to the turn of the
century. However, very little information exists concerning the long term
effects of applying wastewater to the land. This information is urgently
needed to develop sound design criteria for land application systems. The
purpose of this study is to determine the long term effects of applying
wastewater to the land.
OBJECTIVES
General Objective
The general objective of the study was to determine the long term
effects of employing secondary treated municipal wastewater as irrigation
water. The study compared the quality of soils, crops, groundwater, and raw
water applied to a site receiving normal irrigation (control site) to a site
which had utilized secondary treated municipal effluent for irrigation water
during a 20 year period (treated site). Similar management practices were
applied at both sites.
Specific Objectives
To accomplish the above general objective the following specific
objectives were to be achieved at the control site and at the treated
site.
1. Select a suitable site for conducting the study.
2. Determine and analyze the historical management of each site.
-------
3. Determine the present soil, plant, and water (surface and ground-
water) characteristics of each site.
4. Determine the distribution (water, soil, plant) of selected mea-
surable parameters (bacteriological, organic, nutrients, heavy metals,
and salts) within each site, and thus, determine the fate or "pathway" of
each parameter.
5. Relate the present soil characteristics, distribution of selected
parameters, plant characteristics, and surface and groundwater quality
to historical site management.
6. Determine the effect of applying wastewater to the land on the
engineering soil properties during the time of application of the wastewater
and after the application of the wastewater has ceased.
SCOPE
The results of the project are contained in two separate volumes.
Volume I contains the results and discussion of field data collected during
1976 and 1977 which relates to the field evaluation (Specific Objectives 1
through 5 above). Volume II reports the results of field investigations and
laboratory studies to determine the effects on engineering soil properties
(Specific Objective 6) of applying wastewater'to the land for long periods of
t ime.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of a two year study at Tooele, Utah, to determine
the long term effects of land applications of. secondary treated municipal
wastewater, the following conclusions can be made.
1. The soil profile of the study site consisted of silt and silty
clay overlaying gravelly silt. Deep boring indicated sandy gravel and silty
gravel to a depth of 33 meters (m) [107 feet (ft)].
2. Below the top 60 to 90 centimeters (cm) [24 to 35 inches (in)] the
soils were quite cobbly and gravelly. Many deep borings contained over 50
percent of the material coarser than 2 millimeters (mm) (0.08 in).
3. Historically (1957 to 1976), the Tooele, Utah, Wastewater Treatment
Plant produced an effluent with a yearly average biochemical oxygen demand
(8005) concentration between 9 mg/1 and 49.8 mg/1. The yearly average
suspended solids concentrations from 1957 to 1976 ranged from 21 mg/1 to 26
mg/1-
4. The Tooele, Utah, Wastewater Treatment Plant mean effluent BOD5
concentrations in 1976 and 1977 were 29 mg/1 and 16 mg/1 respectively. The
mean effluent suspended solids concentrations during 1976 and 1977 were 49.8
mg/1 and 31.0 mg/1 respectively.
5. The treated site had been flood irrigated with the secondary
treated wastewater from 1957 to 1976. In 1976 and 1977, a portion of the
treated site was sprinkler irrigated and a portion was flood irrigated.
6. During 1976 and 1977, 28.08 cm/irrigation (11.06 in/irrigation)
and 16.38 cm/irrigation (6.45 in/irrigation) respectively was applied by
flood irrigation to the treated site. Therefore, it was estimated that the
yearly average annual application rate at the treated site from 1957 to 1976
was 60.84 cm/year (23.95 in/year). This is a relatively low application rate
for slow rate land application systems.
7. The control site had been sprinkler irrigated since 1966. In 1976
and 1977, the application rate of normal irrigation water applied to the
control site was 1.92 cm/week (0.76 in/week) and 2.41 cm/week (0.95 in/week)
respectively. Based on these measurements, it was estimated that the yearly
average application rate from 1966 to 1975 at the control site was 39.68 cm/
year (15.62 in/year).
-------
8. The estimated yearly average application rate of the treated
site was 1.5 times greated than the estimated yearly average annual applica-
tion rate of the control site. This difference is a result of the different
irrigation methods employed at the two sites.
9. The average biochemical oxygen demand concentration (BODc) of
treated effluent applied to the treated site was 14.1 mg/1 in 1976 and
16.0 mg/1 in 1977. The average biochemical oxygen demand concentration
(BOD^) of irrigation water applied to the control site was 1.6 mg/1 in
1976 and 2.5 mg/1 in 1977. Although treated effluent contained significant
(95 percent level) more biodegradable material than the irrigation water,
the quality of the applied effluent was relatively high compared to many
land application systems.
10. The average suspended solids concentration of treated effluent
applied to the treated site were 30.9 mg/1 in 1976 and 59.2 mg/1 in 1977.
The average suspended solids concentrations of irrigation water applied
to the control site were 2.2 mg/1 in 1976 and 5.8 mg/1 in 1977. The suspended
solids concentration of the treated effluent was significantly (95 percent
level) greater than the irrigation water and is typical of secondary treated
municipal effluent.
11. The concentration of the various nutrient species (NI^-N, NC^N,
NO-j-N, TKN, total phosphorus, total soluable phosphorus and ortho phospho-
rus) in the treated effluent were greater than those of the irrigation
water, however, these concentrations are slightly less than those for waste-
water normally employed in land application.
12. The average total dissolved solids concentration of the treated
effluent applied to the treated site were 656.7 mg/1 in 1976 and 608.4 mg/1 in
1977 and was apparently three times greater than the total dissolved solids
concentration of the irrigation water applied to the control site. These
values are typical of domestic wastewater and acceptable for water to be used
for irrigation.
13. The metals concentrations of both the treated effluent and the
irrigation water were less than limiting concentration recommended for
irrigation water.
14. Groundwater was not encountered within 33 meters (107 feet) of the
ground surface. Thus, direct determination of groundwater quality was not
possible. At no time during the growing season (application season) did
precipitation and application of wastewater exceed the calculated evapo-
transpiration. Suction tubes and lysimeters were installed to determine the
percolate water quality, however, due to drought conditions the results were
inconclusive.
15. Soils analysis indicated that nitrogen is accumulated in the top 2
to 3 meters (6.5 to 10 feet) of the treated site, but is not moving in
appreciable quantities to greater depths.
-------
16. The treated site had large concentrations of available phosphorus
(5 to 6 times greater than the control site) to depths of 3 meters (10 feet).
The accumulation of available phosphorus in the top 50 cm (20 inches) of soil
is probably due to application of the treated municipal effluent.
17. Concentrations of heavy metals (lead, copper, nickel, cadmium,
zinc, and chromium) were greater at depths above 30 cm (12 inches) than below
30 cm (12 inches) in both the treated and control sites.
18. The concentrations of heavy metals (lead, copper, nickel, cadmium,
zinc, and chromium) in the soils at the control and treated sites were
greater than normally found in natural soil. This is probably due to air
pollution fallout from two smelters located within 32 kilometers (km) (20
miles) of the study site.
19. In the top 30 cm (12 inches) of soil none of the heavy metals
concentrations, except chromium, in the treated site was significantly
different (95 percent level) from the control site. The concentration of
chromium was significantly higher (95 percent level) in the top 30 cm (12
inches) of the control site than in the treated site.
20. There is no clear evidence of increased cadmium, lead, zinc,
copper, chromium or nickel contents in the treated site soils after 20 years
of treated municipal wastewater application.
21. The soil analysis performed cannot provide any negative aspect to
the use of secondary treated municipal wastewater for land application after
20 years of use.
22. In general, plants grown in the control garden plot were signifi-
cantly higher in heavy metals (copper, iron, and zinc) than plants grown on
the treated garden plots.
23. In general, the heavy metals content of plants in the study were
lower than amounts reported to be harmful.
24. Plants grown on the treated garden plot had higher levels of sodium
than plants grown on the control garden plot. Plants grown on the treated
garden plot generally exhibited greater growth than plants grown on the
control garden plot.
25. The results of this study indicate no harmful effects on soils,
crops, or water quality have occurred from land application of secondary
treated municipal effluent at Tooele, Utah since 1957-
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Further studies to determine the level of necessary pretreatment of
municipal wastewater prior to land application is needed to establish satis-
factory land application design criteria.
2. Several studies to determine the long term effects of land applica-
tion of wastewater have been completed. A comprehensive comparison of these
various studies is needed to clearly define the long term effects of land
application of wastewater.
3. The transport, pathway, and fate of pathogens in land application
systems should be clearly defined.
4. The transport, pathway, and fate of refactory organic compounds in
land applications systems should be clearly defined.
-------
SECTION 4
METHODS
GENERAL
The general objective of this study was to determine the long-term ef-
fects of applying domestic wastewater to the land as irrigation water. This
objective was achieved by selecting a site which had employed secondary treat-
ed municipal effluent as irrigation water for twenty years and comparing the
water, soil, and plant characteristics of this site (treated site) with a
similar site (control site) which had employed "normal" irrigation water for
a similar period. The surface and groundwater of each site was assessed by
monitoring the water quantity and quality. Soil characteristics of each site
were compared by samples collected at both sites. The effects on plant char-
acteristics were determined by sampling the in-situ vegetation at each site
and by establishing small garden plots at each site. Various crops were grown
in each plot and the results compared to determine the effects of irrigation
with wastewater on plant growth, character, and production.
The study was divided into four phases. Phase I: Site Selection was
designed to objectively evaluate the various sites available for the study
and to select the control and treated site best suited to the project ob-
jectives. Phase II: Field Data Collection and Analysis was designed to col-
lect all data necessary to evaluate the long-term effects of applying munici-
pal wastewater to the land. This phase was conducted during two separate
growing seasons. The first growing season extended from May 1976 to October
1976, while the second season covered May 1977 to October 1977. This phase
was divided into three separate tasks. Task 1: Water Quality and Quantity
was designed to determine the amount and character of the water applied to
the control and treated sites. Task 2: Soil Characteristics was designed to
determine the physical and chemical composition of the control and treated
sites. Task 3: Plant Characteristics was designed to determine the charac-
ter, growth rate, and production of various plants grown on the control and
treated sites. Phase III: Engineering Soil Properties was a laboratory
study to determine the long-term effects of applying municipal wastewater on
the engineering soil properties of various soils. This phase of the study is
reported in Volume II of this report. Phase IV: Data Analysis and Comparison
was designed to compare the data obtained from the control and treated sites
and to determine the long-term effects of applying municipal wastewater to
the land.
-------
SITE SELECTION
General
Specific minimum site criteria were established by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) project staff. The Utah Water Research Laboratory
(UWRL) research team developed additional rating criteria that were combined
with the EPA requirements, for selection of the most desirable site.
EPA Criteria
The minimum EPA site criteria were summarized in a letter from Mr.
Richard E. Thomas, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Robert S. Kerr En-
vironmental Research Laboratory, (Thomas, 1976), dated January 23, 1976.
Desirable site conditions covered included pretreatment, size,
age, and type of crop. Pretreatment should be primary or conven-
tional secondary, and we will select more sites with secondary pre-
treatment. Daily flows of about 0.1 mgd will be the lower limit on
size, and there is no upper limit. Sites older than 19 years are
not only acceptable but are desirable. We want to have a good
spread in system age. The type of crop can vary over a wide range,
but the system should be representative of common usage. Once again,
we will be looking for a range of practices which could include such
uses as golf courses, high-value cash crops, and pasture land. Of
course, high-rate infiltration systems do not have cropping as a
general rule.
Utah Water Research Laboratory Selection Criteria
Daily flows greater than 0.1 mgd
Quality of effluent
Suspended Solids (SS) > 30 mg/1
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD ) > 30 mg/1
Land application for more than 10 years
Paired site within 1 mile
Travel distance less than 240 km (150 miles) from Utah State
University, Logan, Utah
Soil texture - avoid high percolation soils such as sand
Depth to groundwater table less than 6 m (20 feet)
Depth to hardpan or bedrock > 6 m (20 feet)
Topography - slope less than 5 percent
8
-------
Percolation site (minimum runoff)
Land owner cooperation essential
Availability of site history (disposal and paired site)
Establish geologic and hydrologic characteristics of the ground-
water system
Accessibility of the sites
It was anticipated that no site would be able to meet all of the above
criteria. However, the criteria did provide a method for selecting the most
desirable site.
Sites Considered
The 1971 inventory of "Domestic Wastewater Facilities in Utah" identified
fifteen municipalities which were presently or had a history of applying sew-
age treatment plant effluent to the land. Assistance was also provided by the
State of Utah, Division of Health, Bureau of Water Quality. In addition to
the fifteen Utah sites, preliminary data were obtained from Ely, Nevada, in
case an acceptable site could not be found in Utah. Preliminary information
concerning the quantity and quality of the treatment plant effluent, the
characteristics of the irrigation operation and the history of the land dis-
posal site was obtained by telephone from each city. This information is
summarized in Table 1.
Based on analysis of the information in Table 1, five sites were selected
for site visits by the project team. These sites included Logan, Spanish Fork,
Springville, St. George, and Tooele. These initial site visits indicated that
the Logan, St. George, and Tooele sites were the best sites because the treat-
ment plant records were complete, the land use history of the disposal area
and the base site could be readily established and, in general, they best
satisfied the site criteria established by the project team.
After a complete evaluation of all the available information, including
a site visit with the Project Officer to the St. George, Logan, and Tooele,
Utah, sites, the Tooele site was selected for the study.
SITE DESCRIPTION
Treatment Plant
The community of Tooele, Utah, is located approximately 48 km (30 miles)
west of Salt Lake City, Utah, and has a population of about 3,800 people. The
community has a relatively large commercial district, but does not contain any
major industries. The climate is semi-arid with an annual precipitation of
42 cm (16.5 inches). Mean monthly temperatures range from -2 C (28.8 F) in
January to 24°C (75.4°F) during July. The community sits at an elevation of
8676 m (4820 ft) above mean sea level.
-------
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF DATA ON CITIES WITH A HISTORY OF IRRIGATION WITH SEWAGE
EFFLUENT
Site
Logan, Utah
Blanding, Utah
Tooele, Utah
St. George, Utah
Spanish Fork, Utah
East Carbon City, Ut.
Sunnyside, Utah
Springville, Utah
Ely, Nevada
Huntington, Utah
Wendover, Utah
Ephraim, Utah
Kanab, Utah
Nephi, Utah
Pleasant Grove, Ut.
Type of
Treat-
ment
L
i
TF
TF
TF
L
Imhoff
tank
TF
L
L
L
L
TF
Flow3
Rate
MGD
12
0.22
1.4
1.3
2.2
0.21
0.6
2.75
0.15
0.25
0.17
0.28
BOD3
(mg/1)
3
>30
27
16
Class
D
15
21
100
Class
D
ssa
mg/1)
10
Class
D
25
12
Ilass
D
13
24
Class
D
Time
of Ap-
plication
(years)
>50
16
>10
>40
>10
>12
>10
>20
Base
Site
Avail-
able
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
GWTb
(ft)
4-
summer
> 20
3
3
i
Yes
Yes
1
2-6
Untreated sewage applied to
some areas prior to 1967.
Artesian aquifers underlying
much of the area.
Farmer takes overflow from
lagoons to irrigate 10 acre
hay field'. About . 25 cf s
spring and summer.
New construction to start
spring of 1976. Complete
records.
Untreated sewage applied prior
to 1966. One field has only
received treated effluent.
Complete records.
Irrigate golf course.
No irrigation.
Intermittent application to
golf course.
Commingled with spring water.
City and private land (pasture)
irrigated.
High alkaline clay soil. No
crops. Swamp area.
Total containment now.
Total containment.
Total containment.
Commingled with Pleasant Grove
waste ditch.
Spot sample of treatment plant records.
Estimated by person being interviewed.
The Tooele Wastewater Treatment Plant began operation in 1957 with a de-
sign capacity of 8327 m-Vday (2.2 mgd). In 1957, the plant consisted of grit
removal, primary sedimentation, conventional trickling filter, secondary sedi-
mentation, chlorination, and anaerobic sludge digestion with sand drying beds.
The average daily flow to the plant was less than 3028 nrVday (0.8 mgd) in
1957, but gradually increased to over 3785 m /day d.O mgd) by 1961.
Enactment of stringent effluent discharge standards by the State of Utah
required the treatment plant to be upgraded. 'In the spring of 1977 the treat-
ment plant was converted to a two stage trickling filter plant. Also, the
secondary clarifier capacity was more than doubled.
10
-------
The treatment plant effluent has been under contract to a local land
owner since the plant began operation in 1957. This contract allows the land
owner to use the plant effluent for crop irrigation and stock watering. The
management of the treatment plant effluent once it leaves the treatment plant
site is controlled by the land owner. The City of Tooele does not control the
land application of the treated effluent.
The land owner controls approximately 486 hectares (ha) (1200 acres) of
crop and pasture land. Management of the wastewater has been directed toward
crop production rather than wastewater disposal. Thus, the land owner attempts
to irrigate as much land as possible with the treatment plant effluent.. Fre-
quently, since 1957, treatment plant effluent has been co-mingled with normal
irrigation water to assist with crop production. However, the specific sites
selected for this study have not received any co-mingled water.
The historical performance of the treatment plant and the effluent quality
determined during this study is presented in the results section of this re-
port.
Experimental System
The experimental system is shown in Figure 1. The treatment plant ef-
fluent flows approximately 0.40 km (0.25 mile) through an earthen ditch to
the first holding reservoir which is approximately 0.2 ha (0.5 acre) in area
and has an average depth of less than 1.8 m (6 feet). This reservoir pro-
vides minimum storage and was designed to settle solids which escaped the
secondary clarifier. The reservoir is very shallow and suffers from hydraulic
short circuiting.
Near the outlet of the first holding reservoir is a pump station intake
used to provide sprinkler irrigation for several adjacent fields. This point
also provides the intake for effluent applied to the spray irrigation portion
of the treated site. Sprinkler irrigation of the treated site did not begin
until 1976. Prior to 1976 the entire treated site was flood irrigated with
treatment plant effluent from the second holding reservoir.
From the first holding reservoir the water flows approximately 1.6 km
(1 mile) through an earthen ditch to the second reservoir which is approxi-
mately 0.05 ha (0.125 acre) and has an average depth greater than 3 m (10
feet). This holding reservoir is used primarily for storage and control of
effluent application to various irrigated fields.
Treated Site
Historically, the treated site has been flood irrigated with treatment
plant effluent stored in the second reservoir. However, as mentioned earlier,
in 1976, a sprinkler irrigation line was installed near the outlet of the
first holding reservoir and after that time a portion of the treated site was
sprinkler irrigated with treatment plant effluent from the first reservoir.
The treated site is shown in Figure 2 and consists of 14 ha (34.5 acres)
total. The treated site consists of the second holding reservoir, a 10.5 ha
11
-------
Y///&—TTREATED SITE
HOLDING
RESERVOIR
TOOELE
ARMY DEPOT
/ .--SEWAGE TREATMENT
cT PLANT 21
"O ^
CONTROL .
SITE / ^HOLDING
RESERVOIR
'• ^iSterlinjf!
/I.
" ''' "
Figure 1, Location map.
-------
j 1 1976 Garden Plot
> « (O.I3ha)
1977 Garden Plot
(0.13 ha)
£
«•
o
Second
Holding
Reservoir
SPRINKLER
IRRIGATED
PORTION
( 10.5 ha)
NORTH
86m
260m
346 m
m x 3.28 = feet
ha x 2.47 = acre
TOTAL AREA =14 ha
Figure 2. Schematic of treated site,
13
-------
(25.2 acre) sprinkler irrigated portion, a 1.7 ha (4.2 acre) flood irrigation
portion and an area set aside for experimental garden plots. As mentioned
earlier, the entire site had been flood irrigated with the treatment plant
effluent from the second reservoir from 1957 to 1976. Generally, the area was
irrigated three or four times per season. Prior to 1957, the land was not
cultivated or pastured. In 1976, a gravity flow sprinkler irrigation line
from the first holding reservoir to the treatment site was installed. How-
ever, a portion of the site was maintained for flood irrigation to assist with
this study.
The treated site is planted with a mixture of pasture grass and alfalfa.
Generally, the first crop of grass and alfalfa is cut, baled, and removed from
the site. This is usually completed by the second week of June. During the
remainder of the season, the area is pastured with cattle and sheep. This
management practice was continued throughout this study. During 1976, be-
tween late June and mid October, the number of sheep on pasture ranged from
45 to 58 with a mean of 49. Between late June and mid September, the number
of cattle ranged from 47 to 87 with a mean of 64; however, from mid September
to mid October, the number of cattle ranged from 115 to 149 with a mean of 125.
The animals were allowed to move between the treated site and adjacent pas-
tures throughout the summer. Thus, the actual number of animal days on the
treated site would be less than that indicated by the animal count. However,
the actual number of animal days on the treated site was not determined.
As shown in Figure 2, the location of the experimental garden plots
shifted between 1976 and 1977. This shift was made to enable easier sprinkler
irrigation of the garden plots. The garden plots consisted of 0.13 ha (0.32
acre) and are described in detail in the plant methods section.
Control Site
As shown in Figure 1, the control site is located about 0.8 km (0.5 mile)
from the treated site and less than 1.6 km (1 mile) from the treatment plant.
The control site is owned and managed by the same land owner who owns and
operates the treated site.
A schematic of the control site is shown in Figure 3. The control site
consisted of a total of 9 ha (22.2 acres) which included a 0.15 ha (0.37 acre)
garden plot, a 7.2 ha (17.8 acres) portion which had never received treated
effluent from the treatment plant and a 1.7 ha (4.2 acres) portion which had
occasionally received treated effluent from 1957 to 1966. The exact amount
of treated effluent applied to this portion of the control site was unknown,
thus no soil samples were collected from this portion. Two smaller areas
[less than 0.15 ha (0.37 acres) each] were not included in the control site
because they were not in production during the 1976 and 1977 study periods.
The control site has been cultivated for approximately fifty years. How-
ever, it has only been irrigated since 1966. Prior to 1966, this area was
under dry farm cultivation. Construction of a storage reservoir in the moun-
tains east of Tooele was completed in 1966 by the Settlement Canyon Irrigation
Company. Water from this reservoir was used to irrigate the control site from
1966 to the present. The site has received three to four irrigations per sea-
son since 1966.
14
-------
NORTH
t "
E
CO
I
-14m
SPRINKLER
IRRIGATED
(7.2 ha)
227 m
Not included I
in study1
Garden glgl Occassipnally
Plot f^~> recieved
(0.15 ha) treated effluent
from 1957 to 1966
£
O
t
ro
_£
ro
m x 3.28 = feet ha x 2.47 = acre TOTAL AREA = 9 ha
Figure 3. Schematic of control site,
15
-------
The control site has been planted in alfalfa for the past few years.
Generally, these crops of alfalfa are cut, baled, and removed from the site
each year. During the late fall, winter, and early spring, the area is used
for winter pasture and feed area for range cattle and sheep. During May to
October of 1976 and 1977, no animals were pastured on the control site.
As shown in Figure 3, a 0.15 ha (0.37 acre) control experimental garden
plot was established for the 1976 and 1977 study periods along the east side
of the control site. This plot served as the control for experiments con-
ducted on the treated experimental garden plots. The experimental design of
the control garden plot is described in the plant methods section of this
report.
WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY
Surface water sampling stations were established at the 11 locations
shown in Figure 4 and described in Table 2. The quantity of flow at Station
Number 1: Treatment Plant Effluent, was measured with the flow recorder
existing at the facility. The quantity of flow at Station Number 2 and 3 was
measured with V-notch flumes and continuous stage recorders. At Station Num-
ber 4, 5., and 7 bob-tail flumes with continuous recorders were employed to
measure the quantity of flow. The quantity of flow at Station Number 8 and 9
was monitored with a 10 cm (4 inch) Rockwell flowmeter. The quantity of flow
at Station 6 and 10 was measured with small Parshall flumes with stage re-
corders.
Twenty-four hour composite samples were obtained with ISCO Model 1580
composite samplers and stored at 2 C (34 F) in propane operated refrigerators
at each sample station until collected and transported to the Utah Water Re-
search Laboratory for analysis.. At Sample Station Number 1, 5, and 7, flow
proportional 24-hour composite samples were collected. On those occasions
when the sampling equipment malfunctioned, grab samples were collected and
analyzed in place of the composite samples. The samples were collected and
analyzed on a weekly basis during 1976 for the parameters shown in Table 3.
During 1977, the sample frequency for each parameter is shown in Table 4. All
procedures conformed to Standard Methods (APHA, 1975) and EPA (1974).
In addition, Station Number 1 (Treatment Plant Effluent), Station Number
4 (Effluent from Second Holding Reservoir) and Station Number 11 (Control Site
Influent) were monitored for hexachlorobenzene (HCB), beta-hexachlorobenzene
(BBHC), aldane, oxychlor, heptachlor epoxide, dieldrin, DDT, organo-phosphorus,
sevin, polychlorinated biphenol (PCB), endrin, lindane, methoxychlor, toxo-
phene, 2,4,-D and 2,4,5-T (silvex) on a grab sample taken near the end of the
1976 growing season and at the beginning and end of the 1977 growing season.
These samples were analyzed by Intermountain Systems Laboratory, Midvale,
Utah, according to EPA approved methods (EPA, 1977) .
Groundwater was not found within 30 m (100 feet) of the ground surface.
Therefore, no groundwater samples were collected. However, to determine the
water quality of the potential percolation water to the groundwater table,
soil-water solution was extracted with porous cup at various depths. In
16
-------
TREATMENT PLANT
HOLDING RESERVOIR*I
HOLDING RESERVOIR #2
EXPERIMENTAL
GARDEN PLOT
CONTROL GARDEN
PLOT
CONTROL
SITE
TREATED SITE
SPRAY IRRIGATED
FLOOD IRRIGATED
A BACK-HOE PITS
Figure 4. Location of surface water and soil sample stations.
-------
TABLE 2. DESCRIPTION OF SURFACE WATER SAMPLE STATIONS
Number Description
^. _J1_ __. _ L - . .- -,-- - -- - - - A - •
1 Tooele Treatment Plant Effluent; Flow proportional 24-hour composite
sample and flow recorder
2 Holding Reservoir #1 Effluent; 24-hour composite sample and flow
recorder
3 Influent to Holding Reservoir #2; 24-hour composite sample and flow
recorder
4 Effluent Holding Reservoir #2 and Influent for Flood Irrigation
Portion of Treatment Site; Flow proportional 24-hour composite
sample and flow recorder
5 Influent to Treated Experimental Garden Plot; Composite sample and
flow recorder
6 Effluent from Treated Experimental Garden Plot; Composite sample
and flow recorder
7 Tailwater from Flood Irrigation Portion of the Treated Site; Flow
proportional composite sample with flow recorder
8 Spray Irrigation Influent to Treated Site; Composite sample and
flow meter
9 Control Experimental Garden Plot Influent; Composite sample and
flow meter
10 Control Experimental Garden Plot Effluent; Composite sample and
flow recorder
11 Influent to Control Site; Composite sample and flow meter
18
-------
TABLE 3. WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS MONITORED DURING THE 1976 GROWING SEASON (MAY TO NOVEMBER, 1976)
Bacteriological
Chemical
Metals
Organic
Total Coliform Alkalinity Aluminum
Fecal Coliform Calcium Arsenic
Fecal Streptococcus fChloride Cadmium
Hardness Copper
Ammonia-Nitrogen Chromium
Nitrite-Nitrogen Iron
Nitrate-Nitrogen Lead
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Magnesium
Total Phosphorus Manganese
Orthophosphorus Mercury
Total Soluble Phosphorus Nickel
tTotal Dissolved Solids tPotassium
Suspended Solids Silver
Volatile Suspended Solids Sodium
Specific Conductance Zinc
tSulfate
Temperature
PH
Dissolved Oxygen
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODs)
Chemical Oxygen Demand
^Total Organic Carbon
Endrin
Lindane
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
2,4-D
2,4,5-TP (Silvex)
HCB
BBHC
Aldane
Oxychlor
Hept. epoxy
DDT
Organo-phosphorus
Seven
PCB
t Monitored on monthly bases after 9/10/76.
^ Eliminated from analysis due to suspended solids interference after 8/5/76.
-------
TABLE 4. WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS MONITORED AND SAMPLE FREQUENCY DURING 1977 GROWING SEASON (MAY
TO OCTOBER, 1977)
Sample
Frequency
Bacteriological
Chemical
Metals
Organic
K3
o
Weekly and/or
during each
irrigation
application
Total Coliform
Fecal Coliform
Ammonia-Nitrogen
Nitrite-Nitrogen
Nitrate-Nitrogen
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Suspended Solids
Volatile Suspended
Solids
Temperature
PH
Dissolved Oxygen
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (BOD5)
Bi-Weekly
and/or during
each irrigation
application
(every two
weeks)
Specific Conductance
Copper
Mercury
Lead
Cadmium
Chromium
Zinc
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Monthly and/or
during each
irrigation
application
Fecal Streptococcus
Alkalinity
Calcium
Chloride
Hardness
Ortho-phosphate
Total Soluble
Phosphorus
-------
TABLE 4. CONTINUED
Sample
Frequency
Bacteriological
Chemical
Metals
Organic
Monthly and/or
during each
irrigation
application
Total Dissolved
Solids
Sulfate
Once at the
beginning and
end of the
growing season
and once during
each irrigation
application
Aluminum
Arsenic
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Once at the
beginning and
end of the
growing season
on Samples No. 1,
4, and 9 only
HCB BBHC
Aldane Oxychlor
Kept, epoxy
DDT S£vin
Organo-phosphorus
PCB Endrin
Lindane Toxaphene
Methoxychlor
2,4-D
2,4,5-TP (Silvex)
-------
addition lysimeters were installed to collect percolate. These procedures are
discussed in the soil methods section.
SOIL SAMPLING
Subsurface Investigation
The field investigation included 19 test pits and seven borings at the
locations shown on Figures 4, 5, and 6. Seven of the test pits were made on
May 4 and 6, 1976, prior to the first irrigation for the 1976 growing season.
Another six test pits were excavated on September 20, 1976, at the conclusion
of the 1976 growing season. The final six pits were opened on June 30, 1977.
Excavations on September 20, 1976, and June 30, 1977, were near the respective
sites used the first time on May 4 and 6, 1976. A backhoe was used to exca-
vate each test pit. All test pits were terminated at backhoe refusal, and
ranged in depth from 100 cm (40 inches) to 315 cm (124 inches). These test
pits were logged; disturbed samples were taken of all strata for laboratory
testing to determine moisture content, Atterberg Limits and grain-size dis-
tribution. Samples were also taken at depths of 1, 3, 10, 30, 100, and 300
centimeters (0.4, 1.2, 3.0, 11.8, 39.4, and 118.1 inches) for testing in
accordance with the project requirements. Additional intermediate depths were
sometimes collected especially at 50 cm (19.7 inches), 200 cm (78.7 inches),
and at some apparently dark-colored buried surface soil layers.
Seven borings were made from June 8, 1976, until June 15, 1976. A truck
mounted rotary drill rig was used to make all borings and compressed air was
used to return the drill cuttings. Six of the borings were shallow, ranging
in depth from 1.7 m (5.5 ft) to 3.3 m (11 ft). One deep boring was made in
the northwest corner of the treated site in an attempt to locate the ground-
water table; The boring was made to a depth of 32 m (107 ft) without en-
countering groundwater. A perforated PVC casing was installed for long-term
monitoring of the groundwater. Disturbed samples were taken with a 5 cm (2
inch) O.D. split spoon sampler driven in the manner prescribed for the stan-
dard penetration test. Thin walled Shellby tube samples were also taken;
however, the soil was hard, dry and had many small rocks causing most samples
to be disturbed. All samples were field classified. Selected samples from
the deep boring were used to test for traces of pollutants from the applied
sewage water.
Laboratory Soil Testing
Laboratory tests were performed to classify the soils and to determine
the natural moisture content of all significant strata at both the treated
site and control site. The laboratory tests included natural moisture content
in the first collection, specific gravity, Atterberg Limits, and hydrometer
analysis (grain size). Standard ASTM laboratory test procedures were employed
(ASTM, 1975). The particle analysis by hydrometer was performed according to
a procedure in Black et al. (1965).
22
-------
X X X—
i QDH-4
-X X X X
E
55
DH-I
O I
•78m *Q E-l
D-l
RESERVOIR
r
U) (•
'LJ w Ltn o
i
E
8
-X X— *-X X >
;
: — x — x — x—
-
TO TOOELE
TREATED SITE
NOTE: I) Distances are approximate 2) Scale: l" = 200' 3) m x 3.28 = Feet
Figure 5. Location of soil sampling stations for determining the chemical
properties of soil at the treated site.
23
-------
NORTH
CONTROL SITE
NOTE
I) Distances are approximate
2) No scale
3) m x 3.28 = Feet
ARMY
DEPOT
TO TOOELE
Figure 6. Location of soil sampling station for determining the chemical
properties of soil at the control site.
Soil Chemical Analyses
In the treated site, soil samples were collected for chemical analysis at
locations D-l, E-l, and G-l (Figure 5) on June 6, 1976. Subsequent samples
for chemical analysis were collected within 20 m (66 ft) of the initial loca-
tions (D-l, E-l, and G-l) in September 1976 and June 1977. In the control
site, soil samples were collected for chemical analysis at locations A-l, B-l,
and C-l (Figure 6) on June 6, 1976. Subsequent samples for chemical analysis
were collected within 20 m (66 ft) of the initial locations (A-l, B-l, and C-l)
in September 1976 and June 1977. The fraction of each soil material collected
which was less than 2 mm (0.08 inches) diameter was determined by dry sieving
in stainless steel sieves. All the chemical analyses were performed on these
fine fractions.
Moisture constants were determined on ceramic plates using differential
air pressure. These analyses were determined at the Utah Soil Testing Labora-
tory, Utah State University.
24
-------
The various chemical analyses on the less than 2 mm (0.08 inch) fraction
of the soils were performed according to "Methods of Soil Analyses" (Black
et al., 1965), except as noted below.
Salinity of saturated soil paste extracts were performed using a pipette
conductivity cell (Bower and Wilcox, 1965).
Total nitrogen was determined by the Kjeldahl method given by Bremner
(1965a). Ammonium-nitrogen and nitrate-nitrogen were measured by the steam
distillation technique described by Bremner (1965b).
Available phosphorus was measured as that extractable in either dilute
acid-fluoride or in 0.5 normal sodium bicarbonate as described by Olsen and
Dean (1965), except that color development involved the use of ascorbic acid
rather than stannous chloride.
Trace metals were extracted by digestion in a semi-reflux manner with a
HNO^-HCIO^ acid mixture. After near dryness, the digest was dissolved in
warm 0.5 normal HC1 prior to analysis with an atomic absorption spectro-
photometer.
It was known that the amount of extracted metal can be influenced some-
what by the soil-acid ratio, the temperature of digestion, and the time of
digestion. The procedure initially used employed two grams of soil with 20
ml of 4:1 nitric perchloric acid mixture. By a reflux type of digestion
(partial cover on the beaker) and evaporating to a low volume of acid, the
metals should have been adequately extracted. However, large differences
observed for measurements of some metals in the June 6, 1976, and September 20,
1976, samples indicated a need to check the procedure for soil-acid ratio and
digestion time. The results are shown in Table 5. The data indicate that
low metal recoveries occurred at one hour digestions and at 1:10 soil-acid
ratios and highest recoveries at about three hour digestion times and 1:40
soil-acid ratios. There were some evidences of loss of lead and nickel with
a four hour digestion. In selecting a procedure, a soil-acid ratio which
gave less change with digestion time (more reproducible) rather than just
highest extraction values was a major factor. Also, smaller soil samples have
increasingly more sampling error. Thus, the samples collected on all three
dates were completed using 2 g soil to 20 ml of acid mixture. Insufficient
time and analytical problems caused incomplete data for rerun analyses using
the 1:20 soil-acid digestions. Nevertheless, it is believed that comparisons
of relative contents between treated and control site samples are still valid.
Recently, scientists in the W-124 Western Region conducting a research
project studying the application of sewage sludge to soil have suggested boil-
ing only in nitric acid. Results on a portion of these samples are shown in
Table 6. Generally, nitric acid recovered slightly lower amounts of metals
than the acid mixture; for safety reasons nitric acid may be a reasonable sub-
stitute for the nitric-perchloric mixture.
Chelate-soluble zinc and copper were determined by extracting 5 g of soil
in 50 ml of DTPA after shaking the mixture for 30 min on a horizontal shaker
adjusted for gentle shaking.
25
-------
TABLE 5. STUDY OF DIGESTION OF-SOIL* WITH NITRIC AND PERCHLORIC ACIDS (4:1
NITRIC-PERCHLORIC) FOR HEAVY METAL CONTENT AS AFFECTED BY SOIL:ACID
RATIO AND DIGESTION TIMEf
Soil
Sample
Size
g
0.5
1.0
2.0
0.5
1.0
2.0
0.5
1.0
2.0
0.5
1.0 „
2.0
Digestion
Time
V»t-
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
Copper
**
31.9
28.4
25.1
55.4
25.2
40.1
31.4
29.1
33.6
35.9
35.1
35.9
Chromium
17.9
12.1
13.4
47.5
45.2
31.8
64.8
54.4
'38 . 2
71.8
55.7
39.6
Lead
t._ __L ,._._
ppm -
26.4
39.2
44.9
127.9
71.2
62.3
67.4
63.9
58.3
42.9
49.0
51.6
Nickel
22.9
8.8
17.4
30.9
24.0
17.3
24.9
30.4
17.8
22.8
21.5
17.1
Zinc
126
121
112
137
132
120
139
129
118
132
- 144
122
*Soil- used was control site C, 0-2 cm depth, sampled June 1977
**Average of two replications.
samples digested with 20 ml of acid mixture.
PLANTS
Field Plots
Crops—
Various economic plant species, representing forage, root, grain, and
vegetable crops (Tables 7 and 8; Figures 7, 8, 9, and 10) were planted in
randomized, replicated (4 replications) field plots (LeClerg, Leonard, and
Clark, 1962) at the control and treated sites during the summer of 1976 and
1977. Plants at the treated site were irrigated weekly (soil soaked to a
depth of 15 to 20 cm (6 to 8 inches) with wastewater from the Tooele Waste-
water Treatment Plant while plants at the control site were irrigated in a
similar manner with normal irrigation water.
26
-------
TABLE 6. COMPARISONS OF ACID DIGESTION PROCEDURES* USING EITHER (1) NITRIC
ACID ALONE OR (2) A MIXTURE OF 4 PARTS NITRIC AND 1 PART PERCHLORIC
ACID
Sample analyzed
and depth
cm
Control A, 2-4
Control B, 0-2
Control C, 2-4
Treated D, 45-55
Treated E, 2-4
Treated G, 195-205
Control A, 2-4
Control B, 0-2
Control C, 2-4
Treated D, 45-55
Treated E, 2-4
Treated G, 195-205
— *
Metal analyzed
Chromium
nitric
ppm
20.3
28.5
28.5
22.9
26.4
9.4
mixture
ppm
24.4
29.5
30.9
32.6
12.6
23.4
Nickel
nitric
ppm
9.2
14.9
15.1
12.9
16.2
5.9
mixture
ppm
11.2
6.5
15.4
18.2
14.6
23.1
Copper
nitric
ppm
22.0
23.3
20.3
7.6
21.1
2.3
mixture
ppm
24.7
30.3
24.0
12.2
20.2
5.5 •
Metal analyzed
Zinc
nitric
103.4
115.0
104.6
71.7
106.0
26. -9
mixture
115.2
132.0
106.0
116.6
101.5
30.5
Lead
nitric
40.0
41.7
27.1
7.5
36.0
5.7
mixture
39.9
46.2.
23.7
1.2
17.4
1.0
Cadmium
nitric
2.6
3.6
2.6
1.5
2.1
4.4
mixture
3.1
1.4
2.0
0.5
0.8
2.9
*2g of soil in 20 ml of acid. Digestion time 3 hours for the acid mixture;
4 hours for the nitric acid, under refluxing conditions. Tooele samples
collected June 30, 1977.
Growth Measurements—
Beginning with emergence of the crop, weekly growth measurements, i.e.,
plant height, were made. Ten randomly selected plants within each replication
were measured to the nearest centimeter.
Crop Harvest—
At the optimum harvest time for each crop, 1 meter (3 ft) of crop row was
selected at random and harvested from each replication. Samples were placed
in plastic bags, stored in an ice chest and returned to the lab immediately.
Each sample was washed with a mild detergent solution (Dove) followed by a
rinse in deionized-distilled water to remove any surface contamination. Excess
water was shaken from the samples and fresh weights recorded. Samples were
27
-------
Plant
TABLE 7. PLANTS AND SEED TYPE USED IN GARDEN PLOTS, 1976
Type
Alfalfa Ranger - NK source, Nampa, Idaho
Beans Improved Higrade - Rogers Bros. Co., Twin Falls, Idaho
Carrots F-l hyrid CanPak #3, Desert Seed Co., El Centro, CA
Lettuce Great Lakes Minetto, Desert Seed Co., El Centro, CA
Onion F-l hybrid Amigo, Desert Seed Co., El Centro, CA
Peas Dark Skin Perfection, Rogers Bros. Co., Twin Falls, Idaho
Potato Norland - Griffin Farm Store, Logan, Utah
Radish Crimson Giant, Desert Seed Co., El Centro, CA
Sweet Corn Jubilee, Rogers Bros. Co., Twin Falls, Idaho
Tomato Manapal - Brent Gledhill, Plant Science Dept., USU
Turnip* Pomeranian White Globe, Desert Seed Co., El Centro, CA
Wheat Fremont - Rulon Albrechtsen, Plant Science Dept., USU
* No data were recorded for turnip because of a mix-up in planting.
Plant
TABLE 8. PLANTS AND SEED TYPE USED IN GARDEN PLOTS, 1977
Type
Alfalfa Ranger - NK source, Nampa, Idaho
Beans Improved Higrade - Rogers Bros. Co., Twin Falls, ID
Carrots F-l hybrid CanPak #3, Desert Seed Co., El Centro, CA
Lettuce Great Lakes Minetto, Desert Seed Co., El Centro, CA
Peas DarkSkin Perfection, Rogers Bros. Co., Twin Falls, ID
Radish Crimson Giant, Desert Seed Co., El Centrol, CA
Sweet Corn Jubilee, Rogers Bros. Co., Twin Falls, ID
Wheat Borah - Intermountain Farmers, Logan, UT
28
-------
8
2
5
7
3
11
8
7
6
1
11
4
12
i
2
5
1
12
1
10
7
2
4
i
12
11
1
12
5
8
T
2
6
3
11
6
!
i
i
9 3
i
5
8
3
9
4 6
1
10
10
"" "
7
10
i
Q
9
4
1. Alfalfa 4. Lettuce 7- Potato 10. Tomato
2. Beans 5. Onion 8. Radish 11. Turnip
3. Carrots 6. Peas 9. Sweet Corn 12. Wheat
BLOCK
I
II
III
IV
Plot size = 1 m x 12 m (m x 3.28 = ft)
Figure 7. Garden plot at treated site (randomized block design), 1976,
29
-------
7
9
6
4
10
8
9
3
11
8
12
2
5
6
5
1
r~ ~
4
5
2
1
3
12
7
9
1
12
11
7
9
1
10
4
2
3
6
10
5
11
2
11
8
1
10
8
3
4
7
- -- - — •-
6
12
1. Alfalfa
2. Beans
3. Carrots
4. Lettuce
5. Onion
6. Peas
7. Potato 10. Tomato
8. Radish 11. Turnip
9. Sweet Corn 12. Wheat
Plot size 2 x 12 m (m x 3.28 = ft)
Figure 8. Garden plot at control site (randomized block design), 1976.
30
-------
NORTH
BLOCKS
T
III
IV
1
2
8
6
7
3
5
4
8
6
5
3
4
2
7
1
4
3
1
7
5
8
2
6
7
5
4
2
1
6
3
8
1. Alfalfa 3. Carrots 5. Lettuce
2. Beans 4. Corn 6. Peas
Each plot is 2 x 12 meters (m x 3.28 = ft).
7. Radish
8. Wheat
Figure 9. Garden plot at treated site (randomized block design), 1977
31
-------
NORTH
BLOCKS
I
II
III
IV
I
2
8
6
7
3
5
4
8
6
5
3
4
2
7
1
4
3
1
7
5
8
2
6
7
5
4
2
1
6
3
8
1. Alfalfa
2. Beans
3. Carrots
4. Corn
5. Lettuce
6. Peas
Each plot is 2 x 12 meters (m x 3.28 = ft)
7. Radish
8. Wheat
Figure 10. Garden plot at control site (randomized block design), 1977,
32
-------
dried for 72 hrs at 100 C (212 F), dry weights and percent moisture determined,
and then ground in a Wiley Mill (60 mesh).
Chemical Analyses
General—
The above ground samples were analyzed for cadmium, calcium, copper,
iron, lead, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, sodium, and zinc. Chemical analy-
ses were performed by the Soil Testing and Plant Analysis Laboratory, Utah
State University, Logan, Utah. Standard solutions were prepared by suitable
dilution of stock solutions (Table 9). In cases where multielement standards
were needed, the concentration ranges were prepared according to Table 10.
Atomic Absorption Procedure—
The operating parameters for a commercially available atomic absorption
spectrophotometer are listed in Table 11 (Jones and Isaac, 1969). The finely
TABLE 9. NORMAL CONCENTRATION RANGES FOR THE COMMONLY FOUND ELEMENTS IN SOILS
AND PLANTS
Element
Soils (total) Soils (extractable) Plant tissue (dry basis)
Al
As
B
Ba
Ca
Co
Cu
Fe
K
Li
Mg
Mn
Mo
Na
P
Rb
S
Si
Sr
Ti
Zn
2-15% as A1203
3 - 200 ppm
0.01-0.4% as BaO
0.2-2.5% as CaO
1-40 ppm
2-200 ppm (1-1,000 ppm)
0.1 - 8% as Fe203
0.1 - 4% as K20
0.1-2% as MgO
0 - 0.5% as MnO
02. - 5 ppm
0.1 - 3% as Na20
0.05 - 0.25% as P205
0.001%
0.05 - 0.4% as S03
65 - 95% as S102
0.02 - 0.1% as SrO
0.5 - 1.5% as T102
10 - 300 ppm
50-5,000
—
0.1 - 2
180 - 1,000
100 - 15,000
—
0.5 - 100
10 - 1,000
50 - 4,000
—
10 - 3,000
2 - 500
0.5 - 10
0 - 10,000
0.5 - 500
—
5-50
—
1-10
50 - 300
1 - 100
10-3,000 ppm (2-10,000 ppm)*
1-10 ppm
10-100 ppm (5-1,500 ppm)
1 - 300 ppm
0.1 - 10%
0.01 - 1 ppm
1-25 ppm
20 -200 ppm
0.2 - 10.0%
0.1 - 10 pptn
0.05 - 2%
5 - 5,000 ppm
0.01 - 25 ppm
0.01 - 5%
0.03 - 1.0%
—
0.1 - 1%
0.01 - 5.00%
1 - 300 ppm
—
5 - 300 ppm (5-1,500 ppm)
* ( ) indicates range in element concentrations which have been reported.
Same units as soils (total) column.
33
-------
TABLE 10. PROCEDURES FOR PREPARING 1,000 PPM STANDARD SOLUTIONS
Element Compound or metal
Procedure to make 1 liter of each standard
solution
Al Aluminum metal
B Boric acid
Ca Calcium carbonate
Cr Potassium
dichrornate
Co Cobalt metal
Cu Copper metal
Fe Iron metal
Pb Lead nitrate
Mg Magnesium metal
Mn Manganese dioxide
K Potassium chloride
Na Sodium chloride
Zn Zinc nitrate
hexahydrate
l.OOOOgAl in 1:4 HC1 (final HC1 concentration,
approx. 10%)
5.7178 g H3B03 in H20
2.4973 g CaC03 in 1:4 HC1 (final HC1 concentra-
tion approx. 0.5%)
2.8290 g K2Cr207 in H20
1.0000 g Co in 1:8 HC1 (final HC1 concentration
approx. 0.5%)
1.0000 g Cu in 1:2 HN03 (final HN03 concentra-
tion approx. 1%)
1.0000 g Fe in 1:2 HC1 (final HC1 concentration
approx. 1%)
1.5982 g Pb(N03)2 in H20, add 20 ml HN03 (final
HN03 concentration approx. 2%)
1.0000 g Mg in 1:100 HC1 (final HC1 concentra-
tion approx. 0.5%)
1.5824 g Mn02 in concentrated HC1, evaporate to
dryness, dissolve residue in H20
1.9067 g KC1 in H20
2.5421 g NaCl in H20
4.5490 g Zn(N03)2 • 5H20 in H20
ground plant'samples were placed in an 80 C (176 F) oven overnight.
Approxi-
mately 1.00 ± 0.05 g of the dried plant tissue was placed in a porcelain
crucible and ashed in a muffle furnace at 475-500°C (855-932°F) for 2 to 4
hrs. Ashed samples were cooled and dissolved in 5 ml of 20 percent (2 N) HCi,
with slight warming to effect complete solution of the residue. Solutions
were filtered through acid-washed filter paper. Samples were analyzed in a
Jarrell Ash atomic absorption spectrophotometer, Model 800.
All data were subjected to standard analysis of variance and means com-
pared by the F test (LeClerg, Leonard, and Clark, 1962) .
34
-------
TABLE 11. INSTRUMENT SETTINGS FOR ATOMIC ABSORPTION ANALYSIS USING HOLLOW CATHODES*
OJ
Ln
Wavelength,
Element angstroms
Al
B
Ba
Ca
Co
Cu
Fe
Hg
K
LI
Mg
Mn
Mo
Na
Ni
Pb
Si
Sr
Zn
Aluminum
Boron
Barium
Calcium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Mercury
Potassium
Lithium
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Sodium
Nickel
Lead
Silicon
Sirontium
Zinc
3093
2497
5536
4227
2407
3247
2483
2536
7665
6708
2852
2798
2801
3133
5890
5896
2320
2833
2516
4607
2139
Wavelength
setting, my
309
250
277
211
241
325
248
254
383
335
285
280
313
295
232
283
252
230
14
Silt
Grating
UV
UV
VIS
VIS
UV
UV
UV
UV
VIS
VIS
UV
UV
UV
VIS
VIS
VIS
UV
VIS
UV
No.
3
4
2
4
3
4
3
5
4
4
4
3
4
4
3
4
3
3
4
SBWt
2A
7A
1.4A
14A
2A
7A
2A
20A
14A
14A
7A
2A
7A
14A
2A
7A
2A
4A
7A
Source
current,1
ma
25
30
25
10
3
15
30
10
12
15
6
20
30
15
25
8/3011
40
20
20
1=
Oxidant
N20
N20
N20 or air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
N20 or air
Air
Air
Air
N20
Air
Air
Fuel
C2H2
(j2^2
C2H2
C2H2
C2H2
C2H2
C2H2
C2H2
C2H2
C2H2
C2H2
C2H2
C2H2
C2H2
C2H2
C2H2
C2H2
C2H2
C2H2
Flame
condition§
Red.
V. Red.
Red.
Stoich.
Oxid.
Oxid.
Oxid.
Oxid.
Oxid.
Oxid.
Oxid.
Oxid.
V. Red.
Oxid.
Oxid.
Oxid.
V. Red.
Red.
Oxid.
* As recommended for Perkin-Elmer Models 303, 305, or 403. Arc discharge lamps may also be used for Hg, K, and
Na, although hollow cathodes are preferred.
t Spectral band width.
^ All currents for a DC power supply. Currents are for latest Intensitron lamps. Check recommended current on
lamp label.
§ Red. = reducing (fuel rich, luminous) flame; V. Red. = very reducing flame; Oxid. = oxidizing (lean, blue) flame;
stoich. = stoichiometric flame (intermediate between oxidizing and reducing).
fi Depending on type of lamp; two types available.
-------
SECTION 5
RESULTS OF WATER QUALITY AND SOIL INVESTIGATION
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF SITE
Surface
The surficial conditions at the study site are typical of pasture and
farm land. There were no buildings on either site. A small water reservoir
was located in the south east corner of the treated site as shown in Figure
5. The treated site is nearly flat and was used for.pasture and alfalfa
hay. The control site is slightly sloped and was also used for pasture and
alfalfa hay. Experimental garden plots were installed at each site as part
of this study at the locations shown on Figures 5 and 6.
Subsurface
A subsurface soil investigation was conducted as described in Section
4: Methods. The purpose of the investigation was to determine the soil
profile and to obtain samples for laboratory testing. The test pit and
boring locations are shown on Figures 5 and 6 and the test pit and boring
logs are recorded in Appendix A, Figures A-l to A-5.
In general the soil profile consists of 1 m to 2 m (3 1/2 feet to 6
1/2 feet) of silt and silty clay overlaying gravelly silt. The gravelly
silt overlays sandy gravel with cobbles and in some cases the gravel is
cemented. Well logs from wells near the site indicate that the gravel may
be up to several hundred feet deep. The static water table in these wells
is greater than 122 m (400 feet). The deep boring in the treated site
showed sandy gravel and silty gravel to a depth of 33 m (107 feet) inter-
bedded with layers up to 3 m (10 feet) thick of moist silty clay. The depth
to the sandy gravel stratum at the treated site was greater than at the
control site. The boring logs show that the depth to the sandy gravel
stratum varies from 2.1 m to 2.5 m (7 feet to 8.3 feet) at the treated site
and from 0.8 m to 2 m (2.5 feet to 6.4 feet) at the control site. In
general, there were more rock fragments throughout the soil profile at
the control site.
Laboratory tests were conducted on samples taken from both the treated
site and control site to determine the Atterberg limits, natural moisture
content and grain size distribution of the soils. These tests were used
primarily to classify the soils according to their general characteristics.
36
-------
Rather than taking samples on a predetermined interval, as was done for the
other soil tests conducted for this study, the samples were obtained from
the various strata as identified in the walls of the test pits. The test
results were then used in evaluating the general soil profile. The labora-
tory test results are presented on Table 12. Samples obtained during the
investigation of May 4 and 5, 1976 (beginning of the growing season) are
indicated in Table 12 by test pit designations A, B, C, D, E, F, and G.
Samples obtained during the investigation of September 20, 1976 (end of
growing season) are indicated by test pit designations A', B', C', D', E',
and F'. The test pits that were made at the end of the growing season were
excavated at locations immediately adjacent to those made at the beginning
of the growing season. Except for changes in the natural moisture content of
the soil there were no significant changes in the Atterberg limits that could
be attributed to irrigation activities during the summer.
WATER QUALITY
Introduction
A summary of the water quality data collected for the entire project is
reported in Table 13. A complete listing of all water quality data collected
and a summary analysis of the mean, maximum, minimum, variance, and standard
deviation of each parameter is contained in Appendix B.
Water quality sampling of the 34 parameters at the 11 sampling stations
is described in Section 4: Methods. The 1976 sampling period began in May
1976 and continued through October 1976. The 1977 sampling periods began in
May 1977 and continued through October 1977. Both sampling periods coincided
with the use of the treatment plant effluent for land application. This
irrigation period was representative of previous application periods and
typical of the normal irrigation period practiced throughout the State of
Utah and the intermountain west. During the winter months (November through
April), treatment plant effluent was not applied to the land, rather the
effluent was discharged to a marsh area.
The data for the 1976 growing season is not complete. A portion of the
1976 data was destroyed by an accidental fire. The study was repeated during
the 1977 growing season to provide a complete data base for analysis.
Comparison of 1976 Data with 1977 Data
The 1976 data are more representative of the historical Tooele Waste-
water Treatment Plant performance. After the 1976 growing season, but prior
to the 1977 growing season, the Tooele Wastewater Treatment Plant was modi-
fied to include two-stage trickling filters and an additional secondary
clarifier. These modifications increased the overall plant performance. The
increased plant performance is indicated by lower plant effluent biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD^) concentrations and lower effluent total suspended
solids concentrations (See Sample Station Number 1 in Table 13). However,
the actual quality of effluent applied to the treated site (Station Number 4)
did not change significantly for most parameters.
37
-------
TABLE 12. SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL SOIL PROPERTIES
Natur.il
Test Depth Moisture
Plt Content
A ,,,. ,., IM
I- ^ " ? 10.7
A ,i 16.6
A. 12" . 1B., 9_4
A ,,„ ,',„ !4.3
V 36 " 74-76
F "" 61" -ft!
F "" 6S" -T77
F °" 10" iH
B ,, ,, 8.4
B' 12.0
B ,, ,„„ 12.2
B' 35 - A0 6,8
F »" - 60" -TTT
|r 90" - 93" -^
|r 10" - 15" InT
C ,,„ ,.„ 5.9
C1 "" "J 2.5
CL 12- . 18- iza
D ,,„ „.„ 16.5
D' 15 20 17.2
2r 27" 33" lg
D ,,„ ,„„ 12.3
D' 3 6.3
D ,, ..„ 19.3
D' 5° 6° 8.9
D „ „ 15.9
D'" ° 9.4
£_ 80" _ 85" ILl
F no:-,u»__4ti
F 20" 25" Tii
F «" "" M
F «" 68" ti
|r 90" - 95"
E- 120" - 124" ^-^
|r 16" 20" ^4
C ,fl, ,„„ 16.3
C „ :^.2
r:1 S~ " 56 ', 7
C ,„, ,,.. 30.9
C,- " " 7I 20.7
<• ,7,, .,,„ 11.6
<"' 12.2
'• | i-i" i ,/" -4-4
Atterberg Limits USDA Classification Unified
Plastic
Limit
23.2
20.4
20
25.8
23.2
24. 1
24.7
21.8
22.3
22.4
19.4
21.1
22.2
20.0
20.7
24.2
21.2
20.0
22.6
21.1
23.0
21.0
20.3
21.0
20.0
21.9
20.5
22.6
19.3
2T7F
23.2
21.0
20.8
21.0
23.2
22.0
20.5
22.2
21. a
19.6
Liquid
Limit
25.5
26.2
24.4
26.0
23.2
27.9
28.8
29.1
27.3
30.6
24.8
25.6
26.6
27.3
26.8
34.2
26.7
26.7
28.3
25.9
26.7
26.3
24.7
28.0
26.5
27.5
23.8
30.8
26.8
3276
31.0
28.0
22. 1
25.2
30.8
31.0
29.6
JO. 5
J2.6
29.9
1 ,Ui" V.. Sand % Silt Z Clay
Index
2.3
5.8
4.4 39.5 47.5 13
0.2
0 39.0 49.5 11.5
3.8
4.1
7.3
5.0
8.2
5.4
4.5
4.4
_7J
6.1 33.5 51.5 15
10.0
5.5
6.7
5.7 _24 63 13
4.8 35 52 13
3.7
A. 7
4.4
7.0 28 58.5 13.5
6.5
5.6
3.3
8.2
7.5
11.5
7.8 23.5 61.5 15
7.0
1.3 44 46.5 9.5
4.2
7.6
9.0
9. 1
8.3
10. (i
10.3
Nomenclature Symb£)1
Ml.
CL-ML
Loam CL-ML
ML
Loam ML
ML
ML
ML
ML
CL
CL-ML
CL-ML
ML
CL-ML
Silty clay loam CL-ML
ML
GW
GW
GW
GW
CL-ML
CL-ML
GW
CW
Silty loam ML
Silty loam CL-ML
ML
GM
r-M
GM
GM
CL-ML
CL-ML
ML
ML
GM
GM
GW
GW
Silty loam CL-ML
CL-ML
CL-ML
CL
CL
CL
GW
CW
-CL-
Silty loam ML
CL-ML
Loam ML
CL-ML
ML
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
38
-------
TABLE 13. SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY DATA COLLECTED DURING 1976 AND 1977 GROWING SEASONS
Sampling Sample
Station Description
Number
1 Treatment plant effluent
2 Reservoir No. 1, Effluent
3 Reservoir No. 2, Influent
4 Reservoir No. 2, Effluent
t_o
5 Treated site garden plot
influent
6 Treated site garden plot
effluent
7 Treated site flood
irrigation tail water
8 Treated site spray
irrigation influent
9 Control site garden
plot influent
10 Control site garden
plot influent
11 Control site influent
Year
1976
1977
1976
1977
1976
1977
1976
1977
1976
1977
1976
1977
1976
1977
1976
1977
1976
1977
1976
1977
1976
1977
Alkalinity
(mg/1)
249.
234.
259.
246.
251.
244.
256.
257.
255.
246.
287.
-H
247.
255.
256.
246.
201.
197.
_
-H
201.
197.
9
5
8
9
1
9
3
2
8
8
6
0
2
0
8
1
7
1
7
Calcium
(mg/1
CaC03)
231.6
246.1
229.4
216.9
236.6
211.2
235.9
243.8
221.9
205.3
222.7
-H-
242.3
191.6
234.1
205.3
176.1
146.2
170.0
-H-
176.1
146.2
Chloride
(mg/1)
Mean
Hardness
(mg/1
Concentration
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
NO -N
(mg/1)
TKN
(mg/1)
Total
Phosphorus
(mg/1
Total
Soluble
Phosphorus
(mg/1
CaCO ) P)
139.2
147.3
136.9
142.0
137.4
147.5
138.0
152.4*
134.3
147.1
139.5
-H-
138.8
142.0
133.6
147.1
21.2
22.0
18.8
-H-
21.2
22.0
271.5
259.0
276.8
255.6
265.2
260.0
269.5
247.9
263.3
251.9
269.1
-H-
258.0
264.3
266.2
251.9
224.4
179.8
222.0
6.76
2.92*
5.97
3.09*
5.05
2.52*
5.61
3.60
5.95
3.27*
4.76
-H-
2.42
0.63
6.05
3.27*
0.046
0.057
0.091
0.642
0.598
0.681
0.770
1.299
0.895*
1.000
0.835
1.069
0.776*
1.115
-H-
1.706
0.927*
0.675
0.776
0.0044
0.0143*
0.0071
9.64
11.02
5.49
7.67*
5.27
7.29*
4.89
6.71*
5.79
8.46*
5.48
++
6.08
7.04
5.34
8.46*
0.495
0.418
1.171
12.
7.
9.
6.
9.
6.
8.
6.
8,
6,
13.
H
6.
4.
8.
6.
0,
1
7,
.28
.22*
.60
.65*
.16
.20*
,24
.50
.69
.31*
.41
H-
.14
.69
.52
.31*
.48
.02
.34
10.
10.
9.
10.
10.
9.
9.
9.
9.
9.
19.
4
8.
8.
10.
9.
0.
0.
2.
97
98
86
31
48
99
81
28
46
59
90
+
77
56
17
59
046
079
126
8
9
8
8
8
8
8
7
8
8
8
6
7
8
8
0
0
0
P)
.80
.35
.99
.42
.84
.56
.97
.94
.75
.84
.29
++
.83
.27
.98
.84
.027
.030
.084
Ortho
Phosphate
(mg/1
P)
8.13
8.85
8.93
8.21
8.45
7.84
8.69
7.38
8.41
8.56
8.30
"^
6.66
7.00
8.63
8.56
0.018
0.022
0.065
-H--H--H--H-++ -H- -H- ++
224.4
179.8
0.046
0.057
0.0044
0.0143*
0.495
0.418
0.
1
,48
.02
0.
0.
046
079
0
0
.027
.030
0.018
0.022
- No data
* 1976 mean is significantly different (95% level) from the 1977 mean , no * indicates no significant difference (95%
+ Analysis not performed in 1976 _ ^
-H- No runoff in 1977; limited runoff in 1976
-------
TABLE 13. CONTINUED
-
Sampling Sample
Station Description
Number
1 Treatment plant effluent
2 Reservoir No. 1, Effluent
3 Reservoir No. 2, Influent
4 Reservoir No. 2, Effluent
5 Treated site garden plot
O influent
6 Treated site garden plot
effluent
7 Treated site flood
irrigation tail water
8 Treated site spray
irrigation influent
9 Control site garden
plot influent
10 Control site garden
plot influent
11 Control site influent
Year
Total
Dissolved
Solids
(mg/1)
1976
1977
1976
1977
1976
1977
1976
1977
1976
1977
1976
1977
1976
1977
1976
1977
1976
1977
1976
1977
1976
1977
693
636
701
618
640
629
656
608
610
618
619
++
717
572
752
618.
253
649
326.
++
253.
649.
.5
.3
.5
.4
.0
.2
.7
.4
.2
.0
.6
.0
.0
.0
,0
.2
.7
.0
.2
.7
Total
Suspended
Solids
(mg/1)
49.
31.
22.
47.
165.
81.
30.
59.
64.
18.
1254.
-H-
93.
127.
17.
18.
2.
5.
_
-H-
2.
5.
8
0*
0
5
0
2
9
2*
6
8
1
0
4
1
8
2
8
2
8
Volatile
Suspended
Solids
(mg/1)
34.
25.
14.
26.
31.
23.
16.
24.
16.
14.
89.
++
18.
22.
12.
14.
1.
2.
.,
-H-
1.
2.
7
0
0
1
2
7
8
9
8
3
0
2
9
0
3
6
6
6
6
Specific
Conductance
(pmho/cm)
1090
1161
1089
1114
1054
1116
1087
1125
1113
1089
1106
++
1161
1252
1102
1089
497
456*
476
-H-
497
456*
Mean
Concentration
Sulfide
(mg/1)
59
62
60
66
60
65
59
63
66
64
66
+
61
69
60
64
22
18
23
+
22
18
.2
.5
.4
.5
.it
.0
.0
.7
.8
.0
.5
+
.9
.8
.6
.0
.7
.5
.3
+
.7
.5
BOD
(mg/1)
29.
16.
11
17.
17
14,
14
16
12
13
17
+-
12
18
13
13
1
2
4
+-
1
2
,0
.0*
.3
.9*
.1
.7
.1
.0
.1
.4
.2
h
.4
.5
.9
.4
.6
.5
.2
F
.6
.5
COD
(mg/1)
106.1
73.4*
59.9
77.6
78.5
63.8
52.0
61.8
60.1
60.5
196.8
++
62.6
67.4
55.5
60.5
9.53
21.02
181.4
++
9.53
21.02
Temp Dissolved
Oxygen
°C
20.0
18.6
19.1
21.1
19.1
21.1
17.6
18.5
20.7
20.6
22.3
++
21.0
24.0
19.6
20.6
16.3
> 29.2
15.0
++
16.3
29.2
(mg/1)
5.9
7.0
5.1
9.3
4.2
5.5
6.5
8.3
7.5
5.0
8.2
++
5.2
5.4
4.6
5.0
8.1
5.1
8.6
-H-
8.1
5.1
PH
(units)
7.4
6.8
7.6
7.6
7.7
7.5
7.9
7.7
7.6
7.2
7.8
++
8.3
-
7.7
7.2
7.4
7.3
7.0
-H-
7.4
7.3
Aluminum
(yg/D
95
131
90
143
150
108
95
120
150
111
190
-*-
*
50
60
111
154
224
330
-H-
154
224
No data
* 1976 mean is significantly different
+ Analysis not performed in 1976
++ No runoff in 1977; limited runoff in
(95% level) from the 1977 mean,
1976
no * indicates no significant difference (95% level)
-------
TABLE 13. CONTINUED
Mean Concentration
Sampling Sample
Station Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Year
Cadmium
(Mg/D
Treatment plant effluent
Reservoir No. 1, Effluent
Reservoir No. 2, Influent
Reservoir No. 2, Effluent
Treated site garden plot
influent
Treated site garden plot
effluent
Treated site flood
irrigation tail water
Treated site spray
irrigation influent
Control site garden
plot influent
Control site garden
plot influent
Control site influent
1976
1977
1976
1977
1976
1977
1976
1977
1976
1977
1976
1977
1976
1977
1976
1977
1976
1977
1976
1977
1976
1977
0.
<4.
0.
<4.
0.
<4,
0.
<4
0,
<4.
0,
-H
*
<5
0
<4,
0
<4.
0
-1-
0
<4
2
6
2
.8*
.2
.6*
.3
.8*
.3
.6*
.3
h
.0
.4
.6*
.2
.3*
.3
h
.2
.3*
Chromium Copper
(Mg/D (yg/D
36 23.5
<12 41.4
28 21.0
<12 17.0
4 9.5
<12 <15.3
6 9.0
<13 <13.1
22 13.8
<12 <42.3
12 11.0
++ ++
* *
<17 <8.0
6 8.2
<12 <42.3
5 4.8'
<11 <42.2*
< 2 5.5
-H- -H-
5 4.8
<11 <12.2*
Iron
(Mg/D
32
36
30
35
41
42
26
102
56
25
28
++
*
153
40
25
23
230
66
++
23
230
Lead
(Mg/D
3.
<0.
2.
<0.
3.
0.
3.
<1.
3.
<0.
3.
-H
*
<0.
3.
<0,
2.
<0.
3.
-H
2.
<0
.5
9
5
9
.0
9
,0
.6
.2
,9
.0
L
.9
.0
.9
.8
.9
.5
h
.8
.9
Magnesium
(mg/1)
9 c
23,
11.
25,
6.
25,
8,
26,
10,
25,
11
-H
3,
26
7,
25,
11
22,
13
-H
11
22
,7
,8*
,5
.5*
,9
.6*
.1
.4*
.1
.2*
.3
h
.7
.3*
.8
.2*
.8
.1*
.2
h
.8
.1*
Manganese
(Mg/D
11
< 7
10
<12
16
< 9
15
<15
21
10
15
++
_
43
_
10
12
< 6
8
-H-
12
< 6
Mercury
(Mg/D
8,
-------
TABLE 13. CONTINUED
•P-
ro
Sampling
Station
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sample
Description
Treatment plant effluent
Reservoir No. 1, Effluent
Reservoir No. 2, Influent
Reservoir No. 2, Effluent
Treated site garden plot
influent
Treated site garden plot
effluent
Treated site flood
irrigation tail water
Treated site spray
irrigation influent
Control site garden
plot influent
Control site garden
plot influent
Control site influent
Mean Concentration
Arsenic Nickel Total Total Fecal Fecal Fecal
Year Coliform Coliform Coliform Coliform Streptococcus
MPN MF MPN MF M-ENT
(yg/1) (Ug/D No/100 ml No/100 ml No/100 ml No/100 ml No/100' ml
t t t I t
1976 + + <2.7xl05 I.9X103 <1.4xl03 <6.4xl01 9 . SxlO2
1977 <1.0 <3 l.SxlO1* >4.2xl03 - >2.4xl03
1976 + +
1977 <1.6 <4
1976 + +
1977 <1.6 <5
1976 + + 1.8X105 <2.0xl02 <9.4xl02 <2.3xl02 7.1X102
1977 1.8 <4 1.0X10" >1.8X103 - 7.6X102
1976 + +
1977 1.6 <4
1976 + +
1977 ++ ++
1976 + +
1977 3.5 <3
1976 + +
1977 1.6 <4
1976 + +
1977 14.8 <2
1976 + +
1977 -H- -H-
1976 + + 8.0X101 <9.4X10° <3.2xlO° <2.0xlO° 5.6x10°
1977 14.8 <2 <4.4xlO°* >2.Qxl01 - <0.4xlO°*
Fecal
Streptococcus
KF
No/100 ml
2.9X102
<4.2xl62
3.3X102
1.4X103
8.7X10°
<1.5xlO°
- No data
* 1976 mean is significantly different (95% level) from the 1977 mean, no * indicates no significant difference (95% level)
+ Analysis not performed in 1976
-H- No runoff in 1977; limited runoff in 1976
t Geometric mean
-------
A statistical comparison between the 1976 data and the 1977 data for
34 parameters at nine sampling stations is also summarized in Table 13.
The complete statistical analysis is shown in Appendix C. A comparison of
Station Number 6: Treated Site Garden Plot Effluent, and Station Number 9:
Control Site Garden Plot Effluent was not possible because very little garden
effluent was produced in 1976 and both garden plots were sprinkler irrigated
in 1977 and thus did not produce any effluent.
The statistical analysis indicated that the treatment plant effluent
(Station Number 1) during the 1977 growing season was significantly different
(95 percent level) from the effluent during the 1976 growing season for only
ten parameters (mostly heavy metals). Nine parameters were significantly
different (95 percent level) between the 1976 and 1977 growing season at the
historical point of land application (Station Number 4). There were also
nine parameters which were significantly different (95 percent level) between
the 1976 and 1977 growing season in the influent to the control site (Station
Numbers 9 and 11).
Although statistically different, many of these differences may not
be significant from a practical point of view. The importance and meaning
of these differences will be discussed later in this report in those sections
dealing with the specific sampling station.
Treatment Plant Performance
General—
The Tooele, Utah Wastewater Treatment Plant was composed of a 8,327
m-Vday (2.2 MGD) single stage trickling filter with anaerobic digestion
until the spring of 1977. In April 1977, the plant was modified to provide
high rate trickling filters (two stage) and the secondary clarifier capacity
was significantly increased. The wastewater is predominantly domestic with a
small fraction of commercial and light industrial wastes.
Historical Performance—
A summary of the yearly average effluent quality for the Tooele Waste-
water Treatment Plant is shown in Table 14. A complete listing of available
treatment plant performance data is contained in Appendix B.
The yearly average flow ranged from a low of 3191 m /day (0.843 MGD)
in 1957 to a high of 5836 m3/day (1.542 MGD) in 1974. During the study
periods of 1976 and 1977, the average daily flow was 5648.5 m3/-day (1.492
MGD) and 2515.5 m3/day (0.665 MGD) respectively. The 1977 average daily
flow is considerably less than recorded in previous years. The reduction in
flow during 1977 was due to water conservation practices resulting from a
severe drought condition which occurred during 1977.
The available historical (1969-1975) average effluent biochemical oxygen
demand (BODc) of the treatment plant ranged from a minimum value of 19 mg/1
in 1973 to a maximum value of 36 mg/1 in 1969. During the study period of
1976 and 1977, the average effluent 6005 was 29 mg/1 and 16 mg/1, respectively,
The lower average effluent 6005 during 1977 was due to the modifications to
the treatment plant.
43
-------
The available historical (1969-1975) average effluent suspended solids
(Table 14) concentration of the treatment plant (for available records)
ranged from a minimum value of 9 mg/1 in 1971 to a maximum value of 23 mg/1
in 1969. The average effluent suspended solids concentration of the treat-
ment plant during the 1976 and 1977 study period was 49.8 mg/1 and 31.0 mg/1,
respectively. The average effluent suspended solids concentration measured
during the 1976 and 1977 study period are substantially greater than the
historical values. The historical values were obtained from grab samples
while the values determined during the 1976 and 1977 study period were
obtained from 24 hour composite samples.
In summary, the treatment plant effluent BOD^ concentration averaged
26 mg/1 and the suspended solids concentration averaged 21 mg/1 from 1969
through 1977. No records were available to determine the treatment plant
BOD,- and suspended solids performance prior to 1969.
Surface Water
General—
From 1957 to 1976, water used for irrigation of the treated site origi-
nated from the Tooele Wastewater Treatment Plant and was applied to the
TABLE 14. YEARLY AVERAGE EFFLUENT QUALITY OF THE TOOELE, UTAH,
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Year
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
Flow
up/day
3191
3691
3160
4129
3974
4046
4610
4576
4614
4799
5204
-
5204
4837
5462
4970
5193
5836
5693
5647
2515
BOD5
mg/1
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
—
-
—
-
36
33
22
•'} f
19
27
25
29
16
Suspended Solids
mg/1
_
-
—
-
-
-
-
-
—
_
_
_
23
19
9
14
9
18
20
50
31
MGD = m3/day/3785
44
-------
treated site by flood irrigation from the second reservoir (Sampling Station
Number 4). Thus, the data collected at Sampling Station Number 4 can be
considered representative of the historical water quality applied to the
treated site.
Beginning in 1976, the treated site was sprinkler irrigated with ef-
fluent from the Tooele Treatment Plant. However, the water for the sprinkler
system was conveyed to the treated site via a pipeline which originated near
the outlet of the first reservoir rather than the second reservoir as in
previous years. The sprinkler influent to the treated site was sampled just
prior to the sprinkler header (Sampling Station Number 8). Thus, the quality
of water at Sampling Station Number 8 may have an effect on the interpreta-
tion of the historical implications of soil samples collected during 1976 and
1977-
In order to determine any significant effects on the treated site
caused by changing from flood irrigation to sprinkler irrigation, a portion
of the treated site (see Figure 2) was maintained in a flood irrigation mode.
This portion was flood irrigated from the second reservoir as in previous
years.
Quantity: Treated Site—
There are no records to indicate the rate at which treated effluent had
been applied to the treated site from 1957 to 1975. An interview with the
owner of the farm indicated that three or four applications were made each
growing season (i.e. , May to October) and that no applications were made
between October and May.
Measurements were made during 1976 and 1977 to determine the quantity
of water applied by flood irrigation each season. This was accomplished by
measuring the amount of water applied to the flood portion of the treated
site. The results indicated that an average of 28.08 cm/irrigation (11.056
in/ irrigation) were applied in two irrigations during 1976 and that an
average of 16.38 cm/irrigation (6.45 in/irrigation) were applied with one
application during 1977. Only one flood irrigation application occurred
during 1977 due to drought conditions and the desire of the farm owner to
irrigate more valuable crops than those present on the treated site.
By weighting the average application rates for 1976 and 1977 and as-
suming that three applications are the normal mode of flood irrigation, it was
determined that 60.84 cm/year (23.95 in/year) were applied to the treated
site from 1957 to 1975. This application rate is relatively low in compari-
son to design criteria for wastewater land application systems (EPA et al.,
1977). However, it should be emphasized that the Tooele land application
system was designed and operated to maximize crop production not wastewater
disposal. Thus, application rates are at a minimum to allow irrigation of as
much land as possible rather than to dispose of as much water as possible
over a small land area.
No measurable runoff water was detected from the flood irrigation
treated site in 1976 and only 0.04 cm/irrigation (0.02 in/irrigation) was
detected during 1977.
45
-------
Beginning in 1976 and continuing in 1977, the majority of the treated
site was sprinkler irrigated. The results indicated that 2.17 cm/week
(0.853 in/week) were applied during 1976 and 2.72 cm/week (1.07 in/week) were
applied in 1977. Employing a weighted average,and assuming 20 weeks of
application per growing season, this amounts to 48.08 cm/year (18.92 in/year)
which is approximately 20 percent less than that applied with flood irriga-
tion.
Quantity: Control Site—
The control site has been sprinkler irrigated since it was first brought
under cultivation in 1963. No records are available to indicate the his-
torical irrigation application rate at the control site. Measurements made
during 1976 indicated that 1.92 cm/week (0.76 in/week) were applied to the
control site. In 1977, 2.41 cm/week (0.95 in/week) were applied. A total of
38.39 cm (15.11 in) was applied in 1976, and 7.24 cm/week (2.85 in/week) in
1977. The lower application in 1977 was due to the drought conditions. The
control site was only irrigated for two weeks during 1977.
Using a weighted average application rate for the control site and
assuming 20 weeks of applications per growing season, it was determined
that an average of 39.68 cm/year (15.62 in/year) has been applied to the
control site.
Quantity: Control vs. Treated—
The calculated annual application rate of the treated site during
the irrigation period (1957 to 1975) was 60.84 cm (23.95 in) compared to
39.68 cm (15.62 in) for the control site. Based on these calculations, the
treated site received approximately 35 percent more water annually. A
portion of the difference is probably due to the method of application.
Sprinkler irrigation is more efficient than flood irrigation.
A comparison of the sprinkler irrigated portion of the treated site
with the control site indicates that the treated site received approximately
19 percent more water than the control site.
Quality: Treated Site—
As indicated above, historically the second reservoir (Sampling Station
Number 4) served as the source of wastewater applied to the treated site.
A summary of the effluent water quality from the second reservoir is reported
in Table 15. A complete listing of all data collected is in Appendix B.
These tables also contain water quality data for the sprinkler irrigated
portion of the control plot (Sampling Station Number 8). Since sprinkler
irrigation of the treated site did not begin until 1976, the data from
Sampling Station Number 4 (effluent second reservoir) was used to evaluate
the impact of long term application of wastewater to the land.
The biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) of the water applied to the
treated site averaged 14.1 mg/1 in 1976 and 16.0 mg/1 in 1977. The treatment
plant effluent averaged 29.0 mg/1 in 1976 and 16.0 mg/1 in 1977. The in-
crease in treatment plant effluent quality in 1977 was due to the modifica-
tion of treatment the plant. The water applied to the land averaged approxi-
mately 52 percent less BOD5 than the treatment plant effluent. Apparently,
46
-------
TABLE 15. COMPARISON OF AVERAGE ORGANIC AND INORGANIC CONCENTRATIONS OF VARIOUS PARAMETERS IN
WATER APPLIED TO THE CONTROL AND TREATED SITES
Treated Site
(Sampling
Station
Control Site
(Sampling
Station
Treated
Site
Significantly
Ratio:
Treated Site
raraniecer , UILJ.L;
Alkalinity, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
Hardness, mg/1
NH3-N, mg/1
N02-N, mg/1
N03-N, mg/1
TKN, mg/1
Tot. Phosphorus,
Tot. Sol. Phos. ,
Ortho-P, mg/1
Tot. Dis. Solids
a
mg/1
mg/1
> mg/1
Tot. Suspended Solids, mg/1
Vol. Sus. Solids
, mg/1
Sp. Cond., ymhos/cm
Sulfate, mg/1
BOD5, mg/1
COD, mg/1
1.NO .
1976
256.3
235.9
138.0
269.5
5.61
1.00
4.89
8.24
9.81
8.97
8.69
656.7
30.9
16.8
1087
59.0
14.1
52.0
-------
there is a significant reduction in BOD5 as the effluent flows along the
ditch, through the two reservoirs to the treated site. However, in 1977,
although the treatment plant effluent was of a higher quality than during
previous years, the BOD5 concentration of the water actually applied to the
treated site did not change significantly. Thus, it appears that the modi-
fication of the treatment plant had little effect on the organic quality of
water applied to the land.
The chemical oxygen demand (COD) of the water applied to the treated
site is approximately four times greater than the BOD^ concentration. This
indicates that the treatment plant effluent is relatively biologically
stable prior to the land application. Nevertheless, the water does contain a
significant organic fraction.
The suspended solids concentration of the water applied to the treated
site averaged 30.9 mg/1 in 1976 and 59.2 mg/1 in 1977. These averages
are significantly different at the 95 percent level. The average suspended
solids concentrations of the treatment plant effluent were 49.8 mg/1 in 1976
and 31.0 mg/1 in 1977. These average concentrations are also significantly
different at the 95 percent level. The treatment plant average effluent
suspended solids concentration was greater in 1976 than in 1977, however, the
water applied to the treated site had a greater suspended solids concentra-
tion in 1977 than in 1976. This is just the opposite of what might be ex-
The increase in suspended solids concentration of the water applied to
the treated site in 1977 is due primarily to algal growth in the second
reservoir. Because 1977 was a drought year, less water flooded into the
second reservoir. As a result, the hydraulic detention time of the second
reservoir was greater in 1977 than 1976, thus algal growth within the second
reservoir increased.
The nutrient species (NA3-N, N02-N, N03-N, TKN, total phospho-
rus, total soluable phosphorus, and ortho phosphorus) were greater than
normally encountered in irrigation water, but probably less than wastewater
normally employed in land application systems (see Table 15) .
The geometric mean MPN total coliform count of the treatment plant ef-
fluent (Sampling Station Number 1) were <2.7 x 105 organisms /100 ml in
1976 and 1.5 x 104 organisms /100 ml in 1977. At the point of land appli-
cation (Sampling Station Number 4), the geometric mean MPN total coliform
count was 1.8 x 105 organisms/100 ml in 1976 and 1.0 x 104 organisms/100
ml in 1977. Thus, coliform dieaway appears to be negligible after the
effluent leaves the treatment plant even though the effluent passes through
two separate holding reservoirs.
This conclusion is further supported by comparison of the fecal coliform
data. The geometric mean MF fecal coliform count of the treatment plant
effluent (Sampling Station Number 1) was 1.9 x 103 organisms/100 ml in 1976
and greater than 4.2 x 103 organisms/100 ml in 1977- At the point of land
application (Sampling Station Number 4) the geometric mean MF coliform count
was >2.0 x 102 organisms/100 ml in 1976 and >1.3 x 103 organisms/100 ml
48
-------
in 1977. Again, no significant reduction in coliform counts are observed as
the effluent is transported through the earthen ditch and reservoir system to
the land application site.
The geometric mean KF fecal streptococcus count of the treated plant
effluent (Sampling Station Number 1) was 2,9 x 1Q2 organisms/100 ml in
1976 and <4.2 x 102 organisms/100 ml in 1977. These values are similar
to those found at the point of land application (i.e., 3.3 x 102 organisms/
100 ml in 1976 and 1.4 x 103 organisms/100 ml in 1977). Thus, pathogenic
organisms could still be present in the treated effluent applied to the
treated site.
The average total dissolved solids concentration of the water applied to
the treated site was 656.7 mg/1 in 1976 and 608.4 mg/1 in 1977. The average
specific condition of the water applied to the treated site was 1087 ymhos/
cm in 1976 and 1125 ymhos/cm in 1977. These values are typical for domestic
wastewater and, although high, are acceptable for water to be used for
irrigation (EPA, 1973) .
The metals concentration of the water applied to the treated site were
all significantly less than limiting concentrations recommended for irriga-
tion water (EPA, 1973). Table 16 is a comparison of the average metals
concentrations contrained in the water applied to the treated site and
limiting values recommended for irrigation water.
The treatment plant effluent (Sampling Station Number 1) and the water
applied to the treated site (Sampling Station Number 4) were analyzed three
separate times for various organic compounds. The results of these analyses
are reported in Table 17. In each case the concentration of pesticides and
residual organisms was extremely low and of little consequence.
In summary, the water quality of the wastewater applied to the treated
site is typical of a well operated municipal secondary wastewater treatment
plant. The water is of significantly poorer quality than normally employed
for irrigation, but is suitable for irrigation of most crops.
Quality: Control Site—•
The irrigation water applied to the control site originated from a
high mountain reservoir. In general, the reservoir collects runoff water
from snowmelt during the spring. The watershed area is undeveloped, with
recreation and cattle grazing being the primary uses. As a result, the
irrigation water is of a high quality.
The quality of water applied to the control site is characterized by
Sample Station Number 11. A summary of the water quality applied to the
control site is presented in Table 15. A complete listing of all the
data collected is contained in Appendix B.
The average biochemical oxygen demand (BOD^) of the water applied
to the control site was 1.6 mg/1 in 1976 and 2.5 mg/1 in 1977. There was
no significant difference (95 percent level) between 1976 and 1977 average
BODc; concentration of the applied water. This low BOD^ concentration is
49
-------
TABLE 16. COMPARISON OF AVERAGE METALS CONCENTRATIONS IN WATER APPLIED
TO THE CONTROL AND TREATED SITES WITH RECOMMENDED LIMITS FOR
IRRIGATION WATER
Parameter,
Units
Aluminum, yg/1
Cadmium, yg/1
Chromium, yg/1
Copper, yg/1
Iron, yg/1
Lead, yg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
Manganese, yg/1
Mercury, yg/1
Potassium, mg/1
Silver, yg/1
Sodium, yg/1
Zinc, yg/1
Arsenic, yg/1
Nickel
Treated
Site
(Sample
Station
No. 4)
1976
95
0.3
6
9.0
26
3.0
8.1
15
3.8
10.6
<1.0
120
<18
-
—
1977
120
<4.8
<13
<13.1
102
<1.6
26.4
<15
<0.7
12.6
<5.8
137
20
1.8
<4
Control
Site
(Sample
Station
No. 11)
1976
154
0.2
5
<1.8
23
2.8
11.8
12
6.5
1.0
<1.0
18
<11
—
-
1977
224
<4.3
<11
<12.2
23
0.9
22.1
<6
<4.6
2.0
<5.5
20
21
14.8
<2
Recommended
Limit
For 20
Year Use
(EPA,
1973)
20,000
50
1,000
5,000
20,000
, 10,000
N.A.
10,000
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
SAR < 4-8
10,000
2,000
2,000
Treated Site
Significantly
Different
(95% Level)
From Control
Site*
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes+
No+
Ratio:
Treated
Site
Control
-------
TABLE 17. RESIDUAL ORGANIC CONCENTRATIONS MEASURED AT THE TREATMENT PLANT, TREATED
SITE, AND CONTROL SITE
Sample
I. Treatment Plant Effluent
(Station No. 1)
a. Sept. 1976 (ppb)
b. June 1977 (ppb)
c. Sept. 1977 (ppt)
Average
II. Second Reservoir
(Station No. 4)
a. Sept. 1976 (ppb)
b. June 1977 (ppb)
c. Sept. 1977 (ppt)
Average
III. Control (Station
No. 11)
a. Sept. 1976 (ppb)
b. June 1977 (ppb)
c. Sept. 1977 (ppt)
Average
p
i
r.
CM
.01
.02
.048
<.01
.011
N.D.
.022
.007
H
1
m
<3-
i\
CN
.005
.005
.005
pq
u
X
.001
.001
.003
.001
0)
C
cO
T3
(3
•H
i-J
.18
.06
.029
.12
.016
N.D.
.001
0
33
ca
pa
.091
.068
.001
(3
•H
\-l
•n
f_i
<
.031
.008
.001
.
n
o
,-t
43
0
X
O
.042
.015
<.001
.002
W
0
a.
w
.
4-1
a
01
<.01
<.01
.083
<.01
.006
N.D.
.002
a
•H
*U
,-1
0)
•H
Q
.03
.01
.011
.03
.001
N.D.
<.001
.001
H
Q
P
.02
.02
.153
.01
.004
N.D.
.004
.001
c
•rH
p
T3
13
W
<.01
<.01
.001
<.01
.001
N.D.
.004
o
,_ {
r;
U
^
O
4_1
0)
s
<.05
.10
.001
<.05
.001
N.D.
N D
.001
Q)
(3
01
D.
CO
X
O
H
<1
<1
N D
<1
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
en
o
Pu
1
o
a
s
60
)_t
o
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
(3
•H
£>
01
c/>
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
w
u
PM
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D. = Not detected
ppb = Parts per billion
ppt = Parts per trillion
-------
The geometric mean total coliform counts of the irrigation water applied
to the control site were less than 100 organisms/100 ml in both 1976 and
1977- The geometric mean fecal coliform and fecal streptococcus counts were
less than 10 organisms/100 ml in both 1976 and 1977. Thus, there appears to
be no significant fecal or pathogenic contaminaton of the normal irrigation
water.
The average total dissolved solids concentration of the applied water
was 253.2 mg/1 in 1976, and 272.0 mg/1 in 1977. These values are typical
of natural water quality in the Tooele, Utah area. The specific conductance
for the applied control water was 497 ymhos/cm in 1976 and 456 ymhos/cm
in 1977. The specific conductance values indicate a decrease between 1976
and 1977 while the total dissolved solids concentrations indicate an increase
for the same period. This discrepancy is probably due to the limited number
of total dissolved solids measurements made in 1977- As shown in Appendix
B, Table B-25 there appears to be only one valid total dissolved solids value
for 1977.
The average concentration of the nutrient species (NH^-N, NC^-N, NC>3-N,
TKN, total phosphorus, total soluble phosphorus, ortho phosphorus) for 1976
and 1977 are recorded in Table 15. In general, the average concentrations of
the nutrient species were less than 1 mg/1 except for total Kjeldahl nitrogen
which was 1.02 mg/1 in 1977. These values further indicate the high quality
of the water applied to the control site.
The average metals concentrations of the water applied to the control
site are reported in Table 16. In each case, the average metals concen-
trations for both 1976 and 1977 were substantially below recommended limits
for irrigation water quality. The average concentrations of aluminum in
1976 was 154 pg/1 and in 1977 was 224 yg/1- These high values are a
result of aluminum pipe being employed for transport of the water.
Table 17 indicates the concentration of various pesticides and residual
organics contained in the water applied to the control site. During 1976,
these concentrations were less than the detection limit of the analytical
procedures employed (i.e., less than 0.001 ppb). However, by 1977, a few
pesticide and residual organics were detected. These concentrations were
substantially below levels of concern.
In summary, the water applied to the control site was very high.
The water was low in organics, nutrients, metals, and pesticides. The
salt concentrations (TDS) were low to moderate (EPA, 1973) and were substan-
tially less than limiting values for irrigation water.
Quality: Treated vs Control—
A comparison of the quality of water applied to the control and treated
sites is shown in Tables 15, 16, and 17. The average concentration of 22 of
the parameters measured was significantly different (95 percent level, based
on combining 1976 and 1977 data) between the treated site and control site.
The parameters which were significantly different included BOD5, COD,
suspended solids, total dissolved solids, nutrient species, and certain
inorganic species. In general, the average concentrations in the water
52
-------
applied to the treated site were substantially greater than those in the
water applied to the control site. For example, the average BOD^ concen-
trations of the treated site water was 6.4 times greater than the control
site water.
In general, the average metals concentrations of the treated site
water and the control site water were not significantly different (95 percent
level, based on combined 1976 and 1977 data). Only the average concentra-
tions of mercury, potassium, sodium, and arsenic were significantly different
(95 percent level). The average concentration of aluminum and mercury were
greater in the control site water than in the treated site water. The
increased aluminum concentration in the control site water is probably due to
the pipeline. Mercury concentrations, although statistically different, were
not substantial.
In summary, the water applied to the treated site was of a significantly
poorer quality than water applied to the control site. The treated site
water had significantly higher concentrations of organics and nutrients. In
general, metals concentrations of the two waters were similar.
Groundwater
A 5 cm (two inch) diameter well was drilled to a depth of 33 m (107
feet) in the northwest corner of the treated site (see Figure 5, Lucation
DH-4) in an attempt to monitor groundwater movement and quality. No ground-
water was encountered while drilling nor was groundwater observed in the well
throughout the 1976 and 1977 study period.
An attempt to determine the percolating groundwater quality by instal-
lation of lysiineters and by extraction of the soil-water solution with
porous cups located throughout the treated and control site was made during
the 1977 growing season. The results of this phase of the study are dis-
cussed in the section on soil characteristics.
During the 1976 growing season (May to October) 56.2 cm (22.1 inches)
of water was applied to the treated site. During the same period 10.7
cm (4.2 inches) of precipitation fell at the site. Thus, a total of 66.9
cm (26.3 inches) of water was applied to the treated site. During this
same period the evapotranspiration was calculated (Perman combination) to be
96.3 era (37.9 inches). At no time during the growing season did the rate
of precipitation plus application of wastewater exceed the calculated evapo-
transpiration rate. Therefore, it appears that the applied wastewater may
never percolate to the groundwater.
Runoff Water Quality
Because the treated site had been flood irrigated historically and
because the flood irrigation method tends to produce a significant amount of
excess surface runoff or tailwater, an attempt was made to determine the
quality and quantity of the flood irrigation portion of the treated site
tailwaters. In general, the amount of tailwater generated during the 1976
and 1977 growing season was insignificant.
53
-------
The amount of tailwater generated during the 1976 growing season was
too small to be measurable, however, water quality samples were collected.
During the 1977 growing season a total of 0.0922 cm (0.036 inches) of tail-
water was measured. This is probably much less tailwater than was produced
on an annual basis during the past 20 years. Because 1977 was a drought
year, very little tailwater was generated.
The quality of the tailwater was determined for both the 1976 and
1977 growing seasons. The average concentration for the various parameters
is reported in Table 13. In general, the tailwater quality was significantly
different from the applied water. The average suspended solids concentration
of the tailwater is substantially greater than the applied water (applied
= 30.9 to 59.2 mg/1 vs. tailwater = 93.0 to 127.4 mg/1), however, this is
due to erosion in the tailwater collection ditch rather than to treatment
effects.
The average BOD^ concentration of the tailwater is essentually the same
as the applied water (applied = 14.1 to 16.0 mg/1 vs. tailwater = 12.4 -
18.5 mg/1). The BOD^ content of the tailwater could be a result of scour
of surface detritus, erosion in the tailwater collection ditch or little
organic removal associated with the overland flow of the wastewater. Kemp,
1978, reported that low BOD 5 content wastewaters are not significantly
treated by overland flow lanid application systems.
Implications for Long Term Effects
The secondary treated manicipal effluent applied to the treated site
since 1957 has been a relatively high quality water when compared to waste-
water generally employed in land application systems. The biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD^) of the water is less than the secondary effluent discharge
standards established for PL 92-500 (i.e., 30 mg/1 vs.14.1 mg/1 in 1976 and
16.0 mg/1 in 1977). However the suspended solids concentration is slightly
higher than the effluent discharge standard established for PL 92-500 (i.e.,
30 mg/1 vs. 30.9 mg/1 in 1976 and 59.2 mg/1 in 1977). The wastewater ef-
fluent is relatively low in metals and nutrients, however, it is relatively
high in total dissolved solids (656.7 mg/1 in 1976 and 608.4 mg/1 in 1977).
The secondary treated municipal effluent applied to the treated site
is of a much poorer quality when compared to the normal irrigation water used
on the control site. The treated water has a BOD^ concentration and a
suspended solids concentration which is approximately ten times greater than
the control water. The metals concentrations of both water are similar. The
total dissolved solids of the treated water is about three times greater than
the control water.
Although the treated water is of significantly poorer quality than
the control water, it is still within acceptable water quality criteria
for irrigation use. Thus, the long term effects of applying the treated
wastewater effluent to the land should be greater than those for normal
irrigation, but the effects should not significantly reduce crop production
or the soil productivity.
54
-------
SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
General
Soil samples were collected from shallow pits and the deep well drilling
operation as described in Section 4: Methods. The samples were analysed
for both physical and chemical characteristics. Comparisons were made
between the treated and control sites to determine the long-term effects of
irrigating with secondary treated municipal wastewater.
Soil Texture
Below about the top 60 to 90 cm, (24 to 35 inches) the soils were
generally quite cobbly and gravelly, particularly in the control site.
Many deep holes had over half of their soil material coarser than 2 mm (.08
inches) diameter (see Tables 18, 19, and 20). For example, although large
cobbles and stones were not collected because some were more than 25 cm
diameter (9.8 inches) the material at the 195 to 205 cm (77 to 80 inches)
depth in the control site of replicate 1 was 80 percent coarse material.
Hydrometer textural analysis of June 1977 samples are in Table 21. Because
of the extremes in textural stratification, particularly the excessively high
percentage of coarse particles in controls 2 and 3 and the deep parts of
treated sites 2 and 3, in some profiles there would be a tendency for in-
filtrated water to drain less well than it would in a uniform textured soil.
Infiltration during water application, however, was good.
In general, the control sites were higher in coarse materials and
the coarse layers occurred at more shallow depths than occurred in the
treated sites. This fact is explained by the difference in position of the
sites on the landscape. The control site is higher on the sloped area. A
greater chance for fine material deposition and deeper coverage on graded
rocky slopes (Pleistocene rocky delta covered with later slope wash) from
run-off occurs in the treated area because of the slightly lower position it
occupies on the landscape and further distance from the flooding source of
water and sediment. Treated sites also lie with less slope than control
sites <.
Soil Moisture
Moisture constants at field capacity (1/3 bar) and wilting point (15
bar) for the soils collected in the first sampling are shown in Table 22.
The soil layers with the highest amounts of coarse materials are easily
picked out by observing the low 1/3 bar values. Again only the smaller than
2 mm (0.08 inches) material was used but layers high in coarse fragments are
"also the highest in sand contents and lowest in clay.
The actual moisture contents of soils at the time of sampling are given
in Tables 23 and 24. When these values are compared to the potential water
retention values (1/3 bar) at the depths to 10 m, it is obvious that the
samples in the upper 13.5 m (45 feet) were only slightly moist when col-
lected. After an abnormally dry winter and spring (actually a drought year)
these results are not unusual.
55
-------
TABLE 18. WEIGHT PERCENTAGE OF SOIL MATERIAL (JUNE 1976) LARGER
THAN AND SMALLER THAN 2 MM DIAMETER +
Soil
Depth
Replication
<2 mm
>2
1 Replication 2
mm <2 mm
>2 mm
Replication 3
<2 mm
>2 mm
Control Site
cm
0-2
2-4
9-11
18-22
28-32
45-55
70-80
95-105
195-205
230-240
%
100
99
99
100
93
97
91
93*
—
%
0
1
1
0
7
3
9
7
—
—
%
88
76
80
83
90
92
80
80
32
35
%
11
24
20
17
10
8
20
20
68
65
%
88
83
88
—
67
—
—
40
—
—
%
12
17
12
—
33
—
—
60
__
—
. Treated Site
0-2
2-4
9-11
28-32
45-55
95-105
195-205
210-250
255-280
295-305
98
98
98
97
97
96
—
79
—
88
2
2
2
3
3
4
—
21
—
12
100
100
100
100
100
99
75
25
—
13
0
0
0
0
0
1
25
75
—
87
100
99
99
99
98
100
—
21
8
93
0
1
1
1
2
0
—
79
82
7
+Rocks larger than about 5 cm diameter were not collected and are not
represented on these data.
*A dash means no sample was collected.
cm x 0.39 = inch
56
-------
TABLE 19. WEIGHT PERCENTAGE OF SOIL MATERIAL (SEPTEMBER 1976) LARGER
THAN AND SMALLER THAN 2 MM DIAMETER +
Soil
Depth
Replication 1
<2 mm
>2 mm
Replication 2
<2 mm
>2 mm
Replication 3
<2 mm
>2 mm
Control Plots
cm
0-2
2-4
9-11
28-32
45-55
95-105
120-130
140-150
195-205
220-230
295-305
0-2
2-4
9-11
28-32
45-55
95-105
195-205
210-250
295-305
%
95
93
96
91
91
98
*
25f
20
—
62
95
89
92
86
87
92
70
—
42
%
5
7
4
9
9
2
75f
80
—
38
Effluent
5
11
8
14
13
8
30
—
58
%
73
77
78
82
71
55
—
59
49
—
Treated Plots
92
95
89
82
86
75
56
28
87
%
27
23
22
18
29
45
—
41
51
—
8
5
11
18
14
25
44
72
13
%
76
88
79
84
71
44
25
46
—
—
—
88
92
83
90
90
52
26
—
63
%
24
12
21
16
29
56
75
54
—
—
—
12
8
17
10
10
48
74
—
37
+Rocks larger than about 5 cm diameter were not collected and are not
represented in these data.
*A dash means no sample was collected.
tThis depth was actually 130-155 cm.
cm x 0.39 = inch
57
-------
TABLE 20. WEIGHT PERCENTAGES OF SOIL MATERIAL (JUNE 30, 1977) LARGER
THAN AND SMALLER THAN 2 MM DIAMETER +
Soil
Depth
cm
0-2
2-4
9-11
28-32
45-55
95-105
195-205
295-305
0-2
2-4
9-11
28-32
45-55
95-105
195-205
295-305
210-250 BL
Replication 1
<2 mm
%
94
87
95
84
58
99
74
58
*
99
98
98
95
93
93
72
45
"
>2 mm
Control
%
6
13
5
16
42
1
26
42
—
Treated
1
2
2
5
7
7
28
55
Replication 2
<2 mm
Site
%
85
85
85
87
60
28
42
69
Site
96
98
97
91
88
85
43
24
— —
>2 mm
%
15
15
15
13
40
72
58
31
4
2
3
9
12
15
57
76
__
Replication 3
<2 mm
%
90
89
87
76
73
43
26
86
47
95
98
94
90
91
88
26
31
17
>2 mm
%
10
11
13
24
27
57
74
14
53
5
2
6
10
9
12
74
69
83
+Rocks larger than about 5 cm diameter were not included in samples.
*A dash means no samples were collected
cm x 0.39 = inch
58
-------
TABLE 21. HYDROMETER TEXTURAL ANALYSES OF THE SOIL SAMPLES MATERIAL SMALLER
THAN TWO MILLIMETER DIAMETER COLLECTED FROM THE TOOELE SOIL SITES
JUNE 30, 1977
Sample Site
Control A
(Replicate 1)
Control B
(Replicate 2)
Control C
(Replicate 3)
Effluent
Plot D
(Replicate 1)
Sample
Depth
cm
0-2
2-4
9-11
28-32
95-105
295-305
45-55
195-205
0-2
2-4
9-11
28-32
95-105
295-305
45.50
195-205
0-2
2-4
9-11
28-32
95-105
295-305**
45-55
195-205
0-2
2-4
9-11
28-32
95-105
295-305
45-55
195-205
Sand
%
36
39
39
35
16
47
27
46
32
34
36
32
*
40
31
82
34
34
36
36
29
NS
29
*
31
35
36
36
40
*
36
35
Silt
%
42
37
37
36
51
36
42
31
41
37
35
33
—
34
31
12
42
41
36
34
47
NS
41
—
40
42
38
39
37
—
36
41
Clay
%
22
24
24
29
33
17
31
23
27
29
29
35
—
26
38
6
24
25
28
30
24
NS
30
—
29
23
26
25
23
—
28
24
Textural class
Loam
Loam
Loam
Clay loam
Silty clay loam
Loam
Clay loam
Loam
Loam
Loam
Loam
Clay loam
Sand*
Loam
Clay loam
Loamy sand
Loam
Loam
Clay loam
Clay loam
Loam
— N.S.
Clay loam
Sand*
Clay loam
Loam
Loam
Loam
Loam
Sand*
Loam
Loam
cm
x 0.39 = inch
(continued)
59
-------
TABLE 21. (CONT.)
Sample Site
Sample 0 ,
_ , Sand
Depth
Silt
Clay
Textural class
cm
Effluent
Plot E
(Replicate 2)
Effluent
Plot G
(Replicate 3)
0-2
2-4
9-11
28-32
95-105
295-305
45-55
195-205
0-2
2-4
9-11
28-32
95-105
295-305
45-55
195-205
140-175
28
33
35
30
25
61
34
62
31
31
32
29
28
62
33
67
46
44
39
38
41
40
22
36
26
40
40
37
37
38
23
39
20
31
28
28
27
29
35
17
30
12
29
29
31
34
34
15
28
13
23
Clay loam
Clay loam
Clay loam
Clay loam
Clay loam
Sandy loam
Clay loam
Sandy loam
Clay loam
Clay loam
Clay loam
Clay loam
Clay loam
Sandy loam
Clay loam
Sandy loam
Loam
*Texture by feel was sand so no analysis was performed.
**No sample could be collected in field because rock prevented
excavation.
tVery black layer, appears to be buried Al (surface soil).
cm x 0.39 = inch
60
-------
TABLE 22. MOISTURE PERCENTAGES AT FIELD CAPACITY (1/3 BAR) AND WILTING
POINT (15 BARS) FOR SOIL SAMPLES TAKEN JUNE 1976
Replication
Soil
Depth
1/3
1
15
Replication
Soil
Depth
1/3
2
15
Replication
Soil
Depth
1/3
Bar
3
15
Bar
Control Site
cm
0-2
2-4
9-11
28-32
95-105
28-32
70-80
145-155
%
27
24
22
22
23
21
20
23
%
10
11
10
10
7
9
7
8
%
0-2
2-4
9-11
28-32
95-105
230-240
195-205
%
28
24
23
24
21
3
4
%
13
10
10
11
11
2
2
cm
0-2
2-4
9-11
28-32
95-105
%
29
27
28
26
5
%
13
12
12
14
3
Treated Site
0-2
2-4
9-11
28-32
95-105
295-305
45-55
195-205
28
27
26
23
16
10
23
14
14
12
11
10
6
3
10
5
0-2
2-4
9-11
28-32
95-105
295-305
45-55
195-205
31
25
29
25
27
12
23
23
14
13
11
11
10
5
9
8
0-2
2-4
9-11
28-32
95-105
295-305
45-55
305-315LZ1"
29
28
27
26
20
31
27
14
12
12
11
12
6
10
13
b
LZ is a highly-calcareous, chalky lime zone found only in effluent treated
replication 3.
cm x 0.39 = inch
61
-------
TABLE 23, FIELD MOISTURE CONTENTS OF SOIL SAMPLES TAKEN JUNE 6, 1976
Replication 1
Sample
Depth
cm
0-4
5-10
28-32
48-52
95-105
Moisture
%
16
10
10
10
9
Replication 2
Sample
Depth
Control
cm
0-4
4-10
28-32
48-52
95-105
Moisture
Site
%
17
13
15
13
11
Replication 3
Sample
Depth
cm
0-4
4-10
28-32
95-105
Moisture
%
10
9
10
9
Treated Site
0-4
4-10
28-32
48-52
95-105
14
10
9
9
9
0-4
4-10
28-32
48-52
95-105
7
10
11
12
14
0-4
4-10
28-32
48-52
95-105
17
12
12
12
7
cm x 0.39 = inch
Mineral and Total Nitrogen
The results of analyses of ammonium and nitrate (Tables 25 and 26) are
not helpful in evaluating the expected nitrogen accumulation from effluent
additions. This is mostly because levels of nitrate and ammonium in soils
at any one time are usually a quite small part of total nitrogen in the
soil. Also, the control site has a good alfalfa crop (increases soil nitro-
gen) and the treated site is mostly a close-grazed pasture grass (uses
up nitrogen). Any nitrogen buildup expected from the effluent additions
are apparently masked by this crop variation.
The high nitrate values in the control site (replicates 1 and 2) at the
end of the summer (Table 26) are possibly a result of the alfalfa at these
sites. Older alfalfa roots and their nitrogen-fixing nodules plus leaf
litter on the soil surface could supply a good source of organic nitrogen to
be mineralized during warm weather. The contents at the end of summer were
higher in nitrate (compare with June values in Table 25). This is not
unusual because the sampling date was at the end of the summer in 1976. The
alfalfa cover had time to initiate growth and adsorb the ammonium and nitrate
in the spring. By September the plants grow little and nitrate still being
formed in the warm soil accumulates.
62
-------
TABLE 24. FIELD MOISTURE CONTENT OF SOIL SAMPLES TAKEN FROM THE DEEP
CORE DRILLING HOLE (FIGURE 5, LOCATION DH-4) AT THE TREATED
SITE DURING THE WEEK OF JUNE 14, 1976 +
Sample
No.
*
2
5
7f
91"
llf
12f
14
16f
19§
22f
24f
26+
Sampling
depth
(m)
0-0.6
.6-1.2
4,5-4.9
6.1-6.5
7.6-8.0
9.9-9.5
10.6-11.1
13.6-14.9
15.8-16.2
18.5-19.1
24.2-24.6
27.3-27.7
30.2-30.6
Moisture content
1
(%)
10
6
3
4
7
9
4
3
17
17
19
17
15
2
(%)
10
6
3
4
8
8
5
2
14
16
20
16
17
Average
(%)
10
6
3
4
8
9
4
2
16
16
20
17
16
•+Soils dried at 110°C for 24 hours.
*Full retention
tSplit spoon sample
§ Shelby tube, 15 inches retained
m x 3.28 = foot
63
-------
TABLE 25. AVERAGE AMMONIUM-NITROGEN AND NITRATE-NITROGEN CONTENTS IN
SOILS SAMPLED JUNE 1976 +
Soil Replication 1
Depth NH.-N NO -N
Replication 2
NH4-N
N03-N
Replication
NH.-N N00-
4 3
3 Average
N NH.-N N00-N
4 3
Control Site
cm
0-2
2-4
9-11
28-32
45-55
70-80
95-105
145-155
195-205
230-240
0-2
2-4
9-11
28-32
45-55
95-105
155-175(BL)
195-205
295-305
ppm
6
7
6
13
6
5
5
2
—
—
6
3
3
2
3
, 2
r
2
2
ppm
6
5
5
5
4
3
3
3
—
—
34
8
5
4
4
3
-
3
3
ppm
11
9
3
4
7
2
2
—
1
2
Treated
6
6
4
2
2
2
3
4
2
ppm
7
5
6
6
6
5
5
—
2
2
Site
44
29
15
5
4
6
6
6
4
ppm
5
4
3
5
*
, —
1
—
—
—
7
6
4
2
2
1
-
4
4
ppm
16
5
4
3
—
—
2
—
—
—
25
11
5
5
4
3
-
4
4
ppm
7.3
6.7
4.0
7.3
6.5
3.5
3.5
2.0
1.0
2.0
6.3
5.0
3.7
2.0
2.3
1.7
3.0
3.3
2.7
ppm
9.7
5.0
5.0
4.7
5.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
34.3
16.0
8.3
4.7
4.0
4.0
6.0
4.3
3.7
+0nly material less than 2 mm diameter was analyzed.
*A dash means no samples were collected, either because they were not
part of the planned samples or because rock prevented excavation.
tA dark-colored layer which appears to be buried top soil.
cm x 0.39 = inch
64
-------
TABLE 26. AVERAGE AMMONIUM-NITROGEN AND NITRATE-NITROGEN CONTENTS
IN SOILS SAMPLED SEPTEMBER 1976 +
Soil
Depth
cm
0-2
2-4
9-11
28-32
45-55
95-105
195-205
295-305
120-130
130-155
140-150
220-230
0-2
2-4
9-11
28-32
45-55
95-105
195-205
295-305
210-250
Replication 1
NH.-N
4
ppm
3
1
2
3
2
0
2
2
—
2
—
—
10
16
4
4
0
0
1
0
NO -N
ppm
22
12
25
13
8
12
1
3
—
5
—
—
31
18
21
40
3
13
1
5
Replication 2
NH.-N
4
Control
ppm
8
2
3
2
2
2
1
*
—
—
—
0
Treated
10
5
5
0
0
0
0
1
0
NO -N
Site
ppm
20
9
8
8
2
2
3
—
—
—
—
3
Site
18
8
5
5
2
2
2
3
1
Replication 3
NH4-N
ppm
2
2
2
0
1
0
—
—
0
—
0
3
3
3
2
1
2
0
1
NO -N
ppm
8
5
5
5
4
3
—
—
2
—
2
17
9
5
2
6
2
2
2
Average
NH.-N
4
ppm
4.3
1.7
2.3
1.7
1.7
0.7
1.5
2.0
—
—
—
—
7.7
8.0
4.0
2.0
0.3
0.7
0.3
0.7
NO -N
ppm
16.7
8.7
12.7
8.7
4.7
5.7
2.0
3.0
—
—
—
—
22.0
11.7
10.3
15.7
3.7
5.7
1.7
3.3
+0nly material less than 2 mm diameter was analyzed.
*A dash means no samples collected, either because they were not part
of the planned samples or because rock prevented excavation.
cm x 0.39 = inch
65
-------
The high values in the samples from the treated site may be a result
of both warm temperatures and cattle. The treated s'ite is in a portion
of the field used by grazing cattle. Thus, the treated site has more accumu-
lation of feces and urine (sources of nitrogen). During the summer of 1976
animals grazed in the entire treated site. Nitrogen as nitrate was high in
the shallow depths of all treated site samples. (See Table 25, Figures 11
and 12.) The variable nitrogen contents in the various soil samples are not
related to total nitrogen contents (see Tables 27 and 28). In fact, the
total nitrogen in the 0-4 cm (0-1.6 inch) depth of the control replicate
1 is lower than others, likely the result of the recent plowing on this
site to prepare it for the garden study. By September, nitrogen fertilizer
had been applied to the garden plot but not enough to cause the high increase
in total nitrogen of replicate 1 of the control. This replicate was in the
garden plot so it had been kept moist. Decomposition of plowed-under alfalfa
probably produced the high nitrate.
There appears to have been a buildup of total nitrogen during the past
years in the treated site (see Table 29). This measure is a total of all
the nitrogen values from the first three shallow depths and the three deepest
depths for two sampling dates. Since each sample was performed in duplicate
this is an average of 12 analyses per depth.
The totals are lower for^he control sites; the difference in totals of
465 ppm, is a 7.9 percent difference when the treated site is compared to the
control site. This is a relatively small increase in nitrogen in the treated
site but is equivalent to an accumulation of about 1,040 kg N per hectare
(930 Ibs/acre) for those 6 cm (2.4 inches) of soil in the top 11 cm. This
nitrogen difference is equivalent to a difference (by accumulation) in soil
humus content of about one percent, an appreciable difference.
The increase in total nitrogen in the three deepest sample layers of the
heated site compared to the control site is irregular (see Figure 13). The
extreme variation in amount of fine material in these deeper layers makes
interpretation difficult. However, it seems evident that there is accumula-
tion of nitrogen in the top two meters (6 feet) of soil but a definite lack
of data or evidence to justify any assumption that appreciable quantities of
nitroge'n are moving beyond the 3 meters (10 feet) depth. Even nitrate-N
measurements (Tables 27 and 28) have only 1 to 3 ppm N at these deeper
depths, values which are normal in soils of the area.
The conclusion is that nitrogen is accumulating in the top 2 to 3
meters (6.5 to 10 feet) of soil but does not seem to be moving in appreciable
quantities to deeper depths.
Available Phosphorus
The greatest difference chemically between the soil of the control and
treated sites was found in the available phosphorus content. The normal
phosphorus level considered in the Utah area to be adequate for plants is
between 10 and 15 ppm. In Table 30, even the phosphorus in the control plots
is adequate for most crops. However, the phosphorus content in the treated
site is 5 to 6 times higher than that in the control site, even to depths of
50 cm (20 inches).
66
-------
NH4-N CONCENTRATION, ppm
02468
0
50
E
o
100 -
Q.
LJ 150
Q
O
CO
200
250
300
CONTROL, JUNE (Alfalfa Covered)
(A,B,C)
CONTROL, SEPTEMBER
TREATED, JUNE (D,E,G)
TREATED,SEPTEMBER
0246
NH*-N CONCENTRATION, ppm
8
Figure 11. The NH^-N content in control and treated site soils collected in
June 1976 and in September 1976.
67
-------
o
IE
I-
Q_
UJ
Q
O
0
50
100
150
200
250
N03-N CONCENTRATION, ppm
10 20 30 40
, SEPTEMBER
TREATED, SEPTEMBER
BELOW 50 cm FEW
DIFFERENCES OCCUR
SEPTEMBER DATA NOT
PLOTTED BELOW 50 cm
CONTROL, JUNE ( AtB,C)
\
0 10 20 30 40
N03-N CONCENTRATION, ppm
Figure 12. The N03~N content in control and treated site soils collected in
June 1976 and September 1976.
68
-------
TABLE 27- TOTAL NITROGEN (KJELDAHL) CONTENTS IN SOILS SAMPLED SEPTEMBER
1976 +
Soil
Depth
Rep 1
Rep 2
Rep 3
Average
Control Site
cm
0-2
2-4
9-11
28-32
45-55
95-105
195-205
295-305
120-130
130-155 (BL)1"
140-150
210-250(BL)f
220-230
ppm
1,790
1,490
1,480
910
483
382
110
160
—
670
—
—
— ~~
ppm
2,690
1,890
1,389
801
852
248
31
—
—
—
—
—
18
ppm
2,280
2,090
1,740
1,200
810
124
— *
—
281
—
32
—
ppm
2,253
1,823
1,536
970
715
251
71
160
281
670
32
18
Treated Site
0-2
2-4
9-11
28-32
45-55
95-105
195-205
295-305
120-130
130-155 (BL)1"
140-150
210-250(BL)f
220-230
2,690
2,580
1,360
750
490
260
150
92
—
—
—
—
2,995
2,510
1,440
820
680
682
140
310
—
—
—
660
2,490
2,520
1,920
790
590
120
483
110
—
—
—
—
2,725
2,503
1,573
787
587
354
258
171
660
+0nly less than 2 mm (0.08 in.) soil was analyzed.
*A dash means no sample taken.
tBlack layer which appears to be buried surface soil.
cm x 0.39 = inch
69
-------
TABLE 28. TOTAL NITROGEN (KJELDAHL) CONTENTS IN SOILS SAMPLED JUNE 1977
Soil
Depth
Rep 1
Rep 2
Rep 3
Average
Control Site
cm
0-2
2-4
9-11
28-32
45-55
95-105
195-205
295-305
Black ^
Layer
ppm
2,900
2,300
1,580
860
580
320
220
100
t
ppm
2,760
1,980
1,260
860
880
90
40
110
t
ppm
2,370
1,810
1,480
900
660
330
80
80
390
ppm
2,680
2,030
1,440
870
710
250
110
100
390
Treated Site
0-2
2-4
9-11
28-32
45-55
95-105
195-205
295-305
Dark A
Layer
2,500
1,710
1,420
870
710
410
360
50
t
2,500
2,120
1,590
860
740
500
310
80
t
2,520
1,940
1,380
920
540
410
130
80
1,070
2,510
1,920
1,460
880
660
440
270
70
1,070
»
+0nly less than 2 mm (0.08 in.) soil was analyzed.
^Appears to be a buried dark-colored surface soil at 130 to 155 cm deep
in the control replicate and 210 to 250 cm deep in the treated plot.
tA blank indicates no sample collected from the field.
cm x 0.39 = inch
70
-------
TABLE 29. AVERAGE TOTAL NITROGEN (KJELDAHL) IN THE THREE TOP SAMPLING DEPTHS
(0-2, 2-4, AND 9-11 CM) AND THE THREE DEEPEST SAMPLING DEPTHS (95-
105, 195-205, AND 295-305 CM) FOR THE CONTROL SITE AND THE TREATED
SITE IN SOILS SAMPLED IN SEPTEMBER 1976 AND IN JUNE 1977
Total of the 3 shallow depths
Total nitrogen
control
ppm
Average
Average
Average
of
of
of
samples
samples
samples
from
from
from
6
6
6
samplings,
samplings,
samplings,
0-2 cm
2-4 cm
9-11 cm
2
1
1
,466
,925
,488
treated
ppm
2,
2,
1,
617
211
516
5,879
6,344
Samples measured
Total nitrogen
control
treated
Average of samples from 6 samplings, 95-105 cm
Average of samples from 5 samplings, 195-205 cm
Avera'ge of samples from 3 samplings, 295-305 cm
ppm
250
96
130
ppm
397
264
120
Total of the 3 deepest depths
476
781
cm x 0.39 = inch
Phosphorus values are greatly confounded by differences in soil texture
and by crop cover. The one sample from 300 cm deep on the treated site which
has the high phosphorus (22 ppm P) is the only deep fine-textured sample. It
contains 93 percent of its bulk as particles less than 2 mm (0.08 inches)
diameter. Another complicating factor is the feeding characteristics of the
cover plants. Alfalfa is a known deep-rooted crop and heavy feeder on
phosphorus; grasses are shallow-rooted and poorer extractors of phosphorus.
The alfalfa on the control site may keep "available P," which this procedure
measures, quite low. In contrast, the grass mixture on the treated site
would not use as much phosphorus.
The phosphorus in the top 50 cm (20 inches) is probably an accumulation
from application sources, the most important source being the wastewater
effluent. Animal manures may be an additional source. Figure 14 depicts the
changes with depth which occur.
71
-------
0
50
6 100
o
h-
CL
LU
Q
O
CO
150
200
250
300
x- X EFFLUENT TREATED PLOTS
• * CONTROL PLOTS
I
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
TOTAL NITROGEN , ppm
3000
Figure 13. The total Kjeldahl nitrogen in soils from control and treated site
sampled September 1976 and June 1977.
72
-------
TABLE 30. CONCENTRATION AVERAGES OF PHOSPHORUS IN THE SODIUM BICARBONATE EX-
TRACT OF TOOELE SOIL SAMPLED JUNE 6, 1976
Soil
Depth
cm
0-2
2-4
9-11
29-31
48-52
70-80
95-105
150-160
195-205
230-240
295-305
Concentration of P (ppm)
Rep 1
5
2
1
0
2
0
1
2
—
—
Rep 2 Rep 3
Control Plots
30
26
14
6
4
3
3
—
7
2
29
19
18
16
*
—
4
—
—
—
Average
21.3
15.7
11.0
7.3
3.0
3.0
2.7
—
7.0
2.0
—
Treated Plots
0-2
2-4
9-11
29-31
48-52
95-105
145-155
195-205
295-305
135
111
70
67
45
8
4
6
112
109
78
62
48
6
9
9
112
103
92
68
67
4
5
22
119.7
107.7
80.0
65.7
53.3
6.0
6.0
12.3
*A dash means no soil sample was collected, either because it was not in
the planned sampling or was to bouldery or too hard to penetrate to
collect a sample.
cm x 0.39 = inch
73
-------
0
50
E 100
o
a.
LU
Q 150
O
CO
200
250
300
1
-X EFFLUENT TREATED PLOTS
•• CONTROL PLOTS
I
1
I
I
20 40 60 80 100 120
NoHC03-SOLUBLE PHOSPHORUS,ppm
Figure 14. Sodium bicarbonate-soluble phosphorus extracted from the soils in
the control and treated site (sampled June 1976) .
74
-------
Because the procedure suggested by EPA for phosphorus was extraction
with dilute hydrochloric acid—ammonium fluoride solution, which is acidic
and not satisfactory on calcareous soils (dissolves carbonates), a comparison
of both methods on the non-calcareous surface samples is given in Table
31- It illustrates the larger values obtained using the sodium bicarbonate
extractant. Both extractants extracted much more phosphorus from the surface
4 cm (1.6 inches) of soil in the soil samples from the treated site than
those samples from the control site.
Nitrogen and Salts in Percolating Soil Water
Suction tubes (plastic tube with a porous porcelain tube on the
bottom) were installed in the control site and treated site through the
summer period. By applying suction, samples of soil solution were collected
at the depth of the porous cups 45 or 60, 90 or 105, and 180 or 210 cm depth .
TABLE 31. COMPARISON OF THE PHOSPHORUS EXTRACTED BY THE PROCEDURE RECOMMENDED
FOR ACIDIC SOILS (DILUTE HC1-NH4F) AND THAT RECOMMENDED FOR CALCAR-
EOUS AND ALKALINE SOILS (0.5 NORMAL NaHC03)
Sample Site
Control 1
Control 2A
Control 2B
Control 3A
Control 3B
Control 3
Control 3
Treated 1
Treated 1
Treated 2
Treated 2
Treated 3
Treated 3
Soil
Depth
cm
2-4
0-2
0-2
2-4
2-4
0-2
2-4
0-2
2-4
0-2
2-4
0-2
2-4
HC1-NH
1
ppm
1.5
16.8
14.1
16.7
14.3
22.3
17.4
56.7
55.4
40.9
48.7
43.7
42.0
.F Extract
4
2
ppm
1.5
17.1
14.4
16.2
15.1
21.4
17.5
60.9
57.1
40.9
46.6
40.3
41.6
Ave
ppm
1.5
17.0
14.2
16.4
14.7
21.8
17.4
58.8
56.2
40.9
47.6
42.0
41.8
0.5 _N
1
ppm
4.8
29.6
26.4
25.2
24.8
30.4
19.2
132
116
114
106
106
96
NaHCO
2
ppm
4.8
29.6
24.0
26.4
25.6
27.2
19.6
138
106
109
112
118
110
Extract
Ave
ppm
4.8
29.6
25.2
25.8
25.2
28.8
19.4
135
111
112
109
112
103
cm x 0.39 = inch
75
-------
(18 or 24, 35 or 41, 71 or 83 inches). Some permanently installed tubes were
placed in the garden plots. The mineral nitrogen and soluble salt contents
of these water extracts are given in Tables 32 and 33 respectively.
The nitrogen contents show considerable variation, particularly in
the treated site garden plot (partly because of mineral nitrogen fertilizers
added to the control site garden plot)- Also, the alfalfa residues plowed
under in preparing the control site garden plot could also be decomposing to
supply nitrogen. Most untreated deep soils in this area would contain about
1 to 3 parts per million (ppm) of mineral nitrogen below about 60 cm (24
inches) deep. Even values of 4 to 5 ppm are not unusual. It is obvious that
the control site garden plots with added fertilizer were as well supplied
with "available nitrogen" after fertilizer was added as were the treated site
garden plots which had no fertilizer added. Or conversely, the treated site
had as much nitrate plus ammonium in soil solution as did the control site
after addition of 100 kg N/hectare (89 Ibs N/acre) as fertilizer.
A comparison of Table 32 with Table 26 may appear inconsistent at
first glance because mineral nitrogen in the soil (Table 26) is much lower in
parts per million than are the solution extracts. Keep in mind; however,
that values in Table 26 are based on soil weight and were taken prior to
fertilization of the control site garden plots. If these nitrogen data were
reported as ppm based upon water content only, (as in Table 32) the values
could be three to five timers higher than values given in Table 26. By July
the crop was growing rapidly and mineral nitrogen would be decreased rapidly
by these three actions:
1. Plant uptake,
2. Microbial use converting mineral nitrogen to "unmeasured"
organic nitrogen forms,
3. Leaching losses or deeper movement.
Thus, there is no obvious way to compare mineral nitrogen contents in the
June 1976 soil samples and in the soil extracts taken during July 1976 by
soil moisture extractors.
The majority of samples outside the experimental garden plots (TF plots)
had low soluble nitrogen levels suggesting low quantities of mobile nitrogen.
Since these samples had to be taken within about 24 hours of irrigation in
order to obtain solution and because irrigation water did not wet much beyond
these depths, they are indicative of solution N levels.
In the garden plots where better moisture conditions were maintained and
more water was added, some high soluble N values were obtained such as TG-1
at 180 cm (70 inches)depth on July 23, 19"6 (=27 ppm N) and TG-2 at 90 cm
depth on July 23, 1976 (=34 ppm N). are made.
In the 1977 growing season, a generalized drought condition hindered
almost all irrigation of the control site (there was a limited supply of
reservoir water) and only the treated site was irrigated appreciably- Even
the treated site was irrigated less because of lower wastewater flow and a
76
-------
TABLE 32. COMBINED NITRATE PLUS AMMONIUM NITROGEN IN SOIL MOISTURE EXTRACTS
USING SUCTION CUPS
Site code
symbol
CG-1
CG-2
CG-3
CG-4
TG-1
TG-2
TG-3
TG-4
CF-5
CF-6
CF-7
TF-5
FT- 6
TF-7
TF-8
Depth of
suction cup
Crm")
\i-mj
45
90
45
90
45
90
180
45
90
180
45
90
180
45
90
45
90
45
90
30
30
30
75
60
105
210
45
105
210
60
105
210
60
120
180
July 2, July 9,
' 1976 1976
22 29
9 11
110 172
81
49
30
8
41 39
30 27
3
32
6 7
—
35 34
5
31, 6
6 7
2
7
6
7
21
35
July 15, July 16,
1976 1976
t
13
—
102
—
35
—
—
20
7
7
—
—
42
—
—
13
9
—
7
6 4
3
6 3
4 5
5
5
5
—
—
—
— —
July 23,
1976
30
13
—
91
57
37
13
17
—
5
7
11
27
—
34
4
19
2
—
13
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Oct. 15
1976
25
5
—
18
5
1
4
2
1
5
8
1
*CG and TF indicate control plots in the garden and treated plots in the
garden; CF and TF indicate control plots and effluent treated plots in the
pasture areas; numbers indicate different sampling sites.
tA dash indicates no sample could be collected; a blank indicates no
collection was attempted.
cm x 0.39 = inch
77
-------
TABLE 33. SOLUBLE SALT CONTENTS (CONDUCTIVITY) OF SOIL MOISTURE EXTRACTS
USING SUCTION CUPS
n»4_ rtrtj^-v
Site code
symbol*
CG-1
CG-2
CG-3
CG-4
TG-1
TG-2
TG-3
TG-4
CF-5
CF-6
CF-7
TF-5
TF-6
TF-7
T\ f* -n 4- li. *-i f
Depth or
suction cup
(\
cm)
45
90
45
90
45
90
180
45
90
180
45
90
180
45
90
45
90
45
90
30
30
30
75
60
105
210
45
105
210
60
105
210
July 2,
1976
1
1
1
1
—
—
—
1
1
2
1
1
—
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
Sal in:
July 9, July 15,
1976 1976
•• /
1
1
1
—
1
1
2
1
1
—
__
—
—
2
—
3
2
—
—
1
1
—
—
2
—
1
—
—
Lty
July 16,
1976
__t
1
—
1
1
—
—
—
1
2
2
—
2
—
—
2
—
1
__
1
2
1
2
1
—
1
—
July 23, Oct. 15,
1976 1976
1
1
—
1
1
1
2
—
1
1
1
2
2
—
1
1
1
1
—
2
2
— —
2 2
2
2
2
1
1
*CG and TG indicate "control plots in the garden" and "treated plots in
the garden"; CF and TF indicate control plots and effluent treated plots in
the pasture areas; numbers indicate different sampling sites.
tA dash indicates no sample could be collected; a blank indicates no
collection was attempted.
cm x 0.39 = inch
78
-------
larger area being irrigated. Thus, most suction tubes were too deep to
collect soil moisture because of small infrequent irrigation additions. The
few samples collected produced no information different than the 1976 data.
Soluble salts in the suction water samples (Table 33) were all below
2 mmhos/cm except for one sample which had a conductivity of 3/mmhos/cm
(treated site, on July 9, 1976). Although not tested by statistical analy-
sis, the treated site appears to have a slight buildup of salt, but it is
quite small.
An attempt was made to study the composition of soil solution and
water infiltration from normal rainfall and irrigation by installation of
lysimeters. Installation was made in October 1976. The drought resulted in a
dry winter and minimal irrigation. Thus, when no water was in the bottom of
the lysimeters by July 1977, water was applied to each lysimeter in measured
amounts. The amount of water added to each lysimeter was estimated from the
soil moisture constants determined in 1976. The water was added during a four
to five day period. During the next 10 days, even with twice the estimated
quantity of water added, only a few lysimeters collected sufficient water in
the bottom for sampling. Apparently all six lysimeters developed leakage in
the bottom (in spite of care to seat them on fine soil and use 3 or 4 thick-
nesses of plastic sheeting). Even lysimeters where water was collected would
soon lose additional water. Although costly and time-consuming, this pro-
cedure produced no usable data.
Trace Metal Contents
The soil contents of lead, copper, nickel, cadmium, zinc, and chromium
are summarized in Tables 34 and 35. Table 34 contains the results of an
initial analyses of samples taken in 1976 and performed by analyst A. Table
35 are the same data performed using a larger acid-to-soil ratio, average
values for all three sampling dates, and performed by analyst B. It is felt
that the values in Table 35 are more representative than those in Table
34.
Analyses by analyst B do not include cadmium. Completely erratic
results were obtained even after checking all chemicals, water sources,
and three absorption spectrophotometers. The source of the problem could not
be found and was in the prepared solutions. Values varied several hundred
percent between duplicates. Yet, no other metals presented this same ana-
lytical problem (as indicated by good duplication).
Two smelters within 32 km (20 miles) of the field sites (International
Lead and Kennecott Copper) have (for over 50 years) until recently (in the
1960's) emitted some vaporized forms of trace metals. Soil samples in
previous studies from the areas have indicated accumulation of lead and
presumably other metals have also settled on the soil. Typical lead con-
centrations in uncontaminated soil range from 10-20 ppm. The higher values
measured in the soil surface of the control and treated sites are most likely
fallout accumulation.
79
-------
TABLE 34. AVERAGE PERCHLORIC-NITRIC ACID EXTRACTABLE TRACE METALS IN TOOELE
SOILS SAMPLED MAY 1976 AND SEPTEMBER 1976 +
Sample
Depth
Trace Metal (ppm)
Lead
cm
0-2
2-4
9-11
28-32
45-55
95-105
195-205
205-305
48.3
43.5
35.5
20.0
16.0
15.3
7.8
12.0
Nickel
17.0
15.7
13.7
15.3
17.0
13.0
4.5
17.0
Zinc
Control
73.3
71.5
65.5
55.3
45.8
29.5
10.0
36.0
Copper
Site
24.0
24.7
17.3
15.0
12.3
7.3
4.0
17.0
Chromium
26.3
26.5
18.8
22.8
18.2
13.0
7.0
13.0
Cadmium
3.7
2.2
3.7
2.2
2.5
4.0
Totals
Totals
198
207
113
387
122
130
421
111
14.6
19.0
18.3
0-2
2-4
9-11
28-32
45-55
95-105
195-205
295-305
43.5
43.3
35.7
19.3
18.2
17.3
15.6
14.0
15.3
16.3
16.7
18.7
16.7
13.7
16.7
16.0
Treated
72.3
74.0
66.7
52.5
46.7
41.2
43.3
24.7
Site
17.3
22.3
20.3
11.7
11.7
9.0
10.7
8.3
21.7
24.2
28.0
30.5
26.7
23.7
25.0
10.2
3.4
3.3
2.8
3.0
3.9
4.7
1.0
2.3
21.1
+Average of 6 site replications and with duplicate analyses per collected
sample.
Some deeper depths of 45-55 cm and deeper have fewer than 6 sites. Cadmium
and copper data are only 3 replications. Done by Technician A.
tBottom two depths not included so it corresponds to depths included in con-
trol plots.
cm x 0.39 = inch
80
-------
TABLE 35. AVERAGE PERCHLORIC-NITRIC ACID EXTRACTABLE TRACE METALS IN TOOELE
SOILS SAMPLED JUNE 1976, SEPTEMBER 1976, AND JUNE 1977 +
Sample
Depth
Trace Metal (ppm)
Lead
cm
0-2
2-4
9-11
28-32
45-55
95-105
195-205
295-305
Totals
43.7
37.9
33.1
14.7
13.6
12.2
8.1
10.6
174
cm
0-2
2-4
9-11
28-32
45-55
95-105
195-205
205-305
41.0
38.6
28.5
17.5
15.7
16.0
12.3
12.1
Nickel
23.0
22.5
21.0
19.7
22.5
15.8
20.5
22.2
167
23.4
20.6
25.4
24.0
23.3
26.4
19.5
19.6
Zinc
Control
108.2
106.1
100.7
85.8
81.1
58.6
36.2
44.0
621
Treated
116.9
109.0
105.9
92.3
82.2
77.5
61.6
36.6
Copper
Site
27.1
25.2
24.5
16.1
13.0
12.9
9.0
10.7
138
Site
28.2
27.8
22.3
17.2
15.0
14.3
12.3
11.4
Chromium
25.3
24.7
27.0
26.2
27.0
21.1
14.2
16.5
18.2
26.8
27.3
26.4
30.1
26.3
26.5
22.6
16.7
Totals
182
182
682
148
20-.3
+Average of 9 site replications and with duplicate analyses per collected
sample.
Some depths of 45-55 cm and deeper have fewer than 9 site replications.
Done by Technician B.
cm x 0.39 = inch
81
-------
All samples studied had higher concentrations of the six trace metals
in surface soil layers than in the deeper samples. These concentrations
were most noticeable for lead, copper, chromium, and zinc; less marked
differences occurred in the different depths for nickel and cadmium.
There were not large differences between metal contents in the control site
and in the treated site. In fact, as the summary values of Tables 34 and 35
are compared, there are larger differences between metal contents obtained by
the two different analysts and their procedures (soil:acid ratio) than
there is between control samples and treated samples when measured by the
same analyst.
The small differences between control and treated samples suggest that
the effluent at Tooele has not been a cause of much metal accumulation.
Actual concentration increases of the treated site samples over the control
site samples are a maximum of about 30 percent for chromium and 24 percent
for nickel in one set of data but about increases of 10 percent or less for
all other comparisons.
Because of great differences in rock content and texture of the less-
than-2 mm (0.08 inches) soil at greater depths in the vatious profile sites,
it is difficult to compare total parts per million of one profile with
other profiles at either the control site or the treated site. Only to
depths generally of about 50 cm (20 inches) or, in most instances, 100 cm (39
inches) are the profiles similar, (i.e., all having low gravel content). To
a depth of 55 cm (22 inches) there is not enough difference within the
precision of sampling and analysis to indicate accumulation of metals in the
site with sewage effluent (Table 36). When these data are compared by the
top 5 depths only, total parts per million for samples for the control site
are higher than totals for those from the treated site in four of the data
pairs; the sample data from the treated site are higher than those of the
control site in the other seven pairs.
Statistical summaries of the trace metal analyses to depths of 300 cm
(118 inches) are given in Table 37. Because some of the greater depths
could not be reached for samples in some pits, the analyses cannot be treated
as it could if uniform samples had been collected for all depths. In Table
37 the analyses indicate the following:
1. All metals determined were significantly different for samples
collected on the different sampling dates. This fact suggests that con-
siderable variation occurs in the field and that date of sampling was really
more a condition of sampling new locations than of changes in time of sam-
pling.
2. Only zinc and chromium contents varied significantly (99% level)
between the control site and the treated site. Nickel content was signifi-
cantly different in the two sites at the 95 percent level. Both copper and
lead were not statistically different (95% level) between the two sites.
3. All metals change (lower) in concentration with depth except
nickel. This result is possible if no appreciable nickel is applied to the
soil in effluent. This does not likely show a true picture. The metals
82
-------
TABLE 36. COMPARISONS OF PROFILE TOTALS FROM 0 TO 55 CM (22 INCHES) OF REP-
LICATION AVERAGES FOR TRACE METALS IN THE CONTROL AND TREATED
SITES
Analyst Sites Lead Nickel Zinc Copper Chromium Cadmium
A
B
Control
Treated
Control
Treated
ppm
163*
160
143
141
ppm
79
84
109
117
ppm
311
312
482
506
ppm
93
83
106
110
ppm
113
101
130
137
ppm
14.3
16.4
No
Data
*Summation of values for sample depths 0-2, 2-4, 9-11, 28-32, and 45-55 cm.
cm x 0.39 = inch
are given only as concentrations in the less-than-2 mm (0.08 inches) soil.
The apparent concentrations per soil volume would decrease even more if rock
volume was included because of the rock content in deeper soil layers unless
the rocks also contained these levels of nickel (or other metals).
Because of the problems of variable rock contents in deeper profile
layers and the inability to sample some depths, it was decided to test only
the upper part of the soils, the 0 to 30 cm (0-12 inches) depths. This depth
includes four sampling depths, the soils are of similar texture, and this is
commonly the major depth to which these metals normally accumulate. Most of
these metals are quite immobile and do not usually move deeply into soil
profiles. The statistical summary is presented in Table 38. A number of
conclusions of this test are given in the following, and some are different
than shown in Table 37.
1. In testing only the top 32 cm (13 inches), zinc contents did
not vary between sampling depths, although all other metals were still
extracted in different amounts from samples of different dates. Also less-
than-2 mm (0.08 inches) material was quite similar in all profiles as was
observed in sampling.
2. In the top 30 cm (12 inches) none of the metals, except chromium
at the 95 percent level, were different in the control site and treated site.
This indicates that effluent additions have apparently not caused any easily
83
-------
TABLE 37- STATISTICAL SUMMARY FOR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE TRACE METAL
CONTENT AND LESS-THAN-2 MM PORTIONS FOR ALL SOIL DEPTHS TO 300
CM (118 INCHES) OF SOILS IN THE CONTROL AND TREATED SITES
Source
Source
d.f.
Source
mean square
Error Error F—
mean square d.f. ratio
Date of sampling (are data of one sampling different than from others)
Lead, ppm
Zinc, ppm
Copper, ppm
Chromium, ppm
Nickel, ppm
% less than 2mm
Treatment (Do metal
sites)
Lead, ppm
Zinc, ppm
Copper, ppm
Chromium, ppm
Nickel, ppm
% less than 2mm
2
2
2
2
2
2
192.517
2456.897
211.938
192.027
247.334
708.461
contents in control
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.742
1562.043
22.386
164.048
128.751
795.159
57.8191
112.7072
7.7105
11.2145
20.8489
201.0146
sites differ
57.8191
112.7072
7.7105
11.2145
20.8489
201.0146
95
95
95
95
95
95
from
95
95
95
95
95
95
3.330*
21.799**
27.487**
17.123**
11.863**
3.524*
those in treated
1.284
13.859**
2.903
14.628**
6.175*
3.956*
Depth (Do changes occur with depth)
Lead, ppm
Zinc, ppm
Copper, ppm
Chromium, ppm
Nickel, ppm
% less than 2mm
7
7
7
7
7
7
2,227.768
7,636.285
600.594
136.986
28.662
1,558.669
57.8191
112.7072
7.7105
11.2145
20.8489
201.0146
95
95
95
95
95
95
38.530**
67.753**
77.892**
12.215**
1.375
7.754**
*Significant difference at the 95% confidence level
**Significant difference at the 99% confidence level
cm x 0.39 = inch
84
-------
TABLE 38. STATISTICAL SUMMARY FOR SPLIT PLOT ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE
TRACE METAL CONTENT AND LESS-THAN-2 MM PORTIONS FOR THE TOP FOUR
DEPTHS OF SOILS (0-32 CM) IN THE TOOELE SEWAGE-EFFLUENT DISPOSAL
STUDY
Source
Source Source Error Error F-
d.f. mean square mean square d.f. ratio
Date of sampling (are data of one sampling different than from other)
Lead, ppm
Zinc, ppm
Copper, ppm
Chromium, ppm
Nickel, ppm
% less than 2mm
Treatment (Do metal
treated
Lead, ppm
Zinc, ppm
Copper, ppm
Chromium, ppm
Nickel, ppm
% less than 2mm
2
2
2
2
2
2
contents
sites)
1
1
1
1
1
1 1,
254.562
191.259
180.578
73.679
263.572
260.389
in control
51.173
641.417
8.750
61.420
56.889
275.125
69.5768
197.8043
12.3073
10.4443
42.7997
107.7083
sites differ
69.5768
197.8043
12.3073
10.4443
42.7997
107.7083
12
12
12
12
12
12
from
12
12
12
12
12
12
3.659*
0.967
19.672**
7.054**
6.158*
2.418
those in
0.735
3.242
0.711
5.881*
1.329
11.838**
Depth (Do changes occur with depth)
Lead, ppm
Zinc, ppm
Copper, ppm
Chromium, ppm
Nickel, ppm
% less than 2mm
3
3
3
3
3
3
2221.769
1813.152
442.816
17.423
13.408
52.643
54.2511
35.2678
4.3470
8.9312
16.5245
18.4676
36
36
36
36
36
36
40.953**
51.411**
101.867**
1.951
0.811
2.851
*Significant difference at the 95% confidence level
**Significant difference at the 99% confidence level
tBecause some deeper samples were missing, only 0-2, 2-4, 9-11, and
28-32 cm depths are included in this comparison.
cm x 0.39 = inch
85
-------
measurable buildup of trace metals, except possibly chromium, in these
soils.
3. Even with little rock or gravel in the top 30 cm (12 inches),
there is enough so that a highly significant difference exist between the
percentages of less-than-2 mm (0.08 inches) soil in the control site and
treated site.
4. Significant changes with depth from the top to 30 cm (12 inches)
deep occurs only with lead, zinc, and copper. These are the prominent metals
expected in the aerosol from the metal smelters during the first half of this
century.
The conclusion from these results is that there is no clear evidence
of increased lead, zinc, copper, or nickel contents in the treated site from
effluent additions. Even the data for chromium suggest that any difference,
(as is indicated) will be for larger amounts in the control site, rather
than ir. the treated site (see previous tables summarizing trace metal analy-
ses) . Better replicated values, and selection of sites, and more similarity
in rock content with depth may have resulted in a different conclusion, but
such precision is not likely in this area and such similar sites are not
available in the area.
Trace Metals in the Deep Drill Hole
The trace metal contents for samples from the deep drill hole are
given in Table 39. These values indicate background or natural contents
of these metals with depth. Relative values will be slightly higher than
values given in previous tables because of the wider soil-acid ratio used
here (1:30) compared to that used for previous data (1:20). Below the two
samples collected in the top 122 cm (4 feet), there is no pattern of increase
or decrease in concentrations. Changes are random and taken from materials
varying widely in their texture, and likely their origins also.
Trace Metal Availability to Plants
Tests for metal availability to plants were extractions with the
chelate DTPA. These were performed only on June 1977 soil samples for the
two plant nutrients, copper and zinc. These data are summarized in Table
40. There is no indication that more copper or zinc is being made available
to plants from the treated site than from the control site. Neither the
absolute quantity extracted nor the percentage extracted of the total present
is different between the control and treated sites.
Implications for Long Term Effects
The treated site has not accumulated nitrogen, lead, zinc, copper,
chromium, nickel, or soluble salts as a result of effluent additions.
The single measured soil property that increased, supposedly as a
result of sewage effluent additions, was readily-available phosphorus. It is
surprising that nitrogen does not show a similar increase. The cause of
86
-------
TABLE 39. TRACE METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN VARIOUS FRACTIONS OF THE DEEP WELL
PROFILE. ONLY PORTIONS OF SAMPLES OF LESS THAN 2 MM (0.08 IN.)
SIZE MATERIAL WERE TESTED, TOOELE 1976
Soil Trace Metal Tested (ppm) General Profile of
DepLli
(feet) Lead Nickel Zinc Copper Chromium Deep Well
0- 30 63 65 19 37
20 64 57 18 31 24724"-
22?241L
10-
15- 23 45 22 11 20 34
26 53 16 6 14
20 26 53 16 6 14 26'''6"
25- 15 42 14 10 24 7°
30- 26 57 34 15 17 27
35- 33 66 44 19 22 28
40-
45- 19 47 18 11 45 77
50-
25 38 31 16 16
55-
60- 38 73 33 12 19
I5'724"
65-
70-
75-
80- 32 86 38 14 13
86 -
85-
90- 23 53 32 14 19
95- 23-
100- 40 87 15 9 10
105- '9-
7
£
• . , '• 0
QV
'•&'
%
%
o
00
xb
.* <*
9/ .
&
9*
' X
,6 ^
gf"
",*
6 /
s*
6 ' *
/
•O 6
/
°.£
X
' /
^
e>
9X
•*x
V
a
'//
~£ c&
.P./OI,
^
''/•'""•
'••"••'/
/
,Q 0
°/0
'0 /
/
?•;
-------
TABLE 40. THE COPPER AND ZINC EXTRACTED FROM TOOELE SOIL SAMPLES (COLLECTED
JUNE 1977) AS INFLUENCED BY SOIL DEPTH AND BY TREATMENT WITH SEW-
AGE EFFLUENT AND COMPARED TO TOTAL NITRIC PERCHLORIC ACID EXTRACT-
ABLE AMOUNTS IN THE SOILS
Sites
Sampled
Control
Plots
Sewage
Effluent
Treated
Plots
_
Sample
Depth
f'TTl
0-2
2-4
9-11
28-32
45-55
95-105
195-205
295-305
0-2
2-4
9-11
28-32
45-55
95-105
195-205
295-305
DTPA
3.08*
2.79
2.54
1.45
1.07
1.62
0.82
0.87
2.76
2.17
1.75
1.14
0.87
0.82
0.74
0.67
Copper
Total
29. 4f
24.3
21.9
14.3
13.4
12.5
10.9
12.5
26.8
24.1
22.0
15.4
12.6
13.8
11.5
10.0
(ppm)
Extracted
10
11
12
10
8
13
8
7
10
9
8
7
7
6
6
7
DTPA
6.53
5.97
4.85
1.05
0.99
1.91
0.95
0.84
5.91
4.41
3.13
1.24
0.79
0.72
1.13
0.62
Zinc
Total
113
HO
104
97
85
61
65
46
115
99
99
89
84
82
68
51
(ppm)
Extracted
6
5
4
1
1
3
1
2
5
4
3
1
1
1
2
1
*Each value is an average of duplicate analyses for 3 replications, a total
of 6 analyses. Only the 300 cm deep control sample is an average of 2 rep-
lications (4 analyses).
tTotals for nitric-perchloric acid extracts from June 1977 samples only to
correlate with DTPA analyses.
cm x 0.39 = inch
-------
this measured difference is unclear but is likely due to the soluble phos-
phates in detergents and other wastes in the effluent.
The long term application of secondary treated effluent does not appear
to have had any negative effects on the soil chemical properties at the study
site.
89
-------
SECTION 6.
RESULTS OF PLANT INVESTIGATIONS
INTRODUCTION
Application of sewage effluent to cropland usually benefits agriculture
because of the value of sewage as a soil conditioner and as a source of many
essential plant nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. How-
ever sewage effluents often contain sizable amounts of zinc and other heavy
metals (Berrow and Webber, 1972; Chaney, 1973; Melsted, 1973; Page, 1974).
There is the possibility that the heavy metals might be toxic to crops and
accumulate in edible crops sufficiently to have harmful effects on animals
and humans. Land application of sewage effluents high in heavy metals could
result in long-term phytotoxic effects and to food chain contamination. When
these metals have been added to the soil there is downward movement, and
therefore these metals tend to remain in the rooting zone (Page, 1974). De-
contamination may be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.
Investigations of the effects of toxic metals applied to soils have in-
dicated that significant increases in metal concentrations of plant tissue as
well as toxicities to the plants have resulted. For example, Halstead, Finn
and MacLean (1969) found that the addition of nickel chloride at 100 ppm re-
sulted in nickel concentration of 20 ppm in oat grain Avena sativa L., while
Cropper (1969) indicated that the addition of chromium, copper, zinc and
nickel as inorganic salts to a sandy soil decreased yields of corn. Soane
and Saunder (1959) found that in sand cultures 10 ppm of chromium (as potas-
sium dichromate) was toxic to corn.
Copper, zinc, and nickel appeared to be the metals most likely to become
toxic to plants from sludge utilization (Webber, 1972). Lunt (1959) and Rhode
(1962) attributed the poor growth of crops on sewage-amended soils to the
toxicity of copper and zinc. King and Morris (1972) also indicated that cop-
per and zinc toxicity was the reason for reduced growth of rye. Patterson
(1971) found that land application of a sewage sludge high in nickel de-
creased yields, although liming the soil alleviated the problem. Webber
(1972) later also confirmed the decreased toxicity of inorganic nickel salts
as pH increased.
There have been few studies designed to evaluate the long-term effects of
toxic metals applied in sewage effluents to soils (Page, 1974). Most research
involving metal toxicity has been with short-term studies or with inorganic
metal salts added to soils (Bazzaz et al., 1974; Bittell et al., 1974;
Bradford et al., 1975; Carlson et al., 1975; Cunningham et al., 1975a, 1975b,
90
-------
1975c; Day and Kirkpatrick, 1973; Giordano et al., 1975; Haghiri, 1974; Jones
et al., 1975; King and Morris, 1973; Kirkham, 1975; Miles et al., 1972).
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess whether the heavy metals
present in the effluent water at Tooele, Utah, entered economically important
plants. In addition, an attempt was made to determine (i) the accumulation
of heavy metals in selected plants, (ii) in what part of the plant did heavy
metals accumulate, (iii) the affect of heavy metals on plant growth, flower-
ing and seed development, and (iv) were the amounts of heavy metals ac-
cumulated sufficiently high to be phytotoxic and harmful to animals and
humans.
WATER QUALITY
A summary of the water quality applied to the treated garden plot and the
control garden plot is presented in Table 41. A complete listing of the data
is contained in Appendix B (Tables B-2 to B-83).
During 1976, the water applied to the treated garden plot originated
from the second reservoir and flowed approximately 30 m (100 feet) through an
open earthen ditch to the treated garden plot where it was sampled prior to
flood irrigation of -the plot (Sampling Station Number 5). A comparison of
the 1976 treated garden plot influent data (Table 41) with the 1976 effluent
from the second reservoir (Sampling Station Number 4) data (Table 13) indi-
cates very little difference in the water quality of the two locations. This
is not unexpected since the water only traveled 30 m (100 feet) between
Sampling Stations 4 and 5. Thus, the discussions concerning the water quality
of the treated site in Section 4 is also applicable to the treated garden
plot.
The effluent from the treated garden plot (Sampling Station Number 6) or
tailwater from the garden flood irrigation is generally of a poorer quality
than the applied water. In 1976 effluent suspended solids concentrations
averaged 1254.1 mg/1 while the influent suspended solids averaged 64.6 mg/1.
This increase in suspended solids is due to erosion or scour due to the flood
irrigation of the row crops. This effluent scour tended to increase most of
the water quality parameters. For this reason, sprinkler irrigation of the
treated garden plot was practiced during the 1977 growing season.
The control garden plot was flood irrigated during the early 1976 growing
season only (i.e., June 1976) and was sprinkler irrigated during the remainder
of the 1976 growing season and all of the 1977 growing season. The influent
to the control garden plot was identical to the influent to the control site.
Thus, Sampling Stations 9 and 11 are identical and the discussion in Section
5 concerning the water quality of the control site is also applicable to the
control garden plot.
The effluent quality from the control garden plot (Sampling Station
Number 10) is reported in Table 41. In general, the effluent is of poorer
quality than the influent. This is due to erosion or scour caused by flood
irrigation of row crops. It should be noted that, the data for the effluent
from the control garden plot (Sampling Station Number 10) is very limited
91
-------
TABLE 41. SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY OF APPLIED WATER TO THE CONTROL AND
TREATED GARDEN PLOTS
Parameter, Units
Alkalinity, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
Hardness, mg/1
NH3-N, mg/1
N02-N, mg/1
N03-N, mg/1
TKN, mg/1
Total Phosphorus, mg/1
Total Soluble Phosphorus, mg/1
Ortho-phosphate, mg/1
Total Dissolved Solids, mg/1
Total Suspended Solids, mg/1
Volatile Suspended Solids, mg/1
Specific Conductance, ymhos/cm
Sulfate, mg/1
BODs, mg/1
COD, mg/1
Temp, °C
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1
pH, Units
Aluminum, yg/1
Cadmium, yg/1
Chromium, Ug/1
Copper, yg/1
Iron, yg/1
Lead, yg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Mercury, yg/1
Potassium, yg/1
Silver, mg/1
Sodium, mg/1
Zinc, yg/1
Arsonic, yg/1
Nickel, yg/1
Treated Garden Plot
Influent
(Station No. 5)
1976
255.8
221.9
134.3
. 263.3*
5.95*
1.069*
5.79*
8.69*
9.46
8.75
8.41
610.2
64.6
16.8
1113
66.8
12.1
60.1
20.7
7.5
7.6
150
0.3
22
13.8
56
3.2
10.1*
21
8.3
10.5*
<1.2
118*
<2.4
/
*
1977
246.8
205.3
147.1
251.9
3.27
0.776
8.46
6.31
9.59
8.84
8.56
618.0
18.8
14.3
1089
64.0
13.4
60.5
20.6
5.0
7.2
111
<4.6
<12
<42.3
25
<0.9
25:2
10
<1.5
12.5
<5.7
139
28
1.6
<4
Effluent
(Station No. 6)
1976
287.6
227.7
139.5
269.1
4.76
1.115
5.48
13.41
19.90
8.29
8.30
619.6
1254.1
89.0
1106
66.5
17.2
196.8
22.3
8.2
7.8
190
0.3
12
11.0
28
3.0
11.3
15
5.1
11.1
<1.0
122
<20
#
*
1977
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Control Garden Plot
Influent
(Station No. 9)
1976
201.1
176.1
21.2
224.4
0.046
0.0044*
0.495
0.48
0.046
0.027
0.018
253.2
2.2
1.6
497*
22.7
1.6
9.53
16.3
8.1
7.4
154
0.2*
5
4.8*
23
2.8
11.8*
12
6.5
1.0*
<1.0
18
<11
t
+
1977
197.7
146.2
22.0
179.8
0.057
0.0143
0.418
1.02
0.079
0.030
0.022
272.0
5.8
2.6
456
18.5
2.5
21.02
29.2 '
5.1
7.3
224
<4.3
<11
<12.2
230
<0.9
22.1
<6
<4.6
2.0
<5.5
20
21
14.8
<2
Effluent
(Station No. 10)
1976
170.0
18.8
222.0
0.091
0.0071
1.171
7.34
2.126
0.084
0.065
326.0
-
-
476
23.3
4.2
181.4
15.0
8.6
7.0
330
0.3
2
5.5
66
3.5
13.2
8
3.6
3.3
<1.0
19
<13
t
+
1977
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Recommended
Limit
(EPA, 1973)
5-40 meq/1
500-1000 mg/1
750-1500
4.5 9.0
20,000
50
1,000
5,000
20,000
10,000
10,000
4-8
SAR < 4.8
10,000
2,000
2,000
No data
* 1976 mean is significantly different (95 percent level) from the 1977 mean
+ No runoff in 1977; plots were sprinkler irrigated
t Analysis not performed in 1976
(see Appendix B) because flood irrigation of the control garden plot was only
practical for a short period of time.
The amount of water applied to the treated garden plot in 1976 is un-
known because that data was lost in the accidental fire. During 1977, average
rate of application to the treated garden plot was 5.1 cm/week (2.0 in/week),
assuming even distribution of water by the sprinklers. The average appli-
cation rate for the control garden plot, assuming even distribution of water
by the sprinklers, was 6.2 cm/week (2.4 in/week) in 1976 and 8.6 cm/week (3.4
in/week) in 1977.
A review of Table 41, indicates that the water applied to the treated
garden plot was of poorer quality than the water applied to the control
92
-------
garden. In general, however, the water applied to both plots was within re-
commended limits (EPA, 1973) established for irrigation water.
PLANT RESULTS FROM GARDEN PLOTS
Alfalfa
Alfalfa, Medicago sativa L., planted on the treated site emerged on about the
same day as on the control site during both growing seasons. Weekly growth
data, measured to the nearest centimeter, are shown in Table 42 and Figure 15
for 1976 and in Table 43 and Figure 16 for 1977. The height of plants on the
effluent site were significantly greater for both seasons. This significance
carried over when the fresh and dry weights were recorded for the first har-
vest (Tables 44 and 45). There were no differences, however, in the percent of
moisture or in the leaf/stem (L/S) ratios. When fresh weight data for the
first harvest of 1976 and 1977 are combined there is a highly significant dif-
ference (1 percent level) between years and a significant difference (5 per-
cent level) with treatment (Table 46). Combined dry weight data for the two
years likewise show significant difference for years and treatment (Table 47).
There was no significant interaction between years times treatment with either
fresh or dry weights. Combined analysis of the leaf/stem (L/S) ratio of the
first harvest for 1976 and 1977 did not show significant differences (Table 48).
In 1976, there was no difference in the recovery growth the first week
following the first harvest (Table 49 and Figure 17). However, plant height
on the treated site was significantly higher thereafter. Differences in the
recovery of alfalfa, as expressed by plant height, on the control and treated
sites were highly significant (1 percent level) following the first harvest in
1977 (Table 50 and Figure 18). In 1976, fresh and dry weights percent mois-
ture and L/S ratios were all significantly different (5 percent level) for the
second harvest of alfalfa (Table 51). These parameters, however, were not
significantly different (5 percent level) for the second harvest of alfalfa
in 1977 (Table 52). Combined analysis of the 1976 and 1977 fresh weight data
for the second harvest showed only a significant difference (5 percent level)
at the treatment level (Table 53). Combined dry weight second harvest data
showed significant differences with year, treatment, and interaction of year
times treatment (Table 54). Combined L/S ratio data was significant (5 per-
cent level) only with treatment for the two years (Table 55).
Chemical analysis showed significantly greater amounts of iron and zinc
in the stems of the first and second harvest produced on the control site
(Table 133). Significantly (5 percent level) greater amounts of sodium were
accumulated in stems produced on the treated site from both harvests.
Significantly (5 percent level) higher amounts of copper were detected in the
stems of plants from the treated site after the second harvest. In leaves
from the first harvested alfalfa plants produced on the control site, there
were highly significantly (1 percent level) higher quantities of copper, iron,
and zinc, whereas leaves produced on the treated site accumulated highly
significantly (1 percent level) greater amounts of sodium. In the second har-
vest, leaves produced on the treated site showed significantly (1 percent
level) more potassium, but less copper than did leaves produced on the control
site.
93
-------
TABLE 42. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON MEAN WEEKLY GROWTH (HEIGHT - CM)
OF FIRST GROWTH (FIRST CUTTING) OF ALFALFA, 1976
Date
May 8, 1976
May 15, 1976
May 22, 1976
May 28, 1976
June 5, 1976
June 15, 1976
June 22, 1976
June 29, 1976
July 8, 1976
July 15, 1976
Control
X +
0.25
0.74
1.33
1.78
8.35
12.70
18.00
19.78
30.08
35.00
SE
0.00
0.04
0.07
0.21
0.31
0.56
0.85
0.52
0.85
1.87
Treated
X +
0.29*
0.53**
1.88**
2.81**
12.75**
19.13**
23.28**
26.35**
35.20**
47.15**
SE
0.01
0.02
0.10
0.20
0.35
0.42
1.09
0.93
1.57
1.06
** =
Significantly different at 0.05 and 0.01 level, respectively.
IE
o
I
h-
0
CD
50
35
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
ALFALFA - ( First Growth)
CONTROL
TREATED
8
29
15 22 28 5 15 22
MAY JUNE JULY
Figure 15. Influence of sewage effluent on first growth of alfalfa, 1976.
94
15
-------
TABLE 43. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON MEAN WEEKLY GROWTH (HEIGHT - CM)
OF FIRST GROWTH (FIRST CUTTING) OF ALFALFA, 1977
Date
June 8, 1977
June 14, 1977
June 21, 1977
June 28, 1977
July 5, 1977
July 12, 1977
July 22, 1977
Control
X +
2.73
3.58
6.83
13.48
17.15
17.45
21.10
SE
0.12
0.17
0.31
0.55
0.52
0.81
1.10
Treated
X +
4.35**
7.95**
13.65**
24.73**
31.78**
30.75**
35.78**
SE
0.23
0.25
0.32
0.77
1.10
1.56
1.65
** =
Significantly different at the 0.01 level.
o
X
\-
£
O
rr
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
ALFALFA-(First Growth)
CONTROL
TREATED
8 14 21 28
JUNE
'
5 12 22
JULY
Figure 16. Influence of sewage effluent on first growth of alfalfa, 1977.
95
-------
TABLE 44. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON FIRST HARVEST ALFALFA FRESH AND DRY
WEIGHTS, PERCENT MOISTURE, AND LEAF/STEM RATIOS, 1976
Control
Blocks
I
II
III
IV
X
Fresh
Weight
(gms/m)
110
343
233
109
199
*
Dry
Weight
(gms/m)
34
65
49
23
43
*
%
Moisture
69
81
79
79
77
NS
Leaf/Stem
Ratio
2.54
1.97
2.36
3.09
2.49
NS
Fresh
Weight
(gms/m)
491
353
845
535
556
*
Treated
Dry
Weight
(gms/m)
83
61
138
103
96
*
%
Moisture
83
83
84
81
83
NS
Leaf/Stem
Ratio
2.09
2.20
1.44
1.78
1.88
NS
* = Significantly different at 0.05 level.
NS = Not significantly different.
TABLE 45. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON FIRST HARVEST ALFALFA FRESH AND DRY
WEIGHTS, PERCENT MOISTURE, AND LEAF/STEM (L/S) RATIOS, 1977
Control
Blocks
I
II
III
IV
X
Fresh
Weight
(gms/m)
80
83
32
93
72
*
Dry
Weight
(gms/m)
30
28
14
27
25
**
%
Moisture
61
70
56
71
65
NS
Leaf/Stem
Ratio
1.90
2.45
2.30
3.00
2.41
NS
Fresh
Weight
(gms/m)
150
245
82
157
158
*
Treated
Dry
Weight
(gms/m)
65
63
27
45
50
**
%
Moisture
57
74
67
71
68
NS
Leaf/Stem
Ratio
2.12
2.16
1.84
1.56
1.92
NS
** =
Significantly different at the 0.05 and 0.01 levels, respectively.
NS = Not significantly different.
96
-------
TABLE 46. COMBINED ANALYSIS OF FIRST HARVESTS OF ALFALFA FRESH WEIGHTS FOR
1976 AND 1977
Source DF SS MS F
Replications (R) Within Year
Year (Y)
Treatment (T)
Y x T
Rep x T
Total
Correction Factor
6
1
1
1
6
15
1
83,668.37
274,549.80
196,714.43
73,343.40
99,156.93
727,432.93
969,387.93
13,944.73
274,549.80
196,714.43
73,343.40
16,526.16
<1.00
16.61**
11.90*
4.44 NS
Uncorrected Total 16 1,696,820.86
*,** = Significantly different at the 0.05 and 0.01 levels, respectively.
NS = Not significantly different.
TABLE 47. COMBINED ANALYSIS OF FIRST HARVESTS OF ALFALFA DRY WEIGHTS FOR
1976 AND 1977
Source DF SS MS F
Replications (R) Within Year
Year (Y)
Treatment (T)
Y x T
R x T
Total
Correction Factor
6
1
1
1
6
15
1
2,453.68
4,042.10
6,142.64
836.12
2,803.96
16,278.50
45,722.20
408.95
4,042.10
6,142.64
836.12
467.33
<1.00
8.65*
13. 14*
1.79 NS
Uncorrected Total 16 62,000.70
* = Significantly different at the 0.05 level.
NS = Not significantly different.
Beans
Snap beans, Phaseolus vulgaris L., planted on the treated site emerged
on about the same days as those planted on the control site in 1976. Weekly
growth data are shown in Table 56 and Figure 19. Although plants grown on
the treated site were taller throughout the season, these differences were
significant only on 6-5-76, 6-15-76, 6-23-76, (all 1 percent level) and
7-8-76 (5 percent level).
Entire plants were harvested and fresh and dry weights of plants, pods
and seeds recorded (Table 57). Although plants from the control site had
greater fresh and dry weights of pods and seeds than did those on the treated
97
-------
TABLE 48. COMBINED ANALYSIS OF FIRST HARVESTS OF ALFALFA LEAF/STEM (L/S)
RATIOS FOR 1976 AND 1977
Source
DF
SS
Uncorrected Total
16
78.78
MS
Replications (R) Within Years
Year (Y)
Treatment (T)
Y x T
R x T
Total
Correction Factor
6
1
1
1
6
15
1
0.47
0.00
1.22
0.02
1.38
3.09
75.69
0.08
0.00
1.22
0.02
0.23
—
—
<1.00
0.00
5.30 NS
<1.00
NS = Not significantly different.
site, these differences were not significant. The plants on the treated site
exhibited greater top growth than did those on the control, i.e., they were
bushier. Percentage moisture was about the same in plant parts from both
sites.
In beans, the components of yield are in order of their development,
the average number of pods per plant or per unit area, the average number of
seeds per pod, and the average seed size (weight). When the data are viewed
in this manner, only the average number of pods per plant exhibited a signi-
ficant difference (1 percent level) due to treatment (Table 58). The product
of the components is yield. Using the mean values of these components, we
can calculate 9.70 gms per meter (0.0065 Ibs/foot) for the control site and
4.82 gms per meter (0.0032 Ibs/foot) for the treated site, or about a 50
percent decrease in seed yield in plants grown on the treated site as com-
pared to those on the control site in 1976. For the most part, reductions in
the average number of pods per plant and average number of seeds per pod were
accompanied by an increase in seed weight (Table 59). In comparing the yield
component data for the two sites in 1977, the control site had a yield of
4.55 gms per meter, while the treated site yielded only 3.48 gms, or 24
percent less than the control site.
In 1977, the growth responses observed for beans in the control and
treated sites were similar to those in 1976 (Table 59, Figure 20). Signi-
ficant differences in plants grown on the two sites were sporadic. When
plants were harvested there were no differences observed in fresh or dry
weights of plants, pods, or seeds produced on the two sites (Table 60).
Likewise, no differences were observed in the components of yield, namely
pods per plant, seeds per pod or seed weight (Table 61).
When the data for fresh weights of bean plants for 1976 and 1977 were
combined, significant variations observed were due to year (1 percent level)
and year times treatment (5 percent level) (Table 62). With dry weight data
for both years, the only difference (1 percent level) observed was due to
98
-------
TABLE 49. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON MEAN WEEKLY GROWTH (HEIGHT - CM)
OF SECOND GROWTH (SECOND CUTTING) OF ALFALFA, 1976
Control
July 22
July 29
August
August
»
>
5,
12
1976
1976
1976
, 1976
10
17
25
27
X +
.05
.65
.68
.93
0
0
1
1
SE
.55
.49
.07
.54
11.
23.
33.
49.
Treated
: +
50
85**
30**
23**
0
0
0
0
SE
.61
.68
.82
.72
** = Significantly different at the 0.01 level.
ALFALFA- (Second Growth)
50
45
40
^ 35
£
" 30
O
-------
TABLE 50. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON MEAN WEEKLY GROWTH (HEIGHT - CM)
OF SECOND GROWTH (SECOND HARVEST) OF ALFALFA, 1977
Date
Control
X
SE
** = Significantly different at the 0.01 level,
Treated
X
SE
July 29, 1977
August
August
August
August
4,
12,
19,
26,
1977
1977
1977
1977
17
21
29
32
36
.80
.35
.00
.00
.25
0
0
0
0
1
.65
.79
.89
.94
.07
22.
29.
36.
41.
44.
20**
95**
58**
58**
50**
0.
1.
1.
1.
1.
78
12
45
21
84
o
O
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
ALFALFA-(Second Growth)
— CONTROL
TREATED
29 4 12 19 26
JULY AUGUST
•igure 18. Influence of sewage effluent on second growth of alfalfa, 1977.
100
-------
TABLE 51. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON SECOND HARVEST ALFALFA FRESH AND
DRY WEIGHTS, PERCENT MOISTURE, AND LEAF/STEM RATIOS, 1976
Control
Treated
Blocks
Fresh Dry
Weight Weight
(gms/m) (gms/m)
% Leaf/Stem
Moisture Ratio
Fresh Dry
Weight Weight
(gms/m) (gms/m)
% Leaf/Stem
Moisture Ratio
I
II
III
IV
X
380
434
452
452
430
60
196
279
299
209
84
55
38
34
53
2.16
2.32
2.53
2.15
2.29
555
486
552
500
523
437
363
448
365
403
21
25
19
27
23
1.50
1.28
1.57
1.59
1.49
Significantly different at 0.05 and 0.01 levels, respectively.
* ** =
TABLE 52. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON SECOND HARVEST ALFALFA FRESH AND
DRY WEIGHTS, PERCENT MOISTURE, AND LEAF/STEM RATIO, 1977
Blocks
Control
Treated
Fresh Dry „ ,. ,
TT . ,_ TT . , % Leaf/Stem
Weight Weight „ . _ ^ .
/ I \ f I \ Moisture Ratio
(gms/m) (gms/m)
Fresh Dry
TT J
Weight Weight
, / >. / , ^
(gms/m) (gms/m)
% Leaf/Stem
Moisture Ratio
I
II
III
IV
X
545
301
234
392
368
132
76
54
81
86
76
75
77
79
77
1.59
2.04
2.38
1.53
1.89
498
547
238
630
478
111
134
67
134
112
78
83
72
79
78
2.26
0.94
1.31
1.63
1.53
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS = Not significantly different.
101
-------
TABLE 53. COMBINED ANALYSIS OF SECOND HARVESTS OF ALFALFA FRESH WEIGHTS FOR
1976 AND 1977
Source
Replications (R) Within Year
Year (Y)
Treatment (T)
Y x T
R x T
DF
6
1
1
1
6
SS
106,955.87
11,358.23
41,748.70
283.08
40,400.79
MS
17,825.98
11,358.23
41,748.70
283.08
6,733.47
F
2.65 NS
1.69 NS
6.20*
<1.00
Total 15 200,987.37
Correction Factor 1 3,236,131.16
Uncorrected Total 16 3,437,118.53
* = Significantly different at the 0.05 level.
NS = Not significantly different.
TABLE 54. COMBINED ANALYSIS OF SECOND HARVESTS OF ALFALFA DRY WEIGHTS FOR
1976 AND 1977
Source
Replications (R) Within Year
Year (Y)
Treatment (T)
Y x T
R x T
Total
Correction Factor
Uncorrected Total
DF
6
1
1
1
6
15
1
16
SS
20,191.99
171,789.53
48,631.28
28,552.54
27,613.66
296,779.00
654,521.45
951,300.45
MS
3,365.33
171,789.53
48,631.28
28,552.54
4,602.28
F
<1.00
37.33**
10.57*
6.20*
*,** = Significantly different at the 0.05 and 0.01 levels, respectively.
102
-------
TABLE 55. COMBINED ANALYSIS OF SECOND HARVESTS OF ALFALFA LEAF/STEM (L/S)
RATIOS FOR 1976 AND 1977
Source DF SS MS F
Replications (R) Within Years
Year (Y)
Treatment (T)
Y x T
R x T
Total
Correction Factor
6
1
1
1
6
15
1
0.34
0.12
1.33
0.22
1.23
3.24
51.77
0.06
0.12
1.33
0.22
0.21
__
—
<1.00
<1.00
6,34*
1.05
Uncorrected Total 16 55.01
* = Significantly different at the 0.05 level.
year (Table 63). Combined bean pod fresh weight data for the two years
registered a significant difference (5 percent level) due to year, whereas
the dry weight data were not significant (Tables 64 and 65). When the bean
seed fresh (Table 66) and dry (Table 67) weight data were combined,, signifi-
cant differences (1 percent level) again resulted from variation between
years. The number of seeds per pod on the two sites for 1976 and 1977 were
not significantly different (Table 68).
Chemical analysis of the entire bean plant grown on the treated site
showed a significantly (5 percent level) higher amount of sodium, but less
(1 percent level) zinc in 1976 (Table 133). There were no differences in
accumulation of other chemicals. In pods from plants grown on the treated
site, there were significantly greater amounts of calcium (5 percent level),
potassium (1 percent level), and phosphorus (1 percent level), but signifi-
cantly (1 percent level) less amounts of zinc. Seed produced on the treated
site accumulated a significantly greater amount of sodium (5 percent level),
but again less (1 percent level) zinc.
Carrots
Carrots, Daucus carota L., planted on the treated site emerged on about
the same day as on the control site. Weekly growth data are shown in Table 69
and Figure 21. Plants grown on the treated site exhibited significantly
greater height from May 22, 1976, through June 23, 1976, and again from July
15, 1976, through August 19, 1976. Entire plants were harvested and fresh
and dry weights of shoots and roots, percent moisture and number of plants
per meter recorded (Table 70). Fresh weight and the percent moisture of
shoots and roots from plants produced on the treated site were significantly
(1 percent and 5 percent level) higher than those produced on the control
site.
103
-------
TABLE 56. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON MEAN WEEKLY GROWTH (HEIGHT - CM)
OF SNAP BEANS, 1976
Date
Control
X
SE
Treated
X
SE
May 28,
June
June
June
June
July
July
July
5,
15,
23,
29,
8,
15,
22,
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
4
5
8
9
9
14
25
23
.51
.73
.88
.80
.00
.28
.83
.63
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
17
05
38
41
31
44
75
27
4
7
11
11
9
12
24
22
.70
.83**
.65**
.15**
.53
.78*
.53
.78
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
16
26
60
48
43
54
79
27
*, ** = Significantly different at 0.05 and 0.01 levels, respectively.
CONTROL
22
MAY
5
16 23 29 8 15
JUNE JULY
22
Figure 19. Influence of sewage effluent on snap bean growth, 1976.
104
-------
TABLE 57. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON FRESH AND DRY WEIGHTS OF PLANTS,
PODS, AND SEEDS OF SNAP BEANS (HARVESTED 1 METER OR ROW), 1976
Control
Blocks
Fresh Weights (gms/m)
Dry Weights (gms/m)
Plant
Pod
Seed Plant
Moist
Pod
Moist
Seed
Moist
I
II
III
IV
X
1317
1269
1017
812
1104
.30
.10
.24
.84
.12
143.20
1050.80
652.89
219.09
516.50
13.90
85.40
63.72
35.34
49.59
174.
172.
191.
136.
168.
88
24
27
73
78
87
86
81
83
84
12.15
66.78
91.88
27.58
49.60
92
94
86
87
90
2.35
11.33
13.81
7.53
8.76
83
87
78
79
82
Treated
I
II
III
IV
X
1366.
1314.
1859.
1712.
1563.
42
53
58
67
30
380.60
237.31
100.87
67.03
196.45
52.50
11.01
19.07
8.85
22.86
177
182
255
226
210
.05
.10
.74
.71
.40
87
86
86
87
86
32.26
19.80
13.18
7.24
18.12
92
92
87
89
90
9.75
1.02
4.11
1.42
4.08
81
91
78
84
83
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS = Not significantly different,
In 1977, the variation in carrot plant height was sporadic with plants
growing on the treated site being significantly higher (1 percent level) than
those of the control site early in the season (Table 71 and Figure 22). By
July 12, however, there was no significant difference in their height. One
week prior to harvest the plants on the.control site were significantly (5
percent level) higher than those on the treated site. On a fresh weight basis
the plants grown on the control site produced significantly (5 percent level)
more shoot and root growth than did those on the treated site (Table 72).
Although the dry weight of the shoots produced on the two sites were not
significant, the dry weights of the roots produced on the control site were
significantly (1 percent level) greater than those produced on the treated
site. There was no significant difference in the R/S ratios of the fresh and
dry weights between the two plots in either year (Table 73). Combined
analysis of carrot shoot and root fresh weights for 1976 and 19.77 showed only
a significant (1 percent level) interaction between year and treatment
(Tables 74 and 75). Similar analysis for shoot dry weights for both years
exhibited a significant (5 percent level) difference due to year (Table 76).
The combined root dry weight data for 1976 and 1977, however, showed a signi-
ficant interaction (5 percent level) between year and treatment (Table 77).
Examination of the combined R/S ratios for 1976 and 19.77 shows a significant
(1 percent level) difference due to year (Table 78).
105
-------
TABLE 58. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON YIELD COMPONENTS—NUMBER OF PODS
PER PLANT, SEEDS PER POD, AND AVERAGE SEED WT (CMS)—AND SEED
PER METER OF BEANS, 1976
Blocks
Control
Treated
**
NS
Average
Pods/ Seeds/ Seed Seeds/
Plant Pod Wt. Meter
(gms/ra)
Average
Pods/ Seeds/ Seed Seeds/
Plant Pod Wt. Meter
(gms/m)
I
II
III
IV
X
3.5
17.1
19.9
5.8
11.6
2.9
4.5
3.6
4.1
3.8
0.23
0.15
0.19
0.32
0.22
10.2
77.0
71.6
23.8
45.6
11.9
6.0
2.3
2.0
5.6
5.2
3.8
4.6
3.6
4.3
0.16
0.04
0.39
0.20
0,20
61.9
22.8
10.6
7.2
25.6
NS
NS
NS
**
NS
Significant at P < 0.01 level.
Not significantly different.
NS
NS
Chemical analysis of the tops (shoots) indicated significantly higher
amounts of phosphorus (5 percent level) and sodium (1 percent level) but less
zinc (1 percent level) accumulated in plants produced on the treated site
(Table 133). Significantly (1 percent level) greater quantities of potassium
and sodium, but lesser quantities of copper (5 percent level) and zinc (1 per-
cent level) were recorded in the edible roots produced on the treated site.
Corn
Corn, Zea mays L., planted on the treated site emerged on about the same
day as on the control site in 1976. Weekly growth data are shown in Table 79
and Figure 23. Growth of the corn plants on the treated site were signifi-
cantly (1 percent level) greater throughout the season than those growing on
the control site. When the growth data of Table 79 are plotted as a function
of time (Figure 23), the standard growth curve is clearly evident (i.e., a
rather slow increase initially, followed by a rapidly increasing growth rate
as photosynthesis becomes established in the new leaves, and then a decrease
in growth rate as the plants approach maturity).
Although plants growing on the treated site exhibited greater fresh and
dry weights, these differences were not significantly different (Table 80).
However, there were significant (1 percent level) differences in the fresh and
dry weights and percent moisture of the ears produced.
In corn, the components of yield are the average number of plants per row
length, number of ears per row length, the average number of rows of kernels
per ear, average number of kernels per row on the ear, and average seed size
(weight). There was no significant difference in number of plants per meter,
106
-------
TABLE 59. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON MEAN WEEKLY GROWTH (HEIGHT - CM)
OF SNAP BEANS, 1977
Control
Treated
Date
X
SE
X
SE
June 1, 1977
June 8, 1977
June 14, 1977
June 21, 1977
June 28, 1977
July 5, 1977
July 12, 1977
July 22, 1977
July 29, 1977
August 5, 1977
August 12, 1977
5.95
5.85
6.36
7.87
12.77
12.45
13.53
15.25
20.05
23.33
27.88
0.45
0.33
0.35
0.32
0.74
0.43
0.62
0.66
0.67
0.65
0.55
1.70**
6.00 NS
7.78**
9.09*
10.91*
12.86 NS
15.37 NS
18,79**
20.33 NS
25.23 NS
25.33*
0.26
0.49
0.19
0.45
0.47
0.75
0.73
0.88
0.71
1.11
1,20
** = Significantly different at the 0.05 and 0.01 levels, respectively.
NS = Not significantly different.
45
40
35
E
0
I
t-
^
O
o
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
SNAP BEANS
CONTROL
TREATED
8 14 2! 28
JUNE
12 22 29
JULY
5 12
AUG
Figure 20» Influence of sewage effluent on snap bean growth, 1977.
107
-------
TABLE 60. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON FRESH AND DRY WEIGHTS OF BEAN
PLANTS, PODS, AND SEEDS—HARVESTED 1 METER OF ROW, 1977
Blocks
I
II
III
IV
X
I
II
III
IV
X
Fresh
Plant
707.60
314.60
376.30
724.80
555.83
125.00
146.80
611.10
337.10
305.00
NS
Weights
Pod
165.50
28.90
116.10
62.80
93.33
8.60
5.20
76.70
22.90
28.35
NS
Control
(gms/m)
Seed
541.10
285.70
360.20
662.00
462.25
Treated
116.40
141.60
534.40
314.10
276.63
NS
Dry
Plant
64.10
46.30
41.10
84.50
59.00
22.30
23.40
83.50
52.70
45.48
NS
Weights
Pod
57,50
12.30
60.50
35.50
41.45
7.70
4.90
44.20
19.10
18.98
NS
(gms/m)
Seed
6.60
34.00
19.40
49.60
27.25
14.60
18.50
39.30
33.60
26.50
NS
NS = Not significantly different.
TABLE 61. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON YIELD COMPONENTS—NUMBER OF PODS
PER PLANT, SEEDS PER POD, SEEDS PER METER, AND AVERAGE SEED WT
(CMS) OF BEANS, 1977
Control
Blocks
Pods/
Plant
I 10.2
II 5.6
III 8.1
IV 15.3
X 9.80
NS
Seeds/
Pod
4.86
3.67
3.24
3.20
3.87
NS
Seeds/
Meter
49.57
20.55
26.24
48.96
36.33
NS
Average
Seed
Wt.
(gms)
0.10
0.18
0.12
0.07
0.12
NS
Pods/
Plant
12.0
15.2
7.3
3.2
9 43
NS
Treated
Seeds/
Pod
1.88
2.57
3.19
2.20
2.46
NS
Seeds/
Meter
22.56
39.06
23.29
7.04
22.99
NS
Average
Seed
Wt.
(gms)
0.08
0.07
0.14
0.31
0.15
NS
NS = Not significantly different.
108
-------
TABLE 62. COMBINED ANALYSIS OF FRESH WEIGHTS OF BEAN PLANTS FOR 1976 AND 1977
Source
Replications (R) Within Ye,ars
Year (Y)
Treatment (T)
Y x T
R x T
Total
Correction Factor
Uncorrected Total
DF
6
1
1
1
6
15
1
16
SS
161,688.82
3,263,785.49
43,411.81
504,107.10
482,365.74
4,455,358.96
12,448,512.78
16,903,871.74
MS
26,948.14
3,263,785.49
43,411.81
504,107.10
80,394.29
F
<1.00
40.60**
<1.00
6.27*
*, ** = Significantly different at the 0.05 and 0.01 levels, respectively.
TABLE 63. COMBINED ANALYSIS OF DRY WEIGHTS OF BEAN PLANTS FOR 1976 AND 1977
Source
Replications (R) Within Years
Year (Y)
Treatment (T)
Y x T
R x T
Total
Correction Factor
Uncorrected Total
DF
6
1
1
1
6
15
1
16
SS
4,610.10
75,467.67
1,000.00
2,830.30
4,887.38
88,795.45
233,917.32
312,712.77
MS
768.35
75,467.67
1,000.00
2,830.30
814.56
F
<1.00
92.65**
1.23 NS
3.47 NS
** = Significantly different at the 0.01 level.
TABLE 64. COMBINED ANALYSIS OF BEAN POD FRESH WEIGHTS FOR 1976 AND 1977
Source
Replications (R) Within Years
Year (Y)
Treatment (T)
Y x T
R x T
Total
Correction Factor
Uncorrected Total
DF
6
1
1
1
6
15
1
16
SS
283,603.38
349,603.17
148,238.47
65,059.43
323,850.47
1,170,354.92
696,594.72
2,046,949.64
MS
47,267.23
349,603.17
148,238.47
65,059.43
53,975.08
F
1.00
6.48*
2.75 NS
1.2 NS
* = Significantly different at the 0.05 level.
NS = Not significantly different.
109
-------
TABLE 65. COMBINED ANALYSIS
Source
Replications (R) Within Years
Year (Y)
Treatment (T)
Y x T
R x T
Total
Correction Factor
Uncorrected Total
OF
DF
6
1
1
1
6
15
1
16
BEAN
3
2
3
9
16
26
POD
SS
,630
53
,910
81
,152
,827
,420
,248
DRY
.57
.18
.87
.05
.28
.95
.50
.45
WEIGHTS FOR
MS
605.
53.
2,910.
81.
525.
— -
1976
10
18
87
05
38
AND 197
F
1.15
<1.00
5.54
<1.00
7
NS
NS
NS = Not significantly different.
TABLE 66. COMBINED ANALYSIS OF BEAN SEED FRESH WEIGHT FOR 1976 AND 1977
Source
Replications (R) Within Years
Year (Y)
Treatment (T)
Y x T
R x T
Total
Correction Factor
Uncorrected Total
DF
6
1
1
1
6
15
1
16
SS
92,871.54
444,125.61
45,095.71
25,246.82
110,774.53
718,114.21
658,244.20
1,376,358.41
MS
15,478.59
444,125.61
45,095.71
25,246.82
18,462.42
:::
F
<1.00
24.06**
2.44 NS
1.37 NS
** = Significantly different at the 0.01 level.
NS = Not significantly different.
TABLE 67- COMBINED ANALYSIS OF BEAN SEED DRY WEIGHT FOR 1976 AND 1977
Source
Replications (R) Within Years
Year (Y)
Treatment (T)
Y x T
R x T
Total
Correction Factor
Uncorrected Total
DF
6
1
1
1
6
15
1
16
SS
979.81
1,674.45
29.48
15.45
570.03
3,269.21
4,432.90
7,702.11
MS
163.30
1,674.45
29.48
15.45
95.01
F
1.72 NS
17.62**
<1.00
<1.00
** = Significantly different at the 0.01 level.
NS = Not significantly different.
110
-------
TABLE 68. COMBINED ANALYSIS OF BEAN SEEDS PER POD FOR 1976 AND 1977
Source
DF
SS
MS
Replications (R) Within Years
Year (Y)
Treatment (T)
Y x T
R x T
Total
Correction Factor
Uncorrected Total
6
1
1
1
6
15
1
16
0.81
3.05
0.78
3.73
4.70
13.07
207.43
220.50
0.14
3.05
0.78
3.73
0.78
—
—
<1.00
3.91 NS
<1.00
4.78 NS
NS = Not significantly different.
ears per meter or kernels per row on the ear (Table 81). However, there was
a significantly (5 percent level) higher number of rows of kernels per ear on
ears produced on the control site.
In 1977, corn planted on the treated site emerged on about the same day
as on the control site. However, weekly growth data, shown in Table 82 and
Figure 24, indicated greater plant heights in plants grown on the treated
site than on the control site from the first week of measurement until the
last two weeks prior to harvest. Only the plant dry weights on the treated
site were significantly (5 percent level) higher than those on the control
site (Table 83). No differences were observed in the components of yield for
corn grown on the two sites (Table 84).
Combined analysis of corn plant fresh weights for 1976 and 1977 showed
only a significant (5 percent level) difference due to treatment (Table 85).
However, when examining the combined dry weight data significant (1 percent
level) differences were observed for year and treatment (Table 86). Combined
corn ear fresh and dry weight data for 1976 and 1977 exhibited only a signifi-
cant (1 percent level) variation due to treatment (Tables 87 and 88). Ex-
amining the components of yield, namely, corn ears per meter for 1976 and 1977,
significant (1 percent level) difference was observed due to year (.Table 89).
Combined analysis of corn kernel rows per ear showed a highly significant (1
percent level) difference due to year and a highly significant (.1 percent
level) interaction of year times treatment (Table 90).
Chemical analysis of corn plants showed significantly greater amounts of
potassium (1 percent level), sodium (5 percent level), and zinc (1 percent
level) in the plants grown on the control site than in those on the treated
site (Table 133). When seeds were analyzed, those produced on the control site
had significantly higher amounts of nitrogen (1 percent level), copper (5 per-
cent level), and zinc (1 percent level). Only zinc was significantly (5 per-
cent level) higher in the cobs from plants grown on the control site.
Ill
-------
TABLE 69. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON MEAN WEEKLY GROWTH (HEIGHT - CM)
OF CARROTS, 1976
Control
Treated
Date
SE
X
SE
May 22, 1976
May 28, 1976
June 5, 1976
June 15, 1976
June 23, 1976
June 29, 1976
July 8, 1976
July 15, 1976
July 22, 1976
July 29, 1976
August 5, 1976
August 12, 1976
August 19, 1976
** = Significantly different
0.73
2.94
6.70
10.35
15.23
18.60
22.95
25.53
30.78
30.70
29.60
29.03
31.98
at 0.01
0.07
0.16
0.24
0.28
0.65
0.51
0.59
0.76
0.59
1.11
1.04
0.25
0.81
level.
0.90**
3.89**
8.28**
14.03**
18.88**
20.35 NS
24.18 NS
32.98**
39.05**
39.85**
41.78**
41.39**
44.88**
0.003
0.19
0.36
0.42
0.46
1.07
1.29
0.95
0.92
0.99
1.05
1.41
1.30
NS = Not significantly different.
Lettuce
Lettuce, Lactuca sativa L., planted on the treated site emerged at about
the same time as did those on the control site in 1976. Weekly growth data
are shown in Table 91 and Figure 25. The growth curve is largely linear, but
the plants on the treated site did level off near the end as the plants ap-
proached maturity somewhat earlier than did those on the control site. Plant
growth, as measured by plant height, was significantly (.1 percent level)
greater in those plants growing on the treated site throughout the season.
Entire plants were harvested and fresh and dry weights and percent moisture
recorded (Table 92). Fresh weight of plants, on the treated site was signifi-
cantly (1 percent level) higher than the plants from the control site.
In 1977, lettuce planted on the treated site emerged three weeks before
the plants on the control site (Table 94 and Figure 26). With, the three
weeks additional growth, the plants on the treated site were significantly
(1 percent level) higher than those on the control site. Moreover, the fresh
and dry weights of plants grown on the treated site were significantly (5 per-
cent level) higher than those on the control, and contained significantly
(1 percent level) less moisture (Table 94).
Combined analysis of lettuce fresh weight for 1976 and 1977 showed
significant (1 percent level) differences due to year and also to treatment
(Table 95), whereas dry weight data exhibited only a significant (5 percent
level) difference due to treatment (Table 96) .
112
-------
E
o
O
01
e>
50
40
30
10
5
0
CONTROL
— TREATED
22 28 5 15 23 29 8 15 22 29 5 12 19
MAY JUNE JULY AUG.
Figure 21. Influence of sewage effluents on carrot growth, 1976.
Chemical analysis indicated lettuce plants from the control site were
significantly (5 percent level) higher in copper and zinc, whereas those
growing on the treated site were significantly (1 percent level) higher in
phosphorus and sodium (Table 133).
Onion
Onions, Aliiurn cepa L., planted on the treated site emerged about the
same time as did those on the control site in 1976. The weekly growth data
are shown in Table 97 and Figure 27. After two weeks, the growth, as mea-
sured by plant height, of the plants on the treated site was significantly
(1 percent level) different throughout the season. As seen in Figure 27, this
growth was linear with time for both sites. Interestingly, although the
treated site produced a greater amount of fresh and dry weight of material,
these differences were not significant (Table 98). The control plots, how-
ever, did have a significantly (1 percent level) higher number of plants per
meter.
113
-------
TABLE 70. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON FRESH AND DRY WEIGHTS PERCENT
MOISTURE OF SHOOTS AND ROOTS AND NUMBER OF PLANTS PER METER
OF CARROTS, 1976
Control
Blocks
Shoot
Root
(gms) %
I
II
III
IV
X
FW
353
500
362
582
450
DW
59
79
54
83
69
Moist
83
84
85
86
85
(gms) %
FW
1059
1603
1083
1710
1364
DW
186
244
149
236
203
Moist
82
85
86
86
85
Plants/
MG tGr
29
27
20
29
26
Treated
I
II
III
IV
X
845
584
695
618
686
108
80
92
83
91
87
86
87
87
87
2045
2208
2688
1982
2230
252
251
324
243
268
88
89
88
88
88
22
13
24
17
19
NS
**
NS
NS
*,** - Significant difference at the 0.05 and 0.01 levels, respectively.
NS = Not significantly different.
Chemical analysis of the tops and bulbs of the onions grown on the con-
trol site indicated significantly (1 percent level) higher amounts of nitrogen
(Table 133). Bulbs of the onions grown on the treated site exhibited signi-
ficantly higher amounts of iron (1 percent level), sodium (5 percent level),
and zinc (1 percent level).
Peas
Peas, Pisum sativum L., planted on the treated site emerged on the same
day as those planted on the control site in 1976. Weekly growth data, mea-
sured to the nearest centimeter, are shown in Table 99 and Figure 28. During
the first three weeks there were no significant differences in the rate of
growth of peas on the two sites. Beginning on May 28, 1976, the growth rate
of peas on the treated site was significantly (1 percent level) greater than
those on the control site. This significant difference remained through
harvest.
Entire plants were harvested at ground surface level and fresh and dry
weights of plants, pods, and seeds recorded (Table 100). There was no
114
-------
TABLE 71. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON MEAN WEEKLY GROWTH (HEIGHT - CM)
OF CARROTS, 1977
Control
Treated
Date
+
SE
SE
June 8, 1977
June 14, 1977
June 21, 1977
June 28, 1977
July 5, 1977
July 12, 1977
July 22, 1977
July 29, 1977
August 4, 1977
August 12, 1977
August 19, 1977
August 26, 1977
2.65
3.30
5.43
9.48
14.58
13.70
17.78
24.58
28.05
31.15
34.28
36.85
0.11
0.14
0.23
0.34
0.60
0.80
1.90
1.15
0.79
1.00
0.83
0.98
3.55**
4.65**
9.23**
14.90**
17.83*
16.80 NS
22.03 NS
23.93 NS
27.00 NS
28.23 NS
33.17 NS
31.07*
0.17
0.24
0.51
0.76
0.96
1.00
1.36
1.36
1.07
1.39
1.23
1.28
** = Significantly different at the 0.05 and 0.01 levels, respectively,
NS = Not significantly different.
45
40
35
o 30
25
I
^ 20
O
o: 15
CD
10
5
0
_ CARROT
CONTROL
TREATED
8 14 21 28
JUNE
12 22 29 4 12 19 26
JULY AUGUST
Figure 22. Influence of sewage effluent on carrot growth, 1977.
115
-------
TABLE 72. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON FRESH AND DRY WEIGHTS, PERCENT
MOISTURE OF SHOOTS AND ROOTS, AND NUMBER OF PLANTS PER METER
OF CARROTS, 1977
Control
Shoots
Roots
Blocks
I
II
III
IV
X
Fresh
Weight
(Grams/
Meter)
663
1244
581
565
763
Dry
Weight
(Grams/
Meter)
128
185
227
104
161
**/
Moisture
81
85
61
82
80
Fresh
Weight
(Grams/
Meter)
2348
3596
2929
2346
2805
Dry
Weight
(Grams/
Meter)
216
295
202
208
230
%
Moisture
90
92
93
91
92
Plants/
Meter
23
103
11
26
41
Treated
I
II
III
IV
X
385
620
254
280
385
120
229
63
68
120
69
63
75
76
71
1769
2711
1026
1570
1769
154
255
72
135
154
91
91
93
91
92
36
57
34
16
36
NS
NS
NS
NS
* **
NS
Significantly different at the 0.05 and 0.01 levels, respectively.
Not significantly different.
TABLE 73. CARROT ROOT/SHOOT (R/S) RATIOS FOR 1976 and 1977
Control
Treated
1976
1977
1976
1977
blocks
I
II
III
IV
X
Fresh
Weight
(gms/m)
3.00
3.21
2.99
2.94
3.03
Dry
Weight
(gms/m)
3.15
3.09
2.76
2.84
2.94
Fresh
Weight
(gnms/m)
3.54
2.89
5.04
4.15
3.68
Dry
Weight
(gms/m)
1.69
1.59
0.89
2.00
1.43
Fresh
Weight
(gms/m)
2.42
3.78
3.87
3.21
3.25
Dry
Weight
(gms/m)
2.33
3.14
3.52
2.93
2.95
Fresh
Weight
(gms/m)
4.59
4.37
4.04
5.61
4.59
Dry
Weight
(gms/m)
1.28
1.11
1.14
1.99
1.28
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS = Not significantly different.
NS
116
-------
O
tr
200
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
CONTROL
— EFFLUENT
I
I
28 5 15 23 29 8 15 22 29 5 12
MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST
Figure 23. Influence of sewage effluent on the growth of corn, 1976,
117
-------
TABLE 74. COMBINED ANALYSIS OF CARROT TOPS FRESH WEIGHTS FOR 1976 AND 1977
Source
Replications (R) Within Year
Year (Y)
Treatment (T)
Y x T
R x T
Total
Correction Factor
Uncorrected Total
DF
6
1
1
1
6
15
1
16
SS
364,200.35
166.86
20,329.77
377,711.65
109,827.39
872,236.02
5,211,712.31
6,083,948.33
MS
60,700.06
166.86
20,329.77
377,711.65
18,304.57
F
3.32 NS
<1.00 NS
1.11 NS
20.63**
** = Significantly different at the 0.01 level.
NS = Not significantly different.
TABLE 75. COMBINED ANALYSIS OF CARROT ROOT FRESH WEIGHTS FOR 1976 AND 1977
Source
Replications (R) Within Year
Year (Y)
Treatment (T)
Y x T
R x T
Total
Correction Factor
Uncorrected Total
DF
6
1
1
1
6
15
1
16
SS
2,178,081.36
957,300.78
28,588.87
3,619,820.20
1,016,176.98
7,799,968.18
66,714,876.31
74,514,844.49
MS
363,013.56
957,300.78
28,588.87
3,619,820.20
169,362.83
F
2.14 NS
5.65 NS
<1.00 NS
21.37**
** = Significantly different at the 0.01 level.
NS = Not significantly different.
TABLE 76. COMBINED ANALYSIS OF CARROT TOPS DRY WEIGHTS FOR 1976 AND 1977
Source
Replications (R) Within Year
Year (Y)
Treatment (T)
Y x T
R x T
Total
Correction Factor
Uncorrected Total
DF
6
1
1
1
6
15
1
16
SS
15,577.09
14,598.68
358.16
3,959.55
12,736.32
47,229.80
193,446.03
240,675.83
MS
2,596.18
14,598.68
358.16
3,959.55
2,122.72
F
1.22
6.88*
<1.00
1.87
118
-------
TABLE 77. COMBINED ANALYSIS OF CARROT ROOT DRY WEIGHTS FOR 1976 AND 1977
Source
Replications (R) Within Year
Year (Y)
Treatment (T)
Y x T
R x T
Total
Correction Factor
Uncorrected Total
DF
6
1
1
1
6
15
1
16
SS
21,552.28
7,532.94
152.34
19,696.01
11,708.43
60,642.00
731,379.87
792,021.87
MS
3,592.05
7,532.94
152.34
19,696.01
1,951.41
F
1.84
3.86
<1.00
10.09*
Significantly different at the 0.05 level.
TABLE 78. COMBINED ANALYSIS OF DRY WEIGHTS OF CARROT ROOT/SHOOT (R/S) RATIOS
FOR 1976 AND 1977
Source
Replications (R) Within Year
Year (Y)
Treatment (T)
Y x T
R x T
Total
Correction Factor
Uncorrected Total
DF
6
1
1
1
6
15
1
16
SS
1.26
8.92
0.02
0.02
0.86
11.07
78.94
90.01
MS
0.21
8.92
0.02
0.02
0.14
—
—
F
1.50
63.71**
<1.00
<1.00
** =
Significantly different at the 0.01 level.
TABLE 79. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON THE MEAN WEEKLY GROWTH (CM)
OF CORN, 1976
Date
Control
X
SE
** =
Significantly different at the 0.01 level.
119
Treated
SE
May 28, 1976
June 5, 1976
June 15, 1976
June 23, 1976
June 29, 1976
July 8, 1976
July 15, 1976
July 22, 1976
July 29, 1976
August 5, 1976
August 12, 1976
5.89
9.51
11.68
19.78
44.05
73.65
101.80
135.20
159.28
168.38
171.50
0.50
0.52
0.38
0.77
1.54
1.44
1.69
1.45
1.57
1.37
1.68
12.89**
16.23**
26.43**
33.00**
73.83**
107.60**
150.65**
175.00**
194.33**
196.05**
189.68**
0.68
0.70
0.98
0.72
2.01
2.52
1.85
1.77
1.79
1.80
1.86
-------
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
CORN
CONTROL
TREATED
I I I I I I I I I I
I 8 14 21 28 5 12 22 29 4 12 19
JUNE JULY AUGUST
Figure 24. Influence of sewage effluent on the growth of corn, 1977.
120
-------
TABLE 80. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON FRESH AND DRY WEIGHTS OF CORN
PLANTS AND EARS AND PERCENT MOISTURE, 1976
Block
Control
Plants
Ears
(gms/m)
FW DW
% Moist
(gms/m)
FW DW
= Significantly different at 0.05 level.
% Moist
I
II
III
IV
X
I
II
III
IV
X
1689
2797
2308
1962
2189
2742
3124
2151
2667
2671
430
645
585
457
529
770
767
549
604
673
75
77
75
77
76
Treated
72
75
74
77
75
312
942
690
438
596
1593
1940
949
667
1287*
44
165
120
54
96
387
520
232
85
306*
86
82
83
88
85
76
73
87
87
78*
TABLE 81. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON COMPONENTS OF YIELD IN CORN,
NUMBER OF PLANTS/METER, EARS/METER, ROWS OF KERNELS/EAR, AND
KERNELS/ROW, 1976
Control
Treated
Blocks _,. , , Row of Kernels/ , , Row of Kernels/
Plants/ Ears/ v 1 , _. ,. Plants/ Ears/ , ,.
,. „ Kernels/ Row of „ „ Kernels/ Row or
Meter Meter Meter Meter _
Ear Ear Ear Ear
I
II
III
IV
X
6
13
11
9
10
7
8
10
9
9
16
16
14
13
15
40
39
35
37
38
11
11
12
11
11
11
9
10
6
9
13
12
12
12
12
35
39
41
36
38
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
* = Significant1v different at 0.05 level.
NS = Not significantly different.
121
-------
TABLE 82. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON THE MEAN WEEKLY GROWTH (HEIGHT
CM) OF CORN, 1977
Control
Date
June 1, 1977
June 8, 1977
June 14, 1977
June 21, 1977
June 28, 1977
July 5, 1977
July 12, 1977
July 22, 1977
July 29, 1977
August 4, 1977
August 12, 1977
August 19, 1977
X +
5.08
14.30
20.75
29.43
63.13
69.33
81.68
97.43
114.03
131.25
139.45
141.43
SE
0.22
0.44
0.49
1.00
2.08
1.65
1.88
2.37
2.59
3.50
2.99
2.54
Treated
X +
6.64**
16.85**
24.10**
39.18**
51.23**
80.05**
95.23**
118.80**
132.95**
149.55**
146.83 NS
150.85 NS
SE
0.32
0.63
0.54
1.04
1.89
2.28
3.71
5.41
5.63
5.61
5.38
5.82
** = Significantly different at the 0.01 level,
NS = Not significantly different.
TABLE 83. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON FRESH AND DRY WEIGHTS OF CORN
PLANTS AND EARS AND PERCENT OF MOISTURE, 1977
Control
Plants
Ears
Block
(grams/meter)
Fresh Dry
Weight Weight
Moisture
(grams/meter)
Fresh Dry
Weight Weight
Moisture
I
II
III
IV
X
3973
2011
1728
1862
2394
1480
560
530
390
740
63
72
69
79
71
1355
1040
614
547
889
235
242
123
134
183
83
77
80
76
79
Treated
I
II
III
IV
X
6458
3478
3928
1758
3906
2140
1330
1270
450
1298
67
62
68
74
68
2490
960
1695
380
1381
730
255
451
72
377
71
73
73
81
75
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
* = Significantly different at the 0.05 level.
NS = Not significantly different.
122
-------
E
u
X
I-
o
or
14
12
10
8
CONTROL
TREATED
22 28 5 15 23 29 8 15
MAY JUNE JULY
Figure 25. Influence of sewage effluent on the growth of lettuce, 1976.
123
-------
TABLE 84. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON COMPONENTS OF YIELD IN CORN,
NUMBER OF EARS PER METER, ROWS OF KERNELS PER EAR, KERNELS
PER ROW, AND WEIGHT OF 100 SEEDS, 1977
Control
Blocks
I
II
III
IV
X
Ears/
Meter
7
5
4
3
5
Rows of
Kernels
Per Ear
14
15
13
14
14
Kernels/
Row
33
31
33
21
29
Weight
of 100
Seeds
(gms)
12
11
5
12
10
Seed
Yield
Per Meter
(gms)
388
256
86
106
203
NS
Treated
I
II
III
IV
X
7
3
5
3
5
17
18
16
14
16
35
34
41
17
32
16
11
14
6
12
666
202
459
43
307
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS = Not significantly different.
significant difference in these various parts due to the sewage effluent
treatment. In peas, the components of yield are in order of their develop-
ment, the average number of pods per plant, the average number of seeds per
pod, and the average seed size (weight). When the data are viewed in this
manner, only the average number of pods per plant exhibited a significant
(1 percent level) difference due to treatment (Table 101). The product of
the component is yield. Using the mean values of these components, we can
calculate 21.9 gms per meter for the control site and 59.2 gms per meter for
the treated site, or a 63 percent increase in the seed weight in plants
grown on the treated site as compared to those on the control site.
Peas planted on the treated site in 1977 emerged on about the same day
as those planted on the control site. Weekly growth data, measured to the
nearest centimeter, are shown in Table 102 and Figure 29. Generally, there
was no difference in the growth of the plants on the two sites. This general
uniformity of growth was also expressed at harvest (Tables 103 and 104).
124
-------
TABLE 85. COMBINED ANALYSIS OF CORN PLANT FRESH WEIGHTS FOR 1976 AND 1977
Source
Replications (R) Within Year
Year (Y)
Treatment (T)
Y x T
R x T
Total
Correction Factor
Uncorrected Total
DF
6
1
1
1
6
15
1
16
13,
2,
3,
1,
2,
22,
124,
147,
SS
421
070
976
060
420
950
523
473
,969
,721
,036
,900
,835
,461
,281
,742
2,
2,
3,
1,
MS
236,
070,
976,
060,
403,
-
-
994
721
036
900
472
—
—
.83
.00
.00
.00
.50
5
5
9
2
F
.54 NS
.13 NS
.85*
.63 NS
* = Significantly different at the 0.05 level.
NS = Not significantly different.
TABLE 86. COMBINED ANALYSIS OF CORN PLANT DRY WEIGHTS FOR 1976 AND 1977
Source
Replications (R) Within Year
Year (Y)
Treatment (T)
Y x T
R x T
Total
Correction Factor
Uncorrected Total
DF
6
1
1
1
6
15
1
16
SS
2,042,541.87
698,478.07
491,050.57
171,603.05
203,890.89
3,607,564.44
10,492,740.56
14,100,305.00
MS
340,423.65
698,478.07
491,050.57
171,603.05
33,981.82
F
10.02
20.55**
14.45**
5.05
** = Significantly different at the 0.01 level.
TABLE 87. COMBINED ANALYSIS OF CORN EAR FRESH WEIGHTS FOR 1976 AND 1977
Source
Replications (R) Within Year
Year (Y)
Treatment (T)
Y x T
R x T
Total
Correction Factor
Uncorrected Total
DF
6
1
1
1
6
15
1
16
3,
1,
1,
5,
17,
23,
SS
010,
150,
401,
39,
182,
784,
247,
032,
999.
156.
856.
800.
124.
937.
409.
346.
74
26
00
00
77
00
00
00
501
150
1,401
39
197
—
—
MS
,833.
,156.
,856.
,800.
,020.
-
-
29
26
00
00
80
2
1
7
< 1
F
.55
.00
.12*
.00
* = Significantly different at the 0.05 level.
125
-------
TABLE 88. COMBINED ANALYSIS OF CORN EAR DRY WEIGHTS FOR 1976 AND 1977
Source
Replications (R) Within Year
Year (Y)
Treatment (T)
Y x T
R x T
Total
Correction Factor
Uncorrected Total
DF
6
1
1
1
6
15
1
16
SS
223,139.72
25,074.73
163,296.81
268.96
143,710.82
555,491.02
925,155.42
1,480,646.44
MS
37,689.95
25,074.73
163,296.81
268.96
23,951.80
F
1.57
1.05
6.82*
<1.00
* = Significantly different at the 0.05 level.
TABLE 89. COMBINED ANALYSIS OF CORN EARS PER METER FOR 1976 AND 1977
Source
Replications (R) Within Year
Year (Y)
Treatment (T)
Y x T
R x T
Total
Correction Factor
Uncorrected Total
DF
6
1
1
1
6
15
1
16
SS
24.37
68.07
0.07
1.05
13.88
107.44
715.56
823.00
MS
4.06
68.07
0.07
1.05
2.31
—
—
F
1.76
29.25**
<1.00
<1.00
** =
Significantly different at the 0.01 level.
TABLE 90. COMBINED ANALYSIS OF CORN KERNEL ROWS PER EAR FOR 1976 AND 1977
Source
Replications (R) Within Year
Year (Y)
Treatment (T)
Y x T
R x T
Total
Correction Factor
Uncorrected Total
DF
6
1
1
1
6
15
1
16
SS
12.64
11.80
0.07
22.38
7.08
53.97
3,298.78
3,352.75
MS
2.11
11.80
0.07
22.38
1.18
— _
F
1.79
10.00**
<1.00
18.97**
** = Significantly different at the 0.01 level,
126
-------
TABLE 91. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON MEAN WEEKLY GROWTH (HEIGHT - CM)
OF LETTUCE, 1976
Date
Control
X
SE
**
Significantly different at 0.01 level.
Treated
X
SE
May 22, 1976
May 28, 1976
June 5, 1976
June 15, 1976
June 23, 1976
June 29, 1976
July 8, 1976
July 15, 1976
1.21
2.35
4.30
5.20
8.43
8.58
10.08
10.78
0.06
0.36
0.20
0.38
0.30
0.33
0.34
0.45
1.51**
3.84**
6.40**
9.40**
12.03**
13.83**
13.15**
13.30**
0.07
0.18
0.26
0.46
0.45
0.48
0.42
0.37
Combined analysis of pea data for 1976 and 1977 likewise showed no
significant difference due to treatment or year (Tables 105, 106, 107, 108,
and 109). Examination of the yield components showed that only the average
number of pea pods per plant showed a significant (1 percent level) variation
due to year (Table 108).
Chemical analysis of the pea plants showed only significantly (1 percent
level) greater amounts of potassium in the plants growing on the treated
site, but significantly higher zinc in plants on the control site (Table 133).
There was no significant difference in chemical composition within the pods
or seeds produced on the two sites,
Potatoes
In 1976 potatoes, Solanum tuberosum L., planted on the treated site
emerged on about the same day as on the control site. Weekly growth data are
shown in Table 110 and Figure 30. Plants on the treated site were signifi-
cantly (1 percent level) higher than those on the control site only on June 6,
1976, and June 15, 1976. There were no significant differences in the num-
bers of U.S. No. 1, 2, or 3 grade of potato tubers produced on the two sites
(Table 111) .
Chemical analysis of the plants showed significantly higher levels of
copper (5 percent level) and zinc (1 percent level) in plants from the control
site, but a significantly (1 percent level) greater accumulation of sodium
from the treated site (Table 133). Significantly (1 percent level) higher
amounts of sodium but less zinc accumulated in the tubers produced on the
treated site as compared to the tubers from the control site.
127
-------
TABLE 92. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON FRESH AND DRY WEIGHTS OF LETTUCE
PLANTS (10 PLANTS PER REPLICATION PER TREATMENT), 1976
Control
Treated
Blocks
I
II
III
IV
X
Fresh
Weight
(Grams/
Meter)
3119.41'
2148.77
2276.09
1494.56
2259.71
Dry
Weight
(Grams/
Meter)
96.20
72.07
66.61
84.40
79.82
Percent
Moisture
97
97
97
94
96
Fresh
Weight
(Grams/
Meter)
4639.96
5239.69
4792.17
3368.71
4510.13
Dry
Weight
(Grams/
Meter)
205.99
180.53
229.37
129.27
186.29
Percent
Moisture
96
97
95
96
96
**
NS
NS
**
NS
NS
** = Significantly different at 0.01 level.
NS = Not significantly different.
Radishes
In 1976 radishes, Brassica oleracea L., planted on the treated site
emerged on the same day as those planted on the control Site. The weekly
growth data, measured to the nearest centimeter, are shown in Table 112 and
Figure 31. During the first three weeks there were no significant differences
in the rate of growth of radishes on the two sites. After three weeks,
beginning on May 29, 1976, the growth rate of radishes on the treated site
was significantly (1 percent level) greater than those on the control site.
However, by June 23, 1976, the growth of radish plants on the control site
was essentially the same as on the treated site.
When the growth data of Table 112 are plotted as a function of time
(Figure 31), we get the standard growth curve (i.e., a rather slow increase
initially, followed by a rapidly increasing growth rate as photosynthesis
becomes established in the new leaves). After six weeks of growth (marketable
quality), entire plants were harvested and fresh and dry weights of shoots
and roots recorded (Table 113). Interestingly, no significant differences
were noted in either shoots or roots.
In 1977, radishes planted on the treated site emerged on about the same
day as did those planted on the control site. Weekly growth data are shown
in Table 114 and Figure 32. Initially, the radishes on the treated site grew
faster and were significantly (1 percent level) higher than those on the
control site. However, by harvest time there was no significant difference
in the height of radish plants on the two sites. This is reflected in the
fresh and dry weight and R/S ratio data (Table 115).
128
-------
TABLE 93. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON MEAN WEEKLY GROWTH (HEIGHT - CM)
OF LETTUCE, 1977
Control Treated
Date
X + SE X + SE
June 8, 1977
June 14, 1977
June 21, 1977
June 28, 1977
July 5, 1977
July 12, 1977
July 22, 1977
4.89
6.29
5.57
8.07
—
—
0.41
0.39
0.38
0.42
3.25
3.75
6.73
9.90**
13.10**
12.83**
14.40**
0.19
0.66
0.28
0.38
0.50
0.70
0.60
** =
Significantly different at the 0.01 level,
Combined analysis of radish data for 1976 and 1977 showed significant
(1 percent and 5 percent level) differences due to year (Tables 116, 117, 118,
119, 120, and 121).
Chemical analysis of radish tops grown on the control site had signifi-
cantly higher amounts of calcium (1 percent level), potassium (1 percent level),
nitrogen (5 percent level) , iron (5 percent level) , sodium (1 percent level), and zinc
(1 percent level) , whereas those grown on the treated site were significantly high-
er only in phosphorus (1 percent level) and sodium (5 percent level) (Table
133). The edible portion of radish, the root, exhibited significantly (1 per-
cent level) higher amounts of nitrogen in the roots grown on the control
site, but significantly higher quantities of phosphorus (1 percent level) and
sodium (1 percent level) in roots from plants grown on the treated site.
Tomato
In 1976 tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum L., plants (12-15 cm) were trans-
planted to the field. The plants on the control site were significantly
(1 percent level) larger than those on the treated site for the first two
weeks (Table 118 and Figure 33). However, after June 29, 1976, those growing
on the treated site were significantly (1 percent level) larger and remained
so throughout the season.
Chemical analysis showed that tomato fruits produced on the control site
had significantly higher amounts of nitrogen (1 percent level), and zinc
(5 percent level), whereas those produced on the treated site were signifi-
cantly higher in phosphorus (1 percent level) (Table 133).
129
-------
E
o
16
14
12
10
8
O
cr
CD
0
CONTROL
TREATED
8
7—_/
_/
14 21
JUNE
28
12
JULY
22
Figure 26. Influence of sewage effluent on the growth of lettuce, 1977,
130
-------
TABLE 94. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON FRESH AND DRY WEIGHTS OF LETTUCE
PLANTS (10 PLANTS PER REPLICATION PER TREATMENT), 1977
T,n , Fresh
Block TT . ,
Weight
(Grams/
Meter)
I 138
II 750
III 160
IV 349
X 349
*
Control
Dry
Weight
(Grams/
Meter )
7
51
7
22
22
A
%
Moisture
95
93
96
94
95
AA
*, ** = Significantly different at the 0
TABLE 95. COMBINED ANALYSIS OF LETTUCE
Source
Replications (R)
Year (Y)
Treatment (T)
Y x T
R x T
Total
Correction Factor
Uncorrected Total
Within Year
DF
6
1
1
1
6
15
1
16
4,
21,
13,
2,
42,
79,
121,
Fresh
Weight
(Grams/
Meter)
1783
2903
2074
372
1783
A
Treated
Dry
Weight
(Grams/
Meter)
267
450
311
41
267
A
7
/o
Moisture
85
85
85
89
86
AA
.05 and 0.01 levels, respectively.
FRESH WEIGHTS FOR 1976 AND 1977
SS
702,012.79
506,151.12 21
572,279.73 13
667,149.91
139,704.00
587,297.52
249,298.38
836,595.95
** = Significantly different at the 0.01 level.
TABLE 96. COMBINED ANALYSIS OF LETTUCE DRY WEIGHTS
Source
Replications (R)
Year (Y)
Treatment (T)
Y x T
R x T
Total
Correction Factor
Uncorrected Total
Within Year
DF
6
1
1
1
6
15
1
16
51
124
19
42
237
308
545
SS
,155.90 8
520.29
,037.80 124
,390.57 19
,506.72 7
,610.92
,058.30
,669.22
MS
783,668.80
,506,151.12
,572,279.73
667,149.91
356,617.33
FOR 1976 AND
MS
,525.98
520.29
,037.80
,390.57
,084.45
F
2.20
60.31**
38.06**
1.87
1977
F
<1.00
<1.00
11.83*
1.85
A =
Significantly different at the 0.05 level.
131
-------
TABLE 97. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON MEAN WEEKLY GROWTH (HEIGHT - CM)
OF ONIONS, 1976
Date
May 22, 1976
May 28, 1976
June 5, 1976
June 15, 1976
June 23, 1976
June 29, 1976
July 8, 1976
July 15, 1976
July 22, 1976
July 29, 1976
August 5, 1976
August 12, 1976
Control
X +
0.79
7.06
10.37
15.38
16.63
18.90
27.20
37.35
44.58
44.58
52.08
60.20
SE
0.11
0.29
0.31
0.46
0.76
0.63
0.96
0.90
0.99
1.82
1.18
1.88
Treated
X +
0.92
8.46**
12.53**
17.89**
22.28**
27.93**
34.60**
46.63**
55.33**
58.38**
61.93**
70.15**
SE
0.04
0.43
0.46
0.71
1.25
0.92
1.47
1.25
1.24
2.08
1.34
1.61
** =
Significantly different at 0.01 level.
100
TREATED
22 28 5 15 23 29 8 15 22 29 5 12
MAY JUNE JULY AUG
Figure 27. Influence of sewage effluent on the growth of onions, 1976.
132
-------
TABLE 98. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON FRESH AND DRY WEIGHTS, NUMBER OF
PLANTS PER METER, AND PERCENT MOISTURE IN ONIONS
Control Treated
Blocks
I
II
III
IV
X
(gms/meter)
Fresh Dry „ .
IT • t-^ n • i_,_ Moisture
Weight Weight
1432
740
454
1219
961
527
391
305
256
370
63
47
33
79
56
Plants/
Meter
18
18
10
9
14
(gms/meter) „
Fresh Dry ,, .
TT . , T, . , Moisture
Weight Weight
1643
1109
1024
661
1109
335
460
' 751
295
460
80
59
27
55
55
Plants/
Meter
10
7
6
5
10*
* =
Significantly different at 0.05 level.
Wheat
In 1976 wheat, Triticum vulgare L., planted on the treated site emerged
on about the same day as did those planted on the control site. Weekly
growth data are shown in Table 123 and Figure 34. During the first two weeks,
there was no significant difference in the rate of growth of wheat at the two
sites. Beginning on May 22, 1976, and continuing through June 23, 1976, the
growth r'ate of wheat on the treated site was significantly (1 percent level)
greater than those on the control site.
Entire plants were harvested and fresh and dry weights of plants and
seeds recorded (Table 124). There was no significant difference in fresh or
dry weight of plants grown on the two sites. Plants and seeds from the con-
trol site had a significantly (1 percent level and 5 percent level, respec-
tively) higher moisture content at harvest time than did those on the treated
site. This is reflected by the fact that plants growing on the treated site
were more mature at the time of harvest.
In wheat, the components of yield are the average number of plants per
row length, the average number of seeds per head and the average seed size
(weight). Although the same seeding rate existed for both sites, the treated
site had a significantly (1 percent level) higher number of plants per meter,
but significantly (1 percent level) fewer seeds per head (Table 125). Using
the mean values of the components of yield, we can calculate 161 gms of seed
per meter (1.1 Ibs/foot) for the control site and 203 gms per meter (1.4
Ibs/foot) for the treated site, for a difference of about 31 percent.
Weekly growth data for wheat in 1977 are shown in Table 126 and Figure
35. Generally, the variation in plant height was sporadic during the growing
season. For the most part there was no significant difference in the growth
of the plants on the two sites. This general uniformity is again emphasized
when the plants and seeds were harvested (Table 127). Examination of the
133
-------
TABLE 99. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON MEAN WEEKLY GROWTH (HEIGHT
CM) OF PEAS, 1976
Control
Date
May
May
May
May
June
June
June
June
July
8,
15,
22,
28,
5,
15
23
29
8,
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
, 1976
, 1976
, 1976
1976
1
2
7
9
22
38
39
41
49
X
.26
.75
.96
.11
.63
.93
.98
.28
.33
+
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
SE
.03
.11
.19
.28
.52
.74
.32
.49
.96
1
2
8
11
27
42
48
50
55
Treated
X +
.34
.99
.31
.14**
.33**
.15*
.55**
.65**
.58**
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
SE
.04
.13
.19
.41
.85
.39
.52
.32
.56
= Significantly different at 0.05 and 0.01 level, respectively.
components of yield showed that only the number of plants per meter was
significantly (5 percent level) higher on the treated site than on the control
site (Table 128). Although we used a different cultivar of wheat in 1977
than that used in 1976, when all of the data were combined, there was no
significant difference due to year, treatment or interactions of year times
treatment (Tables 129, 130, 131, and 132).
Chemical analysis of the wheat plants showed only a significantly (1 per-
cent level) higher amount of zinc in the plants grown on the control site
(Table 133). Significantly (5 percent level) greater quantities of potassium
and phosphorus accumulated in the heads produced on the treated site, whereas
those produced on the control site had significantly higher amounts of sodium
(1 percent level) and zinc (5 percent level). The chemical analysis of the
wheat heads included the glumes, lemna, and palea (chaff) as well as the
seeds. When 100 seeds were analyzed, only those produced on the control site
were significantly (1 percent level) higher in sodium and zinc.
Alfalfa Hay from Treated and Control Site
The first cutting of hay harvested from the treated site (not garden
plots) and the control site (not garden plots) produced a yield of 1970 and
2330 bales, respectively. The bales from the treated site contained more
grass and thus weighed about 27 kg (60 Ibs) each, whereas those on the
control site contained more alfalfa and weighed about 30 kg (66 Ibs) each.
The estimated yield from the treated site was about 53,572 kg (59 tons),
while that from the control site was about 69,916 kg (77 tons). No second
crop of hay was taken from the treated site because the "farmer pastured
cattle on the site, the rest of the summer.
134
-------
60
55
50
45
~ 40
o
— 35
I
\- 30
£
° 25
"
20
15
10
5
0
o
CONTROL
TREATED
8 15 22 28 5 15 23 29 8
MAY JUNE JULY
Figure 28. Influence of sewage effluent on the mean weekly growth (height
cm) of peas, 1976.
135
-------
TABLE 100. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON FRESH AND DRY WEIGHTS OF PLANT,
PODS, AND SEEDS OF PEAS (HARVESTED 1 M - ROW), 1976
Blocks
Control
Fresh Weight (gins/meter)
Dry Weight (gms/meter)
Plant
NS
Pod
Seed
Plant
Treated
NS
NS
NS
Pod
NS
Seed
I
II
III
IV
X
216.8
650.3
295.6
251.1
353.5
98.4
287.8
125.5
98.7
152.6
64.7
180.3
64.4
83.4
98.2
36.2
119.4
53.3
55.1
66.0
14.5
43.3
19.0
16.7
23.4
14.2
40.8
15.2
21.8
23.0
I
11%
III
IV
X
1468.9
359.7
318.6
819.5
742.7
446.9
176.6
92.6
333.8
267.5
417.5
155.3
34.6
191.8
199.8
156.3
68.4
49.2
145.6
104.9
60.9
23.8
12.5
48.3
36.4
98.2
35.6
6.2
41.7
45.4
NS
NS = Not significantly different.
Discussion
This investigation was designed to assess the long-term effects of
applying domestic sewage effluents to crop land, more specifically,, to
determine whether""heavy metals present in the effluent waters entered eco-
nomically important plants. If so, whether they accumulated in the edible
portion of the plant, in what part of the plant did they accumulate, did they
affect plant growth, flowering and seed development, and were the amounts
accumulated sufficiently high to be phytoxic and harmful to animals and
humans. To elucidate answers, economically important vegetable, forage, root,
and seed crops, were grown in field plots and irrigated weekly with sewage
effluents from the municipal treatment facility at Tooele, Utah.
Chemical analyses of the plant material indicated that heavy metals were
detected in the plants; however, with few exceptions, plants growing on the
control garden plot were higher in the heavy metals copper, iron, and zinc
(Table 133). Generally, the levels of heavy metals observed in the plants in
this study were lower than amounts reportedly harmful (Kirkham, 1975; Jones
et al., 1975; Cunningham et al., 1975a, 1975b, 1975c). The element most
consistently higher in plants grown on the treated garden site than in those
on the control garden site was sodium. Higher levels of sodium may have
resulted from detergents in the domestic sewage effluents (Judy, Martens and
136
-------
TABLE 101. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON YIELD COMPONENTS OF PEAS, NUMBER
OF PLANTS PER METER, NUMBER OF PODS PER PLANT, NUMBER OF SEEDS
PER POD, AVERAGE SEED WEIGHT, AND SEEDS PER METER, 1976
Control
Blocks
I
II
III
IV
X
Plants/
Meter
4.0
11.0
4.0
6.0
6.3
Pods/
Plant
9.5
12.3
13.3
9.8
11.2
Seeds/
Pod
5.8
6.2
6.5
6.2
6.2
Avg. Seed
Wt. (gm)
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.06
0.05
Seeds/
Meter
220.4
838.9
345.8
364.6
442.43
NS
Treated
I
II
III
IV
X
22.0
5.0
2.0
5.0
8.5
6.7
13.6
17.5
25.4
15.8
5.7
6.6
6.5
6.3
6.3
0.12
0.08
0.03
0.05
0.07
840.2
448.8
227.5
800.1
579.2
NS
NS
NS
**
NS
Significant at P < 0.01 level.
Not significantly different.
Kroontje, 1973). On occasion, higher amounts of nitrogen, phosphorus, and
potassium were noted in plants grown on the treated garden site.
Compared with the controls, plants grown on the treated garden site
generally exhibited greater growth. One of the criterion used in trying to
explain these differences was the ratio root weight/shoot weight (R/S). Al-
though the R/S ratio is similar in plants of a species under identical en-
vironmental conditions, it may be modified by reciprocal correlative
influences between the aerial parts of a plant and its roots. The kind and
magnitude of these correlative effects depend largely upon the environmental
conditions to which the plant is exposed during a given growth period. With
this in mind, R/S ratios were determined on carrots and radishes from the two
sites for 1976 and 1977. As noted in Table 73 for carrots and in Tables 113
and 115 for radishes, there was no significant differences in the R/S ratio
for either crop.
In forage crop studies, the leaf-stem (L/S) ratio is often used as a
basis of comparison of treatments. The leaves of all forage plants are
greatly superior to the stems in nutritive value (Sotola, 1933). Stems are
superior in composition, because they have higher percentages of the more
137
-------
TABLE 102. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON MEAN WEEKLY GROWTH (HEIGHT - CM)
OF PEAS, 1977
*
NS
Date
June 1, 1977
June 8, 1977
June 14, 1977
June 21, 1977
June 28, 1977
July 5, 1977
July 12, 1977
July 22, 1977
X
4.23
9.93
16.98
26.25
33.75
40.08
35.60
36.63
= Significantly different at the
= Not significantly
different.
Control
+ SE
0.21
0.41
0.84
0.68
1.09
1.12
1.34
1.21
0.05 level.
Treated
~X +
4.97*
10.18 NS
18.93*
27.65 NS
32.40 NS
40.03 NS
35.20 NS
37.78 NS
SE
0.26
0.46
0.47
0.84
0.94
1.25
1.40
1.35
1
^-
31
1-
40
35
30
25
20
PEAS
CONTROL
• TREATED
0
cr
e>
8 14 21 28 5 12 22
JUNE JULY
Figure 29. Influence of sewage effluent on the mean weekly growth (height
cm) of peas, 1977.
138
-------
TABLE 103. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON FRESH AND DRY WEIGHTS OF PLANTS
AND PERCENT MOISTURE OF PEAS, 1977
Blocks
I
II
III
IV
X
Fresh
Weight
(Grams/
Meter)
101
79
207
209
149
NS
Control
Dry
Weight
(Grams/
Meter)
35
24
70
56
46
NS
%
Moisture
65
69
66
73
68
NS
Fresh
Weight
(Grams/
Meter)
219
89
184
228
180
NS
Treated
Dry
Weight
(Grams/
Meter)
94
47
65
66
63
NS
%
Moisture
66
48
65
71
63
NS
KS = Not significantly different.
TABLE 104. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON YIELD COMPONENTS—NUMBER OF PLANTS
PER METER, NUMBER OF PODS PER PLANT, NUMBER OF SEEDS PER POD, AND
SEEDS PER METER, 1977
Control
Blocks
I
II
III
IV
"x
Plants/
Meter
3
5
2
6
4
NS
Pods/
Plant
5
6
6
2
5
NS
Seeds/
Pod
6
6
6
4
6
NS
Seeds/
Meter
90
180
72
48
120
NS
Plants/
Meter
6
6
4
6
6
NS
Treated
Pods/
Plant
4
2
9
4
5
NS
Seeds/
Pod
6
5
5
6
5
NS
Seeds/
Meter
144
60
180
144
150
NS
NS = Not significantly different,,
139
-------
TABLE 105. COMBINED ANALYSIS OF PEA PLANT FRESH WEIGHTS FOR 1976 AND 1977
Source
Replications (R) Within Year
Year (Y)
Treatment (T)
Y x T
R x T
Total
Correction Factor
Uncorrected Total
DF
6
1
1
1
6
15
1
16
SS
314,684.48
587,407.28
175,917.33
127,466.85
691,946.64
1,897,442.58
2,027,277.63
3,924,720.21
MS
52,447.41
587,407.28
175,917.33
127,466.85
115,324.44
F
<1.00
5.09
1.53
1.11
TABLE 106. COMBINED ANALYSIS OF PEA PLANT DRY WEIGHTS FOR 1976 AND 1977
Source
Replications (R) Within Year
Year (Y)
Treatment (T)
Y x T
R x T
Total
Correction Factor
Uncorrected Total
DF
6
1
1
1
6
15
1
16
SS
4,296.16
3,828.51
3,049.80
507.38
10,104.86
21,786.71
78,330.02
100,116.73
MS
716.03
3,828.51
3,049.80
507.38
1,684.14
F
<1.00
2.27
1.81
<1.00
Table 107. COMBINED ANALYSIS OF NUMBER OF PEA PLANTS PER METER FOR 1976 AND
1977
Source
Replications (R) Within Year
Year (Y)
Treatment (T)
Y x T
R x T
Total
Correction Factor
DF
6
1
1
1
6
15
1
SS
119.87
27.57
14.07
0.55
174.88
336.94
588.06
MS
19.98
27.57
14.07
0.55
29.15
F
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
Uncorrected Total 16 925.00
140
-------
TABLE 108. COMBINED ANALYSIS OF NUMBER OF PEA PODS PER PLANT FOR 1976 AND
1977
Source DF SS MS F
Replications (R) Within Year
Year (Y)
Treatment (T)
Y x T
R x T
Total
Correction Factor
6
1
1
1
6
15
1
121.16
302.76
21.63
20.24
106.13
571.92
1,343.22
20.19
302.76
21.63
20.24
17.69
1.14
17.11**
1.22
1.14
Uncorrected Total 16 1,915.14
** =
Significantly different at the 0.01 level,
TABLE 109. COMBINED ANALYSIS OF NUMBER OF PEA SEEDS PER POD FOR 1976 AND
1977
Source DF SS MS
Replications (R) Within Year
Year (Y)
Treatment (T)
Y x T
R x T
Total
Correction Factor
6
1
1
1
6
15
1
2.58
2.18
0.05
0.18
2.23
7.22
548.73
0.43
2.18
0.05
0.18
0.37
—
—
1.16
5.88
<1.00
<1.00
Uncorrected Total 16 555.95
141
-------
TABLE 110. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON MEAN WEEKLY GROWTH (HEIGHT - CM)
OF POTATOES, 1976
£
o
Control
Treated
Date
X
SE
X
SE
May 22, 1976
May 28, 1976
June 5, 1976
June 15, 1976
June 23, 1976
June 29, 1976
July 8, 1976
July 15, 1976
3.65
4.96
15.43
25.45
33.88
26.68
31.30
36.55
0.17
0.29
0.52
0.69
0.88
0.90
1.19
1.74
4.22*
5.64
18.75**
34.20**
34.30
27.75
30.08
32.90
0.12
0.30
0.79
0.77
1.08
0.65
0.83
1.14
** = Significantly different at 0.05 and 0.01 level, respectively.
60 r—
55
50
45
40
~ 35
n:
^ 30
O
(T 25
O
20
15
10
5
0
POTATOES
CONTROL
TREATED
29
22 28 5 15 23
MAY JUNE
Figure 30. Influence of sewage effluent on the growth of potatoes.
142
8 15
JULY
-------
TABLE 111. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON THE NUMBER OF U.S. No. 1, 2, AND
3 GRADE OF POTATOES (TOTAL FOR FIVE PLANTS)
I
II
III
IV
X
No. 1
17
29
17
5
17
Control
No. 2
4
4
10
23
8
No. 3
9
10
19
15
13
No. 1
29
19
5
15
17
Treated
No. 2 '
12
12
12
10
12
No. 3
9
16
11
9
11
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS = Not significantly different.
valuable constituents and a lower percentage of the less valuable fiber. A
given weight of leaves is almost three and one-half times as efficient as the
same weight of stems in supplying digestible protein, and the leaves are much
less bulky. In this study, higher L/S ratios were observed in the plants
from the control garden site for both years.
Components of yield are, in order of their development, the average
number of plants per row length, the number of seed per plant, and seed size
(weight). As such, the components of yield offer a good basis of comparison
between treatments. Interestingly, reductions in numbers of seeds per plant
were accompanied by an increase in seed weight as in the case of beans, peas,
and wheat. This may represent yield component compensation (Adams, 1967).
Also in wheat, the same seeding rate was used, yet the treated garden site
had a significantly higher number of plants per meter, but significantly
fewer seeds per head. The increased number of plants per meter probably is
a response to the increased nutritional value of the effluent, which apparent-
ly stimulated tillering.
IMPLICATIONS FOR LONG TERM EFFECTS
Although the treated municipal effluent applied to the treated garden
site was of a significantly poorer quality than the normal irrigation water
applied to the control garden site, there appears to be no significant long
term harmful effects of using the treated effluent. In general, the plants
grown with the treated municipal effluent exhibited greater growth than
plants grown with the normal irrigation water. This increase in growth is
probably due to the higher nutrient concentrations (.i.e., nitrogen, phos-
phorus, etc.) in the wastewater compared to the normal irrigation water.
143
-------
TABLE 112. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON THE MEAN WEEKLY GROWTH (CM) OF
RADISH, 1976
Date
May 8, 1976
May 15, 1976
May 22, 1976
May 28, 1976
June 5, 1976
June 15, 1976
June 23, 1976
Control
X +
0.12
0.65
1.87
10.15
15.25
21.80
35.23
SE
0.02
0.03
0.08
0.33
0.37
0.57
1.34
Treated
X +
0.11 NS
0.73 NS
1.76 NS
11.65**
17.20**
24.28*
35.48 NS
SE
0.03
0.04
0.08
0.17
0.64
0.91
2.12
*, ** = Significantly different at the 0.05 and 0.01 levels, respectively.
NS = Not significant different.
35
I 30
o
~ 25
X
I- 20
O
cr
CD
15
10
5
0
CONTROL
TREATED
8
15 22
MAY
28
15
JUNE
23
Figure 31. Influence of sewage effluent on mean weekly growth (cm) of radish
plants, 1976.
144
-------
TABLE 113. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON THE FRESH AND DRY WEIGHTS (CMS)
AND THE ROOT/SHOOT (R/S) RATIO OF RADISH, 1976
Control
Blocks
Fresh Weight (Grams/Meter)
Dry Weight (Grams/Meter)
I
II
III
IV
X
Shoots
1108
781
722
564
794
Roots
449
493
235
155
333
R/S
Ratio
0.41
0.63
0.33
0.27
0.42
Shoots
63
52
54
47
54
Roots
34
38
22
14
27
R/S
Ratio
0.54
0.73
0.41
0.30
0.50
Treated
I
II
III
IV
X
1391
517
943
746
899
596
108
403
362
367
0.43
0.21
0.43
0.49
0.41
84
44
67
73
67
45
11
39
34
32
0.54
0.25
0.58
0.47
0.48
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS = Not significantly different.
In general, the plants grown on the control garden plots had significant-
ly higher values of heavy metals (copper, iron, zinc) than plants grown with
the treated wastewater even though, in general, the wastewater contained
higher concentrations of heavy metals. However, none of the heavy metals
contents of the plants in this study were above reported harmful limits. In
addition, the concentrations of heavy metals in the wastewater and the normal
irrigation water were below recommended limits established for irrigation
water quality.
Plants grown with the treated municipal effluent were higher in sodium
than plants grown with the normal irrigation water. This is probably due to
the greater sodium concentration of the treated municipal effluent (i.e.,
129 mg/1 vs. 19 mg/1).
Based on the results of this study there appears to be little significant
difference between crops grown on land which has received treated municipal
effluent for 20 years compared to plants grown on land which has received
normal irrigation water for a similar period of time.
145
-------
TABLE 114. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON THE MEAN WEEKLY GROWTH (CM) OF
RADISH, 1977
Date
Control Treated
X + SE X + SE
June 1, 1977 1,50 0.00 1.94** 0.07
June 8, 1977 5.03 0.25 6.38** 0.28
June 14, 1977 7.03 0.28 9.50** 0.23
June 21, 1977 16.70 0.84 21.80** 0.71
June 28, 1977 46.65 1.48 49.70 NS 1.66
July 5, 1977 58.80 1.56 60.73 NS 1.40
** = Significantly different at the 0.01 level.
60
55
50
45
*£ 40
o
35
X
h- 30
o 2g
CD
2.Q
15
10
5
0
~~ RADISH ft
— POMTROI i A-
— _____ TREATED //
*"/
— 7
~~ //
//
~ //
i
//
^J/
^^^ \ i i i i
1 8 14 21 28 5
JUNE JULY
Figure 32. Influence of sewage effluent on mean weekly growth (cm) of radish
plants, 1977.
146
-------
TABLE 115. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON THE FRESH AND DRY WEIGHTS AND THE
ROOT/SHOOT (R/S) RATIO OF RADISH, 1977
Blocks
Control
Fresh Weight (Grams/Meter)
Dry Weight (Grams/Meter)
I
II
III
IV
X
Shoots
198
632
532
486
462
Roots
41
56
43
62
51
R/S
Ratio
0.21
0.09
0.08
0.13
0.11
Shoots
51
187
136
133
127
Roots
9
15
8
13
11
R/S
Ratio
0.18
0.08
0.06
0.09
0.10
NS
NS
Treated
I
II
III
IV
X
440
716
284
499
485
29
70
26
40
42
0.07
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.09
96
315
29
72
128
8
15
9
10
10
0.08
0.05
0.32
0.13
0.15
NS
NS
NS
NS = Not significantly different.
NS
147
-------
TABLE 116. COMBINED ANALYSIS OF RADISH TOPS FRESH WEIGHTS FOR 1976 AND 1977
Source
Replications (R) Within Year
Year (Y)
Treatment (T)
Y x T
R x T
Total
Correction Factor
Uncorrected Total
DF
6
1
1
1
6
15
1
16
SS
614, 181.04
557,252.39
16,505.82
7,773.55
155,339.02
1,351,051.83
6,966,590.73
8,317,642.55
MS
102,363.51
557,252.39
16,505.82
7,773.55
25,889.84
F
3.95
21.52**
<1.00
<1.00
** = Significantly different at the 0.01 level.
TABLE 117. COMBINED ANALYSIS OF RADISH TOPS DRY WEIGHTS FOR 1976 AND 1977
Source
Replications (R) Within Year
Year (Y)
Treatment (T)
Y x T
R x T
Total
Correction Factor
Uncorrected Total
DF
6
1
1
1
6
15
1
16
SS
42,243.93
17,937.92
190.92
137.30
17,117.42
77,627.47
141,050.95
218,678.42
MS
7,040.66
17,937.92
190.92
137.30
2,852.90
F
2.47
6.29*
<1.00
<1.00
A =
Significantly different at the 0.05 level.
Table 118. COMBINED ANALYSIS OF RADISH ROOTS FRESH WEIGHTS FOR 1976 AND 1977
Source
Replications (R) Within Year
Year (Y)
Treatment (T)
Y x T
R x T
Total
Correction Factor
Uncorrected Total
DF
6
1
1
1
6
15
1
16
SS
63,052.10
378,747.93
1,067.66
2,598.45
117,217.61
562,683.75
639,400.14
1,202,083.89
MS
10,508.68
378,747.93
1,067.66
2,598.45
19,536.27
F
<1.00
19.39**
<1.00
<1.00
** = Significantly different at the 0.01 level.
148
-------
TABLE 119. COMBINED ANALYSIS OF RADISH ROOTS DRY WEIGHTS FOR 1976 AND 1977
Source
Replications (R) Within Year
Year (Y)
Treatment (T)
Y x T
R x T
Total
Correction Factor
Uncorrected Total
DF
6
1
1
1
6
15
1
16
SS
372.41
1,420.34
19.03
38.60
690.91
2,541.69
6,502.41
9,044.10
MS
62.07
1,420.34
19.03
38.60
115.15
_-__
F
<1.00
12.33
<1.00
<1.00
A =
Significantly different at the 0.05 level,
TABLE 120. COMBINED ANALYSIS OF FRESH WEIGHTS OF RADISH ROOT/SHOOT (R/S)
RATIOS FOR 1976 AND 1977
Source
Replications (R) Within Year
Year (Y)
Treatment (T)
Y x T
R x T
Total
Correction Factor
Uncorrected Total
DF
6
1
1
1
6
15
1
16
SS
0.00
0.34
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.47
1.03
1.50
MS F
0.00
0.34 17.00**
0.00
0.00
0.02
—
—
= Significantly different at the 0.01 level,
TABLE 121. COMBINED ANALYSIS OF DRY WEIGHTS OF RADISH ROOT/SHOOT (R/S)
RATIOS FOR 1976 AND 1977
Source
Replications (R) Within Year
Year (Y)
Treatment (T)
Y x T
R x T
Total
Correction Factor
Uncorrected Total
DF
6
1
1
1
6
15
1
16
SS
0.05
0.49
0.00
0.02
0.15
0.71
1.45
2.16
MS
0.01
0.49
0.00
0.02
0.03
—
—
F
<1.00
16.33**
o.oo
<1.00
Significantly different at the 0.01 level.
149
-------
TABLE 122. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON THE MEAN WEEKLY GROWTH (CM) OF
TOMATO, 1976
Date
May 28, 1976
June 5, 1976
June 15, 1976
June 23, 1976
June 29, 1976
July 8, 1976
July 15, 1976
July 22, 1976
July 29, 1976
August 5, 1976
August 12, 1976
August 19, 1976
August 25, 1976
Control
"x +
18.85
23.03
21.75
26.93
24.03
28.93
31.58
40.73
53.53
59.18
71.13
72.05
83.85
SE
0.67
0.78
0.75
0.93
1.21
1.37
1.74
1.77
1.75
1.85
1.98
2.17
2.13
Treated
"X ±
16.60*
19.33**
20.48
26.43
26.98*
36.68**
48.10**
53.30**
75.00**
77.83**
81.70**
90.63**
91.58**
SE
0.63
0.84
1.18
0.76
0.79
1.17
1.05
1.47
1.90
1.94
1.95
2.24
2.00
* ** =
Significantly different at 0.05 and 0.01 levels, respectively.
TABLE 123. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON THE MEAN WEEKLY GROWTH (HEIGHT
CM) OF WHEAT, 1976
Control
X +
May
May
May
May
June
June
June
June
July
July
8,
15,
22,
28,
5,
15
23
29
8,
15
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
, 1976
, 1976
, 1976
1976
, 1976
3
12
18
23
33
44
53
54
60
63
.9
.3
.3
.0
.2
.6
.5
.9
.0
.7
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
SE
.05
.36
.45
.63
.06
.89
.20
.98
.08
.35
Treated
X +
3
12
20
28
44
53
66
56
60
63
.9
.3
.6**
.9**
.5**
.8**
.4**
.4
.1
.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
SE
.06
.33
.35
.52
.77
.91
.92
.61
.01
.94
** =
Significantly different at the 0.01 level,
150
-------
h-
O
o:
100
90
80
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
TOMATO
CONTROL
TREATED
28 5 15 23 29 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 25
MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST
Figure 33. Influence of sewage effluent on the mean weekly growth (height
cm) of tomato, 1976.
151
-------
E
o
I
\-
£
o
cr
CD
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
8
CONTROL
TREATED
15 22
MAY
28
15 23
JUNE
29
8 15
JULY
Figure 34. Influence of sewage effluent on the growth (cm) of wheat, 1976.
152
-------
TABLE 124. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON FRESH AND DRY WEIGHTS (CMS) OF
WHEAT PLANTS AND SEED AND PERCENT MOISTURE (HARVESTED 1 METER
OF ROW), 1976
Blocks
I
II
III
IV
X
I
II
III
IV
X
Fresh Weight
(Grams/Meter)
Plant
201
173
453
733
390
304
404
184
225
279
NS
Seed
276
201
405
470
338
368
106
227
256
239
NS
Control
Dry Weight
(Grams/Meter)
Plant
66
51
174
152
110
Treated
170
140
86
95
73
NS
Seed
150
94
117
212
144
164
93
188
200
161
NS
% Moisture
Plant
67
71
62
79
70
44
65
53
58
55
**
Seed
46
53
71
55
56
55
13
17
22
27
*
*, ** = Significantly different at the 0.05 and 0.01 levels, respectively.
NS = Not significantly different.
TABLE 125. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON YIELD COMPONENTS--AVERAGE NUMBER
OF PLANTS PER METER, NUMBER OF SEEDS PER HEAD. AND AVERAGE SEED
WEIGHT OF WHEAT, 1976
Control
Blocks
Plants/ Seeds/
Meter
I 107
II 75
III 140
IV 156
X 120
**
** = Significant
NS = Not signifi
Head
59
51
39
41
48
**
at P
cantl}
Ave.
Seed
Wt.
(gms)
0.029
0.030
0.027
0.027
0.028
NS
Seeds/
Meter
6,313
3,825
5,460
6,396
5,499
NS
Plants/
Meter
154
138
231
200
181
**
Treated
Seeds/
Head
32
25
31
51
35
**
Ave .
Seed
Wt.
(gms)
0.031
0.032
0.035
0.031
0.032
NS
Seeds/
Meter
4,928
3,450
7,161
10,200
6,435
NS
< 0.01 level.
j different.
153
-------
TABLE 126. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON THE MEAN WEEKLY GROWTH (HEIGHT
CM) OF WHEAT, 1977
Control
Treated
Date
X
SE
X
SE
June 1, 1977
June 8, 1977
June 14, 1977
June 21, 1977
June 28, 1977
July 5, 1977
July 12, 1977
July 22, 1977
July 29, 1977
August 4, 1977
August 12, 1977
11.40
16.45
21.25
34.38
45.98
56.43
51.78
47.55
57.53
59.63
57.95
0.09
0.35
0.43
0.56
0.86
0.78
0.83
0.91
0.73
0.81
0.84
10.05**
18.13**
21.20 NS
32.15**
45.10 NS
54.90 NS
53.78 NS
60.93**
60.58 NS
62.43 NS
60.08 NS
0.38
0.13
0.41
0.51
0.83
1.01
1.71
1.55
1.76
1.89
1.70
Significantly different at the 0.01 level
CONTROL
TREATED
21
28
5
29
4
12
Figure 35,
12 22
JUNE JULY AUGUST
Influence of sewage effluent on the growth (cm) of wheat, 1977.
154
-------
TABLE 127. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON FRESH AND DRY WEIGHTS (CMS) OF
WHEAT PLANTS AND SEED AND PERCENT MOISTURE (HARVESTED 1 METER
OF ROW), 1977
Control
Blocks
Fresh Weight
(Grams/Meter)
Dry Weight
(Grams/Meter)
% Moisture
Plant
Seed
Plant
Seed
Plant
Seed
I
II
III
IV
X
464
169
243
142
255
180
77
88
37
95
156
50
83
61
87
148
63
75
28
78
66
70
66
57
65
18
17
15
24
19
Treated
I
II
III
IV
X
921
331
788
107
536
320
127
188
23
165
289
135
229
48
175
248
105
140
19
128
69
59
71
55
64
22
18
26
19
21
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS = Not significantly different.
TABLE 128. INFLUENCE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT ON YIELD COMPONENTS—NUMBER OF PLANTS
PER METER, NUMBER OF SEEDS PER HEAD, AVERAGE SEED WEIGHT, AND
SEEDS PER METER, 1977
Control
Treated
Blocks
I
II
III
IV
X
Plants/
Meter
157
105
129
33
106
Seeds/
Head
25
20
18
27
22
Seed
Wl-
(gms)
0.024
0.022
0.024
0.027
0.024
Seeds/
Meter
3,925
2,100
2,322
891
2,332
Plants/
Meter
225
137
192
46
150
Seeds/
Head
33
25
25
14
24
Seed
Wt
(gms)
0.003
0.026
0.033
0.015
0.026
Seeds/
Meter
7,425
3,425
4,800
644
3,600
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
* = Significantly different at 0.05 level,
NS = Not significantly different.
155
-------
TABLE 129. COMBINED ANALYSIS OF WHEAT PLANTS FRESH WEIGHTS FOR 1976 AND 1977
Source
Replications (R) Within Year
Year (Y)
Treatment (T)
Y x T
R x T
Total
Correction Factor
Uncorrected Total
TABLE 130. COMBINED ANALYSIS
Source
Replications (R) Within Year
Year (Y)
Treatment (T)
Y x T
R x T
Total
Correction Factor
Uncorrected Total
DF
6
1
1
1
6
15
1 2,
16 3,
OF WHEAT
DF
6
1
1
1
6
15
1
16
SS
454,306.14
14,792.64
29,249.55
154,075.87
280,292.87
932,717.07
131,965.02
064,682.09
PLANTS DRY
SS
119,911.82
6,304.37
2,495.00
15,762.81
92,455.22
236,930.20
198,470.25
435,400.45
MS
75,717.69
14,792.64
29,249.55
154,075.87
46,715.48
.
WEIGHTS FOR 1976
MS
19,985.30
6,304.37
2,495.00
15,762.81
15,409.37
F
1.62
<1.00
<1.00
3.30
AND 1977
F
1.30
<1.00
<1.00
1.02
TABLE 131. COMBINED ANALYSIS OF FRESH WEIGHTS OF 100 WHEAT SEEDS FOR 1976
AND 1977
Source
Replications (R) Within Year
Year (Y)
Treatment (T)
Y x T
R x T
Total
Correction Factor
Uncorrected Total
DF
6
1
1
1
6
15
1
16
SS
8.66
9.15
0.54
0.01
12.88
31.23
248.85
280.08
MS
1.44
9.15
0.54
0.01
2.15
|
—
F
<1.00
4.25
<1.00
<1.00
156
-------
TABLE 132. COMBINED ANALYSIS OF DRY WEIGHTS OF 100 WHEAT SEEDS FOR 1976 AND
1977
Source DF SS MS F
Replications (R) Within Year
Year (Y)
Treatment (T)
Y x T
R x T
Total
Correction Factor
6
1
1
1
6
15
1
0.75
1.02
0.33
0.04
1.46
3.60
122.32
0.13
1.02
0.33
0.04
0.24
—
<1.00
4.26
1.36
<1.00
Uncorrected Total 16 125.92
157
-------
TABLE 133. AVERAGE MEAN VALUE IN PERCENT AND PPM (PARTS PER MILLION) FOR CALCIUM (Ca), POTASSIUM (K),
NITROGEN (N), PHOSPHORUS (P), CADMIUM (Cd) , COPPER (Cu), IRON (Fe), SODIUM (Na), LEAD (Pb),
AND ZINC (Zn), RESPECTIVELY FOR THE VARIOUS PLANTS TESTED
Ln
00
Plant
Species
Alfalfa
Beans
Carrots
Corn
ac
* ** =
Plant
Part
Stems
1st Har.
Steins
2nd Har.
Leaves
1st Har.
Leaves
2nd Har.
Tops
Pods
Seeds
Tops
Roots
Plant
control,
Signifies
Tre
C
T
C
T
C
T
C
T
C
T
C
T
C
T
C
T
C
T
C
T
T =
intly
Ca
a 1.08
1.03
1.28
1.10
2.25
2.55
2.98
3.04
3.61
3.34
0.55
0.65*
0.20
0.22
3.31
3.45
0.24
0.29
0.27
0.26
treated or
different
Percent
K N
2.58 2.05
2.73 1.82
2.28 1.63
1.98 1.66
2.15 4.54
2.30 4.55
1.93 3.86
2.55** 4.33
2.35 3.18
2.80 2.95
2.55 2.57
4.23** 2.70
2.20 4.84
2.70 4.81
2.62 2.35
2.18 2.55
2.78 1.24
3.28** 1.32
2.28 1.13
2.13** 0.99
effluent site
at 0.05 or 0.
PPM
P
0.16
0.24
0.11
0.19
0.23
0.31
0.21
0.28
0.21
0.52
0.23
0.47**
0.64
0.65
0.15
0.27*
0.23
0.41
0.09
0.38
•
0 1 levels ,
Cd
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Cu
9.25
9.50
8.00
9.50*
11.50
9.25**
10.75
8.00**
11.00
11.75
10.00
10.00
14.00
13.25
8.00
11.00
11.50
8.75**
8.75
8.50
Fe
82.5
35.0**
277.50
72.50*
137.50
112.50*
505.00
240.00
317.50
502.50
85.00
87.50
110.00
167.50
387.50
567.50
95.00
150.00
85.00
167.50
Na
290
600*
525
1195*
287.50
512.50**
660.00
1175.00
292.50
475.00*
130.00
215.00
53.50
80.25*
2400.00
6712.00**
1847.50
4475.00*
180.00
121.75*
Pb
40
40T
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
Zn
30.00
14.75**
39.25
11.00**
38.00
21.00**
35.25
34.25
36.50
19.75**
27.00
15.25**
69.25
43.00**
76.00
39.75**
33.25
19.50**
66.50
30.75**
(continued)
, respectively.
-------
TABLE 133. (CONTINUED)
Ln
Plant
Species
Corn
(cont. )
Lettuce
Onions
Peas
Potatoes
Radish
Plant
Part
Seeds
Cobs
Tops
Bulbs
Plants
Pods
Seeds
Plants
Tubers
Tops
Roots
Treat
C
T
C
T
C
T
C
T
C
T
C
T
C
T
C
T
C
T
C
T
C
T
C
T
Percent
Ca
0.07
0.05
0.08
0.05
1.63
1.84
1.94
1.94
0.91
0.81
2.32
2.12
0.66
0.86
0.13
0.16
3.10
3.52
0.07
0.07
3.39
2.52*
0.52
0,44
K
1.73
1.40
1.30
1.00
6.63
6.50
2.98
2.88
1.20
1.08
1.88
2.28**
1.18
1.50
1.40
1.43
2.73
2.55
2.00
1.84
3.10
2.35*
3.63
3.13
N
3.52
2.52**
1.89
0.77
3.16
3.10
2.69
2.05**
1.63
0.90**
2.70
2.50
2.60
2.32
4.38
3.58
1.85
1.27
2.15
2.63
3.89
2.72**
1.83
1.25**
P
0.40
0.48
0.22
0.21
0.31
0.45**
0.19
0.28
0.23
0.24
0.18
0.29
0.22
0.34
0.47
0.54
0.12
0.17
0.26
0.33
0.23
0.37*
0.17
0.42**
Cd
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Cu
9.50
8.75*
15.00
8.00
18.50
12.50
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
17.75
20.00
25.50
37.75
13.50*
12.00
11.75
13.25
20.25
11.50
12.50
PPM
Fe
35.00
27.50
30.00
20.00
757.50
615.00
205.00
211.75
57.50
130.00*
125.00
197.50
62.50
47.50
62.50
140.00
1775.00
3225.00
67.50
72.50
242.50
220.00*
190.00
130.00
Na
28.00
21.50
15.00
16.00
2400.00
7475.00**
1100.00
2700.00
477.50
1280.00**
575.00
865.00
167.50
202.50
79.00
42.25
940.00
1975.00**
73.25
307.50**
3300.00
7850.00**
3200.00
6200.00*
Pb
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
Zn
56.50
42.25**
58.00
32.00*
>71.75
35.25*
25.75
21.00
53.50
27.25**
94.25
39.50**
37.50
26.50
73.75
59.00
160.00
32.00**
38.75
24.25**
77.75
50.75**
53.00
31.75
= Significantly different at 0.05 or 0.01 levels, respectively.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 133. (CONTINUED*
Plants
Species
Wheat
Tomato
Alfalfa
Plant
Part
Plants
Heads
Seeds
(100)
Fruit
Hay
Treat
C
T
C
T
C
T
C
T
C
T
Percent
Ca
0.43
0.35
0.27
0.26
0.09
0.09
0.13
0.17
1.18
2.50
K
2.73
2.48
0.83
0.88*
0.33
0.36
4.10
4.53
2.20
1.20
N
1.04
0.77
1.10
1.33
3.04
2.74
3.19
2.09**
2.20
2.52
P
0.06
0.13
0.09
0.22*
0.40
0.45
0.33
0.56**
0.19
0.12
Cd
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Cu
9.50
8.75
8.75
8.25
8.00
8.00
24.50
23.00
8.00
8.00
PPM
Fe
300.00
135.00
140.00
275.00
45.00
40.00
115.00
135.00
60.00
90.00
Na
430.00
745.00
415.00
277.50*
45.50
24.00**
305.00
532.00
240.00
380.00
Pb
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
Zn
47.50
22.75**
39.75
19.75**
74.50
53.75**
40.25
28.50*
31.00
31.00
*, ** = Significantly different at 0.05 or 0.01 levels, respectively.
-------
REFERENCES
Adams, M. W. 1967- Basis of yield component compensation in crop plants with
special reference to the field bean, Phaseolus vulgaris. Crop Sci. 7:
505-510.
Annual Book of ASTM Standards. 1975. Natural building stones; soil and rock;
peats, mosses, and humus. American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, Pa., Part 19. p. 473.
APHA, AWWA, and WPCF. 1975. Standard methods for the examination of water
and wastewater. 14th Ed., American Public Health Association, Washington,
B.C.
Bazzaz, F. A., G. L. Rolfe, and P. Windle. 1974. Differing sensitivity of
corn and soybean photosynthesis and transpiration to lead contamination.
J. Environ. Qual. 3:156-158.
Bazzaz, F. A., R. W. Carlson, and G. L. Rolfe. 1975. Inhibition of corn and
sunflower photosynthesis by lead. Physiol. Plant 34:326-329.
Bittell, J. E., D. E. Koeppe, and R. J. Miller. 1974. Sorption of heavy
metal cations by corn mitochondria and the effects on electron and energy
transfer reactions. Physiol. Plant 30:226-230.
Berrow, M. L., and J. Webber. 1972. Trace elements in sewage sludge. J.
Science Food Agric. 23:93-100.
Black, C. A., D. D. Evans, J. L. White, L. E. Ensminger, and F. E. Clark.
1965. Methods of soil analysis. American Society of Agronomy, Madison,
Wise.
Bower, C. A., and L. V. Wilcox. 1965. Soluble Salts, Chapt. 62. In: "Meth-
ods of Soil Analysis," C. A. Black, D. D. Evans, J. L. White, L. E.
Ensminger, and F. E. Clark, eds., American Society of Agronomy, Madison,
Wise. pp. 933-951.
Bradford, G. R., A. L. Page, L. J. Lund, and W. Olmstead. 1975. Trace
element concentrations of sewage treatment plant effluents and sludges:
Their interactions with soils and uptake by plants. J. Environ. Qual.
4:123-127.
Bremner, J. M. 1965a. Total Nitrogen, Chapt. 83. In: "Methods of Soil
Analysis," C. A. Black, D. D. Evans, J, L. White, L. E. Ensminger, and
F. E. Clark, eds., American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wise. pp. 1149-
1178.
161
-------
Bremner, J. M. 1965b. Inorganic Forms of Nitrogen, Chapt. 84. In: "Methods
of Soil Analysis," C, A. Black, D. D. Evans, J. L. White, L. E. Ensminger,
and F. E. Clark, eds., American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wise. pp.
1179-1237.
Carlson, R. W., F. A. Bazzaz, and G. L. Rolfe. 1975. The effect of heavy
metals on plants, II. Net photosynthesis and transpiration of whole
corn and sunflower plants treated with Pb, Cd, Ni, and Tl. Environ. Res.
10:113-120.
Chaney, R. L. 1973. Crop and food chain effects of toxic elements in sludges
and effluents. In: Recycling municipal sludges and effluents on land.
National Assoc. of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, Washington,
B.C. pp. 129-141.
Chapman, H. D., and P. F. Pratt. 1961. Method of analysis for soils, plants,
and waters. Agr. Publ., Univ, of Calif., Riverside.
Cropper, J. B. 1969. Greenhouse studies on nutrient uptake and growth of
corn on sludge-treated soils. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana,
111.
Cunningham, J. D. , D. R. Kenney, and J. A. Ryan. 1975a. Yield and metal
composition of corn and rye grown on sewage sludge-amended soil. J.
Environ. Qual. 4:448-454.
Cunningham, J. D., J. A. Ryan, and D. R. Kenney. 1975b. Phytotoxicity in and
metal uptake from soil treated with metal-amended sewage sludge. J.
Environ. Qual. 4:455-460.
Cunningham, J. D., B. R. Kenney, and J. A. Ryan. 1975c, Phytotoxicity and
uptake of metals added to soils as inorganic salts or in sewage sludge.
J. Environ. Qual. 4:460-462.
Day, A. D., and R. M. Kirkpatrick. 1973. Effects of treated municipal waste-
water on oat forage and grain. J- Environ. Qual. 2:282-284.
EPA. 1974. Methods for chemical analysis of water and wastes. EPA-625-16-
74-003, Office of Technology Transfer, Washington, B.C.
EPA. 1977- Analysis of pesticide residues in human and environmental samples.
Ed. by J. F. Thompson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health
Affects Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
EPA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. 1977. Process
design manual for land treatment of municipal wastewater. EPA 625/1-77-
008, Technology Transfer, Washington, B.C.
Giordano, P. M., J. J. Mortvedt, and B. A. Mays. 1975. Effect of municipal
wastes on crop yields and uptake of heavy metals. J. Environ. Qual. 4:
394-399.
16?
-------
Haghiri, F. 1974. Plant uptake of cadmium as influenced by cation exchange
capacity, organic matter, zinc, and soil temperature. J. Environ. Qual.
3:180-182.
Halstead, R. L., B. J. Finn, and A. J. Maclean. 1969. Extractability of
nickel added to soils and its concentration in plants. Can. J. Soil Sci.
49:335-342.
Jones, J. B., Jr., and R. A. Isaac. 1969. Comparative elemental analysis of
plant tissue by spark emission and atomic absorption spectroscopy. Agron.
Jour. 61:393-394.
Jones, R. L., T. D. Hinesly, E. L. Ziegler, and J. J. Tyler. 1975. Cadmium
and zinc contents of corn leaf and grain produced by sludge-amended soil.
J. Environ. Qual. 4:509-514.
Judy, J. N., D. C. Martens, and W. Kroontje. 1973. Effect of detergent appli-
cation on the growth of corn. J. Environ. Qual. 2:310-314.
Kemp, M. C. 1978. Evaluation and comparison of overland flow and spray irri-
gation to upgrade secondary wastewater lagoon effluent. M.S. Thesis,
Utah State University, Logan, Utah.
King, L. D., and H. D. Morris. 1972. Land disposal of liquid sewage sludge.
II. The effect of soil pH, manganese, zinc, and growth and chemical
composition of rye (Seceale cereale L.). J. Environ. Qual. 1:425-529.
King, L. D., and H. D. Morris. 1973. Land disposal of liquid sewage sludge.
IV. Effect of soil phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium and
sodium. J. Environ. Qual. 2:411-414.
Kirkham, M. B. 1975. Uptake of cadmium and zinc from sludge by barley grown
under four different sludge irrigation regimes. J. Environ. Qual. 4:
432-426.
Land, C. E. 1972. An evaluation of approximate confidence interval estima-
tion methods for lognormal means. Technometrics 14(1):158.
LeClerg, E. L., W. H. Leonard, and A. G. Clark. 1962. Field Plot Technique.
(2nd Ed.) Burgess Publ. Co., Minneapolis 23, Minnesota.
Lunt, H. A. 1959. Digested sewage sludge for soil improvement. Conn. (New
Haven) Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. No. 622.
Melsted, S. W. 1973. Soil-plant relationships (some practical considerations
in waste management). In: Recycling municipal sludges and effluents on
land. National Assoc. of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges,
Washington, D.C. pp. 121-128.
Miles, C. D., J. R. Brandle, D. J. Daniel, 0. Chu-Der, P. D. Schnare, and
D. J. Uhlik. 1972. Inhibition of photosystem II in isolated chloro-
plasts by lead. Plant Physiol. 49:820-825.
163
-------
Olsen, S. R. , and L. A. Dean. 1965. Phosphorus. In: Methods of soil analy-
sis, Part II, pp. 1035-1049. Ed. C. A. Black et al., American Society
of Agronomy, Madison, Wise.
Patterson, J. B. E. 1971. Metal toxicities arising from industry. Tech.
Bull., Min. Agric. Fish. Food, Agric. Develop. Adv. Serv., Cambridge,
England. 21:193-207.
Page, A. L. 1974. Fate and effects of trace elements in sewage sludge when
applied to agricultural lands. A literature survey. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Technol. Ser. EPA-670/2-74-005. January. 96 p.
Perkin Elmer Corporation. 1968. Analytical methods for atomic absorption
spectroscopy. Publ. No. 303-0152. Perkin Elmer Corp., Norwalk, Conn.
Rhode, G. 1962. The effects of trace elements on the exhaustion of sewage-
irrigated land. J. Inst. Sewage Purif., Part 6:581-585.
Roth, M. E. 1969. Standard solution for flame spectroscopy. Flame Notes
4:4.
Soane, B. D., and D. H. Saunder. 1959. Nickel and chromium toxicity of
serpentine soils in southern Rhodesia. Soil Sci. 88:322-330.
Sotola, J. 1933. The nutritive value of leaves and stems. Jour. Agr. Res.
47:919-945.
Thomas, Richard E. 1976. Personal Communication. Letter dated February 13,
1976, Ada, Oklahoma.
Webber, J. 1972. Effects of toxic metals in sewage on crops. Water Pollut.
Contr. 71:404-413.
164
-------
APPENDIX A
SOIL INVESTIGATION
PIT A
PIT B
PIT C
PIT C-2
20
40
U
C
0,
S 60
80
100
77"-
CVI Q
24.8
CL-ML
CL-ML
CL-ML
00
93"-
47"-
Top Soil
Sand
40-
Gravel
Silt
I.) NO WATER ENCOUNTERED
2.) DASHED LINES INDICATE A
SECONDARY CHARACTERISTICS
i.e., JTv*8"'^ GRAVELLY SILT
Figure A-l. Test pit logs for the control site.
-------
PIT D
PIT E
PIT G
u
c
20
40
- 60
UJ
Q
80
100
120
CL-ML
Top Soil
Sand
Gravel
Silt
114 -
NOTES:
I.) NO WATER ENCOUNTERED
2.) DASHED LINES INDI-
CATE A SECONDARY
CHARACTERISTIC
120 -
Figure A-2. Test pit logs for the treated site.
-------
DH-I
DH-2
DH-3
4 -
Q.
U
o 7
10
II
12
22-
67-
88-
86-
o
Light Brown
Dork Brown
Light Brown
Some Silt
f-IO'-IO"
24/24"
24"
/24"
16
48
17
•o •'•
. O,
O-O
Light Brown
Sand Increase
w/ Depth
Dork Brown
Moist
Some Silt
-E.O.H.-s'/g
25-
Light Brown
Hard
Light Brown
Some Clay
4'-6'
Darker Sand
Increase w/Depth
-E.O.H.-9'
Figure A-3. Boring logs of the treated site.
-------
1
X
1 —
0.
LU
Q
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
on
o u
85
QO
y \j
95
1 1~\/"\
IOO
105
r 24'2«"fZ
22724"fK/
0"/24"L
"~
34-
26/6,,_
~ 70-
27-
28-
_
— 77-
-
-
—
fy
'o'-'.""-
tO'.?.'.
^•f>:
'•'>
^S
/
*S %•'
s
' /
r/ /
i5/24"i/y
—
86-
,_
23-
l~~
19-
' /
<*' .
&
. /
/
D v
?
/
/ /
/
6,fA>
r4fi
^
,6 Of
/
vg;
~O '• C5
Light Brown
DH-4
Large Rock -8
Some Silt
Gravelly Sand
Some Sandy Silt
Increasing w/ Depth
End Clay -53 '/2'
- Silty, Moist Gravel
Some Gravel -56'-63'
NOTE: NO WATER TABLE
ENCOUNTERED
Some Gravel
Pieces of Gravel -Moist
White Clay- Soft, Moist, Very Sticky
Some Cloy Particles
F n n - ir>7'
Figure A-4. Boring log for deep boring at the treated site.
168
-------
VD
uisruroea Jsneioy
n ,~" Material
\J
1
2
3
4
~ 5
1
x 6
I-
0.
UJ
0 7
8
9
10
II
i?
'0/24L
—
^M
6/g,.
„
30
-
63
£
/,
/o/
Q~/
? y
//
9 /
^/
. •.
• r »
. •/.
f9' r
.^
(?• .
• *J
*x •
Liflht Brown
-E.O.H.-ll'
Figure A-5. Boring logs for the control site.
-------
100
90
80
70
w 60
(O
Q.
LU
O
C£
UJ
Q.
50
40
30
20
10
/
ft
Sand- 29.54 °/>
Silt -57.46%
Clay- 13.0*!
O O OOO O OOO
o do
- • -
O OO
PARTICLE DIAMETER (mm)
Control Site
Test Pit A
Depth 12" - 18"
Figure A-6. Grain size distribution curve.
170
-------
IUU
90
80
70
* 60
Q,
h- 5°
Z
UJ
g 40
UJ
Q,
30
20
10
0
c
X
l /,
/
/
^
y
/
f
I
'
1
1
1
X
*<**
^
r*
Sand -29.96%
Silt -58.54%,
Clay-
-11.5°
'a
=; CM «3- u? p; CM < o o ooo O ooc
3 o oorj p qpo Q do— CM
-------
O
I
CO
UJ
o
a:
LJ
CL
100
90
80
70
50
40
30
20
10
0
Sond-29.2%
Si It-53.8%
Cloy- 15%
c\j ^ ~ w T
-------
100
90
80
70
7Z 60
z
to
(O
UJ
O
o:
UJ
Q.
50
40
30
20
10
0
— CM
O
O
6
Sand-17.6%
Silt -70.4%
Clay-12.0%
^- (£> ~
8 8 §
do
§
§ §
— CO
O O qOO O OOO
_' <\i «*•' co' ~ ^ «•
-------
O
z
CO
CO
S
bJ
o
cc
UJ
a.
100
90
80
70
50
40
30
10
0
OJ
10005
/
7"
Sand-26.530/,
Silt -60.47%
Cloy- 13%
0 8 88 § § §
odd
" ™ t
-------
90
80
70
s 60
(/>
UJ
O
o:
UJ
Q.
50
40
30
20
10
/
Sand-I8.2l0/
Silt-68.297
Clay-13.5%
TT CM Tj-U3=T C\J if O O OOO O OOO
3 rt o rS —' (\i »*•' in — ^ 't to O
PARTICLE DIAMETER (mm)
Treatment Site
Test Pit E
Depth 20" - 25"
Figure A-ll. Grain size distribution curve.
175
-------
100
90
80
70
£ 60
CO
en
IU
O
o:
LU
a.
50
40
30
20
10
Sand -16.987,
Silt-68.020/:
Clay-I5.0e
§ o g 8 Q £J S q d 3 d d - 3 ?S9° $88
y o o o o c> o o" ' —
0 O C) O
PARTICLE DIAMETER (mm)
Treatment Site
Test Pit G
Depth 16" - 20"
Figure A-12. Grain size distribution curve.
176
-------
\\J\J
90
80
O
* 60
CO
50
Z
UJ
0? 40
Q.
30
20
10
0
^
X
/
f
/
/
/
/
'
i
r
/
/
/
/
Sand- 34.31%
Si It- 55.69%
Clay-
-10.0
%
5 co o-
-------
APPENDIX B
WATER QUALITY DATA
TABLE B-l. HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE OF THE TOOELE, UTAH, WASTE-
WATER TREATMENT PLANT FROM 1957 TO 1975
Year
1957
1957
195
1957
1957
1957
^957
1957
195'
195
1957
>95
195,
195;
195.
1957
L957
195'
1957
1957
1957
1957
195 '
1957
1957
1957
1957
195'
J-.
95"'
1957
1957
195'
1957
195-'
195 '
1957
195"
195/
195
195
195 '
1957
1957
1957
1957
1957
1957
195
1958
Month
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
12
1
1
Week
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
5Z
]
2
Daily Flow BOD Suspended
Solids
MGD mg/1 mg/1
0.850
0.850
0.760
0.690
0.790
0.770
0.750
0.850
0.800
0.800
0.860
0.740
0.800
0.790
0.820
0.820
0.870
0.830
0.920
0.880
0.870
0.900
0.900
0.810
0.790
0.830
0.870
0.890
0.850
0.830
0.870
0.780
0.860
0.780
0.860
0.890
0.860
0.840
0.830
01850
0.830
0.810
1.000
0.830
0.840
0.760
1.000
1.200
0.890
0.980
Settled pH DO BOD, Solids
Solids
mg/1 mg/1 mg/1
-
-
-
0.5 7.7
0.2 7.4
0.2 7.6
7.7
7.4
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.9
7.8 -
7.8
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
8.0
7.9
8.1
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.1
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2 -
8.1
8.1 -
8.2
8.1
8.1
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
0.2 8.1
0.2 8.1
- No data.
(continued)
178
-------
TABLE B-l. (CONTINUED)
Year
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
Month
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
12
Week
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Daily Flow BOD Suspended
Solids
MGD rag/1 mg/1
0.980
• 0.980
1.000
0.960
0.920
0.900
1.020
0.990
0.950
0.980
0.940
0.980
0.930
0.890
0.900
0.890
0.970
0.900
0.910
0.920
0.930
0.920
0.940
0.970
0.960
0.940
0.950
0.940
0.960
0.960
1.010
1.020
1.000
1.030
1.030
1.020
1.010
0.980
1.000
1.000
0.980
1.010
1.020
1.040
1.070
1.080
1.050
1.030
1.050
1.010
Settled
Solids
mg/1
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
-
-
_
_
-
_
_
_
0.1
_
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
pH DO BOD Solids
mg/1 mg/1
8.1 -
8.1
8.1
8.0
7.9
8.0
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9 -
8.0 -
8.0 -
8.0
8.0
8.0 -
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.1 -
8.0 -
8.0 -
8.0
8.0 -
7.9
8.0
7.9
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0 -
8.0
8.1
8.1 -
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1 -
8.1
8.2
8.2
8.2
No data
(continued)
179
-------
TABLE B- 1. (CONTINUED )
Year
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
I960'
1960
Month
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
11
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
12
1
1
Week
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
1
2
Dally Flow BOD5
MGD mg/1
1.110
1.120
1 . 100
1.100
1.090
1 . 100
1.110
1.060
1.010
1.030
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.040
1.000
0.940
0.910
0.870
0.830
0.890
0.880
0.880.
0.860
0.900
8.400
9.400
8.600
8.900
9.600
8.900
9.800
8.600
9.300
8.900
9.700
9.100
9.500
9.800
9.500
1.030
1.030
1.010
1.050
1.070
1.050
1.060
1.070
1.070
1.050
1.100
Suspended
Solids
mg/1
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
-
_
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Settled
Solids
mg/1
r*
-
_
_
_
0.1
_
0.1
-
0.1
_
_
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
pH DO
mg/1
8.1
8.2
8.2
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.2
8.2
8.1
8.2 -
8.1 -
8.1
8.1
8.1 -
8.2 -
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.1
8.2
8.1
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.1
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.1
8.2
8.2
8.1
8.1
8.2
8.1
8.2
8.2
8.1
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2 -
8.2
8.2
8.3 -
BOD. Solids
mg/1
_
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
-
No data.
(continued)
180
-------
TABLE B-I. (CONTINUED)
Year
1960
1960
1960
1960
1960
1960
1960
1960
1960
1960
1960
1960
1960
1960
1960
1960
1960
1960
1960
1960
1960
1960
I960'
1960
1960
1960
1960
1960
1960
1960
1960
1960
1960
1960
1960
1960
1960
1961
1961
1961
1961
1961
1961
1961
1961
1961
1961
1961
1961
1961
Month
1
1
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
7
1
1
1
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
Week
3
4
5
6
7
8
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44'
45
45
47
48
1
2
3
4
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Daily Flow BOD
MGD mg/1
1.090
1.120
1.110
1.120
1.130
1.110
1.080
0.980
1.030
1.080
1.050
1.020
1.030
1.030
0.970
1.020
1.030
0.990
1.000
1.020
0.990
1.030
1.000
1.010
1.010
1.000
1.010
0.980
1.030
1.030
1.030
1.020
1.020
1.040
1.040
1.030
1.020
1.040
1.040
1.010
1.040
0.970
1.040
0.990
1.030
1.000
1.040
1.040
1.000
1.030
Suspended Settled
Solids Solids
mg/1 mg/1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
-
0.1
0.1
0.1
-
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
pH DO
mg/1
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.2
8.2 - -
8.3
8.2
8.3
8.2
8.2
8.3
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.2
8.3 -
8.2 -
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.0
8.0
BOD Solids
mg/1
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
.
No data.
(continued)
181
-------
TABLE B-I. (CONTINUED)
Year
1961
1961
1961
1961
1961
1961
1961
1961
1961
1961
1961
1961
1961
1961
1961
1961
1961
1961
1961
1961
1961
1961
1961
1961
1961
1961
1961
1961
1961
1961
1962
1962
1962
1962
1962
1962
1962
1962
1962
1962
1962
1962
1962
1962
1962
1962
1962
1962
1962
1962
Month
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
12
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
Week
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Daily Flow BOD5
MGD mg/1
1.020
1.020
1.010
1.030
1.030
1.050
1.070
1.030
1.010
1.050
1.070
1.060
1.030
1.050
1.050
1.070
1.070
1.140
1.130
1.090
1.110
1.090
1.100
1.100
1.110
1.060
1.030
1.040
1.080
1.070
1.060
1.070
1.020
1.070
1.070
1.050
1.040
1.030
1.120
1.080
1.060
1.060
1.100
1.070
1.030
1.030
1.030
1.060
1.060
1.090
Suspended Settled
Solids Solids
mg/1 mg/1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
_
_
-
0.1
_
0.1
_
-
-
0.1
.-
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
pH DO
mg/1
8.1
8.0
8.0
7.9 -
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.5
7.6
7.5
7.8
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.2
7.5
7.8
7.7
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.7
7.7
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.7
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.5
7.6
BOD5 Solids
mg/1
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
No data.
(continued)
182
-------
TABLE B-I. (CONTINUED,)
Year
1962
1962
1962
1962
1962
1962
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1964
1964
1964
1964
Month
5
5
10
10
10
10
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
8
8
8
8
8
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
12
2
2
2
2
Week
21
22
40
41
42
43
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
31
32
33
34
35
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
5
6
7
8
Dally Flow BOD
MGD mg/1
1.070
1.080
1.110
1.120
1.120
1.100
1.230
1.240
1.240
1.270
1.260
1.230
1.240
1.220
1.220
1.200
1.190
1.250
1.210
1.150
1.180
1 . 2'00
1:220
1.210
1.230
1.260
1.230
1.240
1.100
1.090
1.070
1.090
1.100
1.290
1.280
1.250
1.250
1.280
1.280
1.290
1.270
1.250
1.250
1.230
1.270
1.220
1.270
1.230
1.230
1.250
Suspended Settled
Solids Solids
mg/1 mg/1
0.1
0.1
r-
-
-
-
-
0.1
-
0.1
0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
-
-
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
pH DO BOD Solids
mg/1 mg/1
7.5
7.6 -
7.6 -
7.5
8.1 -
8.5 -
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
8.0
8.0 -
7.9
8.0
8.0
8.1
8.1
8.4
8.3
8.1
7.9
7.1
7.2
7.9
7.8
7.7
7.7
7.6 -
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.4
7.5
8.1
7.3
7.2
7.4
7.1
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.4 -
7.5
7.5
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
- N<> data.
(continued)
183
-------
TABLE B-l. (CONTINUED)
Year
1964
1964
1964
1964
1964
1964
1964
1964
1964
1964
1965
1965
1965
1965
1965
1965
1965
1965
1965
1965
1965
1965
1965
1965
1966
1966
1966
1966
1967
1967
1967
1967
1968
1969
1969
1969
1969
1969
1969
1969
1969
1969
1969
1969
1969
1969
1969
1969
1969
1969
Month
3
3
3
3
3
11
11
11
11
11
3
3
3
3
3
6
6
6
6
11
11
11
11
11
1
1
1
1
7
7
7
7
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
Week
9
10
11
12
13
44
45
46
47
48
9
10
11
12
13
23
24
25
26
44
45
46
47
48
1
2
3
4
27
28
29
30
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28
29
30
31
32
Daily Flow
MGD
1.
• 1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1,
1,
1.
1.
1.
1.
1,
1.
1.
1.
1,
1,
1,
1,
1.
1.
1.
1,
1.
1
1
1
I.
I,
1.
1.
2,
1.
1.
1.
1
.250
260
.280
080
,080
.230
240
,170
.180
.180
.230
.280
,240
,240
280
.170
180
.180
.240
.240
,170
.180
.230
.200
,290
.290
,250
,240
,350
,330
.410
.410
.111
.558
.169
.123
.091
.379
.352
.212
.653
.455
.225
.338
,486
.143
.213
.356
.599
BOD
mg/1
-
-
40
36
35
37
38
35
36
28
35
33
34
38
32
53
36
35
38
Suspended
Solids
mg/1
-
33
24
24
33
30
26
22
19
20
24
20
40
28
1
25
28
25
Settled
Solids
mg/1
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
-
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
3
3
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
1
1
1
pH
7
7
7
7.
7.
7.
7.
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7.
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7.
7,
7
7
7
7
7
7
7.
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
7
7
7
.3
.2
.1
.1
.1
.7
.6
.3
.3
.3
.6
.5
.6
.5
.6
.1
.6
.8
.9
.7
.4
.5
.2
.4
.6
.5
.4
.5
.2
.0
.2
.0
.5
.4
.2
.5
.6
.5
.6
.6
.5
.6
.4
.5
.5
.7
.5
.8
.5
DO BOD Solids
mg/1 mg/1
-
7.9
4.0
7.7
6.7
3.2
4.8
6.1
7.2
3.0
7.5
7.0
2.6
7.0
7.0
7.1
6.8
No data.
(continued)
184
-------
TABLE B-l. (CONTINUED)
Year
1969
1969
1969
1969
1969
1969
1969
1969
1969
1969
1969
1969
1969
1969
1969
1969
1969
1969
1969
1969
1970
1970
1970
1970
1970
1970
1970
1970
1970
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
197,
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
Month
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
12
12
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
11
Week
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Daily Flow
MGD
1.
1.
1.
1
1.
1.
1
1.
1.
1
1.
1
2.
1
2
1
1.
1
1,
1
1.
T_
I
1
1
1.
1
1.
1
1.
1.
1
1.
1
1.
1
1.
]_
1
1
1
1
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1,
1.
1.
.217
.257
.537
.107
.216
.274
.423
.440
.380
.285
.251
.395
.100
.245
.025
.220
.128
.500
.178
.240
.357
-212
.216
.240
.254
.300
.330
.264
.327
.350
.400
.250
.300
.250
.368
.368
.368
.200
.500
.500
.500
.500
.500
.500
.500
.500
500
,500
.500
.500
BOD
mg/1
33
36
37
38
38
39
35
30
27
36
38
35
33
36
37
40
38
37
35
38
32
33
38
33
35
34
33
26
29
25
23
26
24
28
23
19
20
20
24
21
24
20
22
20
24
22
20
21
19
23
Suspended
Solids
mg/1
22
18
25
20
25
19
25
18
21
15
19
19
22
30
26
20
22
20
23
25
20
16
10
12
25
20
22
20
22
10
14
12
10
10
11
8
10
10
10
6
10
8
5
10
4
6
5
7
12
8
Settled
Solids
mg/1
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0-
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1,
1
1
1
1
pH DO BOD Solids
mg/1 mg/1
7
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7.
7.
7
7
7
7.
7.
7.
7 .
7.
7.
7,
7.
7.
7,
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
.5
.3
.4
.3
.5
.4
.4
.5
.3
.4
.5
.5
.4
.5
.5
.4
.5
.5
.4
.4
.5
.3
.4
.4
.5
.5
.5
.5
.4
.3
.4
.2
.2
.2
.5
.4
.3
.3
.3
.4
.5
.4
.5
.3
.4
.3-
4
.3
,3
.4
7.2
7.3
6.3
7.3
7.0
6.9
7.3
7.2
7.0
6.8
7.2
6.9
7.0
7.2
7.0
7.2
7.0
7.2
7.0
6.7
7.0
6.7 -
7.3
7.5
7.6
7.3
7.2
7.3
;.o
7.2
7.6
7.5
7.8
7.8 22
7.2 19
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.3
7.9
7.3
7.6
7.8
7.4
7.6
7.1
7.6
7.2
No data.
(continued)
185
-------
TABLE B-l. (CONTINUED)
Year
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
19 n
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
Month
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
12
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
4
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
Week
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
43
Dally Flow
MGD
1
1.
1
1
1,
1.
1.
1
1.
1.
1.
1.
]_ t
1
1.
1.
1
1.
1,
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
I
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
0,
1 ,
1.
0.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
.200
.500
.550
.500
.600
.500
.500
.650
.500
.800
.600
.500
,600
,800
.800
.600
.450
,500
.500
.202
,268
.256
.227
.290
.200
.921
.233
,106
,053
.250
,131
.065
.181
.073
.127
.060
.898
.200
,322
.833
,155
.386
368
.368
,360
,150
.169
160
.100
200
BOD
mg/1
22
25
26
25
24
22
20
22
24
21
34
31
30
32
30
27
30
28
26
28
31
18
21
23
27
22
23
30
24
25
26
28
27
22
23
27
24
28
26
28
23
25
22
20
23
20
22
21
27
24
Suspended Settled
Solids Solids
mg/1 mg/1
10
12
10
4
8
5
8
4
60
40
10
18
10
12
15
10
12
10
9
25
22
12
13
16
11
12
12
10
4
16
10
6
16
12
6
18
8
10
13
15
20
10
12
15
10
12
10
4
12
10
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
o.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
2
1
3
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PH
7.5
7.3
7.3
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.2
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.2
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.2
7.4
7 ,3
7.3
7.5
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.3
DO BOD, Solids
mg/1 mg/1
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.6
7.5
7.3
7.5
7.0
7.2
7.6
7.2
7.0
7.2
7.2
7.5
7.8
7.2
7.0
7.8
7.2
7.4
7.3
7.0
7.3
7.4
7.8
7.3
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.6
7.8
7.2
7.5
7.3
7.3
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.3
7.8
7.6
7.7
7.6
7.3
7.6
7.7
-
-
-
_
15
18
15
12
20
20
19
16
17
18
16
10
16
13
15
No data.
(continued)
186
-------
TABLE B- i. (CONTINUED )
Year Month
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
11
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
12
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
10
10
Week
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Daily Flow
MGD
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
.257
.271
.300
.500
.369
.154
.863
.274
.122
.189
.027
.225
.709
.081
.053
.074
.100
.080
.816
.143
.317
.119
.144
.097
.004
.159
.108
.133
.142
.606
.245
.202
.284
.066
.036
.144
.061
.187
.101
.983
.676
.707
.668
.721
.679
.600
.675
.857
.661
.600
BOD
mg/1
20
24
23
26
30
27
30
33
35
33
31
26
25
24
26
30
26
25
28
31
27
24
23
28
27
25
24
27
26
28
31
26
27
30
26
30
31
30
27
28
30
33
31
30
27
25
26
24
22
23
Suspended
Solids
mg/1
15
10
13
10
10
16
21
20
18
12
22
12
10
12
18
14
18
12
8
14
16
15
16
12
13
12
16
18
16
12
13
12
•14
8
12
'11
10
15
10
12
20
14
10
8
6
10
18
13
15
10
Settled
Solids
mg/1
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
pH
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.3
7.2
7.3
7.3
DO BOD. Solids
mg/1 mg/1
7.5
7-6
7.8
7.6
7.4
7.8
7.1
7.5
7.8
7.2
7.6
7.4
7.3
7.6
7.3
7.6
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.4
7.6
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.4
7.2
7.6
7.3
7.0
7.2
7.2
7.0
7.2
7.1
7.4
7.2
7.2
7.5
7.8
7.4
7.5
7.2
7.1
7.4
7. -6
7.4
7^2
7.4
7.5
7.8
12
16
15
17
22
16
20
26
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
14
18
19
18
15
15
16
10
15
14
18
20
16
12
10
- No data.
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-l. (CONTINUED)
Year
1971
1973
1973
1973
197")
197.1
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
Month
10
10
10
11
11
11
12
12
12
12
12
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
t>
4
^
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
Week
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Daily Flow
MGD
1,
1,
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
0.
2.
1
1.
1,
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1
1.
1.
1.
1
1.
1.
1.
1.
1,
1
1
1.
1.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
375
,500
,689
,652
.623
,768
.710
,668
.716
.600
,577
.347
.975
.198
.500
.500
.500
,500
.500
.500
.679
.692
.619
.613
.600
.632
.600
.433
.565
.474
.530
.490
.635
.641
.500
.611
.500
.665
.675
.633
.484
.540
.536
.617
.661
.818
.503-
.571
.605
BOD
mg/1
25
24
22
24
26
27
26
25
27
28
28
32
31
33
25
24
23
24
26
28
26
28
31
33
29
27
30
26
30
31
26
28
30
32
30
28
24
26
26
26
25
26
2,
26
24
25
26
25
23
Suspended
Solids
mg/1
14
12
10
13
12
10
12
15
13
6
15
18
15
15
18
12
15
18
16
L9
18
19
20
23
16
15
20
19
21
19
16
18
18
21
18
20
22
19
21
18
16
18
-
21
19
15
18
17
1'5
18
Settled
Solids
mg/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.1
.2
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.4
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.2
.2
.3
.1
.1
.1
.2
.2
.1
.1
.1
.5
.2
.1
.1
.2
.1
.1
.1
.2
.1
.1
.2
.1
.1
.2
.2
.3
.1
.1
.1
.1
pH
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.3
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.5
7.8
7.5
7.5
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.4
7.4
7.6
7.4
7.3
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.3
7.3
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.5
DO BOD Solids
mg/1 mg/1
7.6
7.4
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.8
7.6
7.5
7.8
7.5
7.7
7.3
7.5
7.7
7.8
7.6
8.1
7.6
7.4
7.9
7.8
7.0
8.1
7.9
8.5
7.8
7.8
7.6
7.8
_
7/4
7.9
7.4
7.0
7.2
7.2
7.9
7.3
7.1
7.3
7.5
7.5
_
7.3
7.4
7.6
7.5
7.1
7.1
7.6
16
14
16
18
15
13
12
10
15
15
13
20
18
22
20
16
15
16
19
16
14
16
21
18
21
18
22
18
24
21
18
19
22
19
17
13
15
13
14
12
13
11
13
15
18
20
18
19
15
No data.
(continued)
188
-------
TABLE B-l. (CONTINUED)
Year
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
19?c
197-
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
3975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1-975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
Month
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
12
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
9
Week Daily Flow
MGD
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
2.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2,
1.
1
1 ,
1
1.
1.
1
1
1
I
I,
I
1
1
1
1.
1
1
1
1
1
1.
1
1
1,
1
1.
1
1
1.
0.
1,
1.
320
.373
569
,550
.566
547
,506
,974
.541
.153
.555
.500
.547
.606
.940
,250
.651
.663
.679
.582
,587
.670
.500
.500
.500
.500
.500
.655
.514
.524
.500
.495
.409
.330
.465
.458
.458
.172
.091
.486
.485
.906
.299
.441
.600
.486
.971
.500
.511
BOD Suspended
5 Solids
rag/1 mg/1
24
23
26
24
25
28
27
26
28
32
30
31
32
27
29
27
28
28
27
28
26
27
26
25
28
30
31
33
31
28
27
26
28
29
26
24
23
23
22
24
25
22
23
20
22
23
25
22
20
21
19
19
21
17
19
21
22
21
23
24
21
19
21
20
18
19
16
20
18
21
18
19
20
20
24
27
26
27
23
21
18
21
22
24
19
17
21
'21
20
20
22
16
20
23
21
21
23
25
19
18
Settled
Solids
mg/1
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1
1
2
3
2
2
2
I
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
pH
7.5
7.4
7.3
7, •
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.5
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.1
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.6
7.7
7, .6
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.6
DO BOD. Solids
mg/1 mg/1
7.2
7.2
7.4
7.9
7.8
7.5
7.1
7.9
7.3
7.0
7.2
8.3
8.9
8/5
8.2
9.0
8.8
8.4
8.0
8.4
8. '5
8.8
8.3
8.5
7.3
7. '5
8.2
8.4
8.0
8.3
8.5
7.9
9.0
7.8
7.9
8.2
8.3
8.3
8.5
8.9
8.1
8.3
8.0
8.2
8.0
8.2
8.7
8.5
7.9
7.8
16
15
18
15
18
20
18
20
23
25
24
26
28
21
20
18
16
19
15
19
16
19
20
22
25
27
25
28
25
20
18
21
23
25
20
18
16
16
14
13
16
15
18
16
18
15
16
19
18
15
No data.
(continued)
189
-------
TABLE B-l. (CONTINUED)
Year
Month
Week
Daily Flow
MGD
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
9
9
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
1.
•1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
552
699
522
592
552
621
450
487
715
505
BOD
rag/1
20
25
23
20
28
26
20
24
26
28
Suspended
Solids
mg/1
21
23
19
18
22
20
19
20
21
24
~
Settled
Solids
PH
rag/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
7.5
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.5
DO BOD Solids
mg/1
8.0
8.0
7.9
7.3
8.8
8.6
8.2
8.0
8.0
8.1
mg/1
16
18
16
15
18
16
19
No data.
iyo
-------
TABLE B-2. ALKALINITY CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1976
PARAMETER! ALKALINITY
IN i TSl MQ/t AS
-C03
DATE
JUNE 23,
JULY 1,
JULY 7,
JULY 6,
JULY 13,
JULY 11,
JULY 15,
JULY 22,
JULY 29,
AUG. 5,
AUG. 12,
AUG. 20,
AUG. 27,
SEP, 2,
SEP, 10,
SEP, 17,
SEP, 24,
OCT. 1,
OCT. 8,
OCT. 15,
OCT. 22,
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
STD. DEV
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1
217.0
227.0
223.0
225.0
251.0
219,0
231,0
251,0
260,0
210,0
273.0
337.0
241,0
254.0
261.0
243,0
287.0
337,0
217.0
249.9
888, 43382
29,60661
2
259.0
247.0
259.0
234.0
262.0
229,0
264,0
269.0
286.0
264.0
271,0
289.0
261.0
270.0
249.0
232.0
271.0
289,0
229.0
259.6
293,06618
17.11918
I
255.0
246.0
251,0
232.0
260.0
204..
253.0
281,0
269.0
268. f-
289.0
153.0
260.0
206,0
231.0
256,0
289,0
204.0
251.1
546,46250
23.37654
a
261.0
244. ft
270.0
255.0
231.0
255,0
214.0
256. ft
276.0
277,0
264.0
263.0
282.0
264.0
219.0
237.0
259.0
282.0
211,0
256.3
304,22059
17.44192
STATION
5
257.0
262.0
260.0
237.0
237.0
270.0
250.0
253.0
269.0
*******
263.0
»»*•***
*******
270.0
237.0
255.9
137,06667
11.70755
NUMBER
6
290, I)
204.0
269.0
309.0
309.0
282.0
258.0
305.0
286.0
*******
2B4.0
*******
309.0
258.0
287,6
278.48889
16.68799,
7
253.0
*******
224.0
264,0
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
264.0
224.0
247.0
427.00000
20.66398
8
2S7. )
261.0
241.0
226.0
257.0
230.0
263.0
266.0
274.0
26) ,0
258.0
281,0
253.0
********
261,0
226,0
856. P
247.00000
15.71623
'
2u5.n
1 n 4 , 0
******
205,0
******
201 .0
210.0
227,0
199.0
199.0
215.0
223.0
207,0
213.0
220,0
188.0
******
******
******
******
227.0
104.0
201.1
891.97802
29.86600
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
»i
*
** * *
* ** *
****
** **
** * *
****
****
****
**»*
****
****
****
* * **
****
*****
>****
*****
******
* * ****
*********
*********
NO DAT'
-------
TABLE B-3. ALKALINITY CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1977
DATE
P/SRAMETEBl ALKALINITY
UNITS! " S / L AS riCQJ
STATION
4 5
10
MAY 28,
JUNE 7,
JULY 5,
AUG. 2,
AUGo 30,
SEP. 13,
SEP. 27,
SEP. 28,
MAXIHUM
.MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
8TO. DEV.
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
212.7
234,5
230,1
226,7
256.6
248.2
232.5
256,6
212.7
234,5
205.92238
14.35000
230.9
262.6
230.2
236.9
263.4
259.J
245,3
263.4
230.2
246,9
217.91236
14.76186
262.6
233.7
231.0
J57.8
252,8
231.3
262.6
231.0
244.9
209.14267
14.46177
310.2
267.5
234.5
24J. 0
260.6
277.6
228.6
235.3
310.2
228.6
257.2
765,32839
27,66457
233.2
255.8
232,3
239.3
258.3
262.2
246.3
262.2
232.3
246.8
150.35238
12.26183
*
******* *******
********* 25592
«****«*** 31.39554
233.2
255.8
232.3
239.3
258.3
262.2
246.3
262.2
232.3
246,8
150.35238
12.26183
******
******
188.9
196.3
208,0
******
******
******
208.0
188.9
197.7
92.74333
9.63033
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ft
*
ft
*
*
*
*
*
*
*********
*********
****** s NO DATA
-------
TABLE B-4. CALCIUM CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1976
PARAMETER! CALCIUM
DATE
MAY 19,
MAY it,
MAY 29,
JUNE 2J,
JULY 1,
JULY 7,
JULY 8,
JULY 13,
JULY 1U,
JULY IS,
JULY 22,
JULY 29,
AUG. 1,
AUG. 12,
AUG. 20,
SUG, 27,
SEP. 2,
SEP, 10,
SEP. 17,
SEP. 24,
OCT. 1,
OCT. 8,
OCT. IS,
OCT. 22,
MAXIMUM
Ml NlMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
STO, DIV
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
19?6
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1
* **
***** *
207.0
210,0
********
250.0
231 .0
245. 0
236,0
205.0
256,0
194.0
226.0
227.0
233.0
211,0
2S8.0
251,0
258.0
228.0
IS8.0
194.0
231,6
191.118
19.777
2
196.0
222.0
*******
230,0
231.0
246.0
195,0
217.0
241.0
208.0
233.0
226.0
310,0
226,0
24S.O
278.0
251,0
247.0
278.0
195.0
229,4
444.632
21.086
3
*******
239.0
226.0
«$*«***
239,0
241.0
237,0
240,0
222.0
238,0
241.0
234,0
238,0
237,0
£25,0
239.0
219.0
254.0
253,0
254,0
219.0
136.6
88,757
9,421
4
176.0
215.0
********
248,0
253.0
19.8.0
262.0
245,0
231.0
230.0
261.0
246.0
248.0
220,0
219.0
24i,0
250,0
259.0
24S.O
262,0
176,0
JS5.9
5J6.291
22.985
STATION
5
212.0
*******
202,0
183.0
173,0
*******
224.0
*******
*******
£33,0
226.0
252.0
218,0
268,0
230.0
*******
242.0
*******
*******
268.0
171.0
221,9
732,629
27.067
UNITSi MG/L AS CAC03
NUMBER
6 7
233.0
*******
325.0
205.0
187.0
*******
225.0
*******
*******
2S2.0
214.0
253,0
217.0
192.0
*******
220.0
*******
*******
253S0
187,0
22?, 7
U75.S1S
21,806
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
253. 0
*******
205,0
269,0
*******
*******
*******
*******
269,0
205.0
242.3
1109,333
33.307
8
********
********
202,0
********
********
********
113,0
236.0
179.0
268,0
211.0
218,0
179.0
247.0
229.0
241.0
262.0
256,0
********
********
279.0
179.0
234.1
831. 9}0
28,843
9
******
165.0
165.0
160,0
137.0
******
174,0
******
******
184.0
163.0
177,0
193.0
170,0
193.0
184.0
209.0
163.0
181,0
180,0
* *****
******
******
******
209.0
137.0
176.1
274.250
16.560
10
*»**»!
170. (
170. (
*****
*****
*****
»»**
*»«*
****
**»*
****
****
»***
****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
******
t
)
)
*
170.0
170.0
170.0
0,000
0,000
e***** s NO DATA
-------
TABLE B-5. CALCIUM CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1977
P4RAMETERI C*' CIUM
DATE
MAY 28,
JUNE 7,
JULY 5,
AUG. 2,
AUS, 30,
SEP. 13,
SEP. 17,
SEP. 28,
MAXIMUM
MINIM'JM
Mt AN
VARIANCE
STO, D6V.
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1
200.0
491.5
259.5
228. 0
123.7
198,5
216. «
091.5
206,!
13030,416
115.890
?
197,8
328.7
247.8
205.5
128.9
194.3
215.4
328.7
128.9
216.9
3700.971
60.836
3
******
257!
236.
105.
205.
JOB.
257.
105.
211.
5182.15
56.41
*
5
7
3
2
3
5
3
2
a
I
a
371
14?
!90
210
?»3
,4
. 1
.7
, 4
.9
371. «
102.1
243.8
4898. 176
69.987
STATION
5
229,
230.
262.
208,
113.
183,
209,
******
262.
113,
205.
I2530i5
47. a6
UNITSs MS/L AS C»C03
NUMBER
6
7 ft******
I! *******
0 *******
8 *******
» *******
3 *********
7 e
******* 229,7
17S.3 183.0
»**»*** 209.8
207.8 ********
20'. 8 262.4
175.3 113.2
191.6 205,3
528.125 2251.153
22.981 47.067
9 10
****** ***
****** ***
213.8 **
103.1 **
81,6 »*
****** ft*
****** ft*
****** ** ft
A***** a NO DATA
-------
TABLE B-6. CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1976
PARAMETER!
UNIT3. MG/L
DATE
MAY 1 9,
MAY 22,
MAY 29,
JUNE 23,
JULY 1,
JULY 1,
JULY 8,
JULY 13,
JULY 14,
JULY 15,
JULY 22,
juu» £',
AUG. 5,
A U(i e 12,
AUG. 20,
AUG. 27,
SEP. 2,
OCT, 1,
OCT. 15,
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
STD. DEV
1976
1976
5976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976,
1976
197*
1976
1976
1976
1976
197t
1976
.
1
««**».**
115.2
132,3
******&*
129,?
137,1
171.4
ISO, 7
127.5
145, 1
126.4
136.7
133,7
180.7
115.2
139.2
352.13538
18.77326
2
* * * 4 * **
125.9
132.3
*******
1S7.2
1 39.6
132,7
143.6
142.1
139.4
131.6
128.0
132.6
137.6
157.2
125.9
136.9
71.23970
8.44036
3
** * a** *
128.5
139,9
133,1
141.1
138.4
1 "6 , 0
138.0
138.8
130, 1
129.7
136.3
147.0
147.0
126,5
137,4
36.17679
6.01488
4
** * *
126.4
136,3
129.6
136.8
152.3
1 3fl. u
141.1
1H.1
131.6
135.7
149.3
115.6
152.3
126.1
138.0
51.56269
7. 18072
ST4TIOM
5
126,8
110,9
131.5
129.0
138,1
128.2
143.2
139,8
151.0
139,0
143,8
130.2
151,0
110,9
131,3
110,1 1424
10.49353
NUMBER
676
127,
129.
139.
1J6.
»***»*
162,
137,
137^
118.
HI.
HO.
132.
4 *4»ft***
7 *******
* 136.8
<4 \\ 5 „ f>
0 *******
162.8 144.7
127.4 135.0
139.5 138.8
86.22061 26.62333
9.28551 5.15978
********
126.9
I?3. ft
132!''
1 i ft . 3
153.5
142, 1
137,9
137.3
130.2
153,5
122.0
133.6
88.77656
9.42213
9
**»»#*
16,5
19.7
19el
19.6
******
21.2
******
******
19.7
2?. 2
? ' •' . a
25, ^
22.7
23.5
23.7
23.3
* * * * £ *
******
23,7
21.2
4,84026
2.200Q6
10
******
15.4
22.2
a*****
******
******
******
*£****
* fi * * * &
«*»*•*
******
******
w A * * * *
******
******
******
******
******
22.2
15.4
18.8
23.12000
4.S0833
•a***» • NO DATA
-------
TABLE B-7. CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1977
P4R4METER] CHLORIDE
WAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
AUG.
SEP.
SEP.
SEP.
3ATE
28,
7,
5,
2,
30,
13,
27,
28,
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
3TD. OEV.
1
133.0
165.9
168. 1
117.6
136.1
135.2
115.2
168. 1
133,0
117.3
209.90667
11.18816
2
106. S
158.8
170.1
150.7
130.9
110.8
136.1
170.0
106.1
112.0
135.15905
20,86766
3
151,3
165.0
155.6
130,9
113.1
135. b
165.0
130,9
117.5
171.07200
13.07915
u
177.2
156.3
165.0
155.3
129.1
150.6
113,2
138.1
177.2
129.1
isa.i
IJl.isaii
15.21160
STATION
5
113.
155.
171,
119.
135!
171.
129.
117.
188.6661
13.7135
H. t T & , M f,
6
6 *******
1
'l
J 8
***»**» 155.8
H2. 8 H5.9
112.8 171.2
111.2 129 . u
112.0 117.1
1.28000 188.88619
1.13137 13.71359
9
******
******
1 9 , n
23.0
******
******
******
21.1
19.0
22,0
7.20333
2.68390
1ft
*
*
*
*
*
* *
* *
* *
*********
****** « NO DATA
-------
TABLE B-8. HARDNESS CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1976
PARAMETER) HARDNESS
DATE
MAY 19,
MAY 22,
MAY 29,
JUNE 23,
JULY 1,
JULY 7,
JULY 8,
JULY 1J,
JULY 14,
JULY 15,
JULY 22,
JULY 29,
AUG. 5,
AUG. 12,
AUG. 20,
AUG. 27,
SEP, Z,
S£P. 10,
SEP. 17,
SEP. 24,
OCT, 1,
OCT. 6,
OCT, 15,
OCT. 22,
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
STO. DEV
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1
********
276.0
243.0
284,0
********
250.0
284,0
272,0
272,0
282.0
277.0
258.0
286.0
267,0
269,0
275.0
270,0
277.0
273.0
286.0
243,0
271.5
538,3897
1 1 .7639
2
*******
284.0
250.0
265.0
*******
2«3.0
300.0
2TO.O
284.0
272.0
279.0
279,0
171.0
277.0
271.0
272,0
324.0
277.0
287.0
324.0
243.0
276.8
321,4412
17.9288
3
295.0
249.0
265,0
*******
247.0
269.0
261.0
272.0
269.0
268.0
245.0
265.0
272,0
277.0
277,0
233,0
277.0
267.0
295,0
233.0
265.2
218,4044
14,7765
4
********
253.0
250.0
275.0
25S.O
221.0
270.0
272. 0
275.0
279.0
J80.0
276.0
273.0
283.0
270,0
289,0
275,0
280.0
277,0
289.0
221.0
26985
256,1824
16,0119
STATION
5
255.0
272.0
259,0
222,0
259,0
*******
*******
263.0
227.0
279.0
293.0
285.0
273.0
272.0
*******
293,0
222,0
263,3
452.204$
21.2651
UNITSi MS/I, AS CAC03
NUMBER
6 7
254.0
319.0
264.0
281.0
250.0
*******
*******
266.0
226.0
279.0
270.0
270,0
277.0
273.0
*******
319,0
226.0
269.1
481 ,3561
21.9398
*******
*******
*******
*******
255.0
241.0
278.0
*******
*******
*******
278,0
241.0
258.0
349.0000
18.6815
6
********
********
258.0
********
257.0
251.0
224,0
269,0
270,0
280,0
279,0
277.0
270,0
271.0
277.0
277,0
280,0
224aO
266.2
55^6197
9
******
219.0
181.0
228.0
206.0
******
203.0
******
******
210.0
228.0
236.0
236,0
219,0
247.0
247,0
238.0
516,0
239.0
236.0
******
******
******
******
247,0
181.0
1719554
10
*****
213.
231
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
**«*
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
*«**
****
***«
* A * *
*
0
0
231.0
213.0
222.0
162,0000
12.7279
NO DATA
-------
TABLE B-9. HARDNESS CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1977
00
PARAMETERl wARD^FSS
DATE
MAY 26, 1977
JUNE 7, 1977
JULY 5, 1977
AUG. 2, 1977
AUG. 30, 1977
SEP. 13, 1977
SEP. 27, 1977
SEP, 26, 1977
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
8TD. DEV.
1
276.6
262.3
326.7
300.6
132.9
262.1
251.3
326.7
132.9
259.0
J768.6129
61.3890
2
261.6
288.6
269.5
305.0
123.3
264.6
256.3
305.0
123.3
255.6
3666. SOUS
60.7166
3
286. 8
322.6
297,2
142.1
256.5
250. 8
322.6
142.1
260.0
3992.1080
63.1831
4
295.9
265.2
223.7
330.6
101,3
257.0
256.3
253.3
330.6
101.3
247.9
4528.9013
67.2971
UNITS) MG/L AS CAC03
STATION NUMPEB
5678
]09,3 *******
240,7 *******
258.3 *******
******* *******
109,3 *********
251 ,9 *********
71 .4955 *********
*******
269.2
*******
259.3
269.2
259.3
264.3
49.0050
7.0004
268.9
340.9
244.5
2eo,6
109. J
240.7
258.3
********
J40.9
109.3
251.9
51U.6014
71.4955
9 1 U
****** *
******
196.6
23S. 9
(01.7
******
******
******
236.9 *********
101.' *********
70,5458 *****-****
****** • NO DATA
-------
TABLE B-10. AMMONIA NITROGEN CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1976
PARAMETER! AMMONIA
LlNlTSl
DATE
M A V 10
~ * " 1 T f
M A V 33
nmi Act
MAY 29 ,
1 1 . i w 1
JUt T 1 •
JULY 7,
JULY 8,
JULY 13,
JULY 14,
•ill w * c
JUl * 13,
JULY 22,
JULY 29,
A 1 If* Q
»U If • J ,
A 1 if1 13
A W V . 1C,
AUG. 20,
AUG. 27,
SEP. 2,
SEP. 10.
SEP. 17,
SEP. 2«,
nr T i
U t> i t lr
nr T A
U W 1 • Of
nr T i ^
UU I • 1 7 f
nr T ??
u u ' • c e 9
MA*!MU*
M] N I*UM
H£ AN
VARIANCE
STO. 0£v
1 O 7 A,
1 ~ r O
1 97fc
1 ~ f O
1 Q 7 K
1 T f O
1 Q 7 fe
1 *» i e
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
I Q7 i.
1 ** f O
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
i o 7 A,
1 ~ f o
1976
8
1
4 1 i
1 .10
6.62
********
2.78
********
1.51
12.47
6.61
11 QC
tt.'iS
2.87
5.92
3.84
9.55
4.09
4.55
A, 7 1
O . ' 1
1 i i n
I 3 « i *J
1C 37
i J « C /
1 ? fl^
1 C « V ?
15.27
1.36
6,7b
1 ft. 747?76
4.329812
2
517
. i '
5.42
*******
4.64
*******
2.61
5.47
9C D
.be
4)59
5.94
5.44
6, 49
7.25
6.07
71 1
. 1 »
7.42
6.40
67il
. / M
9.52
2.81
5.97
-------
TABLE B-ll. AMMONIA NITROGEN CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1977
O
o
DATE
HAY 7, 1977
MAY 14, 1977
MAY 21, 1977
MAY 28, 1977
JUNE 7, HJ77
JUNE 10, 1977
JUNE 21, 1977
JUNE 28, 1977
JUL* 5, 1977
JUL.V 12, 1977
JUUY 19, 1977
JULY 26, 1977
AUG. 2, 1977
AUG. 9, 1977
AUG. 16, 1977
AUG. 23, 1977
AUG. 30, 1977
SEP, 6, 1977
SEP. 13, 1977
SEP. 20, 1977
SEP. 27, 1977
SEP. 28, 1977
OCT. 5, 1977
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
STD. OEV.
1
10,56
3.13
7.34
3.68
1.99
9,69
2.37
o.es
1.54
2.34
6.18
1.13
0.85
1.33
0.63
0.53
0.62
0.23
1,17
1 .00
1 .50
4*******
5.52
10.56
0,23
2.92
9.128840
3.C21S99
PARAMETER! AMMONIA NITOOGE' INlTSi "G/L
STATION NUMBER
2 3 u 5678 9 10
7,65 4,84 7,69 7.00 ****** ******* 7,00 **** * »**
6,94 10.04 18.47 5. 93 ****** ******* 5.93 **** * ***
1.52 0,45 0,41 2.15 *** * ******* 2.15 0.158 * ***
1,08 0.23 0.37 1.96 ** * ******* 1.96 0.051 * ***
3.07 1.73 1.78 3.15 ** * ******* J.]5 O.OU9 * ***
1.42 0.19 0,10 1.53 ** * ******* 1.53 0.030 * ***
0.34 0.15 0,68 0,18 ** * ******* 0.18 0,063 * *»*
0,66 0.39 0,50 0,93 ** ** ******* 0,93 0,068 * ***
1.53 0.62 0.54 1.25 ****** ******* 1,25 0.045 * ***
0,09 0.10 0,62 0,13 ****** ******* 0,13 0.043 * ***
1.29 0.80 1.15 1.82 ****** 1.13 1.82 *** * ***
• '
10,106654 12.553936 26.101413 11.598521 ********* 0.510050 11.596521 0.001338 *********
****** * '• 0 u*'iA
-------
TABLE B-12. NITRITE NITROGEN CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1976
P4RAMFTFR: NTTPTTf
DATE
MAY 19,
MAY iZ,
MAY 29,
JUNE 23,
JULY 7,
JULY 8,
JULY 13,
JULY 14,
JULY 15,
JUL.Y 22,
JULY 29,
AUG. 12,
AUG. 20,
AUG. 27,
SEP. 2,
SEP. 10,
SEP. 17,
SEP. 24,
OCT. 1,
OCT. 6,
OCT. 15,
OCT. 22.
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
STO, DEv
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1
0.8J2
0.631
0,868
0.748
1.022
0,480
0.416
0.448
0.517
0.398
0,647
0.727
0.784
0.53S
0.577
1.022
0.398
0,642
.03396460
.18429487
2
0.755
0.631
1.124
0.939
1.141
0.637
0.406
0,396
0.505
0.417
0.480
0.572
0.692
0.751
0.770
1.141
0,396
0.681
.05764792
.24009982
3
2.087
*******
1.414
2.189
2.519
2,073
1.249
0.9«5
1.371
0.760
0.695
0.979
0.835
0,665
0.675
0.823
2.519
0.665
1.299
.38772026
.62267187
Ml Toor-Fi'
u
1.174
1.119
1.682
1.597
1.425
1.519
0.852
0.755
0.683
0.712
0.668
0,749
0.689
0,787
0.852
0.730
1.662
0.668
1 .000
.13276226
.36436556
STATION
5
0.879
******
1.124
0.875
******
0.937
******
******
0.935
1.508
1.447
1 .468
0.836
******
0.660
*** *
*** *
*»* *
*** *
*** *
*** *
**** *
1.508
0.660
1.069
.09387521
.30639062
6
0.931
******
1.114
0.903
' 0.975
******
******
0,879
1.627
1.440
1.550
0.877
******
o.ess
******
******
******
1.627
0.855
1.115
.09281499
.30465552
7
*******
*******
1.901
*******
1.706
1.510
*******
*******
*******
1.901
1.510
1.706
.03822033
.19550021
8
********
********
0.914
0.782
1.292
0.748
0.961
0.538
0.435
0.425
0,403
0.495
0.434
********
1.292
0.403
0.675
.08397J76
.28977882
9
******
0.0032
0.0034
0.0031
******
0.0032
******
******
0.0023
0.0122
0.0051
0.0041
0.0076
0.0055
0.0020
0.0024
0.0059
0.0020
******
******
******
0.0122
0.0020
0.0044
.00000774
.00278193
10
******
0.0064
0.0078"
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
***** *
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
0.0078
0.0064
0.0071
.00000098
.00098995
****** a NO DATA
-------
TABLE B-13. NITRITE NITROGEN CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1977
PARAMETEPi NITR1TF
DATE
MAY 7,
MAY 14,
MAY 21,
MAY 26,
JUNE 7,
JUNE 14,
JUNE 21,
JUNE 28,
JULY 5,
JULY li,
JULY 19,
JULY 26,
AUG. 2,
AUG. 9,
AUG. 16,
AUG. 23,
AUG. 1C,
SEP. 6,
SEP. 11,
SEP. 20,
SEP. 27,
SEP. 28,
OCT. 5,
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
STD. DEv.
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1
1.078
0.909
0.91?
0.599
0.420
1.058
1.360
0.45'
0.408
0.533
0.434
0.295
0.150
0.662
0,205
0.496
0.691
0.121
0,232
0.237
0.570
0.910
1.360
0.150
0.598
,11069300
,33270557
2
0.926
1.270
0.900
0.873
1.459
1.359
1.129
0.639
0,461
0,745
0.405
0.502
0.333
O.S35
0.372
0.468
0.783
0.438
0.367
0.855
0.750
1.120
1.459
0,333
0,770
.12501560
.35357544
3
0.945
1 .266
0.4B3
1 .146
1.283
1.722
1.172
0,671
1.370
0.697
1.001
0.793
0,656
0.339
0.508
0.787
0.286
0.657
0.746
0.670
) ,200
1.722
0.286
0.895
.13262993
.36418392
MjTROGEN
4
0.853
1.266
1.137
0.524
0.752
1.152
1.462
1.21'
0.729
1.072
1.012
1.223
0.633
0.654
0.297
0,406
0.659
0.263
0.642
0.640
0.660
0.840
0.910
1 .462
0.261
0.835
.10248936
.32013960
STATION
5
0,945
0.532
0.985
1.134
1.091
1.265
1.192
0.788
0.525
0.864
0.463
0.461
0.350
0.738
0.283
0.394
0.833
0.350
0.702
0.872
0.960
******
1.340
1 ,340
0.281
0.776
.10298514
.32091297
NUMBER
6
***» *
** ** *
**** *
* * * * *
**** *
**** *
**** *
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
*********
7
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
a******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
0.973
*******
*******
0.880
*******
0.973
0.880
0.927
.00432450
.06576093
8
0.945
0.532
0.985
1.134
1.091
1.265
1.192
0.788
0.525
0.864
0,463
U.461
0.350
0.736
0.263
0.394
0.813
0.350
0.702
0.872
0.960
1 .340
1.J40
0.263
n.776
.10298514
.32091297
9
******
******
******
******
******
******
0.0437
******
n.ouoo
0.0134
0.0182
0.0124
0.0250
0.0127
0.0057
0.0102
0.0019
0.0123
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
0.043''
0 ,0000
0.0143
.00014065
.01 186784
10
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
****** I NO
-------
TABLE B-14. NITRATE NITROGEN CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1976
0flR4MFTFR> M 5 T b & T F
o
DATE
MAY J98
MflY 21 i
MAY 29,
JUNE 23,
JULY 7»
JULY 8,
JULY 13s
JULY So,
JULY SS»
JULY 22,
JULY 29,
AU6, IS,
auGo 20,
AUG, 27,
SEP, a.
SEP. 10,
86 Po 17,
SEP. 2«,
OCT. !P
OCT. &s
OCT. 15,
OCT. Si,
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
STO, OEV
1.3«>
7,09
7.09
2. 62
5.27
1.912289
1.393660
a
fl * * * * * * *
*
5.11
ft**6ft*ftft
5.50
6a9U
U.50
3,«8
3,6 =
7.0!
4.73
3.16
3,38
2.«9
3,39
6.48
7,12
5,99
fc.76
7.12
2,99
(1.89
2. 1674,86
1 .U72306
STATION
«,
5,85
ft A * * * ft
7.11
a.bs
mttii,
12.79
ft ft Ai A*
ft aft a a *
3.85
5,21
5.81
*t, 08
5.1)5
* a* ** *
5a*!U
***** *
««****
* * * tEf * *
fi * 4 4 e >
£««*»*
6 ft * * * a
t a * * **
12.79
3,«U
5.79
7. 230290
2.688920
NUMBER
6
fc.71
7.72
6,02
5.56
sitti-i
******
8, as
«.80
3«6tt
u.80
3.60
ft * 6 * * *
i.31
*#**«*
******
8,«8
3.31
b.«8
3.076227
1.753918
?
a
4* fi*«4
8.56
tt.61
S.Ofc
ftaft * 6 « e
s * * * * * *
*******
*******
8,56
4.61
6.06
a. 675833
2.162368
8
*
fe.15
9,60
6.33
6.23
3.59
5.07
3.97
41.07
1.59
2.97
6,12
ft#Aft*6«*
**=»****
9.60
2.97
5.3U
3.396867
J ,6«3602
9
******
0,530
0,720
0,629
******
0,650
******
******
O.U87
O.K75
0 .449
•1,325
u,30u
0.«58
0.48U
0.277
O.U80
0,656
s * * ***
******
******
0.720
0.277
0,«95
0.018227
0. 135007
1 0
******
0.812
1.530
A* ** **
******
******
******
******
******
******
** ** AC
4ft ** *4
a *****
******
******
******
******
ft * * *4 *
******
******
******
1.530
0.812
1.171
0.257762
0,507703
a MO OAT 4
-------
TABLE B-15. NITRATE NITROGEN CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1977
PARAMETERl NITRATE
.jNITSj
O
-C-
DATE
MAY 7,
MAY 14,
MAY 21,
MAY 28,
JUNE 1,
JUNE 14,
JUNE 21,
JUNE 28,
JULY 5,
JULY 12,
JULY 19,
JULY 26,
AUC, 2,
AUG. 9,
AUC. 16,
AUG. 23,
AUG. 10,
SEP. 6,
SEP. 13,
SEP. 20,
SEP. 27,
SEP. 28,
OCT. 5,
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
310. DEV.
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
i*77
1977
1977
1977
1
11.70
12.93
18.03
is, as
12,24
15.31
10.96
5.16
6.31
11.94
16.60
12.59
9.37
7.11
6,82
18,00
5.43
5.55
5.85
6.75
9.63
13.59
18.45
5.16
11 .02
20.215119
4.49612J
2
7.15
7,61
13.95
10,04
6.05
6. 71
5.29
7.52
S.59
10.05
11.10
11.38
7.05
3,80
4.90
10.35
4.40
4.30
4.82
7.98
8,05
11.68
13.95
1.80
7.67
8, 168066
2.861480
3
6,92
8.78
1 ,22
5.17
9.96
5.35
7.02
4.30
9,78
1 S .85
9.J2
8,02
6.07
5.42
11.69
4.92
2.92
5.58
8.74
8.13
11,70
11.85
1.22
7.29
8.434031
2.90U141
ti
5.18
8.81
8.47
2,07
5,61
15.40
4,66
4.16
2.91
6.77
8.06
9,40
7.53
1.85
2.96
7.97
3,83
3.57
4.9«
8. 55
9.54
6,86
10.79
15.40
2S07
6.71
9,977269
3. 158682
STATION
5
fc.46
6,77
15.00
11.25
8,07
10.49
5.65
6,08
5.78
1 1.19
»2.99
10.65
7.03
5.04
«.79
11.86
4.76
4.27
6.04
8.78
6,4U
*** * a*
12.56
15,00
4,27
8,46
9.667566
1.109271
NUMBER
6 7
****** *******
****** *******
****** *******
ft***** *******
**»**» *******
4***4* *******
****** &******
***44* t«a«**»
***»»» 4.«5
****** *******
******* 9,62
8
6.U6
6.77
15.00
11.25
6.07
10.49
5.65
8.08
5.78
11.29
12.99
10.65
7.01
5.04
4.79
11.66
1,76
4.27
6.04
8.76
8.1)4
12.56
15.00
4,27
6,46
9.667566
I. 109271
9
* *
*
*
*
*
*
0,470
******
U.241
0.69U
0.537
0.521
0.360
0.175
0.413
O.TI?
0,143
0,069
*** *
*»* *
* 4* *
** ft ft
*** *
0.715
0.089
0,416
0,041057
0.202626
10
******
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
** * **
*****
*a* * *
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*********
*********
****** s HO DATA
-------
TABLE B-16. TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1976
ho
O
Ln
PARAMETER! TOTAL KJFuDAHL NjTRnGFN -ITfe, M&/L
DATE
MAY 19,
MAY 22,
MAY 29,
JUNE 23,
JULY 1,
JULY 7,
JULY 8,
JULY 13,
JULY 14,
JULY 15,
JULY 22,
JULY 29,
AUG. 5,
AUG. 12,
AUG. 20,
AUG, 27,
SEP. 2,
SEP. 10,
SEP. 17,
SEP. 24,
OCT. 1,
OCT. 8,
OCT. 15,
OCT. 22,
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
STO. DEV
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1
7.10
7,06
********
10.36
is!
10.
6.
7^
17.
7.
8.
2o|
19.
23.
57
07
89
48
01
74
72
04
34
72
02
6u
66
90
23.90
6.01
12.28
31 .B7389U
5.6U5697
2
12.67
8,56
*******
11.41
8,86
9,04
7,66
8.82
7,44
10,62
8.60
10.91
9,99
8,04
11.72
10,23
8,18
10.38
12.67
7 , 44
9.60
2.346213
1 .531735
3
*******
14.61
6.39
11.22
10,99
9,04
7.66
7.07
8.06
7.17
9.93
8.58
8.77
9.65
7.20
8.14
10.12
14.61
7.07
9.16
3.787700
1 .946201
4
********
11.91
7.39
10.45
7.77
4.25
."2
7.19
'.50
6.50
7.37
7.38
8.91
8.66
8.43
9.78
9.82
8.30
9.33
11.91
4.25
8.24
2.869654
1 .69U005
STATION
5
11.30
* *****
1 1 .69
10.12
1 1 ,49
******
7.48
******
******
10,16
5.14
7.07
8.60
7.37
6.46
******
7.42
* * * *
** * *
****
****
****
** * * *
** ft * *
1 1.69
5.1"
6.69
a!l92b56
NUM8FH
6 7
20 ,63 *******
21,96 *******
10,80 *******
****** *******
**&*** 5.65
12.56 *******
7.97 5.ul
7.33 >,t6
7.72 *******
35.51 7.16
6.42 5.41
13.41 6.14 -
76.495663 0,828700
8.746|«0 0.910330
8
9.63
11,12
7.77
7.09
8.35
7.93
8.95
7.28
8.87
7.30
6.99
9.75
9.74
11.12
6.99
6.52
1 .637674
1.279717
9
******
2.44
0.91
0,16
0,08
******
0,04
******
******
0.2«
0.22
0.26
0.20
0.21
0.53
0.41
0.08
0.72
0.60
0.64
******
******
******
******
2.44
0.04
0.48
1.338145
0,581502
10
******
6.9i
7.74
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
* ****
* *** *
* * * * *
* ** **
V *** *
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
7.74
6.93
7.34
0.328050
0.572756
>***** « NO DATA
-------
TABLE B-17. TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1977
ro
o
a--
BARAMETERl TOTAL KJFLDAHL NITROGEN
DATE
MAV 7,
MAY 14,
MAY 21,
MAY 28,
JUNE 7,
JUNE 14,
JUNE 2i,
JUNE 28,
JULY 5,
JULY 12,
JULY 19,
JUL* 26,
AUS. 2.
AUG. 9,
AUG. 16,
AUG. 23,
AUG. 30,
SEP. 6,
SEP. 13,
SEP. 20,
SEP. 27,
SEP. 28,
OCT. 5,
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
STO. DgV.
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
i977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1
14.69
9.53
13.73
6.13
6.66
9.21
10.24
6.34
5.94
6.83
13.40
5.59
3.25
5.31
4,25
5.30
2.48
4.46
4.4«
5.42
4.86
8,87
14.69
2.48
7.22
11.54357*
3.397584
2
15.35
13.22
9.81
7.74
8.02
8.04
8.80
5873
6.70
6.84
6.U
6.03
3.83
5,51
4.31
4.79
3.58
4.21
0.52
5.10
5.19
6.91
15.35
0.52
6.65
10.282282
3.206600
3
14.16
12.69
14.99
7.62
7.05
8.33
4.84
5. US
6.25
7.32
5.07
3.90
5.49
3.94
3.98
3,00
4.00
0.40
3.36
3.26
5.U8
14,99
0.40
6.20
13.871855
3.724494
u
14.08
11.00
13.01
18.06
9.71
8.81
9.40
4.47
S.?i>
5.77
4.73
4e?2
i.«7
6.00
3.19
2.68
2.18
2.93
4.12
2.82
4.64
3.45
4.58
18.06
2.18
6,50
17.789806
4.217796
STAT ION
5
14.57
12.65
8.97
7.86
7.22
7.38
8.62
5.41
5.80
6.42
6.05
6.33
3.30
4,97
3.57
4.67
2.95
3,65
4,48
3.48
4.24
******
6.11
14.57
2.95
6.31
8.763^72
2.960350
uMTSi MG/L
NUMBER
6 7
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
*********
*********
*********
*********
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
e******
*******
***«**»
*«****«
5.52
*******
3.86
*******
5,52
3,86
4.69
1.377800
1.J73797
a
14.57
12.85
8.97
7.86
7.22
7.38
8.62
5,41
5.60
6.42
6.05
6.33
3,30
4.97
3.57
4.67
2.95
3.65
4.48
3.48
4.24
********
6.11
14.57
2.95
6.31
8.76J672
2.960350
9
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
*** *
7.71
******
o.oo
0.12
0.1»
0.16
0.00
0.50
0.21
1.73
0,00
0.62
******
******
******
******
******
7.71
0,00
1.02
5.168902
2.273522
10
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*********
*********
*********
*********
****** 3
DATA
-------
TABLE B-18. TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1976
PARAMETERi TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
DATE
JULY 1,
JULY 7,
JULY 8,
JULY 13,
JULY 22,
JULY 29,
AUG. 5,
AUG. 12,
AUG. 20,
AUG. 27,
ftp P 9
SEP. 10,
SEP. 17,
SEP. 24,
ne T ft .
np T 15
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
SID. OEV
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1 976
1 976
i
10.10
12.40
********
10.63
10.81
13.45
14.58
9.69
9.62
11.71
0 7*»
11.05
9.28
9.88
O C 3
14.58
9.28
10.97
2.22511
l.«91b«
2
12.36
12.67
*******
10.63
8.79
11.85
8.45
9.69
9.27
9.69
9.88
9.28
9.79
-12.67
6, UO
9.86
2.16981
1 .47303
3
14.15
13.23
*******
10.94
9.36
14,29
9.46
9.45
10.90
10.08
10.74
10.04
9.79
14.29
6.01
10. as
4.02952
2.00737
u
10.43
12.30
********
11.34
5.8?
13.45
9.26
9.4*
9,ltU
9,92
9.65
9.81
10.29
.67
13. as
5. S3
9.81
2.6657?
1 .63882
STATION
5
10.61
******
6.6U
******
5.89
13.26
10, 7a
9.45
9.53
******
****
****
***
**«
13.28
5.89
9.U6
5.18750
2.27761
UNITS! M(
NUMBER
6
80.39
******
9.06
******
5.55
6.38
9.53
11.49
10.13
******
******
******
******
80.39
5.55
19.90
484.22406
22.00509
i/L
7
*******
*******
*******
*******
7.67
4.60
14.03
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
14.03
4.60
6.77
23.13323
4.80970
K
10.35
********
********
********
B.«7
18.15
0.52
9.22
9.62
10.16
9.34
9.28
9.96
16.15
6.07
10.17
6.08638
2, 1*6706
9
0.015
******
0.033
******
A e*n
u.013
0.015
0.012
0.019
0.077
0.022
0.018
0,015
0.012
0.328
0.010
0.046
0.00620
0.0787?
10
******
******
******
******
*»*
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
3.502
0.750
2.126
3.78675
1.9U596
****** « NO DATA
-------
TABLE B-19. TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1977
O
00
PARAMETER! TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
DATE
MAY 7.
MAY 14,
MAY 21,
MAY 28,
JUNE 7,
JUNE 14,
JUNE 21,
JUNE 28,
JULY 5,
JULY 12,
JULY 19,
JULY 2fc,
AUK. 2,
AUG. 9,
AU6. 16,
AUG. 23,
AUG. 30,
SEP. 6,
SEP. 13,
SEP. 20,
SEP. 27,
SEP. 28,
OCT. 5,
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
STO. OEV.
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1
11.59
9,96
13.58
10.99
12.13
13.19
10.64
9.92
10.69
9.55
8.46
10.77
10.53
11.44
11.81
12.34
7.52
9. 19
6.92
11.18
11.50
********
10.73
13.58
7.52
10,78
2.25050
1.50017
2
11.59
9,74
1 1.06
8,26
12.20
13.13
13,62
9,04
9.39
8.61
8.06
10.00
9.80
11.27
11,37
11.03
6,60
10.22
8.12
10.55
10.80
10.09
13. S2
8.08
10.31
2.47236
1.57238
3
11.75
9.4J
12.92
11 .34
12.86
9,47
6.15
8.40
7.83
7.69
9.92
11.74
11.27
10.39
8,90
6.72
11 .26
7.84
10.23
9.83
9.77
12.92
7.69
9.99
2.61143
1.61599
4
10.79
9.06
12.50
17.20
7.80
13.13
8.86
8.55
6.11
5.48
6.92
10,08
9.32
9.45
9.29
6.61
7.86
7.41
7.98
10.04
9.77
9.90
9.32
17.20
5.4fl
9.28
fc.3i684
2.51731
1 1 N I T S | M G
STATION NUMBER
5 t
li.fe? *****
12, a? *****
9,92 *****
6.6U *****
6,00 *****
7,83 *****
1 1 .21 ******
6, 28 ******
8,30 ******
7.79 ******
****** ******
10,15 ******
9,59 *********
/L
7
* *****
*****
*<***
*****
*****
*****
*******
*******
*******
7.41
9.»0
*******
9.70
T.41
B.56
2.62205
1.61927
8
1 1.35
5.74
11.13
10,53
13.62
12.42
9.92
8.64
6,40
7.83
6.U6
10.39
10.28
11.21
10.08
6.28
7.64
6,10
7.79
10. JO
10.70
10.15
13.62
5.74
9.59
3.69867
1.92324
9
*t* *
*** *
*** *
*** *
*** *
******
0.143
******
******
0.012
0.020
0.039
0.033
0.032
0.032
0.428
0.020
0.030
* ***
* ***
* ***
* ***
* ***
0.428
0.012
O.u79
0.0164}
0.12819
10
***
** *
**»
* **
* * *
***<
***i
***
***
***
* * *
* **
* **
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
* * *
***
**
**
**
* *
**
t**
>**
>**
**
**
**
**
4*
* *
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
*********
****** s NO DATA
-------
TABLE B-20. TOTAL SOLUBLE PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1976
SCiUblF PHfiSPnOPUS
u N i T 51 * r. / L
ro
o
DATE
HAY 29,
JUNE 21,
JULY 1«
JULY 1,
JULY 8,
JULY 13,
JULY IH,
JULY 15,
JULY 22,
JULY 29,
AUG. 5,
AUG. 12,
AUG. 20,
AUG. 27,
SEP. 5,
SEP. 10,
SEP. 17,
SEP. 24,
OCT. 1,
OCT. 6,
OCT, 15,
OCT. 22,
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
STD. DEV
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1
9,57
10.55
9.61
8.71
8.99
7.58
8.J5
8.68
8.99
8.97
8.88
8.44
8.72
8.76
7.32
8.92
9.59
10.55
7.32
8.80
0.5JU928
0.731368
2
9.57
11.57
9, (15
5.93
9.83
7.6(1
8.82
9. 70
9.30
9.68
9.19
9.73
9. 46
6.96
6.61
10. 04
9.4J
11.57
^.93
8,99
2.005676
1 .416219
3
9.34
11.38
8.98
6.09
9.92
7.91
8.90
8.93
9,07
8.17
9.73
9,35
9.30
9.09
5.58
9.16
9.35
11.18
5.58
8,«4
1 .821553
1 .349649
4
9, SO
12.21
9.92
7.98
3.22
10.14
8.05
9,06
9.7ft
9.46
9,13
9.26
8.97
9.8fl
8.76
7.95
9.00
9,10
12.21
3.22
8.97
3.015768
1 .736597
STATION
5
9.46
9.53
9,88
******
6.68
******
******
10.12
3.67
10.00
8.59
8.90
10.04
******
9.37
* * *
** *
** *
** *
** *
** *
** *
10.12
3.67
8.75
3.801669
1 .949787
MUMRf H
t 7
****** 7,04
3.62 3.53
9.92 9.92
9e60 *******
** *** *******
« *** *******
9.92 9.92
3.62 3.53
8.29 6.83
4.061703 10.241100
2.015366 3,200172
8
********
********
10.04
10.39
6.75
4.75
10.34
8.05
6.96
9.53
9.22
9.13
9.03
6,97
9.55
10,39
«.75
8.98
2.040174
1 .428347
V
0.010
0.010
0.019
******
U.05S
******
******
0.087
0.044
0.022
0.020
0.016
0.053
0.021
0,014
0.011
0.008
0.010
******
******
******
******
0.087
0.008
0.027
10
0
**
* *
* *
* *
4*
*th
ft*
**
**
**
* *
**
**
* *
4*
**
*ft
**
* *
**
**
oeu
* *
**
i» *
* *
**
**
**
**
* *
**
* *
**
**
* *
**
«*
**
**
* «
*•*
* 4
0.084
0 .06*
o.oe«
****** a NO DATA
-------
TABLE E-21. TOTAL SOLUBLE PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1977.
PARAMETERS TOTAL SOU'BLF fHOSPHO»U8
DATE
30
WAV 28,i S977 Id, OS 7.&S asasaas 34,1? 9062 ****** »«**«** 9a62
JUNE 7f j«77 1107S 12,05 12, 9i 7,6fl 11,,89 sirrta** a*«,*A«* aa,89
JULV 5P J§?7 90"7 &,03 6,11 3SOS 6,4)1 **«*««• -s*«*oss 6,'49
a U 6 o i f a 9 7 7 906U 8B58 S0^S 7,85 9072 4*«s»» «««»*** ?a72
NJ AU6. 30» S?1?? 70S* 6a93 fee't'O fe.,&4> 7805 *aee*4 flofts^ift 7eo5
f 8if'o iJj 'I1??? ?0§3 ?0?7 '.?5 7 , 1 5 &0Sa '986S> &<,82
8£Po S7/i a977 ?,S7 ?0?0 9cg§ 80feS S0028 a«ft**s «*«as:4* aO.38
SEP. 38, 8S7? *a*****« «S9«* «.*.**. S0J5 .*.*** «***, 7087 .**•**.«
HeSlHUM !1073 12.05 SS,?t 1«.I7 I!oa9 **«***..* 7.87 11. SO
f-iSNJWUM ?0S& 6303 6,3! S005 6,89 *»«**»*** 60fe6 &,89
MEAN » * 6 S * fl A *
'***S4"»»
kft. .*.«»*
s NO DATA
-------
TABLE B-22. ORTHO PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1976
D4TE
M A V 1 Q
™ ft T 1 " t
^ & Y £2
MAY £9,
JUNE 23»
J U L V If
JULY 8f
JULY 13,
1 1 II V i it
J Ut. f i M |
TIM V ^ *S
J U U ' I 3 f
JUUY 22,
JUUY 29,
&US, S,
4UG, li,
A US, 28,
4US, 37,
SEP. i,
SEP. SO,
SEP, 17.
SEP. Zk,
OCT. 1,
OCT. 8P
OCT. 15,
OCT, 22,
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MESN
V4RIANJJ
STD, L>EV
i a =? *,
i " ' D
1 Q 7 fe
1 " / o
197a
1976
t Q S i
i " ' O
1 Q 7 fe
4 " ( O
1976
1 9 "? £
1 ™ f C
fl a 7 *,
i ™ r ©
1976
1 976
J 97fc
1976
197s
1976
i 9?fe
J976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1«T6
.
PikiMfTFRl nHTHLi PHnSPwOPUS UNITSj M(,/u
8T*TI()N NUMBER
1 ? J tt 5 t 7 8 9 10
** * * » *ft 1 ee . • r 8T n na?
7e^S 99Q9 8,63 9C20 9oiili "005 **ft6irfi* ^D20 OeOi3 ftfcswcre
35^ 898 Qfep ^^^i ^^fS^^fi ^fe^ftii* ftitAftA*0 ^fe^&*fi6£ ^f*fefts^^i si^ii;^^^
O 30 eee«- (ill
7.60 5,78 fe.OS 3e03 il^fe 3^! 5 . a S VsB "Io3? fia*^«4
9,08 10, U7 9,70 9,7« 10.13 10,01 9,741 9,70 0,OS« eunafts
6e7e 7,70 7070 8,07 8.1 a 6.1« a****** 7,70 O.Oli ftft»*ft»
7,62 8,75 8,12 888S S065 6CSO «»*»*«« 88SO 0,0<»3 ssaftao
8,19 9»S5 9 , S i 9»t7 9.79 90feB oftfrisss 90OJ 0,021 saoeeo
S,«l 8.91 8,83 9,21 er6s»a* aftsese **«««** 8,^9 0,01? eassea
7,65 8,77 7836 S,®5 8. 85 S.9J »»ftosr*a S,?7 00012 sftsa**
8,SJ 9,09 9032 9.17 ft«*a*6 »*«**» «fta*a&* 6,55 0,005 »msiifta
7,9S 90ifc ®o?B 90°fe »*«*** «**»4« sra&asftfl ®07! 00OOS e » * ft 4 *
S0!**«* s«r*«»*a* aa«*®a a e « ft « «
8,70 9,38 9,22 9,5o s*««s» 4ae««» e4*»*6* *o«s»4** i,*s«s« *e**sn
8.62 8076 8,90 SE7© ss**** s*&£6* w****^* «»*&*- *; * a fefi*ti?St6 **ae&fe
9,03 10,96 9.71) 10.38 10.21 10. n« 9,7« SO,J! 0,oa§ 00078
6.7J 5,78 6,02 J.OJ 2.06 3,21 30UJ «.38 0,003 00OS2
8,11 8,93 8,U5 6,69 8,11 8. SO 6,66 S.fe5 O.OS8 0006S
0, 362H3 1.211571 0,950526 2,a55j6^ i, 782220 3,611961 10.03723J 1099«;86 Bno02o7fe3 ,000338yO
0,602008 1,J0071S o,97t!VU9 1,566960 2,186829 1,901305 3,168159 S.118S56 ,01«U093« ,01838178
-------
TABLE B-23. ORTHO PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1977
PARAMETER) ORTH PHOSPHORUS
JMTTSl H&/L
DATE
MAY 28,
JUNE 7,
JULY 5,
AUS. 2,
AUG. 30,
SEP. 11,
3EP. 27,
SEP. 28,
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
3TD. OEV.
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1
9.
10.
9.
9.
6.
6.
9.
77
87
16
06
21
91
16
6.21
8.85
2.778714
1 .666948
2
'.50
12.01
6.18
8. 16
6.33
7.54
9.41
12.01
6.18
8.21
4, 101948
2.025820
1
11.42
5.71
8.79
5.37
6.82
6.88
11 .42
5.17
7.84
5.278750
2.297553
u
11.79
7.48
1 .15
7.90
5.49
6.98
8.11
7.95
13.79
1.15
'.36
12.15761?
J. 486777
STATION NUMRFR
5 t
7,i9 ******
P , feo ******
****** ******
6,5b *********
4.616146 *********
6,11
*******
7,67
7.67
6.11
7.00
0.897800
0.947521
8
9.47
11.91
6.16
9.19
6.97
'.19
9.60
11.93
5.97
6.56
u. 616148
2.148522
9 1 >
****** **
****** *
0.021 *
****** *
(1.023 *
****** *4
****** *«<
****** **<
0 . 021 *********
.00000200 *****.****
.00141421 *********
****** t NO DATA
-------
TABLE B-24. TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1976
P4RAMFTER| TOTAL DISSOLVFD SOLIDS
UNITS)
ho
M
Co
DATE
MAY 19,
MAY 22,
MAY 29,
JUNE 23,
JULY 1,
JULY 7,
JULY 8,
JULY 13,
JULY 14,
JULY 15,
JULY 22,
AUG. 5,
AUG. 12,
SEP. 2,
SEP. 1,
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
STD. DEV
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1
542
798
874
762
600
580
658
874
693
13667.
116.
. o
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.5
14
91
2
586.0
760.0
954.0
738.0
740.0
598.0
564.0
672.0
954.0
564.0
701.5
16260.29
127.52
3
464. 0
788.0
728.0
634.0
708.0
564.0
540.0
694.0
788.0
640*.0
11996.57
109.53
"
52«.n
704.0
690.0
726.0
620. 0
708.0
562.0
592.0
784.0
784.0
524.0
656.7
7387.00
85.95
STATION
5
692.0
64U, 0
410. 0
432.0
486.0
932.0
684.0
704.0
562.0
556.0
932.0
410.0
610.2
2U239.51
155. fcQ
ft 7
7lti, 0 *******
668.0 660,0
808.0 774.0
328.0 660.0
619.6 717.0
19338.49 6498.00
139,06 80.61
8
1102.0
716.0
848.0
636.0
616.0
594.0
1102.0
594.0
752.0
37985.60
194.90
9 10
****** ***
330.0 33
334.0 32
46.0 *
244,0
******
90.0
******
******
202.0
532.0
334.0
182. 0
238.0
****** *
***
2 0
0 0
532.0 332.0
46.0 320.0
253.2 326.0
19361.96 72.00
139.15 8.49
****** I NO DATA
-------
TABLE B-25. TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1977
PARAMFTERI TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
'NITSt MG/L
DATE
MAY 14,
HAY 28,
JUNE 7, -
JUL* 5,
AUC. 2,
AUG. 30,
SEP. 27,
SEP. 28,
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
STD. DEV.
1977
1977
!<»-•>
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1
606.0
587.0
623.0
652.n
640. n
610.0
532. o
806.0
5S2.0
636.3
7213,57
80.9J
2
830.0
480.0
560.0
562.0
618.0
632.0
617.0
830.0
1480.0
618.4
11930.62
109.23
3
722.0
*******
631.0
532.0
660.0
634,0
596.0
722.0
532.0
629.2
4027.37
63,46
4
716.0
572.0
651.0
"92.0
594.0
bbi.O
597.0
582.0
716.0
492.0
608.4
4611.70
67.91
STATIflN NuMyE»
5 »
630
604
669
4Q6
-------
TABLE B-26. TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1976
N3
M
Ul
DATE
JUNE 23,
JULY i,
JULY 7,
JULY 8,
JULY 13,
JULY 11,
JULY 15,
JULY 32,
JULY 29,
AUG. S,
AUG. IS,
AUG. 20,
AUG. 27,
SEP. 2,
SEP, 10,
SEP. 17,
SEP. 2«,
OCT. 1,
OCT. 8,
OCT. 15,
OCT. 22,
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
STD. OEV
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1*76
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
11.5
11.2
31.7
15.2
68.2
35.7
23.9
H.l
71,9
2989
11,6
57.1
30,5
60,0
88.3
81.9
92.3
92.3
11.1
19.8
567.9
23.*
0,P4M,T,B
2
18.5
22.3
81.7
11,7
11.7
20.5
ll[9
16.5
9.5
8.5
5.1
6.1
19.6
17.5
15.6
61.7
5.1
22.0
383.7
19.6
i TOTAL S-'SPEMnfr SOLTYS
STATIC*
J 1 5
130.0
161.6
289.7
111.2
322.5
1 05.6
13.6
55^2
786.5
16,1
52.6
17.1
21,9
48,9
19,2
29.6
786.5
17.1
165.0
11216.9
203.0
37.1
26.2
28.6
21.2
29.2
22.1
92.8
25.2
58,1
11.5
33.2
16.1
22.1
19.8
33.6
11,8
20.3
12.1
92.8
11. e
30.9
363.0
19.1
32.2
71.1
?7.9
22.2
11.1
35.0
313.3
13.9
35.3
17.6
313.3
17.6
61.6
7879.6
88.8
i^TTS: MG/L
NUMBFP
678
3192.7
3286.9
161.0
1179.1
161.9
118.7
lll.l
2618.6
98. S
122.7
***«**«
3266.9
98.8
1251.1
1801762. i
1312.3
*******
33.1
35.6
210.2
*******
******
******
******
210.2
31.1
93.0
10297.8
101.5
********
11.5
10,8
8.1
52.2
11.7
13.2
22.6
7.9
25."
10.2
10.6
15.1
23,3
********
52.2
7.9
17.1
111.8
12.0
9
1.5
2.0
1 .«
* * ** **
3.1
1.6
1,8
1.6
i!o
2.3
2.2
3.5
1.9
1.1
******
******
******
1,0 <
. 1 '
10
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
****** 3 NO DATA
-------
TABLE B-27. TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1977
DATE
MAY 7,
MAY 14,
MAY 21,
MAY 28,
JUNE 7,
JUNE 14,
JUNE 21,
JUNE 28,
JUL" 5,
JULY 12,
JULY 19,
JULY 26,
AUG. 2,
AUG, 9,
AUG. 16,
AUS, 23,
AUG. 30,
SEP, 6,
SEP. 13,
SEP. 20,
SEP. 27,
SEP. 28,
OCT. 5,
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
STL). OEV.
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1
38,8
31,4
59,5
42.0
42.5
44,0
1880
19.7
15.9
34.7
24,2
70.0
14,8
18,6
49. 1
26.2
20.5
15.5
18.5
43.6
18,8
15.6
70.0
14,8
11.0
248.5
15,8
PARAMETER)
2
14.1
21.7
32.2
11 .1
29.0
15.9
119.1
ai.s
126.2
33.3
5.3
18.6
23.3
17,1
51.0
37.4
21.8
42.5
19.9
31.2
34,4
18.8
339.1
5.3
47.5
4775.3
69.1
TOTAL SUSP
3
36.9
56.4
52,0
22.3
64.4
22.3
130,2
164.7
131.4
269. >
55.0
61.4
62.9
192.1
35.2
60.6
42.9
57.5
74.3
49.2
43,7
f.
269.1
22.3
81.2
3909.3
62.5
FNOFn SOL
4
18.5
22.7
293.2
116.9
43.6
31 .0
51.4
23.1
67.8
103.4
40.2
46.1
29.4
81.1
40.2
27.8
49.1
69.5
69.7
28.0
16.7
44,8
22.5
291,2
18.5
59,2
1279.9
57.1
"-,5
STATION
5
28.
17.
21.
16.
14,
9.
5.
38.
a3.
26.
17.
13.
10.
9.
22.
32.
5.
26.
7.
16.
6,
22.
5'.
18.
112.
10.
UNITS) MC,/L
6 7
fc
3 ******* *******
g ******* *******
7 ******* *******
8
28,2
17.5
21.7
16.3
14.6
9.2
5.6
18.7
41.3
26.9
17.7
13,2
10.6
9.8
22.6
32.5
5.7
26.1
7.1
16.8
6.3
22.1
as. 3
5.7
18.8
112.4
10.6
g
** **
** **
** **
* * * *
** **
** **
1."
******
1.9
0.7
O.P
10.7
2.4
2.5
3.4
31.0
l.J
5.0
** **
** **
** »*
** **
* * **
11.0
0.7
5.8
89. -47616
9.457147
10
***
* * *
***
* * *
***
***
** *
***
»**
***
* **
* * *
* **
** *
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
** *
****
*******
»*
****** • NO DATA
-------
TABLE B-28. VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1976
STILE
SOLIDS
UN I TS | "G/L
DATE
JUNE 23,
JULY 1,
JULY 7,
JULY 8,
JULY 13,
JULY 11,
JULY 15,
JULY 22,
JULY 29,
AU5. 5,
AUG. 12,
AUG. 20,
AU5. 27,
SEP. 2,
SEP. 10,
SEP. 17,
SEP. 21,
OCT. 1,
OCT. 8,
OCT. 15,
OCT. 22,
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
STU. OEv
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1
30. 1
31.0
?«.3
32.3
50.0
25.1
22.6
13.7
7.1
21.6
39.3
25. 8
2J,0
55.5
62.0
60.2
66. B
66. S
7.1
31.7
117.871(1
17.8289
2
28.8
n.9
J7.1
29.3
8.5
12.3
22.8
8. 1
10.2
o.«
8.6
6.5
1.8
7.9
11.5
13.9
12. 1
37.1
0.1
11.0
96.77b3
9.8375
3
71.0
33. 1
51 . 1
45.0
51.2
21.1
21 .t
Ufr.5
e . 6.
1 il . i
12. r
7,2
1.7
7.3
10.1
8. a
12.1
121.3
1.7
J1.2
95u,59bl
}0.89fe5
u
lfc.9
ia.8
13.0
15.7
12.3
13.8
52. u
16.5
18.2
51.3
15.8
10.5
10.3
2.3
11.7
5.9
8.?
13.3
52.1
2.3
16.6
17S.J986
13.3566
STATION
5
8.5
19.7
15.5
10.5
15. «
15.7
39.3
20.3
11 .5
11.6
*** A A * *
*»**»**
39.3
6.5
16.8
77.2756
e.7907
NUMBER
t
126.6
2"7. 1
aj.q
107.7
20.7
iB.J
38. «
221.2
22.1
33.6
2*17.1
20.7
89.0
7J91 .600U
8U.6033
7
*******
9.9
10.7
3«.l
*******
*******
*******
31.1
9.9
18.2
188.9733
13.7168
8
********
8.5
8.3
5.9
33.7
9.6
9.2
^0.6
6.7
1«. J
758
11.0
8.3
*
33.7
5.9
12.0
62.1827
7.9016
9
1.2
0.8
*****?
0,8
******
******
1.5
0.9
0.9
0,5
5.3
3.fc
1 .2
0."
1.1
1.1
0.2
******
******
******
******
10
******
******
* *****
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
A*****
******
******
******
******
******
******
****** « NO DATA
-------
TABLE B-29. VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1977
v/IU&TTUE SUSPMJFIED SOLIDS
DATE
S T 4 T!u N
i n
MAY 7,
MAY 14,
MAY 21,
MAY 28,
JUNE 7,
JUNE 14,
JUNE 2S,
JUNE 28,
JULY 5,
JULY ]g,
JULY 19,
JULY 26,
AUG. I,
4U6, 9,
AUG. 16,
AUS, 23,
AUG. 30,
SEP, 6,
SEP, S3,
SEP, 20,
SEP, 27,
SEP. 28,
OCT. 5,
MAXIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
STD, OEy «
1977
1977
J97T
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
24,7
34.3
40.5
19.0
52.7
39.0
12,0
17,1
14,2
31,9
21 ,1
67,1
3.7,
15,5
36.?
14,0
9.3
9.2
13,1
27,5
15,0
11,8
67,1
3.3
25S0
257,5702
lfe.0490
26,7
19.7
24.6
21.7
36.0
21,6
133,3
2887
50.8
31,9
3.2
16. a
19.4
16,0
28,0
21.6
1.7
17,2
8.5
15,4
17.1
13.8
ill
26,!
687,7766
26.2255
16.5
as. ?
26,0
* * ft ft * ft *
42,6
24, a
9,2
36,1
37,4
62.9
14.6
24.3
19.3
16.3
15,1
21.6
19,4
13,7
11.7
16,0
12,4
12,3
62.9
9.2
23.7
190.5550
11.7
17.2
89.0
76, 1
31.3
20.7
13.2
29,8
4a,5
30,4
18,5
7.6
40,8
12,4
13,9
6.6
14.3
10,6
9.3
19, u
17.2
13.3
89,0
6.6
24.9
"35,4793
20,86bi
20
9
15
14
24
17
0
57
12
9
9
15
10
0
14
b
10
5
16
37
0
14
75.64
8.69
.6 *******
» 5 *******
94 *ftteftftft*
55 *********
*******
*******
*******
*******
*** * *
*******
21.4
******&
240ii
2i!«
22e
-------
TABLE B-30. SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1976
DATE
MAY 19,
MAY 22,
MAY 29,
JUNE 23,
JULY 1,
JULY 7,
JULY 8,
JULY 13,
JULY 14,
JULY 15,
JULY 22,
JULY 29,
AUG. 5,
AUG. 12,
AUG. 20,
AUG. 27,
SIP. 2,
SEP, 10,
SEP. 17,
SEP. 24,
OCT. 1,
OCT. 8,
OCT. 15,
OCT. 22,
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
8T[). OEV
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1
1060.
1054.
1097.
1166,
1?33.
1076,
1082,
1008,
1069,
1058.
1012.
1069.
1082.
1123.
951.
1288.
1095,
12«8.
951.
1090.
6446.507
60.290
PARAMFTEP
2
1239.
1048.
1240.
1102.
1087.
1126.
1069.
1065.
1047.
1046.
1045.
J092.
1058.
1163.
1064,
1087.
905.
1240,
905.
1089.
5973.015
'7.285
! SPECIFIC
3
* *
1122.
1035,
1271.
1115.
1072.
1130.
1059.
1075.
1032.
983.
S012.
1075.
1078,
1029.
875.
1062.
689.
1271.
875.
1054.
8163.816
90.35"
CONDUCTANCF
STATION
4 5
1U7U.
1054.
1263,
1132.
1169.
nn,
1092.
1045.
1096.
1022.
1098.
1029.
1069.
1115.
1216,
1059.
1036.
886.
1263.
888.
1087.
6593.124
81 .136
1058.
******
1060,
1099.
12)4.
******
1096.
******
******
1254.
1142.
1127.
1084.
1059.
1082.
******
1084.
*** 4
*
*
*
*
*
*
1254.
1058.
1113.
3908.750
62,520
MJMBE R
6 7
****** *******
1112, *******
****** 1199,
1157, 1206.
1091. 1077,
****** A******
1255. 1208.
1015. 10T7,
1 106. 1161.
3859.424 5354.333
62.124 73.173
6
4* **
1181.
********
1198,
1151 ,
1174.
1122,
1117.
1087.
1056.
1010,
1073.
1007.
1052.
1090.
1198,
1007,
1102.
3899.936
62,449
9
******
U6U.
435.
477.
507.
******
572.
******
******
526.
565.
485.
516,
477.
478.
498.
464.
465.
491 .
499.
******
******
******
******
572,
435.
497.
1209.329
34.775
******
445,.
506".
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
506.
44%.
1860.500
43.134
****** i NO DATA
-------
TABLE B-31. SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE CONCENTRATIONS DETEEMINED DURING 1977
[SO
NJ
o
PARAMETER! SPECIFIC
OAU
HAY 14,
JUNE 2 1 ,
JUL" 5,
JULY 19,
AUG. 2,
AUG. 16,
AUG. 30,
SEP. 13,
SEP . 27 ,
MINIMUM
VARIANCE
STO. DEV.
1977
1 977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1
1102.
1 2 39.
1159,
1259.
1012.
1098,
1018.
1«13.
1012.
1161.
15453,69)
124.313
2
1202.
1157,
1 126.
1 126.
992.
1055.
970.
1385.
1098.
940.
1114.
16075.091
126.788
3
1091.
1106, •
1091.
1005.
1050.
9U8,
1365.
948.
1116.
16798.400
129.609
CONDUCTANCE
U
1198.
1 129.
10UU.
978.
1060.
949.
1«27.
949.
16570.083
128.725
STATION
5
1098.
1 na.
1 106.
971.
1050.
950.
1024.
950.
7556,800
86.930
UNITSi
NUHBEH
b
******
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*********
*********
*********
MICROMHOS/CM
7
*******
***** *
***** *
***** *
***** *
***** *
1441.
1062.
71820.500
267.993
B
109S.
1134.
1106.
971.
1050.
950.
t024.
9SO.
1 089.
7556.800
86.9JO
9 10
******
481 .
466.
"17.
449.
430.
******
** *
«1 7. *********
825.100 *********
28.725 *********
****** * NO DATA
-------
TABLE B-32. SULFATE CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1976
DATE
MAY 19,
MAY 21,
MAY 29,
JUNE 23,
JULY 1,
JULY 7,
JULY 6,
JULY 13,
JULY 14,
JULY 15,
JULV 22,
JULY 29,
AUS, 5,
AUS, 12,
AUG. 20,
AUS. 27,
SEP. 2,
OCT, 1,
OCT. 15,
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
STD. DfV
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1
55. 8
68.4
69.0
56.8
58.3
58,8
60.3
50.3
52.3
59.5
58.3
62.3
69.0
50.3
59.2
30.68205
5.5391U
PAR4METEPI
2
63.0
67.0
61.0
53.8
61.3
58.8
75.4
53.6
53.6
59.5
55.8
61 .8
75.4
53.6
60.4
39.66727
6.29820
S U u f A T F
3
59.0
63.
62.3
53.8
65.3
57.5
69.4
55.5
54.4
64.5
59.0
60.5
69,4
53.8
60.4
22.55182
4.74888
U
51.3
63.7
61 .9
56.3
60.0
58.5
60.3
50.8
53.2
62.5
62.8
60.8
64.3
50.8
59.0
21.57436
u. 64482
STATION
5
67.0
66. 0
134.0
52.1
62.3
64.3
53.8
68.3
65.0
49.8
60.5
134.0
49.8
66.8
483.91902
21.99616
UNITS,
NUMS
6
59
IZ
121
59
62
60
63
65
b6
63
52
63
E»
/
.1 *******
* **
* ** *
, 0 *******
. 0 55.0
,n 66.5
121.6 66.5
52.8 55.0
66.5 61.9
323.65720 37.26333
17.99048 6.10437
8
59.3
66.4
61.2
55.8
62.0
56.0
70.9
54.0
52.9
67.0
70.9
52.9
60.6
36.85633
6.07111
9 10
****** **<
20.3
25.0 c
35., **
10.4 *•
****** **
20,3 **
****** **
****** **
20.1 **
21.3 **
22.6 **
19.3 **
32.7 **
39.1 **
14.5 **
14.0 **
****** **
****** **
k***
7.6
>9 0
*
*
4
*
ft
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
39.1 29.0
10.4 17.6
22.7 23,3
71.79744 64.98000
8.47334 8.061G<;
****** s NO DATA
-------
TABLE B-33. SULFATE CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1977
to
M
NO
PARAMFTFRl 3I",FATF
DATE
"AY 28, 1977
JUNE 7, 1977
JULV 5, 1977
AUG. S, 1977
AUG. 30, 1977
SEP. 13, 1977
SEP. 27, 1977
SEP. 28, '977
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
STO. DEv.
1
65.0
73.8
68. «
61.0
57. b
50.0
61.5
50.0
62.5
58.70905
7.66218
2
70.6
67.2
69.7
82.9
50.2
64.3
60,7
82.9
50.2
66.5
100.11143
10.00557
3
*******
75.8
67,1
63.4
52.?
71.4
60.2
75.8
52.2
65.0
70.28967
8.38389
4
65.4
76.3
71.1
65.9
50.0
65.5
58.0
57.5
76.3
50.0
63.7
69.01554
8.30756
STATION
5
59.6
69,3
72.4
68,3
54, U
6U.3
59.6
72.4
54. u
04. 0
41.35143
6.43051
JNTTSt i.
NUH-EK
e 7
******* *******
8 9
59.6 ******
69,3 ******
72.4 i<4,7
68.3 20.9
54.3 19. *•
o4.3 ******
59 ,6 ******
7J.U i20.9
64.0 10.5
11.67238 10.94333
t>.aS5«i i.3oeo7
10
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
*********
*********
*********
****** i NO DATA
-------
TABLE B-34. BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1976
ho
N3
PARAMETERl BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN
DATE
MAY 19,
MAY 22,
MAY 29,
JUNE 23,
JULY 1,
JULY 7,
JULY 8,
JULY 13,
JULY 10,
JULY 15,
JULY 22,
JULY 29,
AUG. 5,
AUG. 12,
AUS. 20,
AUG. 27,
SEP. 2,
SEP. 10,
SEP. 17,
SEP. 24,
OCT. 1,
OCT. 8,
OCT. 15,
OCT. 22,
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
8TO. OEv
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1
36. «
46.0
********
36.3
22.9
15.3
2400
33.8
22.1
25.1
20,6
30.2
23.5
31.0
26.8
32.8
32.7
24.7
46.0
15.3
29.0
50.055147
7.352221
2
6.7
6.0
*******
12.2
13.7
7.3
5.0
17.2
12.3
10.5
10.1
11.1
10.9
10.3
13.9
11.6
13.7
17.4
17.4
5.0
11.3
1 1.461250
3
17.7
22.9
10.3
40,5
16.0
13.9
18.3
16.5
17.4
*******
16.1
15.0
11.6
13.7
9.9
19.4
13.7
40.5
9.9
17.1
50.467956
7. 1 04flflO
4
15.5
19.6
12.6
11. 0
12.5
2S.5
17.0
15.6
10.1
12.5
10.9
10.4
9.0
13.8
14.4
28.5
7.5
14.1
22.721103
DEMAND
STATION
5
£1.6
11 .4
6.3
8.4
*******
27.5
9.7
11.2
9.4
9.7
14.3
9.6
6.5
27.5
6.3
12.1
39.753333
6.305024
UNITSi M[
t
19.8
21.0
17.8
24.7
*******
26.0
42.3
14.5
13.6
9.7
15.2
11.3
10.4
*******
* *
26.0
9.7
17.2
31.164470
5.56251'=
;/L
7
*******
*******
*******
13.6
*******
12.3
11.2
*******
*******
13.8
11.2
12.4
1.703333
1 .3051 18
8
********
********
6.6
********
********
7.2
6.0
14.8
9.5
11.7
21.7
13.0
42.0
14.1
11.9
27J3
********
27.3
6,0
13.9
41.331923
6.42899]
9
******
2.1
2.3
i.7
1.4
******
1.5
******
******
1 . J
0.9
0.5
0.3
1.5
1.0
4.2
1.2
1 .1
1.6
0.6
******
******
******
******
o!s
1.6
1.123633
1 .060110
10
******
3.9
4.5
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
**»*
****
****
****
4.5
3.9
4.2
0. 180000
0.42426"
****** a NQ DATA
-------
TABLE B-35. BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1977
ho
K>
-C-
BoMAMfTER! BIOCHEMJfiL OXVGF-N DEMAND
DATE
HAY 7,
MAY 14,
MAY 21,
MAY 28,
JUNE 14,
JUNE 21,
JUNE 26,
JULY 5,
JULY 11,
JULY 19,
JULY 26,
AuG. 2,
AUG, 9,
AUG. 16,
AUG. 23,
AUS. 30,
SEP, 6,
SEP. 13,
SEP. 20,
SEP. 27,
OCT. 5,
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
STD, OEv.
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
I
15.5
14.1
16,5
6.7
20.4
19.0
11.4
13.8
18.7
12.4
19.5
16,1
36.2
13.8
10.1
13.7
15.3
8.6
17.0
13.8
20.4
36.2
8.6
16.0
33.882619
5.820878
2
15.8
9.7
8.2
10.2
13.6
33.8
12.8
19.1
29.7
10.2
35.7
12.6
11.6
33.0
2l|9
33.1
6.5
17.9
10.4
15.4
35.7
6.5
17.9
89,214000
9.446375
3
11.2
16.0
19.0
9.5
10,8
10. J
20.1
23.9
13.0
12.4
'S.3
9.9
31.7
11.1
8.8
17.9
15.9
12.4
11.0
14.2
31,7
8.6
31.952211
5.652629
4
10.5
8.1
12.5
35.4
12.1
10.4
8.1
27.8
26.7
9.5
8.3
15. 0
35.1
28.6
9.2
9.3
12.0
8.4
9.1
21.6
17.2
35.4
8.1
16.0
86, J5) =•>!
9,281 /B7
STATION
5
12.
9.
10.
13.
9.
7.
9.
15.
24.
11.
IS.
13.
7,
29.
13.
10,
13.
10.
14.
7.
23.
?!
13.
13.52428
5.79001
UNITS! MG
oj a n> 9 "
NUMBER
t
2 *******
0 *******
3 *******
3 *******
3 *******
1 *******
a *******
0 *******
6 *******
0 *******
3 *********
/I
7 8
******* 12
******* 9
A****** ?
&*«**** 9
******* l i
******* 15
******* 13
18,5 10
******* 1 14
lfl.5 £9
16.5 7
18,5 13
.2
,0
.ft
.9
!s
.7
.5
.3
.3
.1
.6
.7
.8
.4
,6
.0
.9
.0
.6
.0
.8
.3
, a
86
16
** *
4
*
*
*
*
1.7
2.6
2.9
1.2
2.0
1.7
7.0
******
0.6
3.1
******
******
******
******
7.0
0.6
2.5
i . 4 S o 0 0 0
1.857418
10
******
******
******
******
.*****
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
*********
*********
****** « NO DATA
-------
TABLE B-36. CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1976
N>
'-O
PARAMF TFR I CHF"'CM
DATE
MAY 19,
HAY 22,
MAY 29,
JUNE 23,
JULY t,
JULY 7,
JULY 8,
JULY 13,
JULY 10,
JULV 15,
JULY 22,
JULY 29,
AUS. S,
AUG. 13,
AUG. 20,
AUG. 27,
SEP. 2,
SEP, 10,
SEP, 17,
SEP. 24,
OCT. t,
OCT. <5,
OCT. 15,
OCT. 22,
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
810. OEV.
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1
1 49,9
92. U
102.9
113,2
122.1
97.8
«3.4
si. a
100,7
72.5
89,2
77.3
77.5
93.0
150.0
144, 0
155.9
155.9
72.5
106.1
795. 83U
28.211
2
131.3
66.7
89.1
87.7
57.3
55.8
56.6
«7.5
44.1
41.2
42.5
37.0
38.1
45.5
56.6
57.7
61.8
131.3
37.0
59,9
567.321
23.819
3
240.*
99.2
111.1
112,2
150.0
72.9
57.2
75.1
50,6
73.4
37.0
34,6
38.1
34.8
38.5
50.3
58,2
240. P
i«,6
7«.5
?836.
-------
TABLE B-37. CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1977
PARAMETERl CHEMIC4L OMYGEN
STATJ
ho
hO
•ON
10
JUNE 2\f 1977
•JULY 19, 1977
AUG. 2* 1 977
A y d t 1 & > 1977
fliUG* 30? 1977
SEP "3* 1977
5883 172B6
56«6 55efc
5S.7
39^9
57, a
62e 1
51. fe
33.0
27. S
55.2
1 1 7 3
*******
*******
72 3
e r . «
til. U
e
II:S
OG 1
20S56
17.20
11 ,«9
******
«««***
******
******
******
s NO DATi
-------
TABLE B-38. TEMPERATURE CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1976.
ro
t-o
PAKAMETES! TFMPEPATllRt
DATE
MAY 22,
MAY 29,
JULY 1,
JULY 6,
JULY 12,
JULY 13,
JULY 22,
JUUY 29,
AUG. 5,
AUG. IS,
AUG. 20,
SEP. 2,
SFP, 10,
StP. 16,
SEP. 17,
SEP. 23,
SEP, 24,
SEP. 30,
OCT. 1,
OCT8 7,
OCT. e,
OCT. 14,
OCT. 15,
OCT. 21,
OCT. 22,
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
STO, DFv
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
J976
1976
1976
!976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1
22.
20,
20.
22.
23.
20.
21,
21 .
27,
21.
21.
21,
19.
20.
20,
20,
17.
19.
15.
19,
15.
16.
y
«
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27.0
15.0
20.0
7.09J07a
2.663282
2
21.
23.
2«.
23,
23.
20.
1*.
20,
17.
2l!
n!
18.
15.
16.
1«.
14,
*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24.0
14,0
19.1
9,820261
3. 13373H
3
& * * ft 4 ft *
'
2i!o
24,0
22.0
19,0
20 ,0
20,0
19.0
20.0
21.0
20.0
16.0
17.0
16.0
16.0
14.0
13.0
2^,0
13.0
19.1
10.933624
3.306633
a
* *
******
19
20
21
20
19
20
19
20
19
17
18
14
16
15
1 7
12
13
* *
fr ft
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
. 0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
,0
,0
.0
21.0
12.0
17,6
7.3SJ353
2.7) 7[)U9
UMITSi OEGHEES CELSIUS
STsTION MUMPER
5678 9
20,0 2o,0
19. n 2a.n
** * *
21,0 24.0
24.0 25,0
19.0 22.0
20.0 23.0
22.0 23.0
24.0 25.0
19.0 19.0
20.7 22.3
3.238095 3.9a«571
1 , 799U71 1 .982(162
**
****** * **
******* 19,0 1 7 9 0
* **
* *** *
* *** * * * *
21.0 26.0 ja.O
21.0 15.0 11.0
21,0 19,6 16.3
10
12.0
18.0
******
***** A
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
*** ***
******
******
******
******
******
18.0
12.0
15,0
18,000000
NO DATA
-------
TABLE B-39. TEMPERATURE CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1977
S3
ix>
00
PJBSHfTfB, T FMPFHM'-RF
DATE
MAY 7,
MAY 14,
HAY 21,
MAY 28,
JUNE 7,
JUNE 14,
JUNE 21,
JUNE 28,
JULY 5,
JULY 12,
JUL" 19,
JUL' 26,
AUG. 2,
AUG. 9,
AUG. 16f
AUG. 23,
AUG. 30,
SEP. 13,
SEP. 20,
SEP. 27,
OCT. 5,
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
STO. DEV.
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1
1S.O
12.5
12,0
14.5
20.0
20.0
21.0
20.0
19.5
21,2
20,5
20.0
21.0
22.0
22,0
21.0
18.2
17.3
19.5
17.0
22.0
12.0
18.6
10.188316
3.191914
2
12.5
12.0
1«,0
16.5
27.0
20.0
24.0
26.0
21.0
24.5
23.8
25.0
25.0
25.0
27.0
23.5
22,5
20.1
IS."
20.1
16.0
27.0
12.0
21.1
23.633176
a. 861427
3
12.5
12.5
15.5
29.0
16.8
26.0
28.0
21.0
25.0
23.5
25.0
24,0
21.0
2<4.0
22.0
21,0
18.0
H. 8
19.0
16,0
29.0
12.5
21.1
21.681158
1.966013
u
11.0
11.9
11.0
12. «>
21. u
19.5
21.0
23.0
22.0
20.5
21.8
20.0
20.0
25.5
19.0
20. 5
19.5
19,0
11,0
16.1
15.5
25.5
11.0
18.5
15.266176
3.907231
SI AT ION
5
11.
13.
16.
22.
20.
22.
25.
25.
22.
22.
22.
21.
23.
25.
22.
21.
23,
15.
1 Q
16.
25.
n.
20.
15.50513
3,95765
iNJTSi nFGREES CELSIUS
NUMBER
6
5 *******
0 &******
a *******
5 *********
7 B
******* 23, o
21. 0 23,4
21,0 25.5
24.0 11,5
24.0 20,6
9
***
*»*
* *
*
*
*
*
4
21.0
26.5
25,0
* * * * 4 *
31.1,
32.5
37.5
»t»»**
28.0
«»****
******
* *****
******
3'. 5
21.0
29.2
32.738095
5.721-'21
|0
******
******
*****
*****
*****
*d * *
** **
* * ft *
** *»
** **
** **
** * *
ft * * *
** B *
** **
*
-------
DATE
TABLE B-40. DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1976
PARAMETFRt DISSOIVF"
UNITS)
10
to
MAY 19,
MAY 22,
HAY 29,
JUNE 23,
JUUt 1 ,
JULY 6,
JULY 12,
JULY 13,
JULY 21,
JULY 22,
JULY 29,
AUG. 12,
AUG. 20,
SEP. 3,
SEP. 10,
SEP. 16,
SEP. 17,
SEP. 23,
SEP. 24,
SEP. 30,
OCT. 1,
OCT. T,
OCT. 8,
OCT. 14,
OCT. 15,
OCT. 21,
OCT. 22,
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
STD. DEv
1976
197b
1976
197*
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
197*
1976
1976
1976
1976
5,4
6.8
6.8
4.7
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
5
5
5
6
b
b
6
5
6
.9
.7
.4
.7
.5
.0
,6
.4
.7
.1
.3
.7
.3
.8
,3
6.6
V.28210S
0.53113*
5.9
4.9
7.8
4 . 1
2.7
1 .8
1 .6
S.5
1 ,9
2.0
3.6
3.7
7 U
s!o
9.6
11.2
7.9
6,3
1 ' .2
s!i
3
3
U
3
3
3
V
u
5
5
5
5
. 6
. 1
,1
.0
.3
.8
.0
.0
.3
.8
.4
.6
.8
.7
.8
.3
5.6
1 „ OUiHU6
8
6
7
4
5
8
7
6
4
4
3
6
8
a
b
b
7
8
3
6
*
B9 Q.fe 6.7
97 70 \ 7,3
8 2 0 . i"1 fe, 1
(3 ** *****
a 0
,& 20,0 20.0
.8 2.1 S.I
,5 7,5 8,2
******* ********
******* ********
******* * ***
*****
******* 5,2
******* o 0 7
5.2 fe.4
5.2 0.7
5,2
-------
TABLE B-41. DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1977
NJ
OJ
o
BARAMpTFBl DISSOLVfO OXVRFM
DATE
MAY 7,
HAY 14,
MAY 28,
JUNE 7,
JUNE |4,
JUNE 21,
JUNE 28,
JULY 5,
JULY 12,
JULY 19,
JULY 26,
AU5. 2,
AUG. 9,
AUG. 16,
AUG. 21,
AUG. 30,
SEP. 6,
SEP. 13,
SEP. 20,
SEP. 27,
OCT. 5,
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
STD. OEV.
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
197'
1977
1977
)977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1
7.2
9.1
7.1
5.5
7.J
5.6
4.9
5.8
5.9
5.2
5.1
5.7
5.5
5.9
7.2
20.0
9.2
7.6
5.4
5.2
20,0
-.9
7.0
10, 939579
J. 307503
2
10.0
16.2
13.8
1.7
3.3
5.0
17.1
18.2
16.0
9.0
7.8
8.5
11.8
6.7
11.2
6.9
6.1
«.7
«.7
8.0
18.2
1.7
9.3
23.427658
4.640213
3
10
12
*****
6
4
4
4
5
2
1
2
1
20
6
4
3
4
3
2
3
.1
.6
**
.6
.2
.5
.8
.8
.0
.9
.0
.6
.0
.4
.0
.6
**
.2
.2
.7
.4
20.0
1.6
5.5
20.429123
4.519659
4
20
e
0
0
i
13
1
13
10
14
8
4
16
3
4
12
6
4
12
7
.0
.9
.5
.4
.2
.8
.8
.8
.4
.0
.2
. 1
.4
.0
.2
.0
.7
.4
.6
.2
20.0
0.4
8.3
31.866947
5.645082
IJNTTSI MG/L
STATION NUMBEH
56'
n , 9 ******* *******
1,9 ******* *******
7.9 ******* *******
7.3 ******* *******
2,4 ******* *******
a, 9 ******* *******
3.1 ******* *******
3.2 ******. 5.4
4.4 ******* *******
0.9 **»»****« 5,0
8.391026 ********* *********
8
7.8
3.4
8.9
0.9
1,3
1.9
7,9
12.4
6.7
7.3
2.4
4,8
5.3
6.2
4.9
J.I
3.2
3.1
3.2
«.«
12.4
0.9
5.0
8.391026
2,896727
9
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
8.9
8.7
6.6
******
2.0
1.0
3.7
******
3.1
******
******
******
******
******
6.9
2.0
5.1
8.269524
2.675678
10
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
*********
*********
*********
****** i NO DATA
-------
TABLE B-42. PH CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1976
PARAMETFRs PH
UMTSi PH JNITS
ho
DATE
MAY 29,
JUNE 23,
JULY 1,
JULY 7,
JULY 13,
JULY 21,
JULY 22,
JULY 29,
AUG. 5,
AUC. 12,
AUC. 20,
SEP. 23,
SEP. 2a,
SEP. 30,
OCT. 1,
OCT. 7,
OCT. 8,
OCT. lit,
OCT. 15,
OCT. 21,
OCT. 22,
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
STO, QEV
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1
7.5
7.3
7.2
7.5
7.1
7.0
7.0
7.6
7.5
7.3
7.6
7.1
7.5
7.3
7.5
7.5
7.5
7,6
7,0
7. a
,03867607
. 19666334
2
*******
7.6
7!5
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.8
7.6
7.7
8.0
7.5
7.5
8.0
7J6
.02307692
.1519109!
3
7.7
7.5
7^8
7.8
7.7
7.8
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.8
7.6
7.7
7.8
j',7
.01576923
. 12S57S60
U
8.8
7.5
8.0
7,8
7,9
7J7
7.7
7.8
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.6
7.8
8.8
7.5
7.9
.09016(183
.30027(160
STATION
5
6.5
7.0
7.7
8.8
8.0
7.5
7.6
'.8
*******
8.8
6.5
7.6
,«6125000
.67915389
6
fc.5
7.7
' 8.6
8.0
7.7
7.9
7.9
*******
S.6
6.5
7.8
.39952381
.63207896
7
*******
8.1
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
8.3
6.3
8.3
«*«******
8
********
********
********
7.6
7.7
7.6
7.7
********
********
********
7.7
7.6
7.7
.00333333
.05773503
9
7.0
7.0
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
'!o
7)9
******
7.5
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
7.9
7.0
7. a
.10333333
,3«>1«5S03
10
7.0
7.U-
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
7.0
7.0
7.0
,00000000
.00000000
*4B4*» S NO DAT*
-------
TABLE B-43. PH CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1977
ho
oo
DATE
,tv,JTSj VH .INI
STATION NUMBER
a 5 b
1 u
MAY 7,
MAY 10,
MAY 21,
MAY 28,
JUNE 7,
JUNE 21,
JUNE 28,
JULV 5,
JULY 12,
JULY 19,
AUG. 2,
AUG. 9,
AU&. 16,
AUG. 23,
AUS, 30,
SEP. 27,
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
8TO. DEv.
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
197'
1977
1977
1977
1977
7.6
7.5
7.3
7.'
7.0
6.4
6.-
6.3
7.0
6. '
6.9
6. 6
6,6
7.3
6.2
6.7
7,6
6.1
6.8
.22116667
.07028360
7.9
7.9
7.1
7.6
7.2
7.1
8.3
8.5
8.3
s|o
8.1
7.5
7|e
7.1
8.5
6.0
7.6
.31983333
.56553809
8. 1
8.1
7.9
*******
7.5
7.5
7.8
7.9
7.3
6.5
7.0
7.2
7.0
7.0
7.6
7.2
8.1
6.5
7.5
.17028571
.01265689
8.3
7.7
7.5
7.3
7.0
7.9
7.2
8.0
6!7
7.7
8.0
7.0
7.6
7.8
8.1
8.0
6.7
7.7
.20516667
.09510308
8.0
6.9
7.1
6.7
7.0
7.7
' .*
7.S
6.1
6.7
7.7
7.0
7.2
7.0
7.6
t>'.\
7.2
.30362500
.55102178
******* ******* fe
******* ******* 7
,4
!i
.0
.7
.6
,1
,7
t 7
!*
!i
.2
00
78
** *
***
*
*
*
** *
** *
e.i
7.0
7.5
**
**
**
**
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
**
**
* *
**
* *
**
* *
* *
**
**
* *
* *
****** ******
7.8 ******
****** ******
NO DATA
-------
TABLE B-44. ALUMINUM CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1976
PAWAMETEBl ALUMINUM
IINJTSt "ICROGBAMS/L
IVJ
LO
OJ
DATE
MAY 19,
MAY 22,
MAY 29,
JUNE 23,
JULY 1,
JULY 7,
JULY 8,
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
8TD. OEV.
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
]
100,
90.
100,
90.
95.
50,000
7.071
2
120.
60,
120.
60.
90.
1800.000
42.126
i
leo.
iao.
16".
140.
150.
200.000
14. 142
i.
90.
100.
100.
90.
95.
50.000
7.071
... ...
200.
******
170.
1 no.
ISO.
******
130.
200,
100.
150.
1450.000
38,079
NUMBER
t
J80.
230.
1 00.
130.
110,
380,
100.
190.
1 J950.000
118.110
769
10
******
300.
160.
******
******
******
******
160.
300.
330.
1800.000
42.426
****** 9 NO DATA
-------
TABLE B-45. ALUMINUM CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1977.
PARAMETERl ALUMI ->.|H
DATE
JUNE 7, 1977
JUNE 21, 1977
AUG. 30, 1977
SEP, 13, 1977
SEP. 27, 1977
SEP, 28, 1977
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
STO. DEV.
1 2
253. 328.
< 50, < 50,
SO, < 50,
253. 328,
50. 50.
ni. 113.
11563.000 25761.333
107,531 160,503
3 a
223. 328,
« 50. < 5U.
« 50. « 50.
223. 328.
50. 50,
< 108. 120.
9976.333 19321.000
99.862 139.000
UNITS) 1CROGRAMS/L
STATION NU«BFk
5 t 7 8 9 id
233. ******
< 50 . ******
< 50 „ ******
50. *********
Ml. *********
******* 233. ****** *» *
* * iOP.
< 50 , « 50 , »****» *»
< SO. < 50, ****** **
****** a NQ DATA
-------
TABLE B-46. CADMIUM CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1976.
DATE
HAY 19, 1976
MAY 22, 1976
MAY 29, 1976
JUNE 2i, 1976
JUUT 1, 1976
JULY 1, 197&
JULY 8, 1976
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
ITD. DEV.
1
*******
0,2
0,1
*******
0.2
0,1
0.2
0.0050000
0.0707107
PARAMETER! CADMIUM
S 3
*»*»** 4*****
****** ******
****** ******
****** ******
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
****** ******
0,2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0,2 0,2
0,0050000 0.0050000
0,0707107 0,0707)07
STATION
u 5
******* 0,7
******* *****
0,1 0. 3
0,1 *****
0,« 0.7
0.1 0,1
0.3 0.3
0.0450000 ".0530000
0,2121320 0.2302J73
NIJMRER
t 7
0.5 ******
***** AS **
0.. * **
0,2 - * **
0,5 » ft*
***** » 44
0,1 * **
Og,5 *********
8 o ;o
A****** ***** *****
0.4 0 » <£ *****
££$&*£« ***** *****
***$**« o „ i *****
0,4 0»3 0.5
o.a u.i 002
o.a o.g oe3
ft******** Oe063feb60 0 e 07 0.7 SO?
»«**** 8 NO DATA
-------
TABLE B-47. CADMIUM CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1977
U>
PARAMETERi CADMIUM iiNlTSi
DATE
JUNE 7,
JUNE 21,
JULY 5,
JULY 19,
AUG. 2,
AUG. 16,
AUG. 30,
SEP. 13,
SEP. 27,
MINIMUM
STD. OEV.
"ICROGWAMS/L
STAT ON NUMBER
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1 971?
1
5.0
< 5.0
« 5.0
« 5.0
4.0
£.0
< 5.0
< 5,0
< 5.0
2.0
i »
1.0137938
2
6
< 5
« 5
< 5
3
4
« 5
< 5
< 5
3
.0
.0
.0
,0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
. °
.0
*f
0.8333333 1
3
6.0
< 5.0
« 5.0
< 5.0
2.0
1.0
« 5.0
< 5.0
« 5.0
I.-
* Q ,6
.2360331
4
7.
« 5.
< 5.
« 5.
3.
3.
« 5.
« 5.
« 5.
5 t
0 1.0 ***
0 < 5.0 ***
0 < 5.0 **
0 < 5.0 *
0 3.0 *
0 4,0 *
0 * 5,0 *
0 « 5.0 *
0 < 5.0 *
7 e
**** 4
**** < 5
** < 5
** < 5
** 3
«* 4
** « 5
« 5.0 « 5
.0
.0
.0
.0
."
.0
.0
.0
< 5.0 < 5.0
' •
3.
1.135292
0 3.0 **»*»*»«* 3,0 3.0
« 3, U W
9 10
***** *
< 5,0 *
< 5.0
< 5.0
3.0
3.0 *
< 5.0 **
***** * *
***** ***
3,0 *********
« 0.0000000 0,7264832
**•••* I NO DATA
-------
TABLE B-48. CHROMIUM CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1976
PARAMETERi
UNITSi MICRDGRAMS/L.
DATF
MAY 19,
WAY 22,
MAY 29,
JUNE 23,
JUL* 1,
JULY 7,
JULY 8,
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
8TO. DEV.
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1
********
6.
65.
********
65.
6.
J6.
17(10.5000
«1.719J
2
6.
50.
*******
50.
6.
28.
968.0000
31.1127
3 4
«. 10.
u. 2.
******* ********
«. 10.
«. 2.
It. 6.
0.0000 32.0000
0.0000 5.6569
STATION
=;
9.
******
2.
57.
20.
******
22.
57.
2.
22.
-------
TABLE B-49. CHROMIUM CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1977
LO
00
P4RAMETERI CHROM1UP UNITS) MJCROGRAMS/L
DATE
JUNE 7,
JUNE 21,
JULY 5,
JULY 19,
AUG. 2,
AUS. 16,
AUG. 30>
SEP. 13,
SEP. 27,
MAXIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
8TD. CSV.
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1
< 10,
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
1 ' .
17.
17.
12.
12.2500
3.5000
2
< to.
< 10.
< 10.
< 10,
< 10.
< 10.
< 17.
« 17.
17.
12.
12.2500
3,5000
3
10.
10.
10.
10. •
10.
10.
1'.
* 17.
« 17.
17.
12.
12.2500
J.5000
u
4 10.
< 10.
< 11.
« 10.
« 10.
< 10.
< 17.
20.
20.
13.
16.7667
a.09«7
STATION
5
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
1 '«
17.
17.
17.
12.
12.2500
3.5000
NUMBED
t
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
*********
*********
*********
*********
'
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
« 17.
« 17.
17.
l i .
17.
0.0000
0.0000
8
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
1 '.
17.
17.
17.
12.
12.2500
3.5000
'
******
< 10.
* 10.
< 10.
< 10.
< 10.
******
******
17.
10.
11.
6.1667
2.8577
10
** *
** *
* *
* *
* *
* *
*****
*****
*********
*********
*********
*********
****** • NO DATA
-------
TABLE B-50. COPPER CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1976
PARAMFTFRl CPPPf
DATE
MAY 19, 1976
MAY 22, 1976
WAY 29, 1976
JUNE 2i, 1976
JULY 1, 1976
JULY 7, 1976
JULY 8, 1976
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
8TD. DSV.
1
*******
*******
*******
*******
31.0
16.0
*******
11.0
16.0
23.5
112.5000
10.6066
2
******
******
******
******
17.0
25.0
******
25.0
17.0
21.0
32.0000
5.6569
3
******
******
******
******
10.0
9.0
******
10.0
9.u
".5
0.5000
0.7071
STATION
u 5
10.0 9.0
8. 0 *****
1 n.o 20.0
8.0 9.0
9.0 13.8
2.0000 18.2000
l.«l«2 U.2661
r-JTTSl VICROGP4MS/1
NUMBfP
6 7 8
13.n *** *******
***** *** *******
l
-------
TABLE B-51. COPPER CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1977
PARAMETER) COPPER
DATE
JUNE 1,
JUNE 21,
JULV 5,
JUL* 19.
AUG. 2,
AUG. 16,
AUG. 30,
SEP. U,
SEP. 27.
3TO. DEV.
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1
41.0
162.0
Ji.O
50.0
20.0
21.0
11,0
22. ft
10.0
17.0853
2
27.0
27.0
20.0
15.0
20.0
14.0
8,0
12.0
10.0
• u
• u
6.9462
3
21.0
27.0
< 20.0
5.0
10.0
18.0
10.0
11.0
16.0
6.8920
4
21.0
20.0
20,0
13.0
5.0
13.0
« 8.0
« 8eO
10.0
5.9675
UNITS) MICROGRA»S./l
STATION NUMBER
5 6
21.0
240.0
20. ft
20.0
4ft. 0
11.0
9.0 *
* 8.0 *
10.0 **
7 6
*** 21.0
*** 240.0
*** 20.0
*** 20.0
«** 40 .0
* * * 13.D
*•* * 9,0
»»*» • < 8,0
< 8.0 10.0
9 10
***** *
20.0 *
< 20.0 *
5.0 *
12.0 *
< 6.0 *
< e.o *
***** *
***** *
****** • NO DATA
-------
TABLE B-52. IRON CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1976
PtHiMETERl
DATE
1 2
JULY 1, 1976 21. 35.
JULY 7, 1976 U2. 25.
MAXIMUM 42. 15.
MINIMUM 21. 25.
MEAN 32. 30.
VARIANCE 220.50 50.00
STD. OEV. ltt.85 7.07
IPON
STATION
3 II 5
11. 35. 36.
«1 . 16. ******
«1. 35. 16?.
«1 . 16. 11.
"1. 26. 56.
0.00 160.50 3796.50
0.00 13. UU 61.62
UNJTSi M7CHOGR4MS/L
NUMFB
678
****** ******* ********
* ** ****** ** ***
56. ********* HO ,
8. ********* uo.
9
******
28.
3.
a.
68.
******
13.
68.
3.
23.
727.70
26.98
10
******
61.
71.
******
******
******
******
71.
61.
66.
50.00
7.07
****** m NO DATA
-------
TABLE B-53. IRON CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1977
DAT?
JUNE ?, 1977
JUNE 21, 977
JULY 5, 1977
JUU* 19, 1977
AUG, 30, 1977
SEP. 13, 197>
SEP. 27, 1977
SEP, 28, 1«77
H4XIMUH
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
3TO. OEV.
PARAMETER) IRON
1 2 3
986 9 fei 4 ff 607 ,
233. 181. 222.
71. 51. 65.
21. I'. 23.
19. 23. 10.
25, 19, 24.
986. 621, 607.
1«. 19. 1«.
200. 180, 118,
121829,67 OSSita.SO 06016.29
35«.72 221.01 211.51
u
126.
sou,
163.
1B7.
15.
189,
17,
< 13.
u!
!90.
67638, HI
260.07
U N 1 T S i **
a v a v »
5 6
ja. ******
19, ******
A***** ******
7 fl 9 10
£7gQ 1 « „ ****** **
2? B ! 9 B ft***** ***
******* *>&*«**** ****** *** a
«*»*** a MO DiT*
-------
TABLE B-54. LEAD CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1976
DATE
HAY 2?, 1976
JULY 1, 1976
JULY 7, 1976
P*R*HETEP. ,F*.
1 2 3
* ** *
a * ft * ** fr ****** ft ft* ft ft *
3.0 4,0 5,0
aao £.0 3ao
MO 30 30
STAl (ON
« 5
******* ».o
*.0 3,0
3,eO A* * * *
If^ITSs ^jCRl lak A HS /'
' 6 7
3,0 * *
ieo * *
4* *** ft *
8
-------
TABLE B-55. LEAD CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1977
PARAMETERi LEAD
DATE
JUNE 21,
JULY 5,
JULY 19,
AUG. 2,
AUG. 16,
AUG. 30,
SEP. 13,
SEP. 27,
MINIMUM
STO. DEV.
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1
< 0.9
< 0.9
< 0.9
< 0.9
< 0.9
« 0.9
< 0.9
< 0.9
. 9
0.9
< 0,9
0,0000025
2
o,1*
t 0.9
< 0.9
< 0.9
< 0.9
« 0.9
< 0.9
< 0,9
« 0.9
0.9
• T
0.0000023
3
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.0000021
u
< 0,9
6,0
< 0,9
« 0.9
. < 0.9
* 0.9
« 0.9
< 0.9
0.9
1.6
2.2«52l71
STATION
5
0.9
0.9
1.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
< 0,9
0,9
0.0000023
UNITSi MICROGRAMS/L
NUMBER
6
*****
**»*
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* * *
*********
*********
7
*** **
* **
* **
* **
* **
* **
< 0.9
< 0.9
O.Q
0.0000000
8
< 0.9
< 0.9
< 0.9
« 0.9
« 0.9
« 0.9
< 0.9
< 0.9
0.9
0.0000023
9
< 0.9
< n ,9
t 0.9
< 0.9
< 0.9
*****
*****
*****
0.9
0.0000019
10
****
*»**
****
****
****
****
• ***
****
*********
****** • NQ DATA
-------
TABLE B-56. MAGNESIUM CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1976
A(,NFSIUM
.o
Ln
DATE
MAY 19,
MAY 22,
MAY 29,
JUNE 23,
JULY 1,
JULY 7,
JULY 8,
JULY 13,
JULY 14,
JULY 15,
JULY 22,
JULY 29,
AUS. 5,
AUG. 12,
AUG. 20,
AUS. 27,
SEP. 2,
SEP. 10,
SEP. 17,
SEP. 24,
OCT. 1,
OCT. 6,
OCT. 15,
OCT. 22,
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MFAN
VARIANCE
STD. DEV
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1
1
16.8
8.1
8.3
a. 8
9.5
8.8
16.3
6.2
20.3
7.3
14.3
8.2
11.6
4.2
4.8
4.5
10.9
20.3
4.2
9.7
22.717500
4.766288
2
21.5
6.7
8.4
2.9
H.2
18.1
16.2
7.4
17.2
n.2
11.0
16.1
10.9
6.9
11.1
6.3
9.8
21.5
2.9
11.5
24.846176
4 .984594
3
13.6
5.5
6.4
1 .3
7.9
4.9
12.2
7.4
6.5
2.7
6.6
8.5
12.6
9.1
3.4
5.5
3.3
13.6
1.3
6.9
12.296838
3.506685
4
18.7
8.5
6.5
0.0
5.6
1 .9
6.6
10.7
11.8
4.7
7.4
6.0
15.2
12.3
11.6
6.2
5.0
7.8
18.7
0.0
8.1
21 .06604fe
«.58977t
SI ATICJN
5
10.4
17.1
iB.6
11.9
8.6
7.2
0.3
6.6
18.3
4.2
10.4
7.2
*******
18.6
0.3
10,1
32. 187879
5.673436
NUMBtH
6
4.9
23.0
14.5
22.9
6.0
3.3
2.8
6.3
13.1
19.0
6.7
*******
12.8
*******
*******
23.0
2.8
U.3
54.35659)
7.372692
7
*******
*******
0.4
*******
8.6
2.1
*******
*******
*******
*******
***** *
*******
*******
8.6
0.4
3.7
18. 730000
4,327817
8
13.6
********
10.8
3.3
10.6
0.2
14.3
15.0
0.0
7.2
10.1
7.3
3.5
5.0
********
********
15.0
O.u
7,8
26.400256
5. 138) 18
<3
******
13. U
3.9
16.6
16.8
******
7.2
******
******
6.2
11.0
14.5
10."
11,9
13.2
15.3
7.2
13.5
14. 1
13.7
******
******
******
******
16.8
1,9
11.8
1 4.764292
3.842*33
10
******
11.5
14.9
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
14.9
11.5
13.2
5.780000
2.404163
****** • NO DATA
-------
TABLE B-57. MAGNESIUM CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1977
PARAMETER! MAGNESIUM UNIT3| MG/L
DATE
JUNE 7, 1977
AUS. 30, 1977
SEP. 13, 1977
SEP. 27, 1977
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
3TD. DEV.
1 i
24.6 25.2
22." 23.5
24.6 27.6
22.9 23.5
23.8 25.5
1.445000 4.690000
1.202082 2.165641
3
27.7
25.3
23.7
27.7
23.7
25.6
4.053333
2.013269
STATION NUMBEK
456
27.8 26.5 *******
24.2 23.9 *******
27.8 26.5 *********
24.2 23.9 *********
26.4 25,2 *********
7
*******
27.6
24.9
27.6
24.9
26.3
3.645000
1 .909168
8 9
26.5 ******
******** 22.1
25.2 ******
23.9 ******
26.5 22.1
23.9 22.1
25.2 22.1
10
******
******
******
******
*********
****** • NO DATA
-------
TABLE B-58. MANGANESE CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1976
r-o
DATE
MAY 19, 1976
MAY 22, 1976
MAY 29, 1976
JUNE 23, 1976
JULY 1, 1976
JULY 7, 1976
JULY 8, 1976
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
STO. OEV.
1
********
********
11.
11.
11.
11.
11.
0.00000
0.00000
PA-J4MFJTERI MiNfiNJFSF
STATION
2 3 a 5
******* ******* ******** ******
13. 25. 24. 18.
7, *. 5, ******
13. 25. 24. 33.
7. 6. 5. 7.
10. 16. 15, 21.
18.00000 180.50000 180.50000 118.50000
4.24264 13.43503 13.43503 10.88577
UNJTSf MICROGBAMS/L
NUMBER
678
4, ******* ********
8. ******* ********
7, ******* ********
a. *** *»» *
174.30000 ********* *********
13.20227 ********* *********
9
******
4.
7.
9.
33.
******
7.
S3.
it,
12.
141 .00000
1 1 .87434
10
******
5.
10.
******
******
******
******
10.
5.
8.
12.50000
3.53553
****** • NO DATA
-------
TABLE B-59. MANGANESE CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1977
CO
PAHAMETERl MANGANFSF
OATF
JUNE 7,
JUNE 21,
JULY 5,
JULY 19,
AUG. 30,
SEP. 13,
SEP. 27,
SEP. 28,
MAXIMUM
MJNIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
STO. OEV.
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1
5.
< 5.
6.
e.
7.
8.
8.
5.
7.
1.90000
1.J76UO
2
23.
12.
< 5.
< 5.
13.
IS.
23.
5.
12.
15.76667
6,76511
3
6.
s.
< 5.
12.
7,
14.
1«.
5.
Q.
12.66667
3.55903
4
«5.
< 5.
6.
< 5.
16.
5.
20.
«5.
5.
15.
217.61905
14.75192
UNITSi MTCROGRAMS/L
STATION NUMBER
567
20 . ****** *******
8. ****** 57,
8. ****** 29.
I 0 . ********* U3 ,
5.12510 ********* 19.79699
8
20.
8,
6.
8.
«.
8.
20.
6.
10.
26.26667
5.12510
9 10
****** *
7. *
5. *
« 5. *
6. *
****** *
****** * *
****** ** *
0.95743 *********
****** s NO DATA
-------
TABLE B-60. MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1976
PARAMFTERj
UNITS)
K3
-IS
•£>
OATf
JULY 1,
JULY 7,
JULY 13,
JULY 29,
SEP. 2,
SEP. 10,
SEP. 17,
SEP. 24,
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
STO. oev
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1
*******
2.4
1.5
4.1
16.9
3.6
3.0
2.3
11.5
27.0
1.5
8,0
8.79005
«
*
0.6
0.0
15. *
6.0
4.2
12.7
8.2
6.0
15.2
0.0
6.4
5,04648
3
******
*
2.7
1.5
7.e
14.1
3.3
1.8
2.7
1.4
2.8
14.1
1.4
4.2
4. 14923
4
*******
1.5
1.5
6.1
*
4.9
4.7
3.3
5.2
3.2
6.1
1.5
3.8
1 .70964
STATION
5
*****
*****
-.0
*****
*****
*****
50.0
1.2
B.3
15.66129
NUMBER
6
» 1
*****
*****
6.6
5,u
*****
*****
*****
15.1
1.6
5.1
4.12142 «
7
******
**
** ***
******
******
******
3.8
******
******
******
******
3.8
3.8
3.8
8
2.7
*******
*******
14.3
10.5
3.3
2.1
3.1
21.0
2.1
8.1
7.3U617
9 10
\
i.<*
*****
*****
9.7
17.8
2.8
3.5
4. 1
* *
* *
* *
* *
* * *
***
***
***
19.7 4.5
1.6 2.6
6.5 3.6
6.19242 1.34350
****** • NO DATA
-------
TABLE B-61. MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1977
PARAMETER! MERCURY
MICROGRAMS/L.
DATE
JUNE 7,
JUNE 21,
JUL* 5,
JULY 19,
AUC, 2,
AUtt. 16,
AUG. 30,
SEP, 13,
SEP, 27,
SEP. 28,
U A V T M 1 1 M
1 « A A nUn
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
STO, PEV ,
STATION NUMBER
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1
0
1
t 0
0
1
a
0
u
< 0
2 3 u 5
t 7 8 9 10
,8 0.3 0.7 2,1 1,1 ***** * *** 1,4 ***** * ***
,7 « 0.2 < 0.2 0.5 0,6
.2 « 0,2 5.9 < 0,2 < 0.2
.7 0.7 0.8 0,6 5.9
.3 1,6 0.9 0»9 0,1
.5 3.1 0.8 1,1 3.8
.1 0.1 2.0 0.1 0.2
.0 n,1 O.u 0,5 0.'
,2 < 0,2 < 0.2 « 0.2 < 0,2
**«* »** 0,6 23,0 ***
**** **s < 0.2 < 0,2 ***
*o*< *** 5.9 0 . u ***
**** *** 0,1 2.0 ***
»»** *** J,6 1,6 ***
**«* **« 0.2 0,1 ***
**»» « 0,2 0.7 ***** *****
*«*« 4 o,i * 0,2 ***** *****
******* ****** ****** < 0.2 ***** ***** ****** ******* ***** *****
n
0
< i
e 5 ja«t *«" s»l ^gVwwas
d2 Q0£ Og£ OB? Oj2 ftiftj&ir^wnw U«C U»£ ^ t C KHWW»WH(WW
65 < 0,8 < 1,3 0,7 1,5 ********* 0,2 1,5 ^,6 *********
2B63000 1,13191 3.2369U 0,38000 1,01861 ********* 0,00000 1,01861 81.79200 *********
Io^2l73 1,06393 1,799)5 0.6161^ 2.0121? ********* OgOOOOO 2,01212 9,01389 *********
««**** B NO D4T«
-------
TABLE B-62. POTASSIUM CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1976
ho
Ln
OARAMfTFBl PtlTASSI"" I T 8 | •*?, / L
DATE
MAY 19,
MAY 22,
MAY 29,
JUNE 23,
JULY 1,
JULY 7,
JULY 8,
JULY 13,
JULY 14,
JULY 15,
JULY 22,
JULY 29,
AUC. 5,
\UC. 12,
AUC. 20,
AUC. 27,
SEP. 2,
SEP. 10,
OCT. 1,
OCT. 22,
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
STD. OEV.
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1
9.6
9.0
9.7
9.8
8.6
9.8
10.3
10.9
9.9
10.7
9.4
10.6
11.1
11.1
8.6
10.0
0.573974
0.75761 1
2
*******
10.3
10,2
10.6
*******
'.2
7.9
10.3
10.2
10.0
ll|6
11.1
11.6
10. 0
11.6
7.9
10.2
1 .010256
1.0051 15
3
10.8
11.'
*******
6.8
7.9
10,. 9
10,0
10,3
10.2
10.2
11.3
9,9
11.1
11.9
7,9
IP y
1 !o7|962
4
10.9
9.8
10.9
11.7
10.0
8.6
11.2
10.2
10.9
10.0
11.4
9.2
12.2
10.9
12.2
8.8
10.6
0.91 1014
0,954486
STATION
5
10.0
13.1
11.2
10.8
*******
9.8
*******
11.0
9.9
8.4
10.7
10.0
10.6
*******
10.8
13.1
A. 4
!0.5
1.225682
1.107105
NUMBER
t
11.3
9.9
12.3
13.1
*******
11.5
*******
*******
H.7
10.8
9.1
10,9
10.5
11.1
11.4
13.1
9.1
11.1
1.091515
1 ,044756
7
*******
*******
14.'
12.2
8.8
*******
*******
14.7
8.8
11.'
8.770000
2.961419
6
********
10.2
********
********
11.0
10.0
10.5
8.1
10.7
'.7
10.3
10,4
13.5
10.5
13.5
8.4
10.5
1 .472182
1.213335
9
1.2
1.1
1 .0
0.9
******
0.9
******
******
1.1
0.7
0.7
1.0
1 .0
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.3
******
******
1.3
0.7
1.0
0.032967
0, 181568
10
**
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
****
2.2
4.4
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
** *
***
* **
»**
***
***
***
***
»**
4.4
2.2
3.3
2.120000
1.555635
****** * HO DATA
-------
TABLE B-63. POTASSIUM CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1977
PARAMETER) POTASSIUM
UNITSi MG/L
Ui
ro
DATE
JUNE 21,
JULY 5,
JULV 19,
AUG. 2,
AUG. 16,
AUG. 30,
SEP. 13,
SEP. 27,
SEP. it,
«AXJ»U*
MIX I HUH
MCAM
VARIANCE
• TO. My.
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
t
12.
12.
13.
12.
i .
11.
1 5.
12.
6
11
?
7
U
2
5
13.7
11. »
11.;
0.7JJ979
2
li.2
11.5
13.2
10.*
' 1.5
11. »
13,1
12.6
13.1
)«.»
"l1
0.91S5S*
6.9**«J*
»
12
12
1 1
11
11
12
12
.6
.6
.8
. 7
,t>
.7
11.3
11.6
0.6220*5
u
1U.14
13.1
11. J
9.9
11.7
M.5
13.6
12.6
12.6
U.«
«.9
11.*
1.105000
1.151301
STATION NUMBER
5*7
11.5 ******* *******
12.5 ******* 15.5
13.* ********* 21.1
12*5 ********* It. 7
0.741250 ********* 14.6U5090
6
13. »
13.1
13. U
> l.i
1 l.«
1 1 .5>
12.9
4U2
1*,5
0.7H12SO
0,e*u9-59
9 ,0
******
2.1
2.0
1 .6
1.9
2!"
******
******
******
****
* **
* *
* *
* *
* •
* *
* •
***
***
j,0 *********
0.654099 *********
O.ZtSOJS *********
****** i NO DATA
-------
TABLE B-64. SILVER CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1976
PARAMETER!
UNITS) MKROGRAMS/I
DATE
MAY 19,
MAY 22,
MAY 29,
JUNE 23,
JUL* 1,
JULY 7,
JUUV 8,
M.AXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
3TO. DEV
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
i
1
*******
*******
< 1.0
1.2
*******
1.2
1.0
1.1
0.0200000
0. 1
-------
TABLE B-65. SILVER CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1977
PARAMETERl
ONIT8| "ICROGRAMS/L
DATE
JUNE 1, 1977
SEP. 11, 1977
SEP. 21, 1977
HEAN
1
*******
« fe.n
« 6.0
6.0
6.0
2
< 5.0
« b.n
< 6.0
«0
5.7
3
< 5.0
< 6.0
< 6.0
6.0
5.7
4
« 5.0
< 6.0
< 6.0
6.0
5.8
STiTION
5
« 5.0
< 6 . 0
< 6.0
5.7
M'MBER
t
**
**
**
*********
* *
7
******
< 6.0
< 6.0
6.0
6.0
8
< 5.0
< 6.0
< 6.0
."
5.7
g
*****
5«o
*****
*****
5«0
5.5
10
**
• 4
**
*********
****** • NO DATA
-------
TABLE B-66. SODIUM CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1976
N5
Ul
Ln
PARAMETERl SODIUM
DATE
MAY 19,
MAY 22,
MAY 29,
JUNE 23,
JULY 1,
JULY 7,
JULY 8,
JULY IS,
JULY 14,
JULY 15,
JULY 22,
JULY 29,
AUG. 5,
AUG. 12,
AUG. 20,
AUG. 27,
SEP. 2,
SEP. 10,
SEP. 17,
SEP. 24,
OCT. 1,
OCT. 8,
OCT. 22,
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
STD. OEV
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1
********
********
88,
117.
********
102.
********
********
118.
137J
119.
115.
109,
120.
115.
98.
113.
138.
95.
129.
149.
66.
116.
267,71667
16.36205
2
106.
113.
*******
128.
*******
111.
131.
1 18.
134.
131.
103.
135.
109.
107.
115.
146.
94.
119.
148.
94,
119.
106.76333
14.37996
3
*******
98.
117.
114.
*******
108.
134.
156.
123.
115.
107.
120.
113.
107.
115.
ISO,
82.
123.
156.
82.
lie.
324.91667
18.02544
4
********
97.
113.
119.
126.
117.
138.
148.
127.
112.
113.
130.
113.
105.
117.
158.
95.
119.
158.
95.
120.
271.50735
16,47748
STATION
5
106.
******
109.
106.
102.-
******
109.
******
******
119.
119.
134.
140.
119.
119.
******
133.
**a* *
*** *
*** *
*** *
*** *
*** **
140.
102.
116.
152.26515
12,33958
UNITSi MG/L
NUMBER
6 7
106.
******
109.
104.
97.
123.
******
123.
136.
136.
146.
123.
131.
******
127,
******
******
******
******
148.
97.
122.
242.75000
15.58044
*******
*******
*******
119.
*******
121.
138.
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
138.
119.
126.
109,00000
10,44031
6
********
********
********
99.
********
114.
117.
114.
134.
137,
123.
127.
115.
133.
109.
102.
118.
137.
99.
119.
140.25641
11.84399
9
******
19.
17.
17.
17.
******
16.
******
******
16.
19.
19.
19.
19.
19.
20.
20.
19.
17.
20.
******
******
******
20.
16,
16.
1.59583
1.26326
10
******
19!"
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
*******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
19.
19.
19.
0.00000
0.00000
a*****. B NO DATA
-------
TABLE B-67. SODIUM CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1977
PARAMETER) SODIUM
DATE
JUNE 7,
JUNE 21,
JUUr 5,
JULY 19,
AuG, 2,
AUG. 16,
AUG. 30,
SEP. 13,
SEP. 27,
SEP. 28,
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
SID. DEv.
1V77
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1
130.
128.
124.
156.
135,
143.
158.
132.
158.
124.
139,
175.42857
13,24195
2
130.
132.
125.
144.
136.
142.
159.
138,
159.
138!
109.35714
10.45740
S
12V.
131.
121.
145.
139.
152.
137.
152,
124.
138.
85.14286
9.22729
1
125.
128.
MI.
145.
138.
140.
168.
138.
168.
111.
137.
223.75000
14.95828
UNITS: HG/L
STATION NUMBER
507
143. 4***** *******
154. ****** 142.
145. ****** i 4. 0 .
1*9,69643 ********* 2,00000
6
129.
130.
115.
158.
HI.
154.
145.
158.
115.
139.
tftllilttO
******
21.
17.
22.
21.
22.
15.
******
******
******
22.
15.
20.
6. 06667
2.9U392
****
****
* * * *
* * **
****
****
****
****
*****
*****
b
*********
****** • NQ DATA
-------
TABLE B-68. ZINC CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1976
PARiMETERl ZINC
UNITS)
DATE
STATION
10
1-0
Ln
JUNE 7,
JUNE 21,
JULY 5,
JULY 19,
AuG. 2,
AUG. 16,
AUG. 30,
SEP. 13,
SEP. 27,
SEP. 28,
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
STD. OEv
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
.
58.
to.
46.
75.
"0.
32.
32.
36.
75.
32.
4
-------
TABLE B-69. ZINC CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1977
PARAMETER SRSEMf
DATE
JUNE 7,
JUNE 21,
JULV 5,
JULY 19,
AUG. 2,
SEP. 13,
SEP. 19,
SEP. 27,
SEP. 28,
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
8TD, D£v.
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1 I
»* * * ****
*
****** ** **
< 1.0 1.0
******* »«****
1.0 « 1.0
1.0 2.8
1.0 1.0
1.0 1.6
0.000000 1,080000
0.000000 1.059230
3
2.7
******
* * * * **
******
******
1.0
48****
« i.o
******
2.7
1.0
1.6
0.96333J
0.98l«95
(1
1.3
*******
*******
1.0
1 .0
1.0
4.3
1 .0
1.8
2,722500
1 .650000
UMTSi MICRUGHAMS/L
ST'TION NUMBER
567
Z.I t
***** *
***** *
***** *
***** *
1.0 *
«***« *
1.0 »
***** ft
2.7 *********
** *«*
** ***
** ***
** * * *
* * * * *
5.0
******
2.0
******
5.0
2.0
3,5
O.SflOOOO
2,121320
8
2.7
*******
»*** ** »
*******
1.0
1."
*******
2.7
1.0
1.6
0.963333
00981«95
4
*****
23.7
11.3
12.8
2S.1
*****
• 1.0
*****
*****
25.3
1 .0
11.8
99.037000
9.95173U
1 11
*********
**»»»* * NO DATA
-------
TABLE B-70. ARSENIC CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1977
LMTSl
OATF
M'BER
10
MAXIMA
MJKJIMUM
MEAN
UQ t
50.
10.
33.
T t;
35.
10.
23.
1 e . ~ J 6
30,
10.
20.
30,
10.
lfia
& ° ooooo
S , / 6
JO »
10!
38. 20.
10. 20.
10.
so.
0 , OoOOO
1 fl
1 fl
£3 1
****
25e
o.
60.00000
1
16
10
11
18 ,0000(
1 ,2
-------
TABLE B-71. NICKEL CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1977-
MCKEl
UNITSI MICROGRAMS/
OATF
JUNE 7,
JUNE £1,
JUlV 5,
AUG. 30,
SEP. 1),
SEP. 27,
SEP. 28,
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
VARIANCE
STD. DEV.
ion
1977
1977
1977
1977
I97T
1977
1
« 1.
3.
7.
< 3.
< 3.
7,
1.
3.
4,8000000
2.190690?
i
6.
6.
4.
< 3.
« 3.
6.
3.
4.
2.3000000
1.5165T51
3
7.
6.
5.
< 3.
< 3.
7.
3.
5.
3.2000000
1.78885««
4
0,
5.
3.
< >.
< 3.
« J.
6.
i.
a.
1 . 7666667
1.3291601
S T A T lu M
5
< 1.
5.
6.
**«**«
« 3.
« 3.
******
6.
1.
«.
3.8000000
1 .9493569
NUMBER
t 7
*** *
****** < 3.
****** « J.
********* 3.
R
< 1,
5.
6.
< 3.
« i.
6.
1.
4.
3.6000000
1 .9UQ3589
<) , u
****** * *
3. * *
1. *
< 3. *
****** *
****** **
****** ***
****** •
OAT*
-------
TABLE B-72. TOTAL COLIFORM (MPN) CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1976
. MK
JUNE 17, 1 « 7 6
Ji.^F 23, 1^76
U'l. ' 7 , l 976
.li.l. i IS, 97*
J u L " Hi i 9 7 b
JULY 2S, 1976
AuG. 5, 197b
Ai't. . 12, 1 97b
Auk . , 1 97b
St F . i, I97b
5E c . 1 'I , 1 97b
St 1- . 17, 1 97b
!>t P • 2<4 , 1 97b
OC1 . 1 , 1 976
n C 1 • 6 , 1976
Cl(.T . IS, 197b
OCT . ??, 197b
" 4 X 1 1' o "
•M'<1"IJ"
CsMi'' . -. t »'.
F Xp . ",f 4
41-11'-. -"£41.
^^MFTFt-
1 2
* * * *
, 1 1 OF » l'*i
. 5 U 0 F + ' i '
. '4 9 u f t U S
. 1 1 .if t'.ft
. 2 2 n E * 0 b
. 500£t05
" ,2onf+03
. 70d F+ 014
, (JO (If +05
.20uF + (i3
. ? 1 (If +OS
, i u u (• + U S
. 2 J 0 £ + 0 h
,U9UE + 0I5
.200^ +ou
. 170E+05
.5UQF +07
. 2 0 0 f t (1 J
. Jbhp + U1'
. 1 1 2 F » 0 %
^ .39SF+l)b
t T'lfAL rf.'l IkllBM 1PN) U'-IITSl COH'JT/100 "
STATION NUMBER
3 « 5 t 1
. IbOE+OS
.900E+05
, 1 7 0 F. 1 0 5
,500t +OS
. 1 70E*Oh
, 2HOE+05
.snoF+oi
.3JOE*05
.200E+05
.20UF »U5
,800fct05
f 200E + 05
g 330£f + 05
eSOOE+OW
.230E+OU
,500£ + 0<4
.220E+05
.900E+05
.1706*04
. 178E+05
.23S.E + 05
.285E+OS
8 9 10
. 110E + 02
.310E+02
** * *
.220E+02
.iuoetoj
,500E*02
,500E*02
.BOOE+02
.200E»OJ
.700Et03
.500E+02
. 2 u 0 E » 0 3
. 1 10E + 04
.600Et02
,600E*02
.200E+02
.500E+02
. 1 lOE+Ott
.110E+OJ
.B02E+02
.113E+OJ
. 183E»03
-------
TABLE B-73. TOTAL COLIFORM (MPN) CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1977
N3
ON
J4Tf STATION M>MBEH
1 2 3 U 5 6 7 »
"41 7,1^77 * *
* fl i' 1 u , i*77 **
» r 12, 1977 . *
Ha T 13, 1 977 < t
Ji 1 1 2b. 1 977 « »
4l:C'» ^ 1977 **
«ut. 9, 1977 ,79'lt+03 .350!
«u&. Id, 1977 .IbOE+Ob .7901
4uC,. 21, 1977 . 7i,F+t)U .110E
9 1 U
• *«
* * *
* **
***
* * *
»**
***
***
***
** *
***
*»*
* * *
05 .220E+02
Ou ,2006+01
05 ***•
4U(,. 30, 1977 .iSOftOb .3JOEt05 .2
JOfc+01
SrP. h, 1977 **** **** **»•
SfcP. 13, 1977 .13P+05 .1UOE + OS ****
I««IMUM ,}SnF«0(> .350E + 05 ,220E»02
-INJH,,- .790F+0-5 .200E + OU .200E + 01
StL-i. -h*. ,iSuf»OS .10UE + 05 .uoSEtOl
HP. if»>. ,auaF*05 .127E + 05 .B7UE + 01
4. ',_ it 4 » t7c,nF+ns .118E + 05 >- .867E + 01
-------
TABLE B-74. TOTAL COLIFORM (MF) CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1976
• " c » i .- T & • r r • i. * • •« F
,4 'r
3
)iijt ,,_ ,,,„
i -- cA, "••"- . » >-+Ob ,610E+Oi
J L • '• j-'"'*' .M F»"u .120E+07
i L" ' I>. ""f . ' '""• *'"• .970E + i)i
KuY c s . 1^7*- .St'i'^*' j .e'BUE + Oi
Ju L^^-'^l^^e .i^l'^+OS .liOE + Oii
AU(>. S, IS'76 .fl^Ur-'U .1606 + 02
4oi... \i, 197h ,Jiii»-tOJ .a50E + OJ
aji},^,T,^Q7b .M)"^+ou 59uE + u3
N3 $r(-. ^, 1V76 .line»uu .860E + 02
g 5K>. 1'i, iV7b .inOF*0? .6SOE + 0?
Stf. 7 < ^'6 . u S 0 1 * u 4 .J10E + 04
StP. t'". 1^7^ ,1Bi!E+Ui .20DE+01
• iC'. ', 1^7h •*** - .200E + U)
OCT. C,lt*76 ^JOE*0^ ,2ffE + 01
•iC1. iS, 976 .700F+0-J .200E + 01
Oul. ^^, l«?t .170E+OU .270E+OU
i»xl>".^ .l"liF + 05 .120E + 07
'Ifji^ijf .IfinF + fli .20PE + "1
; f ^ , »• t A ' , i ^ ? F + o o .200E + UJ
F»K. -FA.- ,3«'iF + 0^ < .J07f+OU
'is. c HUN' ' ' -i
>TATlnN NUMBER
5678 9 10
200E+02
.200E+02
***»
.200E+02
.lbOE+02
24 OE + 02
.260E+02
.9UOE+02
M b OE + 0 2
.aoOE+oi
,600fc+0l
.1006+02
• .200E+OJ
<- .200E + 01
.200E+0 I
< .200E + 01
.200E+01
9«oe+o2
.200E+01
< .''J7E + 01
' » 1 3<*E + 0£
fi«llu, "I- ^
.186E + 02
»** r ^ i>4Ta
-------
TABLE B-75. TOTAL COLIFORM (MF) CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1977
rm 4i
TP
cr>
••4V
'A V
f AY
• A V
J . . > L
JUNE
Jl-NE
JU"t
juL r
1UL V
J 'J L V
l.JL*
Alt.
A Ub .
AUG.
AUG.
AUG.
SKP.
St P.
Stf-.
SfP.
TILT.
1 fl X 1
M 1 M I
P l I ' M
' «f .
i- 1 I
JAT^
7,
1 a ,
2 1 ,
?"*,
7,
1<4.
21 ,
28 ,
5 ,
1 2,
19,
26 ,
J,
9 ,
16,
23,
30,
6,
13,
20,
IT .
5,
,„,
f -
, "'•-
Mf 4
* .
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
l'«77
1 977
1 977
1 977
1977
1 971
,977
1 977
1977
1 977
1977
1977
1 977
1977
1 077
I 977
A'\
C A P.
1 2
»»**
. l^bF+03
,y90E+ou
,^95f +03
t <;7HF + nq
, 1 3fcF +0u
««t »
- . 15bE + OU
.lbOF+05
. J r> n F + o 5
. bJ^E + OS
, g J7p »QU
t ^ ;bF + 0^
. 13bF*OU
. 31 1E+°U
.700E+03
>.508f+05
* * * *
. 5UOF + OH
.306E+05
. 133f +05
. 160f +OS
.5n»F OS
.125E 03
.Ur?iF 11 H
,7«iF nu
. 1 Ohf 1=,
STATION M UMBER
* 0 S b
****
.300E+OJ
> . I 0 0 E + 0 4
, I 75t + 03
.31 fif + 0a
' .573E + OJ
****
*»*»
> .9JJE+OJ
. 140E+OU
> .227E+OU
.smt + 'iu
. 360E+04
.1 J2E+05
.162E+04
.2JOE+OJ
.162E+04
** * A
' .173E + OU
< .541E+OJ
> .133E+OU
* * * *
. 132E+05
,175E+uJ
> .126E+OU
> . ! ft7E»Ou
•• .i^nf + dii
7 8 9 10
tt
*
*
*
•
*
* *
* *
.100E+0*
, 1 14E + 0?
.JOOE+OJ
***•
, .I50E+OJ
> ,229t+02
.571E+02
• *•*
.200E+02
• **«
*••*
***•
****
«**•
.571E+02
. 1POE + 02
. .201E+02
.21BE+02
.2J8E+02
-------
TABLE B-76. FECAL COLIFORM (MPN) CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1976
t_n
PUSMFTFWI t F r i. r[)| TF (lf>* ( f PN i 'T.S! cn"NT ' 1 >>'• •
r»TE STATION NOflflEW
1 2 » « S • T
Ji'Nfc 17 l 7 fr
.ill. 1% 1976
£d OF * u a ,l3nE + Oa
?f.nF+o« ,«?OOE*03
?0'if + (ii( .bOOE + 01
SOiiF+03 .220E + 05
^OUF + 0'5 .220E + OU
13»EtOi .500E+03
130F+OU .500E+03
?OOF+OJ .200E+03
Bi'OE + u3 ^.200S + 03
JvuttUi ,20fiE + 0«
5unp+05 .200E+03
Pjoptdj .230E+03
?POE +OJ , 200E + 03
•ill. ?? 1^76 ,<>OOE+0} .200£ + 0«
-lArlr-iii1- ,J5ilf + P7 .220E+05
MN!«U« tU'if + 0'5 .2POE + OJ
GMJ-. «Fi <.13hfc*D'J <-.9<*2E + i>3
E»P. -F4- <.676f+i)« <.153E*Oa
IkllM. MtAfi <.3?UF+On .?95£«OU
-
.
.209E+01
.230E+02
* ***
. 2 0 0 F. i 0 1
< .200E + 01
< ,2006 + 01
.500E+01
.bUOE+01
.200E+02
< .200E + OI
<• .JOOE + 01
.iOOE+01
, .200E + 01
< ,200t + 0 J
< .200E + 01
< .200E + 01
< .200E+01
.230E+02
.200E+01
< .319E+01
- , 371E + 0 1
.500E+01
A 7 A
-------
TABLE B-77. FECAL COLIFORM (MPN) CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1977
IF H | FFCAI
rniINT / 1 Pr HI
D4 IK
MAY
»AV
I- 4Y
• 4 Y
JL i't
JL'N£
JUME
Ju\E
JULY
JULY
JULY
JULY
i'lu.
4 u G .
AU&,
A U b ,
»U&.
S> P.
SfcK-.
SEP.
SEP.
'LT.
7,
in,
2 I ,
-------
TABLE B-78. FECAL COLIFORM (MF) CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1976
f>AT£
,..r> 17, -976
J'i'Jt e?.*« l*7a
Ua ' 7, 1 !??>>
)M» IS. lr'7fe
I'-L ' c1?, 1 470
I»IY
-------
TABLE B-79. FECAL COLIFORM (MF) CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1977
ho
ON
GO
..... . -. ............ ........ ...................................
-. a »
A ¥
- 6 y
4Y
I.J.vt
JuNl
JU^fc
j ij n t
' •,. Y
JuL Y
JUL i
1 -L r
« ib .
£ ' G .
A Ulr •
4uG.
AOb.
^ P ,
S> H .
St- H,
St f> .
")L T .
-1 fl X I
6 i ^
7 ,
J
1 °,
^ ^ *
I,
Q t
1 6,
21,
30,
h,
1 J.
20,
27,
q/
ML-
1077
1 w ' /
[977
1 977
1 -.77
1 977
1977
1977
'977
i 977
1977
i 977
1 977
-i ' -7
i 9 ; 7
1977
1977
'977
|977
1977
197?
1 977
- I Mj r1l,v
6 ' f
MP A ^
M. •>
A
>l , ^ M f T P p
?
* # * *
.1 "JF+02
,3U7f + U2
. uunp *u,?
. S 0 7 F + 0 3
.uonf +03
* * * *
.229F+0?
* * * *
. 1 " u F. + 0 u
. 2tlF +03
. 3 H o f + j 1
. j 8 n e + 0 1
. ? % 0 F + 0 i
. U88E+OU
. 1 33E+02
> . 1 o 0 f + o 5
* * * *
. bt.7f «0?
. 1 OlE+Ou
,9? OF + 1)3
. i 0 9 F + 0 3
, 1 3 3 E 1 0 2
> !5??f+"5
-• . 1 i ue +1114
<• l r r" TF : J« "C I 1 Tb j rtlMN' / •
siiTTnN NUMBER
i U 5"
*** *
.200E+03
. 1 0 fl-f + 0 3
,200t + 0'4
i IfcOE + O?
.300E+03
**»*
• ,907£»OJ
.107E+OU
,947E»03
, 5 0 0 1 + 0 u
,907t+0 J
.507E+OJ
.UADE+Oa
. 160E+OU
1 2 4 E + 0 H
1 9 7 E * 0 y
** * A
.7006+OJ
. U60E*0 J
•237E*OU
.S5JE+OJ
.SOOE+Ofl
.lbOE+02
. 1 13E + 01
. 137E + OH
7 8 9 10
****
***
• *•
ft**
** *
***
+ **
*«*
.150E+00
.JJOEtOO
.250E+00
* ***
.330E+00
.3JOE+00
. JJOf+OO
****
,6706+00
**
**
* *
ft *
ft*
.b70E+00
!i50E*00
' .J61E+00
" .370E+00
-------
TABLE B-80. FECAL STREPTOCOCCUS (M-ENT) CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1976
u.. . • i
ui Tf
1 ?
Jl'i.E 1 7 , 1 9 /t> ****
1 . •{ S~>i , \1">n . 1 ^OF +i>U
I1 L * ' , ] <*76 . b2'l£ +F + ii 1
Ji'L r «;-!, 1 976 •* **
/iuG. 5, 1«76 .950F + CM
out. 1?, 1976 , 1 ? 0 F + 0 3
4uU . t"i 1976 .190F+OS
StP. ^, 1976 . U 0 0 F + 0 1
5f P . '0, 1976 .20 OF* 01
?r>-. I 7 , )97h . 72Uf +0u
5tK. P, ". ES1^ ,7Sbt+1"
a-irnf ^ti- ,^6iE+ou
i '• S'pFi-'nriirC'S ' -i-F »T . , ,;'S rn
STATION MlhBE"
i u It
.?50E+oa
. i OOE + O i
. 20u£+0d
. J3"f +nj
. 2 3 n E + a 3
. 120E + OU
. 180E+OU
.910E+03
. 1 OOE + Ott
.970E+03
. 1 70E + nu
. I i a t + o 14
. 2 a o E + o u
.600E+PJ
.U70E+03
. 1 lOt+OU
.i«OE+oa
.2SOE+04
. inoE + oi
. 708t + 03
. lufcE + GU
. 122E + 014
.N ' / 1
7 8 9 lO
. 100E + 01
, tOOE+02
****
. 100E + 01
.200E+01
.200E+01
.870E+01
.220E+02
.200E+01
.350E+OU
.700E+01
,300t+oi
.100E+02
.200E+01
.200E+01
.250E+01
.200E+01
.350E+Oa
.100E+01
t SS9t+0 1
.135E+02
.225E+03
-------
TABLE B-81. FECAL STREPTOCOCCUS (M-ENT) CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1977
-
~ a v
• 4 T
.-4V
-.4V
JUNt
Ju^E
JUNE
JUNE
JvL '
JuL V
1UL V
•<,l y
ai'L, .
»U(s.
4uG.
4L'G.
AUG.
StP.
StP.
StP.
SEP.
nc T,
M*X1M
M 1 f< I M
C-FQ-1.
f iP .
«!• ] TH
4U
?
1 •>,
2 1 ,
29,
7 ,
11,
21,
28,
S,
1 2 ,
i g,
2b ,
2,
9,
1 b,
21,
10,
b.
1 J,
2U,
27,
*"
U*
U«
Mtt
"ft:
, if
1977
1^77
1977
1 «77
1V77
1977
1977
1977
1 077
1977
\ 977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1 977
1977
1977
1977
1977
11
4.
1 ;
* * * *
44*4
4 4 4 4
4444
4444
4444
4444
44*4
4444
» 4*4
4444
4444
4444
4444
444*
** 4 4
4444
4444
4* * *
44*4
* **4
4444
4444
4444
4 4 4 *
44*4
4444
3 a
44
44
*4
**
* 4
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
44
44
**
*4
**
44
44
STATION NUMBFB
5 «>
t
*
4
4
4
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
4
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
k*
ft*
k*
t *
14
4*
'•I
7 8 9 10
444*
«**4
4444
****
****
****
**4*
4*44
**4*
4444
4444
* * **
*»»*
***. *
»***
«***
9***
4*44
***•
*»**
****
****
**44
4*44
«*»*
****
44*4
-------
TABLE B-82. FECAL STREPTOCOCCUS (KF) CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1976
0* fE
Ji.Nf 17, 1976
Ju'.f i>. 3 , 1 97b
'' 1 ' 7 . 1 <*7b
. , " IS, 1 •J 7 h
I Ul r 2t , 1^7b
JnLf c!9, I97b
4 I/ G . S , 1 9 7 b
Aut. 12, 1«76
Ait,, f ' , 1 9 7 b
StP. bf+0(4 |a2E + nu
9 10
.100E+01
t270E*02
****
.750E+02
.2DOE+01
.200E+01
.b50E+01
.240E+02
.JOOE+01
,2«OE+0«
.200E+01
.JOOE+"!
,500£f01
»**•
***»
****
** **
,a«OE+oa
. 100E+01
.6b6E+01
,Ja9£+02
.212E+OJ
**** I *4lJ '"'ATft
-------
TABLE B-83. FECAL STREPTOCOCCUS (KF) CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED DURING 1977
hO
vhTfBl E|-r«i SToFBfnmrr'l* «Fl
STATION
u 56
10
1AY
fl f
-.AY
- a v
,1'INf-
JUNt
JUMt
JUNt
.' " L Y
ji,L¥
JULY
,..L »
tt"U .
SU'tsa
Al l(s o
Abbs
4U&,
3f P.
Sf C o
StPo
5>t H „
MLl,
"OXII"
MJ N I M
Gt UH,
f »p .
4- 1TM
7, (0 77
1 uj ? 1477
21 , 19,7
JH, 1^77
7. 1^77
1 U , 1^77
ii, 1977
2 B « 1^77
S . 1*77
1 ? , 1977
1 1 9T7
JO, 1977
6, 1977
14, 1977
20, 1977
-------
APPENDIX C
STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF THE 1976 WATER QUALITY
DATA WITH THE 1977 WATER QUALITY DATA
TABLE C-l. STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF 1976 WITH 1977 DATA
Station Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11
F-test
°76 °77
accept
R reject
1
in in
in t~~ ON
ON ON ON
0 O O
TC-MPN a a a
TC-MF a a a
FC-MPN
FC-MF R R R
FS-MF-KF R R R
Alk R a a
Ca R R R
Cl a a a
Hard R R R
NH3 a a a
N02 R a a
NC>3 R a a
TKN R R a
TP a a a
TSP R R a
P04 R R R
IDS a a a
TSS R a a
VSS a a a
Cond. a a a
SO/ a a a
Temp
DO
pH
BOD5 a a a
COD a a a
Al R a a
As
Cd a a a
Cr R R R
Cu a a a
Fe R a a
Pb
Mg a a a
Mn - - -
Hg R R R
Ni
K a a a
Ag - -
Na a a a
Zn a a a
2
in in
in r^ ON
ON ON ON
O O 0
a a a
R R R
R R a
R R R
a a a
a a a
R a a
R R R
a a a
a a a
R R a
a a a
R R R
R R R
R a a
a a a
R R R
R a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
a a a
R R a
a a a
a a a
R R R
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
3
in m
in r~- ON
ON ON ON
O 0 O
a a a
R R R
R R a
R R R
a a a
R R a
R R R
R R a
a a a
R a a
R R R
a a a
R R R
R R R
a a a
a a a
a a a
R a a
a a a
R a a
_ _ _
a a a
-
a a a
R R a
R R a
a a a
_ _
R a a
R a a
4
in in
in r-- ON
ON ON ON
O O O
a a a
R R R
_ _ _
R R R
a a a
a a a
R R R
R R a
R R R
R R R
a a a
R R R
R R R
R a a
R a a
R R R
a a a
R R R
R a a
R a a
R a a
R R R
R R R
R a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
a a a
_
a a a
a a a
5
in m
m r-~- ON
ON o\ G>
o o o
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R a
R R R
a a a
a a a
R R a
a a a
a a a
R a a
R R a
R R R
R R R
R R R
a a a
a a a
R R R
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
7
in m
in r^- ON
cr> ON ON
o o o
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
_ _
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
-
R R a
-
-
- -
- -
- -
a. a a
- -
-
a a a
-
a. a a
~
8
m tn
in f^ ON
C7N ON ON
O O O
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
R a a
a a a
R a a
R R R
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R a
-
-
-
-
-
a a a
- -
R R R
a a a
_
a a a
-
9
m in
mi — ON
ON ON ON
O 0 O
a a a
a a a
- -
R R R
R R R
a a a
R R R
a a a
R R R
a a a
R R R
a a a
R R R
R a a
-
a a a
R R R
R R R
a a a
a a a
a a a
R a a
R R R
R R a
R R R
a a a
R a a
R R R
-
R R R
a a a
a a a
R R R
R R R
a a a
11
in in
in r~- o\
O\ ON ON
o o o
a a a
a a a
- -
R R R
R R R
a a a
R R R
a a a
R R R
a a a
R R R
a a a
R R R
R a a
-
a a a
R R R
R R R
a a a
a a a
a a a
R a a
R R R
R R a
R R R
a a a
R a a
R R R
-
R R R
a a a
a a a
R R R
R R R
a a a
273
-------
TABLE C-l. CONTINUED
Station Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11
Weighted "t"-test
H: y
_,
-,
a = accept
reject
TC-MPN
TC-MF
FC-MPN
FC-MF
FS
Alk
Ca
Cl
Hard
NH3
N02
N03
TKN
TP
TSP
P04
TDS
TSS
VSS
Cond
so4
Temp
DO
pH
BOD5
COD
Al
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mg
Mn
Hg
Ni
K
Ag
Na
Zn
1
u-i m
in r-~ o\
o o o
a a a
a a a
-
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
a a a
a a a
R R R
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R a
R a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
R R a
a a a
R R R
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R a
-
R a a
R R R
_ _ _
R R R
a a a
2
in m
in r-- CT*
o O o
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
a a a
R R a
R R R
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
a a a
a a a
R R R
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
a a a
R R a
R R R
a a a
R R R
a a a
3
m in
m r~- CTI
o o o
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R a
R R a
R R a
R R R
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
d a a
R R R
_ _ _
R a a
a a a
R R R
a a a
R a a
R R R
R R R
a a a
4
LO LO
in r^. CT>
Q"» CT* O*i
000
a a a
a a a
_ _ _
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R a
a a a.
a a a
a a a
R R a
R a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
a a a
R R R
R R R
R R a
a a a
5
in in
in r-* CT\
O\ O^ O^
o o o
a a a
a a a
R a a
a a a
R R a
R R a
R R a
R R a
a. a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
R a a
a a a
R R R
R R R
R R R
a a a
7
m m
m i — o"i
O°i CT* O*>
o o o
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
- -
_
-
R R a
-
- -
a a a
- -
a a a
- - -
8
m m
m r- CT>
o\ CTI o^
o o o
a a • a
a a a
R a a
a a a
R R R
a a a
R R R
R R R
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
- -
_
- -
- - -
R R R
- - -
R a a
R R R
_ _
R R R
-
9
m m
in r^ o\
^ o\ o>
o o o
R a a
a a a
- - -
R R R
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
a a a
R R a
R a a
_
a a a
a a a
R R R
R a a
a a a
a a a
11
m in
in r-- o>
CTi C^ O
o o o
R a a
a a a
-
R R R
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R a
*± a a
a a a
a a a
ana
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
a a a
R R a
R a a
_ _ _
a a a
a a a
R R R
R a a
a a a
a a a
274
-------
TABLE C-l. CONTINUED
Station Numbers 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,11'
"t"-test
H:
a = accept R reject
1
in in
in t^- ON
ON ON ON
o o o
TC-MPN a a a
TC-MF a a a
FC-MPN - - -
FC-MF a a a
FS a a a
Alk a a a
Ca a a a
Cl a a a
Hard a a a
NH3 R R R
N02 a a a
NO-j a a a
TKN R R R
TP a a a
TSP a a a
PO^ a a a
IDS a a a
TSS R R R
VSS R a a
Cond R a a
S04 a a a
Temp
DO
pH
BOD R R R
COD R R a
Al a a a
As
Cd R R R
Cr R a a
Cu a a a
Fe a a a
Pb R R R
Mg R R R
Mn R R R
Hg R R a
Ni
K R R R
Ag R R R
Na R R R
Zn a a a
2
m in
in r^ ON
ON ON ON
o o o
R a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
a a a
R R a
R R R
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
a a a
a a a
R R R
R a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
R R R
a a a
R R R
R R R
a a a
R R R
a a a
3
m in
in i — ON
ON ON ON
O O O
a a a
R a a
R R a
a a a
R R a
R R a
R R a
R R R
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
R R a
a a a
a a a
_ _
R R R
a a a
R a a
R R R
R R R
R R R
a a a
4
in in
in r^ ON
ON ON ON
000
a a a
a a a
-
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
R a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
a a a
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R a
a a a
5
in in
o o o
a a a
a a a
R R a
a a a
R R a
R R a
R R a
R R a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
R R R
R R a
a a a
R R R
R R R
R R R
a a a
7
in in
o o o
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R a a
a a a
_ _ -
-
-
-
-
-
R R R
_ —
-
a a a
- -
a a a
a a a
8
in in
in r^ ON
ON ON ON
O O O
a a a
a a a
R a a
a a a
R R a
a a a
R R R
R R a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
.a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
R R R
— ~
R R a
R R R
R R a
R R R
R R R
9
in m
in i — ON
ON ON ON
O O O
R R R
a a a
-
R R R
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R a
a a a.
R R R
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
R a a
R R a
R R a
R R R
R R a
a a a
a a a
R R R
R R R
a a a
a a a
11
in in
in i — ON
ON ON ON
o o o
R R R
a a a
_ _ _
R R R
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R a
a a a
R R R
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
R a a
R R a
R R a
R R R
R R a
a a a
a a a
R R R
R R R
a a a
a a a
275
-------
TABLE C-2. STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF
MEANS AT STATION NUMBERS
1 AND 4
Paired observations
H: y = U,
a = accept R reject
TABLE C-3.
TC-MPN
TC-MF
TC-MPN
TC-MF
FS
Alk
Ca
Cl
Hard
NH,
N02
N03
TKN
TP
TSP
P04
TDS
TSS
VSS
Cond
S04
Temp
DO
pH
BODS
COD
Al
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mg
Mn
Hg
Ni
K
Ag
Na
Zn
76 & 77
m m
m r^ ON
ON ON ON
O O O
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R a a
a a a
a a a
-
- -
R R R
R R R
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
76
m m
in r^ ON
ON ON O*
O 0 0
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R a
a a a
R a a
a a a
R R a
R R a
a a a
a a a
-
-
-
R R R
R R R
a a a
- _ _
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
-
R R a
a a a
a a a
a a a
77
in in
in r^ ON
ON O^ O>
0 O O
a a a
R R a
_ _ _
a a a
a a a
R a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
R R R
a a a
R R R
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R a
a a a
a a a
a a a
-
- -
-
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF
MEANS AT STATION NUMBERS
2 AND 8
Paired observations
H' UT ~ Un
accept
R reject
TC-MPN
TC-MF
FC-MPN
FC-MF
FS-1
Alk
Ca
Cl
Hard
NH3
N02
N03
TKN
TP
TSP
P04
TDS
TSS
VSS
Cond
so4
Temp
DO
PH
BOD5
COD
Al
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mg
Mn
Hg
Ni
K
Ag
Na
Zn
76
in
ON
o
R
a
a
a
a
a
R
R
a
a
a
a
R
R
a
a
-
-
-
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
R
a
a
a
R
a
a
a
&
in
1 —
ON
o
R
a
a
a
a
a
R
R
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
-
-
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
R
a
a
a
R
a
a
a
77
m
CTN
ON
O
R
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
-
-
-
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
in
ON
o
R
a
a
R
a
a
a
R
a
a
R
a
a
a
a
a
R
a
_
-
-
R
a
-
a
a
76
in
1 —
ON
O
R
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
R
a
a
a
a
a
-
R
a
_
-
-
-
R
-
a
-
a
_
a
-
in
ON
ON
o
R
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
_
-
a
a
_
-
-
_
-
_
a
-
a
-
a
_
a
m
ON
o
a
a
a
a
a
a
R
a
R
a
a
a
R
R
a
a
-
-
-
R
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
77
in
r^
ON
O
a
a
a
a
a
a
R
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
-
-
-
R
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
in
ON
ON
O
a
a
a
a
a
a
R
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
-
-
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
276
-------
TABLE C-4. STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF
MEANS AT STATION NUMBERS
4 AND 7
Paired observations
H: y4 - w7
a = accept R = reject
TABLE C-5. STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF
MEANS AT STATION NUMBERS
4 AND 8
Paired observations
H: y, = y
a = accept R = reject
TC-MPN
TC-MF
FC-MPN
FC-MF
FS
Alk
Ca
Cl
Hard
NH,
N02
N03
TKN
TP
TSP
P04
TDS
TSS
VSS
Cond
so4
Temp
DO
_TJ
pH
BOD5
COD
Al
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mg
Mn
Hg
Ni
K
Ag
Na
Zn
76 & 77
in m
m r~~ ^
o o o
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R a
R a a
R R a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
_ _ _
_
a a a
R a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
- -
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
76
m in
o o o
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
_ _ _
-
a a a
a a a
_ _ _
-
- -
-
- -
- - -
- -
a a a
- -
_ _ _
_ _ _
a a a
_ _
a a a
- - -
77
m m
in i~^ o^
o o o
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
a a a
- -
a a a
a a a
R a a
a a a
-
- - -
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
- -
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
TC-MPN
TC-MF
FC-MPN
FC-MF
FS
Alk
Ca
Cl
Hard
NH3
N02
N03
TKN
TP
TSP
P04
TDS
TSS
VSS
Cond
so4
Temp
DO
pH
BOD,
COD
Al
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mg
Mn
Hg
Ni
K
Ag
Na
Zn
76 & 77
m in
o o o
a a a
a a a
R a a
a a a
a a a
R R a
R R R
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
R R R
a a a
a a a
-
-
-
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R a a
76
m in
in r~^ ^
o o o
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R a
R R R
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R a a
a a a
a a a
R a a
- -
- -
- - -
a a a
a a a
-
-
-
-
_ _ _
-
- -
a a a
- -
a a a
- - -
a a a
- -
a a a
a a a
77
in in
m r-^ (TI
o o o
a a a
R a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
R R a
a a a
a a a
-
- -
-
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
277
-------
TABLE C-6. STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF
MEANS AT STATION NUMBERS
4 AND 11
Paired observations
a = accept R = reject
TABLE C-7. STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF
MEANS AT STATION NUMBERS
8 AND 11
Paired observations
a = accept R - reject
TC-MPN
TC-MF
FC-MPN
FC-MF
FS
Alk
Ca
Cl
Hard
NH3
N02
N03
TKN
TP
TSP
P04
TDS
TSS
VSS
Cond
S04
Temp
DO
PH
BOD5
COD
Al
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mg
Mn
Hg
Ni
K
Ag
Na
Zn
76 & 77
in m
in f~ CTI
o o o
R R R
R R a
R R R
R R R
R R a
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
_ _ _
_ _ _
- - -
R R R
R R R
-
-
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
a a a
R R R
a a a
76
m in
m r^- 01
o o o
R R R
R a a
R R R
R R R
R a a
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
-
-
-
R R R
R R R
_ _ _
_ _ _
- -
- -
- -
-
-
R R a
-
a a a
_ _
R R R
_ _ _
R R R
- - -
77
m in
in r*» o°*
o o O
R R R
R a a
_ _ _
R R a
R a a
R R R
R a a
R R R
a a a
R R a
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
_
a a a
a a a
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R a
-
- -
-
R R R
R R R
- _
-
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
- -
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
-
R R R
a a a
TC-MPN
TC-MF
FC-MPN
FC-MF
FS
Alk
Ca
Cl
Hard
NH,
N02
N03
TKN
TP
TSP
P04
TDS
TSS
VSS
Cond
so4
Temp
DO
PH
BOD5
COD
Al
As
Cd
Cr
Ca
Fe
Pb
Mg
Mn
Hg
Ni
K
Ag
Na
Zn
76 & 77
in m
o o o
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
a a a
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
_ _ _
_ _ _
- - -
R R R
R R R
- -
_ _ _
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
a a a
R R R
a a a
76
in m
in r^ en
cy\ CTi o°<
O O O
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R R
R R a
R R R
R R R
P R R
R R R
-
- -
-
R R R
R R R
„
_ _ _
- -
_
-
- -
_ _ _
R R a
- - -
a a a
- -
R R R
_
R R R
- -
77
in in
m f^~
-------
TABLE C-8. STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF
VARIANCES AT STATION NUM-
BERS 1 AND 4
Assuming independent sets of data
Observations are not paired
F-test
ai = CTA
a = accept R = reject
TABLE C-9.
Al
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mg
Mn
Hg
Ni
K
Ag
Na
Zn
76
m
ON
0
a
-
ct
R
R
a
R
a
R
R
a
a
a
a
R
&
in
r^
ON
o
a
-
a
R
R
a
a
a
R
R
a
a
a
a
R
77
m
ON
ON
o
a
-
a
R
R
a
a
a
R
R
a
a
a
a
R
in
o>
o
a
-
a
a
a
a
-
a
R
-
a
-
a
a
76
in
r~
ON
o
a
-
a
a
a
a
-
a
-
R
-
a
-
a
a
in
ON
ON
0
a
-
a
a
a
a
-
a
-
R
-
a
-
a
a
in
ON
o
a
a
a
R
a
a
R
R
a
a
-
a
R
77
m
r-^
ON
o
a
-
a
a
R
a
-
a
R
R
'a
a
-
a
R
in
ON
ON
o
a
_
a
a
R
a
_
a
R
a
a
a
-
a
R
TABLE C-10.
STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF
VARIANCES AT STATION NUM-
BERS 4 AND 7
Assuming independent sets of data
Observations are not paired
F-test
CT4 = CT7
a = accepted R = rejected
As
Cd
Fe
Pb
Mg
Mn
Hg
Ni
K
Na
Zn
76
n
JN
D
a
—
a
-
a
a
a
-
R
a
a
&
m
ON
0
a
—
a
-
a
a
a
-
R
a
a
77
m
ON
ON
0
a
—
a
-
a
a
a
-
R
a
a
76
LO P*^ ON
O O O
_ - _
_ —
_ _ _
_ _ _
a a a
- - -
- -
_ _
R R a
a a a
- - -
77
m
m r-~
ON ON
o o
a a
— —
a a
-
a a
a a
- -
-
R R
a a
a a
m
ON
o
a
a
-
a
a
-
-
a
a
a
STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF
VARIANCES AT STATION NUM-
BERS 2 AND 8
Assuming independent sets of data
Observations are not paired
F-test
accept
R = reject
Al
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mg
Mn
Hg
Ni
K
Ag
Na
Zn
76
in
ON
o
a
a
a
R
R
R
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
&
m
ON
o
a
a
a
R
R
R
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
77
m
ON
ON
0
a
a
a
R
R
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
76
in in
in r- ON
ON ON ON
000
- _ _
_ _ _
- - -
_ _ _
_ _ _
- - -
_ _ _
a a a
- - -
a a a
_ _ _
a a a
_ _ _
a a a
- - -
in
ON
0
a
a
a
a
R
a
_
a
a
R
a
a
a
a
<±
77
m
ON
o
a
a
a
a
R
a
cl
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
m
ON
ON
o
a
a
a
a
R
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
TABLE C-ll.
STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF
VARIANCES AT STATION NUM-
BERS 4 AND 8
Assuming independent sets of data
Observations are not paired
F-test
O/ = O_
accepted
R rejected
Al
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mg
Mn
Hg
Ni
K
Ag
Na
Zn
76
m
ON
o
a
a
a
a
R
a
R
a
R
R
a
a
a
a
a
&
m
i —
ON
o
a
a
a
a
R
a
R
a
R
R
a
a
a
a
a
77
m
ON
ON
o
a
a
a
a
R
a
R
a
a
R
a
a
a
a
a
76
m
m r^
ON ON
0 0
_
- -
- -
- -
-
- -
- -
a a
- -
R R
-
a a
- -
a a
-
m
ON
ON
O
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
a
-
R
-
a
-
a
-
in
ON
o
a
a
a
a
R
a
-
a
R
R
a
a
a
a
a
77
m
r-
ON
O
a
a
a
a
R
a
-
a
R
R
a
a
a
a
a
m
ON
ON
o
a
a
a
a
R
a
a
a
R
a
a
a
a
a
279
-------
TABLE C-12
TABLE C-14
STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF
VARIANCES AT STATION NUM-
BERS 4 AND 11.
Assuming independent sets of data
Observations are not. paired
F-test
" CT
TABLE C-13
11
accept
R = reject
Al
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mg
Mn
Hg
Ni
K
Ag
Na
Zn
76
LO
Cn
O
a
R
a
a
a
a
R
R
a
R
a
R
i±
R
R
&
m
r-^
en
0
a
R
a
a
a
a
a
R
a
R
a
R
a
R
R
77
m
&*
en
o
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
R
a
R
a
R
a
U~l
en
0
a
-
a
a
a
a
-
a
a
R
R
-
R
a
76
m
r-~
en
o
a
-
a
a
a
a
-
a
a
R
-
R
R
a
in
en
en
o
a
-
a
a
a
a
a
a
R
R
-
R
a
in
en
o
a
R
a
a
a
a
-
-
R
R
a
R
cl
R
R
77
in
r-
CT\
O
a
R
a
a
a
a
-
R
R
a
R
a
R
R
u~l
en
Cn
O
a
a
a
a
a
a
-
-
R
R
a
R
a
R
R
STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF
MEANS AT STATION NUMBERS
1 AND 4.
Assuming independent sets or data
Observations are not paired
"t"-test
a = accept R = reject
Al
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mg
Mn
Hg
Ni
K
Ag
Na
Zn
76
m
Cn
o
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
&
m
r~
ON
O
a
-
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
77
in
CA
c^
o
a
-
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
m
o\
o
a
-
a
a
a
a
a
-
a
-
a
a
a
76
in
r^
o
o
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
-
a
a
in
CT>
ON
o
a
-
a
a
a
a
-
a
-
a
-
a
-
a
a
in
en
o
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
-
a
a
77
in
i — .
CT>
O
a
a
a
a
a
-
a
a
a
a
a
-
a
a
m
en
o\
o
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
-
a
a
TABLE C-15
STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF
VARIANCES AT STATION NUM-
BERS 8 AND 11.
Assuming independent sets of data
Observations are not paired
F-test
CJ_ O,,
a = accept
R = reject
Al
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mg
Mn
Hg
Ni
K
Ag
Na
Zn
76 & 77
in in
in r^ en
Cn Cn en
o o o
a a a
R R a
a a a
a a a
R R R
R R a
a a a
R R a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
a a a
R R R
a a a
76
in in
in r- en
Cn Cn Cn
O O 0
_ _ _
_ - -
- - -
- -
- -
- -
-
a a a
a a a
R R R
R R R
-
77
in in
in r-- cn
Cn Cn CTi
o o o
a a a
R R a
a a a
a a a
R R R
a a a
_
R R a
R R R
a a a
R R R
a a a
R R R
R R a
STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF
MEANS AT STATION NUMBERS
2 AND 8.
Assuming independent sets of data
Observations are not paired
"t"-test
V-, = Uo
accept
R = reject
1
Al
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mg
Mn
Hg
Ni
K
Ag
Na
Zn
76
in
o
0
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
&
m
r-
ON
0
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
77
m
CT\
en
o
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
76
in in
in ' — CT*
o~*
-------
TABLE C-16
TABLE C-18
STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF
MEANS AT STATION NUMBERS
4 AND 7.
Assuming independent sets of data
Observations are not paired
"t"-test
TABLE C-17
accept
R = reject
Al
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mg
Mn
Hg
Ni
K
Ag
Na
Zn
76
m
ON
o
_
a
_
-
a
-
a
a
a
-
a
-
-------
TABLE C-20 STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF
MEANS AT STATION NUMBERS
1 AND 4.
Assuming independent sets of data
Observations are not paired
Weighted "t"-test
TABLE C-21 STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF
MEANS AT STATION NUMBERS
2 AND 8.
Assuming independent sets of data
Observations are not paired
Weighted "t"-test
a = accept R reject
accept
reject
Al
Aa
AS
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mg
Mn
Hg
Ni
K
Ag
Na
Zn
76
in
ON
o
a
a
a
R
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
R
&
m
r~
ON
o
a
a
cl
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
R
77
m
ON
ON
o
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
R
in
ON
o
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
-
R
-
a
a
76
in
r^
ON
O
a
a
a
a
a
_
a
-
a
a
a
a
in
ON
ON
o
a
a
a
a
a
_
a
-
a
-
a
a
a
m
ON
o
a
a
a
a
a
-
a
a
a
a
a
a
R
77
in
t^
ON
o
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
cl
R
m
ON
ON
0
a
a
a
a
a
-
a
a
a
a
a
-
a
R
TABLE C-22 STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF
MEANS AT STATION NUMBERS
4 AND 7.
Assuming independent sets ot data
Observations are not paired
Weighted "t" test
Al
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mg
Mn
Hg
Ni
K
Ag
Na
Zn
76
m
ON
o
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
&
m
r^
ON
0
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
77
in
ON
ON
0
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
76
in m
in r~ ON
ON ON ON
O O O
_ _ _
- -
- - -
-
_ _ _
- - -
-
R a a
- -
a a a
- -
a a a
-
a a a
-
m
ON
o
a
a
a
a
a
a
-
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
77
m
r^
ON
o
a
a
a
a
a
a
-
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
in
ON
ON
o
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
TABLE C-23 STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF
MEANS AT STATION NUMBERS
4 AND 8.
Assuming independent sets of data
Observations are not paired
Weighted "t" test
accept
R = reject
a = accept
R = reject
Al
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mg
Mn
Hg
Ni
K
Ag
Na
Zn
76
in
ON
0
_
a
-
-
a
-
a
a
a
-
a
a
a
&
m
r-*
ON
O
a
-
-
-
a
a
a
a
a
-
a
a
77
in
ON
ON
o
_
a
-
-
a
-
a
a
a
-
a
-
a
a
76
m m
in r^- ON
ON ON o>
o o o
_
-
-
_ _ _
-
-
-
a a a
-
-
-
a a a
_ _ _
a a a
- -
in
ON
O
_
a
-
-
a
-
a
a
-
a
a
a
77
in
ON
o
a
a
a
a
-
a
-
a
a
m
ON
ON
o
_
a
a
-
a
a
-
a
a
a
Al
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mg
Mn
Hg
Ni
K
Ag
Na
Zn
76
in
ON
O
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
&
m
r-~
ON
o
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
77
m
ON
ON
o
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
76
m in
in r^ ON
ON Ol O>
o o o
_ _
-
- -
_ _ _
- -
- - -
_ _
a a a
- - -
a a a
_ _ _
a a a
- _ _
a a a
- - -
in
ON
o
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
R
77
m
r^
ON
o
a
a
a
^
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
R
in
ON
ON
o
a
a
a
a
a
a
«
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
282
-------
TABLE C-24 STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF
MEANS AT STATION NUMBERS
4 AND 11.
Assuming independent sets of data
Observations are not paired
Weighted "t" test
TABLE C-25 STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF
MEANS AT STATION NUMBERS
8 AND 11.
Assuming independent sets of dc':a
Observations are not paired
Weighted "t" test
a = accept
R = reject
accept
R = reject
Al
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mg
Mn
Hg
Ni
K
Ag
Na
Zn
76 & 77
in un
in r^
O O O
a a a
R R a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
_ _ _
-
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
a a a
R R R
a a a
Al
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mg
Mn
Hg
Ni
K
Ag
Na
Zn
76 & 77
m in
in r^ cr>
CTN C7\ CTv
O O O
a a a
R R a
R a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a a a
R R R
a a a
R R R
a a a
76
m r~^ o^
cri c^ en
o o o
—
_
-
_
- -
_
_ _
R R o
a i a
R R R
R R F
77
un m
m r~ 01
O~i O> CT-.
O O O
rj a a
K R a
3 a a
J r< a
a a a
a a a
_
' ci
a a c-<
:-; a -i
R R !•'
o a «
R R 5'
a d a
283
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing}
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-79-171a
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSI Or* NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF LAND APPLICATION OF DOMESTIC
WASTEWATER: Tooele, Utah, Slow-Rate Site
Volume I: Field Investigation
5. REPORT QATE
August 1979 issuing dat«?
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
James0!?!3 Reynolds, L. R. Anderson, R. W. Miller,
W. F. Campbell, and M. 0. Braun
'8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Utah water Research Laboratory
Utah State University
Logan, Utah 84322
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BC822
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-2360
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Lab - Ada, OK
Office of Research and Development
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA-600/15
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Application of wastewater to the land has been designated a viable alternative for
wastewater treatment by the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500).
However, very little information is available concerning the long-term effects of apply
ing wastewater to the land. The general objective of this study was to determine the
long-term effects of employing secondary treated municipal wastewater as irrigation
water. The study compared the quality of soils, crops, groundwater, and applied water
to a site receiving normal irrigation water (control site) to a site (treated site)
which had utilized secondary treated municipal effluent for irrigation water during a
20-year period. Similar management practices were employed at both sites.
The treated municipal effluent applied as irrigation water to the treated site was
of a significantly poorer quality than the normal irrigation water applied to the con-
trol site. The treated effluent mean biochemical oxygen demand (BOD^) concentration
was 14.1 mg/1 in 1976 and 16.0 mg/1 in 1977 compared to a mean BOD,- concentration of
1.6 mg/1 in 1976 and 2.5 mg/1 in 1977 of irrigation water applied to the control site.
The treated municipal effluent was higher in nutrients and heavy metals concentrations
than the control site water. However, neither the treated site nor control site was
irrigated with water of poorer quality than recommended irrigation water quality
criteria.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Land use
Sewage treatment
Trace elements
Water chemistry
Soil properties
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Tooele, Utah
Spray irrigation systems
Land application
Municipal wastes
Wastewater treatment
COSATl Field/Group
50D-
48E
68D
91 AC
B. DISTRIBUTION STATEMEN1
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
| 19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
I UNCLASSIFIED
(To SECURITY CLASS (This page)
UNCLASSIFIED
21 . NO. OF PAGES
305
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
284
------- |