EPA - 68-01-2989
Heavy Metals in Gardens Near the
Asarco Smelter, Tacoma, Washington
April 1977
Final Report
Western Washington Research & Extension Center
Washington State University
Puyallup, Washington 98371
-------
CHAPTER 2
FORMAT
SCIENTIFIC AND
TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS
I. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
4eavy Metals in Gardens Near the Asarco
Smelter, Tacoma, Washington
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Washington State University
Pullman, Washington 99164
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA , :
IPIeaie read Iniirucliom on iHt rtvtru before compltttng/
. REPORT NO.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
8. REPORT DATE
April 1977
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
. AUTMORIS)
Daul E. Heilman
Inrdpn T, Fkuan
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA
of preparation
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.~
68-01-2989
13. TYPE, OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
may
vegetables from 7U gardens in the vicinity of the smelter
were sampled and analyzed in 3 laboratories for heavy metals. Ele-
vated soil values near the smelter were found for As, Cd, Pb, Cu,
Hg, Zn, Sn, Pt, Mo, Sb, S, Ti, Zn and Cl. Pd, Te, Ta, W and Bi
also be significantly higher near the smelter. Vegetables were
high in As, Cd? £u, Zn, Hg, Sn, Pt, Mo; Sb, S, Ba, V and Ca with
less indication of high levels for Pb, Pd, Te,_Ni and Sr. Content
of As, Cd and Cu in plants were significantly correlated with soil
values. As and Cd are the elements likely to cause greatest con-
cern. Content of these elements in leaf vegetables vs. distance
from the smelter was closely described by an exponential decay
model. High soil Ca appeared to be associated with lower foliage
Cd but pH and organic matter had no influence. A greenhouse study
showed substantially reduced growth on smelter soils and that lim-
ing significantly increased growth. High levels of heavy metals
flccurred in vegetables
DESCRIPTORS
Heavy metals in soils, in
vegetables. Smelter contaminatio[i,
Arsenic, Cadmium, Copper Smelter
IB. DISTRIBUTION STATtMENT
.sin the greenhouseT
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
C. COSATI I iclll/firoup
19. SECURITY CLASS f It\il Hepertl
30 SECURITY CLASS (Thtl pegrt
21 NO. OF I'A'.IS
__9P_
jj. PfifCE
EPA Form UJ»-I (f-TJI
TN 3
5-14-74
t'i>;uri! 2-2.
Technical Keport Data
(Part 1 of 2)
CHAP 2
-------
Heavy Metals in Gardens Near the
Asarco Smelter, Tacoma, Washington
Paul E. Heilman and Gordon T. Ekuan
Authors
EPA Contract No. 68-01-2989
James M. Everts, Research and Development
Representative, Region X EPA
Project Officer
-------
PREFACE
This study is a product of cooperation and contri-
bution by many individuals and organizations. Chemical
analysis were performed by the EPA Region X chemical
laboratory, by Virginia Associated Research Campus of
the College of William and Mary and by the Soil Testing
Laboratory at Washington State University. Data analysis
was performed by Statistical Services, Washington State
University and by Wray Britton, Puyallup, Washington.
Finally, the many garden owners who cooperated in this
study are listed in the Data Supplement.
m
-------
Contents
Page No,
Preface i ii
List of Figures v
List of Tables v1
Introduction 1
Summary 3
Conclusions 5
Recommendations 6
Part I. Garden Survey
Methods 7
Results and Discussion 9
- Accuracy of Laboratory Analysis 10
- Comparability of Laboratories 11
- Relationship of Plant Values to Soil
Values 14
- Relationship of Elements in Plants and
Soils to Distance from the Smelter 16
- Heavy Metal Content of Vegetables 40
- Effect of pH, Organic Matter and Soil
Ca on As and Cd in Vegetables 42
Part II. Greenhouse Experiment 43
Methods 43
Results and Discussion 46
Conclusions 56
Appendix 58-86
iv
-------
List of Figures
Page No.
Fig. 1 EPA Soil As vs. Distance 17
Fig. 2 EPA Soil Cd vs. Distance 17
Fig. 3 EPA Soil Pb vs. Distance 18
Fig. 4 EPA Soil Hg vs. Distance 18
Fig. 5 EPA Soil Cu vs. Distance 19
Fig. 6 EPA Soil Zn vs. Distance 19
Fig. 7 EPA Vegetable As vs. Distance 22-24
Fig. 8 EPA Vegetable Cd vs. Distance 25-27
Fig. 9 EPA Vegetable Pb vs. Distance 28-29
Fig. 10 EPA Vegetable Cu vs. Distance 30-32
Fig. 11 EPA Vegetable Hg vs. Distance 33-34
Fig. 12 EPA Vegetable Zn vs. Distance 35-37
Appendix
Fig. E EPA As Values in Lettuce (L), Beet Green
and Chard (B) and Cole Crops (C) vs.
Distance (As in S.D. units for gardens
beyond 10 miles) 63
Fig. F EPA Cd values in Lettuce (L), Beet Green
and Chard (B) and Cole Crops (C) vs.
Distance (Cd in S.D. units for gardens
beyond 10 miles) 63
-------
Fig. G WAM Elements Showing no Relationship to
•Distance from the Smelter 64-73
Fig. H WAM Elements Showing a Relationship to
the Smelter in Soils Only 74-76
Fig. I WAM Elements Showing a Relationship to
the Smelter in Both Soils and Plants 77-80
Fig. J WAM Elements Showing a Relationship to
the Smelter in Plants Only 81-83
-------
List of Tables
Page No.
Table 1. Relationship of EPA and WAM Laboratory
Data for Elements in Leaf Samples 12
Table 2. Relationship of EPA and WAM Laboratory
Data for Elements in Soil Samples 12
Table 3. Relationship of EPA and WSU Laboratory
Data for Elements in Soil Samples 13
Table 4. Relationship of EPA Foliar Levels to EPA
and to WSU Soil Levels of Elements 15
Table 5. Relationship of EPA Root Levels to EPA
and to WSU Soil Levels of Elements 15
Table 6. Relationship of Elements in Soils,
Leaf Vegetables and Root Vegetables to
Distance From the Smelter (EPA Data) 38
Table 7. Relationship of WAM Elements in Leaf
Vegetables and Soils to Distance from
the Smelter 38
Table 8. Parameters of Model Y = BQe^Bld^ for
EPA Leafy Data 39
Table 9. Heavy Metal Content of Vegetables
(EPA Data) 41
Table 10. Fertility Status, pH and Lime Treatment
of Soils in the Greenhouse Experiment 45
Table 11. Arsenic and Heavy Metals in Soils 47
Table 12. Effect of Soils and Liming on Vegetable
Growth 48-49
Vll
-------
Page No.
Table 13. Heavy Metals in Greenhouse Vegetables
(EPA Values) 52-53
Table 14. Effect of Liming and Maturity of Foliage
on Elements in Foliage 54
Table 15. Heavy Metals in Lettuce Grown in Soil 3
(Check Soil) in Greenhouse 55
Appendix Tables
Table A. Methods of Soil and Plant Analysis Used
by EPA Laboratory 58
Table B. Methods of Soil Analysis Used by WSU
Soil Testing Laboratory 59
Table C. Results of Duplicate Analyses by EPA
on Three Soil Samples and One Vegetable
Sample 60
Table D. Results of Duplicate Analyses by WAM of
Three Soil and One Vegetable Sample 61-62
Table K. WAM Leaf Data for 39 Elements 84
Table L. WAM Soil Data for 39 Elements 85
Table M. Summary of Stepwise Regression Analysis
of pH, Organic Matter and Soil Calcium
vs. Leaf As and Cd 86
vm
-------
INTRODUCTION
The American Smelting and Refining Company (ASARCO) copper smelter near
Tacoma has been in operation since before 1900. Over much of this
period, the smelter has been recognized as a major source of atmospheric
sulfur emissions. Recent reports have shown that other elements are
1 2
apparently also emitted ' . These workers presented evidence of
elevated levels of arsenic, cadmium, copper, zinc, lead, antimony and
mercury in soils and plants near the smelter.
This study was undertaken with the aid of a grant from the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to more fully evaluate levels of
arsenic and heavy metals in garden soils and vegetables in the area of
the smelter. Chemical analyses of soils and plants were made by the
Environmental Protection Agency Region X Laboratory in Seattle (EPA)
with part of the samples analyzed for 37 elements at Virginia Associated
Campus of the College of William and Mary (WAM). The soils were also
analyzed by Washington State University Soil Testing Laboratory (WSU)for
Crecelius, E. A., C. J. Johnson, and G. C. Hofer. 1974. Contamination
of soils near a copper smelter by arsenic, antimony and lead. Water,
Air and Soil Pollution 3;337-342.
p
Raatsch, H. C. 1974. Heavy metal content of vegetation and soils
samples from the vicinity of the Tacoma Smelter. E.P.A. National
Environmental Research, Corvallis, Oregon.
-------
fertility status and arsenic, cadmium, copper and zinc. A greenhouse
study was carried out which involved growing several vegetables on
soils collected from the smelter-influenced area. This study will be
discussed in the second part of this report. Effort was made to
determine cultural practices used by the individual garden owners in
order to evaluate the influence of practices such as addition of
organic matter, fertilizers and liming on growth of vegetables and
their heavy metal content.
-------
SUMMARY
This study consisted of two parts: a study of heavy metals in 70
gardens in the vicinity of the smelter and a greenhouse study of growth
and uptake of heavy metals on five soils varying in degree of smelter
contamination.
Data was analyzed at three laboratories and results from the
laboratories were compared. EPA data and WSU data for soils appeared to
be more reliable than the WAM data.
Elevated soil values were found near the smelter for As, Cd, Pb, Cu, Hg,
Zn, Sn, Pt, Mo, Sb, S, Tl, Au and Cl with Pd, Te, Ta, W and Bi showing a
tendency for high values near the smelter. Elevated values in vegetables
were found near the smelter for As, Cd, Cu, Zn, Hg, Sn, Pt, Mo, Sb, S,
Ba, V and Ca with less evidence of high values for Pb, Pd, Te, Ni, and
Sr. Plant content of As, Cd and Cu was significantly correlated with
soil levels with the DTPA extraction (WSU) giving the highest R values.
Contaminants causing greatest concern are probably As and Cd. An
exponential decay model was found to closely describe the content of
As and Cd in vegetables from the smelter area. The effects of pH,
organic matter and Ca level in garden soil on As and Cd in vegetables
were minimal. Only soil Ca showed some effect with a tendency for lower
Cd in lettuce and beet green and chard with increasing levels of Ca in
soil.
-------
The greenhouse study showed substantially reduced growth of vegetables
on contaminated garden soils. Lime treatment greatly improved vegetable
growth. The sjady also showed significant levels of metals in
vegetables grown on these soils in the greenhouse. Also, shown was the
large effect that state of development has on content of heavy metals in
foliage particularly with As and Cd.
-------
COHCLUSIONS
1. Elevated levels of several heavy metals occur in both soils and garden
vegetables near the Tacoma Smelter. Greatest concern from the standpoint
of human health is probably caused by the high soil As and the high leafy
vegetable Cd levels that were found. Highest soil As was 426 ppm and
highest Cd was 28.0 ppm in lettuce.
2. Both jettuce and beet_greens appear to be s i gn i f i cant 1 y_hi g hej^jj
the other vegetables tested. The root vegetables beets, carrots and
turnips were the lowest in Cd.
3. Liming greatly increased growth of vegetables on smelter contaminated
soils in the greenhouse but may also increase uptake_pf Cd by__yejie tables,.
However, regression analysis of results from the garden survey showed a
tendency for lower Cd levels in vegetables as the level of Ca in soil
increased.
4. Zinc levels in vegetables were reduced by lime, thus the Cd:Zn ratios were
increased.
5. High levels of heavy metals in the greenhouse-grown vegetables indicates
substantial uptake of heavy metals from smelter contaminated soils. Thus
despite currently reduced smelter emmissions, heavy metals will probably
continue to be present in vegetables of the area unless soils are replaced.
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. More investigation is needed in the area of factors influencing plant
growth and heavy metal content of plants. Field studies of methods
of ameliorating smelter effects are also needed.
2. Continued effort should be made to determine the degree of health
concern associated with vegetable gardening on contaminated soil in
the smelter area.
3. A more uniformly distributed sampling of gardens around the smelter
is needed to better delineate the areas of greatest heavy metal
concentration. Other vegetables should be sampled for smelter effect.
4. The pronounced effect of leaf age on heavy metal content should
continue to be recognized in sampling in future studies.
-------
PART I. GARDEN SURVEY
METHODS
Samples of soil and vegetables from 70 gardens in the vicinity of Tacoma,
Vashon Island and Puyallup were obtained. Soil samples were collected
to a depth of 15 cm (6 in.) from several spots in each garden and
composited into a single soil sample. These samples were brought to the
laboratory daily and air dried. After drying they were sieved through
a 2 mm stainless steel screen and stored for analysis.
Samples from leafy vegetables were of the most recently matured, fully
expanded leaves on the plants, except that the cabbage and head lettuce
samples consisted of the outer leaves from the heads. Root vegetables
were collected when they were large enough for eating but before they
were fully mature. These were not peeled prior to analysis. All
samples were stored in the field in an ice chest after collection. They
were brought to the laboratory on the same day as collected and washed
several times in tap water and rinsed with distilled water. The plant
samples were then freeze-dried and ground in a pica blender with a
tungsten carbide grinding unit.
Methods of analysis of soils and plants used by EPA are listed in
Table A of the Appendix. Methods used by the WSU Soil Testing
Laboratory are listed in Table B of the Appendix. Samples sent to
the College of William and Mary Laboratory were analyzed by proton
-------
induced x-ray fluorescence .
^Jolly, R. K., V. R. Kane, D. C. Buckle and H. Aceto. 1973. A fast
trace analysis system at VARC using prton induced x-ray fluorescence.
Virginia Associated Campus, College of William and Mary, Newport News,
Virginia. Unpublished Report.
-------
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Results of the garden survey are presented and discussed in the following
six subsections. Data is included in these sections and in Appendix
tables and figures with individual garden data presented in a data
supplement. A list of gardeners who cooperated in the study and data
on each individual garden are given in the Data Supplement. Individual
garden data include the name and address, distance and direction from
the smelter, evaluation of general growth of vegetables in the garden
and information on soil management and fertilizer usage and date of
sampling. The key to the code used for soil management factors is
shown on page 4 of the supplement. Also included with the individual
garden data are As, Cd, Pb, Hg, Cu and Zn contents of the soil and
vegetables which were sampled and results of testing of fertility,
organic matter and pH of each soil.
-------
Accuracy of Laboratory Analyses-
Duplicate samples were sent to EPA and WAM laboratories to evaluate
reproducibility of results from these laboratories. The inclusion of
duplicates was not disclosed to the laboratories.
The EPA laboratory received three duplicate soil samples and one
duplicate plant sample. Comparisons are shown in Appendix Table C.
Satisfactory reproducibility was obtained from the EPA laboratory for
all six elements.
Three duplicate soil samples and one duplicate vegetable sample were
sent to WAM. Results are shown in Appendix Table D. Reproducibility
is not nearly as good as with the EPA data but for most elements, the
results are probably acceptable for this study. However, caution must
be used with data for some of the elements. The poor results were
attributed by the WAM analyst to cobalt contamination from the tungsten
carbide mill used to grind the samples. This problem occurred despite
prior consultation with the analyst about the suitability of this type
of grinder. The difficulty arose because cobalt is used as the
internal standard in the procedure.
10
-------
Comparability of Laboratories
In addition to checking duplicate analyses, values from the three
laboratories were compared with one another. Regression analysis was
used for this purpose. Results of comparisons of EPA and WAM leaf
values are shown in Table 1. Good agreement was found for As, Cd, Cu
and Zn. Somewhat poorer agreement was evident for Pb whereas Hg values
showed no relationship. In soils, best agrement when comparing EPA
with WAM data was with As, Pb, Cu and Zn with less for Cd and no
agreement for Hg (Table 2).
Somewhat higher R values were obtained for EPA vs. WSU soil values
(Table 3). No plants were analized by WSU.
Validity of the WAM Hg analysis is questioned because of the low R
£- f>
values (Table 1 and 2). Tablesp and Z of the Appendix show that
reproducibility of the EPA Hg values appears to be much better than for
WAM. Thus, Hg data from WAM appears to be unreliable. In addition to
Hg, the accuracy of WAM data for Pb in foliage and Cd in soils,
according to R values in Table 1 and 2, is questionable.
Reproducibility as shown in Appendix Tables C and D indicates better
reliability for the EPA Pb and Cd values than in the WAM values for
these elements.
11
-------
Table 1. RELATIONSHIP OF EPA AND WAM LABORATORY DATA FOR ELEMENTS
IN LEAF SAMPLES.
Element
Arsenic
Cadmium
Lead
Copper
Mercury
Zinc
Table 2.
Element
Arsenic
Cadmium
Lead
Copper
Mercury
Zinc
Mean
2.85
5.49
13.44
23.80
0.10
178
EPA (ppm)
Maximum
S.D. value
3.56 18
4.55 28
6.23 35
44.62 520
.07 0.5
164 910
RELATIONSHIP OF EPA AND WAM
IN SOIL
Mean
112
4.6
336
487
2.0
287
SAMPLES.
EPA (ppm)
Maximum
S.D. value
96 426
3.1 15
353 1875
541 1950
2.5 12,5
263 1525
EPA WAM
N N
165
167
162
157
162
164
LABORATORY
56
57
57
57
56
55
DATA
EPA WAM
N N
70
71
71
69
70
71
44
34
44
42
33.
42
R
.888
.919
.618
.897
.106
.940
FOR
R
.927
.708
.900
.955
.257
.848
Prob.
.0001
.0001
.0001
.0001
.4370
.0001
ELEMENTS
Prob.
.0001
.0001
.0001
.0001
.1483
.0001
12
-------
Table 3. RELATIONSHIP OF EPA AND WSU LABORATORY
DATA FOR ELEMENTS IN SOIL SAMPLES.
Element1
Arsenic
Cadmium
Copper
Zinc
WSU
N
69
42
68
70
R
.946
.952
.969
.894
Prob.
.0001
.0001
.0001
.0001
*EPA data presented in Table 2.
13
-------
Relationship of Plant Values to Soil Values
Significant correlations were observed between leaf vegetable
concentrations of As and Cu (EPA) with soil values for these elements
(Table 4). Significant correlations were also found between As and Cu
in root vegetables with levels of these elements in the soil but the R
values were lower. Concentrations of plant vs. soil Cd and Zn showed
higher R values with roots than with leafy samples (Table 5).
Highest correlations between EPA plant and soil values were for the WSU
soil data. Thus, a better relationship of DTPA extractable heavy metals
(WSU method) to plant uptake is indicated.
Low R values for Pb, Hb and Zn in plant samples vs. total soil levels
are not surprising in view of the generally low availability of these
elements in soil. The influence of soil factors pH, organic matter and
calcium level on availability and uptake of heavy metals is examined in
a later section.
14
-------
Table 4. RELATIONSHIP OF EPA FOLIAR LEVELS TO
EPA AND TO WSU SOIL LEVELS OF ELEMENTS.
Element
Arsenic
Cadmium
Lead
Copper
Mercury
Zinc
Table 5.
Element
Arsenic
Cadmium
Lead
Copper
Mercury
Zinc
EPA Soil
R Prob.
.588 .0001
.147 .0579
.004 .9679
.613 .0001
.177 .0256
.082 .2933
RELATIONSHIP OF EPA ROOT
AND TO WSU SOIL LEVELS OF
EPA Soil
R Prob.
.435 .0007
.307 .0159
.070 .5944
.518 .0001
.093 .484
.217 .0964
WSU
R
.625
.330
-
.622
-
.155
LEVELS
Soil
Prob.
.0001
.0006
-
.0001
-
.0502
TO EPA
ELEMENTS.
WSU
R
.475
.447
-
.537
-
.300
Soil
Prob.
.0002
.0071
-
.0001
-
.0211
15
-------
Relationship of Elements in Plants and Soils to Distance from the
Smelter
Graphs showing the relationship of As, Cd, Pb, Ca, Hg and Zn in soil vs.
distance are shown in Figures 1 to 6. Linear correlation coefficients
of concentration of elements in vegetables and soils vs. distance from
the smelter are shown in Table 6. In soils, high correlations with
distance from the smelter were obtained with all of the above elements.
Graphs showing concentration of the above elements in vegetables vs.
distance are shown in Figures 7 to 12. Strong curvilinear relationships
to the smelter are evident with As (Figures 7a to 7e), Cd (Figures 8a to
8e), Cu (Figures lOa to lOe) and Zn (Figures 12a to 12e). A similar
relationship but not as strong is evident with Hg (Figures lla to lid).
Table 6 shows results of linear correlations with significant R values
for leaf vegetables with As, Cd, Cu and Hg, whereas in roots only As,
Cd and Cu gave significant linear correlations.
The relationships of concentration with distance for As and Cd in
lettuce, beet green, chard and cole crops are shown in Figures E and F
in the Appendix. These figures show a statistical index of pollution
based on the standard deviation of concentration of elements in
vegetables in gardens located more than 10 miles from the smelter.
Thus, highest arsenic levels in lettuce close to the smelter (Appendix,
Figure E) were 160 to 170 times greater than the standard deviation of
values found in gardens over 10 miles from the smelter.
Graphs showing the relationship of WAM elements plus As vs. distance
from the smelter are shown in Appendix Figures G to J. These graphs
16
-------
qT np nt.sTAMCE*/
1 nn<: T B - .2 aa
LTC-
roo
foo.
300 A
A 44
A *
A
A
A AA
A AAA
AA
A
A
A
A A
AA
A A A
A A A
L A 4 A A
A t
A
AA
A A
45 '5
10
EPA ..
V«=G_TYPE-SOIL
PI fT OF nt STttlCE'f.Q' | FftCNnt A « I ORS . R « J OHS , p ff,
15:0"? TUtSOAY, DECEMBE'
/4.+
/jL--r——AA-
* A A
-T—
'9 '
.(1 Q +.
I
* ACABA A A
AAAA
JAR L H t
_A A .A
AABA AAAA
AA A A
AA AAAC AAA
A A
l + -
0
1.0
12
DISTANCE
16
-------
A i,AiA "" -- -- --• - iy [.„ , ufcXt-
_£kEl_QF_J3J STANCE»PB LEG":MD; A - 1 DBS . B - 2_03.S_t_EJC
PB I
JQOO_t_
isao.
iaaa_t
A
A A
con
6
B A A
3 A A
R
8 A A
A A
ASA
A A A
A A 8A A
A A A
A A A A
__A A
A A
a 10
DISTANCE I:-, i
12
= PA DATA 15:0
-------
UL jun r, Q'-.-.
_£LCI_OE_ai5TANr.P»rii
JL-jL-L-Dfl*; . . n • 2 CiaS-^-EJC-
50JL
AA
AA
41
A A
A
SQO
n
A
A A
AA A
A A
3A
A
A A
A
A
1
AA
B A A
A A A A
AA AAAAAA A
AAABAA AAA AAA A
* A A A
8 10
DISTANCE *\ L
12
14
E°fl DATA
V5G_TYPF»SOIL
PLCT OP 015TANCE»?N LrGENDi A . 1 DBS t B » 2 OBS :' £TC
15:09 TUHSDAY, OECCHBr
600_'
'•OO
.200_.>_
000
6
300—
too
A A
A
A A
B
CAi
A3 A A
AA a A B
A A
200
AA A
A A
8 AA AA
A AA A A
__A.
A
B A
B A
A A
10
12
19
DISTANCE
-------
are summarized in Table 7 and fall into four groups: (Figure G) those
showing no relationship, (Figure H) a relationship indicated in soils
only, (Figure I) a relationship indicated in both soils and plants, and
(Figure J) a relationship indicated in plants only. The latter group
may reflect increased availability to plants of these elements in the
soil because of smelter effects. Values for WAM elements in leafy
vegetables are shown in Appendix Table K and for soils in Appendix
Table L.
Although obtaining relatively high negative linear correlations of
elements in plants and soils with distance from the smelter, as was
mentioned, inspection of the curves shows pronounced curvilinear
relationships. For this reason, an exponential decay model in the
following form was tested.
Y = Boe(-Bl D>
where Y = concentration of element in the vegetable tissue in ppm and
D = distance from the smelter in miles. Parameters of the log
transformation of the model are shown in Table 8. All parameters except
for those for Cd in cole vegetables are significant at P = .0001 and
analysis of variance tables give F values which are significant at
P = .01. Thus, with the above mentioned exception for cole vegetables,
this model closely describes the relationship of As and Cd in leafy
vegetables with distance from the smelter. Plotting of the data on
log-log paper will Illustrate the close fit of the curves.
Application of the distance relationships discussed above is limited to
V
certain directions because of the non-uniformity in distribution of
20
-------
gardens around the smelter. Most of the gardens sampled were located
in an area lying south to southeast of the smelter with a limited number
in the opposite direction on Vashon and Maury Islands. Distance
relationships are valid therefore only in these two directions from the
smelter with validity on the islands being tentative because of the
relatively few gardens that were sampled there.
21
-------
V'.',_F rPE'CABG
PITT QP DISTANCEfAS icr.EMni A . I nBS . B . 7 fins . ETC.
5
7b —
3
I A A
A A
A-
AA A
A
A A
44
A
A A A
_4 A-
10
DISTANCE
12
13 I
ZQ_*_
^PPA P4TA 15:09 TUSSOAY,
PLCT DF OISTANCE*AS Lgf.ENm A . I HflS . B « ? HSS . P TC
AA
L5_
7a _
A A A
L0_
A
_A_A_
B A
A AA
A AA
22
S 10
OJLSIANCE
12
-------
_ei_CI_OE_DIST.iNCEtiS
:09 TUES04Y, DELt
7c
10
a_
_A ft-
2+3
0_t
A &_
A A
A A
A
_AB
_B A B_
10
10-
7d
£
eirr OP ntSTAMPE«
^A"TA I5:o<7 TUESDAY, DECEfec
•A . i na<; , R . ? nas . .g_TC
2 3
D.IS.LANCE
23
-------
PLCT OP nlSTAMCF«A
f.06, DATA
V6G_TYPE-BEET
15:09 TUESDAY, DeCEM8e
A . I HR«: . R . 7 nHI . PTC-
f> .7
y
0 ,a_t_
7ec'5 *
AA A
«
A A
A
C-3 *
A A
•*. I
A A
A A
AA A AA A
10
12
24
-------
CO
E >•• A f > « i A
VI=G_TYPE«L.f:TC
i • .UJ TUE SUAY.
PICT OF P1STAN CE* CD L
« l nBS - R * ? oas
20-
8a
AA
A A A
10
A
AA A A
AA A
AA A
A A
ABB
AA
A A
A A
A
A A
I*-
0
8 10
015 T AN C E
12
35 *
FDA "ftTA
Vi=G_TYP=>6GCH
PLCT nP OtSTANCE«Cn LEC.SNDt A « 1 0BS . fl » ? 095 . g TC
15:09 TUESDAY, OECEMB
20 .*..
8b
A A A
10.
A A
LA_A s_
I A A
5*4 A
A A A A A
A A AS
/IB A
A A A A
A
A A
A
A A
A
A
10
12
25"
-------
r-f A iiA I i
V = G_TYP>:«CA8G
PLCT OF PISTANCE*CD LEG'NO I A » \ OBS . 9 « 2 DB^
10 *
a_
6 «•
8c
4
2
•
A
i
A
A A
A A A
A
A A
AAA A A A A
1AAA A A A « .
A / t
AAA A A A
A A ft A
" '~
. 10
12
DISTANCE
6.0 <•
15:09 TUESDAY, OECFMP
PI rr OF ni<;Tinrp«rn i pr.cMni A « i nas , R « ? nas
5.a_*_
8d
4.0
3.a_
2.0
26
-------
= OA QAT-A 15:09 TUESOAYi DECEM8E
: PLCT of arsTANCE*co Ler.PNni A . i nns . H . ? nss .'FTC _
CD I
3 .Q
8e
I .5 5AC_
1.0 AABAA At A A A A EA A A
_A A. A
10
DISTANCE
27
-------
VCG.TYPt-LCTC
PLCI_CF_DISTAhCE«PB LEGEND; A « I 0*5 . B » Z OBS , £ TC_
PB I
2QQ_
150_
9a
LQQ-
5fl_t
44
H A A A A
C3 AA A
AC A B AA
A A
AA A
10
1.2
u.T,
DISTANCE
PICT OF OISTANCE'PB
100
DATA 15:09 TUSSOA'V,
• 1 OSS i R - 2 OBS • ETC
uo
9b *o *
40
20
A
e
A A AA
ACA3 AAAA A AA
AAA i
8 A A AA A A A
A A A B
B? A A A
H A A 4 A t A
A A
PB
)_>_
10
12
23
_Q.IS!ANC£_
-------
- ' 'UcJuAf . L _
PLCT OF OISTANCE*PB LEGEND! A « 1 DBS t . 9 _»_ 2__0 B_S__t_£IC_
£c/
9c
10
A A A
ABA A •
A AB C A A
A . A
A
A
A A A A A A A
A A A 'A
A
10
12
DISTANCE '
15:09 TUESDAY, OECEfBI
iCO_<-
PLCT OF 0ISTANCE'PB LgGENOl A » I P&_$_«_B * 2 OBS t £TC
,..- -3
9d
29
a 10
015I AN C E
12
to
?r>
Q_:
* AA A A A t.
A A A B A A
A BOA AA A A AA AA A A A
AAA AAAAAA A A
-------
CU|
200_>_
PLCT CF ni«:TAMr.F»r.ii
A . i nB«: , a . 7 rms . FTC
L'tt...
LSO.
10a
lQQ_t
_5Q.
A A
A A
C a
AAAAA A
AO
A A A A
ABB
A A AA 8A
A
A B
A
A
AA
A »
'o™
10
12
DISTANCE
CU,
600 _
Ob UOQ-
301-
100_
: EPA~DAT& L5!09 TUESDAY,
PICT CF DISTANCE**"!) LEr.cNrn A . i on< . B . 2 na^ .:E_TC
A A
ACA A
A*A *
A
AA
8 AA 8
A A A
A
A
AA A
B A C
10
12
30
JHS.T.ANCL
-------
VEO_TYPP«CABG
_EL CT OF DISTANCE»£U l-Fi'.FND; A » I fiBS . B . 2 QBS_. ETC..
lOc
A A A
,3 » A
A A
A A
AA A
8 ' 10
CM5TAM C =
12
16
I0d '
id.
SPA DATA 15:09 TUESDAY, C"=CE»9F
PLCT CF DISTAMCE*CU LEG = NOi A » 1 DBS . q • 2 OSS . g7C
3 <•
31"
DJ1L4NCE.
-------
SPA DATA 15109 TUESDAY, OF.CEPE
VEG_TYP5«BEET
PICT OF Dr
-------
V :,_! «"
PICT of nTSTANr.e«m; ier.c»n. A'. i ns.s . B . ? OHS . ETC
DfcLt
9
AA
0.1
AA AA
AA
AA A
A
r).U_t_
HG l«
10
12
FDA ^ATA
V3G_TYP=»BGCH
PI CT CF ni StAliC.EShG.__L£G£fU15-
is:o9
DFCEKBE
.3
O.2..
A
AA
AA
A 44
A.
4A 4
A A A
A
A.: A
A A A
A A
A C A A
AA
A A
.0_K_
HG I »-
8
10
12
_D1SLAHC£_
-------
HG I '
0.40- »-_
0.35
0.30-
V. ,_ >:"
PLCT OP_pi;;TANCE*HC LEGENni A . 1 (IBS . S « 2 OBS . E TC
Lite
1C
0.25
3.15
S._Lfl A 4.
AAA
A A
0.05
A A
* A E
AA AA
4 H
A A
I*—
0
8 10
DISTANCE .
. A
HG
PI TT HP Bl STAMf.g + Hf.
15:09 TUESDAY, DEC=M6f
A . 1 HR1! . H « 7 HHS t ' F
Id
11.040—
0.030-
O.oin-
1
A
i *
A . A
AB B BA H fl' A AA H A A A A t
A A A A A A
A A A 4
AAA A
rJ.Q10_t-
e 10
—DISTANCE
-------
300
jyjLLJJE_Dlsr.ANC£»IN LEG.1
A_
'«aa_ ..
too
,2a
A A A
200-
_AA_
A
AA A
A A
100
A
A AAAA
_3A__AA__
A A
A 8
8 10
D.ISJ.AHCE
12
1000 *
eoo.»
.2b
too
200
EPA DATA 15:09 TUtSOAY,
V=G_TYPF-»6GCH
PICT OF PISTANCE'ZN LEG'tNDi A « 1 OBS t 9 » 2 08S i ETC
A A
A
A A
_A
A A
A A A
A A
A_
A A
-A.
\
A
10
35
DI5.T.AMC':
-------
V^TYPE-CABG
LEGEND» A • 1 .065 •
• Z 0 B 5 _j_c_T_C_
500
2c
300
ZOO
100
A
A
A A
i
A A
1
A A A
A A
AA B A • A
A A
A A BA A A A
A A A
A A , A
A A
a 10
DISTANCE
12
= r>4 OATA 15:09 TUESDAY,
PLCT Of D1STANCE*ZN LFGgNOl A • 1 r)1S_. _ B_-__Z__OBS ... E TC
350
2d 'so
150
L00._
50
2 3
O.I SIANC E
36
-------
'• ' ' PiTSj'ATA
VEG_TYP£«BEET
PLCT OF PISTANCE«?N LEG=N01 A . 1 DBS . B « 2 OBS . ETC
15109 TUESDAY, DECEHBEP
C.' 0—
/SO
2e
A A
8A A
A
A A A
30
8 10
DISTANCE
37
-------
Table 6. RELATIONSHIP OF ELEMENTS IN SOILS, LEAF VEGETABLES AND ROOT
VEGETABLES TO DISTANCE FROM THE SMELTER (EPA DATA).
Soil
Element
Arsenic
Cadmium
Lead
Copper
Mercury
Zinc
R
-.759
-.631
-.704
-.860
-.667
-.638
Prob.
.0001
.0001
.0001
.0001
.0001
.0001
Leaf
R
-.620
-.262
-.158
-.633
-.276
-.076
Prob.
.0001
.0007
.0445
.0001
.0004
.3321
Root
R
-.468
-.565
-.084
-.527
-.179
-.118
Prob.
.0002
.0001
.525
.0001
.171
.371
Table 7. RELATIONSHIP OF WAM ELEMENTS IN LEAF VEGETABLES AND SOILS TO
DISTANCE FROM THE SMELTER (Cd, Cu, Pb, Hg and Zn not
included - Figures shown in Appendix).
Figure G. - No Relationship - Rb, Se, Br, Y, Zr, Nb, Ru, In, Cs, K, Ti,
Cr, Mn, Fe, Ca, Ga, I, Ce, La
Figure H. - Relationship in Soils Only - Weakly related - Ta, W, Bi
Moderately related - Au, Cl
Strongly related - T1
Figure I. - Relationship in Both Soils and Plants -
Weakly related - Pd, Te
Strongly related - As, Sn, Pt,
Mo, Sb, S,
Figure J. - Relationship in Plants Only - Weakly related - Hi, Sr
(
Moderately related - Ba, V, Ca
38
-------
Table 8. PARAMETERS OF MODEL Y
FOR EPA LEAFY DATA.
The model can also be written LnY =• LnB + Ln (el '
or LnY = LnB,, + (-B^d)
o i
or LnY + A ± SEA + B ± SEg • D
Ln(y) = A ± SEA + (B ±
PARAMETERS
As
Beet
Cole
Green and Chard
Crops
Lettuce
Cd
Beet
Cole
Green and Chard
Crops
Lettuce
3.
2.
3.
1.
0.
2.
A ±
66**
79**
97**
88**
06*
12**
SEA
+ .
+ t
+ .
+ t
+ .
+ t
19
36
17
18
33
13
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
B
38
52
+
**
**
40**
21
15
17
**
*
**
SEB
± 0.
± 0.
± 0.
± 0.
± 0.
± 0.
06
17
06
04
17
03
*Not significant
"Significant at P = .0001
39
-------
Heavy Metal Content of Vegetables
A list of the types of vegetables sampled in this study along with
numbers of samples (N) and mean and maximum values of heavy metals is
shown in Table 9. Maximum level of As was 18 ppm in lettuce with
lettuce, beet green and chard and cole crops being highest in As and
root vegetables being much lower. Maximum Cd was 28 ppm in lettuce
with lettuce and beet green and chard being considerably higher than
the other vegetables. In general, leaf vegetables were also highest
in Pb, Cu, Hg and Zn. An exception is beet bulbs which were also high
in Pb and Cu. Reference values for vegetables from relatively
uncontaminated gardens can be obtained from Figures 7 to 12.
40
-------
TABLE 9. HEAVY METAL CONTENT OF VEGETABLES (EPA DATA)1.
As
Lettuce
Beet green,
Chard
Cabbage
Cole crops
Beet
Carrots ,
Parsnips
Turnips ,
Rutabagas
N
57
52
38
9
45
11
5
Mean
4.5
2.6
1.0
4.6
.21
.21
.15
Max.
18.0
13.2
6.3
12.0
.74
.44
.41
Cd
Mean
7.. 6
6.4
2.2
2.9
1.2
1.2
1.5
Max.
28.0
24.0
8.9
5.5
3.5
2.0
2.0
Pb
Mean
17.3
18.6
11.0
10.6
7.8
4.1
3.4
Max.
195
100
50
18 t
111
12
5
Cu
Mean
23
35
11.5
31
17
7.5
-9.3
Max.
170
520
42
74
139
11
12
Hg
Mean
.13
.11
.08
.09
.03
.09
.05
Max.
.50
.43
.33
.18
.07
.43
.'06
Zn
Mean
136
291
95
167
81
40
70
Max.
438
910
495
313
211
56
88
'Levels from relatively uncontaminated gardens can be obtained from Figures 7-12.
-------
Effect of pH. Organic Matter, and Soil Ca on As and Cd In Vegetables
The influences of the variables pH, organic matter (OM) and soil calcium
on As and Cd in lettuce and beet green and chard were evaluated by
linear regression using a stepwise procedure. This procedure allows
the data to be screened for the relative strengths of relationship
between proposed independent variables and a dependent variable-in
this case pH, OM, and Ca vs. As or Cd in lettuce or in beet green and
chard. For this analysis, gardens were grouped according to their
distance from the smelter 1) 0 to 0.5 mi., 2) 0.6 to 1.0 mi., and
3) 1.1 to 3.5 mi., and separate regression analyses were made for each
of the three distances.
A summary of the stepwise evaluation of the variables pH, OM and CA is
shown in Appendix Table M. Soil Ca in most cases appears to be the
most influential soil factor related to Cd levels in these two
vegetables with Cd levels being lower with high soil calcium. From
the table it appears that soil pH might be related to As in these two
vegetables but the relationship of pH to foliage As is not consistent.
This relationship of. vegetable Cd vs. soil Ca in the garden survey is
not confirmed in the greenhouse study in the next section where liming
treatment appeared to increase vegetable Cd levels. More investigation
is needed particularly with field liming trials.
42
-------
PART II. GREENHOUSE EXPERIMENT
METHODS
Four soils from the vicinity of the smelter and a similar upland garden
soil from near Puyallup which served as a check soil were collected
for use in a greenhouse experiment. These soils were brought to the
greenhouse and sieved through a 1/2 inch mesh screen. Fertility status
and pH of the soils and rate of treatment with lime are shown in Table 10.
Quantity of lime added was varied according to soil pH. After the soils
were thoroughly mixed with the lime they were placed in greenhouse flats
and vegetable seeds were planted. Types of vegetables used were Detroit
dark red beet, Prize Head lettuce, Purple Top White Globe turnip and
Market Prize cabbage. The vegetables were seeded on October 31, 1974.
They received supplemental fluorescence lighting. Night temperatures
were maintained at 60 F and daytime temperatures ranged from 65 to 80 F.
Fertilizer treatments were made as follows. Initially turnips and beets
received 10-20-20 fertilizer at the rate of 400 Ibs/acre. Cabbage and
lettuce were fertilized with 20-20-20 at the rate of 200 Ibs/acre at
time of planting. Additional treatments were needed to maintain proper
growth and were as follows. At 13 weeks, 20 weeks and 22 weeks cabbage
was treated with 20-20-20 at the rate of 127 Ibs/acre; beets were given
this treatment at 20 and 22 weeks and at 25 weeks cabbage and beet were
treated with 114 Ibs/acre of 20-20-20.
For foliage samples, the most recently matured leaves were collected
for analysis except for lettuce. Because of the poor growth of lettuce
and their small size the entire lettuce top was used f9r the sample.
43
-------
Samples of beet and turnip roots were collected after the plants had
become more mature. Vegetable and soil samples from this experiment
were prepared and analyzed according to the procedures described earlier
in this report for garden samples.
44
-------
Table 10. FERTILITY STATUS, pH AND LIME TREATMENT OF SOILS IN THE
GREENHOUSE EXPERIMENT (ANALYZED PRIOR TO LIME AND FERTI-
LIZER TREATMENTS).
Check
Near smelter soil
Soil no.
Available P (ppm) 22.6 9.3 15.5 110 8.1
Exch. K me/100 g .18 .24 .65 .14 0.47
Exch. Ca me/100 g .73 1.00 5.80 15.80 10.0
Exch. Mg me/100 g 0.18 .18 1.80 1.49 .48
Organic material (%) 8.7 4.0 6.5 7.2 4.9
pH 4.2 5.0 5.9 6.4 6.3
Rate of lime added
for lime treatment 3 2 1 0.5 0.5
CT/A)
45
-------
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
High concentrations of arsenic and heavy metals in the contaminated
soils used in the greenhouse study are shown in Table J1. EPA arsenic
levels range from 260 to 2010 ppm on the average in contaminated soils
and were only 5 ppm in the check soil. Cadmium content in the soils
from the area of the smelter (Table 11) by EPA analyses varied from 6
to almost 11 ppm while the check soil averaged 2 ppm; copper ranged
from 500 to almost 1800 ppm in contaminated soils and 27 ppm in the
check soil; mercury was 2 to 20 ppm compared with 0.3 in the check
soil; lead was 380 to 3800 ppm compared with 23 ppm in the check, and
zinc was 172 to 415 ppm compared with 71 ppm in the check soil. The
EPA values differed somewhat, as has already been discussed, from the
values reported by the College of William and Mary Laboratory.
Soil 1 with highest values for arsenic, cadmium, copper, mercury and
lead appears to be the most contaminated. However, higher zinc levels
were found in soils 4 and 5. Soils 2, 4 and 5 appear to be quite
similar in content of the above elements.
The growth of vegetables on these soils with and without liming is shown
in Table 12. Lettuce grew poorly and appeared to be most sensitive to
smelter contamination. Turnip was almost as sensitive since no growth
occurred on soil 1 nor were turnip bulbs produced on soil 2 and 5 without
• •
4 •• •
liming. Production of beet.Bulbs was also sensitive to smelter
contamination since no bulbs were produced on soil 1, 2 or 5 whether
or not lime was added. Cabbage appeared to be most tolerant to smelter
contamination since plants grew on all soils. Soil 1 with the highest
46
-------
Table 11. ARSENIC AND HEAVY METALS IN SOILS (ppm).
EPA
(aj Arsenic
Near smelter
M n
ii ii
It M
Check soil
(b) Cadmium
Near smelter
M II
M It
II It
Check soil
(c) Copper
Near smelter
H it
it it
ti H
Check soil
(d) Mercury
Near smelter
it ii
II M
II II
Check soil
(e) Lead
Near smelter
H H
II M
II II
Check soil
(F) Zinc
Near smelter
II M
It II
II It
Check soil
Soil
no.
1
2
4
5
3
1
2
4
5
3
1
2
4
5
3
1
2
4
5
3
1
2
4
5
3
1
2
4
5
3
Before
cropping
2120
510
284
435
5
11
9
6
9
2
1050
530
720
1425
27
24
3
2
7
0.4
4050
700
375
690
20
265
175
265
410
65
After cropping
Unlimed
1832
360
250
355
5
10
9
6
10
2
1960
440
960
1520
28
13
2
2
7
0.3
3350
495
365
—
30
243
160
286
420
75
Limed
2080
504
248
362
5
11
10
7
9
2
2300
520
1080
1360
27
24
3
3
7
0.3
4000
670
410
690
20
260
182
318
415
73
Average
2010
458
260
384
5
10.7
9.3
6.3
9.3
2.0
1700
497
920
1435
27
20
2.7
2.3
7
0.3
3800
622
383
690
23
256
172
290
415
71
W $ M
Before
cropping
1187 '
299
282
372
4.5
8.4
6.5
4.7
4.3
<1.3
1190
300
826
1036
12
4.1
<1.5
—
<2.1
< .7
2221
390
431
542
7
152
93
157
307
38
47
-------
Table 12. EFFECT OF SOILS AND LIMING ON VEGETABLE GROWTH.
(a) Cabbage
Near smelter
it it
It II
11 It
Check soil
(b) Lettuce
Near smelter
it it
M H
M ii
Check soil
(c) Beet top
Near smelter
it H
it ti
it it
Check soil
Soil
1
2
4
5
3
1
2
4
5
3
1
2
4
5
3
Lime
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
Avg. plant
top dry wt.
at 2 mo.
(g)
.002
.006
.004
.16 •
.27
.40
.16
.09
.77
.77
.0001
.0016
nil
.004
.003
.014
.010
.023
0.16
0.14
nil
.003
.004
.013
.015
.027
.009
.017
.055
.060
Comments
Almost no growth but a lime response
Unsatisfactory growth
Spectacular growth increase from lijne
Significant growth increase from lime
(Limed yield approaching check yield
Growth reduction from lime (?)
Reason for reduced growth not known
Good growth - no effect of lime
Almost no growth
Unsatisfactory growth
No growth
Unsatisfactory growth
Unsatisfactory growth
Lime response b ut still little growtJ
Little growth
No lime response
Satisfactory growth
No lime response
No growth
Still unsatisfactory growth
Unsatisfactory growth
Lime response but limited growth
Limited growth
Lime response
Limited growth
Lime response
Satisfactory growth
No lime response
48
-------
Table 12. EFFECT OF SOILS AND LIMING ON VEGETABLE GROWTH (contd.)
Soil
(d) Beet bulbs
Near smelter
K it
it ti
it it
Check soil
(e) Turnip tops
Near smelter
ii it
ii M
n M
Check soil
(f) Turnip bulbs
Near smelter
M II
II II
II II
Check soil
1
2
4
5
3
1
2
4
5
3
1
2
4
5
3
Lime
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
Avg. plant
top dry wt.
at 2 mo. Comments
(g)
nil
nil
nil
nil'
4.9
4.1
nil
nil
3.8
5.4
nil
nil
.001
.100
.25
.30
.04
.60
.56
nil
nil
nil
4.0
4.8
5.0
nil
3.9
3.2
3.9
No bulbs developed
No bulbs developed
No bulbs developed
No growth
Almost no growth
Spectacular lime response
Fairly good growth
Data missing
Poor growth
Satisfactory growth
Lime response
No lime response
No bulbs developed
Lime response
No lime response
49
-------
levels of arsenic and metals gave the poorest growth for all four
vegetables while the best growth other than for the check soil was on
soil 4. In general, lime improved the growth of vegetables on the
contaminated soils but showed no effect on the check soil.
The concentrations of arsenic and heavy metals in vegetables from the
greenhouse study are shown in Table 13. On contaminated soils, arsenic
levels were highest in beet green, turnip green and beet bulbs ranging
from 6.1 to 11.9 ppm with lesser concentrations in turnip bulbs (1.4 to
3.5 ppm) and least in cabbage leaves (1.1 to 2.2 ppm). Liming appeared
to have no consistent effects on arsenic content of these vegetables.
Cadmium was highest in beet green, turnip green and cabbage with values
of 4 to 39 ppm and lowest in beet and turnip bulb (3 to 6 ppm). Lime
appeared to cause a significant increase in the cadmium levels in most
plants from contaminated soils.
Copper was highest in beet green (108 to 125 ppm) and lowest in cabbage
and turnip bulb (15 to 44 ppm). Liming appeared to cause a slight
increase in copper levels in contaminated soils.
Mercury levels in vegetables showed relatively little difference between
contaminated and check soils (all less than 0.9 ppm). Also only small
differences between vegetables and little influence of liming were
observed.
Lead was highest in beet greens (18 to 83 ppm) while beet bulbs and
50
-------
turnip bulbs tended to be lower (5 to 15 ppm). Liming had little effect
on lead uptake.
Zinc was also highest in beet greens (130 to 408 ppm) and turnip bulbs
were lowest (75 to 135 ppm). Lime appeared to significantly decrease
the level of zinc in vegetables.
Influence of liming and maturity on content of arsenic and heavy metals
in foliage is shown in Table 14. Levels of arsenic, cadmium, copper,
lead and zinc appear to increase substantially with increase in age.
This data also shows that lime has little effect on arsenic, copper,
mercury and lead. However lime appears to have substantially reduced
zinc content in cabbage and beet leaves.
Because of the poor growth of lettuce on the smelter area soils we
were unable to obtain enough material for analysis. Values from the
check soil for lettuce are shown in Table 15.
51
-------
Table 13. HEAVY METALS IN GREENHOUSE VEGETABLES - EPA VALUES (ppm).
(a) Arsenic
Near smelter
it it
•I n
t» n
it n
Avg.
Check soil
n M
(b) Cadmium
Near smelter
n n
it n
n n
M n
Avg.
Check soil
n M
(c) Copper
Near smelter
it it
ii M
n M
n M
Avg.
Check soil
it n
Soil1
2 lime
4 unlimed
4 lime
5 unlimed
5 lime
unlimed
lime
3 unlimed.
3 lime
2 lime
4 unlimed
4 lime
5 unlimed
5 lime
unlimed
limed
3 unlimed
3 lime
2 lime
4 unlimed
4 lime
5 unlimed
5 lime
unlimed
limed
3 unlimed
3 lime
Cabbage
2
1
o
4*
1
1
1
2
0
0
16
6
- 13
5
6
5
11
1
1
44
36
41
31
30
33
38
6
3
.2
.1
.2
.5
.8
.3
.0
.4
.1
.5
.7
.8
.0
.5
.3
Rcet
Turnip
green
6.
8.
8.
-
•
8.
7.
0.
1.
39
12
10
-
-
12
24.
1.
2.
125
108
118
-
-
108
121
15
12
1
8
4
8
1
i*
7
0
5
0
0
green
8
8
11
6
8
8
1
1
18
8
9
-
4
' 8
10
1
2
67
80
78
-
135
80
93
11
11
.5
.5
.9
-
.3
.5
.9
.1
.1
.3
.0
.0
Beet
bulb
—
7.
7.
-
-
7.
7.
1.
0.
.
6
6
-
-
6
6
1.
0.
-
61
44
-
-
61
44
8
7
1
1
1
1
0
9
0
5
Turnip
bulb
1.
3.
3.
-
3.
3.
2.
0.
0.
6
3
3
-
3
3
4
1.
1.
17
17
19
15
15
16
17
6
6
4
5
3
3
5
7
2
2
0
0
'insufficient growth was obtained on soil 1 and soil 2 unlimed to provide
samples for analysis.
52
-------
Table 13. HEAVY METALS IN GREENHOUSE VEGETABLES - EPA VALUES (ppm).
(contd)
Soil1
Cabbage
Beet
green
Turnip
green
Reet
bulb
Turnip
bulb
(d) Mercury
Near
"
M
"
11
Check
M
smelter
it
1 1
M
ti
Avg.
soil
"
2 lime
4 unlimed
4 lime
5 unlimed
5 lime
unlimed
limed
3 unlimed
3 lime
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
4
3
4
2
2
2
3
2
2
0.9
0.4
0.3
,
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
-
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.6
_
0.2
0.2
-
-
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.4
.2
.2
-
.6
.2
.4
.04
.1
(e) Lead
Near
"
M
It
It
Check
"
smelter
"
M
It
It
Avg.
soil
it
2 lime
4 unlimed
4 lime
5 unlimed
5 lime
unlimed
limed
3 unlimed
3 lime
24
• 12
12
13
14
12
17
13
7
83
18
18
-
-
18
50
8
12
22
12
16
-
9
12
19
10
10
—
-
13
14
-
14
13
3
3
15
5
5
-
10
5
10
3
3
(f) Zinc
Near
"
1!
It
tl
Check
M
smelter
"
it
11
"
Avg.
soil
"
2 lime
4 unlimed
4 lime
5 unlimed
5 lime
unlimed
limed
3 unlimed
3 lime
170
246
187
161
156
203
171
40
23
383
408
353
-
-
408
368
37
48
184
219
191
-
130
219
187
83
54
_
252
190
-
-
252
190
48
45
110
135
75
-
105
135
92
23
. 25
Insufficient growth was obtained on soil 1 and soil 2 unlimed to provide
samples for analysis.
53
-------
Table 14. EFFECT OF LIMING AND MATURITY OF FOLIAGE ON ELEMENTS IN FOLIAGE (ppm).
Soil Young foliage1
(a) Arsenic
Cabbage
ii
Beet green
(b) Cadmium
Cabbage
it
Beet green
(c) Copper
Cabbage
ti
Beet green
(d) Mercury
Cabbage
ii
Beet green
(e) Lead
Cabbage
11
Beet green
(£) Zinc
Cabbage
M
Beet green
no. Unlimed
4 1.5
5 1.4
Average 1 .
4 4.8
3.
4 2
5 1
Average 2 .
4 5
Average 5 .
4 14
5 11
Average 26
4 82
Average 92
4
5 0.1
Average 2 .
4 0.2
Average 1 .
4 3
5 5
Average 5.
4 10
Average 11
4 113
5 65
Average 74
4 228
Average 235
Limed
1.5
1.6
5
2.5
6
2
4
2
6
5
13
14
102
0.5
0.2
6
0.1
5
5
8
2
12
65
55
242
Old foliage2
Unlimed
4.8
4.2
' 5.
12.7
13.
4
3
4.
18
16
38
28
35
133
134
0.3
0.2
2.
0.5
4.
5
8
8.
25
25
165
130
140
588
525
Limed
6.9
5.3
3
14.3
5
4
7
5
14
39
36
135
0.3
0.2
5
0.4
5
10
10
2
25
135
130
463
Average
Unlimed
3.2
2.8
3.0
8.7
3
2
2.5
11
26
20
23
107
0.15
0.15
0.35
4.0
6.5
5.2
17.5
139
98
118
408
Limed
4.2
3.4
3.8
8.4
3
5
4
10
26
25
25.5
118
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.3
7.5
9.0
8.2
°18.5
100
92
96
353
Eldest 1/3 of foliage.
2Youngest 1/3 of foliage.
54
-------
Table 15. HEAVY METAL LEVELS IN LETTUCE GROWN IN SOIL 3
(CHECK SOIL) IN GREENHOUSE.
As Cd Cu Hg Pb Zn
Soil 3 unlimed 0.1 2 ~ 0.3 6 59
Soil 3 limed 0.02 2 11 0.3 5 60
55
-------
CONCLUSIONS
The greenhouse study showed that smelter contamination caused a
significant reduction in growth of vegetables in the greenhouse on
soils from near the smelter. Although reduced vegetable production of
these soils is indicated, field study would be needed to determine the
degree of yield reduction occurring under garden conditions. Lettuce
grew unsatisfactorily on all four contaminated soils while soil number 1
gave unsatisfactory yields of all vegetables. Liming generally caused
a significant increase in growth and appearance of plants on smelter
contaminated soils, however lime also appeared to slightly increased
cadmium levels. Thus while liming is clearly shown to have a beneficial
effect on vegetable growth, this benefit may be tempered by an increase
in cadmium in the vegetables. However, in the garden survey, increased
soil calcium appeared to be associated with lower Cd in lettuce and in
beet greens and chard.
Age of foliage appeared to be critical in determining elemental content.
Older foliage was about 4 times as high in arsenic as young foliage,
2 to 3 times as high in cadmium, about 1-1/2 times as high in copper
and about 2 times as high in lead and zinc. Thus for valid comparisons,
samples for arsenic and heavy metals must be obtained from foliage of
comparable maturity. This policy was followed as closely as possible
in collection of vegetable samples for the garden survey. Also, evident
from these findings is that avoiding consumption of older foliage of
vegetables from contaminated gardens may help reduce ingestion of arsenic
and cadmium.
56
-------
High levels of arsenic and heavy metals in the greenhouse indicates
substantial uptake of these elements from these soils. Since these
levels are similar to levels found in the study with garden samples, it
appears likely that heavy metals in plant tissues are primarily the
result of uptake of these elements from soils with atmospheric
contamination being of lesser importance. From this rather limited
evidence, it would appear that soil replacement would be a valid means
of reducing effects of heavy metals on plants grown in the smelter
area. Also, while substantial reductions in metal emissions from the
smelter have occurred in recent years, the high levels of metals that
are present in soils of the area assure continued high levels of these
elements in plants unless soils are replaced.
57
-------
Table A. METHODS OF SOIL AND PLANT ANALYSIS USED BY EPA LABORATORY.
Element Method Reference.
As
Cd
Cu
Zn
Pb
Hg
Silver Diethyl dithio carbamate
Atomic Absorption
Atomic Absorption
Cold Vapor
Stnd. Methods, 13th Edition, 1971,
p. 62-64.
Trace metal extraction of soils and
sediments by nitric acid-hydrogen
peroxide, Krish namurty, Atomic
Absorption Newsletter, Vol. 15, No.
3, May-June, 1976.
U. S. EPA Methods for Chemical
Analysis, 1974, p. 134-138.
58
-------
Table B. METHODS OF SOIL ANALYSIS USED BY WSU SOIL TESTING LABORATORY.
Deter-
mination
Method
Reference
K
Ca
Mg
CEC
PH
Organic
Matter
As
Cd
Cu
Zn
Extraction with sodium acetate at
pH 4.8 with a soil: extractant
ratio of 1:5. Colorimetric deter-
mination with molybdate blue.1
Extraction with ammonium acetate
at pH 7.0 with a 1:20 soil ex-
tractant ratio and determination
by flame emmission.
Extraction same as for K and
determination by atomic absorp-
tion spectroscopy.
Same as for Ca.
Saturation with ammonium acetate
at pH 7.0 and displacement of
tti^ with NaCl. Determination
of NH^* by Kjeldahl digestion.
Electrometrically with glass
electrode using soil paste.
Chromic acid method with CM cal-
culated as 1.72 x C.
Extraction with concentrated HC1
at a 1:5 soil to acid ratio and
determination by atomic absorption
spectroscopy.
Extraction with .005 M DTPA at a
soil:extractant ratio of 1:2 and
determination by atomic absorption
spectroscopy.
Same as for Cd.
Same as for Cd.
Greweling, Thomas and Michael Peech.
Chemical Soil Tests. Bulletin 960,
Revised October 1968, Cornell Univ-
ersity, Agricultural Experiment
Station, New York State College of
Agriculture, Ithaca, N.Y.
Agricultural Handbook No. 60,
Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline
and Alkali Soils, USDA February,
1954.
Agricultural Handbook No. 60,
Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline
and Alkali Soils, USDA February,
1954.
Graham, Soil Science 65:181, 1948.
Greweling, Thomas and Michael Peech.
Chemical Soil Tests, Bulletin 960,
Cornell University, Nov. 1960.
AOAC Gutzeit Method.
Personal communication, Dr. Willard
Lindsay, Colorado State University,
Fort Collins, Colorado.
Presence of high arsenic causes interference which results in. high P values with this
method.
59
-------
Table C. RESULTS OF DUPLICATE ANALYSES BY EPA ON THREE SOIL SAMPLES AND ONE
VEGETABLE SAMPLE (ppm).
Element Soil 35 Soil 54 Soil 69 Cabbage 12
As
Cd
Pb
Hg
Cu
Zn
426
12
690
4.8
800
330
470
12
710
5.2
820
380
103
6
300
1.7.
250
320
107
5
290
1.1
220
295
5
2
20
.4
27
65
5
2
25
.4
20
65
-
2
10
.7
7
67
-
2
12
.6
n
73
60
-------
Table D. RESULTS OF DUPLICATE ANALYSES BY WAM OF THREE SOIL AND ONE
VEGETABLE SAMPLE.
Element
Soil no. 12
Soil no. 35
Soil no. 38
s
Cl
K
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Cr
Mn
Fe
Co
Ni
Cu
Zn
Ga
As
Se
Br
Sr
Y
Zr
Mb
Mo
Ru
Pd
Ag
Cd
In
Sn
Sb
Te
I
Cs
Ba
La
Ce
Ta
W
Pt
Au
Hg
Tl
Pb
Bi
Rb
3.2
7.1
16.7
1078
77
49
377
15.6
49.7
11.1
263
72
7.2
94
2.2
134
6.9
85
4.7
1.5
53.5
9.2
286
46.1
3.5
133
0.88
16.1
4.5
9.1
17.0
1429
100
72
511
20.3
66.8
8.5
321
64
7.9
126
1.5
152
-9.0
83
6.0
1.35
2.5
92.5
5.7
349
54.6
5.0
179
20.1
276
<35
2.5
7.3
51.6
944
80
38 '
253
12.5
28.4
12.9
348
139
6.5
226
<.62
7.9 •
132
4.4
60
3.4
.80
.30
.63
2.4
4.6
<1.3
54
14.6
<30
<4.5
<6.0
217
<10.3
22.6
<4.5
47.6
5.8
3.8
<1.3
.5
295
12.7
138
<43
2.6
7.7
30.1
934
83
87
268
12.6
25.0
12.7
362
153
6.9
244
<.67
8.7
127
5.5
49
5.3
.42
<.44 •
.84
2.7
6.4
2.5
48
22.2
16
4.3
11.3
213
<10.1
30.8
<4.9
79.1
9.3
7.8
<1.S
.2
336
12.3
143
68
2.1
10.6
36
697
58
49.7
268
12.2
18.1
11.1
444
469
5.0
96
<.60
9.1
129
4.2
34.4
2.9
.84
.35
<.8
2.6
5.0
1.5
41.8
23.3
1.8
2.1
<10.3
378
<9.1
6.1
<5.1
18.5
4.4
2.8
.91
<1.0
664
8.6
192
112
2.4
11.6
44.8
763
59
57.4
274
12.2
22.3
11.8
509
519
4.5
108
<.67
9.3
126
5.7
29.4
2.3
.68
.43
<.9
2.4
5.9
2.2
50.6
30.7
1.2
4.2
7.6
436
13.4
14.0
<5.6
38.3
7.0
2.8
<1.28
<1.1
710
9.0
ppm
ppm
ppt
ppt
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppt
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
61
-------
Table D. RESULTS OF DUPLICATE ANALYSES BY WAM OF
THREE SOIL AND ONE VEGETABLE SAMPLE, (contd.)
Element Cabbage no. 21
s
Cl
K
Ca
Ti
V
Cr
Mn
Fe
Co
Ni
Cu
Zn
Ga
As
Se
Br
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Mo
Ru
Pd
Ag
Cd
In
Sn
Sb
Te
I
Cs
Ba
La
Ce
Ta
W
Pt
Au
Hg
Tl
Pb
Bi
19.5
4.5
34.7
46.2
<4.4
<3.7
3.3 •
86
47.2
5.1
1.0
26.9
446
<.7
7.7
<.6
9.4
15.1
294
<.4
1.0
<.3
3.6
<.4
.5
.9
8.8
381
2.5
1.3
<6.4
3.0
5.3
327
<6.9
<9.4
<3.5
27.3
<1.1
3.5
<1.4
5.8
<1.1
<.7
13.7
• 4.3
37.3
50.5
<6.1
<5.2
9.8
96
48.5
6.1
1.5
28.1
473
<.9
7.9
<.6
7.3
16.1
295
.6
2.2
.3
4.4
<.4
1.0
1.6
8.2
381
1.8
3.1
<7.6
<3.3
7.0
295
<9.1
<11.9
4.4
31.7
1.4
1.5
3.6
10.2
3.4
.6
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
62
-------
PICT HP PISTANCF;*«S
VALJf- OF L_TY"E
i
i
V
r
r
•i
r
S
n
r
1
0
I]
, , / - . • T
L ,
L
, • '.•.'..
L
9
iii ' ' -. ' .-"•..."',"'.•" . '•/'••:
L
L ' ' (
-
L 8
II
L f» L ' ' .
n
LCr L LL
"LL3 L
L 6 CCCC
C? C T. C
r r. r.cr c c
*
0
R
L
a
cr.
l
R
a.
L CL
L L
q rr.
R
B
A
L
L
RL R
C L L
r r r si i r
6 fl
8
in 12 14
_D1!1*NC£-5_JN_M!LES_ _ —
STATiST[r*L AN.-1LYS!S SYSTEM
PLCT QP oiSTAMce*co LEGI=MOI SYMBOL T? «AIUF OF L_TYP£
3:57 MONOAY,
35 ••
F T
-------
PLOT OF DISTANCE»RB LEGEND: SYMBOL IS VALUE OF TYPE
Sl
S L
I M.S
I S 5
I L_,
F
V
F
L
F
X
P
_
L S L
S
L. L L
S . L
LSLL L S S S L L L L
L
S
.SL.
S S
L
LSSLL
L S
It
ll
H
I
T
1
1 S
S
S
6310
DISTANCE = EXPRESSED IN MILES
WILLIAM AND MARY LAB DATA : S=SOIL L=LEAFY
PUOT OF OISTANC£*SE LEGEND: SYMBOL IS VALUE OF TYPE
15:50 MONDAY, FE3R
2 J
~nr
SS
L S
L L
S
64
a 10
_OJ_SIANC_E._» EXPRESSED IN, BI
-------
PLOT OF OISTANCE*BR LEGEND: SYMBOL IS VALUE OF TYPE
a
CL
I.
I
II
s s
G3
I S
S S
L S
S I
L
«
f
0
t
•i
11 -1
0
s
n
ii
N
r
T -7
s
SL L S . L
S S S L
,IL, L L ILL L S L
tt LLLL L L L L L
< S s
s
s
S !
8 10
DISTANCE = gXPUfSSgQ IN MILES
WILLIAM AMD MARY LAB OATA : S=SOIL L=LEAFY
PLOT OF OISTANCE«Y LEGEND: SYMBOL IS VALUE OH TYPE
15:50 MONDAY, FEBRl
LL
S
^ L
L S
L S L
S L S
TT"
S IL I L
L L
L
ss
-7
•1 »
I't
-------
PLOT OF DISTANCEȣR
LEGEND: SYMBOL IS VALUE OF TYPE
IJ
1
0 \
n L
L i
L 10 »
II I
_t.
G5
6 «•
p
F
< &
S
F
n
I
N 7
ii
5
n
n
N
t
r
S
-7
_
L S L
LL" <
IS IS
« St s s
?,S, Lt , S , , L ,
WSLS S L L S L LS
LSL L LL L L L
1 SSI si <; i s
s IL Ls L s J"
S S 5 S
ss
s
l»-
0
6
a 10
-DISTANCE - EXPRESSED IN MILES
12
l
-------
, .i ' -N .' - ^ i L I. ; - ^ ' ' '
PLOT OF OISTANCE'RU LEGEND: SYMBOL IS VALUE OF TYPE
L
L L
SI
"V
F
(1
I
0 »
S L
L
L L
ISS I S S
I SS S L
S L
6 8 10 12
DISTANCE - EXPRESSED IN MILES
WILLIAM AND MARY LAB OATA : S-SOIL L=L6AFY
PLOT OF DISTANCE*IN LEGEND: SYMBOL IS VALUE OF TYPE
15:50 MONDAY, FE8RL
IN
•
L L
L LLL L
L L
L L
I.LLSLLLL
S S
LS
LL L
L L L
S S
L L
S S
8 10
-D.I .SIANCE_»_£XP.RtS_iE.Q_lH_MJ LES_
12
-------
PLOT OF OISTANCE*CS LEGEND! SYMBOL IS VALUE OF TYPE
G9
a
n
i
i
n
r ?
I
n
M
1
F
L
S
L
S LS L L
S . L L
I
f
\
P
4
F
S 0
S
P
o
I
N
II -1
0
0
II
M
I
T -7
L S S ' • '
: S L L L .
H 1
S
LI i
1 S S S . L
S 5
SC S S
IS S L s
S L
1 S L L
Lv L
LLs L S s S L «•
SL L • "• ... ,
S L
S L L L L
S U S L L
S *
S
s ,
6310
DISTANCE ' EXPRESSED IN MILES
WILLIAM AND MARY LAB DATA : S=SOIL L=LEAFY
PLOT OF OISTANCe*K LEGEND! SYMBOL IS VALUE OF TYPE
15:50 MONDAY t FEBRL'
G10
a
n
i
L
II
T 7
1
n
i
F
5
S
L
S
n
-I
-7
L S
L L L L 5 S S
LL L
S L 5 S L
SL 1.
L L L L
S
" .T^l S S
L S S
IS L
SI..
S L S S L
1. S S
SIM L S S
L 1 1. L
S5 5 S S L
L SS L L .
S
S
10
_OJJ5 TANC E • EXPB £S.S EJLJ^LM IL E.S_
12
68
-------
PLOT 01- DISTANCE*! I LEGEND:, SYMHUL IS VALUE OF TYPE
•> *
Gil
• o »
J-T^
L •
LLLl L
LS
i
-1 *
~s—rr
SSL
jL^L
S S
* si s s
s s
ss
-7 »
6 a 10
DISTANCE = EXPRESSED IN MIL_FJ_
12
If,
r.p f
0 +
WILLIAM AMU MARY LAB DATA : S'SOIL L'LEAFY
PLOT OF DISTANCE*CR LEGEND: SYMBOL IS VALUE OF TYPE
15:50 MONDAY, FE5P.1
G12
I
I
II
_r A.
n
s
S L
L L
i)
N 0
I
r
-a
I LL
"L L
S S
t. i. s s
S LSI. L_
SL"L s L
t S L
S S
L L_
5
-Mr
6 8 10
DISTANCE « FXPP.tSSED IN MILES
12
69
-------
Vl I I i. I •• I • ' >tr I L "4J J-> , . ; i I. - - - -
PLOT OF OISTANCE'MN LEGEND! SYMBOL IS VALUE OF TYPE
MN I
G13
S
_s s_
L S S
S t.
L S
ItS I L L
SLt SI L L
SS S
6810
DISTANCE J EXPRESSED IN MILES
12
WILLIAM AND MARY LAB DATA : S»SOIL L-LEAFY
PLOT OF OISTANCE*FE LEGENOl SYMBOL IS VALUE OF TYPE
15:50 MClNDAYt FEBRU
GU
LS LL
I I
_kk
•I -1 ^ SLLI L L
SSSI L
-3
SS
-4 f
1 +
8 10
_D1 STANCE • EXPReSSEO_j N_MIJ. E^_
7Q
12
-------
en l
PLOT OF D1STANCE*CO
LEGEND! SYMBOL IS VALUE OF TYPE
L
L
II
. r 7
615
F !
V I
_e—1_»-
L I
<; i i
—LLLLL
LL LL
S
_1 U
S L
SS
S S
SS
8 10
DISTANCE = EXPRESSED IN MILES
12
14
WILLIAM AND MARY LAB DATA : S'SOIL L=LEAFY
PLOT OF OISTANCE*GA LEGENOl SYM80L IS VALUE dF TYPE
15:50 MONDAY, FEBR'.
GA I
p
n
i
I. 4
'I
..r
G16 \ 7
\__
S L
LI.
L L
L L
i n.
i i
LL LL
LL
LI. S
LS S
•; is
SS S
s
-7
SS
s
• 2
8
10
12
1*
_DJ.SJA N C E * EXP.R t.S-iE_D_lN_MJ L E S_
71
-------
PLOT OF DISTANCE*!
LEGEND! SYMBOL IS VALUE OF TYPE
S L
L L
ILL
S
1
L I
t S
L
J S_
-I
L S . L
S L
8 10
DISTANCE •* EXPREiiS£_0 IN H1LES
12
L'.
WILLIAM AND MARY LAO DATA : S'SOIL L=LEAFY
PLOT OF'OISTANCE*CE LEGENOi SYMBUL IS VALUE OF TYPE
15:50 MONDAY i FEBR'J
r.F I
SL L
L L
L L
S
LLS
S L
S SS
I
I
-I
I SI.
sss
L
S S
10
72
-------
LA I
WILLIAM AND MARY LAB DATA : S=SOIL L'LEAFY
PLOT OF DISTANCE*LA LEGEND: SYMBOL IS VALUE OF TYPE
15:50 MONDAYt FE3P.UA
G19 L
L LS
L
I
L S
LSLL L
SI
SL ss L
SS L
I 0
SL
L S
S LL L
S L
8 10
DISTANCE ' EXPRESSED IN MILES
73
-------
L' < ' \ ' • ' • I' L ' I .. . ' . .' J I L •_ • L u •• I
PLOT OF OISTANCE*TA LEGEND: SYMBOL IS VALUE OF TYPE
P
0
L~
t
II
r
~r
n
N
i~
F
V
B
L
HI
CT"
II 0 * S L S L
L L L
SS L
S ,
L
L L
-i
L L L
II.
L S
S
SL
I L ' SLL S
L S
8 10 12
DISTANCE - EXPRESSED [N MILES
WILLIAM AND MARY LAB DATA : S'SOIL L*LEAFY
PLOT OF DISTANCE** LEGEND: SYMBOL is VALUE OF TYPE
15:50 MONDAY, FE8RL
H2 .P_.
L L
L L
L S
ILL SSL
LS
L L
S
S S
S SS S
e c
-CLLSIANCJ
74
10
iXP.R.fciSEJLJN MILES
-------
i->:50
PLOT OF OlSTANCE'Bl
LEGEND: SYMdUL IS VALUE OF TYPE
L
H3
s s
L
L L
ILL
II
N
I
r -i
ILL
L LL
ill
LL L L
-*•—-
6
DISTANCE-
10
EXPRESSED IN MILES
12
WILLIAM AflD MARY LAS OATA : S = SO IL L-LEAFY
PLOT OF OISTANCE'AU LECENO: SYMBOL IS VALUE OF TYPE
15:50 MONDAY, FEBR
H4
S L
LL
L
L
I L
. LLI L.
L L
L
LI I ILL
L
-D.I STANCE
10
XPA£JS SE.O_IN_«.t LES_
12
75
-------
PLOT OF DISTANCE*CL
LEGENO: SYMBOL IS VALUE OF TYPE
CL
H5
-S S_
• L
LL
SL
_S S_
S S L
LLIS L S
LS
LI LL L S
L L
S S
LL
S S_
1 S
-•> t
1 1
0
2
. — ____ — 4. _ — _ —
*
6
8
10
12 1*.
DISTANCE a
TN MILFS
WILLIAM AND.MARY LA3 DATA : S»S01L L=LEAFY
PLOT OF OlSTANCE*rL LEGEND: SYMBOL IS VALUE OF TYPE
15:50 MONDAY, FESR'J
i r
i in *
» i
r i
o
S
LS
rs~
_L L_
L L
8 10
DISTANCE « EXPRESSED IN MILES
12
76
-------
PLOT OF OISFANCE'PO
LEGEND: SYMBOL IS VALUE OF TYPE
II
PH I
6 *•
p
L
L
II
r 4
1
n
N
I
F
V
e
5
•
^ • ' ' '
L '
« .
' L
« ' '
LL
_S
I I
I LSS L
I S L L S
L L
I LL
I L L
I L
I I in
S L
S L
S S
LL
L S LL
LL
-7 *
8
10
DISTANCE = EXPRESSEn IN
WILLIAM AND MARY LAB DATA : S«SOIL L'LEAFY
PLOT OF OJSTANCE*TE LEGEND: SYMBOL IS VALUE OF TYPE
15:50 MONDAY, FEBRU
12 f—*-
r
LS
~t
SL L
_L I $_
I.S S
SL I S
M. S.S LS
S
L L
L L
-I
L
L S
_5
3 10
J31 STANCE » EXPRESgEJ\JN M
77
— *•-
12
-------
PLOT OF OISTANCE*AS LEGEND: SYMBOL IS VALUE OF TYPE
13
14
1
p
n
L
II
r >c
i
n
H
L
V
F IS
L
F
X •
P
R
F
S
F
n
i
N
3
S
n
N
i
T n
s
-•>
j
. L
i
! s
! S \ ' , ;
s s . •
1 . . '•'••
i s
s
IS ......
1 S
1 S L
1 L
1 LS
1 SL IL
1 1. L L
1 L
1 SL sS S
1 S SL S S L
'
1 S S LS S 5
1 L SS S S S
1 L L L S S L
»LL LLSLl L
S SS L L 5SS , S
1
*
0 2 4 6 ' 8 10 12 14
DISTANCE = EXPRESSED IN MILES
- - . • -
A
p
n
r f,
I
n
n
L
V
P
L
F
X
P
M
F
F
n
N
n
0
s
n
N 0
i
T
1
— ? «
1
WILLIAM AND MARY LAB DATA : S-SOIL L-LEAFY 15:50 MONDAY, FEBP
PLOT OF DISTANCE'SN LEGEND! SYMBOL IS VALUE OF TYPE
1
»
1
L
s
•
s
1
t s
s .
* S S L
L 5
S S
L SL L
SSL L
L S S
S L
5 S
LSLL L L L
LSS LSL L S S
SLLSL SS L
— IT.TM. S S 5 S L 5
L SL S L L
5 L . ... L L
LL L
•
L
L
L
S
<.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 ' 14
. DISTANCE » EXPRESSED IN MILES
-------
TPTT
PLOT OF OISrANCE*PT LEGEND: SYMBOL IS VALUE OF TYPE
L?
P
ri
t in
n
_T
n
15
N 7
u_
s
n
^1 SSIL L
SL S
IILSL
LLl
L S.
L
L SL
S
SL L
8 10
DISTANCE * EXPRESSED IN MILES
12
WILLIAM AND MARY LAB DATA-: S'SOIL L=LEAFY
PLOT OF OISTANCE*MO LEGEND: SYMBOL IS VALUE OF TYPE
15:50 MONDAY, FEBR'.
16
12. +.
i in
u
r
i
n
I
V
P
_4._
I
N 7
-Il_
a
s
n
LL
s
SLI.
L L
<; i
l L
i s
<;
S L
L IS L
L
_^-4_t
I+--
a
8 10
. DISTANCE • FXP_RESSED IN MILES
12
73
-------
PLOT OF DISTANCE*SB LEGEND) .SYMBOL IS VALUE OF TYPE
17
sss
SL
s
s s
I *
L S
II LL
L L
S L
-1 +
LIL L
8 10
01STANCE = EXPRESSED IN MILES
WILLIAM AND MARY LAB DATA : S=SOIL L=LEAFY
PLOT OF DISTANCE'S LEGEND: SYMBOL IS VALUE OF TYPE
15:50 MONDAY, FEBIU
18
r
N 1
-I
LL
S S
51 5~
L
—L I. L
L I.L L
L
-=Hi
L.
L
L S
SL
_S L_
L L
8
10
12
_P.LSTANCE ' EXPR E.S.SE D_I N_
-------
Jl
~NT~
6 +
PLOT OF DISTANCE*NI
LEGENDS SYMBOL IS VALUE OF TYPE
0
0
1 "
1
II
I
.1
N
_u. >il
1 ' ' ." "
1
- 1 " L
in »
! L
a » L .
~l ' ' ' '
i
T~!r
LL
T
N 7
II
3
0
II
N
1
T
S
-7
-1 L—
t
1
1 L 1
S LA
1 S SL
» L S •
1 SLL
1 L SLl L
1 SSSI
1 L S SS
1 S S
» L S
t SS
L L L
S S S L S S L
L L S S
S L L
S LL L
t S
S S S
S L
S
s <;
L L
S
1
S
. '
8 10
DISTANCE - E X£&£S S E D IN MILES
12
WILLIAM AND HARY LAB DATA : S=SOIL L«LEAFY
PLOT OF DISTANCE'S!* , LgGENO: SYMBOL IS VALUE OP TYPE
15:50 MONDAY, FEBRU
6 *
J2
L
L I
S
S S
LS
SLSSl
SS
J SSLJ
LLSSSLS
S L L
S
S LL
S L
•7 *
1_
0 .
t -
2
10
12
-------
PLOT OF OISTANCE'BA LEGENCM SYMBOL IS VALUE OF TYPE
PA I
ft »
J3
7 «•
l_
I S
I L
LL
SL
LS
.SI S 1 t.
LL L
-JS S_
S. S
L
S L
10
XPBESSED IN MILES
12
I',
WILLIAM AND MARY LAB DATA : S'SOtL L = LEAFY
PLOT OF OISTANCE«V LEGEND: SYMBOL IS VALUE OF TYPE
15:50 MONDAY, FEBKL
J4
s s s
L L
L S
I L S
_J L
D I JSIAJ^C
8 10
.i_E.XP_P.ES_SfjQ_J-U_Mll_EJS_
0?
-------
WILLIAM AND MARY LAB DATA : S=SOIL L-LEAFY
PLOT OF DISTANCE*CA LEGEND! SYMBOL IS VALUE OF TYPE
15:50 MONOAYt FEBRU
CA
J5
LL
M L LL
s s LS L
SS I. L
SUJ_L-iS_S_
L S
L L
LI
<:
L
S S
3 10
01 STANCE = EXPSESSEP IN *11LES
12
83
-------
Table K. WAM LEAF DATA FOR 39 ELEMENTS.
UNSET TARS - RETYPE
COMMAND? L UMM
VARIABLE
oo
P
S
ct:
K
CA
TI
V
CR
UN
FE
CO
NI
CA
SE
BR
RD
SH
If
ZR
NB
ra
RU
PD
AS
IN
SN
SB
TE
I
CS
BA
LA
CK
TA
W
PT ;
All
TL
DI
WAN UPPER QUORTILK LEAFY VALUES BY ELEMENT
N
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
1.3
MEAN
3.77b<52308
7.4-3816151
-— 2.73076923
68.70769231
15.63076923
— 3.12307692
3.29230769
2.17692308
---157:73161538
111.53816154
10.20769231
1;11533162
181.91533162
1581.96923077
7:63076923
31.21615335
78.39230769
- 151;33161533
511.35381615
221.77692303
1.23076923
306. 233 '16151
155.09230769
0.93161538
172.86153816
1:12307692
- -- 1:50769231
3.U8161S38
2.26923077
5:17692308
70.01615385
5.73816151
- 6:87592303
2.66923077
151.51615335
1:38161538
9.10769231
938. 23076923
1:21)923077
STANDARD
DEVIATION
1.82073156
3.60056756
2.51731653
23.61682718
6.30996363
"0.91937827
1.1 7506 H7
0.96966320
181:15715005
62.59071131
63.68526071
0.10175895
126.23260175
2111.36283215
9.21131218
11.20965721
38.25803110
269. 9H3&725
196.61193729
72.10216190
'0.17851265
79.23667617
150.12137737
1. 031281m
229.27391717
0.18158393
0.57557251
1.71108195
1 .07267937
2:113556%
50.63323371
1.7 153-10 36
2:86622686
0.91322197
221.03198070
0.51125295
11.2^650171
1118.153278P6
0.73992013
MINIMUM
VALUE
0.30000000
3.90000000
0.20000000
28.30000000
8;300ooooo
• —"1.70000000
i;200ooooo
1.20000000
-— 21. 00000000 -
35.60000000
1.20000000
0:80000000
215.90000000
226.60000000
• -- 0.30000000
12.70000000
27.10000000
i6i;oooooooo
150.90000000
125:10000000
0.70000000
173.20000000
281; 90000000
" 0.20000000 -
37;00oooooo
0.50000000
- - o.soooonoo
1.90000000
1.20000000
- i;7ooooooo
18.80000000
1.90000000
3;50oooooo
1.20000000
19.10000000
0.80000000
i.flooooooo
399.30000000
0;looooooo
MAXIMUM
VALUE
5.90000000
16.50000000
7.70000000
103.10000000
31.70000000
- 5.50000000
5.90000000
1.10000000
663;iooooooo
217.10000000
225.10000000
2:10000000
669.50000000
6928:00000000
30.10000000
55.30000000
171.50000000
1166:00000000
912.70000000
353.20000000
2.60000000
196.80000000
886.00000000
3.90000000
716.30000000
1.90000000
- 2.80000000
7.00000000
1.70000000
- 8.10000000
177.10000000
7;7000oooo
11. -10000000
1.90000000
779.10000000
2 . 30000000
12.30000000
1630.00000000
3. 10000000
STO ERROR
OF MEAN
0.50199178
0.99862331
"0.70650681
6.55811981
1.75006903
— 0.25198965
0.32590339
0.26893757
- 51:07608681
17.35951321
17. 663113?2
-- 0.11112739
35:01062118
585.58668865
' 2.56391089
3.91101933
10.61068255
71:86909671
51.53950652
20.08083071
0.13271553
21.97629999
11.71933377
--"0.28685380
63.58911350
0.13356735
' 0.15991215
0.17510080
0.29750773
0:66910021
11.01313235
0.17576369
0:79191830
0.25328220
61.30107358
0.11180138
3.11616705
310.20312616
0:2 1908152
15:50 MONDAY. FEBRUARY
SUM
19.100000
96.700000
'35.500000
893.200000
203.200000
— - 10.600000
12.300000
32.200000
2051:200000
1150.000000
522.700000
ID. 500000
' 6303.900000
20565.600000
' " 99.200000
106.200000
• 1019.100000
5907.000000
7076.600000
2922.100030
16.000000
398 1. i 00000
5916.200000
12.800000
2217.200000
11.600000
19.600000
15:300000
2Q. 500000
67 ; 300000
910.600000
71.600000
-• 80.100000
31.700000
2009. 100000
18.000000
122.300000
12197.000000
16.500000
VARIANCE
3.3153
12.9612
6.1890
559.1721
39.8156
0.8153
1 . 3808
0.9103
~ 33913.9661
3917.6009
1055.8121
0.1614
1593L6697
1157853.0090
85.1573
201.9111
1163.6808
— 72869.9611
36669.2510
5212:1169
0.2290
6273.1509
22626.5903
1.0697
52566.5292
0.2319
0:3324
2;9^8l
1:1506
5:3253
2563.7211
2:9126
8.2153
0.3310
18856.1627
' •- 0.2611
126.2608
1250937.7356
0;6210
28. 1977 1
c.v.
13.208
18.105
93.283
31.117
10.3&9
29.138
35.691
39.118
116:711
56.116
156.391
36.020
26:032
133.161
' 121.115
15.177
18.803
• - 59.109
36.121
32.211
33.879
25.671
33.053
105.011
132.631
12.881
38.212
19.190
17.271
16.621
72.286
29.693
- ^ 11;679
34.213
143.022
36.926
119.110
119.209
62.236
-------
Table L. WAN SOIL DATA FOR 39 ELEMENTS.
en
VARIABLE —
p
S
CL
K
«. CA
v. TI
CR
MM
Ft
CO
^- NI
SE
- BR
flB
a f
ILif\
NB
MO
PD
~ AS
IN
SN
^- SB
TE
. I
^ CS
BA
5 LA
"^ CE
. — TA
-v_ W
I -- AU - -—
'- TL
1" BI
-N
12
7
8
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
10
12
12
12
12
11
12
12
7
12
10
12
7
5
7
12
6
7
8
12
8
7
7
5
MEAN —
-1143.15833333
154.06000000
97.01875000
— 3:76503333
8.88366667
~ 95J4333333-
81.43916667
444:94166667
17:79583333 -
58:10750000
20.27666667
— - 9. -00600000
0.93758000
5:38716667
18:02333333
164.80000000
8.48691667
87:72 18 181 8
6.00875000
0.90618333
0:52902857
797.00000000
21:74166667
1:98050000
55.87916667
6.07685714
3:27450000
5.41300000
12.09714286
-334:40166667
14.71083333
28:03571429
4;14987500
65.87833333
1.91262500
- 2:85014286
892.93571429
3.10720000
STANDARD
DEVIATION
912:079814345
35 *937 39653
0.72399433
2.00304102
239:73773549
- 14:43856851
26.77784717
109:02916589
' "2.33090485
21:09314069
5.08564170
1.79502491
0.49176454
2:27923683
2.36436201
29.27772Q67
2.14050281
15:16917323
2.33006126
0.321Q6654
0:20851968
134.94140704
17.24245755
— 1:12848455
26.80514993
5:97195768
- 1:53042532
1.80833967
4.28159127
51.95437611
6.67292171
1:65051383
24.93195461
0. 64457621
1; 36 306804
192.87756417
1.Q0066980
H&M UPPER QUART:
MINIMUM
VALUE
- 115.70000000
32.91000000
58:00000000
2.61200000
5.66200000
1019.00000000
-- 76.42000000
42.30000000
297.80000000
14:05000000
26;iioooooo
12.84000000
6.55100000
0.51090000
2.26000000
- 13.72000000
104.60000000
5.28000000
-64;0000oooo
3:38700000
0.34070000
0;2900oooo
580.00000000
5;62oooooo
0;87000000
29:46000000
1.30000000
-- 2:03000000
3.95200000
3.50000000
- 273.00000000
8.31500000
H;9000oooo
- 1;97400000
30;3ioooooo
1.11000000
1.20300000
646.00000000
0.00000000
[LE SOIL VALUES
MAXIMUM
VALUE
2771:00000000
396.50000000
146.30000000
4.95400000
12;86000000
1716.00000000
" 123:70000000
125.70000000
646.00000000
- 20.40000000
88.30000000
29.50000000
11.35000000
1.95000000
9.03000000
- 22.40000000
211.00000000
12.24000000
- io8;70oooooo
11.40000000
1.39000000
iooo;000ooooo
57:17000000
- 4;55800000
129.80000000
17.95000000
5 ;50300000
8; 36600000
16.00000000
432:00000000
24.27000000
42.60000000
7 ; 38200000
118.80000000
2.90000000
- 4.71200000
1130.00000000
4.89700000
BY ELEMENT
— STD ERROR -
OF MEAN
263:29477157
45.97413439
12:70578339
0:20899916
0.57322314
69.20632306
- --4:16805571
7.73009864
31.47400914
0.67237427
6.08906523
1.4&809830
-' 0.51841000-
0.15550960
0.65795900
— 0.82687009
8.45175255
0.61790994
- 4;57367782
0.6726^075
0:09294374
0:07881303
51:00305730
4.97746875
0:35685815
7:73798026
2.25713784
0:76521266
0.80S73645
1:61828939
- 14.99793652
2.72420888
4.54197453
0.53354653
7.19723535
0.22792746
0.51519129
72.900866QO
0.85000538
15:50 MOM
SUM--
13717.900000
1078.420000
776.150000
45.190000
106.604000
17076.000000
-- 114 1.720000
977:270000
5339.300000
213.550000"
697.290000
243.320000
— 108.072000
9.375800
64.646000
216.280000
" 1977.600000
101:843000
964.940000
72:105000
10.874200
3.703200
5579.000000
260.900000
19:805000
670.550000
42.53SOOO
- I3;098ooo
27:069000
34.680000
-4013:900000
88.265000
106.250000
- 33.199000
790.540000
15.301000
19.951000
6250.900000
15.536000
iDAY. FEBRUARY
~ — VARIANCE
831389.64083
14795.34723
1291:49647
"0:52417
4.01217
57474.13182
208:47226
717:05310
11887.35902
"' " 5.43312
444.92058
25:86375
3.22499
0.24183
5.19492
8.20457
857.18545
4.58175
"230:10382
5.42919
0.10366
- 0:04343
18209.13333
297.30234
" 1;27348
713.51606
35:66428
- —-2:34220
3.27027
18.33202
—2699:25720
4U. 52768
144.40673
2.72421
621.60236
0.41561
1:85795
37201.75476
3.61255
28. 1977 2
- C.-V;
~ 79.786
78.954
37:042
— 19:225
22.547
16.347
' 15.176
32:681
24.504
13:093
36.300
25:081
19.9''0
52;450 -
42:309
15.893
17.766
25:221
17.292
38.773
35.530
16.931
79:306
56:980
47.970
96.274
46.738
33.403
35:393
15:532
45.361
42.363
39.773
37.845
33.706
47.825
21.599
6l;170
-------
Table M. SUMMARY OF STEPWISE REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF pH, ORGANIC MATTER (OM)
AND SOIL CALCIUM (CA) vs. LEAF As AND Cd.
Distance
Steps
1
2
3
Beet green & Chard
Lettuce
Beet green & Chard
Lettuce
Beet green & Chard
Lettuce
0.0 -
As
CA*
CA*
(PH)
(OM)
(OM)
(P.H)
0.5 mi.
Cd
CA*
(CA)
(OM)
(OM)
(pH)
(P.H)
0.6 -
As
pH*
pH*
(OM)
CA*
(CA)
(OM")
1.0 mi .
Cd
CA*
(OM)
PH
(CA)
(OM)
(EH)
1.1 -
As
pH*
(CA)
(CA)
(OM)
(OM~)
(EH)
3.5 mi .
Cd
CA*
CA*
(OM)
(OM)
(pH)
(PH~)
Note: *Significant at 0.10 level.
"Excluded from model at this step.
""Did not meet p=0.50 F-criterion for entry into model.
j
( )Entries shown in paranthesis correspond to the maximum R methodology.
86
------- |