RARE: Investigation of NOx Formation
Mechanisms During Ensiling
EPA/600/xx-14/113, Version 0.0
April 2014
Mechanisms of Nitrogen Oxide Formation
During Ensiling
by
Peter G. Green and
Frank M. Mitloehner
University of California, Davis
One Shields Avenue
Davis, CA 95616
Contract No. EP-12-C000134
Michael Kosusko
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
109 T.W. Alexander Drive (E343-02)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
i
-------
RARE: Investigation of NOx Formation EPA/600/xx-14/113, Version 0.0
Mechanisms During Ensiling April 2014
Contents
Notice iii
Acknowledgments iv
Foreword v
Abstract vi
List of Photos, Figures and Tables vii
Acronyms and Abbreviations, plus Glossary viii
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Test Description 2
2.1 Methods and Materials 2
2.2 Experimental Procedures 4
2.3 Control Tests & Analysis Methods 7
3.0 Results and Discussion 8
3.1 Data Quality Assessment 8
3.2 Results 8
3.3 Conclusions 19
3.4 Recommendations 21
4.0 References 22
Appendices 24
Appendix A - Analyses of chopped corn sub-samples prior to ensiling
Appendix B - Analyses of 25 mini-silos' final ensiled product
Appendix C - Response letter to stakeholders' comments of November 12, 2012
Appendix D - Response letter to stakeholders' comments of April 2, 2014
Appendix E - Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs)
Appendix F - Details of statistical analyses
ii
-------
RARE: Investigation of NOx Formation
Mechanisms During Ensiling
EPA/600/xx-14/113, Version 0.0
April 2014
Notice
The University of California at Davis has prepared this document with funding from Contract
No. EP-12-C-000134 with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Mention of
corporation names, trade names, or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use of specific products.
-------
RARE: Investigation of NOx Formation
Mechanisms During Ensiling
EPA/600/xx-14/113, Version 0.0
April 2014
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the essential participation of a dairy in San Joaquin
Valley, California, for providing the chopped corn to initiate ensiling. We also greatly
appreciate the help of several students with chopped corn shoveling, weighing, compacting and
sealing. Above all, Mathew Cohen participated in the initial visit to the dairy, the collection of
corn material, all aspects of ensiling, as well as final silage sub-sampling and determination of
dry matter content and pH.
iv
-------
RARE: Investigation of NOx Formation
Mechanisms During Ensiling
EPA/600/xx-14/113, Version 0.0
April 2014
Foreword
Nitrogen oxide gases are important air quality constituents, particularly in regions with summer-
time ozone and wintertime PM 2.5 such as the San Joaquin Valley of California. This EPA project
investigated the mechanisms which may be causing the formation of nitrogen oxide gases that
occur very early in the ensiling process (a fermentation process which stabilizes animal feeds such
as the corn studied here, as well as alfalfa and other feeds), and may be primarily enzymatic (pre-
existing biochemical action on precursors present in the harvested plant) or microbial. We
emphasize that this is a study of mechanisms only, not a field study, nor an effort to measure
emissions or plan mitigation or controls.
v
-------
RARE: Investigation of NOx Formation
Mechanisms During Ensiling
EPA/600/xx-14/113, Version 0.0
April 2014
Abstract
Silage (ensiled feed), as a dairy's greatest operational cost, is its most critical feed commodity.
The continued use of silage is essential to a highly productive and economically viable industry.
Our previous work has shown that silages are a major source of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) from dairies contributing to the San Joaquin Valley's (SJV's) emissions inventory.
Other studies have found up to 2 parts-per-million (Maw et al, 2002) concentrations of oxides of
nitrogen (NOx) arising from the ensiling process. In addition, there is a CARB funded project
underway to measure the amount of NOx and VOC emissions from silage at dairy locations in
the field in California. Both VOCs and NOx are precursors to ozone formation and PM 2.5,
which are long-standing air quality challenge in many areas of the country, especially in regions
with hot, sunny summers and cold winters with valley geography which traps air masses. The
San Joaquin Valley is such a region. As a result, California has been diligently identifying,
understanding and reducing all sources of VOC and NOx emissions.
The goal of this EPA project was to better understand mechanisms that could be creating NOx
emissions from silage. To understand the mechanisms, NOx emissions were compared by
treatments either (a) sterilizing the microbes inherently present in chopped corn, or (b) using
chemical inhibitors to limit the activity of the peroxidase enzyme, which plausibly produces NO2
from nitrate. This EPA project specifically tested the use of radiation sterilization (by electron
beam) to discern whether NOx formation during corn ensiling is microbial or due to pre-existing
plant enzymes. Second, this EPA project tested three possible chemical inhibitors (azide, cystine
and vanadate) of the enzyme thought to be responsible for NOx formation. The sterilization had
the strongest effect on NOx formation. While each of the chemical inhibitors showed an
influence on the final ensiled material, variability of the NOx results of the chemical inhibitors
prevent us drawing any specific conclusions about the influence of those treatments on NOx
emissions. Based on this work, it seems plausible that the mechanism that creates NOx
emissions in the early phase of the ensiling process is caused by microbes, however, enzymes
other than peroxidase (which had been hypothesized as the direct source of NO2 from nitrate) in
the plant material remain a possible source of NOx.
These experiments were designed to elucidate the possible mechanism(s) of NOx formation, not
to attempt quantification or control, of emissions. Further research would be needed before it
could be determined if NOx controls for silage are merited and appropriate controls might be
identified.
vi
-------
RARE: Investigation of NOx Formation
Mechanisms During Ensiling
EPA/600/xx-14/113, Version 0.0
April 2014
List of Photos, Figures and Tables
Photo 1. Chopped corn being delivered by truck into the ensiling machine.
Photo 2. The open tray area for chopped corn collection, and the silage bags (white) being filled
at the dairy.
Photo 3. Gas collection bags directly attached to the mini-silos, with no gas in the nearest one,
but visible volumes in the two beyond.
Photo 4. The 25 mini-silos, with the orange-stained bags on the sterilized samples at right.
Table 1. Mean, standard deviation, and statistical significance relative to no treatment (N).
Table 2. Individual replicate measurements.
Figure 1. Total NOx (nL) for each sample, grouped in the five treatments.
Figure 2. Ammonia (% of dry matter) for each sample, grouped in the five treatments.
Figure 3. Dry matter (%) for each sample, grouped in the five treatments.
Figure 4. pH for each sample, grouped in the five treatments.
Figure 5. Volatile fatty acids (% of dry matter) for each sample, grouped in the five treatments.
Figure 6. Lactic acid (% of dry matter) for each sample, grouped in the five treatments.
Figure 7. Lactic acid relative to VFAs (%) for each sample, grouped in the five treatments.
Figure 8. Acetic acid (% of dry matter) for each sample, grouped in the five treatments.
Figure 9. Titratable acidity (milliequivalents per lOOg) for each sample, grouped in the five
treatments.
Figure 10. Total NOxvs. time.
Figure 11. Graphical summary of statistically significant differences between treatments and no
treatment (N).
vii
-------
RARE: Investigation of NOx Formation
Mechanisms During Ensiling
EPA/600/xx-14/113, Version 0.0
April 2014
Acronyms and Abbreviations
NOx Nitrogen oxides (or oxides of nitrogen)
VOC Volatile organic compound
A Azide, in the form of sodium azide
C Cystine, in the form of L-cystine
V Vanadate, in the form of sodium vanadate
DM Dry matter
VFA Volatile fatty acid
Lac Lactic acid
meq Milliequivalent
NO3" Nitrate ion
NO Nitric oxide
NO2 Nitrogen dioxide
SJV San Joaquin Valley
CARB California Air Resources Board
Glossary
Silage Fermented, stable anaerobic animal feed
Ensiling The process of converted harvested feed into silage
viii
-------
RARE: Investigation of NOx Formation
Mechanisms During Ensiling
EPA/600/xx-14/113, Version 0.0
April 2014
1.0-Introduction
To store animal feed from the time of harvest over a period of many months (often up to a full
year), it is ensiled. This produces an acidified product which, kept sealed tight from exposure to
air, remains stable at ambient temperature. The common practice of pickling is somewhat
analogous.
The emission of NOx has been observed during the ensiling process (Peterson et al. 1958, Maw
et al,. 2002) and at dairies (Hasson et al 2013). Because NOx can be directly toxic, and can
contribute to the regional air quality problem of ozone and PM 2.5, its formation is important to
understand.
The purpose of this effort was to determine what mechanisms in the ensiling process could
produce nitrogen-containing air emissions, and to determine how mechanisms that could be
creating NOx could be suppressed to answer the following questions:
1. What mechanism(s) in the ensiling process create nitrogen-containing air pollutant emissions,
particularly NOx?
2. What are the potential ways of suppressing those mechanisms? (Bearing in mind that further
research would be needed before emission quantification or appropriate controls might be
identified, and to determine whether there is a need to study mitigation measures.)
No substantial NOx is inherently present in corn; it is generated from an unknown mechanism
during the early days of the ensiling process. It is not known whether NOx arises directly from
nitrate via peroxidase, or through other pathways. A wide variety of N-containing compounds
are found in all plants, including amino acids, such as in proteins. The deepest underlying
question is whether the production of NOx is due to biological activity from the growth of
microbes during the ensiling process, or whether the production of NOx is enzymatic, using
precursor compounds already present in the harvested plant matter. To distinguish between these
two options, we ensiled material that had been sterilized by radiation (Winters et al. 2000) and
compared emissions of NOx with emissions of NOx from control samples. We postponed this
project from early 2013 to late 2013 so that we could study field-produced feed corn (the most
important dairy feed material).
Published results suggested that the key enzyme involved in production of NOx is peroxidase
(Augusto et al. 2002). To test this hypothesis, we added each of three established chemical
peroxidase inhibitors and compared NOx production to the control. The three plausible inhibitors
represent different classes of chemicals: one metal, one nitrogen compound and one amino acid.
The first is a naturally occurring trace micronutrient and the last is a natural component in
protein. If neither vanadate (Serra et al. 1990), azide (Li et al. 1987) nor cystine (Carvalho et al.
2000) were to inhibit NOx production, then the responsible enzyme (whether pre-existing or
microbially generated) would unlikely be peroxidase. Certainly it is a subsequent question
1
-------
RARE: Investigation of NOx Formation EPA/600/xx-14/113, Version 0.0
Mechanisms During Ensiling April 2014
whether any of these potential inhibitors have limitations with respect to feed quality - that is,
how they might affect animal health and nutrition. For this study, we only wanted to know
whether they show inhibition to the proposed mechanism.
2.0-Test Description
2.1-Methods and Materials
Whole-plant corn was harvested at approximately 30% dry matter with a commercial flail
chopper, providing a chop forage material with a cut length between 1 and 2 cm. Fresh material
was collected (during the process shown in Photos 1 and 2) and immediately transported in a
covered truck to the laboratory. The four separate (not sequential) independent treatments used
in this experiment were: 1) electron-beam irradiation at 45 kgray (described further in the next
section) to sterilize the microbes inherently present in the chopped forage; 2) addition of
vanadate to inhibit peroxidase; 3) addition of azide to inhibit peroxidase; and 4) addition of
cystine to inhibit peroxidase. In addition, a control with no treatment was conducted - but
including all of the handling steps including the addition of sprayed water (the same as which
otherwise carried the chemical inhibitors), mixing, packing and sealing.
Photo 1. At left, chopped corn being delivered by
truck into the ensiling machine.
Photo 2. Below, the open tray area for chopped
corn collection, and the silage bags (white) being
filled at the dairy
After compaction (with a heavy, hand-held, weighted post or 'ram') of the chopped corn forage,
mini-silos were sealed using Gamma Seal Lids (Pleasant Hill Grains, Hampton, NE) with the
2
-------
RARE: Investigation of NOx Formation
Mechanisms During Ensiling
EPA/600/xx-14/113, Version 0.0
April 2014
addition of white silicon caulking (General Electric Company, Fairfield, CT) around the lid
threads. This material provides a gas-tight seal and should not impact either NOx emissions or
ensiling.
In addition, the chemical composition of the silage samples was analyzed by Cumberland Valley
Analytical Services, Inc. (Maugansville, MD) for the standard tests which evaluate such samples
for nutritional content: dry matter (DM) and nitrate ion (NO3) before ensiling, and after ensiling
for dry matter (DM), nitrate ion (NO3), pH, total volatile fatty acids (VFA), lactic acid, acetic
acid, and total titratable acidity. These tests establish the proper completion of the ensiling
process and verify the suitability of the feed. All test results are included in Appendix B.
Nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and total oxides of nitrogen (NOx) were measured
during the ensiling process using the chemiluminescence N0/N02/N0X analyzer (Teledyne
model 4981 A).
2.2-Experimental Procedures
The mini-silos were five-gallon buckets, in sets of five for each treatment, previously fitted with
a gas-tight sampling port to collect emitted gases into tedlar bags for gas composition (and
volume) measurements.
Feed corn was harvested and chopped by a commercial operator, and then transported to the
laboratory, to fill five sets of five replicate buckets. The first set of buckets had no treatment
(N), the second set was treated with sterilization (S), and one set was used for each of the three
plausible inhibitors of peroxidase [sodium vanadate (V), L-cystine (C), and sodium azide (A)
respectively]. The potential inhibitors were purchased as solids from Fisher Scientific and were
diluted shortly before use into 1 L of double-deionized water to be sprayed (0.2 L per mini-silo)
onto the chopped corn. (The corn samples were not sterilized.) The question was whether
microbes (which can replicate many times per day) produce chemical transformations that, after
preparation (harvest, chopping and packing), lead to the NOx formation, or whether the enzymes
involved are already abundant in the raw corn material. All bucket contents for each set of
replicates were vigorously mixed using an electrical 'cement' mixer (in order to homogenize the
feed) prior to loading, packing and sealing. (The mixer was thoroughly rinsed with water
between samples.) Packing was at the typical density of silage piles, which corresponds to 3.5 to
3.9 kg per five-gallon container. Packing (with a heavy, hand-held, weighted post or 'ram') was
at the typical dry matter content of 300 to 320 g/kg. Dry matter is determined by net loss of
mass upon drying in an oven to constant weight. Sterilization of the second sample set (SI - S5)
was accomplished commercially with electron-beam exposure at a level known to kill microbes
to >99.99%. The sterilization was performed in Hayward, CA, at NUTEK Corporation, a FDA-
registered sterilization facility certified to ISO 13485 and 11137. The dosage was 45 kgray.
This dosage can penetrate up to 15 cm through water, and is projected at the sample from
opposing sides. The density of silage (and the plastic bucket) is less than water, so sterilization
3
-------
RARE: Investigation of NOx Formation
Mechanisms During Ensiling
EPA/600/xx-14/113, Version 0.0
April 2014
was expected. This technique (and dosage) is used to sterilize medical instruments and other
small apparatus, which may be made of steel, and successfully sterilizes both their exterior and
interior surfaces. Note that this is not proposed as a control measure, only as an approach to
address the question of the role of microbes.
The concentrations for the three plausible inhibitors were as follows:
Vanadium (in the form of sodium vanadate) is a trace micro-nutrient, typically found at a level of
approximately 2 ppb (2 ng/g) in animal feed. It has been reported as an inhibitor of peroxidase
(Serra et al 1990). We supplemented to 20 ppb in the experimental samples. A tenfold increase
should produce an inhibitory effect in peroxidase. Though we used this amount in this
experiment, this does not imply that this might be a safe level for consumption. Our goal in this
laboratory experiment is exclusively to study the possible mechanism.
L-Cystine, the dimer of the amino acid cysteine, is common in animal feed, at levels of
approximately 0.2% (2 mg/g). It has been reported as an inhibitor of peroxidase (Carvalho et al
2000). We supplemented to double this level in the experimental samples. Though we used this
amount in this experiment, this does not imply that this might be a safe level for consumption.
Our goal in this laboratory experiment is exclusively to study the possible mechanism.
Sodium azide has been reported as an inhibitor of peroxidase (Li et al 1987). It is not detectable
in normal feed samples but has been used at 1 mg/kg to inhibit microbial activity in laboratory
buffer solutions (such as in liquid chromatography), so we used that level in our experiment.
Though we used this amount in this experiment, this does not imply that this might be a safe
level for consumption. Our goal in this is laboratory experiment is exclusively to study the
possible mechanism.
Gas sampling commenced the next day, as soon as gas was generated (see Photo 3) in sufficient
volumes. We calibrated with our certified gas cylinder (NO2 in air, 10 ppm by volume, Air
Liquide) diluted to 1 ppm. NO2 in air is considered, by the vendor, to be the most stable form of
NOx. Gas measurements continued until insufficient volume (less than 1 liter) was being
generated - approximately 2 weeks.
4
-------
RARE: Investigation of NOx Formation
Mechanisms During Ensiling
EPA/600/xx-14/113, Version 0.0
April 2014
Photo 3. Gas collection bags directly attached to the mini-silos, with no gas in the nearest one,
but visible volumes in the two beyond.
5
-------
RARE: Investigation of NOx Formation
Mechanisms During Ensiling
EPA/600/xx-14/113, Version 0.0
April 2014
2.3-Control Tests and Analysis Methods
2.3.1-On-site Tests and Methods
The mini-silo containers were used in a previous corn silage experiment and found to be air tight
when used with sealant. They were thoroughly cleaned and dried prior to use. The bags used for
sampling were new, with new (attached) valves, and expected to be gas tight. The goal of
ensiling is to produce air tight storage and mini-silos such as these are expected to simulate good
field practices. They were not vented. We expect that conditions in these containers accurately
represents actual silage piles.
It is reported by the vendor (SKC) that nitrogen dioxide has 54.5% recovery after 24 hours in 1-
liter tedlar bags. We did not reevaluate recovery of standard gas during this test. Measurements
occured in 6 to 8 hour time periods - much faster than 24 hours. In addition, we used 5-liter
bags with a much lower surface area to volume ratio, both implying better recovery of NOx than
the SKC test. SKC's report can be found at http://www.skcinc.com/instructions/1805.pdf.
The NOx analyzer was calibrated (by dilution from the reference cylinder at 10 ppm) over a
range from 0.19 ppm to 0.46 ppm, 0.87 ppm and 1.20 ppm. This was repeated from 0.21 ppm to
0.55 ppm, 0.71 ppm and 1.05 ppm after the sampling period, and showed consistency within 5%.
Both tests showed that operation was stable after a 30 minute warm-up time. For certainty, 60
minutes of warm-up was used. And the signal stabilized in 1 minute, enabling measurement of
volumes as small as 0.5 L - given the flow rate of 0.5 L/minute.
Volumes sampled ranged from 1 L to 5 L, so the reported nL amounts correspond to actual ppb-
to-ppm concentrations. Gas sample collection was manually controlled using a 5-liter sample
tedlar bag (SKC, Inc) directly connected to a Teflon tube (6.35 mm ID, 0.20 m long) to the
NO/N02/NOx analyzer. The gas samples were frequently measured for gas concentrations at 6
to 8 hour intervals until the depletion of sample inside the gas bags. Gas emissions are reported
as nanoliters, nL - that is, parts-per-billion by volume (nL/L) multiplied by L. The amount of
gas produced was determined by multiplying the volume fraction measured (nL/L or ppb)
multiplied by the volume sampled (L) where the latter is determined by the time of gas signal
(minutes) and the fixed sampling rate of 0.5 L/minute.
Normal silage were marked N1 through N5, for the five replicates. Sterilized silage replicates
were labeled SI through 5. Vanadate treatment were VI through 5; Cystine, CI through 5; and
Azide, A1 through 5.
Nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and total oxides of nitrogen (NOx) were measured
using the chemiluminescence NO/NO2/NOX analyzer Teledyne 9841A (Teledyne Technologies,
San Diego, CA).
6
-------
RARE: Investigation of NOx Formation
Mechanisms During Ensiling
EPA/600/xx-14/113, Version 0.0
April 2014
The detection limit of the N0/N02/N0X analyzer for NO, NO2 and total NOx was 5 ppb.
Precision was 10% (or better) and accuracy was also 10% — except higher near the detection
limit.
The measurement range was from 5 ppb to 5 ppm, using appropriate dilution with flow meters at
the inlet of the instrument.
Due to natural variation, replicates of chopped, field corn will have different constituents
(physical, chemical and biological) so it is expected that trace gas emissions will also vary
among the replicates, perhaps with standard deviations in the same order of magnitude as the
mean.
2.3.2-Commercial Laboratory Tests and Methods
For the chopped corn, samples shipped to the commercial lab had nitrate measured with the
following method:
Nitrate in Forages, Potentiometric Method (986.31). Official Methods of Analysis, 15th edition.
1990. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. (Modifications: 25ml DI, lg sample and 1
ionic strength adjustor packet shaken together for 1 hour, then filtered. Nitrate-Nitrogen
standards used to calibrate meter.)
For the ensiled product, the following procedures were conducted for the commercial laboratory
analysis:
Extraction: Fermented feed sample is mixed and a 25 g wet sample is taken and diluted with 200
ml deionized water. Sample mixture sits overnight, then is blended for 2 min and filtered
through coarse (20- 25 |im particle retention) filter paper. Extract is used in the following
procedures:
pH and Titratable Acidity
30 ml extract is introduced to a Mettler DL12 Titrator. pH is read and sample is titrated with
O.lNNaOH to a pH of 6.5. Mettler-Toledo, Inc., 1900 Polaris Parkway, Columbus, Ohio,
43240.
Ammonia
25 ml extract is mixed with 75 ml deionized water and introduced to a Labconco Rapidstill II
model 65200 analyzer. Sample is titrated with 0.1 N HC1 to determine ammonia. Labconco,
8811 Prospect Ave, Kansas City, Missouri 64132.
Lactic Acid
7
-------
RARE: Investigation of NOx Formation
Mechanisms During Ensiling
EPA/600/xx-14/113, Version 0.0
April 2014
1:1 ratio of extract to deionized water is introduced to an YSI2700 Select Biochemistry
Analyzer to determine L-lactic acid. Result is multiplied by four to obtain total lactic acid. YSI,
Inc., Yellow Springs, Ohio, 45387.
Acetic Acid and Total VFA
3 ml of extract is filtered through a 0.2 |im filter membrane and a 1.0 |il sub-sample is injected
into a Perkin Elmer AutoSystem gas chromatograph using a Restek column packed with
Stabilwax-DA. Perkin Elmer, 710 Bridgeport Avenue, Shelton, CT 06484.
2.3.3-Data Quality Objectives
The key Data Quality Objectives are the following. The detection limit of the NO/N02/NOx
analyzer for NO, N02 and total NOx was 5 ppb. Precision was 10% (or better) and accuracy
was also 10% — except higher near the detection limit. The measurement range is from 5 ppb to
5 ppm, using appropriate dilution with flow meters at the inlet of the instrument.
According to the commercial laboratory reporting the results shown in Appendix B:
• Initial and final % Dry Matter should be consistent and appropriate (32-35%).
• Final pH should be in the range 3.7 to 4.5.
• Total VFAs should be in the range 3.6 to 9.3% of DM.
• Lactic Acid should be in the range 2.4 to 6.5% of DM.
• Acetic Acid should be in the range 0.8 to 3.2%.
3.0-Results and Discussion
3.1-Data Quality Assessment
Data Quality for final composition of the ensiled material were acceptable. These are based on
the objectives in section 2.3.3 and results presented in Tables 1 and 2.
As shown in Table 1 and Figures 1-9, NOx measurement replicates were highly varied, but all
other eight measurements were consistent within the replicates of each treatment: Ammonia %
relative to DM (Figure 2), % DM (Figure 3), pH (Figure 4), VFAs % relative to DM (Figure 5),
Lactic Acid % relative to DM (Figure 6), Lactic/VFA (Figure 7), Acetic Acid (Figure 8) and
Acidity (Figure 9). Although a few replicates had data slightly outside the expected range, all
mean parameters were also in the correct ranges for ensiled feed: % DM, pH, Total VFA, Lactic
Acid and Acetic Acid. Comparing these eight measurements in the four treatments relative to
control (No Treatment), 17 (out of 32 total) had statistical significance p<0.05.
3.2-Results
8
-------
RARE: Investigation of NOx Formation
Mechanisms During Ensiling
EPA/600/xx-14/113, Version 0.0
April 2014
The nitrate level in the material for ensiling was 0.04% (in all three sub-samples), relatively low
in the range seen for animal feeds. Up to 0.44% is always considered safe to feed, while levels
up to 1% are fed with appropriate limits as a portion of the total diet. The samples were analyzed
at a commercial feed testing lab with the complete reports in Appendix A. This low level of
nitrate might have resulted in lowered emissions, if nitrate indeed is the precursor. However, the
relationship between initial nitrate and emissions has not been studied.
There were five treatments with five replicates each. The most specialized treatment was
electron-beam sterilization (mini-silos SI through S5). Three different potential chemical
inhibitors were used: azide (A1 through A5), cystine (CI through C5) and vanadate (VI through
V5). No treatment was the fifth (N1 through N5).
All replicates (five each) of all five treatments ensiled well, based on final production of acidity
(low pH), and specific tests for lactic acid and VFAs - volatile fatty acids. Additional tests are
shown in Appendix B. Initial mass was 5.5 kg each, and the final dry matter content was also
within a narrow range, and correct, for all 25 samples. Final dry matter was slightly higher for
the sterilized (S) treatment, possibly due to lowered microbial respiration (hydrolysis) and lower
gas volume emission. All of these data are provided in Tables 1 and 2.
The time course of overall NOx production (volume of gas multiplied by concentration, as
sampled every 6 to 8 hours) started within one to two days, peaking at three days, and tailing off
at 6 to 8 days. NOx production varied greatly, however, in each of the treatment sets - including
four (out of 25 total) that produced periods of observable volumes of gas but with NOx below the
detection limit of 5 ppb, by volume. The four mini-silos that had periods of no detectable NOx
(<5 ppb) were N4, V4, A1 and A3. Overall, however, the azide (A) treatment had the highest
mean production of NOx. It is possible this happened from the presence of N in azide itself.
The most striking pattern was with the samples treated with electron beam sterilization (S) to see
if that would be sufficient to limit ensiling and restrict gas production to existing enzymes only -
not those produced by microbial reproduction over time. Promptly after treatment, the samples
treated with electron beam sterilization all showed orange staining in the attached gas sampling
bag, possibly due to nitration, that is, from direct release of nitrogen oxides gas during the
treatment, and reaction with (and attachment to) the collection bag. However, this reaction
prevented the bag from inflating (presumably causing either an overall rigidity or a stickiness on
the interior surfaces), so sampling was not possible until this was noticed and these were
replaced after day one. Although this means NOx emissions from the first day after sterilization
were not sampled, NOx production is anticipated to be quite low. As shown in Figure 10, the
production of NOx in un-sterilized mini-silos peaks on day 3 with very few emissions during day
1. We believe that the same would be true for the sterilized samples. In addition, the sterilized
silage samples all showed less production of acidity (by 0.3 pH units - roughly a factor of two),
as well as lower production of VFAs and lactic acid specifically - the other treatments had
approximately 50% more.
9
-------
RARE: Investigation of NOx Formation
Mechanisms During Ensiling
EPA/600/xx-14/113, Version 0.0
April 2014
Photo 4. The 25 mini-silos, with the orange-stained bags on the sterilized samples at right.
Additionally, other measurements of the final silage showed differences between the treatments
and no treatment. The next table lists the silage data with mean, standard deviation, and
statistical significance ('p'-value) relative to no treatment (N). The magnitude of change for
some parameters is modest, but the change does indicate that the chemical inhibitors were
applied and mixed successfully, and did affect the ensiling process.
Considering p<0.01 (from basic ANOVA, relative to no treatment, N) to be statistically
significant, percent dry matter was higher in S. Ammonia was lower in V. The pH was higher in
S, as well as lower in A and V. VFAs were lower in S but higher in all three chemical
treatments: A, C and V. Lactic acid was also lower in S but higher in A, C and V. Acetic acid
was lower in S and A. Acidity was lower in S.
Total NOs, below in Tables 1 and 2, is calculated as the sum of emissions measured periodically.
It is unknown whether the sterilization process might have affected peroxidase enzymes, and
whether the chemical inhibitors might have affected the microbes. Both would be interesting
questions to pursue in a future study.
10
-------
RARE: Investigation of NOx Formation
Mechanisms During Ensiling
EPA/600/xx-14/113, Version 0.0
April 2014
3.2.1-Additional Statistical Analyses
Further statistical analyses were conducted and summarized briefly here. The entire report is in
Appendix F. In order to validate the ANOVA test one must satisfy two assumptions, 1) the
residual errors from the analysis should be normally distributed, and 2) the residual variance
should be constant across treatments. In order to test for normality the Wilk Shapiro test was
used, which is equivalent to a correlation coefficient that is calculated from a normal probability
(or Q-Q) plot. The test results for Wilk Shapiro are acceptable as long as either it is insignificant
(p>.05) or the test statistic is close to one (W>.95). Next, to test the constant variance
assumption the Levene test was used. These tests were satisfied for all of the measurements on
the final ensiled product.
To assess differences between the treatments, two tests were conducted and are reported for
statistical significance stronger than the 0.05 level - Dunnett's t Test (for comparisons of the four
treatments A, C, S and V against the no treatment control, N) and Tukey's Studentized Range
Test (for comparison between any pair of treatments). These results are summarized graphically
in Figure 11.
For the first, the following are the results: S is higher than N for dry matter; V is lower than N for
ammonia; for pH, S is higher than N, and A is lower than N; for VFAs, V and C are higher than
N, and S is lower than N; for lactic acid, S is lower than N, and all three chemical treatments
produced more than N; A is higher than N for the ratio of lactic acid to VFAs; A and S are lower
than N for acetic acid; S is lower than N for acidity.
For the second test, the following are the results: S is higher than N for dry matter; V is lower
than N, C and A for ammonia; for pH, S is higher than all others, and A is lower than N and C;
for VFAs, S is lower than all others, and V is higher than N; for lactic acid, S is lower than all
others, while V and A are higher than N; A is higher than S, C and N for the ratio of lactic acid
to VFAs; for acetic acid, S is lower than all others, A is lower than N and C; and S is lower than
all others for acidity.
11
-------
RARE: Investigation of NOx Formation
Mechanisms During Ensiling
Treatment
TotalNOx %DM
nL
Ammonia pH
% of DM
EPA/600/xx-14/113, Version 0.0
April 2014
VFA (total) Lactic Acid Lac/VFA Acetic Acidity
% of DM % of DM % % of DM meq/lOOg
A
(Azide)
vs. N
mean
std.dev.
29683
26700
32.66
0.55
0.41
0.03
3.84
0.03
5.75
0.10
4.68
0.08
81.40
0.55
1.05
0.04
7.09
0.28
ANOVA: p=0.18 p=0.15 p=0.22 p<0.001 p=0.005 p<0.001 p<0.001 p<0.001 p=0.21
C
(Cystine)
vs. N
mean
std.dev.
6574 32.64
9915 0.76
0.45
0.03
3.94
0.02
5.88
0.20
4.42 75.00
0.15 1.41
1.45
0.12
6.49
0.65
ANOVA: p=0.46 p=0.34 p=0.85 p=0.45 p=0.005 p=0.01 p=0.92 p=0.25 p=0.29
N
(No
mean
std.dev.
11175
8660
32.22
0.43
0.45
0.06
Treatment) (No treatment) (No treatment)
3.95
0.02
(No treatment)
5.46
0.14
4.10 75.00
0.16 2.00
(No treatment)
1.36
0.11
(No treatment)
6.85
0.28
(Sterilized) std.dev.
vs. N
1126
345
33.46
0.65
0.40
0.05
4.23
0.10
3.71
0.34
2.82
0.33
76.20
3.70
0.89
0.12
3.60
0.42
ANOVA: p=0.03 p=0.006 p=0.19 p<0.001 p<0.001 p<0.001 p=0.58 p<0.001 p<0.001
V mean 25610 32.60 0.33 3.90 6.03 4.74 78.60 1.30 6.68
(Vanadate) std.dev. 45112 0.39 0.03 0.01 0.33 0.09 3.65 0.30 0.48
vs. N ANOVA: p=0.50 p=0.16 p=0.004 p=0.001 p=0.007 p<0.001 p=0.10 p=0.68 p=0.51
ANOVA: Analysis of Variance
NOx: Nitrogen Oxides (nL)
%DM: Percent Dry Matter
Ammonia: Ammonia (NPN)
VFA: Volatile Fatty Acids
Lac: Lactic Acid
Acetic: Acetic Acid
Acidity: Titratable Acidity
meq: milli equivalents
Table 1. Mean, standard deviation and statistical significance relative to no treatment (N).
12
-------
RARE: Investigation of NOx Formation EPA/600/xx-14/113, Version 0.0
Mechanisms During Ensiling April 2014
Sample Total NOx %DM Ammonia pH VFA (total) Lactic Acid Lac/VFA Acetic Acidity
nL
% of DM
% of DM
% of DM %
% of DM
meq/lOOg
A1
32685
32.7
0.45
3.89
5.62
4.6
82
1.03
6.98
A2
27650
32.1
0.42
3.83
5.70
4.6
81
1.11
6.73
A3
16245
33.3
0.38
3.83
5.77
4.7
81
1.03
7.26
A4
71834
33.1
0.38
3.84
5.75
4.7
82
1.01
7.45
A5
0
32.1
0.42
3.82
5.90
4.8
81
1.06
7.02
CI
865
32.7
0.48
3.94
5.74
4.2
73
1.57
5.89
C2
1615
31.9
0.43
3.95
5.99
4.5
75
1.49
6.26
C3
23686
32.3
0.48
3.97
5.83
4.4
75
1.43
7.51
C4
6705
32.4
0.42
3.92
6.16
4.6
75
1.52
6.07
C5
0
33.9
0.43
3.93
5.68
4.4
77
1.25
6.71
N1
9557
32.4
0.42
3.94
5.55
4.3
77
1.29
6.77
N2
13937
31.6
0.43
3.95
5.22
3.9
75
1.28
6.42
N3
0
32.4
0.42
3.96
5.46
4.2
77
1.28
6.86
N4
23760
32.7
0.45
3.96
5.58
4.1
73
1.48
7.15
N5
8621
32.0
0.55
3.92
5.51
4.0
73
1.48
7.04
SI
1273
34.3
0.42
4.19
3.51
2.5
71
0.99
3.61
S2
675
32.8
0.41
4.09
4.20
3.3
79
0.90
4.31
S3
846
32.8
0.41
4.25
3.91
3.0
77
0.91
3.51
S4
1435
33.6
0.43
4.35
3.53
2.6
74
0.97
3.27
S5
1401
33.8
0.31
4.25
3.38
2.7
80
0.69
3.32
VI
104177
33.0
0.35
3.90
6.03
4.7
78
1.37
7.08
V2
0
33.0
0.29
3.90
5.51
4.7
85
0.78
6.04
V3
48
32.5
0.30
3.88
6.07
4.7
77
1.37
6.31
V4
23807
32.1
0.33
3.90
6.42
4.9
76
1.56
7.11
V5
19
32.4
0.36
3.92
6.12
4.7
77
1.43
6.87
A: Azide
C: Cystine
N: No Treatment
S: Sterilization
V: Vanadate
NOx: Nitrogen Oxides
%DM: Percent Dry Matter
Ammonia: Ammonia (NPN)
VFA: Volatile Fatty Acids
Lac: Lactic Acid
Acetic: Acetic Acid
Acidity: Titratable Acidity
meq: milli equivalents
Table 2. Individual replicate measurements.
13
-------
RARE: Investigation of NOx Formation
Mechanisms During Ensiling
EPA/600/xx-14/113, Version 0.0
April 2014
120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
Total NOx (nL)
ll
¦ ¦
I
III
1. ll I.
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
A1A2A3A4A5 CI C2 C3 C4 C5 IM1N2N3N4N5 SI 52 S3 54 S5 V1V2V3V4V5
Figure 1. Total NOx (nL) for each sample, grouped in the five treatments.
Ammonia % of DM
U.DU "
U.ZU "
U.1U ~
A1A2A3A4A5 CI C2 C3 C4 C5 N1N2N3N4N5 SI 52 S3 54 S5 V1V2V3V4V5
Figure 2. Ammonia (% of dry matter) for each sample, grouped in the five treatments.
14
-------
RARE: Investigation of NOx Formation
Mechanisms During Ensiling
EPA/600/xx-14/113, Version 0.0
April 2014
% Dry Matter
o4.b _
DH -
DD.D '
oZ.b -
Ol '
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
A1A2A3A4A5 CI C2 C3 C4 C5 N1N2N3N4N5 SI S2 S3 S4 S5 V1V2V3V4V5
Figure 3. Dry matter (%) for each sample, grouped in the five treatments.
PH
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.1
4
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
1
i
1
i
1
i I
¦ ¦
¦ i
i.
¦ ¦
..
1
11
a
IT
i
tt
T]
1
11
tl
It
I
rt
Tl
a
1
11
rt
tt
t
1
1
tt
E
l l
ii
in
i
i i
llll
i i
mi
J
A1A2A3A4A5 CI C2 C3 C4 C5 N1N2N3N4N5 SI 52 S3 S4 S5 VI V2 V3 V4 V5
Figure 4. pH for each sample, grouped in the five treatments.
15
-------
RARE: Investigation of NOx Formation
Mechanisms During Ensiling
EPA/600/xx-14/113, Version 0.0
April 2014
VFA (total) of DM
7.00 i
1.1
1.
lE
~
1 . 1
mi
A1A2A3A4A5 CI C2 C3 C4 C5 N1N2N3N4N5 SI S2 S3 S4 S5 V1V2V3V4V5
Figure 5. Volatile fatty acids (% of dry matter) for each sample, grouped in the five treatments.
Lactic Acid % of DM
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
A1A2A3A4A5 CI C2 C3 C4 C5 N1N2N3N4N5 SI
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
52 S3 S4 S5 VI V2 V3 V4 V5
Figure 6. Lactic acid (% of dry matter) for each sample, grouped in the five treatments.
16
-------
RARE: Investigation of NOx Formation
Mechanisms During Ensiling
EPA/600/xx-14/113, Version 0.0
April 2014
%Lac/VFA
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
A1A2A3A4A5 CI C2 C3 C4 C5 N1N2N3N4N5 SI S2 S3 S4 S5 V1V2V3V4V5
Figure 7. Lactic acid relative to VFAs (%) for each sample, grouped in the five treatments.
l.SC
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
o.so
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Acetic % of DM
i . 1
1 i
¦ 1
. .
tr
i .
T
T
¦
1
rr
1
ft
1
rt
T I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
A1A2A3A4A5 CI C2 C3 C4 C5 N1N2N3N4N5 SI S2 S3 S4 S5 V1V2V3V4V5
Figure 8. Acetic acid (% of dry matter) for each sample, grouped in the five treatments.
17
-------
RARE: Investigation of NOx Formation
Mechanisms During Ensiling
EPA/600/xx-14/113, Version 0.0
April 2014
Acidity meq/100 g
/
b _
D
1
1
J
U 1
llll llll l llll llll llll llll III!
A1A2A3A4A5 CI C2 C3 C4 C5 N1N2N3N4N5 SI S2 S3 S4 S5 VI V2 V3 V4 V5
Figure 9. Titratable acidity (milliequivalents per 100 g) for each sample, grouped in the five
treatments.
16000
Total NOx (nL) vs. Day after ensiling
14000
12000
10000
Cystine
8000
No Treatment
^"Sterilszation
6000
4000
2000
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
Figure 10. Total NOx(nL) vs. day after ensiling
18
-------
RARE: Investigation of NOx Formation EPA/600/xx-14/113, Version 0.0
Mechanisms During Ensiling April 2014
Greater than N
ASVSS
s s
ss
ACVCV
ACV ACV AV
AAA
Parameter:
NOx
%DM
nh3
PH
V FA
Lactic
Lac/VFA
Acetic
Acidity
Less than N
S
vvv
AV A A
sss
SSS
AS AS AS
SSS
Figure 11. Graphical summary of conclusions from three different statistical tests, with color coding for
the three statistical methods: Simple ANOVA in black, Dunnett in red, and Tukey in blue. Each
parameter is shown where statistically different from No Treatment, N - either greater or less than N.
3.3-Conclusions
Feed corn was properly ensiled in all 25 mini-silos. That is, a lowered pH into the range of 3.7
to 4.5 considered normal by the commercial testing lab, and production of acids, such as lactic
acid to its desirable range of 3.4 to 6.5% of dry matter. Note that the sterilized samples had
lower lactic acid.
Electron-beam sterilization (S) lowered NOx emissions statistically significantly (p=0.03) and
partially prevented microbes from achieving full acidity. This is not considered to be a practical
treatment at large scale, only an approach to address the question of whether live microbes are
involved in NOx emissions.
The chemical inhibitors each had a unique effect on the final ensiled material. Therefore,
regardless of whether they produced a discernable effect on NOx emissions, they did affect the
process of silage formation.
Variation between replicates limited the statistical significance of chemical inhibition on NOx
emissions. Azide (A) is the most statistically significant (p=0.18) - however, showing an
increase in NOx emissions relative to no treatment. More consistency between replicates, or
more replicates, could enable distinguishing an effect - whether increase or decrease. In
addition, more rapid sampling would aid characterizing peak emissions.
Thus, microbes were limited by the sterilization treatment, which also resulted in lowered NOx
emissions. Therefore microbes probably play an important role in the mechanism that creates
NOx emissions. Chemical inhibition of pre-existing enzyme peroxidase did not have a
conclusive effect on NOx emissions, even though three different types of inhibitors were tested,
and all had effects on the overall ensiling process. Indeed, it is possible that the addition of azide
(which contains N) and vanadate actually caused an increase in emissions, through other effects
in the many possible enzyme pathways in the heterogeneous material remain unknown in the
samples studied here.
19
-------
RARE: Investigation of NOx Formation
Mechanisms During Ensiling
EPA/600/xx-14/113, Version 0.0
April 2014
3.4-Recommendations
Given the importance of microbes in the process, it is recommended that further study be
devoted to other methods of sterilization, as well as to microbial inoculants, to see which
produce lower levels of NOx production while maintaining feed quality. In addition, more
consistency between replicates, or more replicates, could improve distinguishing an effect -
whether an increase or decrease of NOx. More frequent sampling, such as with an automated
system, would limit sample bag recovery losses. We do not think this has been a meaningful
limitation of this study, but it is a possibility for more sensitive measurements in future. The
disadvantage is the cost of an automated system, and reliance on sensors, rather than observation,
for the time to collect an analysis sample. Moreover, NOx recovery could be assessed with a
standard gas mixture and a range of holding times. In addition, leak testing of the mini-silos
could be conducted.
20
-------
RARE: Investigation of NOx Formation
Mechanisms During Ensiling
EPA/600/xx-14/113, Version 0.0
April 2014
4.0-References & Bibliography
Augusto, O., M. G. Bonini, A. M. Amanso, E. Linares, C. C. X. Santos and S. L. De Menezes. 2002.
Nitrogen Dioxide and Carbonate Radical Anion: Two Emerging Radicals in Biology. Free Radical Biology
& Medicine, 32: 841-9.
Burger M., and L. Jackson. 2003. Microbial Immobilization of Ammonium and Nitrate in Relation to
Ammonification and Nitrification Rates in Organic and Conventional Cropping Systems. Soil Biology and
Biochemistry 35:29-36
California Air Resources Board. 2006. California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/almanac/almanac06/almanac06iu.htm (accessed May 2010).
Carter, W.P. 2009. Development of the SAPRC-07 Chemical Mechanisms and Updated Ozone Reactivity
Scales. Center for Environmental Research and Technology, College of Engineering, University of
California.
Carvalho, D. P., A. C. F. Ferreira, S. M. Coelho, J. M. Moraes, M. A. S. Camacho and D. Rosenthal. 2000.
Thyroid Peroxidase Activity is Inhibited by Amino Acids. Brazilian J. Med. Biol. Res. 33:355-61.
El-Mashad, H. M., R. Zhang, T. Rumsey, S. Hafner, F. Montes, C. Alan Rotz, V. Arteaga, Y. Zhao, F. M.
Mitloehner. 2010. A Mass Transfer Model of Ethanol Emission from Thin Layers of Corn Silage.
Transactions of the ASABE. 53:1-7.
Hafner S. D., F. Montes, C. A. Rotz and F. Mitloehner. 2010. Ethanol Emission from Loose Corn Silage
and Exposed Silage Particles. Atmospheric Environment. 44: 4172-4180
Hasson, A. S., Ogunjemiyo, S. O., Trabue, S., Ashkan, S., Scoggin, K., Steele,
J., Olea, C., Middala, S., Vu, K., Scruggs, A., Addala, L. R, Nana, L., NOx Emissions from a Central
California Dairy, Atmospheric Environment (2013), doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.01.011.
Howard, C., A. Kumar, I. Malkina, F. Mitloehner, P. Green, R. Flocchini and M. Kleeman. 2010. Reactive
Organic Gas Emissions from Livestock Feed Contribute Significantly to Ozone Production in Central
California. Environ. Sci. Tech. 44:2309-2314.
Krauter, C., S. Ashkan, M. Beene, M. Chong and B. Goodrich. 2009. Volatile Organic Compounds from
Six Sampled Dairies in the San Joaquin Valley. Presentation at the Symposium of Green Acres and Blue
Skies, July 1-2, University of California, Davis.
http://airquality.ucdavis.edu/pages/events/2009/greenacres.html
Li., C. Y., S. C. Ziesmer and O. Lazcano-Villareal. 1987. Use of Azide and Hydrogen Peroxide as an
Inhibitor for Endogenous Peroxidase in the Immunoperoxidase Method. J. Histochem. Cytochem.
35:1457-1460.
21
-------
RARE: Investigation of NOx Formation
Mechanisms During Ensiling
EPA/600/xx-14/113, Version 0.0
April 2014
Malkina, I. L., A Kumar, P. G. Green, and F. M. Mitloehner. 2010. Identification and Quantitation of
Volatile Organic Compounds Emitted from Dairy Silages and Other Feedstuffs. Journal of Environmental
Quality. 40:1-9.
Maw, S. J., C. L. Johnson, A. C. Lewis, J. B. McQuaid. 2002. A Note of the Emission of Nitrogen Oxides
from Silage in Opened Bunker Silos. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 74: 209-15.
Moldrup, P., T. Olesen, D. E. Rolston and T. Yamaguchi. 1997. Modeling Diffusion and Reaction in Soils.
7. Predicting gas and ion diffusivity in undisturbed and sieved soils. Soil Sci. 162:632-640.
Montes, F, S., D. Hafner, C. A. Rotz and F. M. Mitloehner. 2010. Temperature and Air Velocity Effects on
Ethanol Emission from Corn Silage with the Characteristics of an Exposed Silo Face. Atmos. Environ.
44:1987-1995.
Peterson, W. H., R. H. Burris, R. Sant and H. N. Little. 1958. Production of Toxic Gas (Nitrogen Oxides) in
Silage Making. J. Ag. Food Chem 6:2 p.121-6.
Rotz, C. A., M. S. Corson, D. S. Chianese, F. Montes, S. D. Hafner, R. Jarvis, and C. U. Coiner. 2011a.
Integrated Farm System Model: Reference Manual. USDA Agricultural Research Service. Available at:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/Main/docs.htm?docid=21345. Accessed 5 November 2011.
Rotz, C. A., D. S. Chianese, F. Montes, S. Hafner, and R. Jarvis. 2011b. Dairy Gas Emission Model:
Reference Manual. USDA Agricultural Research Service. Available at:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/Main/docs.htm?docid=21345
Schmidt, C. E. and T. A. Card. 2009. Recent Sampling of Total Organic Gas Emissions from Dairies.
Presentation at the Symposium of Green Acres and Blue Skies, July 1-2, University of California, Davis.
http://airquality.ucdavis.edu/pages/events/2009/greenacres.html
Serra, M. A., E. Sabbioni, A. Marchesini, E. Sabbioni, A. Marchesini, A. Pintar and M. Valoti. 1990.
Vanadate as an Inhibitor of Plant and Mammalian Peroxidases. Biological Trace Element Research
23:151-164.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008. 40 CFR Parts 50 and 58 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Ozone; Final Rule. Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 60 / Thursday, March 27, 2008 / Rules
and Regulations. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2008/March/Day-27/a5645.pdf
(accessed May, 2010).
Winters, A. L., J. E. Cockburn, M. S. Dhanoa and R. J. Merry. 2000. Effects of Lactic Acid Bacteria in
Inoculants on Changes in Amino Acid Composition during Ensilage of Sterile and Non-sterile Ryegrass. J.
Appl. Microbiology 89:442-451.
Zhang, R., F. Mitloehner, H. El-Mashad, I. Malkina, T. Rumsey, V. Arteaga, B. Zhu, and Y. Zhao. 2010.
Process-based Farm Emission Model for Estimating Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from
California Dairies. A final research report submitted to California Air Resources Board.
22
-------
RARE: Investigation of NOx Formation
Mechanisms During Ensiling
EPA/600/xx-14/113, Version 0.0
April 2014
Appendices
A. Analyses of chopped corn sub-samples prior to ensiling (attached pdf- 6 pages)
B. Analyses of 25 mini-silos' final ensiled product (attached pdf- 25 pages)
C. Response letter to stakeholders' comments of November 12, 2012 (attached pdf - 2
pages)
D. Response letter to stakeholders' comments of April 2, 2014 (attached pdf- TBD pages)
E. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) (attached pdf - 16 pages)
F. Details of statistical analyses (attached pdf-102 pages)
23
-------
Type:
Farm:
Desc:
Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
Laboratory services for agriculture ... from the field to the feed bunk.
CORN SILAGE
UC DAVIS SILAGE EXPERIMENT
CHOPPED & GROUND CORN TOP
HSIEH TIFFANY
UC DAVIS
CHOPPED & GROUND CORN TOP
Copies to: GREEN, PETER
Regression; OH
FERMENTATION
Lab ID: 15447 030
Sampled:
Arrived: 11/05/2013
Completed: 11/12/2013
Reported: 11/12/2013
SAMPLE INFORMATION
Lab ID:
Crop Year:
Cutting#:
Feed Type:
15447 030
2013
CORN SILAGE
Series:
Version:
1.0
CHEMISTRY ANALYSIS RESULTS
Moisture
65.2
Dry Matter
34.8
PROTEINS
% SP % CP
% DM
Crude Protein
6.1
Adjusted Protein
6.1
Soluble Protein
28,5
1.7
Ammonia
ADF Protein (ADICP)
NDF Protein (NDICP)
NDR Protein (NDRCP)
Rumen Degr. Protein
64.2
3.9
Rumen Deg. CP (Strep.G)
FIBER
% NDF
% DM
ADF
56.7
22.7
NDF
40.0
aNDFom
NDR (NDF w/o sulfite)
peNDF
Crude Fiber
Lignin
NDF Digestibility (12 hr)
NDF Digestibility (24 hr)
NDF Digestibility (30 hr)
NDF Digestibility (48 hr)
NDF Digestibility (240 hr)
Indigestible NDF
MINERALS
Ash (%DM)
Calcium (%DM)
Phosphorus (%DM)
Magnesium (%DM)
Potassium (%DM)
Sulfur (%DM)
Sodium (%DM)
Chloride (%DM)
Iron (PPM)
Manganese(PPM)
Zinc (PPM)
Copper(PPM)
Molybdenum (PPM)
Selenium (PPM)
Nitrate Ion (%DM)
Definitions and explanation of report terms
4.28
0.18
0.22
0.14
0.98
0.011
300
34
23
5
0.04
pH
Total VFA
Lactic Acid (%DM)
Lactic as % of Total VFA
Acetic Acid (v..DM)
Propionic Acid (%DM)
Butyric Acid (%DM)
Isobutyric Acid (%DM)
Titratable Acidity (meq/lOOgm)
1, 2 Propanediol (%DM)
Mold Count (col/gm)
Yeast Count (col/gm)
Particle Size ( Penn State )
- Particles greater than 0.75"
- Particles from 0.31" to 0.75"
- Particles less than 0.31"
CARBOHYDRATES
Silage Acids
Ethanol Soluble CHO (Sugar)
Water soluble CHO (Sugar)
Starch
Soluble Fiber
Starch Digestibility (7 hr)
Fatty Acids, Total (%DM)
Crude Fat
Acid Hydrolysis Fat
ENERGY & INDEX CALCULATIONS
TDN (%DM)
Net Energy Lactation (mcal/lb)
Schwab/Shaver NEL (Processed)
Schwab/Shaver NEL (Unprocessed)
Net Energy Maintenance (mcal/lb)
Net Energy Gain (mcal/lb)
NDF Dig. Rate (Kd, %HR, Van Amburgh, Lignin*2.4)
NDF Dig. Rate (Kd, %HR, Van Amburgh, iNDF)
Starch Dig. Rate (Kd, %HR, Mertens)
Relative Feed Value (RFV)
Relative Feed Quality (RFQ)
Milk per Ton (lbs/ton)
Dig. Organic Matter Index (lbs/ton)
Non Fiber Carbohydrates (%DM)
Non Structural Carbohydrates (%DM)
DCAD (meq/lOOgdm)
Additional sample information, source and lab
pictures
% Starch % NFC % DM
6,0 2.9
72.9 35.1
71,5
0.74
0.73
0,70
0.76
0.48
3185
48,1
38.0
Powered by Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
-------
Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
Laboratory services for agriculture ... from the field to the feed bunk.
Farm: UC DAVIS SILAGE EXPERIMENT
Desc: CHOPPED & GROUND CORN TOP
Submitter: HSIEH, TIFFANY
Account: UC DAVIS
Copies to: GREEN, PETER
Lab ID: 15447 030
Sampled:
Arrived: 11/05/2013
Completed: 11/12/2013
Reported: 11/12/2013
Additional Memo
Guide to Safety of Forages with Varying Nitrate Content
0.0 to 0,44 Safe to feed under all conditions.
0.44 to 0.66 Safe for non-pregnant animals under all
conditions. For pregnant animals, limit to
50% of the total dry matter in the ration.
0.66 to 0.88 Limit to 50% of the total dry matter in
the ration.
0.88 to 1.54 Limit to 35% to 40% of the total dry matter
in the ration.
More than 1.54 Feeds with more than 1.76% nitrate ion are
potentially toxic. Do not feed.
Should be tempered by nitrate and nitrite content of the
water supply. A total intake of more than 30 g of nitrate
ion per cwt bodyweight of normal animals may result in acute toxicity and possible death. Levels of 8 to 22 g of nitrate
per cwt bodyweight may result in acute toxicity if animals
are undergoing a change in feed or have otherwise impaired
rumen metabolism. Nitrites may be six to eight times as
toxic as nitrates and are more apt to occur in water. Most problems of toxicity result from levels exceeding 1%.
From: Penn State Dairy Reference Manual
Powered by Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
-------
Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
Laboratory services for agriculture ... from the field to the feed bunk.
Type: CORN SILAGE
Farm: UCDAVIS SILAGE EXPERIMENT
Desc: CHOPPED AND GROUND CORN -
HSIEH TIFFANY
UC DAVIS
CHOPPED AND GROUND CORN - MIDDLE
Copies to: GREEN, PETER
Regression; OH
FERMENTATION
Lab ID: 15447 031
Sampled:
Arrived: 11/05/2013
Completed: 11/12/2013
Reported: 11/12/2013
SAMPLE INFORMATION
Lab ID:
Crop Year:
Cutting#:
Feed Type:
15447 031
2013
CORN SILAGE
Series:
Version:
1.0
CHEMISTRY ANALYSIS RESULTS
Moisture
66.0
Dry Matter
34.0
PROTEINS
% SP % CP
% DM
Crude Protein
6.4
Adjusted Protein
6.4
Soluble Protein
31.1
2.0
Ammonia
ADF Protein (ADICP)
NDF Protein (NDICP)
NDR Protein (NDRCP)
Rumen Degr. Protein
65.6
4.2
Rumen Deg. CP (Strep.G)
FIBER
% NDF
% DM
ADF
58.7
23.3
NDF
39.8
aNDFom
NDR (NDF w/o sulfite)
peNDF
Crude Fiber
Lignin
NDF Digestibility (12 hr)
NDF Digestibility (24 hr)
NDF Digestibility (30 hr)
NDF Digestibility (48 hr)
NDF Digestibility (240 hr)
Indigestible NDF
MINERALS
Ash (%DM)
Calcium (%DM)
Phosphorus (%DM)
Magnesium (%DM)
Potassium (%DM)
Sulfur (%DM)
Sodium (%DM)
Chloride (%DM)
Iron (PPM)
Manganese(PPM)
Zinc (PPM)
Copper(PPM)
Molybdenum (PPM)
Selenium (PPM)
Nitrate Ion (%DM)
Definitions and explanation of report terms
4.60
0.20
0.22
0.14
1.04
0.007
297
37
22
5
0.04
pH
Total VFA
Lactic Acid (%DM)
Lactic as % of Total VFA
Acetic Acid (v..DM)
Propionic Acid (%DM)
Butyric Acid (%DM)
Isobutyric Acid (%DM)
Titratable Acidity (meq/lOOgm)
1, 2 Propanediol (%DM)
Mold Count (col/gm)
Yeast Count (col/gm)
Particle Size ( Penn State )
- Particles greater than 0.75"
- Particles from 0.31" to 0.75"
- Particles less than 0.31"
CARBOHYDRATES
Silage Acids
Ethanol Soluble CHO (Sugar)
Water soluble CHO (Sugar)
Starch
Soluble Fiber
Starch Digestibility (7 hr)
Fatty Acids, Total (%DM)
Crude Fat
Acid Hydrolysis Fat
ENERGY & INDEX CALCULATIONS
TDN (%DM)
Net Energy Lactation (mcal/lb)
Schwab/Shaver NEL (Processed)
Schwab/Shaver NEL (Unprocessed)
Net Energy Maintenance (mcal/lb)
Net Energy Gain (mcal/lb)
NDF Dig. Rate (Kd, %HR, Van Amburgh, Lignin'
NDF Dig. Rate (Kd, %HR, Van Amburgh, iNDF)
Starch Dig. Rate (Kd, %HR, Mertens)
Relative Feed Value (RFV)
Relative Feed Quality (RFQ)
Milk per Ton (lbs/ton)
Dig. Organic Matter Index (lbs/ton)
Non Fiber Carbohydrates (%DM)
Non Structural Carbohydrates (%DM)
DCAD (meq/lOOgdm)
Additional sample information, source and lab
pictures
% Starch % NFC % DM
6.1
72.8
2.9
34.8
71.2
0.74
0.73
0.70
0.76
0.48
2.4)
3189
47,8
37.7
m
Powered by Cumberland Valley Analytical Services ^
B
I 45 I 5 Industry Drive, Hagerstown, MD 2 I 742
www.foragelab.com | mail@foragelab.com | 301-790-1980 | 800-CVAS-LAB
-------
Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
Laboratory services for agriculture ... from the field to the feed bunk.
Farm: UCDAVIS SILAGE EXPERIMENT
Desc: CHOPPED AND GROUND CORN - MIDDLE
Submitter: HSIEH, TIFFANY
Account: UC DAVIS
Copies to: GREEN, PETER
Lab ID: 15447 031
Sampled:
Arrived: 11/05/2013
Completed: 11/12/2013
Reported: 11/12/2013
Additional Memo
Guide to Safety of Forages with Varying Nitrate Content
0.0 to 0,44 Safe to feed under all conditions.
0.44 to 0.66 Safe for non-pregnant animals under all
conditions. For pregnant animals, limit to
50% of the total dry matter in the ration.
0.66 to 0.88 Limit to 50% of the total dry matter in
the ration.
0.88 to 1.54 Limit to 35% to 40% of the total dry matter
in the ration.
More than 1.54 Feeds with more than 1.76% nitrate ion are
potentially toxic. Do not feed.
Should be tempered by nitrate and nitrite content of the
water supply. A total intake of more than 30 g of nitrate
ion per cwt bodyweight of normal animals may result in acute toxicity and possible death. Levels of 8 to 22 g of nitrate
per cwt bodyweight may result in acute toxicity if animals
are undergoing a change in feed or have otherwise impaired
rumen metabolism. Nitrites may be six to eight times as
toxic as nitrates and are more apt to occur in water. Most problems of toxicity result from levels exceeding 1%.
From: Penn State Dairy Reference Manual
Powered by Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
-------
Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
Laboratory services for agriculture ... from the field to the feed bunk.
Type: CORN SILAGE
Farm: UC DAVIS SILAGE EXPERIMENT
Desc: CHOPPED AND GROUND CORN -
HSIEH TIFFANY
UC DAVIS
CHOPPED AND GROUND CORN - BOTTOM
Copies to: GREEN, PETER
Regression; OH
FERMENTATION
Lab ID: 15447 032
Sampled:
Arrived: 11/05/2013
Completed: 11/12/2013
Reported: 11/12/2013
SAMPLE INFORMATION
Lab ID:
Crop Year:
Cutting#:
Feed Type:
15447 032
2013
CORN SILAGE
Series:
Version:
1.0
CHEMISTRY ANALYSIS RESULTS
Moisture
66.1
Dry Matter
33.9
PROTEINS
% SP % CP
% DM
Crude Protein
5.9
Adjusted Protein
5.9
Soluble Protein
24,6
1.5
Ammonia
ADF Protein (ADICP)
NDF Protein (NDICP)
NDR Protein (NDRCP)
Rumen Degr. Protein
62.3
3.7
Rumen Deg. CP (Strep.G)
FIBER
% NDF
% DM
ADF
57.3
22.1
NDF
38.5
aNDFom
NDR (NDF w/o sulfite)
peNDF
Crude Fiber
Lignin
NDF Digestibility (12 hr)
NDF Digestibility (24 hr)
NDF Digestibility (30 hr)
NDF Digestibility (48 hr)
NDF Digestibility (240 hr)
Indigestible NDF
MINERALS
Ash (%DM)
Calcium (%DM)
Phosphorus (%DM)
Magnesium (%DM)
Potassium (%DM)
Sulfur (%DM)
Sodium (%DM)
Chloride (%DM)
Iron (PPM)
Manganese(PPM)
Zinc (PPM)
Copper(PPM)
Molybdenum (PPM)
Selenium (PPM)
Nitrate Ion (%DM)
Definitions and explanation of report terms
pH
Total VFA
Lactic Acid (%DM)
Lactic as % of Total VFA
Acetic Acid (v..DM)
Propionic Acid (%DM)
Butyric Acid (%DM)
Isobutyric Acid (%DM)
Titratable Acidity (meq/lOOgm)
1, 2 Propanediol (%DM)
Mold Count (col/gm)
Yeast Count (col/gm)
Particle Size ( Penn State )
- Particles greater than 0.75"
- Particles from 0.31" to 0.75"
- Particles less than 0.31"
CARBOHYDRATES
% Starch % NFC % DM
3.86
0.17
0.20
0.12
0.94
0.007
213
32
21
5
0.04
Silage Acids
Ethanol Soluble CHO (Sugar) 6,0
Water soluble CHO (Sugar)
Starch 72.6
Soluble Fiber
Starch Digestibility (7 hr)
Fatty Acids, Total (%DM)
Crude Fat
Acid Hydrolysis Fat
ENERGY & INDEX CALCULATIONS
TDN (%DM)
Net Energy Lactation (mcal/lb)
Schwab/Shaver NEL (Processed)
Schwab/Shaver NEL (Unprocessed)
Net Energy Maintenance (mcal/lb)
Net Energy Gain (mcal/lb)
NDF Dig. Rate (Kd, %HR, Van Amburgh, Lignin*2.4)
NDF Dig. Rate (Kd, %HR, Van Amburgh, iNDF)
Starch Dig. Rate (Kd, %HR, Mertens)
Relative Feed Value (RFV)
Relative Feed Quality (RFQ)
Milk per Ton (lbs/ton)
Dig. Organic Matter Index (lbs/ton)
Non Fiber Carbohydrates (%DM)
Non Structural Carbohydrates (%DM)
DCAD (meq/lOOgdm)
Additional sample information, source and lab
pictures
3.0
36.4
72.6
0.76
0.75
0.72
0.78
0.50
3326
50.1
39.4
Powered by Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
-------
Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
Laboratory services for agriculture ... from the field to the feed bunk.
Farm: UC DAVIS SILAGE EXPERIMENT
Desc: CHOPPED AND GROUND CORN - BOTTOM
Submitter: HSIEH, TIFFANY
Account: UC DAVIS
Copies to: GREEN, PETER
Lab ID: 15447 032
Sampled:
Arrived: 11/05/2013
Completed: 11/12/2013
Reported: 11/12/2013
Additional Memo
Guide to Safety of Forages with Varying Nitrate Content
0.0 to 0,44 Safe to feed under all conditions.
0.44 to 0.66 Safe for non-pregnant animals under all
conditions. For pregnant animals, limit to
50% of the total dry matter in the ration.
0.66 to 0.88 Limit to 50% of the total dry matter in
the ration.
0.88 to 1.54 Limit to 35% to 40% of the total dry matter
in the ration.
More than 1.54 Feeds with more than 1.76% nitrate ion are
potentially toxic. Do not feed.
Should be tempered by nitrate and nitrite content of the
water supply. A total intake of more than 30 g of nitrate
ion per cwt bodyweight of normal animals may result in acute toxicity and possible death. Levels of 8 to 22 g of nitrate
per cwt bodyweight may result in acute toxicity if animals
are undergoing a change in feed or have otherwise impaired
rumen metabolism. Nitrites may be six to eight times as
toxic as nitrates and are more apt to occur in water. Most problems of toxicity result from levels exceeding 1%.
From: Penn State Dairy Reference Manual
Powered by Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
-------
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS
BERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • MERCED • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO
SANTA BARBARA • SANTA CRUZ
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
ONE SHIELDS AVENUE
DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616
PHONE (530) 752-0586
FAX (530) 752-7872
MEMORANDUM (Draft)
To: Dawn S. Chianese, ENVIRON International Corporation
Julia C. Lester, ENVIRON International Corporation
CC: J. P. Cativela
Michael Kosusko
Sona Chilingaryan
From: Peter G. Green, Ph.D, University of California at Davis
Subject: Response to ENVIRON Comments on EPA Silage NOx Emissions Research
We have reviewed your comments concerning the workplan for "EPA Silage NOx Emissions
Research." Comments were sent to Sona Chilingaryan from Drs. Chianese and Lester of
ENVIRON on November 12, 2012. We appreciate your input and have modified the workplan in
response to your comments. We look forward to communicating with you about future research.
There are three topics in the technical portion of the comments.
Comment 1. NOx emissions from silage are a relatively small contribution to the emissions
inventory in the San Joaquin Valley and California in general, as compared to other
sources.
Response 1. This is not certain. Given the critical importance of NOx in summertime air quality
for some regions of California, it merits further investigation. The flux of NOx
during the initial stages of the ensiling process may be sufficient to impact ambient
NOx levels during the harvest season. The potential for high emission rates is
indicated in the literature for farm health and safety as "Silo Filler's Disease"'). This
research study attempts to investigate the mechanism of formation of NOx.
This has been clarified in the work plan.
Comment 2.
In order to gain a better understanding of the contribution from silage piles,
emissions should be measured under field conditions, not in the laboratory.
(Emissions question)
-------
Response 2. We agree that silage NOx emissions should be studied in the field to get reliable
emission factors at harvest and the early stages of ensiling. At this point, we are
only investigating the potential of NOx generation during ensiling, and its possible
mechanism or mechanisms. Hence, laboratory studies are beneficial.
We will be sure to make this clear in the final report.
Comment 3. The relative contribution of silage piles to NOx emissions needs to be quantified
under field conditions before mitigation can be considered. (Mitigation Question)
Response 3. We agree that field measurements are ideal when research progresses to the point of
considering mitigation efforts. At this point, we are only investigating mechanisms,
so laboratory studies are beneficial. This is exploratory research at most, we may
gain a bit of understanding about ensiling mechanisms. We agree that mitigation
methods should be studied in the field, and would expect to do so once basic
understanding of mechanisms has been achieved. There are not enough resources
committed to this project to explore emissions mitigation methods in the field. We
acknowledge that this is a complex issue that would require a much larger study to
resolve. We thank you for your input on the planning of this future study, should it
ever be funded.
-------
Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
Laboratory services for agriculture ... from the field to the feed bunk.
Farm: A1
Copies to:
GREEN, PETER
Lab ID:
15563 004
Desc: A1
Sampled:
Submitter: HSIEH, TIFFANY
Arrived:
12/05/2013
Account: UC DAVIS
Completed:
12/11/2013
Reported
12/11/2013
ANALYSIS RESULTS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Dry Matter
32.7
%
32.9 - 35.1
PROTEINS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Ammonia (NPN)
0.15
0.45
QUALITATIVE
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
pH
1.27
3.89
3.7 - 4.5
Total VFA
1.84
5.62
% DM
5,6 - 9,3
Lactic Acid
1,50
4,60
% DM
3,4 - 6.5
Lactic as % of Total VFA
26.81
82
Acetic Acid
0.34
1.03
% DM
1,2 - 3.2
Butyric Acid
1, 2 Propanediol
Titratable Acidity (meq/lOOgm)
% DM
% DM
0,1 - 0.9
0,0 - 1.5
2.28
Powered by Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
I 45 I 5 Industry Drive, Hagerstown, MD 2 I 742 ; '
www.foragelab.com | mail@foragelab.com | 301-790-1980 | 800-CVAS-LAB
B Lpea
-------
Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
Laboratory services for agriculture ... from the field to the feed bunk.
Farm: A2
Copies to:
GREEN, PETER
Lab ID:
15563 005
Desc: A2
Sampled:
Submitter: HSIEH, TIFFANY
Arrived:
12/05/2013
Account: UC DAVIS
Completed:
12/11/2013
Reported
12/11/2013
ANALYSIS RESULTS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Dry Matter
32.1
%
32.9 - 35.1
PROTEINS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Ammonia (NPN)
0.13
0.42
QUALITATIVE
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
pH
1.24
3.85
3.7 - 4.5
Total VFA
1.83
5.70
% DM
5,6 - 9,3
Lactic Acid
1.48
4,60
% DM
3,4 - 6.5
Lactic as % of Total VFA
26.00
81
Acetic Acid
0.36
1.11
% DM
1,2 - 3.2
Butyric Acid
% DM
0,1 - 0,9
1, 2 Propanediol
% DM
0,0 - 1.5
Titratable Acidity (meq/lOOgm)
2.16
6.73
Powered by Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
I 45 I 5 Industry Drive, Hagerstown, MD 2 I 742 ; '
www.foragelab.com | mail@foragelab.com | 301-790-1980 | 800-CVAS-LAB
B Lpea
-------
Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
Laboratory services for agriculture ... from the field to the feed bunk.
Farm: A3
Copies to:
GREEN, PETER
Lab ID:
15563 006
Desc: A3
Sampled:
Submitter: HSIEH, TIFFANY
Arrived:
12/05/2013
Account: UC DAVIS
Completed:
12/11/2013
Reported
12/11/2013
ANALYSIS RESULTS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Dry Matter
33.3
%
32.9 - 35,1
PROTEINS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Ammonia (NPN)
0.13
0.38
QUALITATIVE
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
pH
1.28
3.83
3.7 - 4.5
Total VFA
1,92
5,77
% DM
5,6 - 9,3
Lactic Acid
1,57
4,70
% DM
3,4 - 6.5
Lactic as % of Total VFA
26,97
81
Acetic Acid
0,34
1.03
% DM
1,2 - 3.2
Butyric Acid
% DM
0,1 - 0,9
1, 2 Propanediol
% DM
0,0 - 1.5
Titratable Acidity (meq/lOOgm)
2,42
7.26
Powered by Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
I 45 I 5 Industry Drive, Hagerstown, MD 2 I 742 ; '
www.foragelab.com | mail@foragelab.com | 301-790-1980 | 800-CVAS-LAB
B Lpea
-------
Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
Laboratory services for agriculture ... from the field to the feed bunk.
Farm: A4
Copies to:
GREEN, PETER
Lab ID:
15563 007
Desc: A4
Sampled:
Submitter: HSIEH, TIFFANY
Arrived:
12/05/2013
Account: UC DAVIS
Completed:
12/11/2013
Reported
12/11/2013
ANALYSIS RESULTS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Dry Matter
33.1
%
32.9 - 35,1
PROTEINS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Ammonia (NPN)
0.13
0.38
QUALITATIVE
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
pH
1.27
3.84
3.7 - 4.5
Total VFA
1,90
5,75
% DM
5,6 - 9,3
Lactic Acid
1,56
4,70
% DM
3,4 - 6.5
Lactic as % of Total VFA
27,14
82
Acetic Acid
0,33
1.01
% DM
1,2 - 3.2
Butyric Acid
% DM
0,1 - 0,9
1, 2 Propanediol
% DM
0,0 - 1.5
Titratable Acidity (meq/lOOgm)
2,47
7.45
Powered by Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
I 45 I 5 Industry Drive, Hagerstown, MD 2 I 742 ; '
www.foragelab.com | mail@foragelab.com | 301-790-1980 | 800-CVAS-LAB
B Lpea
-------
Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
Laboratory services for agriculture ... from the field to the feed bunk.
Farm: A5
Copies to:
GREEN, PETER
Lab ID:
15563 008
Desc: A5
Sampled:
Submitter: HSIEH, TIFFANY
Arrived:
12/05/2013
Account: UC DAVIS
Completed:
12/11/2013
Reported
12/11/2013
ANALYSIS RESULTS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Dry Matter
32.1
%
32.9 - 35,1
PROTEINS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Ammonia (NPN)
0.13
0.42
QUALITATIVE
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
pH
1.23
3.82
3.7 - 4.5
Total VFA
1.89
5,90
% DM
5,6 - 9,3
Lactic Acid
1,54
4,80
% DM
3,4 - 6.5
Lactic as % of Total VFA
26,00
81
Acetic Acid
0,34
1.06
% DM
1,2 - 3.2
Butyric Acid
% DM
0,1 - 0,9
1, 2 Propanediol
% DM
0,0 - 1.5
Titratable Acidity (meq/lOOgm)
2,25
7.02
Powered by Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
I 45 I 5 Industry Drive, Hagerstown, MD 2 I 742 ; '
www.foragelab.com | mail@foragelab.com | 301-790-1980 | 800-CVAS-LAB
B Lpea
-------
Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
Laboratory services for agriculture ... from the field to the feed bunk.
Farm: CI
Copies to:
GREEN, PETER
Lab ID:
15563 009
Desc: CI
Sampled:
Submitter: HSIEH, TIFFANY
Arrived:
12/05/2013
Account: UC DAVIS
Completed:
12/11/2013
Reported
12/11/2013
ANALYSIS RESULTS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Dry Matter
32.7
%
32.9 - 35,1
PROTEINS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Ammonia (NPN)
0.16
0.48
QUALITATIVE
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
pH
1.29
3.94
3.7 - 4.5
Total VFA
1.88
5,74
% DM
5,6 - 9,3
Lactic Acid
1.37
4,20
% DM
3,4 - 6.5
Lactic as % of Total VFA
23.87
73
Acetic Acid
0,51
1.57
% DM
1,2 - 3.2
Butyric Acid
% DM
0,1 - 0,9
1, 2 Propanediol
% DM
0,0 - 1.5
Titratable Acidity (meq/lOOgm)
1,27
3.89
Powered by Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
I 45 I 5 Industry Drive, Hagerstown, MD 2 I 742 ; '
www.foragelab.com | mail@foragelab.com | 301-790-1980 | 800-CVAS-LAB
B Lpea
-------
Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
Laboratory services for agriculture ... from the field to the feed bunk.
Farm: C2
Copies to:
GREEN, PETER
Lab ID:
15563 010
Desc: C2
Sampled:
Submitter: HSIEH, TIFFANY
Arrived:
12/05/2013
Account: UC DAVIS
Completed:
12/11/2013
Reported
12/11/2013
ANALYSIS RESULTS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Dry Matter
31.9
%
29.3 - 31,4
PROTEINS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Ammonia (NPN)
0.14
0.43
QUALITATIVE
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
pH
1.26
3.95
3.7 - 4.5
Total VFA
1,91
5,99
% DM
6,0 - 9,8
Lactic Acid
1,44
4,50
% DM
3,5 - 6.8
Lactic as % of Total VFA
23,92
75
Acetic Acid
0,48
1.49
% DM
1,4 - 3.5
Butyric Acid
% DM
0,1 - 1,0
1, 2 Propanediol
% DM
-0,1 - 1.8
Titratable Acidity (meq/lOOgm)
2,00
6.26
Powered by Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
I 45 I 5 Industry Drive, Hagerstown, MD 2 I 742 ; '
www.foragelab.com | mail@foragelab.com | 301-790-1980 | 800-CVAS-LAB
B Lpea
-------
Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
Laboratory services for agriculture ... from the field to the feed bunk.
Farm: C3
Copies to:
GREEN, PETER
Lab ID:
15563 Oil
Desc: C3
Sampled:
Submitter: HSIEH, TIFFANY
Arrived:
12/05/2013
Account: UC DAVIS
Completed:
12/11/2013
Reported
12/11/2013
ANALYSIS RESULTS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Dry Matter
32.3
%
32.9 - 35,1
PROTEINS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Ammonia (NPN)
0.16
0.48
QUALITATIVE
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
pH
1.28
3.97
3.7 - 4.5
Total VFA
1.88
5,83
% DM
5,6 - 9,3
Lactic Acid
1.42
4,40
% DM
3,4 - 6.5
Lactic as % of Total VFA
24.22
75
Acetic Acid
0.46
1.43
% DM
1,2 - 3.2
Butyric Acid
% DM
0,1 - 0,9
1, 2 Propanediol
% DM
0,0 - 1.5
Titratable Acidity (meq/lOOgm)
2.43
7.51
Powered by Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
I 45 I 5 Industry Drive, Hagerstown, MD 2 I 742 ; '
www.foragelab.com | mail@foragelab.com | 301-790-1980 | 800-CVAS-LAB
B Lpea
-------
Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
Laboratory services for agriculture ... from the field to the feed bunk.
Farm: C4
Copies to:
GREEN, PETER
Lab ID:
15563 012
Desc: C4
Sampled:
Submitter: HSIEH, TIFFANY
Arrived:
12/05/2013
Account: UC DAVIS
Completed:
12/11/2013
Reported
12/11/2013
ANALYSIS RESULTS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Dry Matter
32.4
%
32.9 - 35,1
PROTEINS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Ammonia (NPN)
0.14
0.42
QUALITATIVE
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
pH
1.27
3.92
3.7 - 4.5
Total VFA
2.00
6,16
% DM
5,6 - 9,3
Lactic Acid
1.49
4,60
% DM
3,4 - 6.5
Lactic as % of Total VFA
24.3
75
Acetic Acid
0.49
1.52
% DM
1,2 - 3.2
Butyric Acid
% DM
0,1 - 0,9
1, 2 Propanediol
% DM
0,0 - 1.5
Titratable Acidity (meq/lOOgm)
1.97
6.07
Powered by Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
I 45 I 5 Industry Drive, Hagerstown, MD 2 I 742 ; '
www.foragelab.com | mail@foragelab.com | 301-790-1980 | 800-CVAS-LAB
B Lpea
-------
Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
Laboratory services for agriculture ... from the field to the feed bunk.
Farm: C5
Copies to:
GREEN, PETER
Lab ID:
15563 013
Desc: C5
Sampled:
Submitter: HSIEH, TIFFANY
Arrived:
12/05/2013
Account: UC DAVIS
Completed:
12/11/2013
Reported
12/11/2013
ANALYSIS RESULTS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Dry Matter
33.9
%
32.9 - 35,1
PROTEINS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Ammonia (NPN)
0.15
0.43
QUALITATIVE
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
pH
1.33
3.93
3.7 - 4.5
Total VFA
1,93
5.68
% DM
5,6 - 9,3
Lactic Acid
1,49
4,40
% DM
3,4 - 6.5
Lactic as % of Total VFA
26,10
77
Acetic Acid
0,42
1.25
% DM
1,2 - 3.2
Butyric Acid
% DM
0,1 - 0,9
1, 2 Propanediol
% DM
0,0 - 1.5
Titratable Acidity (meq/lOOgm)
2,27
6.71
Powered by Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
I 45 I 5 Industry Drive, Hagerstown, MD 2 I 742 ; '
www.foragelab.com | mail@foragelab.com | 301-790-1980 | 800-CVAS-LAB
B Lpea
-------
Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
Laboratory services for agriculture ... from the field to the feed bunk.
Farm: N1
Copies to:
GREEN, PETER
Lab ID:
15563 014
Desc: N1
Sampled:
Submitter: HSIEH, TIFFANY
Arrived:
12/05/2013
Account: UC DAVIS
Completed:
12/11/2013
Reported
12/11/2013
ANALYSIS RESULTS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Dry Matter
32.4
%
32.9 - 35.1
PROTEINS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Ammonia (NPN)
0.14
0.42
QUALITATIVE
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
pH
1.28
3.94
3.7 - 4.5
Total VFA
1.80
5.55
% DM
5,6 - 9,3
Lactic Acid
1.39
4,30
% DM
3,4 - 6.5
Lactic as % of Total VFA
24.95
77
Acetic Acid
0.42
1.29
% DM
1,2 - 3.2
Butyric Acid
% DM
0,1 - 0,9
1, 2 Propanediol
% DM
0,0 - 1.5
Titratable Acidity (meq/lOOgm)
2.19
6.77
Powered by Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
I 45 I 5 Industry Drive, Hagerstown, MD 2 I 742 ; '
www.foragelab.com | mail@foragelab.com | 301-790-1980 | 800-CVAS-LAB
B Lpea
-------
Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
Laboratory services for agriculture ... from the field to the feed bunk.
Farm: N2
Copies to:
GREEN, PETER
Lab ID:
15563 015
Desc: N2
Sampled:
Submitter: HSIEH, TIFFANY
Arrived:
12/05/2013
Account: UC DAVIS
Completed:
12/11/2013
Reported
12/11/2013
ANALYSIS RESULTS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Dry Matter
31.6
%
29.3 - 31.4
PROTEINS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Ammonia (NPN)
0.14
0.43
QUALITATIVE
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
pH
1.25
3.95
3.7 - 4.5
Total VFA
1.65
5.22
% DM
6,0 - 9,8
Lactic Acid
1.23
3,90
% DM
3,5 - 6.8
Lactic as % of Total VFA
23.7
75
Acetic Acid
0.40
1.28
% DM
1,4 - 3.5
Butyric Acid
% DM
0,1 - 1,0
1, 2 Propanediol
% DM
-0,1 - 1.8
Titratable Acidity (meq/lOOgm)
2.03
6.42
Powered by Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
I 45 I 5 Industry Drive, Hagerstown, MD 2 I 742 ; '
www.foragelab.com | mail@foragelab.com | 301-790-1980 | 800-CVAS-LAB
B Lpea
-------
Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
Laboratory services for agriculture ... from the field to the feed bunk.
Farm: N3
Copies to:
GREEN, PETER
Lab ID:
15563 016
Desc: N3
Sampled:
Submitter: HSIEH, TIFFANY
Arrived:
12/05/2013
Account: UC DAVIS
Completed:
12/11/2013
Reported
12/11/2013
ANALYSIS RESULTS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Dry Matter
32.4
%
32.9 - 35,1
PROTEINS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Ammonia (NPN)
0.14
0.42
QUALITATIVE
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
pH
1.28
3.96
3.7 - 4.5
Total VFA
1,77
5.46
% DM
5,6 - 9,3
Lactic Acid
1.36
4,20
% DM
3,4 - 6.5
Lactic as % of Total VFA
24,95
77
Acetic Acid
0,41
1.28
% DM
1,2 - 3.2
Butyric Acid
% DM
0,1 - 0,9
1, 2 Propanediol
% DM
0,0 - 1.5
Titratable Acidity (meq/lOOgm)
2,22
6.86
Powered by Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
I 45 I 5 Industry Drive, Hagerstown, MD 2 I 742 ; '
www.foragelab.com | mail@foragelab.com | 301-790-1980 | 800-CVAS-LAB
B Lpea
-------
Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
Laboratory services for agriculture ... from the field to the feed bunk.
Farm: N4
Copies to:
GREEN, PETER
Lab ID:
15563 017
Desc: N4
Sampled:
Submitter: HSIEH, TIFFANY
Arrived:
12/05/2013
Account: UC DAVIS
Completed:
12/11/2013
Reported
12/11/2013
ANALYSIS RESULTS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Dry Matter
32.7
%
32.9 - 35.1
PROTEINS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Ammonia (NPN)
0.15
0.45
QUALITATIVE
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
pH
1.29
3.96
3.7 - 4.5
Total VFA
1.82
5.58
% DM
5,6 - 9,3
Lactic Acid
1.34
4,10
% DM
3,4 - 6.5
Lactic as % of Total VFA
23.87
73
Acetic Acid
0.48
1.48
% DM
1,2 - 3.2
Butyric Acid
% DM
0,1 - 0,9
1, 2 Propanediol
% DM
0,0 - 1.5
Titratable Acidity (meq/lOOgm)
2.34
7.15
Powered by Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
I 45 I 5 Industry Drive, Hagerstown, MD 2 I 742 ; '
www.foragelab.com | mail@foragelab.com | 301-790-1980 | 800-CVAS-LAB
B Lpea
-------
Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
Laboratory services for agriculture ... from the field to the feed bunk.
Farm: N5
Copies to:
GREEN, PETER
Lab ID:
15563 018
Desc: N5
Sampled:
Submitter: HSIEH, TIFFANY
Arrived:
12/05/2013
Account: UC DAVIS
Completed:
12/11/2013
Reported
12/11/2013
ANALYSIS RESULTS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Dry Matter
32.0
%
32.9 - 35,1
PROTEINS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Ammonia (NPN)
0.18
0.55
QUALITATIVE
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
pH
1.25
3.92
3.7 - 4.5
Total VFA
1,76
5,51
% DM
5,6 - 9,3
Lactic Acid
1.28
4,00
% DM
3,4 - 6.5
Lactic as % of Total VFA
23,36
73
Acetic Acid
0,47
1.48
% DM
1,2 - 3.2
Butyric Acid
% DM
0,1 - 0,9
1, 2 Propanediol
% DM
0,0 - 1.5
Titratable Acidity (meq/lOOgm)
2,25
7.04
Powered by Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
I 45 I 5 Industry Drive, Hagerstown, MD 2 I 742 ; '
www.foragelab.com | mail@foragelab.com | 301-790-1980 | 800-CVAS-LAB
B Lpea
-------
Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
Laboratory services for agriculture ... from the field to the feed bunk.
Farm: SI
Copies to:
GREEN, PETER
Lab ID:
15563 019
Desc: SI
Sampled:
Submitter: HSIEH, TIFFANY
Arrived:
12/05/2013
Account: UC DAVIS
Completed:
12/11/2013
Reported
12/11/2013
ANALYSIS RESULTS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Dry Matter
34.3
%
32.9 - 35.1
PROTEINS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Ammonia (NPN)
0.14
0.42
QUALITATIVE
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
pH
1.44
4.19
3.7 - 4.5
Total VFA
1.20
3.51
% DM
5,6 - 9,3
Lactic Acid
0.86
2,50
% DM
3,4 - 6.5
Lactic as % of Total VFA
24.35
71
Acetic Acid
0.34
0.99
% DM
1,2 - 3.2
Butyric Acid
% DM
0,1 - 0,9
1, 2 Propanediol
% DM
0,0 - 1.5
Titratable Acidity (meq/lOOgm)
1.24
3.61
Powered by Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
I 45 I 5 Industry Drive, Hagerstown, MD 2 I 742 ; '
www.foragelab.com | mail@foragelab.com | 301-790-1980 | 800-CVAS-LAB
B Lpea
-------
Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
Laboratory services for agriculture ... from the field to the feed bunk.
Farm: S2
Copies to:
GREEN, PETER
Lab ID:
15563 021
Desc: S2
Sampled:
Submitter: HSIEH, TIFFANY
Arrived:
12/05/2013
Account: UC DAVIS
Completed:
12/11/2013
Reported
12/11/2013
ANALYSIS RESULTS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Dry Matter
32.8
%
32.9 - 35,1
PROTEINS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Ammonia (NPN)
0.13
0.41
QUALITATIVE
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
pH
1.34
4.09
3.7 - 4.5
Total VFA
1.38
4,20
% DM
5,6 - 9,3
Lactic Acid
1.08
3,30
% DM
3,4 - 6.5
Lactic as % of Total VFA
25.91
79
Acetic Acid
0.30
0.90
% DM
1,2 - 3.2
Butyric Acid
% DM
0,1 - 0,9
1, 2 Propanediol
% DM
0,0 - 1.5
Titratable Acidity (meq/lOOgm)
1.41
4,31
Powered by Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
I 45 I 5 Industry Drive, Hagerstown, MD 2 I 742 ; '
www.foragelab.com | mail@foragelab.com | 301-790-1980 | 800-CVAS-LAB
B Lpea
-------
Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
Laboratory services for agriculture ... from the field to the feed bunk.
Farm: S3
Copies to:
GREEN, PETER
Lab ID:
15563 022
Desc: S3
Sampled:
Submitter: HSIEH, TIFFANY
Arrived:
12/05/2013
Account: UC DAVIS
Completed:
12/11/2013
Reported
12/11/2013
ANALYSIS RESULTS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Dry Matter
32.8
%
32.9 - 35,1
PROTEINS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Ammonia (NPN)
0.13
0.41
QUALITATIVE
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
pH
1.39
4.25
3.7 - 4.5
Total VFA
1.28
3,91
% DM
5,6 - 9,3
Lactic Acid
0,98
3,00
% DM
3,4 - 6.5
Lactic as % of Total VFA
25,26
77
Acetic Acid
0,30
0.91
% DM
1,2 - 3.2
Butyric Acid
% DM
0,1 - 0,9
1, 2 Propanediol
% DM
0,0 - 1.5
Titratable Acidity (meq/lOOgm)
1,15
3.51
Powered by Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
I 45 I 5 Industry Drive, Hagerstown, MD 2 I 742 ; '
www.foragelab.com | mail@foragelab.com | 301-790-1980 | 800-CVAS-LAB
B Lpea
-------
Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
Laboratory services for agriculture ... from the field to the feed bunk.
Farm: S4
Copies to:
GREEN, PETER
Lab ID:
15563 023
Desc: S4
Sampled:
Submitter: HSIEH, TIFFANY
Arrived:
12/05/2013
Account: UC DAVIS
Completed:
12/11/2013
Reported
12/11/2013
ANALYSIS RESULTS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Dry Matter
33.6
%
32.9 - 35,1
PROTEINS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Ammonia (NPN)
0.14
0.43
QUALITATIVE
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
pH
1.46
4.35
3.7 - 4.5
Total VFA
1,19
3,53
% DM
5,6 - 9,3
Lactic Acid
0,87
2,60
% DM
3,4 - 6.5
Lactic as % of Total VFA
24,86
74
Acetic Acid
0,33
0.97
% DM
1,2 - 3.2
Butyric Acid
% DM
0,1 - 0,9
1, 2 Propanediol
% DM
0,0 - 1.5
Titratable Acidity (meq/lOOgm)
1,10
3.27
Powered by Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
I 45 I 5 Industry Drive, Hagerstown, MD 2 I 742 ; '
www.foragelab.com | mail@foragelab.com | 301-790-1980 | 800-CVAS-LAB
B Lpea
-------
Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
Laboratory services for agriculture ... from the field to the feed bunk.
Farm: S5
Copies to:
GREEN, PETER
Lab ID:
15563 024
Desc: S5
Sampled:
Submitter: HSIEH, TIFFANY
Arrived:
12/05/2013
Account: UC DAVIS
Completed:
12/13/2013
Reported
12/13/2013
ANALYSIS RESULTS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Dry Matter
33.8
%
32.9 - 35,1
PROTEINS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Ammonia (NPN)
0.10
0.31
QUALITATIVE
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
pH
1.44
4.25
3.7 - 4.5
Total VFA
1.14
3.38
% DM
5,6 - 9,3
Lactic Acid
0,91
2,70
% DM
3,4 - 6.5
Lactic as % of Total VFA
27,04
80
Acetic Acid
0,23
0.69
% DM
1,2 - 3.2
Butyric Acid
% DM
0,1 - 0,9
1, 2 Propanediol
% DM
0,0 - 1.5
Titratable Acidity (meq/lOOgm)
1,12
3.32
Powered by Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
I 45 I 5 Industry Drive, Hagerstown, MD 2 I 742 ; '
www.foragelab.com | mail@foragelab.com | 301-790-1980 | 800-CVAS-LAB
B Lpea
-------
Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
Laboratory services for agriculture ... from the field to the feed bunk.
Farm: VI
Copies to:
GREEN, PETER
Lab ID:
15563 025
Desc: VI
Sampled:
Submitter: HSIEH, TIFFANY
Arrived:
12/05/2013
Account: UC DAVIS
Completed:
12/13/2013
Reported
12/13/2013
ANALYSIS RESULTS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Dry Matter
33.0
%
32.9 - 35,1
PROTEINS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Ammonia (NPN)
0.12
0.35
QUALITATIVE
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
pH
1.29
3.90
3.7 - 4.5
Total VFA
1,99
6,03
% DM
5,6 - 9,3
Lactic Acid
1,55
4,70
% DM
3,4 - 6.5
Lactic as % of Total VFA
25,74
78
Acetic Acid
0,45
1.37
% DM
1,2 - 3.2
Butyric Acid
% DM
0,1 - 0,9
1, 2 Propanediol
% DM
0,0 - 1.5
Titratable Acidity (meq/lOOgm)
2,34
7.08
Powered by Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
I 45 I 5 Industry Drive, Hagerstown, MD 2 I 742 ; '
www.foragelab.com | mail@foragelab.com | 301-790-1980 | 800-CVAS-LAB
B Lpea
-------
Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
Laboratory services for agriculture ... from the field to the feed bunk.
Farm: V2
Copies to:
GREEN, PETER
Lab ID:
15563 026
Desc: V 2
Sampled:
Submitter: HSIEH, TIFFANY
Arrived:
12/05/2013
Account: UC DAVIS
Completed:
12/13/2013
Reported
12/13/2013
ANALYSIS RESULTS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Dry Matter
33.0
%
32.9 - 35,1
PROTEINS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Ammonia (NPN)
0.10
0.29
QUALITATIVE
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
pH
1.29
3.90
3.7 - 4.5
Total VFA
1.82
5,51
% DM
5,6 - 9,3
Lactic Acid
1,55
4,70
% DM
3,4 - 6.5
Lactic as % of Total VFA
28,05
85
Acetic Acid
0,26
0.78
% DM
1,2 - 3.2
Butyric Acid
% DM
0,1 - 0,9
1, 2 Propanediol
% DM
0,0 - 1.5
Titratable Acidity (meq/lOOgm)
1,99
6.04
Powered by Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
I 45 I 5 Industry Drive, Hagerstown, MD 2 I 742 ; '
www.foragelab.com | mail@foragelab.com | 301-790-1980 | 800-CVAS-LAB
B Lpea
-------
Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
Laboratory services for agriculture ... from the field to the feed bunk.
Farm: V3
Copies to:
GREEN, PETER
Lab ID:
15563 027
Desc: V3
Sampled:
Submitter: HSIEH, TIFFANY
Arrived:
12/05/2013
Account: UC DAVIS
Completed:
12/13/2013
Reported
12/13/2013
ANALYSIS RESULTS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Dry Matter
32.5
%
32.9 - 35,1
PROTEINS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Ammonia (NPN)
0.10
0.30
QUALITATIVE
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
pH
1.26
3.88
3.7 - 4.5
Total VFA
1,97
6,07
% DM
5,6 - 9,3
Lactic Acid
1,53
4,70
% DM
3,4 - 6.5
Lactic as % of Total VFA
25,02
77
Acetic Acid
0,45
1.37
% DM
1,2 - 3.2
Butyric Acid
% DM
0,1 - 0,9
1, 2 Propanediol
% DM
0,0 - 1.5
Titratable Acidity (meq/lOOgm)
2,05
6,31
Powered by Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
I 45 I 5 Industry Drive, Hagerstown, MD 2 I 742 ; '
www.foragelab.com | mail@foragelab.com | 301-790-1980 | 800-CVAS-LAB
B Lpea
-------
Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
Laboratory services for agriculture ... from the field to the feed bunk.
Farm: V4
Copies to:
GREEN, PETER
Lab ID:
15563 028
Desc: V4
Sampled:
Submitter: HSIEH, TIFFANY
Arrived:
12/05/2013
Account: UC DAVIS
Completed:
12/13/2013
Reported
12/13/2013
ANALYSIS RESULTS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Dry Matter
32.1
%
32.9 - 35,1
PROTEINS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Ammonia (NPN)
0.11
0.33
QUALITATIVE
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
pH
1.25
3.90
3.7 - 4.5
Total VFA
2.06
6,42
% DM
5,6 - 9,3
Lactic Acid
1,57
4,90
% DM
3,4 - 6.5
Lactic as % of Total VFA
24.40
76
Acetic Acid
0,50
1.56
% DM
1,2 - 3.2
Butyric Acid
% DM
0,1 - 0,9
1, 2 Propanediol
% DM
0,0 - 1.5
Titratable Acidity (meq/lOOgm)
2,28
7.11
Powered by Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
I 45 I 5 Industry Drive, Hagerstown, MD 2 I 742 ; '
www.foragelab.com | mail@foragelab.com | 301-790-1980 | 800-CVAS-LAB
B Lpea
-------
Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
Laboratory services for agriculture ... from the field to the feed bunk.
Farm: V5
Copies to:
GREEN, PETER
Lab ID:
15563 029
Desc: V5
Sampled:
Submitter: HSIEH, TIFFANY
Arrived:
12/05/2013
Account: UC DAVIS
Completed:
12/13/2013
Reported
12/13/2013
ANALYSIS RESULTS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Dry Matter
32.4
%
32.9 - 35,1
PROTEINS
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
Ammonia (NPN)
0.12
0.36
QUALITATIVE
AS RECEIVED
% DM
UNIT
RANGES
pH
1.27
3.92
3.7 - 4.5
Total VFA
1,98
6,12
% DM
5,6 - 9,3
Lactic Acid
1,52
4,70
% DM
3,4 - 6.5
Lactic as % of Total VFA
24,95
77
Acetic Acid
0,46
1.43
% DM
1,2 - 3.2
Butyric Acid
% DM
0,1 - 0,9
1, 2 Propanediol
% DM
0,0 - 1.5
Titratable Acidity (meq/lOOgm)
2,23
6.87
Powered by Cumberland Valley Analytical Services
I 45 I 5 Industry Drive, Hagerstown, MD 2 I 742 ; '
www.foragelab.com | mail@foragelab.com | 301-790-1980 | 800-CVAS-LAB
B Lpea
-------
VIA EMAIL TO Chilintzaryan.Sonafaiepa.uov
April 2, 2014
Sona Chilingaryan
Agriculture Program
U.S. EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street (Air - 6)
San Francisco, CA 94105
Re; Draft report for contract No. EP-12-C000134, "Investigation of NOx Formation
Mechanisms During Ensiling and their Possible Inhibition"
Dear Ms. Chilingaryan:
On behalf of Dairy Cares, thank you for the opportunity to comments on the draft report,
"Investigation of NO\ Formation Mechanisms During Ensiling and their Possible Inhibition"
(hereafter "Draft Report").
Dairy Cares is a coalition of California's dairy producer and processor organizations, including
the state's largest producer trade associations (Western United Dairymen, California Dairy
Campaign, Milk Producers Council and California Farm Bureau Federation) and the largest milk
processing companies and cooperatives (including California Dairies, Inc., Dairy Farmers of
America-Western Area Council, Hilmar Cheese Company, and Land O'Lakes, Inc.). Formed in
2001, Dairy Cares is dedicated to promoting the long-term sustainability of California dairies.
Dairy Cares supports scientific research and investigation of air emissions Irom dairy farms, to
identify when local or regional air quality is impacted significantly, and toward recommending
practical, science-based practice standards if needed.
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
Dairy Cares' comments within this letter are summarized as follows.
Family Farms - Environmental Sustainability - Animal Well-Being
915 L street, #C-438, Sacramento, CA 95814- PHONE (916) 441-3318- FAX (916) 441-4132
www.DairyCares.com
-------
Comment letter to Sona Chilingaryan
April 2, 2014
Page 2 of 5
I. We reiterate and incorporate by reference our comments submitted to you on
November 19, 2012 by Dairy Cares' consultant ENVIRON (also attached here),
namely:
a. Emissions of nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO?) combined (hereafter
"NOx") from silage are a de minimis contribution to the statewide inventory
compared to other sources;
b. Emissions should be measured under field conditions, not just in the laboratory, to
confirm in situ emissions and before any type of control or mitigation is
considered; and
c. The relative contribution of silage piles to NOx emissions needs to be quantified
under field conditions and a full cross-media impact analysis done before
mitigations can be considered in any regulatory context.
II. We appreciate the researchers' assertions in the Draft Report and our March 27, 2014
conference call that this was neither a mitigation study nor an emissions
quantification study, and ask for clarifying language to be added, or language to be
modified, in portions of the report to remain consistent with those assertions.
III. We request additional information on calibration methods used in the study.
IV. We pose additional comments and questions aimed at clarifying the report.
DETAILED COMMENTS
I. ENVIRON comments of November 19, 2012
As noted above, Dairy Cares previously expressed concerns via the ENVIRON memorandum of
November 19, 2012, and in conversations and meetings with staff members of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB) around
that time.
Summarized we were (and remain) concerned that:
® The long-established fact that ensiled forage produces NOx was being conflated into an
assumption - unsupported by facts - that silage NOx emissions are of a magnitude that
they could significantly affect regional ozone and particulate formation; and
• Launching a research agenda focused on potential mitigation measures for silage NO\ -
prior to establishing that mitigation is necessary - seems to be a poor prioritization of use
of research funds, especially given other dairy farming emissions known to have air,
water and climate change impacts, and given limited research funds.
The Draft Report clearly states in the Foreword that it is a "study of mechanisms only, not a field
study, nor an effort to measure emissions or plan mitigation measures or controls." However, this
truly begs the question of why the study was necessary. Without measurements that establish that
silage-produced NOx has potential to contribute to regional air quality, what is the purpose of
-------
Comment letter to Sona Chilingaryan
April 2, 2014
Page 3 of 5
researching the mechanism of its formation in silage? Isn't the entire purpose of establishing the
mechanism to determine potential mitigation?
And despite the assertion that this is not a study to plan mitigation, the study employed three
additives to feed to see if these had an impact on NOx formation. In fact, the report on page 12
suggests that vanadium, in the form of sodium vanadate, was supplemented to 20 parts per
billion, and not higher, because "higher levels might be unreasonably high for actual use of the
corn as feed' in the event that this inhibitor might be tested in the future as a possible mitigation
measure " (emphasis added). Further, feed is sterilized to determine if microbes play a role in
NOx formation compared to a control.
At minimum, if this is not a mitigation study it appears to be a pre-study of mitigation, one that
was performed prior to establishing whether any of this information was really needed. We
therefore reiterate our earlier concerns that research into the mechanism and potential control of
NOx in silage is premature until and unless it is established that emissions of NOx from silage
are of a large enough magnitude to merit such concern. Further, the fact that these peroxidase
inhibiting treatments in the study appear more likely to increase NOx than to decrease it further
tends to support the case for following this line of inquiry after emissions quantification, not
before, and for utilizing researchers with more expertise in silage chemistry when developing
hypotheses for treatments to reduce NOx-
II. Need for clarifying language to support assertions that this is not a mitigation
study or emissions quantification study
We suggest several modifications to clarify the Draft Report's assertion that this was not a
mitigation study or emissions quantification study, including:
» Page 6 includes the sentence "Other studies have found high concentrations of oxides of
nitrogen (NOx) arising from the ensiling process." We suggest the word "high" be 1 #\^
deleted and replaced with a numerical range of concentrations found in parts per /
million/billion volume and that at least one of these studies be directly referenced./We
suggest that a sentence be added immediately following, to the effect of: "However, there! ^*5
is no evidence to date to suggest that these NOx concentrations have any impact on
regional air quality."
• Page 6 includes the sentence "Further research would be needed before appropriate
controls might be identified." The wording here suggests that although this is not a
control study, such a study is needed. We suggest this sentence be deleted and replaced
with language to the effect of: "Further research is needed to determine whether
emissions of NOx from silage are significant enough to merit consideration of control ^ \
strategies."
• Page 9, Section 1.0, Number 2, states that"... further research would be needed before
emission quantification or appropriate controls might be identified." We suggest this be
1 Dairy Cares does not agree that evidence was provided in the report to suggest that 20 ppb is a safe
level for this additive, more in our comment on page 4 of this letter.
-------
Comment fetter to Sona Chilingaryan
April 2, 2014
Page 4 of 5
re-worded to state that .. further research would be needed to quantify emissions and y
determine whether there is a need to study potential mitigation strategies."
Page 12 states that readers should "Note that this [sterilization] is not proposed as a
control measure, only as an approach to address the question of the role of microbes." We ^ fsiA ^ ^
suggest that this be clarified to state that "sterilization of forage prior to ensiling would be - V -
patently impractical and should not be considered as a control measure." ^c
Page 12 states that vanadium, in the form of sodium vanadate, was supplemented to 20
parts per billion and includes the sentence "Higher levels might be unreasonably high for
actual use of the corn as feed in the event that this inhibitor might be test in the future as a
possible mitigation measure." We suggest this discussion be deleted and concurrently \ r' ^
note that we are unaware of any data to suggest that the amount used is safe as a feed
additive, which the current text seems to imply.
Page 13 provides a reference (Li et al 1987) that purports to support sodium azide as a
peroxidase inhibitor. If there are similar references for the use of L-Cystine and sodium /
vanadate, they should be included. Otherwise, discussion of why these inhibitors were
selected, and not others, would be appropriate in the Draft Report. It also would make"
sense to discuss the amounts that were supplemented for all three compounds and how ^ •
these amounts were determined. For example, why is sodium vanadate increased tenfold
while L-Cystine is doubled? This discussion is included with sodium azide but not the
other peroxidase-inhibiting compounds.
(II. Calibration methods
We request additional discussion and clarification related to calibration. Page 15 of the Draft
Report suggests the NOx analyzer was calibrated from 0.19 ppm to 1.20 ppm, while the fc>° ^
measurement range for the device is identified (also on page 15) as between 5 ppb and 5 ppm. n m i>a ,
What was the actual range of detected NOx? Were all detected NOx values within the calibration
range?
On a similar note, calibration is reported on a volume/volume concentration basis (ppmv), while '
NOx emissions are reported in total nanoliters (nL). We suggest the report include NOx values U
reported in ppmv^ Jllrfri ¦ '
The report does not contain information regarding frequency of calibration; we suggest that more
information be included on this. £) \ A A-j2itx
}V. Additional comments and questions
We suggest the researchers include discussion to explain what may have occurred in the
sterilized samples where NOx emissions were reduced, but ensiling still occurred (though not as
well).
Page 18, second paragraph, notes that sterilized samples emitted gases that reacted with the
collection bags, preventing the bags from inflating, and that "sampling was not possible until this
was noticed and they were replaced after day one." Does this mean that no NOx was collected on
-------
Wa
V
\o^
Comment letter to Sona Chilingaryan
April 2, 2014
Page 5 of 5
day one^and^f so, what was the fate of this NOx and how does that impacftle results? Can the
NOx emissions from the sterilized samples be compared to the other treatments, or did NOx
emissions go uncounted because of the problem with the bags not inflating? N ^
CA {/
If the data on NOx collected from sterilized samples is shown to be reliable, we would agree
with the authors that sterilization clearly reduced the emissions, and thus the formation, of NOx.
However, we do not agree that the results rule out enzymes as a potential contributor to NOx
formation. On a similar note, we ask whether there are other possible peroxidase inhibitors that
would have worked better than sodium vanadate, sodium azide and L-Cystine, or would other
inhibitors be expected to have the same results? If so, why?
\ . 1 1 |
Regarding the results of chemical inhibitors;
• Although we agree with the authors that trace gas emissions may vary among the n
replicates, the variability in these data seems exceptionally high. Based on that, we think
the authors should emphasize the statement made in the Abstract: "variations with the
NOx results of the chemical inhibitors prevent us from drawing any specific conclusions
about the influence of those treatments on NOx emissions" rather than concluding that
microbial activity is the only process causing NOx formation.
• Why do several of the treatment duplications (i.e., "a5, C%, N3, and V2) show zero X . i
emissions? Based on Table 1, it appears that the data points are used in the statistical \ ' ^ v
1
analysis. However, the zero data points likely skew the results and an explanation needs
to be provided for these data points. We note that the sterilization treatments are the only
treatments without a zero data point.
-Up
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to provide comments.
IAS*-*
Sincerely,
J.P. Cativiela
Program Coordinator
C: Dr. Julia Lester, ENVIRON
Dr. Dawn Chianese, ENVIRON
Paul Sousa, Environmental Services Director, Western United Dairymen
Kevin Abernathy, Environmental Services Director, Milk Producers Council
Charles "Chuck" Ahlem, Chairman, Dairy Cares
Michael Boccadoro, Executive Director, Dairy Cares
-------
AScienceLab.com
Chemicals & Laboratory Equipment
Material Safety Data Sheet
L-Cystine MSDS
He a 1th
1
Fire
1
Re activity
0
Pe rs o nal
a!
Protection
u
Section 1: Chemical Product and Company Identification
Product Name: L-Cystine
Contact Information:
Catalog Codes: SLC2479, SLC4267
Sciencelab.com, Inc.
14025 Smith Rd.
CAS#: 56-89-3
Houston, Texas 77396
RTECS: HA2690000
US Sales: 1-800-901-7247
International Sales: 1-281-441-4400
TSCA: TSCA 8(b) inventory: L-Cystine
Order Online: ScienceLab.com
CI#: Not available.
CHEMTREC (24HR Emergency Telephone), call:
Synonym: 3,3'-Dithiobis(2-aminopropionic acid)
1-800-424-9300
Chemical Formula: C6H12N204S2
International CHEMTREC, call: 1-703-527-3887
For non-emergency assistance, call: 1-281-441-4400
Section 2: Composition and Information on Ingredients
Composition:
Name
CAS#
% by Weight
{L-}Cystine
56-89-3
100
Toxicological Data on Ingredients: L-Cystine LD50: Not available. LC50: Not available.
Section 3: Hazards Identification
Potential Acute Health Effects: Hazardous in case of ingestion. Slightly hazardous in case of eye contact (irritant), of
inhalation.
Potential Chronic Health Effects:
Hazardous in case of ingestion. Slightly hazardous in case of eye contact (irritant), of inhalation. CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS:
Not available. MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. TERATOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. DEVELOPMENTAL
TOXICITY: Not available. The substance is toxic to lungs, mucous membranes. Repeated or prolonged exposure to the
substance can produce target organs damage.
Section 4: First Aid Measures
Eye Contact: Immediately flush eyes with running water for at least 15 minutes, keeping eyelids open. Cold water may be
used.
p. 1
-------
Skin Contact: No known effect on skin contact, rinse with water for a few minutes.
Serious Skin Contact: Not available.
Inhalation: Allow the victim to rest in a well ventilated area. Seek immediate medical attention.
Serious Inhalation: Not available.
Ingestion:
Do not induce vomiting. Loosen tight clothing such as a collar, tie, belt or waistband. If the victim is not breathing, perform
mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Seek immediate medical attention.
Serious Ingestion: Not available.
Section 5: Fire and Explosion Data
Flammability of the Product: May be combustible at high temperature.
Auto-Ignition Temperature: Not available.
Flash Points: Not available.
Flammable Limits: Not available.
Products of Combustion: These products are carbon oxides (CO, C02), nitrogen oxides (NO, N02...), sulfur oxides (S02,
S03...).
Fire Hazards in Presence of Various Substances: Not available.
Explosion Hazards in Presence of Various Substances:
Risks of explosion of the product in presence of mechanical impact: Not available. Risks of explosion of the product in
presence of static discharge: Not available.
Fire Fighting Media and Instructions:
SMALL FIRE: Use DRY chemical powder. LARGE FIRE: Use water spray, fog or foam. Do not use water jet.
Special Remarks on Fire Hazards: Material in powder form, capable of creating a dust explosion.
Special Remarks on Explosion Hazards: Not available.
Section 6: Accidental Release Measures
Small Spill:
Use appropriate tools to put the spilled solid in a convenient waste disposal container. Finish cleaning by spreading water on
the contaminated surface and dispose of according to local and regional authority requirements.
Large Spill:
Use a shovel to put the material into a convenient waste disposal container. Finish cleaning by spreading water on the
contaminated surface and allow to evacuate through the sanitary system.
Section 7: Handling and Storage
Precautions:
Keep away from heat. Keep away from sources of ignition. Empty containers pose a fire risk, evaporate the residue under a
fume hood. Ground all equipment containing material. Do not breathe dust.
Storage:
Keep container dry. Keep in a cool place. Ground all equipment containing material. Keep container tightly closed. Keep in a
cool, well-ventilated place. Combustible materials should be stored away from extreme heat and away from strong oxidizing
agents.
p. 2
-------
Section 8: Exposure Controls/Personal Protection
Engineering Controls:
Use process enclosures, local exhaust ventilation, or other engineering controls to keep airborne levels below recommended
exposure limits. If user operations generate dust, fume or mist, use ventilation to keep exposure to airborne contaminants
below the exposure limit.
Personal Protection: Safety glasses. Lab coat.
Personal Protection in Case of a Large Spill:
Splash goggles. Full suit. Boots. Gloves. Suggested protective clothing might not be sufficient; consult a specialist BEFORE
handling this product.
Exposure Limits: Not available.
Section 9: Physical and Chemical Properties
Physical state and appearance: Solid. (Crystalline solid.)
Odor: Not available.
Taste: Not available.
Molecular Weight: 240.29 g/mole
Color: White.
pH (1% soln/water): Not available.
Boiling Point: Not available.
Melting Point: Decomposes. (260°C or500°F)
Critical Temperature: Not available.
Specific Gravity: 1.677 (Water = 1)
Vapor Pressure: Not applicable.
Vapor Density: Not available.
Volatility: Not available.
Odor Threshold: Not available.
Water/Oil Dist. Coeff.: Not available,
tonicity (in Water): Not available.
Dispersion Properties: Not available.
Solubility: Very slightly soluble in cold water.
Section 10: Stability and Reactivity Data
Stability: The product is stable.
Instability Temperature: Not available.
Conditions of Instability: Not available.
Incompatibility with various substances: Not available.
Corrosivity: Non-corrosive in presence of glass.
Special Remarks on Reactivity: Not available.
p. 3
-------
Special Remarks on Corrosivity: Not available.
Polymerization: No.
Section 11: Toxicological Information
Routes of Entry: Ingestion.
Toxicity to Animals:
LD50: Not available. LC50: Not available.
Chronic Effects on Humans: The substance is toxic to lungs, mucous membranes.
Other Toxic Effects on Humans:
Hazardous in case of ingestion. Slightly hazardous in case of inhalation.
Special Remarks on Toxicity to Animals: Not available.
Special Remarks on Chronic Effects on Humans: Not available.
Special Remarks on other Toxic Effects on Humans: Nuisance dust.
Section 12: Ecological Information
Ecotoxicity: Not available.
BOD5 and COD: Not available.
Products of Biodegradation:
Possibly hazardous short term degradation products are not likely. However, long term degradation products may arise.
Toxicity of the Products of Biodegradation: The products of degradation are more toxic.
Special Remarks on the Products of Biodegradation: Not available.
Section 13: Disposal Considerations
Waste Disposal:
Section 14: Transport Information
DOT Classification: Not a DOT controlled material (United States).
Identification: Not applicable.
Special Provisions for Transport: Not applicable.
Section 15: Other Regulatory Information
Federal and State Regulations: TSCA 8(b) inventory: L-Cystine
Other Regulations: OSHA: Hazardous by definition of Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200).
Other Classifications:
WHMIS (Canada): CLASS D-2A: Material causing other toxic effects (VERY TOXIC).
DSCL (EEC):
p. 4
-------
This product is not classified according to the EU regulations.
HMIS (U.S.A.):
Health Hazard: 1
Fire Hazard: 1
Reactivity: 0
Personal Protection: a
National Fire Protection Association (U.S.A.):
Health: 1
Flammability: 1
Reactivity: 0
Specific hazard:
Protective Equipment:
Not applicable. Lab coat. Wear appropriate respirator when ventilation is inadequate. Safety glasses.
Section 16: Other Information
References: Not available.
Other Special Considerations: Not available.
Created: 10/10/2005 08:17 PM
Last Updated: 05/21/2013 12:00 PM
The information above is believed to be accurate and represents the best information currently available to us. However, we
make no warranty of merchantability or any other warranty, express or implied, with respect to such information, and we assume
no liability resulting from its use. Users should make their own investigations to determine the suitability of the information for
their particular purposes. In no event shall ScienceLab.com be liable for any claims, losses, or damages of any third party or for
lost profits or any special, indirect, incidental, consequential or exemplary damages, howsoever arising, even if ScienceLab.com
has been advised of the possibility of such damages.
p. 5
-------
AScienceLab.com
Chemicals & Laboratory Equipment
Material Safety Data Sheet
Sodium azide MSDS
Re activity
3
Pe rs o nal
Protection
E
Section 1: Chemical Product and Company Identification
Product Name: Sodium azide
Contact Information:
Catalog Codes: SLS1363
Sciencelab.com, Inc.
14025 Smith Rd.
CAS#: 26628-22-8
Houston, Texas 77396
RTECS: VY8050000
US Sales: 1-800-901-7247
International Sales: 1-281-441-4400
TSCA: TSCA 8(b) inventory: Sodium azide
Order Online: ScienceLab.com
CI#: Not available.
CHEMTREC (24HR Emergency Telephone), call:
Synonym:
1-800-424-9300
Chemical Name: Hydrazoic Acid, Sodium Salt
International CHEMTREC, call: 1-703-527-3887
Chemical Formula: NaN3
For non-emergency assistance, call: 1-281-441-4400
Section 2: Composition and Information on Ingredients
Composition:
Name
CAS#
% by Weight
Sodium azide
26628-22-8
100
Toxicological Data on Ingredients: Sodium azide: ORAL (LD50): Acute: 27 mg/kg [Rati. 27 mg/kg [Mouse], DERMAL
(LD50): Acute: 20 mg/kg [Rabbit],
Section 3: Hazards Identification
Potential Acute Health Effects:
Very hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of eye contact (irritant). Hazardous in case of ingestion, of inhalation.
Slightly hazardous in case of skin contact (permeator). Severe over-exposure can result in death. Inflammation of the eye
is characterized by redness, watering, and itching. Skin inflammation is characterized by itching, scaling, reddening, or,
occasionally, blistering.
Potential Chronic Health Effects:
CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. TERATOGENIC EFFECTS: Not
available. DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY: Not available. Repeated exposure to an highly toxic material may produce general
deterioration of health by an accumulation in one or many human organs.
Section 4: First Aid Measures
p. 1
-------
Eye Contact:
Check for and remove any contact lenses. Immediately flush eyes with running water for at least 15 minutes, keeping eyelids
open. Cold water may be used. Do not use an eye ointment. Seek medical attention.
Skin Contact:
After contact with skin, wash immediately with plenty of water. Gently and thoroughly wash the contaminated skin with running
water and non-abrasive soap. Be particularly careful to clean folds, crevices, creases and groin. Cold water may be used.
Cover the irritated skin with an emollient. If irritation persists, seek medical attention. Wash contaminated clothing before
reusing.
Serious Skin Contact:
Wash with a disinfectant soap and cover the contaminated skin with an anti-bacterial cream. Seek immediate medical
attention.
Inhalation: Allow the victim to rest in a well ventilated area. Seek immediate medical attention.
Serious Inhalation:
Evacuate the victim to a safe area as soon as possible. Loosen tight clothing such as a collar, tie, belt or waistband. If
breathing is difficult, administer oxygen. If the victim is not breathing, perform mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Seek medical
attention.
Ingestion:
Do not induce vomiting. Examine the lips and mouth to ascertain whether the tissues are damaged, a possible indication that
the toxic material was ingested; the absence of such signs, however, is not conclusive. Loosen tight clothing such as a collar,
tie, belt or waistband. If the victim is not breathing, perform mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Seek immediate medical attention.
Serious Ingestion: Not available.
Section 5: Fire and Explosion Data
Flammability of the Product: May be combustible at high temperature.
Auto-Ignition Temperature: Not available.
Flash Points: Not available.
Flammable Limits: Not available.
Products of Combustion: Some metallic oxides.
Fire Hazards in Presence of Various Substances: Highly flammable in presence of shocks.
Explosion Hazards in Presence of Various Substances:
Risks of explosion of the product in presence of static discharge: Not available. Highly explosive in presence of shocks, of
metals.
Fire Fighting Media and Instructions:
SMALL FIRE: Use DRY chemical powder. LARGE FIRE: Use water spray, fog or foam. Do not use water jet.
Special Remarks on Fire Hazards: Not available.
Special Remarks on Explosion Hazards: Not available.
Section 6: Accidental Release Measures
Small Spill: Use appropriate tools to put the spilled solid in a convenient waste disposal container.
Large Spill:
Use a shovel to put the material into a convenient waste disposal container. Be careful that the product is not present at a
concentration level above TLV. Check TLV on the MSDS and with local authorities.
Section 7: Handling and Storage
p. 2
-------
Precautions:
Keep locked up Keep away from heat. Keep away from sources of ignition. Empty containers pose a fire risk, evaporate the
residue under a fume hood. Ground all equipment containing material. Do not ingest. Do not breathe dust. Take precautionary
measures against electrostatic discharges. In case of insufficient ventilation, wear suitable respiratory equipment If ingested,
seek medical advice immediately and show the container or the label. Avoid contact with skin and eyes Keep away from
incompatibles such as metals.
Storage:
Keep container dry. Keep in a cool place. Ground all equipment containing material. Keep container tightly closed. Keep in a
cool, well-ventilated place. Highly toxic or infectious materials should be stored in a separate locked safety storage cabinet or
room.
Section 8: Exposure Controls/Personal Protection
Engineering Controls:
Use process enclosures, local exhaust ventilation, or other engineering controls to keep airborne levels below recommended
exposure limits. If user operations generate dust, fume or mist, use ventilation to keep exposure to airborne contaminants
below the exposure limit.
Personal Protection:
Splash goggles. Lab coat. Dust respirator. Be sure to use an approved/certified respirator or equivalent. Gloves.
Personal Protection in Case of a Large Spill:
Splash goggles. Full suit. Dust respirator. Boots. Gloves. A self contained breathing apparatus should be used to avoid
inhalation of the product. Suggested protective clothing might not be sufficient; consult a specialist BEFORE handling this
product.
Exposure Limits: TWA: 0.29 (mg/m3) from ACGIHConsult local authorities for acceptable exposure limits.
Section 9: Physical and Chemical Properties
Physical state and appearance: Solid.
Odor: Not available.
Taste: Not available.
Molecular Weight: 65.02 g/mole
Color: Not available.
pH (1% soln/water): Not available.
Boiling Point: Not available.
Melting Point: Decomposes.
Critical Temperature: Not available.
Specific Gravity: 1.846 (Water = 1)
Vapor Pressure: Not applicable.
Vapor Density: Not available.
Volatility: Not available.
Odor Threshold: Not available.
Water/Oil Dist. Coeff.: Not available.
tonicity (in Water): Not available.
Dispersion Properties: See solubility in water.
p. 3
-------
Solubility: Soluble in cold water.
Section 10: Stability and Reactivity Data
Stability: Unstable.
Instability Temperature: Not available.
Conditions of Instability: Not available.
Incompatibility with various substances: Extremely reactive or incompatible with metals.
Corrosivity: Non-corrosive in presence of glass.
Special Remarks on Reactivity: Not available.
Special Remarks on Corrosivity: Not available.
Polymerization: No.
Section 11: Toxicological Information
Routes of Entry: Eye contact. Inhalation. Ingestion.
Toxicity to Animals:
Acute oral toxicity (LD50): 27 mg/kg [Mouse], Acute dermal toxicity (LD50): 20 mg/kg [Rabbit],
Chronic Effects on Humans: Not available.
Other Toxic Effects on Humans:
Very hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant). Hazardous in case of ingestion, of inhalation. Slightly hazardous in case of
skin contact (permeator).
Special Remarks on Toxicity to Animals: Not available.
Special Remarks on Chronic Effects on Humans: Not available.
Special Remarks on other Toxic Effects on Humans: Not available.
Section 12: Ecological Information
Ecotoxicity: Not available.
BOD5 and COD: Not available.
Products of Biodegradation: Possibly hazardous short/long term degradation products are to be expected.
Toxicity of the Products of Biodegradation: The products of degradation are more toxic.
Special Remarks on the Products of Biodegradation: Not available.
Section 13: Disposal Considerations
Waste Disposal:
Section 14: Transport Information
DOT Classification: CLASS 6.1: Poisonous material.
p. 4
-------
Identification: : Sodium azide : UN1867 PG: II
Special Provisions for Transport: Not available.
Section 15: Other Regulatory Information
Federal and State Regulations:
Pennsylvania RTK: Sodium azide Massachusetts RTK: Sodium azide TSCA 8(b) inventory: Sodium azide SARA
302/304/311/312 extremely hazardous substances: Sodium azide SARA 313 toxic chemical notification and release reporting:
Sodium azide CERCLA: Hazardous substances.: Sodium azide
Other Regulations: OSHA: Hazardous by definition of Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200).
Other Classifications:
WHMIS (Canada): CLASS D-1 A: Material causing immediate and serious toxic effects (VERY TOXIC).
DSCL (EEC):
R38- Irritating to skin. R41- Risk of serious damage to eyes.
HMIS (U.S.A.):
Health Hazard: 3
Fire Hazard: 1
Reactivity: 3
Personal Protection: E
National Fire Protection Association (U.S.A.):
Health: 3
Flammability: 1
Reactivity: 3
Specific hazard:
Protective Equipment:
Gloves. Lab coat. Dust respirator. Be sure to use an approved/certified respirator or equivalent. Wear appropriate respirator
when ventilation is inadequate. Splash goggles.
Section 16: Other Information
References: Not available.
Other Special Considerations: Not available.
Created: 10/11/2005 12:32 PM
Last Updated: 05/21/2013 12:00 PM
The information above is believed to be accurate and represents the best information currently available to us. However, we
make no warranty of merchantability or any other warranty, express or implied, with respect to such information, and we assume
no liability resulting from its use. Users should make their own investigations to determine the suitability of the information for
their particular purposes. In no event shall ScienceLab.com be liable for any claims, losses, or damages of any third party or for
lost profits or any special, indirect, incidental, consequential or exemplary damages, howsoever arising, even if ScienceLab.com
has been advised of the possibility of such damages.
p. 5
-------
Material Safety Data Sheet
Sodium Vanadate
ACC# 21440
Section I -Chemical Product and Company Identification
MSDS Name: Sodium Vanadate
Catalog Numbers: S454-50
Synonyms: Trisodium orthovanadate; sodium vanadate (V).
Company Identification:
Fisher Scientific
1 Reagent Lane
Fair Lawn, NJ 07410
For information, call: 201-796-7100
Emergency Number: 201-796-7100
For CHEMTREC assistance, call: 800-424-9300
For International CHEMTREC assistance, call: 703-527-3887
Section 2 - Composition, Information on Ingredients
C AS# Chemical Name Percent KIMX S/KLINC S
13721-39-6 Trisodium orthovanadate 100.0 237-287-9
Hazard Symbols: T
Risk Phrases: 23/24/25
Section 3 - Hazards Identification
EMERGENCY OVERVIEW
Appearance: white to off-white solid. May cause eye and skin irritation. The toxicological
properties of this material have not been fully investigated. May cause respiratory and digestive
tract irritation. Warning! Toxic. Harmful if swallowed, inhaled, or absorbed through the skin.
Target Organs: No data found.
Potential Health Effects
Eye: May cause eye irritation.
Skin: May cause skin irritation. Harmful if absorbed through the skin.
Ingestion: Harmful if swallowed. May cause irritation of the digestive tract.
Inhalation: Harmful if inhaled. May cause respiratory tract irritation. The toxicological properties
of this substance have not been fully investigated.
Chronic: Laboratory experiments have resulted in mutagenic effects.
-------
Section 4 - First Aid Measures
Eyes: Flush eyes with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes, occasionally lifting the upper and
lower eyelids. Get medical aid.
Skin: Flush skin with plenty of soap and water for at least 15 minutes while removing
contaminated clothing and shoes. Get medical aid if irritation develops or persists. Wash clothing
before reuse.
Ingestion: If victim is conscious and alert, give 2-4 cupfuls of milk or water. Never give
anything by mouth to an unconscious person. Get medical aid.
Inhalation: Remove from exposure to fresh air immediately. If not breathing, give artificial
respiration. If breathing is difficult, give oxygen. Get medical aid if cough or other symptoms
appear.
Notes to Physician: Treat symptomatically and supportively.
Section 5 - Fire Fighting Measures
General Information: As in any fire, wear a self-contained breathing apparatus in
pressure-demand, MSHA/NIOSH (approved or equivalent), and full protective gear. During a fire,
irritating and highly toxic gases may be generated by thermal decomposition or combustion.
Extinguishing Media: In case of fire, use water, dry chemical, chemical foam, or
alcohol-resistant foam.
Flash Point: Not available.
Autoignition Temperature: Not available.
Explosion Limits, Lower:Not available.
Upper: Not available.
NFPA Rating: (estimated) Health: 2; Flammability: 0; Instability: 0
Section 6 - Accidental Release Measures
General Information: Use proper personal protective equipment as indicated in Section 8.
Spills/Leaks: Clean up spills immediately, observing precautions in the Protective Equipment
section. Sweep up or absorb material, then place into a suitable clean, dry, closed container for
disposal. Avoid generating dusty conditions. Provide ventilation.
Section 7 - Handling and Storage
Handling: Wash thoroughly after handling. Use with adequate ventilation. Minimize dust
generation and accumulation. Avoid contact with eyes, skin, and clothing. Keep container tightly
closed. Avoid ingestion and inhalation.
Storage: Store in a cool, dry, well-ventilated area away from incompatible substances. Keep
containers tightly closed.
-------
Section 8 - Exposure Controls, Personal Protection
Engineering Controls: Facilities storing or utilizing this material should be equipped with an
eyewash facility and a safety shower. Use adequate ventilation to keep airborne concentrations
low.
Exposure Limits
C hemical Name AC Gill MOSII OSIIA - Final PKLs
i Trisodium orthovanadate none listed none listed none listed
OSHA Vacated PELs: Trisodium orthovanadate: No OSHA Vacated PELs are listed for this
chemical.
Personal Protective Equipment
Eyes: Wear appropriate protective eyeglasses or chemical safety goggles as described by OSHA's
eye and face protection regulations in 29 CFR 1910.133 or European Standard EN166.
Skin: Wear appropriate gloves to prevent skin exposure.
Clothing: Wear appropriate protective clothing to minimize contact with skin.
Respirators: Follow the OSHA respirator regulations found in 29CFR 1910.134 or European
Standard EN 149. Always use a NIOSH or European Standard EN 149 approved respirator when
necessary.
Section 9 - Physical and Chemical Properties
Physical State: Solid
Appearance: white to off-white
Odor: not available
pH: Not available.
Vapor Pressure: Not applicable.
Vapor Density: Not available.
Evaporation Rate:Not applicable.
Viscosity: Not available.
Boiling Point: Not available.
Freezing/Melting Point:850.00 - 866.00 deg C
Decomposition Temperature:Not available.
Solubility: Not available.
Specific Gravity/Density:Not available.
Molecular Formula:Na304V
Molecular Weight:183.91
Section 10 - Stability and Reactivity
Chemical Stability: Stable under normal temperatures and pressures.
Conditions to Avoid: Incompatible materials, dust generation.
Incompatibilities with Other Materials: Strong oxidizing agents.
Hazardous Decomposition Products: Vanadium oxide (VOx) gases.
-------
Hazardous Polymerization: Has not been reported.
Section 11 - Toxicological Information
RTECS#:
CAS# 13721-39-6: YW1120000
LD50/LC50:
CAS# 13721-39-6:
Oral, rat: LD50 = 330 mg/kg;
Carcinogenicity:
CAS# 13721-39-6: Not listed by ACGIH, IARC, NIOSH, NTP, or OSHA.
Epidemiology: No information available.
Teratogenicity: No information available.
Reproductive Effects: TDLo(Oral, mouse) = 300 mg/kg; Reproductive - Specific Developmental
Abnormalities - musculoskeletal system.
Neurotoxicity: No information available.
Mutagenicity: Micronucleus test(Human Lymphocyte) = 10 umol/LCytogenetic analysis (Human
Lymphocyte) = 20 umol/L
Other Studies: The hazard classification for this product is based on supp lier information.
Section 12 - Ecological Information
Ecotoxicity: No data available. No information available.
Environmental: No information reported.
Physical: No information available.
Other: No information available.
Section 13 - Disposal Considerations
Chemical waste generators must determine whether a discarded chemical is classified as a
hazardous waste. US EPA guidelines for the classification determination are listed in 40 CFR Parts
261.3. Additionally, waste generators must consult state and local hazardous waste regulations
to ensure complete and accurate classification.
RCRA P-Series: None listed.
RCRA U-Series: None listed.
Section 14 - Transport Information
IATA KID/ADK IMC) C anada IDG
I No information
available.
Shipping Name:
I S DC) I
No
information
i avail able.
-------
| _________;
Packing Group:
Section 15 - Regulatory Information
US FEDERAL
TSCA
CAS# 13721-39-6 is listed on the TSCA inventory.
Health & Safety Reporting List
None of the chemicals are on the Health & Safety Reporting List.
Chemical Test Rules
None of the chemicals in this product are under a Chemical Test Rule.
Section 12b
None of the chemicals are listed under TSCA Section 12b.
TSCA Significant New Use Rule
None of the chemicals in this material have a SNUR under TSCA.
SARA
Section 302 (RQ)
None of the chemicals in this material have an RQ.
Section 302 (TPQ)
None of the chemicals in this product have a TPQ.
Section 313
No chemicals are reportable under Section 313.
Clean Air Act:
This material does not contain any hazardous air pollutants. This material does not contain any
Class 1 Ozone depletors. This material does not contain any Class 2 Ozone depletors.
Clean Water Act:
None of the chemicals in this product are listed as Hazardous Substances under the CWA. None
of the chemicals in this product are listed as Priority Pollutants under the CWA. None of the
chemicals in this product are listed as Toxic Pollutants under the CWA.
OSHA:
None of the chemicals in this product are considered highly hazardous by OSHA.
STATE
CAS# 13721-39-6 is not present on state lists from CA, PA, MN, MA, FL, or NJ.
California No Significant Risk Level: None of the chemicals in this product are listed.
European/International Regulations
European Labeling in Accordance with EC Directives
Hazard Symbols:
T
Risk Phrases:
R 23/24/25 Toxic by inhalation, in contact with skin
and if swallowed.
Safety Phrases:
S 24/25 Avoid contact with skin and eyes.
WGK (Water Danger/Protection)
-------
CAS# 13721-39-6: No information available.
Canada - DSL/NDSL
CAS# 13721-39-6 is listed on Canada's DSL List.
Canada - WHMIS
This product has a WHMIS classification of D2B.
Canadian Ingredient Disclosure List
CAS# 13721-39-6 is listed on the Canadian Ingredient Disclosure List.
Exposure Limits
CAS# 13721-39-6: 0EL-AUSTRALIA:TWA 0.05 mg(V205)/m3 JANUARY 1993 0
EL-BELGIUM:TWA 0.05 mg(V205)/m3 JANUARY 1993 OEL-DENMARK:TWA 0.03 mg
(V205)/m3 JANUARY 1993 OEL-FINLAND:TWA 0.5 mg(V205)/m3 JANUARY 1993
OEL-FRANCE:TWA 0.05 mg(V205)/m3 JANUARY 1993 OEL-GERMANY:TWA 0.05
mg(V205)/m3 JANUARY 1993 OEL-HUNGARY:TWA 0.05 mg(V205)/m3;STEL 0.1 m
g(V205)/m3 JANUARY 1993 OEL-JAPAN:TWA 0.5 mg(V205)/m3 JANUARY 1993
OEL-THE NETHERLANDS:TWA 0.5 mg(V205)/m3 JANUARY 1993 OEL-THE PHILIP
PINES:TWA 0.25 mg(V205)/m3 JANUARY 1993 OEL-POLAND:TWA 0.5 mg(V205)/
m3 JANUARY 1993 OEL-SWEDEN:STEL 0.05 mg(V205)/m3 JANUARY 1993 OEL-
SWEDEN:TWA 0.2 mg(V205)/m3 (dust) OEL-SWITZERLAND:TWA 0.05 mg(V205)/
m3;STEL 0.25 mg(V205)/m3 OEL-TURKEY:TWA 0.5 mg(V205)/m3 JANUARY 1993
OEL-UNITED KINGDOM:TWA 0.05 mg(V205)/m3 (dust) OEL-UNITED KINGDOM:
TWA 0.5 mg(V205)/m3 JANUARY 1993
Section 16 - Additional Information
MSDS Creation Date: 7/26/1999
Revision #3 Date: 10/05/2001
The information above is believed to be accurate and represents the best information currently available to us. However, we
make no warranty of merchantability or any other warranty, express or implied, with respect to such information, and we assume
no liability resulting from its use. Users should make their own investigations to determine the suitability of the information for
their particular purposes. In no event shall Fisher be liable for any claims, losses, or damages of any third party or for lost profits
or any special, indirect, incidental, consequential or exemplary damages, howsoever arising, even if Fisher has been advised of
the possibility of such damages.
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Class Level Information
Class Levels Values
treat 5 A C N S V
Number of Observations Read 25
Number of Observations Used 25
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Dependent Variable: nox
Source
DF
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F Value Pr > F
Model
4
3030675941
757668985
1.30 0.3049
Error
20
11685470142
584273507
Corrected Total
24
14716146084
R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE nox Mean
0.205942 162.9523 24171.75 14833.64
Source
DF
Type III SS
Mean Square
F Value Pr > F
treat
4
3030675941
757668985
1.30 0.3049
Source
DF
Type I SS
Mean Square
F Value
Pr > F
treat
4
3030675941
757668985
1.30
0.3049
Distribution of nox
X
o
£=
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
F 1.30
Prob > F 0.3049
o
—r
A
-0-
T"
c
"T"
N
~t~
S
021
"T"
V
treat
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Dependent Variable: lognox
Source
DF
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F Value Pr > F
Model
4
18.5765116
4.6441279
0.54 0.7078
Error
20
171.8539246
8.5926962
Corrected Total
24
190.4304362
R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE lognox Mean
0.097550 38.78666 2.931330 7.557574
Source
DF
Type I SS
Mean Square
F Value Pr > F
treat
4
18.57651163
4.64412791
0.54 0.7078
Source
DF
Type III SS
Mean Square
F Value Pr > F
treat
4
18.57651163
4.64412791
0.54 0.7078
Distribution of lognox
12
10
o
£=
cn
o
6
4
A C N S V
F 0.54
Prob > F 0.7078
T
treat
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Dependent Variable: drymatter
Source
DF
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F Value Pr > F
Model
4
4.10960000
1.02740000
3.11 0.0383
Error
20
6.60400000
0.33020000
Corrected Total
24
10.71360000
R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE drymatter Mean
0.383587 1.756420 0.574630 32.71600
Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F
treat 4 4.10960000 1.02740000 3.11 0.0383
Source
DF
Type III SS
Mean Square
F Value Pr > F
treat
4
4.10960000
1.02740000
3.11 0.0383
Distribution of drymatter
34.0
33.5
CD
33.0 -
TO
E
T3
32.5
32.0
31.5
A C N S V
F 3.11
Prob > F 0.0383
treat
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Dependent Variable: nh4
Source
DF
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F Value Pr > F
Model
4
0.05290400
0.01322600
8.15 0.0005
Error
20
0.03244000
0.00162200
Corrected Total
24
0.08534400
R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE nh4 Mean
0.619891 9.900212 0.040274 0.406800
Source
DF
Type III SS
Mean Square
F Value Pr > F
treat
4
0.05290400
0.01322600
8.15 0.0005
Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F
treat 4 0.05290400 0.01322600 8.15 0.0005
0.50
Distribution of nh4
0.55
O 15
F 8.15
Prob > F 0.0005
_C
E=
0.45
0.40
o
0.35
0.30
20 O
~^F
—r
A
~r
C
~T
N
"T"
V
treat
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Dependent Variable: ph
Source
DF
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F Value Pr > F
Model
4
0.44086400
0.11021600
51.50 <.0001
Error
20
0.04280000
0.00214000
Corrected Total
24
0.48366400
R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE ph Mean
0.911509 1.164891 0.046260 3.971200
Source
DF
Type III SS
Mean Square
F Value Pr > F
treat
4
0.44086400
0.11021600
51.50 <.0001
Source
DF
Type I SS
Mean Square
F Value
Pr > F
treat
4
0.44086400
0.11021600
51.50
<.0001
4.3
4.2
4.1
Distribution of ph
O
F 51.50
Prob > F <.0001
4.0
3.9
o 1
I I y
O 25
-e—
23 O
-O-
3.8
—r
A
"T"
c
—I—
N
treat
~t~
S
"T"
V
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Dependent Variable: vfa
Source
DF
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F Value Pr > F
Model
4
18.08109600
4.52027400
77.21 <.0001
Error
20
1.17092000
0.05854600
Corrected Total
24
19.25201600
R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE vfa Mean
0.939179 4.509520 0.241963 5.365600
Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F
treat 4 18.08109600 4.52027400 77.21 <.0001
Source
DF
Type III SS
Mean Square
F Value Pr > F
treat
4
18.08109600
4.52027400
77.21 <.0001
Distribution of vfa
F 77.21
Prob > F <.0001
5
4
X
O
O 24
22 O
—r
A
"T"
c
—I—
N
treat
"T"
V
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Dependent Variable: lacticacid
Source
DF
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F Value Pr > F
Model
4
12.36640000
3.09160000
91.47 <.0001
Error
20
0.67600000
0.03380000
Corrected Total
24
13.04240000
R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE lacticacid Mean
0.948169 4.427933 0.183848 4.152000
Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F
treat 4 12.36640000 3.09160000 91.47 <.0001
Source
DF
Type III SS
Mean Square
F Value Pr > F
treat
4
12.36640000
3.09160000
91.47 <.0001
Distribution of lacticacid
5.0
4.5
F 91.47
Prob > F <.0001
_o.
O 24
o
us
o
4.0
3.5
3.0
-0-
o
2.5
—r
A
"T"
c
—I—
N
treat
~t~
S
"T"
V
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
Dependent Variable: lac2vfa
The GLM Procedure
Source
DF
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F Value Pr > F
Model
4
151.3600000
37.8400000
5.68 0.0032
Error
20
133.2000000
6.6600000
Corrected Total
24
284.5600000
R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE lac2vfa Mean
0.531909 3.341141 2.580698 77.24000
Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F
treat 4 151.3600000 37.8400000 5.68 0.0032
Source
DF
Type III SS
Mean Square
F Value Pr > F
treat
4
151.3600000
37.8400000
5.68 0.0032
Distribution of Iac2vfa
fN
O
ra
85.0
O 22
82.5
80.0
O 10
75.0
72.5
F 5.68
Prob > F 0.0032
T
V
treat
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Dependent Variable: acetic
Source
DF
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F Value Pr > F
Model
4
1.08746400
0.27186600
10.16 0.0001
Error
20
0.53540000
0.02677000
Corrected Total
24
1.62286400
R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE acetic Mean
0.670089 13.50854 0.163615 1.211200
Source
DF
Type III SS
Mean Square
F Value Pr > F
treat
4
1.08746400
0.27186600
10.16 0.0001
Source
DF
Type I SS
Mean Square
F Value
Pr > F
treat
4
1.08746400
0.27186600
10.16
0.0001
Distribution of acetic
1.6
1.4
1.2
o
ra
1.0
0.8
—r
A
"T"
c
Prob > F 0.0001
—r
N
"O"
~t~
S
O
22 O
"T"
V
treat
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Dependent Variable: acidity
Source
DF
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F Value Pr > F
Model
4
41.23056000
10.30764000
52.49 <.0001
Error
20
3.92764000
0.19638200
Corrected Total
24
45.15820000
R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE acidity Mean
0.913025 7.215078 0.443150 6.142000
Source
DF
Type I SS
Mean Square
F Value Pr > F
treat
4
41.23056000
10.30764000
52.49 <.0001
Source
DF
Type III SS
Mean Square
F Value Pr > F
treat
4
41.23056000
10.30764000
52.49 <.0001
Distribution of acidity
7
6
o
5
4
3
A C N S V
F 52.49
Prob > F <.0001
T
T
treat
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Distribution of nox
X
O
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
O
r~
A
-O-
"T"
c
I
N
r~
S
021
~~r~
V
treat
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Dunnett's t Tests for nox
Note: This test controls the Type I experimentwise error for comparisons of all treatments against a control.
Alpha 0.05
Error Degrees of Freedom 20
Error Mean Square 5.8427E8
Critical Value of Dunnett's t 2.65103
Minimum Significant Difference 40528
Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level
are indicated by ***.
treat Difference Simultaneous 95% Confidence
Comparison Between Limits
Means
A - N 18508 -22020
V - N 14435 -26093
C - N -4601 -45129
S - N -10049 -50577
59036
54963
35927
30479
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Distribution of lognox
T
13 O
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Dunnett's t Tests for lognox
Note: This test controls the Type I experimentwise error for comparisons of all treatments against a control.
Alpha
0.05
Error Degrees of Freedom
20
Error Mean Square
8.592696
Critical Value of Dunnett's t
2.65103
Minimum Significant Difference
4.9148
Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level
are indicated by ***.
treat Difference Simultaneous 95% Confidence
Comparison Between Limits
Means
A - N 0.730 -4.185
C - N -0.956 -5.871
S - N -1.167 -6.081
V - N -1.667 -6.582
5.645
3.959
3.748
3.248
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Distribution of drymatter
34.0
33.5
c 33.0
ro
E
32.5
32.0
31.5
r~
A
~r~
C
o
o
o
—I—
N
treat
i
V
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Dunnett's t Tests for drymatter
Note: This test controls the Type I experimentwise error for comparisons of all treatments against a control.
Alpha 0.05
Error Degrees of Freedom 20
Error Mean Square 0.3302
Critical Value of Dunnett's t 2.65103
Minimum Significant Difference 0.9635
Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level
are indicated by ***.
treat
Comparison
S - N
A - N
C - N
V - N
Difference Simultaneous 95% Confidence
Between
Means
1.2400
0.4400
0.4200
0.3800
Limits
0.2765
-0.5235
-0.5435
-0.5835
2.2035 ***
1.4035
1.3835
1.3435
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Distribution of nh4
0.55
0.50 -
0.45
0.40
0.35 -
20 O
0.30
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Dunnett's t Tests for nh4
Note: This test controls the Type I experimentwise error for comparisons of all treatments against a control.
Alpha 0.05
Error Degrees of Freedom 20
Error Mean Square 0.001622
Critical Value of Dunnett's t 2.65103
Minimum Significant Difference 0.0675
Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level
are indicated by ***.
treat
Comparison
C - N
A - N
S - N
V - N
Difference Simultaneous 95% Confidence
Between
Means
-0.00600
-0.04400
-0.05800
-0.12800
Limits
-0.07353
-0.11153
-0.12553
-0.19553
0.06153
0.02353
0.00953
-0.06047
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Distribution of ph
4.3
4.2
4.1
4.0
3.9
3.8
o 1
¦—o—¦
r~
A
~T~
c
ZT
r~
N
O
r~
S
O 25
~0—
23 O
1—
V
treat
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Dunnett's t Tests for ph
Note: This test controls the Type I experimentwise error for comparisons of all treatments against a control.
Alpha 0.05
Error Degrees of Freedom 20
Error Mean Square 0.00214
Critical Value of Dunnett's t 2.65103
Minimum Significant Difference 0.0776
Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level
are indicated by ***.
treat
Comparison
S - N
C - N
V - N
A - N
Difference Simultaneous 95% Confidence
Between
Means
0.28000
-0.00400
-0.04600
-0.10400
Limits
0.20244
-0.08156
-0.12356
-0.18156
0.35756 ***
0.07356
0.03156
-0.02644 ***
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Distribution of vfa
T
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Dunnett's t Tests for vfa
Note: This test controls the Type I experimentwise error for comparisons of all treatments against a control.
Alpha 0.05
Error Degrees of Freedom 20
Error Mean Square 0.058546
Critical Value of Dunnett's t 2.65103
Minimum Significant Difference 0.4057
Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level
are indicated by ***.
treat
Comparison
V - N
C - N
A - N
S - N
Difference Simultaneous 95% Confidence
Between
Means
0.5660
0.4160
0.2840
-1.7580
Limits
0.1603
0.0103
-0.1217
-2.1637
0.9717 ***
0.8217 ***
0.6897
-1.3523 ***
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Distribution of lacticacid
O 24
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Dunnett's t Tests for lacticacid
Note: This test controls the Type I experimentwise error for comparisons of all treatments against a control.
Alpha 0.05
Error Degrees of Freedom 20
Error Mean Square 0.0338
Critical Value of Dunnett's t 2.65103
Minimum Significant Difference 0.3082
Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level
are indicated by ***.
treat
Comparison
V - N
A - N
C - N
S - N
Difference Simultaneous 95% Confidence
Between
Means
0.6400
0.5800
0.3200
-1.2800
Limits
0.3318
0.2718
0.0118
-1.5882
0.9482 ***
0.8882 ***
0.6282 ***
-0.9718 ***
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Distribution of Iac2vfa
85.0
82.5
80.0
75.0 -
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Dunnett's t Tests for lac2vfa
Note: This test controls the Type I experimentwise error for comparisons of all treatments against a control.
Alpha 0.05
Error Degrees of Freedom 20
Error Mean Square 6.66
Critical Value of Dunnett's t 2.65103
Minimum Significant Difference 4.3269
Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level
are indicated by ***.
treat Difference Simultaneous 95% Confidence
Comparison Between Limits
Means
A - N 6.400 2.073 10.727 ***
V - N 3.600 -0.727 7.927
S - N 1.200 -3.127 5.527
C - N 0.000 -4.327 4.327
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Distribution of acetic
T
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Dunnett's t Tests for acetic
Note: This test controls the Type I experimentwise error for comparisons of all treatments against a control.
Alpha 0.05
Error Degrees of Freedom 20
Error Mean Square 0.02677
Critical Value of Dunnett's t 2.65103
Minimum Significant Difference 0.2743
Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level
are indicated by ***.
treat Difference Simultaneous 95% Confidence
Comparison Between Limits
Means
C - N 0.0900 -0.1843 0.3643
V - N -0.0600 -0.3343 0.2143
A - N -0.3140 -0.5883 -0.0397 ***
S - N -0.4700 -0.7443 -0.1957 ***
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Distribution of acidity
T
T
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Dunnett's t Tests for acidity
Note: This test controls the Type I experimentwise error for comparisons of all treatments against a control.
Alpha 0.05
Error Degrees of Freedom 20
Error Mean Square 0.196382
Critical Value of Dunnett's t 2.65103
Minimum Significant Difference 0.743
Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level
are indicated by ***.
treat Difference Simultaneous 95% Confidence
Comparison Between Limits
Means
A - N 0.2400 -0.5030 0.9830
V - N -0.1660 -0.9090 0.5770
C - N -0.3600 -1.1030 0.3830
S - N -3.2440 -3.9870 -2.5010 ***
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Levene's Test for Homogeneity of nox Variance
ANOVA of Absolute Deviations from Group Means
: Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F
treat 4 3.0501E9 7.6252E8 3.25 0.0330
Error 20 4.6895E9 2.3448E8
Levene's Test for Homogeneity of lognox Variance
ANOVA of Absolute Deviations from Group Means
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F
treat 4 26.1140 6.5285 2.88 0.0493
Error 20 45.3436 2.2672
Levene's Test for Homogeneity of drymatter Variance
ANOVA of Absolute Deviations from Group Means
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F
treat 4 0.2022 0.0506 0.58 0.6789
Error 20 1.7362 0.0868
Levene's Test for Homogeneity of nh4 Variance
ANOVA of Absolute Deviations from Group Means
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F
; treat 4 0.000854 0.000213 0.43 0.7850
; Error 20 0.00992 0.000496
Levene's Test for Homogeneity of ph Variance
ANOVA of Absolute Deviations from Group Means
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F
'treat 4 0.0125 0.00313 4.14 0.0133
Error 20 0.0151 0.000756
Levene's Test for Homogeneity of vfa Variance
ANOVA of Absolute Deviations from Group Means
: Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F
treat 4 0.1411 0.0353 1.91 0.1479
; Error 20 0.3692 0.0185
Levene's Test for Homogeneity of lacticacid Variance
ANOVA of Absolute Deviations from Group Means
: Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F
treat 4 0.1361 0.0340 4.24 0.0120
; Error 20 0.1605 0.00802
Levene's Test for Homogeneity of lac2vfa Variance
ANOVA of Absolute Deviations from Group Means
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F
-------
Levene's Test for Homogeneity of lac2vfa Variance
ANOVA of Absolute Deviations from Group Means
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F
treat 4 23.1680 5.7920 2.93 0.0464
Error 20 39.4720 1.9736
Levene's Test for Homogeneity of acetic Variance
ANOVA of Absolute Deviations from Group Means
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F
treat 4 0.0865 0.0216 2.21 0.1046
Error 20 0.1957 0.00978
Levene's Test for Homogeneity of acidity Variance
ANOVA of Absolute Deviations from Group Means
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F
treat 4 0.3263 0.0816 1.59 0.2167
Error 20 1.0285 0.0514
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Distribution of nox
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
o
021
_0_
-O-
T~
A
"T"
c
—I—
N
treat
r~
S
~~r~
V
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for nox
Note: This test controls the Type I experimentwise error rate, but it generally has a higher Type II error rate than REGWQ.
Alpha 0.05
Error Degrees of Freedom 20
Error Mean Square 5.8427E8
Critical Value of Studentized Range 4.23186
Minimum Significant Difference 45746
Means with the same letter
are not significantly different.
Tukey Grouping Mean N treat
-
' A 29683 5 A
¦
! A
' A 25610 5 V
¦
; A
: A 11175 5 N
¦
; A
' A 6574 5 C
¦
; A
: A 1126 5 S
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Distribution of lognox
T
13 O
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for lognox
Note: This test controls the Type I experimentwise error rate, but it generally has a higher Type II error rate than REGWQ.
Alpha 0.05
Error Degrees of Freedom 20
Error Mean Square 8.592696
Critical Value of Studentized Range 4.23186
Minimum Significant Difference 5.5477
Means with the same letter
are not significantly different.
Tukey Grouping Mean N treat
-
!A 8.900 5 A
¦
! A
' A 8.169 5 N
¦
; A
' A 7.214 5 C
¦
; A
: A 7.003 5 S
¦
; A
'A 6.502 5 V
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Distribution of drymatter
34.0
33.5
c 33.0
ro
E
32.5
32.0
31.5
r~
A
~r~
C
o
o
o
—I—
N
treat
i
V
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for drymatter
Note: This test controls the Type I experimentwise error rate, but it generally has a higher Type II error rate than REGWQ.
Alpha 0.05
Error Degrees of Freedom 20
Error Mean Square 0.3302
Critical Value of Studentized Range 4.23186
Minimum Significant Difference 1.0875
Means with the same letter
are not significantly different.
Tukey Grouping Mean N treat
A
33.4600
5
S
A
B
A
32.6600
5
A
B
A
B
A
32.6400
5
C
B
A
B
A
32.6000
5
V
B
B
32.2200
5
N
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Distribution of nh4
0.55
0.50 -
0.45
0.40
0.35 -
20 O
0.30
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for nh4
Note: This test controls the Type I experimentwise error rate, but it generally has a higher Type II error rate than REGWQ.
Alpha 0.05
Error Degrees of Freedom 20
Error Mean Square 0.001622
Critical Value of Studentized Range 4.23186
Minimum Significant Difference 0.0762
Means with the same letter
are not significantly different.
Tukey Grouping Mean N treat
A 0.45400 5 N
A
A 0.44800 5 C
A
A 0.41000 5 A
A
: B A 0.39600 5 S
; B
: B 0.32600 5 V
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Distribution of ph
4.3
4.2
4.1
4.0
3.9
3.8
o 1
¦—o—¦
r~
A
~T~
c
ZT
r~
N
O
r~
S
O 25
~0—
23 O
1—
V
treat
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for ph
Note: This test controls the Type I experimentwise error rate, but it generally has a higher Type II error rate than REGWQ.
Alpha 0.05
Error Degrees of Freedom 20
Error Mean Square 0.00214
Critical Value of Studentized Range 4.23186
Minimum Significant Difference 0.0875
Means with the same letter
are not significantly different.
Tukey Grouping
A
B
B
B
B
C B
C
C
Mean N treat
4.22600 5 S
3.94600 5 N
3.94200 5 C
3.90000 5 V
3.84200 5 A
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Distribution of vfa
T
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for vfa
Note: This test controls the Type I experimentwise error rate, but it generally has a higher Type II error rate than REGWQ.
Alpha 0.05
Error Degrees of Freedom 20
Error Mean Square 0.058546
Critical Value of Studentized Range 4.23186
Minimum Significant Difference 0.4579
Means with the same letter
are not significantly different.
Tukey Grouping Mean N treat
A 6.0300 5 V
A
; B A 5.8800 5 C
; B A
; B A 5.7480 5 A
: B
: B 5.4640 5 N
C
3.7060
5 S
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Distribution of lacticacid
O 24
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for lacticacid
Note: This test controls the Type I experimentwise error rate, but it generally has a higher Type II error rate than REGWQ.
Alpha 0.05
Error Degrees of Freedom 20
Error Mean Square 0.0338
Critical Value of Studentized Range 4.23186
Minimum Significant Difference 0.3479
Means with the same letter
are not significantly different.
Tukey Grouping Mean N treat
A 4.7400 5 V
A
A 4.6800 5 A
A
; B A 4.4200 5 C
; B
:B 4.1000 5 N
C
2.8200
5 S
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Distribution of Iac2vfa
85.0
82.5
80.0
75.0 -
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for lac2vfa
Note: This test controls the Type I experimentwise error rate, but it generally has a higher Type II error rate than REGWQ.
Alpha 0.05
Error Degrees of Freedom 20
Error Mean Square 6.66
Critical Value of Studentized Range 4.23186
Minimum Significant Difference 4.8841
Means with the same letter
are not significantly different.
Tukey Grouping Mean N treat
A 81.400 5 A
A
; B A 78.600 5 V
: B
: B 76.200 5 S
; B
;b 75.000 5 c
; B
:B 75.000 5 N
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Distribution of acetic
T
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for acetic
Note: This test controls the Type I experimentwise error rate, but it generally has a higher Type II error rate than REGWQ.
Alpha 0.05
Error Degrees of Freedom 20
Error Mean Square 0.02677
Critical Value of Studentized Range 4.23186
Minimum Significant Difference 0.3096
Means with the same letter
are not significantly different.
Tukey Grouping Mean N treat
A 1.4520 5 C
A
A 1.3620 5 N
A
;B A 1.3020 5 V
: B
: B C 1.0480 5 A
C
C 0.8920 5 S
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Distribution of acidity
T
T
-------
ANOVA ANALYSIS
The GLM Procedure
Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for acidity
Note: This test controls the Type I experimentwise error rate, but it generally has a higher Type II error rate than REGWQ.
Alpha 0.05
Error Degrees of Freedom 20
Error Mean Square 0.196382
Critical Value of Studentized Range 4.23186
Minimum Significant Difference 0.8387
Means with the same letter
are not significantly different.
Tukey Grouping Mean N treat
A 7.0880 5 A
A
A 6.8480 5 N
A
A 6.6820 5 V
A
A 6.4880 5 C
B 3.6040 5 S
-------
residual analysis
The UNIVARIATE Procedure
Variable: rnox
Moments
N 25 Sum Weights 25
Mean 0 Sum Observations 0
Std Deviation 22065.6881 Variance 486894589
Skewness 2.04895493 Kurtosis 6.40284944
Uncorrected SS 1.16855E10 Corrected SS 1.16855E10
Coeff Variation . Std Error Mean 4413.13761
Basic Statistical Measures
Location Variability
Mean 0.00 Std Deviation 22066
• Median -1618.00 Variance 486894589
Mode . Range 108250
Interquartile Range 6883
Tests for Location: Mu0=0
Test Statistic p Value
Student's tt 0 Pr > |t| 1.6
Sign M -2.5 Pr >= |M| 0.4244
Signed Rank S -43.5 Pr >= |S| 0.2497
Tests for Normality
Test
Statistic
p Value
Shapiro-Wilk
W 0.777288
Pr
<
W <0.0001
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
D 0.285888
Pr
>
D <0.0100
Cramer-von Mises
W-Sq 0.367861
Pr
>
W-Sq <0.0050
Anderson-Darling
A-Sq 1.940056
Pr
>
A-Sq <0.0050
Quantiles (Definition 5)
Quantile Estimate
100% Max
99%
95%
90%
75% Q3
50% Median
25% Q1
10%
5%
1%
0% Min
78566.8
78566.8
42151.2
17111.8
309.0
-1618.0
-6574.2
-25591.2
-25610.2
-29682.8
-29682.8
-------
Extreme Observations
Lowest Highest
Value Obs Value Obs
-29682.8 5
-25610.2 22
-25591.2 25
-25562.2 23
-13437.8 3
3002.2 1
12585.0 14
17111.8 8
42151.2 4
78566.8 21
Stem Leaf
7 9
6
5
4 2
3
2
1 37
0 000033
-0 765322200
-1 31
-2 666
-3 0
+ + + +
Multiply Stem.Leaf by 10**
# Boxplot
1 *
1 *
2 0
6 +--+--+
g * *
2 I
3 0
1 *
Normal Probability Plot
75000+
++++
* * * .* .
-35000+
+ + + + + + + + 1_ + +
-2 -1 0 +1 +2
-------
residual analysis
The UNIVARIATE Procedure
Distribution of rnox
200
150
100
50
-25000
25000
50000
-50000
0
75000
100000
rnox
Cuive Kernel(c=0.79)
-------
residual analysis
The UNIVARIATE Procedure
Q-Q Plot for rnox
80000 -
o
60000 -
40000
o
x
| 20000
o
o
o o
0 -
OOOO000000
o
o
o
o
o
-20000
o o o
o
-40000
1 1 1 1 1
-2 -10 12
Normal Quantiles
-------
residual analysis
The UNIVARIATE Procedure
Variable: rlognox
Moments
N 25 Sum Weights 25
Mean 0 Sum Observations 0
Std Deviation 2.67592604 Variance 7.16058019
Skewness -0.6283896 Kurtosis 0.16944725
Uncorrected SS 171.853925 Corrected SS 171.853925
Coeff Variation . Std Error Mean 0.53518521
Basic Statistical Measures
Location Variability
Mean 0.000000 Std Deviation 2.67593
Median 0.279882 Variance 7.16058
Mode . Range 10.95568
Interquartile Range 1.95459
Tests for Location: Mu0=0
Test Statistic p Value
Student's t t 0 Pr > |t| 1.0000
Sign M 3.5 Pr >= |M| 0.2295
Signed Rank S 20.5 Pr >= |S| 0.5916
Tests for Normality
Test Statistic p Value
Shapiro-Wilk W 0.943169 Pr < W 0.1752
Kolmogorov-Smirnov D 0.191909 Pr > D 0.0184
Cramer-von Mises W-Sq 0.137347 Pr > W-Sq 0.0340
Anderson-Darling A-Sq 0.701098 Pr > A-Sq 0.0613
Quantiles (Definition 5)
Quantile Estimate
100% Max 5.051756
99% 5.051756
95% 3.576292
90% 2.859926
; 75% Q3 1.495627
50% Median 0.279882
; 25% Q1 -0.458967
10% -4.217825
; 5% -5.173760
•1% -5.903924
; 0% Min -5.903924
-------
Extreme Observations
Lowest Highest
Value Obs Value Obs
-5.90392 5 1.90711 14
-5.17376 13 2.28274 4
-4.21783 10 2.85993 8
-3.50655 22 3.57629 24
-2.83872 25 5.05176 21
-------
residual analysis
The UNIVARIATE Procedure
Variable: rlognox
Stem Leaf # Boxplot
5 1 1 0
4
3 6 1 |
2 39 2 j
1 034569 6 + +
0 223389 6
-0 542 3 + +
"I I
-2 83 2 |
-3 5 1 0
-4 2 1 0
-5 92 2 0
+ + + +
Normal Probability Plot
5.5+ +*++
^ i a i_
_|
+++*
+ *
-5.5+ ++*+ *
+ + + + + + + + + + +
-2 -1 0 +1 +2
-------
residual analysis
The UNIVARIATE Procedure
Distribution of rlognox
60
50 ,/ \
40 / \
c
a) / V—
S 30
LL \
20 - /
10
-7.5 -5.0 -2.5 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5
rlognox
Cuive Kernel(c=0.79)
-------
residual analysis
The UNIVARIATE Procedure
Q-Q Plot for rlognox
X
o
6 -
4 -
2 -
0 -
-7 -
-4 -
o o
O O
o O °
o o
-6 -
Normal Quantiles
-------
residual analysis
The UNIVARIATE Procedure
Variable: rdrymatter
Moments
N 25 Sum Weights 25
Mean 0 Sum Observations 0
Std Deviation 0.52456331 Variance 0.27516667
Skewness 0.45980664 Kurtosis -0.2687474
Uncorrected SS 6.604 Corrected SS 6.604
Coeff Variation . Std Error Mean 0.10491266
Basic Statistical Measures
Location Variability
Mean 0.00000 Std Deviation 0.52456
Median 0.04000 Variance 0.27517
; Mode -0.66000 Range 2.00000
Interquartile Range 0.90000
Note: The mode displayed is the smallest of 4 modes with a count of 2.
Tests for Location: Mu0=0
Test Statistic p Value
Student's t t 0 Pr > |t| 1.0000
! Sign M 0.5 Pr >= |M| 1.0000
Signed Rank S -11 Pr >= |S| 0.7739
Tests for Normality
Test Statistic
p Value
Shapiro-Wilk W
0.954596 Pr <
W
0.3174
Kolmogorov-Smirnov D
0.109749 Pr >
D
>0.1500
Cramer-von Mises W-Sq
0.042311 Pr >
W-Sq
>0.2500
Anderson-Darling A-Sq
0.334864 Pr >
A-Sq
>0.2500
Quantiles
(Definition 5)
Quantile
Estimate
100% Max
1.26
99%
1.26
95%
0.84
90%
0.64
75% Q3
0.40
50% Median
0.04
25% Q1
-0.50
10%
-0.66
: 5%
-0.66
: 1%
-0.74
-------
Quantiles (Definition 5)
Quantile Estimate
0% Min -0.74
Extreme Observations
Lowest Highest
Value Obs Value Obs
-0.74
7
0.44
4
-0.66
18
0.48
14
-0.66
17
0.64
3
-0.62
12
0.84
16
-0.56
5
1.26
10
-------
residual analysis
The UNIVARIATE Procedure
Variable: rdrymatter
Stem
Leaf
#
Boxplot
12
6
1
1
10
8
4
1
6
4
1
1
4
0048
4
+ +
2
4
1
1 1
0
46488
5
* | *
-0
0
1
1 1
-2
4420
4
1 1
-4
660
3
+ +
-6
4662
4
1
+ + + +
Multiply Stem.Leaf by 10**-1
Normal Probability Plot
1.3+ * +++
I
| *++++
j +*++
| * **_j_*
0.3+ +*++
| *****
!_**
j_* * *
| _j__j_** *
-0.7+ * *+*+*
+ + + + + + + + + + +
-2 -1 0 +1 +2
++*
-------
residual analysis
The UNIVARIATE Procedure
40
30
0.1
O
CD
0-
20
10
Distribution of rdrymatter
-1.75 -1.25 -0.75 -0.25 0.25 0.75
rdrymatter
1.25
Cuive
Kernel(c=0.79)
1.75
2.25
-------
residual analysis
The UNIVARIATE Procedure
Q-Q Plot for rdrymatter
1.5 -
o
1.0
o
o
0.5
_ _ o °
a)
-t—*
tTJ
o
0
0
E
—
o ° °
0.0 -
O O
o
o o °
o
-0.5 -
o
o o
o o °
o
-1.0
I I I I I
-2-10 1 2
Normal Quantiles
-------
residual analysis
The UNIVARIATE Procedure
Variable: rnh4
Moments
N 25 Sum Weights 25
Mean 0 Sum Observations 0
Std Deviation 0.03676502 Variance 0.00135167
; Skewness 0.22572906 Kurtosis 1.13503847
Uncorrected SS 0.03244 Corrected SS 0.03244
Coeff Variation . Std Error Mean 0.007353
Basic Statistical Measures
Location Variability
• Mean 0.00000 Std Deviation 0.03677
Median 0.00400 Variance 0.00135
; Mode -0.03400 Range 0.18200
Interquartile Range 0.05200
Note: The mode displayed is the smallest of 8 modes with a count of 2.
Tests for Location: Mu0=0
Test Statistic p Value
Student's tt 0 Pr > |t| 1.6
! Sign M 0.5 Pr >= |M| l.E
Signed Rank S -3 Pr >= |S| 0.9376
Tests for Normality
Test Statistic p Value
; Shapiro-Wilk W 0.946903 Pr < W 0.2133
Kolmogorov-Smirnov D 0.12779 Pr > D >0.1500
Cramer-von Mises W-Sq 0.075294 Pr > W-Sq 0.2335
Anderson-Darling A-Sq 0.538805 Pr > A-Sq 0.1545
Quantiles (Definition 5)
Quantile Estimate
100% Max 0.096
99% 0.096
¦ 95% 0.040
90% 0.034
' 75% Q3 0.024
50% Median 0.004
25% Q1 -0.028
10% -0.034
5% -0.036
: 1% -0.086
-------
Quantiles (Definition 5)
Quantile Estimate
0% Min -0.086
Extreme Observations
Lowest Highest
Value
Obs
Value
Obs
-0.086
20
0.032
8
-0.036
22
0.034
19
-0.034
13
0.034
25
-0.034
11
0.040
1
-0.030
4
0.096
15
-------
residual analysis
The UNIVARIATE Procedure
Variable: rnh4
Stem Leaf # Boxplot
8 6 1 |
6 I
4 0 1 |
2 442244 6 + +
0 40044 5
-0 884 3 | |
-2 64400864 8 + +
-4 I
+ + + +
Multiply Stem.Leaf by 10**-2
Normal Probability Plot
0.09+
I
| ++++*+
0.03+ *
-0.03+ * * *+**+***
-0.09+
+ + + + + + + + + + +
-2 -1 0 +1 +2
-------
residual analysis
The UNIVARIATE Procedure
40
Distribution of rnh4
30
o
55
Q.
20
10
-0.16
-0.12
-0.08 -0.04
Cuive
0.00
rnh4
0.04 0.08
0.12
0.16
Kernel(c=0.79)
-------
residual analysis
The UNIVARIATE Procedure
Q-Q Plot for rnh4
0.10 -
0.05
0.00
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
-0.05 -
o o
o o
-0.10
1
0
Normal Quantiles
-------
residual analysis
The UNIVARIATE Procedure
Variable: rph
Moments
N 25 Sum Weights 25
Mean 0 Sum Observations 0
Std Deviation 0.04222953 Variance 0.00178333
Skewness -0.3208506 Kurtosis 6.48410228
Uncorrected SS 0.0428 Corrected SS 0.0428
Coeff Variation . Std Error Mean 0.00844591
Basic Statistical Measures
Location Variability
• Mean 0.00000 Std Deviation 0.04223
Median 0.00000 Variance 0.00178
; Mode -0.01200 Range 0.26000
Interquartile Range 0.02600
Note: The mode displayed is the smallest of 2 modes with a count of 3.
Tests for Location: Mu0=0
Test Statistic p Value
Student's t t 0 Pr > |t| 1.0000
! Sign M -1 Pr >= |M| 0.8318
Signed Rank S 2 Pr >= |S| 0.9500
Tests for Normality
Test
Statistic
p Value
Shapiro-Wilk
W
0.82252
Pr
<
W
0.0006
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
D
0.189052
Pr
>
D
0.0212
Cramer-von Mises
W-Sq
0.245177
Pr
>
W-Sq
<0.0050
Anderson-Darling
A-Sq
1.538383
Pr
>
A-Sq
<0.0050
Quantiles (Definition 5)
Quantile Estimate
100% Max 0.124
99% 0.124
95% 0.048
90% 0.028
75% Q3 0.014
50% Median 0.000
25% Q1 -0.012
10% -0.026
5% -0.036
1% -0.136
-------
Quantiles (Definition 5)
Quantile Estimate
0% Min -0.136
Extreme
Observations
Lowest
Highest
Value Obs
Value Obs
-0.136
17
0.024 18
-0.036
16
0.024 20
-0.026
15
0.028 8
-0.022
9
0.048 1
-0.022
5
0.124 19
-------
residual analysis
The UNIVARIATE Procedure
Variable: rph
Stem Leaf # Boxplot
12 1 *
0 5 1 |
0 00001112223 11
-0 43222111100 11 + +
-0
-14 1 *
+ + + +
Multiply Stem.Leaf by 10**-1
Normal Probability Plot
0.125+
-0.125+++ *
+ + + + + + + + + + +
-2 -1 0 +1 +2
-------
residual analysis
The UNIVARIATE Procedure
Distribution of rph
100
80 -
60 -
40 -
20
0.12
-0.06
0.06
0.12
0.13
0.00
0.18
rph
Cuive Kernel(c=0.79)
-------
residual analysis
The UNIVARIATE Procedure
Q-Q Plot for rph
0.15 -
o
0.10 -
0.05
o
o ° ° °
f~1
a. 0.00
o
o O o O O o °
o o o
o O O O
o
-0.05 -
-0.10
o
-0.15
1 1 1 1 1
-2-10 1 2
Normal Quantiles
-------
residual analysis
The UNIVARIATE Procedure
Variable: rvfa
Moments
N 25 Sum Weights 25
Mean 0 Sum Observations 0
Std Deviation 0.22088081 Variance 0.04878833
Skewness 0.01015503 Kurtosis 0.72719761
Uncorrected SS 1.17092 Corrected SS 1.17092
Coeff Variation . Std Error Mean 0.04417616
Basic Statistical Measures
Location Variability
• Mean 0.000000 Std Deviation 0.22088
Median 0.002000 Variance 0.04879
; Mode . Range 1.01400
Interquartile Range 0.25000
Tests for Location: Mu0=0
Test Statistic p Value
Student's t t 0 Pr > |t| 1.0000
Sign M 1.5 Pr >= |M| 0.6900
Signed Rank S -0.5 Pr >= |S| 0.9896
Tests for Normality
Test Statistic p Value
; Shapiro-Wilk W 0.984176 Pr < W 0.9535
Kolmogorov-Smirnov D 0.099732 Pr > D >0.1500
Cramer-von Mises W-Sq 0.038403 Pr > W-Sq >0.2500
Anderson-Darling A-Sq 0.235675 Pr > A-Sq >0.2500
Quantiles (Definition 5)
Quantile Estimate
100% Max 0.494
99% 0.494
95% 0.390
90% 0.280
; 75% Q3 0.110
50% Median 0.002
; 25% Q1 -0.140
10% -0.244
5% -0.326
•1% -0.520
; 0% Min -0.520
-------
Extreme Observations
Lowest Highest
Value Obs Value Obs
-0.520 22 0.152 5
-0.326 20 0.204 18
-0.244 12 0.280 9
-0.200 10 0.390 24
-0.196 16 0.494 17
-------
residual analysis
The UNIVARIATE Procedure
Variable: rvfa
Stem Leaf
#
Boxplot
4 9
1
0
3 9
1
1
2 08
2
1
1 125
3
+ +
0 0024599
7
* | *
-0 550
3
1 1
-1 843
3
+ +
-2 400
3
1
-3 3
1
1
-4
-5 2
1
0
+ + + +
Multiply Stem.Leaf by 10**-1
Normal Probability Plot
0.45+ +*++
| +*+++
j +*+*
| _|_*_|_**
| *******
-0.05+ ***+
I * **.**
-0.55++++ *
+ + + + + + + + + + +
-2 -1 0 +1 +2
-------
residual analysis
The UNIVARIATE Procedure
o
55
Q.
50
40
30
20
10
-0.75
-0.50
Distribution of rvfa
-0.25
Cuive
0.00
ivfa
0.25
Kernel(c=0.79)
X
0.50
0.75
-------
residual analysis
The UNIVARIATE Procedure
Q-Q Plot for rvfa
0.6 -
o
0.4 -
o
o
0.2
o
o
~ O °
o o
o ° °
f 0.0
o o o
o o
o o
o
-0.2 -
O O
o
o
-0.4
o
-0.6
1 1 1 1 1
-2-10 1 2
Normal Quantiles
-------
residual analysis
The UNIVARIATE Procedure
Variable: rlacticacid
Moments
N 25 Sum Weights 25
Mean 0 Sum Observations 0
Std Deviation 0.16782928 Variance 0.02816667
Skewness 0.68521247 Kurtosis 1.6420739
Uncorrected SS 0.676 Corrected SS 0.676
Coeff Variation . Std Error Mean 0.03356586
Basic Statistical Measures
Location Variability
• Mean 0.00000 Std Deviation 0.16783
Median -0.02000 Variance 0.02817
; Mode -0.04000 Range 0.80000
Interquartile Range 0.18000
Tests for Location: Mu0=0
Test Statistic p Value
Student's t t 0 Pr > |t| 1.0000
Sign M -2 Pr >= |M| 0.5413
Signed Rank S -13.5 Pr >= |S| 0.7079
Tests for Normality
Test
Statistic
p Value
Shapiro-Wilk
W
0.954066
Pr
<
W
0.3090
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
D
0.132571
Pr
>
D
>0.1500
Cramer-von Mises
W-Sq
0.063648
Pr
>
W-Sq
>0.2500
Anderson-Darling
A-Sq
0.398719
Pr
>
A-Sq
>0.2500
Quantiles (Definition 5)
Quantile Estimate
100% Max 0.48
99% 0.48
95% 0.20
90% 0.18
75% Q3 0.10
50% Median -0.02
25% Q1 -0.08
10% -0.22
5% -0.22
1% -0.32
0% Min -0.32
-------
Extreme Observations
Lowest Highest
Value Obs Value Obs
-0.32 16 0.16 24
-0.22 19 0.18 9
-0.22 6 0.18 18
-0.20 12 0.20 11
-0.12 20 0.48 17
-------
residual analysis
The UNIVARIATE Procedure
Variable: rlacticacid
Stem
Leaf
#
Boxplot
4
8
1
0
3
2
0
1
1
1
02688
5
+ +
0
0228
4
1 + 1
-0
88444422
8
* *
-1
20
2
1
-2
220
3
-3
2
1
+ + + +
Multiply Stem.Leaf by 10**-1
Normal Probability Plot
0.45+
0.05+ ++****
+*+++
L*l* X*l*
+ * +
-0.35+ +++*++
+ + + + + + + + + + +
-2 -1 0 +1 +2
-------
residual analysis
The UNIVARIATE Procedure
Distribution of rlacticacid
60
50 / \
40
CD
I 30
LL
20
-0.5 -0.3 -0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7
rlacticacid
Cuive Kernel(c=0.79)
-------
residual analysis
The UNIVARIATE Procedure
Q-Q Plot for rlacticacid
0.6 -
o
0.4
0.2
„ o
"C
(_)
o o
o
(T3
o
O
o
-*—•
O
o
ra
o o
0.0 -
o o °
o o o o
o °
-0.2 -
o
o o
o
-0.4
1 1 1 1 1
-2-10 1 2
Normal Quantiles
-------
residual analysis
The UNIVARIATE Procedure
Variable: rlac2vfa
Moments
N 25 Sum Weights 25
Mean 0 Sum Observations 0
Std Deviation 2.3558438 Variance 5.55
Skewness 0.56280943 Kurtosis 1.55116638
Uncorrected SS 133.2 Corrected SS 133.2
Coeff Variation . Std Error Mean 0.47116876
Basic Statistical Measures
Location Variability
Mean 0 Std Deviation 2.35584
Median 0 Variance 5.55000
; Mode 0 Range 11.60000
Interquartile Range 2.40000
Tests for Location: Mu0=0
Test Statistic p Value
Student's t t 0 Pr > |t| 1.0000
Sign M -1.5 Pr >= |M| 0.6636
Signed Rank S -3 Pr >= |S| 0.9197
Tests for Normality
Test Statistic p Value
Shapiro-Wilk W 0.955333 Pr < W 0.3294
Kolmogorov-Smirnov D 0.14 Pr > D >0.1500
Cramer-von Mises W-Sq 0.080889 Pr > W-Sq 0.2000
Anderson-Darling A-Sq 0.486615 Pr > A-Sq 0.2138
Quantiles (Definition 5)
Quantile Estimate
100% Max 6.4
99% 6.4
95% 3.8
90% 2.8
75% Q3 0.8
50% Median 0.0
25% Q1 -1.6
10% -2.2
5% -2.6
•1% -5.2
0% Min -5.2
-------
Extreme Observations
Lowest Highest
Value Obs Value Obs
-5.2 16 2.0 11
-2.6 24 2.0 13
-2.2 19 2.8 17
-2.0 15 3.8 20
-2.0 14 6.4 22
-------
residual analysis
The UNIVARIATE Procedure
Variable: rlac2vfa
Stem Leaf # Boxplot
6 4 1 0
4
2 00088 5 |
0 0000668 7 H 1 h
-0 666444 6 + +
-2 62000 5 |
-4 2 1 j
+ + + +
1+
Normal Probability Plot
s|c * | * | * | * |
-5++++++*+++
+ + + + + + + + + + +
-2 -1 0 +1 +2
-------
residual analysis
The UNIVARIATE Procedure
50
Distribution of rlac2vfa
o
55
Q.
40
30
20
10
-0.75 -6.25 -3.75 -1.25 1.25
rlac2vfa
3.75
6.25
8.75
Cuive
Kernel(c=0.79)
-------
residual analysis
The UNIVARIATE Procedure
Q-Q Plot for rlac2vfa
7.5 -
o
5.0 -
o
2.5
o
o o o
*5
o o °
<2 0.0
o o o o
ro
o ° ° °
o o
o ° ° °
-2.5 -
o
-5.0
o
-7.5
1 1 1 1 1
-2-10 1 2
Normal Quantiles
-------
residual analysis
The UNIVARIATE Procedure
Variable: racetic
Moments
N 25 Sum Weights 25
Mean 0 Sum Observations 0
Std Deviation 0.14935974 Variance 0.02230833
Skewness -1.8134412 Kurtosis 5.53204762
Uncorrected SS 0.5354 Corrected SS 0.5354
Coeff Variation . Std Error Mean 0.02987195
Basic Statistical Measures
Location Variability
• Mean 0.000000 Std Deviation 0.14936
Median 0.018000 Variance 0.02231
; Mode 0.068000 Range 0.78000
Interquartile Range 0.11600
Tests for Location: Mu0=0
Test Statistic p Value
Student's t t 0 Pr > |t| 1.0000
Sign M 2.5 Pr >= |M| 0.4244
Signed Rank S 27 Pr >= |S| 0.4786
Tests for Normality
Test
Statistic
p Value
Shapiro-Wilk
W
0.847835
Pr
<
W
0.0016
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
D
0.171499
Pr
>
D
0.0566
Cramer-von Mises
W-Sq
0.179986
Pr
>
W-Sq
0.0088
Anderson-Darling
A-Sq
1.1197
Pr
>
A-Sq
0.0051
Quantiles (Definition 5)
Quantile Estimate
100% Max 0.258
99% 0.258
95% 0.128
90% 0.118
75% Q3 0.078
50% Median 0.018
25% Q1 -0.038
10% -0.202
5% -0.202
1% -0.522
0% Min -0.522
-------
Extreme Observations
Lowest Highest
Value Obs Value Obs
-0.522 22 0.118 14
-0.202 20 0.118 15
-0.202 10 0.118 6
-0.082 13 0.128 25
-0.082 12 0.258 24
-------
residual analysis
The UNIVARIATE Procedure
Variable: racetic
Stem
Leaf
#
Boxplot
2
6
1
0
1
02223
5
1
0
112467778
9
+"
-0
8874222
7
+ +
-1
1
-2
00
2
1
-3
-4
-5
2
1
*
+ + + +
Multiply Stem.Leaf by 10**-1
Normal Probability Plot
0.25+ ++4
| _| ^
| * ** *** * | |
-0.15+ +++++++
-0.55+ *
+ + + + + + + + + + +
-2 -1 0 +1 +2
-------
residual analysis
The UNIVARIATE Procedure
Distribution of racetic
o
<5
Q.
60
50
40
30
20
10
/
,/
-0.675 -0.525 -0.375 -0.225 -0.075 0.075 0.225 0.375
racetic
Cuive
Kernel(c=0.79)
-------
residual analysis
The UNIVARIATE Procedure
Q-Q Plot for racetic
0.4 -
0.2
o o o
0.0
o o o o
o o °
o o o
•11
o
TO
o o °
-0.2 -
o o
-0.4
-0.6
1
0
Normal Quantiles
-------
residual analysis
The UNIVARIATE Procedure
Variable: racidity
Moments
N 25 Sum Weights 25
Mean 0 Sum Observations 0
Std Deviation 0.40453883 Variance 0.16365167
Skewness 0.590645 Kurtosis 0.27982754
Uncorrected SS 3.92764 Corrected SS 3.92764
Coeff Variation . Std Error Mean 0.08090777
Basic Statistical Measures
Location Variability
• Mean 0.00000 Std Deviation 0.40454
Median -0.06800 Variance 0.16365
; Mode . Range 1.66400
Interquartile Range 0.55600
Tests for Location: Mu0=0
Test Statistic p Value
Student's tt 0 Pr > |t| 1.6
Sign M -0.5 Pr >= |M| 1.6
Signed Rank S -9 Pr >= |S| 0.8142
Tests for Normality
Test Statistic p Value
Shapiro-Wilk W 0.966472 Pr < W 0.5575
Kolmogorov-Smirnov D 0.088168 Pr > D >0.1500
Cramer-von Mises W-Sq 0.036104 Pr > W-Sq >0.2500
Anderson-Darling A-Sq 0.262935 Pr > A-Sq >0.2500
Quantiles (Definition 5)
Quantile Estimate
100% Max 1.022
99% 1.022
95% 0.706
90% 0.428
75% Q3 0.222
50% Median -0.068
; 25% Q1 -0.334
10% -0.428
5% -0.598
•1% -0.642
; 0% Min -0.642
-------
Extreme Observations
Lowest Highest
Value Obs Value Obs
-0.642 22 0.362 4
-0.598 6 0.398 21
-0.428 12 0.428 24
-0.418 9 0.706 17
-0.372 23 1.022 8
-------
residual analysis
The UNIVARIATE Procedure
Variable: racidity
Stem
Leaf
#
Boxplot
10
O
2
1
1
O
6
1
1
4
03
2
1
2
206
3
+-
+
0
11799
5
1
+ 1
-0
1987
4
*
*
-2
76383
5
+ "
+
-4
32
2
1
-6
40
2
+ + + +
Multiply Stem.Leaf by 10**-1
Normal Probability Plot
1.1+ *
I
| *++++
0.5+ +++*+
| +*+*
_0#1+ +
-0.7+
+ + + + + + + + + + +
-2 -1 0 +1 +2
-------
residual analysis
The UNIVARIATE Procedure
40
Distribution of racidity
30
o
55
Q.
20
10
-1.4 -1.0 -0.6 -0.2 0.2 0.6
racidity
1.0
1.4
Cuive
Kernel(c=0.79)
-------
residual analysis
The UNIVARIATE Procedure
Q-Q Plot for racidity
1.5 -
1.0
o
o
0.5
o ° °
-1—'
o
O
ra
O O o °
o.o -
o o
O O O O
o
A
O o o
o o
-0.5 -
„ o
o
-1.0
I I I I I
-2-10 1 2
Normal Quantiles
------- |