The Pennsylvania State University

The Graduate School

College of Engineering

A NOVEL APPROACH TO USE SECOND GENERATION BIOFUEL CROP PLANTS

(CAMELINA SATIVA, MISCANTHUS GIGANTEUS, AND PANICUM VIRGATUM) TO

REMEDIATE ABANDONDED MINE LANDS IN PENNSYLVANIA

A Thesis in

Environmental Pollution Control

by

Edward A. Gerst

© 2014 Edward A. Gerst

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements

for the Degree of:

Master of Science

May 2014

ii

The thesis of Edward A. Gerst was reviewed and approved* by the following:

Sairam V. Rudrabhatla

Associate Professor of Biology

Director, Central Pennsylvania Laboratory for Biofuels

Thesis Advisor

Shirley E. Clark

Associate Professor of Science and Environmental Engineering

Shobha Devi Potlakayala

Assistant Professor of Biology

Thomas Eberlein

Associate Professor of Chemistry

Program Chair

Alison Shuler

Co-director of Environmental Training Center

Special Signatory

Gregory Shuler, P.G.

PA Department of Environmental Protection

Bureau of Mining Programs

Special Signatory

*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School.

iii

ABSTRACT

We as humans should strive to develop ways for our impact on the environment to be minimized. In the

past there has always been collateral damage to the environment during times when man was doing what

they felt was necessary to harness available fuel resources. Barren and abandoned mine lands remind us of the coal waste left behind from mining operations. On these abandoned lands are the elemental

remnants of what once took place. Dangerous levels of elements metallic elements include Silver (Ag),

Arsenic (As), Barium (Ba), Cadmium (Cd), Chromium (Cr), Mercury (Hg), Lead (Pb), and Selenium (Se). These contaminants accompany Iron (Fe), Manganese (Mn), Sulfur (S), and Aluminum (AL).

Recently, scientists have explored the use of plants to naturally absorb toxic substances into their growth

tissues through natural absorption of nutrients from the soil in which the plants live. This phenomenon is known as Phytoremediation. Our study focuses on phytoextraction, which is the use of plants to

accumulate pollutants to remove metals or organics from the soil by concentrating them in the harvestable

plant tissue parts. We chose to study three species of biofuel crops, Camelina sativa, Miscanthus giganteus, and Panicum virgatum. Each species has different characteristics that could prove useful in

this research. Camelina sativa possesses the ability to fix nitrogen in there root zone. Miscanthus

giganteus is very hearty and has a deep root structure. Panicum virgatum is also hearty and has long, fibrous and densely arranged roots.

The basis of our investigation is to observe the abilities of aforementioned biofuel crop species extract

heavy metals to phytoremediate marginal soils affected by mining operations. To test this hypothesis we chose soil from three locations upon the land holdings of the Eastern Pennsylvania Coalition for

Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation (EPCAMR) whose office is located in the Borough of Ashley,

Luzerne County, PA. We believe that each of these species of biofuel crops will respectively show favorable removal of heavy metal contamination in each of three experimental soil types.

This experiment shall answer the following questions:

1. Which of the three (3) biofuel crops selected [Camelina sativa, Miscanthus giganteus, or

Panicum virgatum] has the ability to survive in the marginal soils affected by mining

operations? 2. Do any of the aforementioned species thrive in such conditions?

3. Do any of these biofuel crops have the ability to Phytoremediate soils with high concentrations

of heavy metals? 4. Do any of the aforementioned plant species behave as a hyper-accumulator of any of the

analytes studied?

5. What is the feasibility of using any of these plant species to phytoremediate the experimental

soils and also as a source of energy following phytoextraction?

Our experiment involved growing the biofuel crops in contaminated soils under greenhouse conditions.

We tested the initial and final contaminant concentrations in the sample soils after plant growth. We also tested plant tissues at the end of the experiment for contaminant concentration in the plant tissues. This

would indicate the level of phytoextraction which occurred. Our experiment displayed results that

indicated that the soils were indeed reclaimed through the utilization of biofuel crops to phytoextract some of the heavy metal contaminants. There were also instances where hyper-accumulation occurred.

We are hopeful that these results could lead to further investigation to determine the feasibility of field

stage application. Future experiments should also be conducted to determine how the environmental

impact when these biofuel products are combusted.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. vi

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... vii

Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... viii

Chapter 1, INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1

Thesis Statement/Objective Questions ............................................................................... 3

Toxicity of Heavy Metal Contamination ............................................................................ 4

Phytoremediation ............................................................................................................... 5

Hyper-Accumulation ......................................................................................................... 10

Use of Biofuel Crops ......................................................................................................... 11

Chapter 2, METHODS AND MATERIALS .................................................................................. 13

Experimental Design ......................................................................................................... 14

Soil Collection and Preparation.......................................................................................... 15

Preparation of planting containers and plants ..................................................................... 17

Germination Records ......................................................................................................... 19

Growth Records ................................................................................................................. 19

Laboratory Analyses .......................................................................................................... 20

Methods for Calculations ................................................................................................... 21

Variability Calculations.......................................................................................... 21

Percent Germination Calculations .......................................................................... 22

Mass-Volume Approximation Calculations ............................................................ 22

Mass-Balance Calculations .................................................................................... 23

Chemical and Physical Properties ........................................................................... 24

Chapter 3, RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 26

Summary Results of Germination Records......................................................................... 27

Summary Results of Growth Records ................................................................................ 31

Summary Results of Laboratory Analyses ......................................................................... 37

Summary Results of Calculations ...................................................................................... 40

Soil Variability Results .......................................................................................... 41

Plant Tissue Variability Results.............................................................................. 46

Percent Germination Results .................................................................................. 51

Mass-Balance Calculation Results .......................................................................... 52

Chapter 4, INTERPRETATION OF RESULT .............................................................................. 57

Discussion of Plant Species ............................................................................................... 58

Discussion of Germination Results .................................................................................... 58

Discussion of Growth Record Results ................................................................................ 59

Discussion of Laboratory Results....................................................................................... 60

Discussion of Variability Results ....................................................................................... 62

Discussion of Mass-Balance Results .................................................................................. 63

Chapter 5, CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 65

v

Bibliography ................................................................................................................................. 70

Appendix A, FORMS AND DEADLINES .................................................................................... 74

Master’s Approval Page..................................................................................................... 75

Appendix B, GROWTH RECORDS ............................................................................................. 76

Spreadsheet of Daily Growth Records ............................................................................... 77

Field Data Sheets ............................................................................................................... 104

Appendix C, LABORATORY RESULTS ..................................................................................... 124

Initial Soil Sample Results ................................................................................................. 125

Initial Native Plant Tissue Sample Results ......................................................................... 132

Final Soil and Plant Tissue Sample Results for Trial 1 ....................................................... 139

Final Soil and Plant Tissue Sample Results for Trials 2 – 4 ................................................ 166

Appendix D, CALCULATIONS ................................................................................................... 188

Percent Germination Calculations ...................................................................................... 189

Mass-Volume Calculation ................................................................................................. 189

Approximate plant tissue mass calculations ....................................................................... 190

Mass-Balance Calculations ................................................................................................ 192

vi

LIST OF TABLES

EPA Reference Test Method:

Table 1, EPA Reference Test Method ................................................................................ 21

Chemical and Physical Properties:

Table 2, Chemical and Physical Properties......................................................................... 25

Summary Results of Germination Records:

Table 3a, Results, Trial 1 ................................................................................................... 27

Table 3b, Results, Trial 2 ................................................................................................... 28

Table 3c, Results, Trial 3 ................................................................................................... 29

Table 3d, Results, Trial 4 ................................................................................................... 30

Summary Results of Chemical Analyses:

Table 4a, Results, Initial Soil Analysis ............................................................................... 37

Table 4b, Results, Native Plant Tissue Analysis ................................................................ 37

Table 5a, Results, Final Soil Analysis, Trial 1 .................................................................... 38

Table 5b, Results, Final Soil Analysis, Trials 2 and 3 combined ........................................ 38

Table 6a, Results, Final Plant Tissue Analysis, Trial 1 ....................................................... 39

Table 6b, Results, Final Plant Tissue Analysis, Trial 2 ....................................................... 39

Table 6c, Results, Final Plant Tissue Analysis, Trial 3 ....................................................... 40

Summary Results of Calculations:

Percent Germination:

Table 7a, Results, Percent Germination, Trial 1 ................................................................. 51

Table 7b, Results, Percent Germination, Trial 2 ................................................................. 51

Table 7c, Results, Percent Germination, Trial 3 ................................................................. 52

Table 7d, Results, Percent Germination, Trial 4 ................................................................. 52

Mass-Balance:

Camelina sativa:

Table 8a, Summary Results, Mass-Balance, Soil 1 ............................................................. 52

Table 8b, Summary Results, Mass-Balance, Soil 2 ............................................................ 53

Table 8c, Summary Results, Mass-Balance, Soil 3 ............................................................. 53

Miscanthus giganteus:

Table 9a, Summary Results, Mass-Balance, Soil 1 ............................................................. 54

Table 9b, Summary Results, Mass-Balance, Soil 2 ............................................................ 54

Table 9c, Summary Results, Mass-Balance, Soil 3 ............................................................. 55

Panicum virgatum:

Table 10a, Summary Results, Mass-Balance, Soil 1 ........................................................... 55

Table 10b, Summary Results, Mass-Balance, Soil 2........................................................... 56

Table 10c, Summary Results, Mass-Balance, Soil 3 ........................................................... 56

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1, Coal Mining ................................................................................................................. 2

Figure 2, Effects of Acid Mine Drainage ..................................................................................... 4

Figure 3, Remediation ................................................................................................................. 6

Figure 4, Types of Phytoremediation ........................................................................................... 8

Figure 5, Phytoextraction ............................................................................................................ 9

Figure 6, Hyper-Accumulation .................................................................................................. 11

Figure 7, Native Plant Species at EPCAMR .............................................................................. 14

Figure 8, Images from EPCAMR Soil excavation...................................................................... 15

Figure 9, Soil Preparation .......................................................................................................... 16

Figure 10, Plant Preparation ...................................................................................................... 17

Figure 11a, Monitoring of Plant Growth, Germination .............................................................. 18

Figure 11b, Monitoring of Plant Growth, Vegetative ................................................................. 19

Figure 12a, Results, Camelina sativa Growth Records, Trial 1 .................................................. 31

Figure 12b, Results, Camelina sativa Growth Records, Trial 2 .................................................. 31

Figure 12c, Results, Camelina sativa Growth Records, Trial 3 .................................................. 32

Figure 12d, Results, Camelina sativa Growth Records, Trial 4 .................................................. 32

Figure 13a, Results, Miscanthus giganteus Growth Records, Trial 1.......................................... 33

Figure 13b, Results, Miscanthus giganteus Growth Records, Trial 2 ......................................... 33

Figure 13c, Results, Miscanthus giganteus Growth Records, Trial 3.......................................... 34

Figure 13d, Results, Miscanthus giganteus Growth Records, Trial 4 ......................................... 34

Figure 14a, Results, Panicum virgatum Growth Records, Trial 1 ............................................... 35

Figure 14b, Results, Panicum virgatum Growth Records, Trial 2 .............................................. 35

Figure 14c, Results, Panicum virgatum Growth Records, Trial 3 ............................................... 36

Figure 14d, Results, Panicum virgatum Growth Records, Trial 4 .............................................. 36

Figure 15a, Aluminum Soil Variance ........................................................................................ 41

Figure 15b, Arsenic Soil Variance ............................................................................................. 41

Figure 15c, Barium Soil Variance ............................................................................................. 42

Figure 15d, Cadmium Soil Variance .......................................................................................... 42

Figure 15e, Chromium Soil Variance ........................................................................................ 43

Figure 15f, Lead Soil Variance .................................................................................................. 43

Figure 15g, Mercury Soil Variance............................................................................................ 44

Figure 15h, Selenium Soil Variance .......................................................................................... 44

Figure 15i, Silver Soil Variance ................................................................................................ 45

Figure 15j, pH Soil Variance ..................................................................................................... 45

Figure 16a, Aluminum Plant Tissue Variance ............................................................................ 46

Figure 16b, Arsenic Plant Tissue Variance ................................................................................ 47

Figure 16c, Barium Plant Tissue Variance ................................................................................. 47

Figure 16d, Cadmium Plant Tissue Variance ............................................................................. 48

Figure 16e, Chromium Plant Tissue Variance ............................................................................ 48

Figure 16f, Lead Plant Tissue Variance ..................................................................................... 49

Figure 16g, Mercury Plant Tissue Variance ............................................................................... 49

Figure 16h, Selenium Plant Tissue Variance.............................................................................. 50

Figure 16i, Silver Plant Tissue Variance .................................................................................... 50

Figure 16j, Sulfur Plant Tissue Variance ................................................................................... 51

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research would not have been possible without the support and guidance from a great

number of amazing teams and individuals. No great deed is accomplished alone. The primary

author would like to thank The Graduate School of Pennsylvania State University. Especially all

the amazingly passionate instructors involved in the Science, Technology, Engineering and

Mathematics (STEM) disciplines. The Environmental and Civil Engineering department at Penn

State Harrisburg offered great insight to bring this research to fruition.

We would like bring special recognition

• National Science Foundation’s Research Experience for Undergraduate Programs Penn

State Harrisburg

• Mr. Robert Hughes, Executive Director of the Eastern Pennsylvania Coalition for

Abandoned Mine Reclamation (EPCAMR)

• *REU students Tyler Bowe and Matt Robinson

• Staff and students of the Central PA Laboratory for Biofuels at Penn State Harrisburg

• Analytical Laboratory Service (ALS), Middletown, PA

• Microbac Laboratories, Harrisburg, PA

• US Department of Agriculture

• Mr. Gregory Shuler, P.G., PA Department of Environmental Protection

• Cynthia Gerst and children (Son Kameron, Daughter Korynn and Son Korben)

• This research is dedicated in memory of Mrs. Diana Hudler and Mrs. Pamela Gerst

*NSF REU student interns

1

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION

Thesis Statement and Questions

Toxicity of Heavy Metal Contamination

Phytoremediation

Hyper-Accumulation

Use of Biofuel Crops

2

Figure 1

Coal Mining

Coal mining operations have caused many

environmental problems in Pennsylvania.

Image from:

http://quiet-environmentalist.com/wp-

content/uploads/2011/02/Dirty-Coal.jpg

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION

In the world today there is a constant battle for a balance between wants and needs. For

example, the need for energy to sustain man’s

insatiable appetite for the comforts that we have

become accustomed to is in constant conflict with

the need to treat our environment with respect. The

ability to view the overall picture and lead a

balanced existence is imperative for a sustainable

ecosystem. This master’s thesis will provide some

ways to offset the anthropomorphic damage that

has occurred in the past and offer ways to develop a

more sustainable environmental stance for the future.

In Pennsylvania, vast amounts of land have been virtually disregarded (neglected?) due to

the natural resources being stripped out of the land. What is left is a barren wasteland that is

contaminated with a myriad of different chemicals and minerals. This study focuses on the

effects of potentially toxic heavy metal contaminants left in the environment after previous

mining ventures. These abandoned mine lands are left consisting of very marginal soil types.

The mine refuse formed from the coal waste lead to the formation of acid mine drainage (AMD).

This occurs when water passes over mining refuse and is exposed to the atmosphere. We have

chosen to utilize Miscanthus giganteus, Camelina sativa, and Panicum virgatum biofuel crops to

reclaim the compromised soil types and provide a viable locally-produced renewable energy

source. Each of these plant species has characteristics that could benefit the aforementioned

marginal soils. These crops can be used as a renewable energy source following the uptake of

3

potentially harmful concentrations of heavy metal waste products. Camelina sativa has the

ability to fix nitrogen throughout its life cycle. Camelina also produces seeds that possess a high

percentage of oil that can be refined into biodiesel. Miscanthus giganteus is extremely hearty

with roots that penetrate deeply in the ground. It produces a large amount of biomass that can be

used to form pellets that may be incinerated. The biomass may also be processed to form

ethanol. Additionally, miscanthus may inhibit erosion if managed properly. Panicum virgatum is

also hearty and possess long fibrous roots that are densely arranged. These roots may inhibit

erosion and can act as a sponge to capture contaminants and/or nutrients that may be moving

below the earth’s surface. The biomass from Panicum virgatum may be formed into pellets

and/or used to produce ethanol.

An objective of this research is to determine answers for each of the following questions:

1. Which of the three (3) biofuel crops selected [Camelina sativa, Miscanthus giganteus, or

Panicum virgatum] has the ability to survive in the marginal soils affected by mining

operations?

2. Do any of the aforementioned species thrive in such conditions?

3. Do any of these biofuel crops have the ability to Phytoremediate soils with high

concentrations of heavy metals?

4. Do any of the aforementioned plant species behave as a hyper-accumulator of any of the

analytes studied?

5. What is the feasibility of using any of these plant species to phytoremediate the

experimental soils and also as a source of energy following phytoextraction?

4

Toxicity of Heavy Metal Contamination:

When minerals, or fossil fuels, were mined many years ago it caused byproducts to be

released into the environment. Historically, precautions were not taken into consideration until

the formation of the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, which changed

the way solid wastes were handled during mining enterprises. At this point many of the metal

contaminants were identified. Some of these substances are beneficial and even needed for

proper metabolism in animals and plants. “Some heavy metals namely, cobalt (Co), copper (Cu),

iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni) and zinc (Zn) are considered to be

essential for plants, whereas chromium (Cr), and antimony (Sb) are found to be essential for

animals” (Misra and Mani 1991; Markert 1993). There are many more instances where these

elements and compounds are considered to be toxic and harmful to plants and animals. The

mechanism of the substances is varied and some can be related to metabolic pathways. For

instance, “chromium toxicity in plants vary from the inhibition of enzymatic activity to

mutagenesis” (Barcelo et al. 1993). The soil profile

and make-up play an important role in the ability for

species to survive in marginal soils.

Abandoned mine lands in Pennsylvania are a

prime example of where this important balance

went wrong. Amidst the industrial revolution and

the years that followed, man’s way of life recklessly

took advantage of the vast supplies of coal. During

these early years of mining, the techniques of

mining operations did not consider the environment. Tracks of land, where coal waste materials

Figure 2

Effects of Acid Mine Drainage

Effects on environment from Acid Mine Drainage.

(Gerst, 2012).

5

were discarded, left marginal soil devastated by low pH and high concentrations of heavy metals.

The mining waste products and coal refuse allows the production of AMD. “Generally, higher

the clay and/or organic matter and soil pH, the metals will be firmly bound to soil with longer

residence time and will be less bioavailable to plants” (Chang et al. 1987). Heavy metals are

those elements that are dense and share particular physical properties with one another. “Heavy

metals are defined as the elements having density greater than 5 grams per cm3” (Adriano 2001).

Plants and other organisms require small concentrations of these elements to perform essential

metabolic mechanisms. “Although many metal elements are essential for the growth of plants in

low concentrations, their excessive amounts in soil above threshold values can result in toxicity”

(Shah, Ahmad, Masood, Peralta-Videa & Ahmad, 2010).

The toxicity of each of these substances can vary significantly from substance to

substance as does the molecular arrangement and structure. “Heavy metal toxicity in plants

depends on the bioavailability of these elements in soil solution, which is a function of pH,

organic matter and cation exchange capacity to the soil” (Shah, Ahmad, Masood, Peralta-Videa

& Ahmad, 2010). The ability for organisms to process the chemicals may also provide ill

effects. “For example, the bioaccumulation of heavy metals in excessive concentrations may

replace essential metals in pigments or enzymes disrupting their function and causing oxidative

stress” (Shah, Ahmad, Masood, Peralta-Videa & Ahmad, 2010).

Phytoremediation:

Phytoremediation is the ability of certain plants to naturally remediate contaminated soils

by the uptake of inorganic compounds from the soil into the plants tissues. Contamination stems

from many sources, directly or indirectly caused by man. These anthropomorphic activities can

be blamed for many of the world’s environmental perils that now have to be addressed. Many

6

different sites have been neglected due to the high cost of traditional remediation methods. In

order to clean soils that are contaminated

with metals the cost is roughly “$250 per

cubic yard, add explosive residues, and

the cost jumps to about $1020 per cubic

yard for incineration” (Wong, 2004).

Along with the heavy monetary costs

come the production of greenhouse gases

(CO or CO2) and nitrous oxides (NOx)

from the construction machinery and

working conditions. There are many

different ways that contaminants can

affect the environment, air, water, and

soil being the most common forms of media. They each act hand in hand through daily

interactions between phases that are dictated by partitioning coefficients (i.e. KOA, KOW, or KOC)

and other chemical and physical properties (see Table #2). As these interactions occur

contaminants are left in the environment. Traditionally, this pollution has been removed through

physical remediation and restoration projects involving great economic, ecological, and energy

investments. Luckily many ecosystems have a number of methods built in naturally to help with

this issue.

For today’s stakeholders, the economic impact is a key determinant of which remediation

technique to utilize. One such financially sound technique is phytoremediation, including

methods such as bioremediation and phytoremediation. Bioremediation involves the

Figure 3

Remediation

Traditional remediation methods include physical excavation

and removal of contaminated soil.

Image from: http://systemsbiology.usm.edu/BrachyWRKY/WRKY/IMG/

Phytoremediation-01.jpg

7

biodegradation of contaminants through the use of bacterial organisms. These microorganisms

break down the organic pollutants to remove them from the environment. The amount of time it

takes to break down is usually represented by half-lives and can be accounted for through mass-

balance relationship equation calculations.

Phytoremediation is emerging as a preferred solution to soil contamination for a number

of reasons. One reason is its potential economic impact. ”Phytoremediation is an attractive

alternative to remediate contaminated soil naturally and cost effectively” (Wong, 2004).

Furthermore, phytoremediation has become a crucial part of the environmental market.

“Phytoremediation costs about $80 per cubic yard” (Wong, 2004). The lower cost of

phytoremediation makes hazardous waste cleanup more feasible for many abandoned sites.

“This cost-effective plant-based approach to remediation takes advantage of the remarkable

ability of plants to concentrate elements and compounds from the environment and metabolize

various molecules in their tissues” (Salt, 2005). Another reason phytoremediation is beneficial

to the environment is its ability to work instinctively by harnessing a naturally occurring process,

which has had a great impact on the air quality for these areas. It positively affects atmosphere

in a number of ways. One way is by significantly decreasing the necessity to use heavy

construction equipment and eliminating their subsequent harmful emissions from the combustion

of fossil fuels. The plants also sequester carbon dioxide (CO2) and replenish the atmosphere

with oxygen (O2) through photosynthetic processes. This introduces the concept of CO2

abatement.

There are a number of ways that plants can act through Phytoremediation. Some of the types of

phytoremediation are: phytodegradation, phytovolatilization, phytoextraction,

phytostabilization, phytostimulation and rhizofiltration (See Figure 4). Each of the

8

aforementioned phytoremediation methods favor

plants that grow rapidly, are hardy, have high

biomass production, and are tolerant to harsh soil

conditions.

Many different pollutants can be handled

through phytoremediation. Metals are typically

handled through phytoextraction. The degradation

of organic pollutants may occur in the root zone of

plants or extracted, sequestered, or volatilized

through the above ground plant tissues. The

chemical properties determine the way the pollutant is treated. (Pilon-Smits, 2005)

Following is a breakdown of each of these methods of phytoremediation:

Phytodegradation is when plants have the ability to breakdown harmful chemicals during

metabolism. Plants with large, tightly arranged roots systems and high enzymatic activity

are favored for this technique. (Pilon-Smits, 2005)

o This technique “involves the degradation of contaminants such as pesticides,

explosives, and organic solvents by the metabolic processes in plants. This

breakdown depends on the specific enzymes produced by the plant species”

(Wong, 2004).

Phytovolatilization is the process when pollutants are taken into the plants vascular

system and emitted through the leaves in a volatile form. Some plants can absorb and

transpire pollutants after being carried through the phytosystem. (Pilon-smits, 2005).

Figure 4 Types of Phytoremediation

Image from:

http://systemsbiology.usm.edu/BrachyWRKY/W

RKY/IMG/Phytoremediation-01.jpg

9

This technique may take a soil or water problem and make it an air quality issue. The

chemical is degraded during the process through the process of phytodegradation.

Phytoextraction is the ability of some plants to

take up pollutants and accumulate them in their

above ground leafy tissues. These can then be

harvested and disposed of or used properly.

This method is important for the removal of

inorganic or metal contaminants. (Pilon-Smits,

2005)

o “Toxic heavy metals and organic

pollutants are the major targets for

phytoremediation” (Salt, 2005). These

targets are best contacted through phytoextraction.

Phytostabilization is the use of plants to prevent the migration of pollutants by preventing

erosion, leaching, or runoff. This can also involve the chemical conversion of pollutants

to less reactive forms. This could involve the precipitation of contaminant in the plants

root zone (aka: rhizosphere). (Pilon-Smits, 2005)

Phytostimulation (or Rhizodegradation) is the ability of plants to form a sort of

mutualistic relationship with microorganism (bacteria) in the root zone of the plant. A

larger root area (Rhizosphere) favors this type of phytoremediation due to the promotion

of bacterial growth in the soil, a form of facilitated biodegradation. “For

phytostimulation of microbial degraders in the root zone, grasses such as fescue (Festuca

sp.), ryegrass (Lolium sp.), switchgrass (Pancium sp.), and prairie grasses (e.g., Buchloe

Figure 5

Phytoextraction

Phytoextraction is an excellent way to remove

heavy metal toxins from contaminated soils.

Image from:

Http://www.webapps.cee.vt.edu/ewr/environm

ental/teach/gwprimer/group17/phyto/Extract.g

if

10

dactyloides, Bouteloua sp.) are very popular because they have dense and relatively deep

root systems and thus large root surface area” (Pilon-Smits, 2005).

Rhizofiltration “is the absorption or adsorption of pollutants into the plants root zone”

(Wong, 2004). Some plants have the ability to isolate toxic substance in the soil

surrounding their roots. “To avoid the toxicity, plants have developed specific

mechanisms by which toxic elements are excluded, retained at root level, or transformed

into physiologically tolerant forms” (Shah, Ahmad, Masood, Peralta-Videa & Ahmad,

2010).

As with all methods of remediation these techniques have pros and cons. Since plants are

inhibited in movement they have to be near the pollutant. They also have to be able to react with

the chemicals thus the soil properties, toxicity level, and climate should be suitable for the

particular plant species growth. This is linked to the selection of the plant species type. It is

crucial that the plant can grow properly under the adversity of the contaminated ecosystem. The

effectiveness of phytoremediation also depends on the dispersion of the pollutant. Where the

pollutant is in relation to the plant is key. This is related to the root zone distribution. Another

limitation can be linked to the speed of the process. It can be very slow depending upon the

biological processes that are applied. More traditional remediation techniques are much faster

(such as excavation, incineration, or pump-and-treat systems.) (Pilon-Smits, 2005)

Hyper-Accumulation

Some plants have the uncanny ability to make very good use of their process when

accumulating one or more inorganic elements. When a plant can absorb 100-fold higher

amounts of contaminants it is called a hyper accumulator. “Hyper accumulators have been

reported for Arsenic (As), Cobalt (Co), Copper (Cu), Manganese (Mn), Nickel (Ni), Lead (Pb),

11

Selenium (Se), and Zinc (Zn)” (citation needed). Although these plants have amazing abilities,

they are not commonly selected due to their

slow growth and low biomass generation.

These types of plants could be very useful in

attaining the conditions of EPA’s Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). An

example of a hyper-accumulator can be seen in

Pteris vittata which is a variety of a fern. It has

been identified to be an Arsenic (As) hyper-

accumulator. (Pilon-Smits, 2005)

Use of Biofuel crops:

Using biofuel crops for

phytoremediation purposes is a relatively new topic. It focuses on the importance of the

potential for increased sustainability by using biofuel crops for phytoremediation. We hope to

offer some further research into this area. Using biofuel plant species for phytoremediation also

expands on the topic of carbon dioxide (CO2) abatement. The use of biofuel crops for

phytoremediation would offset CO2 production by decreasing the use of heavy equipment used

in conventional forms of remediation. Furthermore, biofuel crops could compound this positive

impact by also supplying a viable source of fuel. These fuel products could potentially burn

much more cleanly than conventional fossil fuel based products. They could also be produced

locally, which would allow for more energy independence on the local level. Ethanol is already

being used as an additive for fuels and is gaining commercial acceptance. The emissions from

combusted biofuels will align with the use of conventional fuel types.

Figure 6

Hyper-Accumulation

Hyper accumulators have the ability to absorb up to

100 times as much contaminants as compared to other

plants grown under similar conditions.

Image from:

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSp1GZz

AyP0XZnr2cppn_BVhypBMJ5nfIzDgy1BvRmHSUs

77En8

12

Another concept to consider is the importance of replacing current biofuel crops.

Currently the majority of biofuel is derived from food based crop such as sugar cane or corn.

There is a distinct benefit from by using non-food crops, such as Camelina sativa, Miscanthus

giganteus, Panicum virgatum, along with a number of other possibilities. Each of these species

has different benefits and challenges. Camelina sativa has great success once established, but

typically has difficulty thriving in adverse conditions (i.e. low pH). There are many varieties (at

least 50) Camelina sativa which each may have different survival capabilities. Camelina sativa

also has the ability to fix nitrogen throughout its life cycle. Miscanthus giganteus is a very

hearty plant with a deep root system with rhizomes. Panicum virgatum have long roots that may

be very densely arranged in the root zone of each plant. It is also important to not take away

from the worlds food supply while attempting to solve energy or pollution issues. In the future

it would be great to see a push to use phytoremediation as a tool for environmental pollution

control. The practical application of government based financial initiatives may aid in bringing

this to fruition.

The thesis will progress in the following manner: Chapter 2, Methods and Materials, will

go into great detail upon how biofuel crops can be used for the phytoremediation of heavy metal

contaminants from acid mine drainage affected soils in Pennsylvania; Chapter 3, Results, will

present the findings of this experiment; Chapter 4, Interpretation of results, will elaborate on the

meaning of these findings; Chapter 5, Conclusion, will explain the final findings of the project,

offer answers to the theoretical questions earlier, and provide future avenues for research.

13

Chapter 2: METHODS AND MATERIALS

Experimental Design

Soil Collection and Preparation

Preparation of planting containers and plants

Germination records

Growth records

Laboratory Analysis

Calculation Methods

Chemical and Physical Properties

14

Chapter 2: METHODS AND MATERIALS

Experimental design:

We selected three species of Biofuel crops for this experiment. They were Camelina

sativa, Miscanthus giganteus, and Panicum virgatum. Each of the selected biofuel crops interact

with the soil in slightly different ways. The root system of the Miscanthus giganteus has

different properties than those of the Camelina sativa

which also differ from those of the Panicum virgatum.

Miscanthus plants have very deep root systems while

Panicum have long tightly arranged roots. Camelina

roots are very thin and fragile. These differences (and

other physical attributes) from species to species play

an enormous role in how well each will survive, thrive,

and ultimately phytoremediate the contaminated soil

samples that we are studying.

One area of interest to be addressed in this

experiment is the ability of each species to survive in

different contaminated soil types. This will play an

enormous role in how well each species will first

germinate and establish a viable root system. Next

they can gain the ability to grow well through the

vegetative growth stages and produce biomass in plant

tissue. After each specimen was established the plant

tissues grew and had the ability to remove

Figure 7 Native plant species at EPCAMR:

(Gerst, 2012)

15

contaminants (through phytoremediation) from the experimental soils and translocate the heavy

metals into the plant leaf tissues.

Soil Collection and Preparation:

The first order of business at hand was to design

the experiment in a way to account for each stage of

growth. To accomplish this task we first travelled to the

Eastern Pennsylvania Coalition for Abandoned Mine

land Reclamation (EPCAMR) located in Ashley

Borough, located in Luzerne County, PA. This area in

Northeastern Pennsylvania was a hotbed for both surface

and deep mining operations of Anthracite Coal

throughout the early 1900’s.

Soil was collected for the experiments after we

were given permission. Native plant tissue samples were

also taken to serve as additional experimental control

samples. The initial soil sample sizes were two five

gallon buckets (placed in black trash bags) from each

location.

We selected three different locations throughout

EPCAMR’s properties holdings throughout Luzerne

County, PA to diversify the soil survey throughout the site and provide different soil types. The

first region (Location 1) from which we sampled was located near the EPCAMR office in Ashley

Borough, Luzerne County, PA. This was right next to the old coal elevator and breaker plant.

This soil was very sandy and had a large amount of small gravel sized rocks present. There were

Figure 8

Images from EPCAMR Soil

Excavation:

Location 1: The Office

Location 2: Loomis Bank

Location 3: Honey Pot

(Gerst, 2012)

16

a number of native plant species growing very sparsely throughout this area. The second region

(Location 2) from which we sampled was located on what was called the “Loomis Bank”. The

“Loomis Bank” is located in Hanover Township, Luzerne

County, PA. This area was where a great deal of waste coal

was piled up creating a hill side. There was a small layer (about

3 inches) of topsoil on top of the waste coal.

Surprisingly, there was a great deal of vegetation

growing in this topsoil (including poison ivy). This sample was

obtained from a hill side with a steep slope. This soil had a lot

of boney coal and rocks. Digging and collecting these samples

was difficult due to the very thin soil layer. The third and last

region (Location 3) from which we sampled was called the

“Honey Pot” and was located at a bottom of a valley. The

“Honey Pot” is located in Newport Township, Luzerne County,

PA. A nearby stream showed signs of AMD. This soil

appeared much darker (black in color) and a high amount of

shimmery silt. The native vegetation was limited to mostly

larger evergreens (pines and hemlocks) and some sparsely

located bunch grasses. Larger amounts of soil were required to

repeat the experiment for three (3) more trials.

After the soil was collected we headed to the greenhouse

to prepare the soil. The two bags from each site were combined in large (approximately 25 - 30

gallon) planters and mixed thoroughly. Grab samples (about ½ quart sized sandwich bag) were

Figure 9

Soil Preparation:

Soil Blending:

Potting Preparation:

Initial Soil Sample preparation:

(For analysis at lab)

(Gerst, 2012)

17

taken from of each soil type to be sent off for laboratory analysis. The samples were analyzed

for the concentrations of Sulfur (S), Aluminum (Al), Arsenic (As), Barium (Ba), Cadmium (Cd),

Chromium (Cr), Lead (Pb), Mercury (Hg), Selenium (Se), and Silver (Ag). Each of these

concentrations was used respectively as the initial soil

concentrations throughout this experiment. Each sample

was also analyzed for pH.

Preparation of planting containers and plants:

The soil from each location was then divided equally

between (approximately 3 gallon) sample planters for each

of the plant species. This planter pot size was selected to

allow for the mature plants to be able to thrive throughout

the experiment. This used up the initial soil harvested rather

quickly. There was only enough growth media to provide

for one trial. This trial consisted of twelve (12) total potted

samples, with nine (9) experimental potted samples and

three (3) control potted samples. The control soil planter

pots were prepared with virgin potting soil.

To solidify our results we prepared subsequent

samples for three (3) more trials (for Trials 2-4). The planting containers were then placed on

trays to collect any possible run-through caused by watering. A great deal of run-through could

affect the soil chemistry. This leachate was not considered for the chemical transport and

transfer of the inorganic heavy metal contaminants. The leachate was unfortunately discarded

and not analyzed.

Figure 10

Plant Preparation:

Sowing of seeds (Both Seeded species

only):

Separation and Cutting (Rhizome

species only):

(Robinson, 2012)

18

After the planting containers were prepared for each of

the three experimental and control soil types for each of the three

plant species the pots were readied for planting. The Miscanthus

giganteus required preparation of split root portions of parent

plants due their rhizosomal reproductive properties. This

technique was used due to the long sexual reproductive cycle

typical of this species of plant. Four (4) Miscanthus giganteus

specimens separated by splitting a parent plant were prepared for

each trial. These sample specimens (trimmed to 7.2 cm for trial 1

and 10 cm for trials 2-4) were planted each of the experimental

and control planters. A small amount (approximately 50 ml) of

water was added to the soil to assist with acclimation to the soil.

Approximately one-hundred (100) seeds of the other two

plant species (Sunson variety for Camelina sativa and Blackwell

variety for Panicum virgatum) were counted and prepared to be

sown into the experimental and control soil planters. The sowing

of the seeds included distributing the seeds and mixing them

evenly and covering them with approximately an inch of soil.

Then the seeds were sown into each of the planters and were

watered in with a small amount (approximately 50 ml) of water.

Figure 11a

Monitoring of plant growth:

Germination phase:

(Both Seeded species only)

Measurement of growth:

Miscanthus giganteus

Camelina sativa

Panicum virgatum

(Gerst and Robinson, 2012)

19

Germination Records:

The two plant species that were grown from seed

were Camelina sativa and Panicum virgatum. Each of

these species was monitored for the first few weeks for

percent germination. This was accomplished by simply

making periodic observations to count seed emergence.

Growth Records:

Now that the samples have been prepared a

rigorous watering schedule was established to provide the

necessary moisture required successful plant germination

and ultimately growth. Initial watering volumes added to

each sample were kept very small (200 ml) to discourage

run-through. The initial goal was to eliminate any loss of

water through run-through or leaching. Each Miscanthus

giganteus was observed through measuring the growth

from the beginning. The Camelina sativa and Panicum

virgatum were initially observed for percent germination.

Percent germination was determined by observing (counting) the number of seeds that

germinated over time. This was repeated until the germination period was completed and

observations could be made by measuring growth. Growth was measured every few days

depending on availability. All measurements were conducted with the same laboratory ruler and

subsequent meter stick in the same manner.

Figure 11b

Monitoring of plant growth:

Initial

≈Two Weeks Growth

≈Ten Weeks Growth

(Gerst and Robinson, 2012)

20

Laboratory analyses:

In order to test the hypothesis, and answer the postulated questions for our research, each

of the initial soil and final soil and plant tissue samples were analyzed for inorganic (heavy

metal) contamination. Each sample was analyzed in accordance with the EPA Reference Test

Methods listed in Table #1. The following laboratory analyses were conducted:

1. Laboratory testing for the initial soil samples was performed by ALS Environmental in

Middletown, PA.

2. Laboratory testing for the initial plant tissue samples from native plant species was

performed also by ALS Environmental in Middletown, PA.

3. Testing for the final soil samples and plant tissue samples for Trial 1 was performed by

ALS Environmental in Middletown, PA.

4. Testing for the final soil samples and plant tissue samples for Trials 2 and 3 was

performed by Microbac Laboratories, Inc. in Harrisburg, PA.

21

Table #1, EPA Reference Test Methods

All EPA Methods are accessible at the technology transfer network.

The website is: www.EPA.gov/ttn.

Methods for Calculations:

Variability Calculations:

The variability among the experimental conditions were

approximated by calculating the standard deviation

between each soil type. The standard deviation is a statistical function that assists with data

analysis. It indicates the variation between data points and the average values in the

experimental data set. The standard deviation calculations were perfomed by a function in Excel.

They are displayed on the variance graphs in the form of error bars. If the standard deviation

value is larger, then the greater the variance and vice versa.

Parameter Epa Method Laboratory

Corrosivity, pH SW846-9045D ALS Environmental and Microbac Laboratories, Inc.

Moisture SM20-2540G ALS Environmental

Total Solids SM20-2540G ALS Environmental and Microbac Laboratories, Inc.

Aluminum, Al SW846-6010C ALS Environmental

Aluminum, Al SW846-6010B Microbac Laboratories, Inc.

Arsenic, As SW846-6020A ALS Environmental

Arsenic, As SW846-6010B Microbac Laboratories, Inc.

Barium, Ba SW846-6020A ALS Environmental

Barium, Ba SW846-6010B Microbac Laboratories, Inc.

Cadmium, Cd SW846-6020A ALS Environmental

Cadmium, Cd SW846-6010B Microbac Laboratories, Inc.

Chromium, Cr SW846-6020A ALS Environmental

Chromium, Cr SW846-6010B Microbac Laboratories, Inc.

Lead, Pb SW846-6020A ALS Environmental

Lead, Pb SW846-6010B Microbac Laboratories, Inc.

Mercury, Hg SW846-7471B ALS Environmental

Mercury, Hg SW846-7471A Microbac Laboratories, Inc.

Selenium, Se SW846-6020A ALS Environmental

Selenium, Se SW846-6010B Microbac Laboratories, Inc.

Silver, Ag SW846-6020A ALS Environmental

Silver, Ag SW846-6010B Microbac Laboratories, Inc.

Sulfur, S SW846-6010C ALS Environmental

Sulfur, S SW846-6010B Microbac Laboratories, Inc.

The equation that is used to calculate

the standard deviation is:

https://encrypted-

tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT1I

nGUZe7alrtIYUOiuyp18zgYC4rbrdPZ1fp

Mk2ZFKJvYyO5b

22

Percent Germination Calculation:

The percent germination was calculated in order to determine the ability for the seeded species

(Camelina sativa and Panicum virgatum) to survive in the experimental soils. Each of the trials

was evaluated for percent germination. We selected a seed sowing value of approximately one

hundred (100) to allow for a simple percent germination calculation. Essentially the maximum

number of germinated seeds was equal to the maximum germination for the seeded plant species.

This was accomplished by the following equation:

(Number of germinated seeds)] / (Total number seeds sewn) * 100 = germination rate

[(Nsgerminated) / (Nssewn)] * 100 % Germination

Mass-Volume Approximation Calculations:

The mass and volume values to be considered for each of the media involved in this

experiment (soil and plant tissue) were approximated using standard unit conversions. Each of

the pots used for the experiments were considered to be three (3) gallons. The pots were

assumed to be ninety percent (90%) full. Values for the plant tissues were estimated based on

yield values found in other studies.

The following equations were used to approximate the volume of soil:

Msoil = Vsoil * ρsoil

Vsoil = 3 gallons * (3.785 liters/gallon) * (1 m3 / 1000 L) * (0.90) = 0.0102 m

3

23

The following values were used to approximate the expected biomass yield for each plant

species:

Camelina sativa:

Mplants-tissue = 2134.5 kg/ha/year (averaged from 1638, 3106, 1987, 3320, 1096, 1660

kg/ha) (Vakulabharanam, 2010)

Miscanthus giganteus:

Mplant-tissue = 8.2 dry ton/acre/year (averaged from 6.6 and 9.8 dry ton/acre/year)

(Caslin et. al., 2010)

Panicum virgatum:

Mplants-tissue = 6 Metric tons/acre/year (Jensen et al., 2005)

These values were converted to reflect the estimated yield output from our experiment.

The resulting calculated yield value was then used in order to approximate mass balance.

Mass-Balance Calculations:

The Mass-Balance approach was applied to the soil and plant tissues to determine the

amount of phytoextraction that occurred. This principle is based on the Law of Conservation of

Mass (principle of mass conservation) and the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that

energy is conserved in a closed system. For this research we did not consider the potential loss

of mass to the leachate. The experiment was designed in a manner to limit the amount of water

added to the system. This was an attempt to minimize the leaching effect. Each of the trials was

evaluated for the mass balance transfer and calculations were performed for each of the

contaminants that demonstrated phytoextraction. The approximate values for volume and

density for the soils and plant tissues was used for this purpose. Average plant tissue volume

was approximated by growth portion of this study along with average yields provided and

supported through other studies. Lab analyses with non-detect (ND) were calculated with the

24

reporting detection limit (RDL). Lab analyses with no-analysis (NA) were calculated with a zero

value to represent the lack of sample analysis.

The following equations were used to help interpret the results of this experiment:

Total Massin = Total Massout

Total [(Concin)*(Volumein )*(Densityin) ] = Total [(Concout)*(Volumeout)* (Densityout]

Σi [Soil(CinVin ρsoil) ] = Σo [Soil(CoutVout ρsoil )] + Plant Tissue(CoutVout ρplant-tissue )]

Approximate density of the soils: Soil 1 (sandy) ρSoil1 = 1800 kg/m3

Soil 2 (gravel) ρSoil1 = 2000 kg/m3

Soil 3 (silty) ρSoil1 = 2100 kg/m3

Chemical and Physical Properties:

The chemical and physical properties offer the ability to determine how chemicals behave in the

environment. These properties are crucial in modeling the chemical fate and transport through

the environment and they offer insight to the mobility of chemicals.

25

Table # 2, Chemical and Physical Properties

Prop-

erty

Molar

Mass,

M

Melting Point,

Tm

Dens

-ity,

ρ

Water solubility

Vapor

pressure,

PSL

Log

KOW

Partitioning

Coefficients

Henry’s law

constant, H KOW KOC

Para-

meter g/mol °C K g/cm3 g/100 ml

H2O

Other

solubility Pa na L/kg Pa m3/mol

Ag 107.87 964.78 1238 10.5 70,480 na 1.27E-

07 0.23 1.698 Calc.

As 77.95 817 1090 5.75 34,710 na 0.68 4.786 14 0.0245

Ba 139.36 727 1000 3.62 54,760 na 7.97E-

06 0.23 1.698 14 Calc.

Cd 112.4 321.07 594 8.69 122,800 React in acid 2.80E-

04 -0.07 0.851 14 0.0308

Cr 52 1907 2180 7.15 88,670 React in

dilute acid

2.45E-

08 0.23 1.698 14 Calc.

Hg 200.59 -38.83 234 13.54 0.06 na 140 0.62 4.169 14 0.008622

Pb 209.21 327.46 601 11.3 9581 Conc. Acid 5.54E-

07 0.73 5.370 14 0.0245

Se 78.96 220.8 494 4.81 2,063 CS2 0.24 1.738 14 0.00974

S 32.06 115.21 388 2.07 i

Sl in EtOH,

in Bz, Eth, s

CS2

Al 26.98 660.32 933 2.70 59,400 Acid or

Alkaline

3.06E-

10 0.33 2.138 14 0.0245

26

Chapter 3: RESULTS

Summary results of germination records

Summary results of growth records

Summary results of chemical analysis

Summary results of calculations

27

Chapter 3: RESULTS

Summary results of germination records:

Table 3a: Summary results of Germination records, Trial 1

Plant Species Date Camelina sativa Panicum virgatum

Soil 1

June 13, 2012

10 0

Soil 2 44 0

Soil 3 18 0

Control 17 0

Soil 1

June 14, 2012

28 0

Soil 2 73 0

Soil 3 43 0

Control 95 0

Soil 1

June 15, 2012

* 100

Soil 2 100

Soil 3 100

Control 100 Notes: Seeds were sown on June 10, 2012.

*Indicates only growth was measured after 3 cm was reached

28

Table 3b: Summary results of Germination records, Trial 2

Plant Species Date Camelina sativa Panicum virgatum

Soil 1

September 18, 2012

37 0

Soil 2 4 0

Soil 3 53 0

Control 0 0

Soil 1

September 21, 2012

59 0

Soil 2 12 0

Soil 3 83 0

Control 0 11

Soil 1

October 1, 2012

14 45

Soil 2 73 78

Soil 3 8 31

Control 34 *

Soil 1

October 3, 2012

28 20

Soil 2 71 48

Soil 3 14 39

Control 31 38

Soil 1

October 8, 2012

20 25

Soil 2 * 52

Soil 3 0 27

Control * *Growing well

Soil 1

October 11, 2012

10

Soil 2 *

Soil 3 5

Control *

Soil 1

October 15, 2012

12

Soil 2 *

Soil 3 0

Control *

Soil 1

October 18, 2012

8

Soil 2 *

Soil 3 0

Control *

Soil 1

October 22, 2012

7

Soil 2 *

Soil 3 0

Control * Notes: Seeds were sown on September 14, 2012

*Indicates only growth was measured (after 3 cm was reached)

29

Table 3c: Summary results of Germination records, Trial 3

Plant Species Date Camelina sativa Panicum virgatum

Soil 1

September 18, 2012

52 0

Soil 2 2 0

Soil 3 38 0

Control 0 0

Soil 1

September 21, 2012

68 0

Soil 2 21 0

Soil 3 45 0

Control 0 13

Soil 1

October 1, 2012

15 15

Soil 2 62 53

Soil 3 15 52

Control 90 *

Soil 1

October 3, 2012

39 42

Soil 2 82 32

Soil 3 15 27

Control 95 48

Soil 1

October 8, 2012

25 45

Soil 2 * 40

Soil 3 0 31

Control * *Growing well

Soil 1

October 11, 2012

18

Soil 2 *

Soil 3 0

Control *

Soil 1

October 15, 2012

16

Soil 2 *

Soil 3 0

Control *

Soil 1

October 18, 2012

13

Soil 2 *

Soil 3 0

Control *

Soil 1

October 22, 2012

12*

Soil 2 *

Soil 3 3

Control * Notes: Seeds were sown on September 14, 2012

*Indicates only growth was measured (after 3 cm was reached)

30

Table 3d: Summary results of Germination records, Trial 4

Plant Species Date Camelina sativa Panicum virgatum

Soil 1

September 18, 2012

55 0

Soil 2 10 0

Soil 3 82 0

Control 0 0

Soil 1

September 21, 2012

4 0

Soil 2 73 0

Soil 3 36 0

Control 3 3

Soil 1

October 1, 2012

4 10

Soil 2 58 82

Soil 3 17 43

Control 95 *

Soil 1

October 3, 2012

19 51

Soil 2 93 51

Soil 3 12 42

Control 100 51

Soil 1

October 8, 2012

15 62

Soil 2 * 61

Soil 3 4 39

Control * * Growing well

Soil 1

October 11, 2012

12

Soil 2 *

Soil 3 0

Control *

Soil 1

October 15, 2012

15

Soil 2 *

Soil 3 3

Control *

Soil 1

October 18, 2012

13

Soil 2 *

Soil 3 3

Control *

Soil 1

October 22, 2012

11

Soil 2 *

Soil 3 3

Control * Notes: Seeds were sown on September 14, 2012

*Indicates only growth was measured (after 3 cm was reached)

31

Summary Results of Growth Records:

Figure 12a: Camelina sativa Growth Records, Trial 1

Figure 12b: Camelina sativa Growth Records, Trial 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37

He

igh

t , c

m

Time, Days

Soil 1

Soil 2

Soil 3

Control

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Hei

ght,

cm

Time, Days

Soil 2

Soil 3

Control

32

Figure 12c: Camelina sativa Growth Records, Trial 3

Figure 12d: Camelina sativa Growth Records, Trial 4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

He

igh

t, c

m

Time, Days

Soil 1

Soil 2

Soil 3

Control

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Hei

ght,

cm

Time, Days

Soil 1

Soil 2

Soil 3

Control

33

Figure 13a: Miscanthus giganteus Growth Records, Trial 1

Figure 13b: Miscanthus giganteus Growth Records, Trial 2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37

He

igh

t, c

m

Time, Days

Soil 1

Soil 2

Soil 3

Control

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Hei

ght,

cm

Time, Days

Soil 1

Soil 2

Soil 3

Control

34

Figure 13c: Miscanthus giganteus Growth Records, Trial 3

Figure 13d: Miscanthus giganteus Growth Records, Trial 4

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

He

igh

t, c

m

Time, Days

Soil 1

Soil 2

Soil 3

Control

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

He

igh

t, c

m

Time, Days

Soil 1

Soil 2

Soil 3

Control

35

Figure 14a: Panicum virgatum Growth Records, Trial 1

Figure 14b: Panicum virgatum Growth Records, Trial 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37

He

igh

t, c

m

Time, Days

Soil 1

Soil 2

Soil 3

Control

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

He

igh

t, c

m

Time, Days

Soil 1

Soil 2

Soil 3

Control

36

Figure 14c: Panicum virgatum Growth Records, Trial 3

Figure 14d: Panicum virgatum Growth Records, Trial 4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

He

igh

t, c

m

Time, Days

Soil 1

Soil 2

Soil 3

Control

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

He

igh

t, c

m

Time, Days

Soil 1

Soil 2

Soil 3

Control

37

Summary results of Laboratory analyses:

The results from each of the laboratory analyses demonstrate the chemical concentrations of each

analyte under each experimental condition respectively.

Table 4a: Results, Initial Soil Analysis, [ALS Environmental]

Parameter Result Units

Soil 1 Soil 2 Soil 3 mg/kg dry

Aluminum, Al 12800 8200 12800 mg/kg dry

Arsenic, As 14.3 21.9 29.6 mg/kg dry

Barium, Ba 103 81.9 82.5 mg/kg dry

Cadmium, Cd <0.52 <0.48 <0.58 mg/kg dry

Chromium, Cr 13.7 11.0 9.1 mg/kg dry

Lead, Pb 85.7 16.7 46.0 mg/kg dry

Mercury, Hg 0.38 0.16 0.21 mg/kg dry

Selenium, Se <2.6 <2.4 6.8 mg/kg dry

Silver, Ag <1.0 <0.96 <1.2 mg/kg dry

Sulfur, S 1010 411 2440 mg/kg dry

pH 4.24 5.50 4.15 mg/kg dry

Note: The initial soil results indicate the concentrations of each analyte in the soil at the

beginning of the experiment. These results serve as a starting point for the experiment.

Table 4b: Results, Native plant species, [ALS Environmental]

Parameter Result Units

Location 1 Location

2

Location 3 mg/kg dry

Aluminum, Al 43.5 420 <37.9 mg/kg dry

Arsenic, As <4.1 <36.2 <5.6 mg/kg dry

Barium, Ba 22.6 38.4 9.4 mg/kg dry

Cadmium, Cd 2.2 <1.8 <1.9 mg/kg dry

Chromium, Cr <2.7 <3.6 <3.7 mg/kg dry

Lead, Pb <2.7 <3.6 <3.7 mg/kg dry

Mercury, Hg <0.15 <0.18 <0.17 mg/kg dry

Selenium, Se <6.8 <8.9 <9.3 mg/kg dry

Silver, Ag <2.7 <3.6 <3.7 mg/kg dry

Sulfur, S NA NA NA mg/kg dry

pH 5.63 4.10 4.00

Note: The native plant tissue results indicate the concentrations of each analyte in the leaf

tissues of native plants at the beginning of the experiment. These results serve an

additional control and indicate the phytoextraction abilities of the native plant species.

38

Table 5a: Results Final Soil Analysis, Trial 1

[ALS Environmental]

Parameter Camelina sativa Miscanthus giganteus Panicum virgatum

Soil 1 Soil 2 Soil 3 Soil 1 Soil 2 Soil 3 Soil 1 Soil 2 Soil 3

Aluminum, Al 5840 7110 7020 6390 6700 4380 8650 5840 4120

Arsenic, As 27.5 13.0 33.9 16.7 11.8 43.2 17.0 11.8 36.2

Barium, Ba 139 113 120 98.7 153 148 93.7 67.8 98.9

Cadmium, Cd <0.55 <0.55 <0.57 <0.57 <0.46 <0.61 <0.53 <0.54 <0.63

Chromium, Cr 83.6 14.5 15.8 11.8 11.4 19.5 12.2 7.8 12.1

Lead, Pb 189 22.5 48.4 96.7 22.2 60.3 86.9 18.4 71.3

Mercury, Hg 0.36 0.072 0.22 0.46 0.12 0.30 0.39 0.098 0.14

Selenium, Se 4.0 <2.7 6.6 3.4 <2.3 9.5 <2.7 <2.7 11.0

Silver, Ag <1.1 <1.1 <1.1 <1.1 <0.92 <1.2 <1.1 <1.1 <1.3

Sulfur, S 793 545 4580 782 441 2540 754 523 2720

pH 4.48 6.22 4.82 4.61 5.84 4.65 5.19 6.01 4.76

Notes: All concentrations are in mg/kg on a dry basis.

The initial soil results indicate the concentrations of each analyte under the original

conditions. These results serve as a starting point for the experiment.

Table 5b: Results Final Soil Analysis, Trials 2 & 3 combined,

[Microbac Laboratories, Inc.]

Parameter Result Units

Soil 1 Soil 2 Soil 3 mg/kg dry

Aluminum, Al 8360 5190 3830 mg/kg dry

Arsenic, As 21.4 7.13 14.0 mg/kg dry

Barium, Ba 101 56.5 65.2 mg/kg dry

Cadmium, Cd <1.78 <1.80 <2.00 mg/kg dry

Chromium, Cr 12.1 <8.98 <9.95 mg/kg dry

Lead, Pb 79.3 21.2 35.7 mg/kg dry

Mercury, Hg 0.302 <0.0478 0.0616 mg/kg dry

Selenium, Se <8.87 <8.98 <9.95 mg/kg dry

Silver, Ag <4.44 <4.49 <4.98 mg/kg dry

Sulfur, S 1040 735 2600 mg/kg dry

pH 4.75 6.11 4.97

Note: The final soil results indicate the concentrations of each analyte under the final

conditions. These results serve as an ending point for the experiment.

39

Table 6a: Results, Final Plant Tissue Analysis, Trial 1 [ALS Environmental]

Parameter Camelina sativa Miscanthus giganteus Panicum virgatum

Soil 2 Soil C Soil 1 Soil 2 Soil 3 Soil C Soil 1 Soil 2 Soil 3 Soil C

Al 146 181 33.7 <33.1 34.1 61.2 1220 173 807 106

As <10.3 <10.0 <5.0 <4.9 <4.7 <5.6 <6.9 <6.0 <7.5 <8.6

Ba <17.2 49.3 50.8 14.6 <7.9 <9.3 26.9 13.7 16.3 <14.3

Cd <3.4 <3.3 <1.7 <1.6 <1.6 <1.9 <2.3 <2.0 <2.5 <2.9

Cr <6.9 <6.7 <3.4 <3.2 <3.2 <3.7 <4.6 <4.0 19.7 6.4

Pb <6.9 <6.7 <3.4 <3.2 <3.2 <3.7 <4.6 <4.0 <5.0 <5.7

Hg <0.35 <0.35 <0.17 <0.17 <0.16 <0.15 <0.19 <0.20 <0.25 <0.26

Se <17.2 <16.7 <8.4 <8.1 <7.9 <9.3 <11.5 <10 <12.6 <14.3

Ag <6.9 <6.7 <3.4 <3.2 <3.2 <3.7 <4.6 <4.0 <5.0 <5.7

S 6150 11400 2290 1770 2240 2180 1880 2540 3550 4270

pH 7.07 6.28 6.48 6.55 6.64 6.97 6.02 6.11 6.35 6.20

Notes: All concentrations are in mg/kg on a dry basis.

Incidence of phytoextraction highlighted in bold.

The final plant tissue results indicate the concentrations of each analyte in the plant

tissues at the end of the experiment.

Table 6b: Results, Final Plant Tissue Analysis, Trial 2 [Microbac Laboratories, Inc.] Para-

meter

Camelina sativa Miscanthus giganteus Panicum virgatum

Soil 1 Soil 2 Soil C Soil 1 Soil 2 Soil 3 Soil C Soil 1 Soil 2 Soil 3 Soil C

Al 2800 3790 24.0 <15.7 <21.7 <27.4 <16.5 <16.0 27.7 741 <15.6

As <22.6 <11.4 <4.10 <3.91 <5.40 <6.84 <4.10 <3.98 <3.91 <3.65 <3.89

Ba 87.8 81.9 <8.21 36.9 12.1 18.7 <8.21 10.7 <7.84 17.4 <7.78

Cd <9.08 <4.56 <1.65 <1.57 <2.17 <2.74 <1.65 <1.60 <1.57 <1.47 <1.56

Cr <45.3 <22.7 <8.21 <7.84 <10.8 <13.7 <8.21 <7.98 <7.84 <7.32 <7.78

Pb <45.3 <22.7 <8.21 <7.84 <10.8 <13.7 <8.21 <7.98 <7.84 8.28 <7.78

Hg <45.3 NA <0.0524 <0.0501 <0.0537 <0.299 <0.0344 <0.0661 <0.0344 0.0489 <0.0394

Se <45.3 <22.7 <8.21 <7.84 <10.8 <13.7 <8.21 <7.98 <7.84 <7.32 <7.78

Ag <22.7 <11.4 <4.11 <3.92 <5.41 <6.85 <4.11 <3.99 <3.92 <3.66 <3.90

S 6900 10100 10800 1640 1800 1060 1220 1780 1880 2050 1360

Notes: All concentrations are in mg/kg on a dry basis.

Incidence of phytoextraction highlighted in bold.

The final plant tissue results indicate the concentrations of each analyte in the plant

tissues at the end of the experiment.

40

Table 6c: Results from plant tissue analysis, Trial 3 [Microbac Laboratories, Inc.] Para-

meter

Camelina sativa Miscanthus giganteus Panicum virgatum

Soil 1 Soil 2 Soil 3 Soil 1 Soil 2 Soil 3 Soil 1 Soil 2 Soil 3 Soil C

Al 1860 NA NA <26.1 <20.5 <27.1 57.7 <16.2 293 <15.6

As <21.8 NA NA <6.50 <5.10 <6.72 <4.11 <4.05 <6.01 <3.89

Ba 43.8 NA NA 25.5 20.0 14.1 12.9 <8.10 <12.0 <7.78

Cd <8.77 NA NA <2.61 <2.05 <2.70 <1.65 <1.62 <2.41 <1.56

Cr <43.7 NA NA <13.0 <10.2 <13.5 <8.22 <8.10 <12.0 <7.78

Pb <43.7 NA NA <13.0 <10.2 <13.5 <8.22 <8.10 <12.0 <7.78

Hg NA NA NA <0.109 <0.0785 <0.0472 <0.0368 <0.0366 <0.247 <0.0394

Se <43.7 NA NA <13.0 <10.2 <13.5 <8.22 <8.10 <12.0 <7.78

Ag <21.9 NA NA <6.52 <5.11 <6.74 <4.12 <4.06 <6.03 <3.90

S 10500 NA NA 1810 1500 1160 2460 1830 2190 1360

Notes: All concentrations are in mg/kg on a dry basis.

Incidence of phytoextraction highlighted in bold.

The final plant tissue results indicate the concentrations of each analyte in the plant

tissues at the end of the experiment.

Summary of Calculation Results

Summary of Soil Variability Results:

The Experimental Conditions are represented in each of the following graphs as follows:

1. Initial soil laboratory results, (Initial).

2. Final soil laboratory results for Camelina sativa after Trial 1, (FCamT1).

3. Final soil laboratory results for Miscanthus giganteus after Trial 1, (FMisT1).

4. Final soil laboratory results for Panicum virgatum after Trial 1, (FPanT1).

5. Final combined soil laboratory results after Trial 2 and 3, (FT2/3).

The error bars on each of the graphs represent the standard deviation for each experimental

condition, respectively.

41

Figure 15a: Aluminum Soil Variance

Figure 15b: Arsenic Soil Variance

05

00

01

00

00

15

00

0

Init

ial

FCam

T1

FMis

T1

FPan

T1

FT2/

3

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n, m

g/K

g

Experimental Condition

Aluminum Soil Variance

Soil 1

Soil 2

Soil 3

010

2030

4050

Init

ial

FCam

T1

FMis

T1

FPan

T1

FT2/

3

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n, m

g/K

g

Experimental Condition

Arsenic Soil Variance

Soil 1

Soil 2

Soil 3

42

Figure 15c: Barium Soil Variance

Figure 15d: Cadmium Soil Variance

050

100

150

200

Init

ial

FCam

T1

FMis

T1

FPan

T1

FT2/

3

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n, m

g/K

g

Experimental Condition

Barium Soil Variance

Soil 1

Soil 2

Soil 3

01

12

23

Init

ial

FCam

T1

FMis

T1

FPan

T1

FT2/

3

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n, m

g/K

g

Experimental Condition

Cadmium Soil Variance

Soil 1

Soil 2

Soil 3

43

Figure 15e: Chromium Soil Variance

Figure 15f: Lead Soil Variance

020

4060

8010

0

Init

ial

FCam

T1

FMis

T1

FPan

T1

FT2/

3

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n, m

g/K

g

Experimental Condition

Chromium Soil Variance

Soil 1

Soil 2

Soil 3

050

100

150

200

Init

ial

FCam

T1

FMis

T1

FPan

T1

FT2

/3

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n, m

g/K

g

Experimental Condition

Lead Soil Variance

Soil 1

Soil 2

Soil 3

44

Figure 15g: Mercury Soil Variance

Figure 15h: Selenium Soil Variance

0.00

000.

1000

0.20

000.

3000

0.40

000.

5000

Init

ial

FCam

T1

FMis

T1

FPan

T1

FT2/

3

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n, m

g/K

g

Experimental Condtion

Mercury Soil Variance

Soil 1

Soil 2

Soil 3

02

46

810

12

Init

ial

FCam

T1

FMis

T1

FPan

T1

FT2/

3

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n, m

g/K

g

Experimental Condition

Selenium Soil Variance

Soil 1

Soil 2

Soil 3

45

Figure 15i: Silver Soil Variance

Figure 15j: pH Soil Variance

02

46

Init

ial

FCam

T1

FMis

T1

FPan

T1

FT2/

3

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n, m

g/K

g

Experimental Condition

Silver Soil Variance

Soil 1

Soil 2

Soil 3

02

46

8

Init

ial

FCam

T1

FMis

T1

FPan

T1

FT2/

3

pH

, -lo

g [H

+]

Experimental Condition

pH Soil Variance

Soil 1

Soil 2

Soil 3

46

Summary of Plant Tissue Variability Results:

The Experimental Conditions are represented in each of the following graphs as follows:

1. Native plant tissue laboratory results, (NPTl).

2. Final soil laboratory results for Camelina sativa after Trial 1, (FCamT1).

3. Final soil laboratory results for Miscanthus giganteus after Trial 1, (FMisT1).

4. Final soil laboratory results for Panicum virgatum after Trial 1, (FPanT1).

5. Final soil laboratory results for Camelina sativa after Trial 1, (FCamT2).

6. Final soil laboratory results for Miscanthus giganteus after Trial 1, (FMisT2).

7. Final soil laboratory results for Panicum virgatum after Trial 1, (FPanT2).

8. Final soil laboratory results for Camelina sativa after Trial 1, (FCamT3).

9. Final soil laboratory results for Miscanthus giganteus after Trial 1, (FMisT3).

10. Final soil laboratory results for Panicum virgatum after Trial 1, (FPanT3).

The error bars on each of the graphs represent the standard deviation.

Figure 16a: Aluminum Plant Tissue Variance

11

00

12

00

13

00

14

00

1

NP

T

FCam

T1

FMis

T1

FPan

T1

FCam

T2

FMis

T2

FPan

T2

FCam

T3

FMis

T3

FPan

T3

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n, m

g/K

g o

n a

ln s

cale

Experimental Condition

Aluminum Plant Tissue Variance

Soil 1

Soil 2

Soil 3

Control

47

Figure 16b: Arsenic Plant Tissue Variance

Figure 16c: Barium Plant Tissue Variance

010

2030

40

NP

T

FCam

T1

FMis

T1

FPan

T1

FCam

T2

FMis

T2

FPan

T2

FCam

T3

FMis

T3

FPan

T3

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n, m

g/K

g

Experimental Condition

Arsenic Plant Tissue Variance

Soil 1

Soil 2

Soil 3

Control

020

4060

8010

0

NP

T

FCam

T1

FMis

T1

FPan

T1

FCam

T2

FMis

T2

FPan

T2

FCam

T3

FMis

T3

FPan

T3

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n, m

g/K

g

Experimental Condition

Barium Plant Tissue Variance

Soil 1

Soil 2

Soil 3

Control

48

Figure 16d: Cadmium Plant Tissue Variance

Figure 16e: Chromium Plant Tissue Variance

02

46

810

NP

T

FCam

T1

FMis

T1

FPan

T1

FCam

T2

FMis

T2

FPan

T2

FCam

T3

FMis

T3

FPan

T3

Co

nce

ntr

atio

ns,

mg/

Kg

Experimental Condition

Cadmium Plant Tissue Variance

Soil 1

Soil 2

Soil 3

Control

010

2030

4050

NP

T

FCam

T1

FMis

T1

FPan

T1

FCam

T2

FMis

T2

FPan

T2

FCam

T3

FMis

T3

FPan

T3

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n, m

g/K

g

Experimental Condition

Chromium Plant Tissue Variance

Soil 1

Soil 2

Soil 3

Control

49

Figure 16f: Lead Plant Tissue Variance

Figure 16g: Mercury Plant Tissue Variance

010

2030

4050

NP

T

FCam

T1

FMis

T1

FPan

T1

FCam

T2

FMis

T2

FPan

T2

FCam

T3

FMis

T3

FPan

T3

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n, m

g/K

g

Experimental Condition

Lead Plant Tissue Variance

Soil 1

Soil 2

Soil 3

Control

0.00

000.

1000

0.20

000.

3000

0.40

00

NP

T

FCam

T1

FMis

T1

FPan

T1

FCam

T2

FMis

T2

FPan

T2

FCam

T3

FMis

T3

FPan

T3

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n, m

g/K

g

Experimental Condition

Mercury Plant Tissue Variance

Soil 1

Soil 2

Soil 3

Control

50

Figure 16h: Selenium Plant Tissue Variance

Figure 16i: Silver Plant Tissue Variance

010

2030

4050

NP

T

FCam

T1

FMis

T1

FPan

T1

FCam

T2

FMis

T2

FPan

T2

FCam

T3

FMis

T3

FPan

T3

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n, m

g/K

g

Experimental Condition

Selenium Plant Tissue Variance

Soil 1

Soil 2

Soil 3

Control

05

1015

2025

NP

T

FCam

T1

FMis

T1

FPan

T1

FCam

T2

FMis

T2

FPan

T2

FCam

T3

FMis

T3

FPan

T3

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n, m

g/K

g

Experimental Condition

Silver Plant Tissue Variance

Soil 1

Soil 2

Soil 3

Control

51

Figure 16j: Sulfur Plant Tissue Variance

Percent germination results:

Table 7a: Results, Percent Germination, Trial 1

Plant

Species

Camelina

sativa

Percent

germination,

%

Time

elapsed,

days

Panicum

virgatum

Percent

germination,

%

Time

elapsed,

days

Soil 1 28 28 4 100 100 5

Soil 2 73 73 4 100 100 5

Soil 3 43 43 4 100 100 5

Control 95 95 4 100 100 5

Table 7b: Results, Percent germination, Trial 2

Plant

Species

Camelina

sativa

Percent

germination,

%

Time

elapsed,

days

Panicum

virgatum

Percent

germination,

%

Time

elapsed,

days

Soil 1 59 59 7 45 45 17

Soil 2 73 73 17 78 78 17

Soil 3 83 83 7 39 39 19

Control 31 31 19 39 38 19

18

64

51

24

09

6

NP

T

FCam

T1

FMis

T1

FPan

T1

FCam

T2

FMis

T2

FPan

T2

FCam

T3

FMis

T3

FPan

T3

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n, m

g/K

g o

n a

ln s

cale

Experimental Condition

Sulfur Plant Tissue Variance

Soil 1

Soil 2

Soil 3

Control

52

Table 7c: Results, Percent germination, Trial 3

Plant

Species

Camelina

sativa

Percent

germination,

%

Time

elapsed,

days

Panicum

virgatum

Percent

germination,

%

Time

elapsed,

days

Soil 1 68 68 7 45 45 24

Soil 2 82 82 19 53 53 17

Soil 3 45 45 7 52 52 17

Control 95 95 19 100 100 7

Table 7d: Results, Percent germination, Trial 4

Plant

Species

Camelina

sativa

Percent

germination,

%

Time

elapsed,

days

Panicum

virgatum

Percent

germination,

%

Time

elapsed,

days

Soil 1 19 19 19 62 62 24

Soil 2 93 93 19 82 82 17

Soil 3 36 36 7 43 43 17

Control 100 100 19 100 100 17

Mass-Balance Calculation Results:

Camelina sativa:

Table 8a: Summary Results, Camelina sativa, Mass-Balance, Soil 1

Parameter

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Average

Mass

Balance,

mg unless

marked *

Percent

of input,

%

Mass

Balance,

mg unless

marked *

Percent

of input,

%

Mass

Balance,

mg unless

marked *

Percent

of input,

%

Mass

Balance,

mg unless

marked *

Percent

of input,

%

Al 128.0 * 54.38 82.0 * 34.68 82.0 * 34.68 97.0 * 41.25

As -242.4 -92.31 -130.4 -49.68 -130.4 -49.68 -167.7 -63.89

Ba -661.0 -34.95 36.4 1.93 35.3 1.87 -196.4 -10.38

Cd -23.1 -242.31 -23.2 -242.6 -23.2 -242.6 -23.2 -242.50

Cr -1283.4 -510.22 29.2 11.62 29.2 11.62 -408.3 -162.33

Pb -1896.6 -120.54 117.4 7.46 117.4 7.46 -553.9 -35.21

Hg 0.4 5.26 1.3 18.45 1.4 20.53 1.03 14.75

Se -25.7 -53.85 -115.3 -241.46 -115.3 -241.45 -85.4 -178.92

Ag -1.8 -10.00 -63.2 -344.40 -63.3 -344.38 -42.8 -232.93

S 4.0 * 21.49 -0.6 * -3.09 -0.6 * -3.15 0.9 * 5.08

*Al and S mass units are in grams.

53

Table 8b: Summary Results, Camelina Sativa Mass-Balance, Soil 2

Parameter

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Average

Mass

Balance,

mg unless

marked *

Percent

of input,

%

Mass

Balance,

mg unless

marked *

Percent

of input,

%

Mass

Balance,

mg unless

marked *

Percent

of input,

%

Mass

Balance,

mg unless

marked *

Percent

of input,

%

Al 10.0 * 5.98 61.0 * 37.70 61.0 * 36.71 44.0 * 26.46

As 181.5 40.64 301.3 67.43 301.3 67.44 261.3 58.50

Ba -634.5 -38.0 517.9 31.0 518.2 31.0 133.9 8.0

Cd -26.9 -275.04 -26.9 -275.15 -26.9 -275.00 -26.9 275.06

Cr -71.4 -31.82 41.1 18.33 41.2 18.36 3.6 1.62

Pb -118.3 -34.73 -91.9 -27.0 -89.8 -26.4 -100.0 -29.38

Hg 1.8 55.00 2.3 70.13 2.3 70.13 2.1 65.09

Se -6.1 -12.54 -134.3 -274.32 -134.2 -274.17 -91.6 -187.01

Ag -2.9 -14.62 -71.4 -364.40 -71.4 -364.58 -48.6 -247.87

S -2.7 * -32.68 -6.6 * -79.22 -6.6 * -78.8 -5.3 * -63.6

*Al and S mass units are in grams.

Table 8c: Summary Results, Camelina sativa, Mass-Balance, Soil 3

Parameter

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Average

Mass

Balance,

mg unless

marked *

Percent

of input,

%

Mass

Balance,

mg unless

marked *

Percent

of input,

%

Mass

Balance,

mg unless

marked *

Percent

of input,

%

Mass

Balance,

mg unless

marked *

Percent

of input,

%

Al 124.0 * 45.16 82.0 * 34.68 82.0 * 34.68 96.0 * 38.17

As -92.1 -14.53 334.2 52.70 334.2 52.70 192.1 30.29

Ba -803.3 -45.45 370.6 21.0 370.6 21.0 -20.7 -1.15

Cd -30.4 -244.83 -30.4 -245.04 -30.4 -244.83 -30.4 -244.90

Cr -143.5 -73.63 -18.2 -9.35 -18.2 -9.34 -60.0 -30.77

Pb -51.4 -5.22 220.6 22.39 220.6 22.39 129.9 13.19

Hg -0.2 -4.76 3.2 70.66 3.2 70.67 2.1 45.52

Se -14.8 -30.96 -67.5 -46.32 -67.5 -46.32 -49.9 -41.20

Ag 2.1 8.33 -81.0 -315.00 -81.0 -315.00 -53.3 -207.22

S -45.8 * -87.70 -3.4 * -6.56 46.7 * 89.34 -0.8 * -1.64

*Al and S mass units are in grams.

54

Miscanthus giganteus:

Table 9a: Summary Results, Miscanthus giganteus, Mass-Balance, Soil 1

Parameter

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Average

Mass

Balance,

mg unless

marked *

Percent

of input,

%

Mass

Balance,

mg unless

marked *

Percent

of input,

%

Mass

Balance,

mg unless

marked *

Percent

of input,

%

Mass

Balance,

mg unless

marked *

Percent

of input,

%

Al 0.118* 50.08 0.082* 34.69 0.082* 34.69 0.094 * 39.82

As -44.2 -16.80 -130.5 -49.70 -130.6 -49.70 -101.8 -38.73

Ba 78.4 4.15 35.6 1.88 35.95 1.90 49.9 2.64

Cd -23.1 -242.50 -23.2 -242.80 -23.2 -243.13 -23.2 -242.81

Cr 34.8 13.85 29.1 11.59 29.0 11.52 31.0 12.32

Pb -202.0 -12.84 117.3 7.45 117.1 7.44 10.8 0.68

Hg -1.5 -21.08 1.4 20.50 1.4 20.48 0.4 6.63

Se 2.0 3.98 -115.4 -241.65 -115.5 -242.00 -76.3 -159.89

Ag -1.9 -10.20 -63.3 -344.64 -63.4 -345.07 -42.9 -233.30

S 4.2 * 22.44 -0.6 * -3.24 -0.6 * -3.26 1.0 * 5.3

*Al and S mass units are in grams.

Table 9b: Summary Results, Miscanthus giganteus Mass-Balance, Soil 2

Parameter

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Average

Mass

Balance,

mg unless

marked *

Percent

of input,

%

Mass

Balance,

mg unless

marked *

Percent

of input,

%

Mass

Balance,

mg unless

marked *

Percent

of input,

%

Mass

Balance,

mg unless

marked *

Percent

of input,

%

Al 0.031 * 18.29 0.061 * 36.71 0.061 * 36.71 0.051 * 30.57

As 206.0 46.11 301.2 67.41 301.2 67.41 269.5 60.31

Ba -1450.6 -86.82 517.8 31.0 517.6 31.0 -138.4 -8.27

Cd -27.0 -275.18 -27.0 -275.66 -27.0 -275.63 -27.0 -275.49

Cr -8.2 -3.65 40.9 18.22 40.9 18.23 24.5 10.93

Pb -112.2 -32.94 -92.1 -27.0 -90.1 -26.44 -98.1 -28.79

Hg 0.8 24.94 2.3 70.08 2.3 70.05 1.8 55.03

Se -57.9 -39.77 -134.6 -274.83 -134.5 -274.79 -109.0 196.46

Ag 0.8 3.99 -71.6 -365.41 -71.6 -365.37 -47.5 -242.26

S -0.6 * -7.53 -6.7 * -79.48 -6.7 * -79.37 -4.7 * -55.46

*Al and S mass units are in grams.

55

Table 9c: Summary Results, Miscanthus giganteus, Mass-Balance, Soil 3

Parameter

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Average

Mass

Balance,

mg unless

marked *

Percent

of input,

%

Mass

Balance,

mg unless

marked *

Percent

of input,

%

Mass

Balance,

mg unless

marked *

Percent

of input,

%

Mass

Balance,

mg unless

marked *

Percent

of input,

%

Al 0.180* 65.78 0.192* 70.08 0.192* 70.08 0.188* 68.65

As -291.4 -45.95 333.9 52.67 334.0 52.67 125.5 19.80

Ba -1403.1 -79.4 370.0 20.9 370.1 20.95 -221.0 -12.52

Cd -30.4 -245.00 -30.5 -245.49 -30.5 -245.48 -30.5 -245.32

Cr -222.8 -114.30 -18.6 -9.55 -18.6 -9.55 -86.7 -44.5

Pb -306.3 -31.09 220.2 22.35 220.2 22.35 44.7 4.54

Hg -1.9 -42.90 3.2 70.47 3.2 70.64 1.5 32.74

Se -57.9 -39.77 -67.9 -46.61 -67.9 -46.60 -64.6 -44.34

Ag -0.04 -0.14 -81.2 -315.80 -81.2 -315.79 -54.1 -210.58

S -2.2 * -4.15 46.7 * 89.28 46.7 * 89.28 30.4 * 58.14

*Al and S mass units are in grams.

Panicum virgatum:

Table 10a: Summary Results, Panicum virgatum, Mass-Balance, Soil 1

Parameter Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Average

Mass

Balance,

mg unless

marked *

Percent

of input,

%

Mass

Balance,

mg unless

marked *

Percent

of input,

%

Mass

Balance,

mg unless

marked *

Percent

of input,

%

Mass

Balance,

mg unless

marked *

Percent

of input,

%

Al 0.076* 32.42 0.082* 34.69 0.082* 34.69 0.08* 34.6

As -49.6 -18.90 -130.4 -49.68 -130.4 -49.68 -103.5 -39.42

Ba 170.5 9.02 36.5 1.93 36.4 1.93 81.1 4.29

Cd -23.2 -242.50 -23.2 -242.68 -23.2 -242.69 -23.2 242.62

Cr 27.5 10.93 29.2 11.61 29.2 11.61 28.6 11.38

Pb -22.1 -1.40 117.3 7.46 117.3 7.46 70.8 4.51

Hg -0.2 -2.65 1.4 20.51 1.4 20.51 0.9 12.79

Se -1.9 -4.04 -115.3 -241.52 -115.3 -241.53 187.5 162.36

Ag -1.9 -10.20 -63.2 -344.48 -63.2 -344.49 42.7 -233.06

S 4.7 * 25.27 -0.6 * -3.18 -0.6 * -3.26 1.2 * 6.28

*Al and S mass units are in grams.

56

Table 10b: Summary Results, Panicum virgatum Mass-Balance, Soil 2

Parameter

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Average

Mass

Balance,

mg unless

marked *

Percent

of input,

%

Mass

Balance,

mg unless

marked *

Percent

of input,

%

Mass

Balance,

mg unless

marked *

Percent

of input,

%

Mass

Balance,

mg unless

marked *

Percent

of input,

%

Al 0.048* 28.78 0.061* 36.71 0.061* 36.71 0.057* 34.07

As 206.0 46.11 301.2 67.42 301.2 67.41 269.5 60.31

Ba 287.5 17.21 518.0 31.00 518.0 31.00 441.2 26.40

Cd -26.9 -275.16 -27.0 -275.35 -27.0 -275.36 -27.0 -275.29

Cr 65.2 29.08 41.0 18.29 41.0 18.28 49.1 21.88

Pb -34.7 -10.19 -89.9 -26.40 -89.9 -26.40 -71.5 -21.00

Hg 1.3 38.70 2.3 70.10 2.3 70.10 2.0 59.63

Se -6.2 -12.66 -134.4 -274.52 -134.4 -274.53 -91.7 -187.23

Ag -2.9 -14.75 -71.6 -365.02 -71.5 -365.04 -48.7 -248.27

S -2.3 * -27.49 -6.7 * -79.33 -6.6 * -79.31 -5.2 * -62.04

*Al and S mass units are in grams.

Table 10c: Summary Results, Panicum virgatum, Mass-Balance, Soil 3

Parameter Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Average

Mass

Balance,

mg unless

marked *

Percent

of input,

%

Mass

Balance,

mg unless

marked

Percent

of input,

%

Mass

Balance,

mg unless

marked *

Percent

of input,

%

Mass

Balance,

mg unless

marked *

Percent

of input,

%

Al 0.186* 67.81 0.192* 70.08 0.192* 70.08 0.190* 69.32

As -141.43 -22.31 334.1 52.69 334.1 52.69 175.6 27.69

Ba -351.4 -19.89 370.2 20.95 370.3 20.95 129.7 7.34

Cd -30.4 -245.00 -30.5 -245.09 -30.5 -245.25 -30.5 -245.11

Cr -64.4 -33.05 -18.4 -9.42 -18.5 -9.48 -27.7 -17.32

Pb -542.0 -55.0 220.4 22.37 220.4 22.36 -33.7 -3.42

Hg 1.5 33.29 3.2 70.64 3.2 70.55 2.6 58.16

Se -90.1 -61.83 -67.6 -46.43 -67.7 -46.50 -75.1 -51.59

Ag -2.2 -8.49 -81.05 -315.31 -81.1 -315.52 -54.8 -213.11

S -0.6 * -11.53 46.7 * 89.26 -3.5 * -6.65 14.2 * 23.69

*Al and S mass units are in grams.

57

CHAPTER 4, INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

Discussion of Plant Species

Discussion of Germination Results

Discussion of Growth Results

Discussion of Laboratory Results

Discussion of Mass-Balance Results

58

Discussion of Plant Species:

The plants that we selected to study were Camelina sativa, Miscanthus giganteus and

Panicum virgatum. Each of these species offers different characteristics that were useful in

reclaiming the marginal soils produced by mining operations. Camelina sativa displayed the

ability to germinate easily in the experimental conditions but had difficulty adapting to the harsh

soil environments. This could possibly be related to the low pH rather than the heavy metals

present. Miscanthus giganteus displayed the ability to grow well in each of the experimental

soils. This may be related to the deep root structures which could also inhibit erosion and/or the

chemical transport within the soil. Panicum virgatum displayed the ability to grow well in each

of the experimental soils. After the germination lag these plants grew very well. The delayed

germination could have been related to lower initial watering amounts. The consistent growth

patterns may be related to the dense root structures which would also inhibit erosion and/or the

chemical transport within the soil.

Discussion of Germination Results:

The results from the germination phase of this experiment offered some useful

information for the ability of each of the seeded species (Camelina sativa and Panicum

virgatum) to survive in the harsh experimental environments. The extremely low pH and high

concentration of heavy metals could be the main parameter causing inhibited germination. In

each of the trials there were instances where the percent germination for both species appeared to

be rather successful. In fact, the Panicum virgatum was extremely successful (at or near 100%)

after a sustained germination period under optimal conditions. The Camelina sativa specimens

had successful instances where there appeared to be very successful at first, only to taper out

59

after a few days. Camelina sativa appears to be very sensitive to adverse environmental

conditions.

Discussion of Growth Results:

The results from the growth phase of this experiment offered very good data to aid in the

determination of sustained survivability of each of the studied plant species. Each of the trials

offered similar results for the ability for each species to survive under experimental conditions.

It was recognized that the extremely low pH in the initial soil samples could impact successful

growth. The Miscanthus giganteus had the greatest success to the production of biomass over

time. In each of the first three experimental trials they showed consistently increasing growth

curve throughout the experimental time frames. The fourth such trial had instances where each

of the experimental specimens died off and the control grew at a steadily increasing curve, as

expected. These failures were most likely linked to the rhizome splitting process. This species

had the ability to adapt to each of the experimental and control soil types. One drawback with

using Miscanthus was the high demand for water. As the individual plants’ grew, larger amounts

of water were required to sustain the increased biomass. The Camelina sativa grew well in each

of the trials under experimental soil type #2 and the control. They did not do well in

experimental soil type #1 or soil type #3, where the young plants died off shortly after depleting

the post-emergent seed energy supply. This variety of Camelina sativa appeared to be intolerant

the harsh environments of each of these soil types. The Panicum virgatum specimens grew very

well under each of the soil types during each other experimental trials showing steady growth

throughout. These growth patterns were also continuously increasing growth curve, although to

a lesser degree than that of the Miscanthus giganteus specimens.

60

Discussion of Laboratory Results:

The results from the laboratory analysis portion of this experiment offered a great deal of

useful information. They offer the ability of each of the studied species to phytoextract heavy

metals from each of the experimental soil types. On the surface, the lab results offer a glance as

to what is present under each of the analytical parameters. The initial soil lab results offer a

starting point to show the initial concentrations for each of the parameters. Cadmium and silver

were not detected in any of the experimental soil types. Selenium was not detected in soils 1 or

2, but was detected in soil type 3. Aluminum, arsenic, barium, chromium, lead, mercury, and

sulfur offered responses above the detection limits of the inductively coupled plasma mass

spectrometry (ICP-MS) analyzer.

The analysis of the native plant tissue samples offered an additional experimental control.

Each of the parameters was below the detection limit of the analyzer, with the exception of

aluminum at locations 1 and 2, barium at each of the locations, and cadmium at location 1.

These concentrations were lower than the experimental analysis results, as expected.

The final soil lab analysis results give insight into the potential for phytoextraction.

Lower concentrations for each of the parameters would be expected after the experiment. This

was not always the case. The “grab” samples taken for analysis from each of the experimental

plant pots may have been taken from a different batch of soil than that of the initial soil samples.

There were many instances where the output was actually higher than the input. These instances

are as follows:

1. Aluminum: none

61

2. Arsenic: Camelina trial 1, soils 1, 2 and 3 and trials 2 and 3, soils 2 and 3; Miscanthus

trial 1, soil 3 and trials 2 and 3, soils 2 and 3; Panicum, trial 1, soils 1 and 3 and trials 2

and 3, soils 2 and 3.

3. Barium: Camelina trial 1, soils 1, 2 and 3; Miscanthus trial 1, soils 2 and 3; Panicum,

trial 1, soils 3.

4. Cadmium: All readings were non-detects (ND)

5. Chromium: Camelina trial 1, soils 1, 2 and 3; Miscanthus trial 1, soils 1, 2 and 3;

Panicum, trial 1, soils 1 and 3.

6. Lead: Camelina trial 1, soils 1, 2 and 3 and trial 2, soil 2; Miscanthus trial 1, soil 3 and

trial 2, soil 2; Panicum, trial 1, soils 1, 2 and 3 and trial 2, soil 2.

7. Mercury: Camelina trial 1, soil 3; Miscanthus trial 1, soils 1 and 3; Panicum, trial 1, soil

1.

8. Selenium: Camelina trial 1, soil 1; Miscanthus trial 1, soil 1; Panicum, trial 1, soil 3.

9. Silver: All readings were non-detects (ND)

10. Sulfur: Camelina trial 1, soils 2 and 3 and trials 2 and 3, soils 1, 2 and 3; Miscanthus trial

1, soil 2 and 3 and trials 2 and 3, soils 1, 2 and 3; Panicum, trial 1, soils 2 and 3 and trials

2 and 3, soils 1, 2 and 3.

At first glance, the presence of any of the chemicals in the plant tissues appears to

indicate phytoextraction. Throughout the three trials study there were instances where

aluminum, barium, chromium, lead, mercury and sulfur were detected in the plant tissues. Here

are the instances where these parameters were detected by the analyzer:

1. Aluminum: Camelina trial 1, soils 2 and control, trial 2, soils 1, 2 (2 magnitudes

higher) and control, and trial 3, soil 1; Miscanthus trial 1, soils 1, 2 and control;

62

Panicum trial 1, soils 1, 2, 3 (magnitude higher) and control, trial 2, soils 2 and 3, and

trial 2, soils 1 and 3. There were results that indicated a full magnitude higher than

controls.

2. Barium: Camelina trial 1, control, trial 2, soils 1 and 2 (magnitude higher), and trial

3, soil 1; Miscanthus trial 1, soils 1 and 2, trials 2 and 3, soils 1, 2 and 3; Panicum

trial 1, soils 1, 2 and 3, trials 2 and 3, soil 1. There were results that indicated a full

magnitude higher than controls.

3. Chromium: Panicum trial 1, soils 3 and control.

4. Lead: Panicum trial 2, soil 3.

5. Mercury: Panicum trial 2, soil 3.

6. Sulfur: All of the samples that were analyzed. Although the Camelina samples

indicated up to a full magnitude higher than the rest of the samples.

Taking these at face value offers an indication as to whether phytoextraction has taken

place. The lab results also offer the raw data necessary to extrapolate and interpret the

environmental impact through further calculation. They also allow for the identification of

instances of hyper-accumulation.

Discussion of Variability Discussion:

The results from the analyses for the variability between the experimental conditions,

soils and plant tissues offered great insight into the reaching conclusions for objective questions.

The statistical analysis of each data set is crucial in determining the significance of the laboratory

results for each parameter that was analyzed. The large standard deviations for most of the

results indicated that there is a great amount of variance between the laboratory results from soil

63

types and plant tissues and the mean values from each data set, respectively. Smaller standard

deviations indicate lower variability.

Discussion of Mass-Balance Results:

The results from the mass-balance calculations for each of the experiment conditions

offered an extrapolated view into scientific merit of this research. Assumptions were made in

order to realize the desired result outputs. These calculations offer a great amount of feedback

for future applications in this type of research. The goal is reach a net zero for mass (or energy)

input versus mass (or energy) output. There were some key missing details (leachate volume and

concentrations) and plant tissue masses, which were not measured during the experiment.

Approximations were made based on assumed values derived from literature yield numbers.

This gave us a rough estimate on the mass-volume throughput for each sample. The output

concentrations for a lot of the final soil lab analysis were higher than the input. This resulted in

negative (larger output than input) mass balance numbers. This could be related to the samples

being taken from a slightly different area for each geographical site at the EPCAMR property

holdings. The discrepancy may also be related to different calibrations when the samples were

analyzed with the ICP-MS instrument. Having results from two different laboratories could have

played a role.

There were some meaningful results though. The parameters that showed the most

promising results (closest to net zero) were those that had valid inputs for each of the mass

balance equation components. As a general rule they should be within close proximity to the net

zero value while having an acceptable percentage (± 10 %) of input value. This would include

the following trials for each heavy metal parameter:

1. Aluminum: Camelina trial 1, soil 2.

64

2. Arsenic: none

3. Cadmium: none

4. Barium: Camelina trial 2 and 3, soil 1; Miscanthus trial 1, 2 and 3, soil 1; and Panicum

trial 1, 2 and 3, soil 1.

5. Chromium: Camelina trials 2 and 3, soil 3; Miscanthus trial 1, soil 2 and trial 2 and 3,

soil 3; and Panicum Trials 2 and 3, soil 3.

6. Lead: Camelina trial 1, soil 3, and trials 2 and 3, soil 1; Miscanthus trials 2 and 3, soil 1;

and Panicum Trials 1, 2 and 3, soil 1.

7. Mercury: Camelina trial 1, soil 1 and 3 and Panicum Trial 1, soil 1.

8. Selenium: Camelina trial 1, soil 3; Miscanthus trial 1, soil 2; and Panicum trial 1, soil 1.

9. Silver: Camelina trial 1, soil 3; Miscanthus trial 1, soils 2 and 3; and Panicum trial 1, soil

3.

10. Sulfur: Camelina trial 2, soils 1 and 3 and trial 3, soil 1; Miscanthus trial 1, soils 2 and 3

and trials 2 and 3, soil 1; and Panicum trials 2 and 3, soil 1 and trial 3, soil 3.

Here are few lessons to be applied to the mass balance segment of this type of research:

1. The collection, measurement of volume and analysis of the leachate is one area that

would offer more accurate mass-balance approximations.

2. The planter pots should have been weighed at the beginning and end of the experiment to

offer experiment mass values.

3. The experimental soil quantities should be sufficient for the duration of the experiment.

This may offer more consistency for concentrations between trials.

65

Chapter 5, CONCLUSION

66

In conclusion, this experiment provided an excellent opportunity to evaluate the

phytoremediation properties for each of the three biofuel crop plant species that were studied.

There were instances where each species offered pros and cons. It was recognized that the

ability for each of the species to survive in the experimental soils may have been related to the

low pH coupled with the elevated heavy metal concentrations. In order to scientifically develop

useful interpretations of the aforementioned results we hoped to answer five (5) questions

throughout this experiment.

Here are the answers to each of these questions:

1. Which of the three (3) biofuel crops we selected [Camelina sativa, Miscanthus

giganteus, or Panicum virgatum] has the ability to survive in the marginal soils

affected by mining operations?

Each of the selected plant species have some ability to adapt to some of the harsh

environmental present in the experimental soils we studied. The Camelina sativa

specimens had the most difficulty adjusting to the other than optimal growth conditions.

These specimens only thrived in the control and experimental soil from location # 2.

The Miscanthus giganteus was rather hardy and showed the most potential to adapt to

adverse soil conditions. In all of the trials, with the exception of the extra trial #4, these

specimens thrived and showed consistent growth patterns. They did require the most

water to sustain the massive biomass creation. The Panicum virgatum showed

consistent growth throughout the experiment. There was a lag time at the beginning

while the seeds were in germination phase, but following that lag they were rather

consistent over each of the trials.

67

2. Do any of the aforementioned species thrive in such conditions?

The Miscanthus giganteus showed the greatest ability to thrive in the

experimental soil types. One drawback for using this species is the high water demand.

The specimens even produced seeds over the longer experimental time in trials 2 – 4.

The seeding did not occur until after the growth period for this study was complete. The

Camelina sativa had the most difficulty, but did grow well in soil from location #2. The

specimens that survived did produce flowers and seeds very well over times. The seeds

even self-propagated to extend the survival in the pots from trial #1 that were kept alive

through the growth periods for trials 2 – 4. The Panicum virgatum offered great

stability throughout the study without a large water requirement.

3. Do any of these biofuel crops have the ability to Phytoremediate soils with high

concentrations of heavy metals?

There were instances of phytoextraction by each of the biofuel crops that were

selected for this research. Specific species showed differing levels of abilities to

phytoextract heavy metals from the soil. Certain specimens displayed a greater affinity

to remove specific parameters. The Camelina sativa displayed the ability to absorb each

of the following chemical parameters very well: aluminum (trial 1, soils 2; trial 2, soils

1 and 2; and trial 3, soil 1); barium (trial 2, soils 1 and 2 and trial 3, soil 1); and sulfur.

Miscanthus giganteus showed a lesser affinity to extract barium and sulfur in trials 2

and 3. Panicum virgatum displayed the ability to extract aluminum very well (trial 1,

soils 1, 2 and 3; trial 2, soils 2 and 3; and trial 3, soil 3), and barium, lead (trial 2, soil 3),

mercury (trial 2, soil 3) and sulfur to a lesser degree.

68

These behaviors could be attributed to the chemical and physical properties of

each parameter. Perhaps this could also be related to each chemical interaction at the

root zone, through the plant into the leaf tissues. There also appear to be a great deal of

variability in how well each plant species responded to the analytes individually.

Instances that appeared to be statistically significant were recognized in experimental

conditions. An example of such an interaction is the relationship where Barium

interacted with Camelina within the variance range of one standard deviation during

Trial 2. The graphs indicate numerous relationships such as this.

4. Do any of the aforementioned plant species behave as a hyper-accumulator of any

of the pollutants studied?

Yes, there appeared to be a number of situations that could be considered

instances of hyper-accumulation. For this study anything above one magnitude higher

than control is considered hyper-accumulation. This was determined strictly by

comparing concentration found in the experimental plant tissues versus those seen in the

control plant tissues. Camelina sativa appeared to possibly be a hyper-accumulator of

aluminum, barium in trial 2 and 3, soil 1, trial 2, soil 2, and sulfur in trial 3, soil 1.

Sulfur results for trials 1 and 2 are confusing due to the large amount found in the

control sample. Miscanthus giganteus appeared to possibly be a hyper-accumulator of

barium in trials 2 and 3 for each experimental soil type. Panicum virgatum appeared to

possibly be a hyper-accumulator of: aluminum in trial 2, soils 2 and 3, trial 3, soils 1 and

3 and barium in trials 2 and 3, soil 1; and lead for trial 2, soil 3. These considerations

are based on non-detects with zero concentrations.

69

There would be less incidence of hyper-accumulation recognized if the reported

detection limits (RDL) are considered. Sulfur was present at high concentration for the

majority of the samples. Only the very large sulfur concentration in Camelina sativa for

trial 2 soil 1 is being considered an instance of hyper-accumulation.

5. What is the feasibility of using any of these plant species to phytoremediate

contaminated soils and also as a source of energy following phytoextraction?

The feasibility for applying these crops to in-situ process would be very

challenging. The lands that would be selected for such applications would have to be of

sufficient grade to operate the agricultural machinery required to plant, maintain, and

harvest such crops. A lot of the lands that would be candidates for such research are

traditionally being treated with the passive limestone alkaline treatment and wetland

filtration systems with great success. In order to support the capital investment required

to farm these lands properly, an in-depth cost/benefit analysis would have to be

conducted prior to considering each specific situation.

70

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. (2008). Green remediation—using sustainable environmental. Hazardous

Waste Consultant, 26(4), 1.1 - 1.5.

2. Adriano DC (2001) Trace elements in terrestrial environments. Biochemistry,

Alburry, Australia,pp 1–16

3. Anonymous. (2006). Phytoremediation for persistent organic pollutants.

Hazardous Waste Consultant, 24(1), 1 - 6.

4. Banuelos, G. S. (2005). Phyto-products may be essential for sustainability

and implementation of phytoremediation. Environmental Pollution, (144), 19-

23.

5. Caslin, B., Finnan, J., & Easson, L. (2010). Miscanthus best practice

guidelines. Teagasc and Agri-Food and Bioscience Institute, Retrieved from

http://www.afbini.gov.uk/miscanthus-best-practice-guidelines.pdf

6. Charles, D., Wasteworld. New Scientist, 1998, 157, 32.

7. Das P, Samantaray S, Rout GR (1997) Studies on cadmium toxicity in plants:

a review. Environ Pollut 98:29–36

8. Eger, P., Wetland treatment for trace metal removal from mine drainage: The

importance of aerobic and anaerobic processes. Water Sci. Technol., 1994, 29,

249 – 256.

9. Epa technology transfer network emission measurement center. (2014).

Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/ttnemc01/tmethods.html

10. Faulkner, S.P., Richardson, C.J., 1989. Physical and chemical characteristics

of freshwater wetland soils. In: Hammer, D.A. (Ed.), Constructed Wetlands

for Wastewater Treatment. Lewis Publishers, Michigan, pp. 41–72.

11. Gerst, E. (2012). Photographic Images taken during experiment.

12. Glick, B. R. (2003). Phytoremediation: synergistic use of plants and. Elsevier,

21, 383-393.

13. Hallberg, K.B., Johnson, D.B., 2001. Biodiversity of acidophilic

microorganisms. Adv. Appl. Microbiol. 49, 37–84.

14. Hancock, F.D., 1973. Algal ecology of a stream polluted through gold mining

on the Witwatersrand. Hydrobiologia 43, 189–229.

15. Hattori, T., & Morita, S. (2010). Energy crops for sustainable bioethanol

production; which, where and how? Plant Production Science, 13(2010), 221

- 234.

16. Hedin, R.S., Nairn, R.W., Kleinmann, R.L.P., 1994. Passive treatment of

coalmine drainage. US Bureau of Mines Information Circular IC-9389

Pittsburg, PA.

17. Hegedüs A, Erdei S, Janda T, Toth E, Horvath G, Dubits D (2004)

Transgenic tobacco plants over producing alfafa aldose/aldehyde reductase

show higher tolerance to low temperature and cadmium stress. Plant Sci

166:1329–1333

18. Henry JR (2000) In an overview of phytoremediation of lead and mercury.

NNEMS Report Washington, pp 3–9

71

19. Hernandez, M.E., Mitsch, W.J., 2007. Denitrification potential and organic

matter as affected by vegetation community, wetland age, and plant

introduction in created wetlands. J. Environ. Qual. 36, 333–342.

20. Hutnik, R. J., & Hughes, H. G. (1990). Revegetation of abandoned mine

lands in Pennsylvania with containerized seedlings and soil amendments 1.

Retrieved from

http://wvmdtaskforce.com/proceedings/90/90HUT/90HUT.HTM

21. Jensen, K., Ellis, P., Menard, J., English, B., Clark, C., & Walsh, M. (2005).

Tennessee farmers' views of producing switchgrass for energy. Bio-Based

Energy Analysis Group, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of

Tennessee, Retrieved from Http://BEAG.AG.UTK.EDU

22. Johnson, D. B., & Hallberg, K. B. (2005). Acid mine drainage remediation

options: a review. Science of the Total Environment, 338(2005), 2-14.

23. Johnson, S.L. and Wright, A.H., Mine void water resource issues in Western

Australia, Water and Rivers Commission, 2003.

24. Klapper, H., Friese, K., Scharf, B., Schimmele, M. and Schultze, M. Ways of

controlling acid by ecotechnology. In Acidic Mining Lakes, edited by W.

Geller, H. Klapper and W. Salomons, pp. 401 – 416, 1998 (Springer: Berlin).

25. Kolbash, R.L., Romanoski, T.L., 1989. Windsor coal company wetland: an

overview. In: Hammer, D.A. (Ed.), Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater

Treatment. Lewis Publishers, Michigan.

26. Kuipers, J.R., Water treatment as a mitigation. Southwest Hydrol.,

September/October 2002, 18 – 19.

27. Markert B (1993) Plants as Biomonitors-Indicators of Heavy Metals in the

Terrestrial Environment VCH Publishers, Germany, p 644

28. McCullough, C. D. (2008). Approaches to remediation of acid mine drainage

water in pit lakes. International journal of mining, reclamation and

environment, 22(2), 105-119. Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17480930701350127

29. Memon, A. R., & Schroder, P. (2009). Implications of metal accumulation

mechanisms. Enviro Sci Pollut Res, (16), 162-175.

30. Misra SG, Mani D (1991) Soil pollution. Ashish Publishing House, 8/81

31. Mitsch, W.J. and Wise, K.M., Water quality, fate of metals, and predictive

model validation of a constructed wetland treating acid mine drainage. Water

Res., 1998, 32, 1888 – 1900.

32. Mudd, G.M., One Australian perspective on sustainable mining: declining ore

grades and increasing waste volumes, in Proceedings of the 11th

International Conference on Tailings and Mine Waste ’04, pp. 359 – 369,

2004 (Taylor & Francis).

33. Nelson, R.W., Criteria and procedures to maximize the quality and value of

wetlands constructed at surface mines. Int. J. Ecol. Environ. Sci., 1991, 1, 77

– 90.

34. Nguyen, X., Proposing guidelines for mine closure in Western Australia, in

Proceedings of the Goldfields Environmental Management Group Workshop

on Environmental Management 2006, 24 – 26 May 2006, Kalgoorlie,

Australia, pp. 12.

72

35. NSF, Research experiences for undergraduates (reu). (2013). Retrieved from

http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13542/nsf13542.htm

36. Pilon-Smits, E. (2005). Phytoremediation. Annual Review Plant Biology,

2005(56), 15-39. doi: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.56.032604.144214

37. Pinto AP, Mota AM, de Varennes A, Pinto FC (2004) Influence of organic

matter on the uptake of cadmium, zinc, copper and iron by sorghum plants.

Sci Tot Environ 326:239–247

38. Prasad MNV (2008) Trace Elements as Contaminants and Nutrients:

Consequences in Ecosystems and Human Health. Wiley, New York

39. Ramamurthy, A. S., & Memarian, R. (2011). Phytoremediation of mixed soil

contaminants. Water Air Soil Pollution, 2012(223), 511-518. doi:

10.1007/s11270-011-0878-6

40. Rivetta A, Negrini N, Cocucci M (1997) Involvement of Ca2+- calmodulin in

Cd2+ toxicity during the early phases of radish (Raphanus sativus L.) seed

germination. Plant Cell Environ 20: 600–608

41. Robinson, M. (2012). Photographic Images taken during experiment.

42. Salt, D. E., Smith, R. D., & Raskin, I. (1998). Phytoremediation. Annual

Review Plant Physiological Plant Molecular Biology, (49), 643 - 668. Doi:

1040-2519/98/0601-0643$08.00

43. Shah, F. U. R., Ahmad, N., Masood, K. R., Peralta-Videa, J. R., & Ahmad, F.

U. D. (2010). Plant adaptation and phytoremediation. Springer Dordrecht

Heidelberg London New York.

44. Sharma DC, Chaterjee C, Sharma CP (1995) Chromium accumulation and its

effects on wheat (Triticum aestivum L. cv. DH220) metabolism. Plant Sci

111:145–151

45. Seminers. (1997, June 4). Part 5: chemical specific parameters. Retrieved

from http://www.epa.gov/superfund/health/conmedia/soil/pdfs/part_5.pdf

46. Shi, G., & Cai, Q. (2009). Cadmium tolerance and accumulation in eight

potential energy crops. Elsevier, 27(2009), 555-561. Retrieved from

www.elsevier.com/ locate/biotechadv

47. Shukla OP, Dubey S, Rai UN (2007) preferential accumulation of cadmium

and chromium: Toxicity in Bacopa monnieri L. under mixed metal

treatments. B Environ Contam Toxicol 78:252–257

48. Somerville, C. (2007). Biofuels. Current Biology, 17(4), R115-R119.

49. U.S.E.P.A, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. (2008). Green

remediation: Best management practices for excavation and surface

restoration. (EPA 542-F-08-012). Retrieved from website:

http://www.epa.gov/tio/download/remed/gr_quick_ref_fs_exc_rest.pdf

50. Vakulabharanam, V. (2010). Camelina. Agriculture Crops, Saskatchewan

Agriculture, venkata.vakulabharaham@gov.sk.ca.

51. Vrfolomeev, S. D., Efremenko, E. N., & Krylova, L. P. (2010). Biofuels.

Russian Chemical Reviews, 79(6), 491-509. doi: DOI

10.1070/RC2010v079n06ABEH004138

52. Wang, Z., Dunn, J., & Wang, M. (2012). Greet model miscanthus parameter

development. Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National

Laboratory.

73

53. White, R. A., Freeman, C., & Kang, H. (2011). Plant-derived phenolic

compound impair the remediation of acid mine drainage using treatment

wetlands. Ecological engineering, 37(2011), 172-175. doi:

10.1016/j.ecoleng.2010.08.008

54. Wittkop, B., Snowdon, R. J., & Fried, W. (2009). Status and perspectives of

breeding for enhanced quality of oilseed crops for Europe. Euphytica,

170(2009), 131-140. doi: DOI 10.1007/s10681-009-9940-5

55. Wong, J. (2004). Phytoremediation of contaminated soils. Journal of Natural

Resources and Life Sciences Education, 2004(33), 51-53.

56. Zhang GP, Fukami M, Sekimoto H (2002) Influence of cadmium on mineral

concentration and yield components in wheat genotypes differing in Cd

tolerance at seedling stage. Field Crop Res 4079:1–7

57. Zhang, Y., Yu, L., Yung, K., Lueng, D. Y. C., Sun, F., & Boon, L. L. (2012).

Over-expression of atpap2 in Camelina sativa leads o faster growth and

higher seed yield. . Biotechnology for Biofuels, 5(19), Retrieved from

http://www.biotechnologyforbiofuels.com/content/5/1/19

58. Zubr, J. (2002). Qualitative variation of Camelina sativa seed from different

locations. Industrial Crops and Products, 17(2003), 161-169.

74

Appendix A, FORMS AND DEADLINES

Master’s Approval Page

75

MASTER’S APPROVAL PAGE

Name of Student_Edward Albert Gerst________________ Penn State ID ___9 4615 3076______________

Email address(s)___eag222@psu.edu or edwardgerst@hotmail.com ______________________________

I hereby certify that I have obtained the necessary permission for copyrighted material

included in my thesis and choose that the document be placed in the eTD archives with the

following status:

X 1. OPEN ACCESS — Allows free worldwide access to the entire work beginning immediately after degree conferral. Appropriate for the majority of thesis submissions in immediately fulfilling the requirement for making

the work available to

the public.

___ 2. RESTRICTED (PENN STATE ONLY)* — Access restricted to individuals having a valid Penn State

Access Account, for a period of two years. Allows restricted access of the entire work beginning immediately after

degree conferral. At the end of the two-year period, the status will automatically change to Open Access. Intended

for use by authors in cases where prior public release of the work may compromise its acceptance for publication

____ 3. RESTRICTED — Restricts the entire work for a period of two years, for patent and/or proprietary purposes. At the end of the two-year period, the status will automatically change to Open Access. Selection of this

option requires that an invention disclosure (ID) be filed with the Office of Technology Management (OTM) prior to

submission of the final thesis and confirmed by OTM and Office of Theses and Dissertations.

Confirmed _________________

__________________________________________________ _____________________________

Signature of Student Date

FACULTY APPROVAL

(a minimum of three signatures required, including dept. head or chair of graduate program)

We accept and approve the thesis of the student named above and agree to distribution as indicated.

Signature _____________________________________________________ Date_____________________

Print name here: Dr. Sairam V. Rudrabhatla___________________________________________________

Signature _____________________________________________________ Date_____________________

Print name here Dr. Shirley E. Clark _________________________________________________________

Signature _____________________________________________________ Date_____________________

Print name here: Dr. Shobha Devi Potlakayala__________________________________________________

Signature _____________________________________________________ Date_____________________

Print name here: Mr. Gregory Shuler, PG_____________________________________________________

Signature _____________________________________________________ Date_____________________

Print name here: Mrs. Alison Shuler_________________________________________________________

Department Head or Chair of Graduate Program

Signature _____________________________________________________ Date_____________________

Print name here: Dr. Thomas Eberlein________________________________________________________

*Requests for a two-year extension can be made by contacting the Office of Theses and Dissertations

(gradthesis@psu.edu) 30 days prior to the expiration of the restriction.

76

Appendix B, GROWTH RECORDS

Spreadsheet of Daily Growth Records

Field Data Sheets

77

Spreadsheet of Daily Growth Records:

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's

initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum Additional remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

EG 12-Jun 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Highest Shoots recorded

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

# of germinated

seeds

Additional Observations No recognized changes from the initial planting. The Miscanthus shoots are green.

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's

initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Additional

remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

MR/EG

13-

Jun 10.8 15.2 11.8 14.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Highest Shoots

recorded

6.8 6.8 7.3 7.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lowest Shoots with

growth

9a,

5d

7a,

5d 5a 11 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

# of buds (a = alive &

d =dead )

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Watering Volumes in

ml.

Additional

Observations Pictures taken by MR. (To be taken approximately every week or as needed.)

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum Additional remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

MR/EG 14-Jun 13.1 17.0 13.5 17.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Highest Shoots recorded

MR/EG 6.3 6.8 7.8 12.4 0.7 1.8 1.0 1.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lowest Shoots with growth

MR/EG 9a, 5d

7a, 5d 5a 11 28 73 43 95 0 0 1 0

# of buds (a = alive & d = dead )

MR/EG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 250 250 250 250

Additional Observations 18/

78

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Additional

remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

MR/TB 15-Jun 16.0 20.2 16.2 21.0 1.1 3.1 1.6 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Highest Shoots recorded

10.0 10.6 N/A 11.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Lowest Shoots with growth

Not recorded

# of

buds/Germination

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Watering Volumes

in ml.

Additional Observations The change in germination rate was not recorded, to be recorded weekly.(eg)

Daily Record Keeping

MR/TB 16-Jun 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Watering Volumes in ml.

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum Additional remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

TB/MR/EG 18-Jun 20.3 27.5 21.8 25.8 1.4 4.2 2.2 5.3 2.0 2.0 2.1 1.1

Highest Shoots recorded

11.0 10.5 16.1 11.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lowest Shoots

with growth

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100+ 100+ 100+ 100+ # of germinated seeds

500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 Watering Volumes in ml.

Additional

Observations EG

• When watering each of the species in soil type 2 the water ran out of into the overflow tray. Perhaps this is due to the soil composition. • Miscanthus giganteus

o All soil types appear to be doing well. • Camelina Sativa o Soil type 1 is struggling to survive post germination.

o Soil type 2 and control are doing well. o Soil type 3 is struggling to survive post germination. • Switchgrass

o All soil types appear to being doing well.

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum Additional remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

MR/TB/EG 20-Jun 28.8 35.8 28.2 32.1 1.4 5.3 2.0 7.0 3.3 3.5 2.9 3.9

Highest

Shoots recorded

9.1 13.0 15.7 9.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lowest

Shoots with growth

250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250

Watering

Volumes in ml.

Additional Observations EG

Water ran through soil type 2 for Camelina and Switchgrass. All species and soil types are doing well except for Camelina Sativa soil type 1 and 3.

79

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum Additional remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

MR/TB 22-Jun 37.0 50.2 35.4 43.2 1.4 4.9 2.0 6.7 5.1 5.9 5.0 5.8

Highest Shoots recorded

7.8 8.5 12.3 8.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lowest Shoots with

growth

250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250

Watering Volumes

in ml.

Additional

Observations Nothing Recorded.

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's

initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum Additional remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

MR/TB 25-Jun 48.9 59.0 45.6 50.3 1.4 7.0 1.9 9.3 6.8 6.0 7.1 10.0

Highest Shoots recorded

7.0 8.3 8.8 8.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lowest Shoots

with growth

250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250

Watering

Volumes in ml.

Additional Observations Nothing recorded.

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum Additional remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

EG 27-Jun 51.0 64.5 51.8 56.5 1.4 7.6 3.0 12.8 8.8 10.8 9.8 14.3

Highest Shoots recorded

7.0 6.8 7.3 7.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lowest Shoots with

growth

250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250

Watering Volumes

in ml.

Additional

Observations EG

The species Camelina Sativa in soil types 1 and 3 have very low survival rate. They are struggling very

badly. All other samples appear to be thriving with excellent growth.

80

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum Additional remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

MR/TB 29-Jun 52.7 74.1 58.0 67.0 1.0 9.0 3.1 13.4 11.8 13.6 11.0 16.0

Highest Shoots recorded

5.2 5.5 9.2 8.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lowest Shoots with

growth

250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250

Watering Volumes

in ml.

Additional observations Nothing recorded.

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum Additional remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

MR/TB 2-Jul 64.3 85.2 67.1 80.4 1.3 11.0 3.1 18.0 17.0 17.6 14.9 20.4

Highest

Shoots recorded

7.5 6.1 12.5 9.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lowest Shoots with

growth

250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250

Watering Volumes

in ml.

Additional observations Nothing recorded.

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's

initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum Additional remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

MR/TB 3-Jul

Nothing recorded.

Highest Shoots recorded

Lowest Shoots

with growth

250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250

Watering

Volumes in ml.

Additional

observations Nothing recorded.

81

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum Additional remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

MR/TB 4-Jul 67.0 91.5 68.9 83.3 1.1 14.6 3.1 23.2 18.0 20.7 18.1 22.5

Highest

Shoots recorded

7.0 6.5 9.3 8.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lowest

Shoots with growth

250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250

Watering Volumes in ml.

Additional observations Nothing recorded.

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Additional

remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

MR/TB 7-Jul

81.7 94.3 71.1 94.4 1.2 16.0 2.0 25.1 27.5 22.8 20.6 27.0 Highest Shoots

recorded

7.4 10.8 12.8 9.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lowest Shoots

with growth

Not watered. Growing well.

Watering Volumes in ml.

Additional observations Nothing recorded.

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's

initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum Additional remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

MR/TB 9-Jul 85.0 98.0 76.0 99.7 1.0 23.1 21.1

? 29.4 29.8 17.1 22.5 29.2

Highest Shoots recorded

8.0 12.0 12.6 9.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lowest Shoots

with growth

Not watered. Growing well.

Watering

Volumes in ml.

Additional observations

Nothing recorded. Upon data entry, recognized discrepancy with Camelina results for Soil types 1 and 3?

These do not appear to be accurate results? Perhaps transcribed from another soil type? Looks like Cam1 and SG 1 were switched. And Cam2 should be 2.1?

82

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum Additional remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

MR/TB 11-Jul

86.1 105.9 77.3 101.0 1.0 21.5 2.9 30.5 30.9 24.3 22.5 37.4 Highest Shoots recorded

7.5 15.2 12.0 9.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lowest Shoots with

growth

500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Watering Volumes

in ml.

Additional observations Nothing recorded.

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum Additional remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

MR/TB 13-Jul

90.1 107.9 79.3 103.6 1.0 23.2 1.4 34.5 32.8 29.7 26.5 42.8

Highest

Shoots recorded

8.2 16.0 12.5 9.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lowest

Shoots with growth

500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 Watering Volumes in ml.

Additional observations Nothing recorded.

Daily Record Keeping

MR/TB 15-Jul 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250

Watering Volumes

in ml.

83

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's

initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum Additional remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

MR/TB/EG 16-Jul 93.0 116.0 85.2 111.3 1.4 25.4 4.3 32.5 35.5 32.6 32.3 45.7

Highest Shoots recorded

10.5 16.2 16.8 2.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lowest Shoots with

growth

250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250

Watering

Volumes in ml.

Additional

observations. EG Took pictures.

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum Additional remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

EG 20-Jul

No measurements taken, cuttings taken for sampling.

Highest

Shoots recorded

Lowest

Shoots with growth

250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250

Watering Volumes in ml.

Additional observations. EG Took pictures and took samples for plant tissue analysis

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum Additional remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

TB 23-Jul

47.6 57.8 49.3 83.8 0.0 21.8 0.0 54.4 16.8 22.8 20.6 51.3

Highest

Shoots recorded

2.8 27.8 16.9 4.3

Lowest

Shoots with growth

500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 Watering Volumes in ml.

Additional observations Nothing recorded.

84

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum Additional remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

TB/MR 25-Jul

49.0 52.6 58.5 93.1 0.0 22.1 0.0 54.5 19.0 23.0 22.1 54.0

Highest

Shoots recorded

Lowest Shoots with

growth

500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 Watering Volumes

in ml.

Additional observations Nothing recorded.

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Additional

remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

EG

30-

Jul

64.9 82.3 62.7 115.0 0.0 25.1 0.0 45.8 26.5 26.8 30.3 65.9 Highest Shoots

recorded

13.0 26.0 16.5 11.0

Lowest

Shoots with growth

250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 Watering Volumes in ml.

Additional observations Miscanthus giganteus samples have black spots on leaves.

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Additional

remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

EG 1-

Aug 71.5 88.2 72.5 115.5 0.0 26.3 0.0 62.3 33.5 29.5 31.3 67.8

Highest

Shoots recorded

15.2 26.3 27.3 12.5

Lowest

Shoots with growth

250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 Watering Volumes in ml.

Additional observations Nothing recorded. CamCon appears to have numbers reversed changed from 26.3 to 62.3. 4/13/13 eg

85

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Additional

remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

EG

5-

Aug

86.9 94.9 86.7 135.5 0.0 30.3 0.0 63.5 41.5 37.8 36.6 72.4 Highest Shoots

recorded

15.4 27.4 27.3 12.4

Lowest Shoots

with growth

250 250 250 250 0 250 0 250 250 250 250 250

Watering

Volumes in ml.

Additional observations Camelina Sativa 2 and control flowering.

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's

initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum Additional remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

MR 7-

Aug

Highest Shoots recorded

Lowest Shoots with

growth

500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Watering

Volumes in ml.

Additional

observations Nothing recorded.

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Additional

remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

MR

8-

Aug

91.7 105.8 97.6 141.4 0.0 23.6 0.0 65.0 43.4 46.3 34.0 72.6 Highest Shoots

recorded

Lowest

Shoots with growth

500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 Watering Volumes in ml.

Additional observations Nothing recorded.

86

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum Additional remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

EG 9-Aug

Highest Shoots recorded

`

Lowest Shoots with

growth

500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 Watering Volumes

in ml.

Additional observations Nothing recorded.

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Additional

remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

EG 10-Aug

97.5 122.1 102.9 151.3 0.0 35.3 0.0 68.9 48.3 48.5 50.3 72.5 Highest Shoots

recorded

16.5 2.7 35.2 10.3

Lowest Shoots

with growth

Watering

Volumes in ml.

Additional observations Nothing recorded.

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Additional

remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

EG 13-Aug

92.0 117.5 122.3 151.3 0.0 24.4 0.0 72.3 50.9 51.7 51.9 72.0 Highest Shoots

recorded

Lowest Shoots

with growth

500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Watering

Volumes in ml.

Additional observations Camelina Sativa control has lots of seeds.

87

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum Additional remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

EG 15-Aug

103.4 118.8 118.3 152.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 74.3 52.3 52.1 52.7 73.4

Highest

Shoots recorded

Lowest Shoots with

growth

Watering Volumes

in ml.

Additional observations Water ran through for M2 and M3, Ccon, SG1, 2, 3. Ccon has new flowers. Ccon 2 fragile.

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Additional

remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

EG

19-

Aug

107.5 129.1 120.7 154.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 76.4 53.3 54.8 52.3 72.9 Highest Shoots

recorded

Lowest

Shoots with growth

Watering Volumes in ml.

Additional observations Ccon seeds harvested, lady bugs recognized on plants.

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's

initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Additional

remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

EG

22-

Aug

112.4 133.7 123.2 152.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.7 52.5 51.7 52.1 72.7 Highest Shoots

recorded

Lowest Shoots

with growth

500 500 500 500 500 500 500 1000 500 500 500 500

Watering

Volumes in ml.

Additional

observations Ccon drying out. Given more water. Sgcon yellow. Pruned dried dead sections off.

88

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials

Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum Additional remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

EG 24-Aug

116.

0

134.

6

126.

0

153.

1 0.0 0.0 0.0 76.7 54.0 54.2 52.5 73.7

Highest

Shoots recorded

Lowest

Shoots with growth

1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

Watering Volumes in ml.

Additional observations Water ran through on everything watered except the Ccon. Harvested seeds for Ccon.

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials

Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum Additional remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

EG 26-Aug

117.1

136.1

127.8

153.3

0.0 0.0 0.0 41.5 52.8 53.5 54.3 65.2

Highest

Shoots recorded

Lowest Shoots with

growth

Watering Volumes

in ml.

Additional observations Nothing recorded.

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials

Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Additiona

l remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

EG

27-

Aug

Highest Shoots

recorded

Lowest Shoots

with growth

Watering Volumes in ml.

Additional observations All good, moist soil. No measurements taken.

89

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum Additional remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

EG 28-Aug

120.2 137.1 129.2 154.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.5 53.8 55.0 55.0 66.8

Highest

Shoots recorded

Lowest

Shoots with growth

500 500 500 1000 500 500 500 1000 500 500 500 1000 Watering Volumes in ml.

Additional observations Nothing recorded.

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum Additional remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

EG 30-Aug

120.3 136.5 131.3 154.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.3 53.4 55.0 55.1 71.8

Highest

Shoots recorded

Lowest Shoots with

growth

500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 Watering Volumes

in ml.

Additional observations Nothing recorded.

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum Additional remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

EG 2-

Sep

Highest

Shoots recorded

Lowest

Shoots with growth

1000 1000 1000 1000 0 0 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 Watering Volumes in ml.

Additional observations Nothing recorded.

90

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum Additional remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

EG 4-

Sep 125.1 140.9 136.4 153.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.2 51.7 54.3 55.7 73.4

Highest Shoots recorded

Lowest Shoots with

growth

1000 1000 1000 2000 0 0 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 Watering Volumes

in ml.

Additional observations Nothing recorded.

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum Additional remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

EG 4-

Sep 122.7 139.2 134.9 152.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.2 51.7 54.3 55.7 73.4

Highest

Shoots recorded

Lowest

Shoots with growth

1000 1000 1000 1000 0 0 0 500 500 500 500 500 Watering Volumes in ml.

Additional observations

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum Additional remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

EG 6-

Sep 125.1 140.9 136.4 153.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.2 53.3 53.2 60.1 76.7

Highest Shoots recorded

Lowest Shoots with

growth

1000 1000 1000 1000 0 0 0 500 500 500 500 1000 Watering Volumes

in ml.

Additional observations Ccon. Dying off, pruned back for new growth. (for seeds naturally replant)

91

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's

initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum Additional remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

EG 9-Sep 127.1 141.1 139.5 156.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.5 52.8 53.5 54.3 65.2

Highest Shoots recorded

Lowest Shoots with

growth

1000 1000 1000 2000 0 0 0 500 500 500 500 500

Watering

Volumes in ml.

Additional

observations Ccon. Seeds self-germinated. Prepped soil for trials (2,3,& 4)

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum Additional remarks

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

EG 12-Sep

129.1 143.1 136.7 152.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.7 52.7 54.7 64.1 79.3

Highest

Shoots recorded

Lowest Shoots with

growth

1000 1000 1000 2000 0 0 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 Watering Volumes

in ml.

Additional observations Took plant tissue samples from leaves, roots along with final soil samples. Held in deep freeze.

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

Highest

Shoots recorded

EG

14-

Sep 76.4 84.1 72.5 124.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.4 30.2 37.5 30.1 60.3

Trial 1

10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0

100 seeds placed in each sample pot.

Trial 2

10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Trial 3

10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Trial 4

1000 1000 1000 2000 0 0 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

Trial 1 Watering

Volumes in ml.

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Trial 2,

3, &4 watering in ml.

Additional observations

Post cut measurement reading. Trial 1 complete for study. Kept alive for breeding and future study through trials 2, 3, & 4. Pots for Trials 2, 3, & 4 prepped and ready for planting. 100 seeds planted in each of the Camelina Sativa and Switchgrass pots.

92

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

Highest Shoots recorded

EG 16-Sep

Trial 1

Trial 2

Trial 3

Trial 4

1000 1000 1000 2000 0 0 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

Watering

Volumes in ml.

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Trial 2,

3, &4 watering in ml.

Additional observations No visible change for newly planted samples.

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

Highest

Shoots recorded

EG

16-

Sep 80.7 83.6 73.2 126.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.0 21.5 38.5 30.7 60.1

Trial 1

Trial 2

Trial 3

Trial 4

Watering Volumes

in ml.

Additional observations Old growth dead in Ccon. Reseeded specimens are thriving. Sgcon. Mostly cut back.

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's

initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

Highest Shoots

recorded

EG 18-Sep

84.9 87.6 76.7 127.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.8 25.7 39.4 30.3 59.3 Trial 1

10.3 10.6 10.3 11.5 0.0 37.0 4.0 53.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Trial 2

10.3 10.3 10.0 11.3 0.0 52.0 2.0 38.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Trial 3

11.1 10.5 10.2 11.9 0.0 55.0 10.0 82.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Trial 4

1000 1000 1000 1000 0 0 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

Trial 1 watering volumes

in ml.

250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250

Trial 2, 3, &4

watering volumes in ml.

Additional observations Placed catch pans for watering. Numbers for new samples indicated # of germinated seeds.

93

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

Highest Shoots recorded

EG 21-Sept

89.6 90.7 79.3 125.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.2 25.5 38.7 29.8 60.5 Trial 1

10.8 10.9 10.5 11.3 6.0 59.0 12.0 83.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 Trial 2

10.3 10.5 9.0 11.7 4.0 68.0 21.0 45.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.0 Trial 3

10.8 10.1 10.2 11.9 4.0 73.0 36.0 3.0cm 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 Trial 4

1000 1000 1000 1000 0 0 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

Trial 1 watering volumes

in ml.

500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Trial 2, 3, &4

watering volumes in ml.

Additional observations Steve Hans watered while I was attending to my wife and birth of Korynn on 9/23/12 :-)

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials

Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

Highest Shoots recorde

d

EG 1-

Oct 108.

5 108.

1 98.1

122.5

0.0 0.0 0.0 16.5 32.4 42.3 46.1 62.1 Trial 1

11.1 10.5 10.5 11.5 14#

6.8/73#

8# 5.3/34

# 45# 78# 31# 13.3

Trial 2

10.3 10.7 9.5 11.7 15

#

5.8/62

#

15

#

6.8/90

# 15# 53# 52# 12.3

Trial 3

10.8 10.8 10.6 11.5 4# 6.4/58 17#

9.5/95#

10# 82# 43# 9.8 Trial 4

1000 1000 100

0 1000 0 0 0 1000

100

0

100

0

100

0

100

0

Trial 1 watering

volumes in ml.

500 500 500 500 500

500 500

500 500 500 500 500

Trial 2,

3, &4 watering volumes

in ml.

Additional observations # sign indicates the number of germinated seeds.

94

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials

Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

Highest Shoots recorde

d

EG 3-

Oct 111.

3 110.

9 103.

1 125.

9 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.8

33.2

45.8 46.3 54.3 Trial 1

11.1 10.8 10.7 12.1 28#

6.3/71#

14#

7.3/31# 20# 5.3/48

# 39# 5.3/38#

Trial 2

10.6 10.2 10.5 12.1 39#

6.5/82#

15#

7.1/95# 42# 5.3/32

# 5.1/27

# 10.3/48

# Trial 3

10.6 9.8 10.3 11.3 19

#

6.8/93

#

12

#

10.1/100

# 51# 5.8/51 42#

14.6/51

# Trial 4

Not needed still moist

Trial 1 waterin

g volumes in ml.

500 500 500 500 50

0 500

50

0 500 500 500 500 500

Trial 2, 3, &4 waterin

g volumes in ml.

Additional observations C3 had withering past seed emergence.

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials

Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

Highest Shoots recorde

d

EG 8-

Oct 120.

3 117.

3 113.

2 135.

7 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.1 37.8 50.6 50.1 55.0

Trial 1

10.3 11.6 10.6 11.6 20#

7.3 0.0 8.8 4.4/25

# 8.2/52

# 4.2/27

# 17.1

Trial 2

10.3 10.4 11.1 11.8 25#

7.1 0.0 9.1 4.1/45

# 6.8/40

# 4.9/31

# 16.2

Trial 3

11.2 9.9 10.3 11.8 15

# 7.8 4# 10.2

4.5/62

#

8.2/61

#

5.1/39

# 14.3

Trial 4

1000 1000 1000 2000 0 0 0 100

0 1000 1000 1000

100

0

Trial 1 watering

volumes in ml.

100 100 100 100 100

100

100

100 100 100 100 100

Trial 2,

3, &4 watering volumes

in ml.

Additional observations

95

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's

initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

Highest Shoots

recorded

EG 11-Oct

121.2

121.1

117.3

137.3

0.0 0.0 0.0 17.1 40.1 44.9 50.5 43.4 Trial 1

10.9 11.7 10.4 11.8 10# 7.5 5# 10.3 4.5 11.6 5.1 21.4 Trial 2

11.1 10.9 11.1 12.2 18# 7.3 0.0 9.2 5.1 7.4 5.3 18.3 Trial 3

11.2 10.1 11.1 11.4 12# 8.4 0.0 10.2 6.4 11.3 6.2 15.4 Trial 4

1000 1000 1000 1000 0 0 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

Trial 1 watering volumes

in ml.

500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Trial 2, 3,

&4 watering volumes in ml.

Additional observations

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

Highest

Shoots recorded

EG

15-

Oct

123.

3

124.

2

121.

5

142.

4 0.0 0.0 0.0

26.

2

39.

1

46.

1

50.

1 50.8

Trial 1

10.7 11.7 13.5 12.2 12# 7.3 0.0 18.3

6.1 17.3

6.8 31.9 Trial 2

10.9 13.2 10.8 11.8 3.8/16

# 9.8 0.0

21.7

8.1 10.2

7.4 21.6 Trial 3

11.4 10.4 10.8 20.1 15# 12.3

3# 23.4

8.4 16.3

8.1 21.1 Trial 4

500 500 500 500 500 500 500

500 500 500 500 500

Watering

all trials volumes in ml.

Additional observations Did not water Camelina trial soils 1, 2 & 3, they are dead and will be removed from the experiment.

96

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

Highest Shoots recorded

EG 18-Oct

125.7 122.6 126.8 143.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.7 39.1 47.2 56.5 54.5 Trial 1

10.8 11.9 18.3 11.8 8# 9.1 0.0 21.5 6.3 18.7 7.2 33.5 Trial 2

10.7 18.2 10.7 18.3 13# 10.8 0.0 22.7 8.4 12.3 10.2 26.2 Trial 3

11.5 10.4 10.9 29.7 13# 12.5 3# 25.9 9.3 18.2 9.1 23.6 Trial 4

500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Watering all trials volumes

in ml.

Additional observations

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

Highest Shoots recorded

EG 22-Oct

125.2 123.2 134.9 145.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.2 42.3 48.6 58.7 45.7 Trial 1

16.1 12.4 23.8 16.2 7# 10.1 0.0 28.7 7.9 19.6 8.7 40.8 Trial 2

10.9 23.1 10.8 25.1 4.3/12# 12.1 0.0 25.4 9.8 13.3 14.6 31.8 Trial 3

11.2 10.4 11.2 34.9 11# 10.3 3# 28.3 10.8 18.8 10.5 18.8 Trial 4

500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Watering

all trials volumes in ml.

Additional observations

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

Highest Shoots recorded

EG 26-Oct

124.9 126.5 140.3 145.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.2 43.9 49.2 59.6 53.9 Trial 1

25.2 18.9 31.3 30.5 2# 7.2 0.0 35.7 10.7 20.1 10.2 46.1 Trial 2

10.4 31.9 16.8 37.2 4.0/10# 13.1 0.0 31.6 11.2 16.4 13.4 39.2 Trial 3

11.3 10.9 10.1 31.7 13# 0.0 3# 32.1 15.6 18.2 13.1 19.6 Trial 4

500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Watering

all trials volumes in ml.

Additional observations MT4S2, M43S3, CT2S2, CT4S2, dead or dying; Ccont trial 1, 3 &4 flowering recognized.

97

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

Highest Shoots recorded

EG 29-Oct

127.1 128.4 141.5 145.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.7 42.2 48.5 59.5 45.3 Trial 1

32.7 22.3 35.7 35.7 0.0 6.1 0.0 39.9 11.2 19.5 11.5 49.5 Trial 2

10.7 36.8 23.1 42.4 4.5/11# 13.4 0.0 39.1 18.1 16.5 16.1 40.8 Trial 3

11.2 10.7 11.1 50.2 4.1/10# 0.0 1# 33.5 16.2 19.3 12.5 20.5 Trial 4

500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Watering

all trials volumes in ml.

Additional observations

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's

initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

Highest Shoots

recorded

EG 3-

Nov 126.1 132.7 144.6 146.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 53.1 45.1 52.3 61.1 39.2

Trial 1

40.2 30.9 40.6 45.7 0.0 3# 0.0 46.4 12.1 24.2 13.4 57.3 Trial 2

10.6 42.3 33.5 48.2 8.1/8# 13.8 0.0 46.8 11.2 19.6 16.5 42.4 Trial 3

11.3 10.5 10.2 60.1 5.2/15# 0.0 0.0 35.1 19.5 23.6 14.3 19.4 Trial 4

500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Watering all trials volumes

in ml.

Additional observations

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's

initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

Highest Shoots

recorded

EG

6-

Nov 128.8 133.1 144.3 146.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.3 43.6 54.3 62.8 34.2

Trial 1

41.8 35.9 43.1 50.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.8 12.5 28.5 15.1 57.9 Trial 2

9.1 42.5 39.4 56.1 10.1 17.3 0.0 50.1 12.4 17.8 16.3 42.5 Trial 3

12.1 11.2 10.2 66.1 8.9 0.0 0.0 26.1 19.7 25.9 15.3 19.3 Trial 4

500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Watering all trials volumes

in ml.

Additional

observations

98

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

Highest Shoots recorded

EG 9-

Nov

Trial 1

Trial 2

Trial 3

Trial 4

500 500 500 500 500 500 500

500 500 500 500 500

Watering

all trials volumes in ml.

Additional observations Watered only.

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's

initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

Highest

Shoots recorded

EG

12-

Nov

130.

6

132.

9

148.

7

151.

1 0.0 0.0 0.0

56.

5

47.

1

56.

5

61.

6 35.1

Trial 1

49.8 39.3 43.8 53.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 54.6

17.5

32.3

13.3

59.4 Trial 2

17.6 52.2 51.8 62.5 15.1/4# 23.5

0.0 52.3

17.5

18.2

15.1

52.9 Trial 3

11.5 10.5 10.5 71.2 15.2/6# 0.0 0.0 42.

1

21.

8

28.

4

19.

6 19.2

Trial 4

500 500 500 500 500 500 500

500 500 500 500 500

Watering

all trials volumes in ml.

Additional observations

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's

initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

Highest Shoots

recorded

EG 15-Nov Trial 1

Trial 2

Trial 3

Trial 4

500 500 500 500 500 500 50

0 500 500 500 500 500

Watering all trials

volumes in ml.

Additional

observations Watered only.

99

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

Highest Shoots recorded

EG 18-Nov

130.8 135.2 149.3 151.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 58.3 48.3 56.8 61.5 37.5 Trial 1

65.3 48.5 44.6 53.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.4 20.4 33.1 16.2 62.1 Trial 2

28.4 57.8 54.8 67.8 23.2 26.3 0.0 48.5 18.5 20.1 23.5 55.3 Trial 3

10.4 10.6 10.3 78.9 21.3 0.0 0.0 26.4 25.2 34.1 18.5 24.3 Trial 4

500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Watering

all trials volumes in ml.

Additional observations

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

Highest

Shoots recorded

EG

20-

Nov

Trial 1

Trial 2

Trial 3

Trial 4

500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Watering all trials

volumes in ml.

Additional

observations Watered only.

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

Highest Shoots recorded

EG 26-Nov

135.2 136.5 150.5 154.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.5 48.1 56.1 62.3 36.1 Trial 1

70.9 49.3 54.1 54.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 61.5 24.1 43.8 14.2 68.7 Trial 2

39.7 50.7 65.1 73.7 35.2 21.5 0.0 58.3 20.3 26.2 25.1 64.5 Trial 3

10.4 0.0 0.0 80.1 31.1 0.0 0.0 27.5 29.3 39.2 21.1 18.9 Trial 4

500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Watering

all trials volumes in ml.

Additional observations

100

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

Highest Shoots recorded

EG 30-Nov

Trial 1

Trial 2

Trial 3

Trial 4

500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Watering

all trials volumes in ml.

Additional observations Watered only.

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's

initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

Highest Shoots

recorded

EG 3-Dec 127.9 139.1 150.3 154.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.4 48.5 57.1 60.9 35.8 Trial 1

78.8 60.7 44.7 53.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 65.4 26.6 48.1 17.8 74.2 Trial 2

50.2 57.8 65.2 75.4 37.8 29.4 0.0 59.1 27.1 26.5 27.3 70.2 Trial 3

0.0 0.0 0.0 79.4 32.5 0.0 0.0 27.3 29.7 43.5 22.1 22.1 Trial 4

500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Watering all trials

volumes in ml.

Additional

observations

Observe 1 thriving camelina w/ switchgrass in SGT3cont (volunteer?) growing very well. Perhaps the

added support of switchgrass?

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

Highest Shoots recorded

EG 5-Dec 130.7 137.5 153.5 153.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.5 48.2 57.2 60.9 36.0 Trial 1

78.9 61.0 44.3 52.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 66.2 30.5 48.9 18.1 74.7 Trial 2

54.9 58.5 66.1 84.0 38.1 30.9 0.0 60.1 31.1 31.6 29.2 71.5* Trial 3

0.0 0.0 0.0 79.9 35.2 0.0 0.0 28.1 27.9 42.7 21.9 25.3 Trial 4

500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Watering all trials volumes

in ml.

Additional observations *SG also supporting a volunteer Camelina at 87.0 cm

101

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

Highest Shoots recorded

EG 10-Dec

Trial 1

Trial 2

Trial 3

Trial 4

500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Watering

all trials volumes in ml.

Additional observations Watered only.

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

Highest

Shoots recorded

EG

11-

Dec 128.9 138.2 152.4 156.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 63.4 49.1 47.8 60.7 35.7

Trial 1

79.2 64.9 49.7 54.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 62.9 36.1 51.7 19.8 74.8 Trial 2

68.8 59.9 68.9 87.4 48.1 35.2 0.0 46.8 27.9 36.5 28.4 72.7 Trial 3

0.0 0.0 0.0 80.8 42.5 0.0 0.0 23.8 33.9 50.7 23.4 28.7 Trial 4

500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Watering all trials

volumes in ml.

Additional observations

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

Highest Shoots recorded

EG 16-Dec

Trial 1

Trial 2

Trial 3

Trial 4

500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Watering

all trials volumes in ml.

Additional observations Watered only.

102

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

Highest Shoots recorded

EG 20-Dec

142.8 131.2 165.2 153.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.3 52.6 54.5 61.3 35.1 Trial 1

80.1 69.5 52.1 54.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 63.5 45.0 63.1 19.5 75.5 Trial 2

73.5 60.5 74.3 99.8 37.5 34.3 0.0 55.3 40.1 59.5 31.5 75.5 Trial 3

0.0 0.0 0.0 81.3 28.3 0.0 0.0 21.5 39.1 47.0 25.8 29.5 Trial 4

500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Watering

all trials volumes in ml.

Additional observations Soil and tissue samples to be taken in the next few days.

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's

initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

Highest

Shoots recorded

EG

23-

Dec

Trial 1

Trial 2

Trial 3

Trial 4

500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Watering all trials

volumes in ml.

Additional

observations Watered only.

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's

initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

Highest Shoots

recorded

EG

27-

Dec

Trial 1

Trial 2

Trial 3

Trial 4

500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Watering all trials volumes

in ml.

Additional

observations Watered only.

103

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

Highest Shoots recorded

EG 31-Dec

168.5 136.0 185.9 152.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 48.2 56.2 61.8 29.6 Trial 1

80.6 79.1 60.3 52.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.7 51.3 67.1 27.1 77.3 Trial 2

87.4 67.1 76.5 112.8 36.1 30.3 0.0 24.5 46.9 52.1 33.5 75.3 Trial 3

0.0 0.0 0.0 78.8 30.2 0.0 0.0 59.1 48.1 63.2 30.8 17.5 Trial 4

500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Watering

all trials volumes in ml.

Additional observations

Soil and tissue samples were taken from all applicable trials for Miscanthus and Camelina samples and held in deep freeze for analysis.

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's

initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species #NAME? Camelina Sativa Switchgrass

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

Highest Shoots

recorded

EG 1-Jan Trial 1

Trial 2

Trial 3

Trial 4

500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Watering all trials volumes

in ml.

Additional

observations

Soil and tissue samples were taken from all applicable trials for Switchgrass samples and held in deep

freeze for analysis.

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's

initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

Highest Shoots

recorded

EG 5-Jan Trial 1

Trial 2

Trial 3

Trial 4

500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Watering all trials

volumes in ml.

Additional

observations Watered only.

104

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's

initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina Sativa Switchgrass

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

Highest Shoots

recorded

EG 10-Jan

Trial 1

Trial 2

Trial 3

Trial 4

500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Watering all trials volumes

in ml.

Additional

observations Watered only.

Daily Record Keeping

Scientist's

initials Date All Measurements are in cm

Species Miscanthus giganteus Camelina sativa Pancium virgatum

Sample # = 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 C

Highest

Shoots recorded

EG

14-

Jan

Trial 1

Trial 2

Trial 3

Trial 4

500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Watering all trials

volumes in ml.

Additional

observations Watered only.

105

Field Data Sheets:

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

Appendix C, LABORATORY RESULTS

Initial Soil Sample Results

Initial Native Plant Tissue Sample Results

Final Soil and Plant Tissue Sample Results for Trial 1

Final Soil and Plant Tissue Sample Results for Trials 2 – 4

125

Initial Soil Sample Results

[ALS Environmental]

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

Initial Native Plant Tissue Sample Results

[ALS Environmental]

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

Final Soil and Plant Tissue Sample Results for Trial 1

[ALS Environmental]

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

Final Soil and Plant Tissue Sample Results for Trials 2 – 4

[Microbac Laboratory Services]

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

Appendix D, Calculations

Percent Germination Calculations

Mass-Volume Calculations

Approximate plant tissue mass calculations

Mass-Balance Calculations

189

Calculation Results:

Percent Germination Calculations:

[(Total Number of seeds sewn) - (Number of germinated seeds)] / (Total number seeds sewn) =

(Number of non-germinated seeds)

[1 - (Number of non-germinated seeds)] * 100% = % Germination

(Nssewn – Nsgerminated) / (Nssewn) = Nsnon-germinated

(1 - Nsnon-germinated) * 100 % = % Germination

Mass-Volume Calculations:

Soil mass calculations:

Approximate density of the soils:

Soil 1 (sandy) ρSoil1 = 1800 kg/m3

Soil 2 (gravel) ρSoil1 = 2000 kg/m3

Soil 3 (clay) ρSoil1 = 2100 kg/m3

Msoil1 = 0.0102 m3 * 1800 kg/m

3 = 18.36 kg

Msoil2 = 0.0102 m3 * 2000 kg/m

3 = 20.40 kg

Msoil3 = 0.0102 m3 * 2100 kg/m

3 = 21.42 kg

Vsoil = 3 gallons * ( 3.785 liters/gallon) * (1 m3 / 1000 L) * (0.90) = 0.0102 m

3

190

Approximate plant tissue mass calculations:

Growth Areaplant = Areapot

Dpot = 10 in * (1 ft / 12 in) * (1 m / 3.281 ft) =

0.254 m

Areapot = (πD2) / 4

(π (0.254)2 ) / 4 =

0.051 m2

Trial 1, length of growth

Θgrowth-1 = 38 days * ( 1 year / 365 days) =

0.104 year

Trials 2 – 4, length of growth

Θgrowth-2-4 = 108 days * ( 1 year / 365 days) =

0.296 year

Mplants = Growth rateplants * (Growth Areaplants) * ( Growth Timeplants)

Camelina sativa:

MCamelina-1 = 2134.5 kg/ha/year (averaged from 1638, 3106, 1987, 3320, 1096, 1660

kg/ha) (Vakulabharanam, 2010)

2134.5 kg/ha/yr * (1 ha /10,000 m2 ) ( 0.051 m

2 ) (0.104) =

0.0011 kg

MCamelina-2 = 2134.5 kg/ha/yr * (1 ha /10,000 m2 ) ( 0.051 m

2) (0.295 year) =

0.0032 kg

MCamelina-3 = 2134.5 kg/ha/yr * (1 ha /10,000 m2 ) ( 0.051 m

2 ) (0.295 year) =

0.0032 kg

191

Miscanthus giganteus:

Mplants = 8.2 metric ton/acre/year (averaged from 6.6 and 9.8 dry ton/acre/year)

(Wang et al., 2013)

MMiscanthus-1 = 8.2 t/acre/year * (1000 kg / 1 metric ton) (1 acre / 4046.863 m2) (0.051 m

2)

(0.104 year) =

0.011 kg

MMiscanthus-2 = 8.2 t/acre/year * (1000 kg / 1 metric ton) (1 acre / 4046.863 m2) (0.051 m

2)

(0.295 year) =

0.030 kg

MMiscanthus-3 = 8.2 t/acre/year * (1000 kg / 1 metric ton) (1 acre / 4046.863 m2) (0.051 m

2)

(0.295 year) =

0.030 kg

Panicum virgatum:

Mplants = 6 metric tons/acre/year (Jensen et al., 2005)

MPanicum-1 = 6.0 t/acre/year * (1000 kg / 1 metric ton) (1 acre / 4046.863 m2) (0.051 m

2)

(0.104 year) =

0.008 kg

MPanicum-2 = 6.0 t/acre/year * (1000 kg / 1 metric ton) (1 acre / 4046.863 m2) (0.051 m

2)

(0.295 year) =

0.022 kg

MPanicum-3 = 6.0 t/acre/year * (1000 kg / 1 metric ton) (1 acre / 4046.863 m2) (0.051 m

2)

(0.295 year) =

0.022 kg

192

Mass-Balance Calculations:

Aluminum

Total Massin = Total Massout

Total [(Concentrationin)*(Volumein )] = Total [(Concentrationout)*(Volumeout)]

Σi [Soil(CinVin ρsoil) ] = Σo [Soil(CoutVout ρsoil )] + Plant Tissue(Mout)]

Approximate density of the soils:

Soil 1 (sandy) ρSoil1 = 1800 kg/m3

Soil 2 (gravel) ρSoil1 = 2000 kg/m3

Soil 3 (silty) ρSoil1 = 2100 kg/m3

Trial 1

Camelina sativa

Soil 1: [(12,800 mg/kg dry * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ [((5840 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0011 kg)] =

= 0.128 kg or 127.79 g

Soil 2: [(8,200 mg/kg dry * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((7710 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (146 mg/kg dry * 0.0011 kg)] =

= 0.010 kg or 10.00 g

Soil 3: [(12,800 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) *(2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((7020 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0011kg)] =

= 0.124 kg or 123.81 g

Miscanthus giganteous

Soil 1: [(12,800 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((6390 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.011 kg)] =

= 0.118 kg or 117.69 g

Soil 2 [(8,200 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((6700 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) (<33.1 mg/kg dry * 0.011 kg)] =

= 0.031 kg or 30.60 g

193

Soil 3: [(12,800 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((4380 mg/kg dry ) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (34.1 mg/kg dry * 0.011 kg)] =

= 0.180 kg or 180.36 g

Panicum virgatum

Soil 1: [(12,800 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((8650 mg/kg dry) ) *

(0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) (1220 mg/kg dry * 0.008 kg)] =

= 0.076 kg or 76.18 g

Soil 2: [(8,200 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((5840 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (173 mg/kg dry * 0.008 kg)] =

= 0.048 kg or 48.14 g

Soil 3: [(12,800 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((4120 mg/kg dry ) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (807 mg/kg dry * 0.008 kg)] =

= 0.186 kg or 185.92 g

Trial 2

Camelina sativa

Soil 1: [(12,800 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((8360 mg/kg dry) ) *

(0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (2800 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= 0.082 kg or 81.52 g

Soil 2: [(8,200 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((5190 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (3790 mg/kg dry * 0.0032kg)] =

= 0.061 kg or 61.39 g

Soil 3: [(12,800 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((3830 mg/kg dry ) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= 0.192 kg or 192.14 g

Miscanthus giganteous

Soil 1: [(12,800 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((8360 mg/kg dry) ) *

(0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<15.7 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= 0.082 kg or 81.52 g

Soil 2: [(8,200 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((5190 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<21.7 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= 0.061 kg or 61.40 g

194

Soil 3: [(12,800 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((3830 mg/kg dry ) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<27.4 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= 0.192 kg or 192.14 g

Panicum virgatum

Soil 1: [(12,800 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((8360 mg/kg dry) ) *

(0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<16.0 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= 0.082 kg or 81.52 g

Soil 2: [(8,200 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((5190 mg/kg ) * (0.0102

m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (27.7 mg/kg dry * 0.022kg)] =

= 0.061 kg or 61.40 g

Soil 3: [(12,800 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((3830 mg/kg dry ) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (741 mg/kg dry * 0.022kg)] =

= 0.192 kg or 192.12 g

Trial 3

Camelina sativa

Soil 1: [(12,800 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((8360 mg/kg dry) ) *

(0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (1860 mg/kg dry * 0.0032kg)] =

= 0.082 kg or 81.51 g

Soil 2: [(8,200 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((5190 mg/kg dry ) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= 0.061 kg or 61.40 g

Soil 3: [(12,800 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((3830 mg/kg dry ) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= 0.192 kg or 192.14 g

Miscanthus giganteous

Soil 1: [(12,800 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((8360 mg/kg dry) ) *

(0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<26.1 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= 0.082 kg or 81.52 g

195

Soil 2: [(8,200 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((5190 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<20.5 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= 0.061 kg or 61.40 g

Soil 3: [(12,800 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((3830 mg/kg dry ) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<27.1 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= 0.192 kg or 192.13 g

Panicum virgatum

Soil 1: [(12,800 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((8360 mg/kg dry) ) *

(0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (57.7 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= 0.082 kg or 81.52 g

Soil 2: [(8,200 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((5190 mg/kg dry) ) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<16.2 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= 0.061 kg or 61.40 g

Soil 3: [(12,800 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((3830 mg/kg dry ) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (293 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= 0.192 kg or 192.13 g

196

Trial

Aluminum

MassIn Massout Total

Mass Balance, excess

positive, g

Percent of input

Cin Vin ρin Total in

Soil Cout

Soil Vout

ρout Plant tissue Cout

Plant tissue Mout

Total Out

T1S1 Camelina

12800 0.0102 1800 235.0 5840 0.0102 1800 0 0.0011 107.222 127.786 54.38

T1S2 Camelina

8200 0.0102 2000 167.3 7710 0.0102 2000 146 0.0011 157.284 9.996 5.98

T1S3 Camelina

12800 0.0102 2100 274.2 7020 0.0102 2100 0 0.0011 150.368 123.808 45.16

T1S1 Miscanthus

12800 0.0102 1800 235.0 6390 0.0102 1800 33.7 0.011 117.321 117.687 50.08

T1S2 Miscanthus

8200 0.0102 2000 167.3 6700 0.0102 2000 33.1 0.011 136.680 30.600 18.29

T1S3 Miscanthus

12800 0.0102 2100 274.2 4380 0.0102 2100 34.1 0.011 93.820 180.356 65.78

T1S1 Panicum

12800 0.0102 1800 235.0 8650 0.0102 1800 1220 0.008 158.824 76.184 32.42

T1S2 Panicum

8200 0.0102 2000 167.3 5840 0.0102 2000 173 0.008 119.137 48.143 28.78

T1S3 Panicum

12800 0.0102 2100 274.2 4120 0.0102 2100 807 0.008 88.257 185.919 67.81

T2S1 Camelina

12800 0.0102 1800 235.0 8360 0.0102 1800 2800 0.0032 153.499 81.509 34.68

T2S2 Camelina

8200 0.0102 2000 167.3 5190 0.0102 2000 3790 0.0032 105.888 61.392 36.70

T2S3 Camelina

12800 0.0102 2100 274.2 3830 0.0102 2100 0 0.0032 82.039 192.137 70.08

T2S1 Miscanthus

12800 0.0102 1800 235.0 8360 0.0102 1800 15.7 0.03 153.490 81.518 34.69

T2S2 Miscanthus

8200 0.0102 2000 167.3 5190 0.0102 2000 21.7 0.03 105.877 61.403 36.71

T2S3 Miscanthus

12800 0.0102 2100 274.2 3830 0.0102 2100 27.4 0.03 82.039 192.137 70.08

T2S1 Panicum

12800 0.0102 1800 235.0 8360 0.0102 1800 16 0.022 153.490 81.518 34.69

T2S2 Panicum

8200 0.0102 2000 167.3 5190 0.0102 2000 27.7 0.022 105.877 61.403 36.71

T2S3 Panicum

12800 0.0102 2100 274.2 3830 0.0102 2100 741 0.022 82.055 192.121 70.07

T3S1 Camelina

12800 0.0102 1800 235.0 8360 0.0102 1800 1860 0.0032 153.496 81.512 34.68

T3S2 Camelina

8200 0.0102 2000 167.3 5190 0.0102 2000 0 0.0032 105.876 61.404 36.71

T3S3 Camelina

12800 0.0102 2100 274.2 3830 0.0102 2100 0 0.0032 82.039 192.137 70.08

T3S1 Miscanthus

12800 0.0102 1800 235.0 8360 0.0102 1800 26.1 0.03 153.490 81.518 34.69

T3S2 Miscanthus

8200 0.0102 2000 167.3 5190 0.0102 2000 20.5 0.03 105.877 61.403 36.71

T3S3 Miscanthus

12800 0.0102 2100 274.2 3830 0.0102 2100 27.1 0.03 82.039 192.137 70.08

T3S1 Panicum

12800 0.0102 1800 235.0 8360 0.0102 1800 57.7 0.022 153.491 81.517 34.69

T3S2 Panicum

8200 0.0102 2000 167.3 5190 0.0102 2000 16.2 0.022 105.876 61.404 36.71

T3S3 Panicum

12800 0.0102 2100 274.2 3830 0.0102 2100 293 0.022 82.045 192.131 70.08

197

Arsenic, As

Total Massin = Total Massout

Total [(Concentrationin)*(Volumein )] = Total [(Concentrationout)*(Volumeout)]

Σi [Soil(CinVin ρsoil) ] = Σo [Soil(CoutVout ρsoil )] + Plant Tissue(CoutVout ρplant-tissue )]

Approximate density of the soils:

Soil 1 (sandy) ρSoil1 = 1800 kg/m3

Soil 2 (gravel) ρSoil1 = 2000 kg/m3

Soil 3 (silty) ρSoil1 = 2100 kg/m3

Trial 1

Camelina sativa

Soil 1: [(14.3 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((27.5 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0011 kg)] =

= -242.352 mg

Soil 2: [(21.9 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((13.0 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) *(2000 kg/m

3)) + (<10.0 mg/kg dry * 0.0011 kg)] =

= 181.549 mg

Soil 3: [(29.6 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((33.9 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 * 0.0011 kg)] =

= -92.106 mg

Miscanthus giganteous

Soil 1: [(14.3 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((16.7 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<5.0 mg/kg dry * 0.011 kg)] =

= -44.119 mg

Soil 2: [(21.9 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)]] = Σ[((11.8 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) *(2000 kg/m

3)) + (<4.9 mg/kg dry * 0.011 kg)] =

= 205.986 mg

198

Soil 3: [(29.6 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((43.2 mg/kg dry ) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<4.7 mg/kg dry * 0.011 kg)] =

= -291.364 mg

Panicum virgatum

Soil 1: [(14.3 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((17.0 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<6.9 mg/kg dry * 0.008 kg)] =

= -49.627 mg

Soil 2: [(21.9 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((11.8 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) *(2000 kg/m

3)) + (<6.0 mg/kg dry * 0.008 kg)] =

= 205.992 mg

Soil 3: [(29.6 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((36.2 mg/kg dry ) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<7.5 mg/kg dry * 0.008 kg)] =

= -141.432 mg

Trial 2

Camelina sativa

Soil 1: [(14.3 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((21.4 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<22.6 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= -130.428 mg

Soil 2: [(21.9 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((7.13 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) *(2000 kg/m

3)) + (<11.4 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= 301.272 mg

Soil 3: [(29.6 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((14.0 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= 334.152 mg

Miscanthus giganteous

Soil 1: [(14.3 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((21.4 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<3.91 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= -130.473 mg

Soil 2: [(21.9 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((7.13 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<5.40 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= 301.146 mg

199

Soil 3: [(29.6 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((14.0 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<6.84 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= 333.947 mg

Panicum virgatum

Soil 1: [(14.3 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((21.4 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<3.98 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= -130.444 mg

Soil 2: [(21.9 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((7.13 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<3.91 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= 301.222 mg

Soil 3: [(29.6 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((14.0 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<3.65 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= 334.072 mg

Trial 3

Camelina sativa

Soil 1: [(14.3 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((21.4 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<21.8 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= -130.426 mg

Soil 2: [(21.9 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((7.13 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + ( NA * 0.0032 kg)] =

= 301.308mg

Soil 3: [(29.6 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((14.0 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + ( NA * 0.0032 kg)] =

= 334.152 mg

Miscanthus giganteous

Soil 1: [(14.3 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((21.4 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + ( <6.50 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)]=

= -130.551 mg

Soil 2: [(21.9 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((7.13 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) *(2000 kg/m

3)) + (<5.10 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= 301.155 mg

200

Soil 3: [(29.6 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((14.0 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<6.72 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= 333.950 mg

Panicum virgatum

Soil 1: [(14.3 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((21.4 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<4.05 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= -130.445 mg

Soil 2: [(21.9 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((7.13 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) *(2000 kg/m

3)) + (<6.01 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= 301.176 mg

Soil 3: [(29.6 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((14.0 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<3.89 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= 334.066 mg

201

Trial

Arsenic

MassIn Massout Total Mass Balance, excess

positive,

mg

Percent

of input

Cin Vin ρin Total in

Soil Cout

Soil Vout

ρout Plant tissue Cout

Plant tissue Mout

Total Out

T1S1 Camelina

14.3 0.0102 1800 262.55 27.5 0.0102 1800 0 0.0011 504.9 -242.352 -92.31

T1S2 Camelina

21.9 0.0102 2000 446.76 13 0.0102 2000 10.3 0.0011 265.21 181.549 40.64

T1S3

Camelina 29.6 0.0102 2100 634.03 33.9 0.0102 2100 0 0.0011 726.14 -92.106

-14.53

T1S1 Miscanthus

14.3 0.0102 1800 262.55 16.7 0.0102 1800 5 0.011 306.67 -44.119 -16.80

T1S2 Miscanthus

21.9 0.0102 2000 446.76 11.8 0.0102 2000 4.9 0.011 240.77 205.986 46.11

T1S3 Miscanthus

29.6 0.0102 2100 634.03 43.2 0.0102 2100 4.7 0.011 925.4 -291.364 -45.95

T1S1 Panicum

14.3 0.0102 1800 262.55 17 0.0102 1800 6.9 0.008 312.18 -49.627 -18.90

T1S2 Panicum

21.9 0.0102 2000 446.76 11.8 0.0102 2000 6 0.008 240.77 205.992 46.11

T1S3 Panicum

29.6 0.0102 2100 634.03 36.2 0.0102 2100 7.5 0.008 775.46 -141.432 -22.31

T2S1 Camelina

14.3 0.0102 1800 262.55 21.4 0.0102 1800 22.6 0.0032 392.98 -130.428 -49.68

T2S2 Camelina

21.9 0.0102 2000 446.76 7.13 0.0102 2000 11.4 0.0032 145.49 301.272 67.43

T2S3 Camelina

29.6 0.0102 2100 634.03 14 0.0102 2100 0 0.0032 299.88 334.152 52.70

T2S1

Miscanthus 14.3 0.0102 1800 262.55 21.4 0.0102 1800 3.91 0.03 393.02 -130.473

-49.70

T2S2 Miscanthus

21.9 0.0102 2000 446.76 7.13 0.0102 2000 5.4 0.03 145.61 301.146 67.41

T2S3 Miscanthus

29.6 0.0102 2100 634.03 14 0.0102 2100 6.84 0.03 300.09 333.947 52.67

T2S1 Panicum

14.3 0.0102 1800 262.55 21.4 0.0102 1800 3.98 0.022 392.99 -130.444 -49.68

T2S2 Panicum

21.9 0.0102 2000 446.76 7.13 0.0102 2000 3.91 0.022 145.54 301.222 67.42

T2S3 Panicum

29.6 0.0102 2100 634.03 14 0.0102 2100 3.65 0.022 299.96 334.072 52.69

T3S1 Camelina

14.3 0.0102 1800 262.55 21.4 0.0102 1800 21.8 0.0032 392.97 -130.426 -49.68

T3S2 Camelina

21.9 0.0102 2000 446.76 7.13 0.0102 2000 0 0.0032 145.45 301.308 67.44

T3S3 Camelina

29.6 0.0102 2100 634.03 14 0.0102 2100 0 0.0032 299.88 334.152 52.70

T3S1 Miscanthus

14.3 0.0102 1800 262.55 21.4 0.0102 1800 6.5 0.03 393.1 -130.551 -49.72

T3S2 Miscanthus

21.9 0.0102 2000 446.76 7.13 0.0102 2000 5.1 0.03 145.61 301.155 67.41

T3S3 Miscanthus

29.6 0.0102 2100 634.03 14 0.0102 2100 6.72 0.03 300.08 333.950 52.67

T3S1 Panicum

14.3 0.0102 1800 262.55 21.4 0.0102 1800 4.05 0.022 392.99 -130.445 -49.68

T3S2 Panicum

21.9 0.0102 2000 446.76 7.13 0.0102 2000 6.01 0.022 145.58 301.176 67.41

T3S3

Panicum 29.6 0.0102 2100 634.03 14 0.0102 2100 3.89 0.022 299.97 334.066

52.69

202

Barium, Ba

Total Massin = Total Massout

Total [(Concentrationin)*(Volumein )] = Total [(Concentrationout)*(Volumeout)]

Σi [Soil(CinVin ρsoil) ] = Σo [Soil(CoutVout ρsoil )] + Plant Tissue(CoutVout ρplant-tissue )]

Approximate density of the soils:

Soil 1 (sandy) ρSoil1 = 1800 kg/m3

Soil 2 (gravel) ρSoil1 = 2000 kg/m3

Soil 3 (silty) ρSoil1 = 2100 kg/m3

Trial 1

Camelina sativa

Soil 1: [(103 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((139 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0011 kg)] =

= - 660.96 mg

Soil 2: [(81.9 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((113 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<17.2 mg/kg dry * 0.0011 kg)] =

= -634.46 mg

Soil 3: [(82.5 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((120 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0011 kg)] =

= -803.25 mg

Miscanthus giganteous

Soil 1: [(103 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((98.7 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (50.8 mg/kg dry * 0.011 kg)] =

= 78.39 mg

Soil 2: [(81.9 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((153 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (14.6 mg/kg dry * 0.011 kg)] =

= -1450.60 mg

203

Soil 3: [(82.5 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((148 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<7.9 mg/kg dry * 0.011 kg)] =

= -1403.10 mg

Panicum virgatum

Soil 1: [(103 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((93.7 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (26.9 mg/kg dry * 0.008 kg)] =

= 170.53 mg

Soil 2: [(81.9 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((67.8 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (13.7 mg/kg dry * 0.008 kg)] =

= 287.53 mg

Soil 3: [(82.5 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((98.9 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * ( 2100 kg/m

3)) + (16.3 mg/kg dry * 0.008 kg)] =

= -351.42 mg

Trial 2

Camelina sativa

Soil 1: [(103 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((101 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (87.8 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= 36.44 mg

Soil 2: [(81.9 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((56.5 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (81.9 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= 517.90 mg

Soil 3: [(82.5 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((65.2 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= 370.57 mg

Miscanthus giganteous

Soil 1: [(103 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((101 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (36.9 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= 35.61 mg

Soil 2: [(81.9 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((56.5 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (12.1 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= 517.80 mg

204

Soil 3: [(82.5 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((65.2 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (18.7 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= 370.01 mg

Panicum virgatum

Soil 1: [(103 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((101 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (10.7 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= 36.48 mg

Soil 2: [(81.9 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((56.5 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<7.84 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= 517.99 mg

Soil 3: [(82.5 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((65.2 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (17.4 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= 370.18 mg

Trial 3

Camelina sativa

Soil 1: [(103 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((101 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (43.8 mg/kg dry * 0.0032kg)] =

= 35.32 mg

Soil 2: [(81.9 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((56.5 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= 518.16 mg

Soil 3: [(82.5 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((65.2 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= 370.57 mg

Miscanthus giganteous

Soil 1: [(103 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((101 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (25.5 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= 35.95 mg

Soil 2: [(81.9 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((56.5 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (20.0 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= 517.56 mg

205

Soil 3: [(82.5 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((65.2 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (14.1 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= 370.14 mg

Panicum virgatum

Soil 1: [(103 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((101 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (12.9 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= 36.44 mg

Soil 2: [(81.9 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((56.5 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<8.10 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= 517.98 mg

Soil 3: [(82.5 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((65.2 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<12.0 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= 370.30 mg

206

Trial

Barium

MassIn Massout Total Mass Balance,

excess positive, mg

Percent of input

Cin Vin ρin Total in

Soil Cout

Soil Vout

ρout Plant tissue Cout

Plant tissue Mout

Total Out

T1S1 Camelina

103 0.0102 1800 1891.1 139 0.0102 1800 0 0.0011 2552.0 -660.96 -34.95

T1S2 Camelina

81.9 0.0102 2000 1670.8 113 0.0102 2000 17.2 0.0011 2305.2 -634.46 -37.97

T1S3 Camelina

82.5 0.0102 2100 1767.2 120 0.0102 2100 0 0.0011 2570.4 -803.25 -45.45

T1S1 Miscanthus

103 0.0102 1800 1891.1 98.7 0.0102 1800 50.8 0.011 1812.7 78.39 4.15

T1S2 Miscanthus

81.9 0.0102 2000 1670.8 153 0.0102 2000 14.6 0.011 3121.4 -1450.60 -86.82

T1S3

Miscanthus 82.5 0.0102 2100 1767.2 148 0.0102 2100 7.9 0.011 3170.2 -1403.10

-79.40

T1S1 Panicum

103 0.0102 1800 1891.1 93.7 0.0102 1800 26.9 0.008 1720.5 170.53 9.02

T1S2 Panicum

81.9 0.0102 2000 1670.8 67.8 0.0102 2000 13.7 0.008 1383.2 287.53 17.21

T1S3

Panicum 82.5 0.0102 2100 1767.2 98.9 0.0102 2100 16.3 0.008 2118.6 -351.42

-19.89

T2S1 Camelina

103 0.0102 1800 1891.1 101 0.0102 1800 87.8 0.0032 1854.6 36.44 1.93

T2S2 Camelina

81.9 0.0102 2000 1670.8 56.5 0.0102 2000 81.9 0.0032 1152.9 517.90 31.00

T2S3

Camelina 82.5 0.0102 2100 1767.2 65.2 0.0102 2100 0 0.0032 1396.6 370.57

20.97

T2S1 Miscanthus

103 0.0102 1800 1891.1 101 0.0102 1800 36.9 0.03 1855.5 35.61 1.88

T2S2 Miscanthus

81.9 0.0102 2000 1670.8 56.5 0.0102 2000 12.1 0.03 1153.0 517.80 30.99

T2S3 Miscanthus

82.5 0.0102 2100 1767.2 65.2 0.0102 2100 18.7 0.03 1397.1 370.01 20.94

T2S1 Panicum

103 0.0102 1800 1891.1 101 0.0102 1800 10.7 0.022 1854.6 36.48 1.93

T2S2 Panicum

81.9 0.0102 2000 1670.8 56.5 0.0102 2000 7.84 0.022 1152.8 517.99 31.00

T2S3 Panicum

82.5 0.0102 2100 1767.2 65.2 0.0102 2100 17.4 0.022 1397.0 370.18 20.95

T3S1 Camelina

103 0.0102 1800 1891.1 101 0.0102 1800 43.8 0.032 1855.8 35.32 1.87

T3S2 Camelina

81.9 0.0102 2000 1670.8 56.5 0.0102 2000 0 0.032 1152.6 518.16 31.01

T3S3 Camelina

82.5 0.0102 2100 1767.2 65.2 0.0102 2100 0 0.032 1396.6 370.57 20.97

T3S1 Miscanthus

103 0.0102 1800 1891.1 101 0.0102 1800 25.5 0.03 1855.1 35.95 1.90

T3S2 Miscanthus

81.9 0.0102 2000 1670.8 56.5 0.0102 2000 20 0.03 1153.2 517.56 30.98

T3S3 Miscanthus

82.5 0.0102 2100 1767.2 65.2 0.0102 2100 14.1 0.03 1397.0 370.14 20.95

T3S1 Panicum

103 0.0102 1800 1891.1 101 0.0102 1800 12.9 0.022 1854.6 36.44 1.93

T3S2 Panicum

81.9 0.0102 2000 1670.8 56.5 0.0102 2000 8.1 0.022 1152.8 517.98 31.00

T3S3 Panicum

82.5 0.0102 2100 1767.2 65.2 0.0102 2100 12 0.022 1396.8 370.30 20.95

207

Cadmium, Cd

Total Massin = Total Massout

Total [(Concentrationin)*(Volumein )] = Total [(Concentrationout)*(Volumeout)]

Σi [Soil(CinVin ρsoil) ] = Σo [Soil(CoutVout ρsoil )] + Plant Tissue(CoutVout ρplant-tissue )]

Approximate density of the soils:

Soil 1 (sandy) ρSoil1 = 1800 kg/m3

Soil 2 (gravel) ρSoil1 = 2000 kg/m3

Soil 3 (silty) ρSoil1 = 2100 kg/m3

Not detected in any of the lab analyses.

Trial 1

Camelina sativa

Soil 1: [(<0.52 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<0.55 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0011 kg)] =

= -23.13 mg

Soil 2: [(<0.48 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<0.55 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<3.4 mg/kg dry * 0.0011 kg)] =

= -26.93 mg

Soil 3: [(<0.58 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<0.57 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0011 kg)] =

= -30.42 mg

Miscanthus giganteous

Soil 1: [(<0.52 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<0.57 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<1.7 mg/kg dry * 0.011 kg)] =

= -23.15 mg

Soil 2: [(<0.48 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((< 0.46 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<1.6 mg/kg dry * 0.011 kg)] =

= - 26.95 mg

208

Soil 3: [(<0.58 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<0.61 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<1.6 mg/kg dry * 0.011 kg)] =

= -30.43 mg

Panicum virgatum

Soil 1: [(<0.52 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((< 0.53 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<2.3 mg/kg dry * 0.008 kg)] =

= -23.15 mg

Soil 2: [(<0.48 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<0.54 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<2.0 mg/kg dry * 0.008 kg)] =

= - 26.94 mg

Soil 3: [(<0.58 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<0.63 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<2.5 mg/kg dry * 0.008 kg)] =

= -30.44 mg

Trial 2

Camelina sativa

Soil 1: [(<0.52 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[(( <1.78 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<9.08 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= -23.16 mg

Soil 2: [(<0.48 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<1.80 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<4.56 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= -26.94 mg

Soil 3: [(<0.58 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<2.00 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<8.21 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= - 30.44 mg

Miscanthus giganteous

Soil 1: [(<0.52 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[(( <1.78mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<1.57mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= - 23.18 mg

Soil 2: [(<0.48 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<1.80 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<2.17 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= -26.99 mg

209

Soil 3: [(<0.58 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<2.00 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<2.74 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= -30.50 mg

Panicum virgatum

Soil 1: [(<0.52 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<1.78 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<1.60 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= -23.17 mg

Soil 2: [(<0.48 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<1.80 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<1.57 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= -26.96 mg

Soil 3: [(<0.58 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<2.00 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<1.47 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= -30.45 mg

Trial 3

Camelina sativa

Soil 1: [(<0.52 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<1.78 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<8.77 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= -23.16 mg

Soil 2: [(<0.48 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<1.80 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= -26.93 mg

Soil 3: [(<0.58 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<2.00 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= -30.42 mg

Miscanthus giganteous

Soil 1: [(<0.52mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<1.78 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<2.61 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= -23.21 mg

210

Soil 2: [(<0.48 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<1.80 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<2.05 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= -26.99 mg

Soil 3: [(<0.58 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<2.00 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<2.70 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= -30.50 mg

Panicum virgatum

Soil 1: [(<0.52 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<1.78 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<1.65 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= -23.17 mg

Soil 2: [(<0.48 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<1.80 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<1.62 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= -26.96 mg

Soil 3: [(<0.58 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<2.00 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<2.41 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= -30.47 mg

211

Trial

Cadmium

MassIn Massout Total Mass Balance, excess

positive, mg

Percent of input

Cin Vin ρin Total in

Soil Cout

Soil Vout

ρout Plant tissue Cout

Plant tissue Mout

Total Out

T1S1 Camelina

0.52 0.0102 1800 9.547 1.78 0.0102 1800 0 0.001 32.68 -23.13 -242.31

T1S2 Camelina

0.48 0.0102 2000 9.792 1.8 0.0102 2000 3.4 0.001 36.72 -26.93 -275.04

T1S3

Camelina 0.58 0.0102 2100 12.42 2 0.0102 2100 0 0.001 42.84 -30.42

-244.83

T1S1 Miscanthus

0.52 0.0102 1800 9.547 1.78 0.0102 1800 1.7 0.011 32.7 -23.15 -242.50

T1S2 Miscanthus

0.48 0.0102 2000 9.792 1.8 0.0102 2000 1.6 0.011 36.74 -26.95 -275.18

T1S3

Miscanthus 0.58 0.0102 2100 12.42 2 0.0102 2100 1.6 0.011 42.86 -30.43

-244.97

T1S1 Panicum

0.52 0.0102 1800 9.547 1.78 0.0102 1800 2.3 0.008 32.7 -23.15 -242.50

T1S2 Panicum

0.48 0.0102 2000 9.792 1.8 0.0102 2000 2 0.008 36.74 -26.94 -275.16

T1S3

Panicum 0.58 0.0102 2100 12.42 2 0.0102 2100 2.5 0.008 42.86 -30.44

-244.99

T2S1 Camelina

0.52 0.0102 1800 9.547 1.78 0.0102 1800 9.08 0.003 32.71 -23.16 -242.61

T2S2 Camelina

0.48 0.0102 2000 9.792 1.8 0.0102 2000 4.56 0.003 36.73 -26.94 -275.15

T2S3

Camelina 0.58 0.0102 2100 12.42 2 0.0102 2100 8.21 0.003 42.87 -30.44

-245.04

T2S1 Miscanthus

0.52 0.0102 1800 9.547 1.78 0.0102 1800 1.57 0.03 32.73 -23.18 -242.80

T2S2 Miscanthus

0.48 0.0102 2000 9.792 1.8 0.0102 2000 2.17 0.03 36.79 -26.99 -275.66

T2S3

Miscanthus 0.58 0.0102 2100 12.42 2 0.0102 2100 2.74 0.03 42.92 -30.50

-245.49

T2S1 Panicum

0.52 0.0102 1800 9.547 1.78 0.0102 1800 1.6 0.022 32.72 -23.17 -242.68

T2S2 Panicum

0.48 0.0102 2000 9.792 1.8 0.0102 2000 1.57 0.022 36.75 -26.96 -275.35

T2S3 Panicum

0.58 0.0102 2100 12.42 2 0.0102 2100 1.47 0.022 42.87 -30.45 -245.09

T3S1 Camelina

0.52 0.0102 1800 9.547 1.78 0.0102 1800 8.77 0.003 32.71 -23.16 -242.60

T3S2 Camelina

0.48 0.0102 2000 9.792 1.8 0.0102 2000 0 0.003 36.72 -26.93 -275.00

T3S3 Camelina

0.58 0.0102 2100 12.42 2 0.0102 2100 0 0.003 42.84 -30.42 -244.83

T3S1 Miscanthus

0.52 0.0102 1800 9.547 1.78 0.0102 1800 2.61 0.03 32.76 -23.21 -243.13

T3S2 Miscanthus

0.48 0.0102 2000 9.792 1.8 0.0102 2000 2.05 0.03 36.78 -26.99 -275.63

T3S3 Miscanthus

0.58 0.0102 2100 12.42 2 0.0102 2100 2.7 0.03 42.92 -30.50 -245.48

T3S1 Panicum

0.52 0.0102 1800 9.547 1.78 0.0102 1800 1.65 0.022 32.72 -23.17 -242.69

T3S2 Panicum

0.48 0.0102 2000 9.792 1.8 0.0102 2000 1.62 0.022 36.76 -26.96 -275.36

T3S3 Panicum

0.58 0.0102 2100 12.42 2 0.0102 2100 2.41 0.022 42.89 -30.47 -245.25

212

Chromium, Cr

Total Massin = Total Massout

Total [(Concentrationin)*(Volumein )] = Total [(Concentrationout)*(Volumeout)]

Σi [Soil(CinVin ρsoil) ] = Σo [Soil(CoutVout ρsoil )] + Plant Tissue(CoutVout ρplant-tissue )]

Approximate density of the soils:

Soil 1 (sandy) ρSoil1 = 1800 kg/m3

Soil 2 (gravel) ρSoil1 = 2000 kg/m3

Soil 3 (silty) ρSoil1 = 2100 kg/m3

Trial 1

Camelina sativa

Soil 1: [(13.7 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((83.6 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0011 kg)] =

= -1283.36 mg

Soil 2: [(11.0 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((14.5 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<6.9 mg/kg dry * 0.0011 kg)] =

= -71.41 mg

Soil 3: [(9.1 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((15.8 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0011 kg)] =

= -143.51 mg

Miscanthus giganteous

Soil 1: [(13.7 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((11.8 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<3.4 mg/kg dry * 0.011 kg)] =

= 34.85 mg

Soil 2: [(11.0 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((11.4 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<3.2 mg/kg dry * 0.011 kg)] =

= -8.20 mg

213

Soil 3: [(9.1 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((19.5 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<3.2 mg/kg dry * 0.011 kg)] =

= -222.80 mg

Panicum virgatum

Soil 1: [(13.7 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((12.2 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<4.6 mg/kg dry * 0.008 kg)] =

= 27.50 mg

Soil 2: [(11.0 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((7.8 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<4.0 mg/kg dry * 0.008 kg)] =

= 65.25 mg

Soil 3: [(9.1 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((12.1 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (19.7 mg/kg dry * 0.008 kg)] =

= -64.42 mg

Trial 2

Camelina sativa

Soil 1: [(13.7 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((12.1 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<45.3 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= 29.23 mg

Soil 2: [(11.0 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<8.98 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<22.7 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= -41.14 mg

Soil 3: [(9.1 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<9.95 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<8.21 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= -18.23 mg

Miscanthus giganteous

Soil 1: [(13.7 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((12.1 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<7.84 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= 29.14 mg

Soil 2: [(11.0 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<8.98 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<10.8 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= 40.88 mg

214

Soil 3: [(9.1 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<9.95 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<13.7 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= -18.62 mg

Panicum virgatum

Soil 1: [(13.7 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((12.1 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<7.98 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= 29.20 mg

Soil 2: [(11.0 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<8.98 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<7.84 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= 41.04 mg

Soil 3: [(9.1 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<9.95 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<7.32 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= -18.37 mg

Trial 3

Camelina sativa

Soil 1: [(13.7 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((12.1 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<43.7 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= 29.24 mg

Soil 2: [(11.0 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<8.98 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= 41.21 mg

Soil 3: [(9.1 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<9.95 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= -18.21 mg

Miscanthus giganteous

Soil 1: [(13.7 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((12.1 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<13.0 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= 28.99 mg

215

Soil 2: [(11.0 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<8.98 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<10.2 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= 40.90 mg

Soil 3: [(9.1 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<9.95 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<13.5 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

=-18.61 mg

Panicum virgatum

Soil 1: [(13.7 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((12.1 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<8.22 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= 29.20 mg

Soil 2: [(11.0 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<8.98 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<8.10 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= 41.03 mg

Soil 3: [(9.1 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<9.95 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<12.0 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= -18.47 mg

216

Trial

Chromium

MassIn Massout Total Mass Balance, excess

positive, mg Percent of input

Cin Vin ρin Total in

Soil Cout

Soil Vout

ρout Plant tissue Cout

Plant tissue Mout

Total Out

T1S1 Camelina

13.7 0.0102 1800 251.5 83.6 0.0102 1800 0 0.001 1535 -1283.364 -510.22

T1S2 Camelina

11 0.0102 2000 224.4 14.5 0.0102 2000 6.9 0.001 295.8 -71.40759 -31.82

T1S3 Camelina

9.1 0.0102 2100 194.9 15.8 0.0102 2100 0 0.001 338.4 -143.514 -73.63

T1S1

Miscanthus 13.7 0.0102 1800 251.5 11.8 0.0102 1800 3.4 0.011 216.7 34.8466

13.85

T1S2 Miscanthus

11 0.0102 2000 224.4 11.4 0.0102 2000 3.2 0.011 232.6 -8.1952 -3.65

T1S3 Miscanthus

9.1 0.0102 2100 194.9 19.5 0.0102 2100 3.2 0.011 417.7 -222.8032 -114.30

T1S1 Panicum

13.7 0.0102 1800 251.5 12.2 0.0102 1800 4.6 0.008 224 27.5032 10.93

T1S2 Panicum

11 0.0102 2000 224.4 7.8 0.0102 2000 4 0.008 159.2 65.248 29.08

T1S3 Panicum

9.1 0.0102 2100 194.9 12.1 0.0102 2100 19.7 0.008 259.3 -64.4176 -33.05

T2S1 Camelina

13.7 0.0102 1800 251.5 12.1 0.0102 1800 45.3 0.003 222.3 29.23104 11.62

T2S2 Camelina

11 0.0102 2000 224.4 8.98 0.0102 2000 22.7 0.003 183.3 41.13536 18.33

T2S3 Camelina

9.1 0.0102 2100 194.9 9.95 0.0102 2100 8.21 0.003 213.2 -18.233272 -9.35

T2S1 Miscanthus

13.7 0.0102 1800 251.5 12.1 0.0102 1800 7.84 0.03 222.4 29.1408 11.59

T2S2 Miscanthus

11 0.0102 2000 224.4 8.98 0.0102 2000 10.8 0.03 183.5 40.884 18.22

T2S3 Miscanthus

9.1 0.0102 2100 194.9 9.95 0.0102 2100 13.7 0.03 213.5 -18.618 -9.55

T2S1 Panicum

13.7 0.0102 1800 251.5 12.1 0.0102 1800 7.98 0.022 222.3 29.20044 11.61

T2S2 Panicum

11 0.0102 2000 224.4 8.98 0.0102 2000 7.84 0.022 183.4 41.03552 18.29

T2S3 Panicum

9.1 0.0102 2100 194.9 9.95 0.0102 2100 7.32 0.022 213.3 -18.36804 -9.42

T3S1

Camelina 13.7 0.0102 1800 251.5 12.1 0.0102 1800 43.7 0.003 222.3 29.23616

11.62

T3S2 Camelina

11 0.0102 2000 224.4 8.98 0.0102 2000 0 0.003 183.2 41.208 18.36

T3S3 Camelina

9.1 0.0102 2100 194.9 9.95 0.0102 2100 0 0.003 213.1 -18.207 -9.34

T3S1 Miscanthus

13.7 0.0102 1800 251.5 12.1 0.0102 1800 13 0.03 222.5 28.986 11.52

T3S2 Miscanthus

11 0.0102 2000 224.4 8.98 0.0102 2000 10.2 0.03 183.5 40.902 18.23

T3S3 Miscanthus

9.1 0.0102 2100 194.9 9.95 0.0102 2100 13.5 0.03 213.5 -18.612 -9.55

T3S1 Panicum

13.7 0.0102 1800 251.5 12.1 0.0102 1800 8.22 0.022 222.3 29.19516 11.61

T3S2 Panicum

11 0.0102 2000 224.4 8.98 0.0102 2000 8.1 0.022 183.4 41.0298 18.28

T3S3 Panicum

9.1 0.01 2100 194.9 9.95 0.0102 2100 12 0.022 213.4 -18.471 -9.48

217

Lead, Pb

Total Massin = Total Massout

Total [(Concentrationin)*(Volumein )] = Total [(Concentrationout)*(Volumeout)]

Σi [Soil(CinVin ρsoil) ] = Σo [Soil(CoutVout ρsoil )] + Plant Tissue(CoutVout ρplant-tissue )]

Approximate density of the soils:

Soil 1 (sandy) ρSoil1 = 1800 kg/m3

Soil 2 (gravel) ρSoil1 = 2000 kg/m3

Soil 3 (silty) ρSoil1 = 2100 kg/m3

Trial 1

Camelina sativa

Soil 1: [(85.7 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((189 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0011 kg)] =

= -1896.59 mg

Soil 2: [(16.7 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((22.5 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<6.9 mg/kg dry * 0.0011 kg)] =

= -118.33 mg

Soil 3: [(46.0 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((48.4 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0011 kg)] =

= -51.41 mg

Miscanthus giganteous

Soil 1: [(85.7 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((96.7 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<3.4 mg/kg dry * 0.011 kg)] =

= -202.00 mg

Soil 2: [(16.7 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((22.2 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<3.2 mg/kg dry * 0.011 kg)] =

= -112.24 mg

218

Soil 3: [(46.0 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((60.3 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<3.2 mg/kg dry * 0.011 kg)] =

= -306.34 mg

Panicum virgatum

Soil 1: [(85.7 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((86.9 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<4.6 mg/kg dry * 0.008 kg)] =

= -22.07 mg

Soil 2: [(16.7 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((18.4 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<4.0 mg/kg dry * 0.008 kg)] =

= -34.71 mg

Soil 3: [(46.0 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((71.3 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<5.0 mg/kg dry * 0.008 kg)] =

= -541.97 mg

Trial 2

Camelina sativa

Soil 1: [(85.7 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((79.3 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<45.3 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= 117.27 mg

Soil 2: [(16.7 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((21.2 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<22.7 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= -91.87 mg

Soil 3: [(46.0 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((35.7 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<8.21 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg) =

= 220.60 mg

Miscanthus giganteous

Soil 1: [(85.7 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((79.3 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<7.84 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= 117.27 mg

Soil 2: [(16.7 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((21.2 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<10.8 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= -92.12 mg

219

Soil 3: [(46.0 mg/kg dry) * (0.0114 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((35.7 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<13.7 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= 220.22 mg

Panicum virgatum

Soil 1: [(85.7 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((79.3 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<7.98 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= 117.33 mg

Soil 2: [(16.7 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((21.2 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<7.84 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= -89.93 mg

Soil 3: [(46.0 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((35.7 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (8.28 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= 220.44 mg

Trial 3

Camelina sativa

Soil 1: [(85.7 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((79.3mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<43.7 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= 117.36 mg

Soil 2: [(16.7 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((21.2 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= -89.76 mg

Soil 3: [(46.0 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((35.7 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= 220.63 mg

Miscanthus giganteous

Soil 1: [(85.7 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((79.3 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<13.0 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= 117.11 mg

Soil 2: [(16.7 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((21.2 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<10.2 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= -90.07 mg

220

Soil 3: [(46.0 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((35.7 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<13.5 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= 220.22 mg

Panicum virgatum

Soil 1: [(85.7 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((79.3mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<8.22 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= 117.32 mg

Soil 2: [(16.7 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((21.2 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<8.10 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= -89.94 mg

Soil 3: [(46.0 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((35.7 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<12.0 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= 220.36 mg

221

Trial

Lead

MassIn Massout Total Mass Balance, excess

positive, mg Percent of input

Cin Vin ρin Total in

Soil Cout

Soil Vout

ρout Plant tissue Cout

Plant tissue Mout

Total Out

T1S1 Camelina

85.7 0.0102 1800 1573 189 0.0102 1800 0 0.001 3470 -1896.588 -120.54

T1S2 Camelina

16.7 0.0102 2000 340.7 22.5 0.0102 2000 6.9 0.001 459 -118.328 -34.73

T1S3 Camelina

46 0.0102 2100 985.3 48.4 0.0102 2100 0 0.001 1037 -51.408 -5.22

T1S1

Miscanthus 85.7 0.0102 1800 1573 96.7 0.0102 1800 3.4 0.011 1775 -201.997

-12.84

T1S2 Miscanthus

16.7 0.0102 2000 340.7 22.2 0.0102 2000 3.2 0.011 452.9 -112.235 -32.94

T1S3 Miscanthus

46 0.0102 2100 985.3 60.3 0.0102 2100 3.2 0.011 1292 -306.341 -31.09

T1S1 Panicum

85.7 0.0102 1800 1573 86.9 0.0102 1800 4.6 0.008 1596 -22.069 -1.40

T1S2 Panicum

16.7 0.0102 2000 340.7 18.4 0.0102 2000 4 0.008 375.4 -34.712 -10.19

T1S3 Panicum

46 0.0102 2100 985.3 71.3 0.0102 2100 5 0.008 1527 -541.966 -55.00

T2S1 Camelina

85.7 0.0102 1800 1573 79.3 0.0102 1800 45.3 0.003 1456 117.359 7.46

T2S2 Camelina

16.7 0.0102 2000 340.7 21.2 0.0102 2000 22.7 0.003 432.6 -91.873 -26.97

T2S3 Camelina

46 0.0102 2100 985.3 35.7 0.0102 2100 8.21 0.003 764.7 220.600 22.39

T2S1 Miscanthus

85.7 0.0102 1800 1573 79.3 0.0102 1800 7.84 0.03 1456 117.269 7.45

T2S2 Miscanthus

16.7 0.0102 2000 340.7 21.2 0.0102 2000 10.8 0.03 432.8 -92.124 -27.04

T2S3 Miscanthus

46 0.0102 2100 985.3 35.7 0.0102 2100 13.7 0.03 765.1 220.215 22.35

T2S1 Panicum

85.7 0.0102 1800 1573 79.3 0.0102 1800 7.98 0.022 1456 117.328 7.46

T2S2 Panicum

16.7 0.0102 2000 340.7 21.1 0.0102 2000 7.84 0.022 430.6 -89.932 -26.40

T2S3 Panicum

46 0.0102 2100 985.3 35.7 0.0102 2100 8.28 0.022 764.9 220.444 22.37

T3S1

Camelina 85.7 0.0102 1800 1573 79.3 0.0102 1800 43.7 0.003 1456 117.364

7.46

T3S2 Camelina

16.7 0.0102 2000 340.7 21.1 0.0102 2000 0 0.003 430.4 -89.760 -26.35

T3S3 Camelina

46 0.0102 2100 985.3 35.7 0.0102 2100 0 0.003 764.7 220.626 22.39

T3S1 Miscanthus

85.7 0.0102 1800 1573 79.3 0.0102 1800 13 0.03 1456 117.114 7.44

T3S2 Miscanthus

16.7 0.0102 2000 340.7 21.1 0.0102 2000 10.2 0.03 430.7 -90.066 -26.44

T3S3 Miscanthus

46 0.0102 2100 985.3 35.7 0.0102 2100 13.5 0.03 765.1 220.221 22.35

T3S1 Panicum

85.7 0.0102 1800 1573 79.3 0.0102 1800 8.22 0.022 1456 117.323 7.46

T3S2 Panicum

16.7 0.0102 2000 340.7 21.1 0.0102 2000 8.1 0.022 430.6 -89.938 -26.40

T3S3 Panicum

46 0.0102 2100 985.3 35.7 0.0102 2100 12 0.022 765 220.362 22.36

222

Mercury, Hg

Total Massin = Total Massout

Total [(Concentrationin)*(Volumein )] = Total [(Concentrationout)*(Volumeout)]

Σi [Soil(CinVin ρsoil) ] = Σo [Soil(CoutVout ρsoil )] + Plant Tissue(CoutVout ρplant-tissue )]

Approximate density of the soils:

Soil 1 (sandy) ρSoil1 = 1800 kg/m3

Soil 2 (gravel) ρSoil1 = 2000 kg/m3

Soil 3 (silty) ρSoil1 = 2100 kg/m3

Trial 1

Camelina sativa

Soil 1: [(0.38 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((0.36 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0011 kg)] =

= 0.37 mg

Soil 2: [(0.16 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((0.072 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<0.35 mg/kg dry * 0.0011 kg)] =

= 1.80 mg

Soil 3: [(0.21 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((0.22mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0011 kg)] =

= -.021 mg

Miscanthus giganteous

Soil 1: [(0.38 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((0.46mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<0.17 mg/kg dry * 0.011 kg)] =

= -1.47 mg

Soil 2: [(0.16 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((0.12 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<0.17 mg/kg dry * 0.011 kg)] =

= 0.81 mg

223

Soil 3: [(0.21 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((0.30 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<0.16 mg/kg dry * 0.011 kg)] =

= -1.93 mg

Panicum virgatum

Soil 1: [(0.38 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((0.39 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<0.19 mg/kg dry * 0.008 kg)] =

= -0.19 mg

Soil 2: [(0.16 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((0.098 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<0.20 mg/kg dry * 0.008 kg)] =

= 1.26 mg

Soil 3: [(0.21 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((0.14mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<0.25 mg/kg dry * 0.008 kg)] =

= 1.50 mg

Trial 2

Camelina sativa

Soil 1: [(0.38 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((0.302 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<45.3 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= 1.29 mg

Soil 2: [(0.16 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<0.0478 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= 2.29 mg

Soil 3: [(0.21 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((0.0616 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<0.0524 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= 3.18 mg

Miscanthus giganteous

Soil 1: [(0.38 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((0.302 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<0.0501 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= 1.43 mg

224

Soil 2: [(0.16 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<0.0478 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<0.0537 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= 2.29 mg

Soil 3: [(0.21 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((0.0616 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<0.299 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= 3.17 mg

Panicum virgatum

Soil 1: [(0.38 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((0.302 mg/kg dry ) *

(0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<0.0661 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= 1.43 mg

Soil 2: [(0.16 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<0.0478 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<0.0344 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= 2.29 mg

Soil 3: [(0.21 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((0.0616 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (0.0489 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= 3.18 mg

Trial 3

Camelina sativa

Soil 1: [(0.38 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((0.302 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= 1.43 mg

Soil 2: [(0.16 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<0.0478 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= 2.29 mg

Soil 3: [(0.21 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((0.0616 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= 3.18 mg

Miscanthus giganteous

Soil 1: [(0.38 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((0.302 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<0.109 mg/kg dry * 0.030kg)] =

= 1.43 mg

225

Soil 2: [(0.16 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<0.0478 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<0.0785 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= 2.29 mg

Soil 3: [(0.21 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((0.0616 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<0.0472 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= 3.18 mg

Panicum virgatum

Soil 1: [(0.38 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((0.302 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<0.0368 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= 1.43 mg

Soil 2: [(0.16 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<0.0478 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<0.0366 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= 2.29 mg

Soil 3: [(0.21 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((0.0616 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<0.247 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= 3.18 mg

226

Trial

Mercury

MassIn Massout Total Mass Balance, excess

positive, mg

Percent of input

Cin Vin ρin Total

in

Soil

Cout

Soil

Vout ρout

Plant tissue Cout

Plant tissue Mout

Total

Out

T1S1 Camelina

0.38 0.0102 1800 6.98 0.36 0.0102 1800 0 0.0011 6.61 0.367 5.26

T1S2 Camelina

0.16 0.0102 2000 3.26 0.072 0.0102 2000 0.35 0.0011 1.47 1.795 54.99

T1S3 Camelina

0.21 0.0102 2100 4.50 0.22 0.0102 2100 0 0.0011 4.71 -0.214 -4.76

T1S1 Miscanthus

0.38 0.0102 1800 6.98 0.46 0.0102 1800 0.17 0.011 8.45 -1.471 -21.08

T1S2 Miscanthus

0.16 0.0102 2000 3.26 0.12 0.0102 2000 0.17 0.011 2.45 0.814 24.94

T1S3 Miscanthus

0.21 0.0102 2100 4.50 0.3 0.0102 2100 0.16 0.011 6.43 -1.930 -42.90

T1S1 Panicum

0.38 0.0102 1800 6.98 0.39 0.0102 1800 0.19 0.008 7.16 -0.185 -2.65

T1S2 Panicum

0.16 0.0102 2000 3.26 0.098 0.0102 2000 0.2 0.008 2.00 1.263 38.70

T1S3 Panicum

0.21 0.0102 2100 4.50 0.14 0.0102 2100 0.25 0.008 3.00 1.497 33.29

T2S1 Camelina

0.38 0.0102 1800 6.98 0.302 0.0102 1800 45.3 0.0032 5.69 1.287 18.45

T2S2 Camelina

0.16 0.0102 2000 3.26 0.0478 0.0102 2000 0 0.0032 0.98 2.289 70.13

T2S3 Camelina

0.21 0.0102 2100 4.50 0.0616 0.0102 2100 0.0524 0.0032 1.32 3.179 70.66

T2S1 Miscanthus

0.38 0.0102 1800 6.98 0.302 0.0102 1800 0.0501 0.03 5.55 1.431 20.50

T2S2 Miscanthus

0.16 0.0102 2000 3.26 0.0478 0.0102 2000 0.0537 0.03 0.98 2.287 70.08

T2S3 Miscanthus

0.21 0.0102 2100 4.50 0.0616 0.0102 2100 0.299 0.03 1.33 3.170 70.47

T2S1 Panicum

0.38 0.0102 1800 6.98 0.302 0.0102 1800 0.0661 0.022 5.55 1.431 20.51

T2S2 Panicum

0.16 0.0102 2000 3.26 0.0478 0.0102 2000 0.0344 0.022 0.98 2.288 70.10

T2S3 Panicum

0.21 0.0102 2100 4.50 0.0616 0.0102 2100 0.0489 0.022 1.32 3.178 70.64

T3S1 Camelina

0.38 0.0102 1800 6.98 0.302 0.0102 1800 0 0.0032 5.54 1.432 20.53

T3S2 Camelina

0.16 0.0102 2000 3.26 0.0478 0.0102 2000 0 0.0032 0.98 2.289 70.13

T3S3 Camelina

0.21 0.0102 2100 4.50 0.0616 0.0102 2100 0 0.0032 1.32 3.179 70.67

T3S1 Miscanthus

0.38 0.0102 1800 6.98 0.302 0.0102 1800 0.109 0.03 5.55 1.429 20.48

T3S2 Miscanthus

0.16 0.0102 2000 3.26 0.0478 0.0102 2000 0.0785 0.03 0.98 2.287 70.05

T3S3 Miscanthus

0.21 0.0102 2100 4.50 0.0616 0.0102 2100 0.0472 0.03 1.32 3.177 70.64

T3S1 Panicum

0.38 0.0102 1800 6.98 0.302 0.0102 1800 0.0368 0.022 5.55 1.431 20.51

T3S2 Panicum

0.16 0.0102 2000 3.26 0.0478 0.0102 2000 0.0366 0.022 0.98 2.288 70.10

T3S3 Panicum

0.21 0.0102 2100 4.50 0.0616 0.0102 2100 0.247 0.022 1.32 3.173 70.55

227

Selenium, Se

Total Massin = Total Massout

Total [(Concentrationin)*(Volumein )] = Total [(Concentrationout)*(Volumeout)]

Σi [Soil(CinVin ρsoil) ] = Σo [Soil(CoutVout ρsoil )] + Plant Tissue(CoutVout ρplant-tissue )]

Approximate density of the soils:

Soil 1 (sandy) ρSoil1 = 1800 kg/m3

Soil 2 (gravel) ρSoil1 = 2000 kg/m3

Soil 3 (silty) ρSoil1 = 2100 kg/m3

Trial 1

Camelina sativa

Soil 1: [(<2.6 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((4.0 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0011 kg)] =

= -25.70 mg

oil 2: [(<2.4 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((< <2.7 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<17.2 mg/kg dry * 0.0011 kg)] =

= -6.14 mg

Soil 3: [(6.8 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((6.6 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0011 kg)] =

= 4.28 mg

Miscanthus giganteous

Soil 1: [(<2.6 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((3.4 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3) + (<8.4 mg/kg dry * 0.011 kg)] =

= -14.78 mg

Soil 2: [(<2.4 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<2.3 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<8.1 mg/kg dry * 0.011kg)] =

= 1.95 mg

228

Soil 3: [(6.8 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((9.5 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) +(<7.9 mg/kg dry * 0.011 kg)] =

= -57.92 mg

Panicum virgatum

Soil 1: [(<2.6 mg/kg dry)* (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[( <2.7 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<11.5 mg/kg dry * 0.008 kg)] =

= -1.93 mg

Soil 2: [(<2.4 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<2.7 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<10.0 mg/kg dry * 0.008 kg)] =

= -6.20 mg

Soil 3: [(6.8 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((11.0 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<12.6 mg/kg dry * 0.008 kg)] =

= -90.07 mg

Trial 2

Camelina sativa

Soil 1: [(<2.6 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<8.87 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<45.3 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= -115.26 mg

Soil 2: [(<2.4 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<8.98 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<22.7 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= -134.31 mg

Soil 3: [( 6.8 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<9.95 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= -67.47 mg

Miscanthus giganteous

Soil 1: [(<2.6 mg/kg dry )* (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<8.87 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<7.84 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= -115.35 mg

Soil 2: [(<2.4 mg/kg dry )* (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<8.98 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + ( <10.8 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= -134.56 mg

229

Soil 3: [(6.8 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<9.95 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<13.7 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= -67.89 mg

Panicum virgatum

Soil 1: [(<2.6 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<8.87 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<7.98 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= -115.29 mg

Soil 2: [(<2.4 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<8.98 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<7.84 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= -134.40 mg

Soil 3: [(6.8 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<9.95 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<7.32 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= -67.47 mg

Trial 3

Camelina sativa

Soil 1: [(<2.6 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<8.87 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (43.7 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= -115.26 mg

Soil 2: [(<2.4 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<8.98 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= -134.23 mg

Soil 3: [(6.8 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<9.95 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= -67.88 mg

Miscanthus giganteous

Soil 1: [(<2.6 mg/kg dry )* (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<8.87 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<13.0 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= -115.51 mg

Soil 2: [(<2.4 mg/kg dry )* (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<8.98 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<10.2 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= -134.54 mg

230

Soil 3: [(6.8 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<9.95 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<13.5 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= -67.88 mg

Panicum virgatum

Soil 1: [(<2.6 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<8.87 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<8.22 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= -115.30 mg

Soil 2: [(<2.4 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<8.98 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<8.10 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= -134.41 mg

Soil 3: [(6.8 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[(<9.95 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<12.0 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= -67.74 mg

231

Trial

Selenium

MassIn Massout Total Mass Balance, excess

positive, mg Percent of input

Cin Vin ρin Total in

Soil Cout

Soil Vout

ρout Plant tissue Cout

Plant tissue Mout

Total Out

T1S1 Camelina

2.6 0.0102 1800 47.74 4 0.0102 1800 0 0.001 73.44 -25.704 -53.85

T1S2 Camelina

2.4 0.0102 2000 48.96 2.7 0.0102 2000 17.2 0.001 55.1 -6.139 -12.54

T1S3 Camelina

6.8 0.0102 2100 145.7 6.6 0.0102 2100 0 0.001 141.4 4.284 2.94

T1S1

Miscanthus 2.6 0.0102 1800 47.74 3.4 0.0102 1800 8.4 0.011 62.52 -14.780

-30.96

T1S2 Miscanthus

2.4 0.0102 2000 48.96 2.3 0.0102 2000 8.1 0.011 47.01 1.951 3.98

T1S3 Miscanthus

6.8 0.0102 2100 145.7 9.5 0.0102 2100 7.9 0.011 203.6 -57.921 -39.77

T1S1 Panicum

2.6 0.0102 1800 47.74 2.7 0.0102 1800 11.5 0.008 49.66 -1.928 -4.04

T1S2 Panicum

2.4 0.0102 2000 48.96 2.7 0.0102 2000 10 0.008 55.16 -6.200 -12.66

T1S3 Panicum

6.8 0.0102 2100 145.7 11 0.0102 2100 12.6 0.008 235.7 -90.065 -61.83

T2S1 Camelina

2.6 0.0102 1800 47.74 8.87 0.0102 1800 45.3 0.003 163 -115.262 -241.46

T2S2 Camelina

2.4 0.0102 2000 48.96 8.98 0.0102 2000 22.7 0.003 183.3 -134.305 -274.32

T2S3 Camelina

6.8 0.0102 2100 145.7 9.95 0.0102 2100 0 0.003 213.1 -67.473 -46.32

T2S1 Miscanthus

2.6 0.0102 1800 47.74 8.87 0.0102 1800 7.84 0.03 163.1 -115.352 -241.65

T2S2 Miscanthus

2.4 0.0102 2000 48.96 8.98 0.0102 2000 10.8 0.03 183.5 -134.556 -274.83

T2S3 Miscanthus

6.8 0.0102 2100 145.7 9.95 0.0102 2100 13.7 0.03 213.5 -67.884 -46.61

T2S1 Panicum

2.6 0.0102 1800 47.74 8.87 0.0102 1800 7.98 0.022 163 -115.293 -241.52

T2S2 Panicum

2.4 0.0102 2000 48.96 8.98 0.0102 2000 7.84 0.022 183.4 -134.404 -274.52

T2S3 Panicum

6.8 0.0102 2100 145.7 9.95 0.0102 2100 7.32 0.022 213.3 -67.634 -46.43

T3S1

Camelina 2.6 0.0102 1800 47.74 8.87 0.0102 1800 43.7 0.003 163 -115.257

-241.45

T3S2 Camelina

2.4 0.0102 2000 48.96 8.98 0.0102 2000 0 0.003 183.2 -134.232 -274.17

T3S3 Camelina

6.8 0.0102 2100 145.7 9.95 0.0102 2100 0 0.003 213.1 -67.473 -46.32

T3S1 Miscanthus

2.6 0.0102 1800 47.74 8.87 0.0102 1800 13 0.03 163.2 -115.507 -241.97

T3S2 Miscanthus

2.4 0.0102 2000 48.96 8.98 0.0102 2000 10.2 0.03 183.5 -134.538 -274.79

T3S3 Miscanthus

6.8 0.0102 2100 145.7 9.95 0.0102 2100 13.5 0.03 213.5 -67.878 -46.60

T3S1 Panicum

2.6 0.0102 1800 47.74 8.87 0.0102 1800 8.22 0.022 163 -115.298 -241.53

T3S2 Panicum

2.4 0.0102 2000 48.96 8.98 0.0102 2000 8.1 0.022 183.4 -134.410 -274.53

T3S3 Panicum

6.8 0.0102 2100 145.7 9.95 0.0102 2100 12 0.022 213.4 -67.737 -46.50

232

Silver, Ag

Total Massin = Total Massout

Total [(Concentrationin)*(Volumein )] = Total [(Concentrationout)*(Volumeout)]

Σi [Soil(CinVin ρsoil) ] = Σo [Soil(CoutVout ρsoil )] + Plant Tissue(CoutVout ρplant-tissue )]

Approximate density of the soils:

Soil 1 (sandy) ρSoil1 = 1800 kg/m3

Soil 2 (gravel) ρSoil1 = 2000 kg/m3

Soil 3 (silty) ρSoil1 = 2100 kg/m3

Not detected in any of the lab analyses.

Trial 1

Camelina sativa

Soil 1: [(<1.0 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<1.1 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0011 kg)] =

= -1.84 mg

Soil 2: [(<0.96 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<1.1 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<6.9 mg/kg dry * 0.0011 kg)] =

= -2.86 mg

Soil 3: [(<1.2 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<1.1 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0011 kg)] =

= 2.14 mg

Miscanthus giganteous

Soil 1: [(<1.0 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<1.1 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3) + (<3.4 mg/kg dry * 0.011 kg)] =

= -1.87 mg

Soil 2: [(<0.96 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<0.92 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<3.2 mg/kg dry * 0.011kg)] =

233

= 0.78 mg

Soil 3: [(<1.2 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<1.2 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) +(<3.2 mg/kg dry * 0.011 kg)] =

= - 0.04 mg

Panicum virgatum

Soil 1: [(<1.0 mg/kg dry)* (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[( <1.1 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<4.6 mg/kg dry * 0.008 kg)] =

= -1.87 mg

Soil 2: [(<0.96 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<1.1 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<4.0 mg/kg dry * 0.008 kg)] =

= -2.89 mg

Soil 3: [(<1.2 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<1.3 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<5.0 mg/kg dry * 0.008 kg)] =

= -2.18 mg

Trial 2

Camelina sativa

Soil 1: [(<1.0mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<4.44 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<22.7 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= 63.23 mg

Soil 2: [(<0.96 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<4.49 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<11.4 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= 71.44 mg

Soil 3: [(<1.2 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<4.98mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= -80.97 mg

Miscanthus giganteous

Soil 1: [(<1.0 mg/kg dry )* (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<4.44 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<3.92 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= -63.27 mg

234

Soil 2: [(<0.96 mg/kg dry )* (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<4.49 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + ( <5.41 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= -71.56 mg

Soil 3: [(<1.2 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<4.98 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<6.85 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= -81.17 mg

Panicum virgatum

Soil 1: [(<1.0 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<4.44 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<3.99 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= 63.24 mg

Soil 2: [(<0.96 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<4.49 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<3.92 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= 71.49 mg

Soil 3: [(<1.2 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<4.98 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<3.66 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= 81.05 mg

Trial 3

Camelina sativa

Soil 1: [(<1.0 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<4.44mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<21.9 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= 63.23 mg

Soil 2: [(<0.96 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<4.49 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= -71.40 mg

Soil 3: [(<1.2 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<4.98 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= -80.97 mg

Miscanthus giganteous

Soil 1: [(<1.0 mg/kg dry )* (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<4.44 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<6.52 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= -63.35 mg

235

Soil 2: [(<0.96 mg/kg dry )* (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<4.49 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<5.11 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= -71.55 mg

Soil 3: [(<1.2 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<4.98 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<6.74 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= -81.17 mg

Panicum virgatum

Soil 1: [(<1.0 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<4.44 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (<4.12 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= 63.25 mg

Soil 2: [(<0.96 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((<4.49 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (<4.06 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= 71.49 mg

Soil 3: [(<1.2mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[(<4.98 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (<6.03 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= 81.10 mg

236

Trial

Silver

MassIn Massout

Total Mass Balance

Percent of input

Cin Vin ρin Total in

Soil Cout

Soil Vout

ρout Plant tissue Cout

Plant tissue Mout

Total Out

T1S1 Camelina

1 0.0102 1800 18.36 1.1 0.0102 1800 0 0.001 20.2 -1.836 -10.00

T1S2 Camelina

0.96 0.0102 2000 19.58 1.1 0.0102 2000 6.9 0.001 22.45 -2.86359 -14.62

T1S3 Camelina

1.2 0.0102 2100 25.7 1.1 0.0102 2100 0 0.001 23.56 2.142 8.33

T1S1

Miscanthus 1 0.0102 1800 18.36 1.1 0.0102 1800 3.4 0.011 20.23 -1.8734

-10.20

T1S2 Miscanthus

0.96 0.0102 2000 19.58 0.92 0.0102 2000 3.2 0.011 18.8 0.7808 3.99

T1S3 Miscanthus

1.2 0.0102 2100 25.7 1.2 0.0102 2100 3.2 0.011 25.74 -0.0352 -0.14

T1S1 Panicum

1 0.0102 1800 18.36 1.1 0.0102 1800 4.6 0.008 20.23 -1.8728 -10.20

T1S2 Panicum

0.96 0.0102 2000 19.58 1.1 0.0102 2000 4 0.008 22.47 -2.888 -14.75

T1S3 Panicum

1.2 0.0102 2100 25.7 1.3 0.0102 2100 5 0.008 27.89 -2.182 -8.49

T2S1 Camelina

1 0.0102 1800 18.36 4.44 0.0102 1800 22.7 0.003 81.59 -63.23104 -344.40

T2S2 Camelina

0.96 0.0102 2000 19.58 4.46 0.0102 2000 11.4 0.003 91.02 -71.43648 -364.77

T2S3 Camelina

1.2 0.0102 2100 25.7 4.98 0.0102 2100 0 0.003 106.7 -80.9676 -315.00

T2S1 Miscanthus

1 0.0102 1800 18.36 4.44 0.0102 1800 3.92 0.03 81.64 -63.276 -344.64

T2S2 Miscanthus

0.96 0.0102 2000 19.58 4.46 0.0102 2000 5.41 0.03 91.15 -71.5623 -365.41

T2S3 Miscanthus

1.2 0.0102 2100 25.7 4.98 0.0102 2100 6.85 0.03 106.9 -81.1731 -315.80

T2S1 Panicum

1 0.0102 1800 18.36 4.44 0.0102 1800 3.99 0.022 81.61 -63.24618 -344.48

T2S2 Panicum

0.96 0.0102 2000 19.58 4.46 0.0102 2000 3.92 0.022 91.07 -71.48624 -365.02

T2S3 Panicum

1.2 0.0102 2100 25.7 4.98 0.0102 2100 3.66 0.022 106.8 -81.04812 -315.31

T3S1

Camelina 1 0.0102 1800 18.36 4.44 0.0102 1800 21.9 0.003 81.59 -63.22848

-344.38

T3S2 Camelina

0.96 0.0102 2000 19.58 4.46 0.0102 2000 0 0.003 90.98 -71.4 -364.58

T3S3 Camelina

1.2 0.0102 2100 25.7 4.98 0.0102 2100 0 0.003 106.7 -80.9676 -315.00

T3S1 Miscanthus

1 0.0102 1800 18.36 4.44 0.0102 1800 6.52 0.03 81.71 -63.354 -345.07

T3S2 Miscanthus

0.96 0.0102 2000 19.58 4.46 0.0102 2000 5.11 0.03 91.14 -71.5533 -365.37

T3S3 Miscanthus

1.2 0.0102 2100 25.7 4.98 0.0102 2100 6.74 0.03 106.9 -81.1698 -315.79

T3S1 Panicum

1 0.0102 1800 18.36 4.44 0.0102 1800 4.12 0.022 81.61 -63.24904 -344.49

T3S2 Panicum

0.96 0.0102 2000 19.58 4.46 0.0102 2000 4.06 0.022 91.07 -71.48932 -365.04

T3S3 Panicum

1.2 0.0102 2100 25.7 4.98 0.0102 2100 6.03 0.022 106.8 -81.10026 -315.52

237

Sulfur, S

Total Massin = Total Massout

Total [(Concentrationin)*(Volumein )] = Total [(Concentrationout)*(Volumeout)]

Σi [Soil(CinVin ρsoil) ] = Σo [Soil(CoutVout ρsoil )] + Plant Tissue(CoutVout ρplant-tissue )]

Approximate density of the soils:

Soil 1 (sandy) ρSoil1 = 1800 kg/m3

Soil 2 (gravel) ρSoil1 = 2000 kg/m3

Soil 3 (silty) ρSoil1 = 2100 kg/m3

Trial 1

Camelina sativa

Soil 1: [(1010 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((793 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0011 kg)] =

= 0.0040 kg or 3.98 g

Soil 2: [(411 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((545 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (6150 mg/kg dry * 0.0011 kg)] =

= - 0.003 kg or - 2.74 g

Soil 3: [(2440 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((4580 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0011 kg)] =

= - 0.046 kg or - 45.84 g

Miscanthus giganteous

Soil 1: [(1010 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((782 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (2290 mg/kg dry * 0.011 kg)] =

= 0.004 kg or 4.15 g

Soil 2: [(411 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((441 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (1770 mg/kg dry * 0.011 kg)] =

= - 0.001 kg or - 0.63 g

238

Soil 3: [(2440 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((2540 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (2240 mg/kg dry * 0.011 kg)] =

= - 0.002 kg or - 2.17 g

Panicum virgatum

Soil 1: [(1010 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((754 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (1880 mg/kg dry * 0.008 kg)] =

= 0.005 kg or 4.69 g

Soil 2: [(411 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((523 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (2540 mg/kg dry * 0.008 kg)] =

= - 0.002 kg or - 2.31 g

Soil 3: [(2440 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((2720 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (3550 mg/kg dry * 0.008 kg)] =

= - 0.006 kg or - 6.03 g

Trial 2

Camelina sativa

Soil 1: [(1010 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((1040 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (6900 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= - 0.0010 kg or - 0.57 g

Soil 2: [(411 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((735 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (10100 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= - 0.007 kg or - 6.64 g

Soil 3: [(2440 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((2600 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= - 0.003 kg or - 3.43 g

Miscanthus giganteous

Soil 1: [(1010 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((1040 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (1640 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= - 0.001 kg or - 0.60 g

239

Soil 2: [(411 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((735 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (1800 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= - 0.007 kg or - 6.66 g

Soil 3: [(2440 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((2600 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (1060 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= 0.047 kg or 46.66 g

Panicum virgatum

Soil 1: [(1010 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((1040 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (1780 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= - 0.001 kg or - 0.59 g

Soil 2: [(411 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((735 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (1880 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= - 0.007 kg or - 6.65 g

Soil 3: [(2440 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((2600 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (2050 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= 0.047 kg or 46.65 g

Trial 3

Camelina sativa

Soil 1: [(1010 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((1040 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (10500 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= - 0.001 kg or - 0.58 g

Soil 2: [(411 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((735 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= - 0.007 kg or - 6.61 g

Soil 3: [(2440 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((2600 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (0.00 mg/kg dry * 0.0032 kg)] =

= 0.047 kg or 46.70 g

Miscanthus giganteous

Soil 1: [(1010 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((1040 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (1810 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= - 0.001 kg or - 0.61 g

240

Soil 2: [(411 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((735 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (1500 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= - 0.007 kg or - 6.66 g

Soil 3: [(2440 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((2600 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (1160 mg/kg dry * 0.030 kg)] =

= 0.047 kg or 46.66 g

Panicum virgatum

Soil 1: [(1010 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((1040 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (1800 kg/m

3)) + (2460 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= - 0.001 kg or - 0.61

Soil 2: [(411 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((735 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102

m3) * (2000 kg/m

3)) + (1830 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= - 0.007 kg or - 6.65 g

Soil 3: [(2440 mg/kg dry) * (0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)] = Σ[((2600 mg/kg dry) *

(0.0102 m3) * (2100 kg/m

3)) + (2190 mg/kg dry * 0.022 kg)] =

= - 0.004 kg or - 3.48 g

241

Trial

Sulfur

MassIn Massout

Total Mass

Balance, g Percent of input

Cin Vin ρin Total in Soil Cout

Soil Vout

ρout Plant tissue Cout

Plant tissue Mout

Total Out

T1S1 Camelina 1010 0.01 1800 18.5436 793 0.01 1800 0 0.001 14.559 3.984 21.49

T1S2 Camelina 411 0.01 2000 8.3844 545 0.01 2000 6150 0.001 11.125 -2.740 -32.68

T1S3 Camelina 2440 0.01 2100 52.2648 4580 0.01 2100 0 0.001 98.104 -45.839 -87.70

T1S1 Miscanthus

1010 0.01 1800 18.5436 782 0.01 1800 2290 0.011 14.383 4.161 22.44

T1S2 Miscanthus

411 0.01 2000 8.3844 441 0.01 2000 1770 0.011 9.016 -0.631 -7.53

T1S3 Miscanthus

2440 0.01 2100 52.2648 2540 0.01 2100 2240 0.011 54.431 -2.167 -4.15

T1S1 Panicum 1010 0.01 1800 18.5436 754 0.01 1800 1880 0.008 13.858 4.685 25.27

T1S2 Panicum 411 0.01 2000 8.3844 523 0.01 2000 2540 0.008 10.690 -2.305 -27.49

T1S3 Panicum 2440 0.01 2100 52.2648 2720 0.01 2100 3550 0.008 58.291 -6.026 -11.53

T2S1 Camelina 1010 0.01 1800 18.5436 1040 0.01 1800 6900 0.003 19.116 -0.573 -3.09

T2S2 Camelina 411 0.01 2000 8.3844 735 0.01 2000 10100 0.003 15.026 -6.642 -79.22

T2S3 Camelina 2440 0.01 2100 52.2648 2600 0.01 2100 0 0.003 55.692 -3.427 -6.56

T2S1 Miscanthus

1010 0.01 1800 18.5436 1040 0.01 1800 1640 0.03 19.144 -0.600 -3.24

T2S2 Miscanthus

411 0.01 2000 8.3844 735 0.01 2000 1800 0.03 15.048 -6.664 -79.48

T2S3 Miscanthus

2440 0.01 2100 52.2648 260 0.01 2100 1060 0.03 5.601 46.664 89.28

T2S1 Panicum 1010 0.01 1800 18.5436 1040 0.01 1800 1780 0.022 19.134 -0.590 -3.18

T2S2 Panicum 411 0.01 2000 8.3844 735 0.01 2000 1880 0.022 15.035 -6.651 -79.33

T2S3 Panicum 2440 0.01 2100 52.2648 260 0.01 2100 2050 0.022 5.614 46.651 89.26

T3S1 Camelina 1010 0.01 1800 18.5436 1040 0.01 1800 10500 0.003 19.128 -0.584 -3.15

T3S2 Camelina 411 0.01 2000 8.3844 735 0.01 2000 0 0.003 14.994 -6.610 -78.83

T3S3 Camelina 2440 0.01 2100 52.2648 260 0.01 2100 0 0.003 5.569 46.696 89.34

T3S1 Miscanthus

1010 0.01 1800 18.5436 1040 0.01 1800 1810 0.03 19.149 -0.605 -3.26

T3S2 Miscanthus

411 0.01 2000 8.3844 735 0.01 2000 1500 0.03 15.039 -6.655 -79.37

T3S3 Miscanthus

2440 0.01 2100 52.2648 260 0.01 2100 1160 0.03 5.604 46.661 89.28

T3S1 Panicum 1010 0.01 1800 18.5436 1040 0.01 1800 2460 0.022 19.149 -0.605 -3.26

T3S2 Panicum 411 0.01 2000 8.3844 735 0.01 2000 1830 0.022 15.034 -6.650 -79.31

T3S3 Panicum 2440 0.01 2100 52.2648 2600 0.01 2100 2190 0.022 55.740 -3.475 -6.65