_..: : . ..
I :51...) .11.

23...,
.51 13.3

.0: .9.
,T»!!!... x

n3

h 27".
.. ‘2! .vAWE:

by}
7:.- .q.‘

, 2;, ‘ ,
’J’fz’Q
~2y§ "

1.1.2}. .x
1...... r133.

05‘:
5.3.1.13:

...I.u:u.‘.. :u;

a... ti
4. . z
.7: 7:) .

'Iasxys

 

 

3‘ .x
.1111
v, . it.

1....1:

 

 

MlCl-flGAN STATE UNNERSITY LIBRARIES

llllllIll/llIll/lllllllllllIll/l/l/lllll/l

3 1293 01420 1457

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

PREDICTING PHOSPHATE SORPTION BY MICHIGAN SOIL SERIES

Date

presented by

Kathleen Remus

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Masters Crop & Soil Sciences

 

 

degree in
)
" 7
ajor professor
11 Sept 95

 

0-7639

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE II RETURN BOX to remove this chockout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or baton duo duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l l J

MSU I. An Mandi" Action/EM Opportunity lm

 

 

 

PREDICTING PHOSPHATE SORPTION BY MICHIGAN SOIL SERIES
By

Kathleen Remus

A THESIS

Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Crop and Soil Sciences

1995

ABSTRACT
PREDICTING PHOSPHATE SORPTION BY MICHIGAN SOIL SERIES
By

Kathleen Remus

Maintaining adequate PO4 levels in soils for crop growth or using soils to remove
excess PO4 from wastewaters while limiting the amount of P in surface waters will continue
to be challenge as the number of humans placing demands on agriculture and the
environment continues to grow. This study was conducted to determine whether PO4
sorption capacity and sorption coefficients measured for a soil series from one location are
applicable to other locations for the same soil series or the same textural or drainage class.
Langmuir b and K values, Bray-Pl, Ca, A] and Fe were determined in triplicate for six
Michigan soil series. Langmuir b values for master horizons in each soil series varied from
48 to 304 mg/kg. Coefiicients of variation for b values exceeded 30% in 18 of 45 master
horizons and exceeded 20% in 30 of 45 master horizons. Average Langmuir K values
ranged from 0.58 to 10.4 L/mg. The coefficients of variation for b and K values for each
series in a textural or drainage class are comparable to those when grouped by series. P04
sorption capacity was found to be closely related to Ca, Al and Fe oxide content in the soils
(p50.01). Nothing is gained in terms of prediction accuracy by using averages from specific
master horizons or from textural or drainage classes over global (overall) averages. Using
the conservative value (average less the standard deviation) of sorption capacity from soil
series, soil textural or drainage class, or global averages is the recommended method of

predicting PO4 sorption in soil for wastewater application.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation for my committee, Drs.
Sharon Anderson, Boyd Ellis, Lee Jacobs, Ted Loudon and Del Molona, who, with their
valuable knowledge, guidance and support, contributed greatly to the successful completion

of this work.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................... vii
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................. viii
INTRODUCTION ................................................ 1
Using Soils for Wastewater Renovation or Disposal ................. 1
Phosphorus in Soils .......................................... 3
Phosphorus in Wastewater ..................................... 4
Phosphorus Sorption in Soils ................................... 5
Sorption Isothenns ........................................... 5
Variability of Phosphorus Sorption .............................. 7
Sources of Variation ......................................... 8
MATERIALS AND METHODS .................................... 10
Selection of Soil Series and Sampling Locations .................. 10
Bray-Kurtz Pl Extraction ..................................... ll
Langmuir Adsorption Isotherms ............................... 11
1M and 0.1 M Sodium Acetate Extractions ....................... l4
Ammonium Oxalate Extractions ............................... 15

iv

RESULTS ..................................................... 16
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ............................... 31
APPENDIX A .................................................. 34
APPENDIX B .................................................. 67
P180 3.0 USER’S GUIDE ......................................... 67
INTRODUCTION ......................................... 67
Laboratory Isothenn Analysis ........................... 67

Calculations ......................................... 68

SETTING UP PISO 3.0 ..................................... 70

P180 3.0 F iles ....................................... 70

Installing PISO 3.0 .................................... 70

Loading Quattro Pro and P180 3.0 ....................... 71

USING PISO 3.0 .......................................... 72

P180 3.0 Menu Tree .................................. 72

Data Input ........................................... 73

Regression Execution ................................. 74

Data Output ......................................... 75

Automatic Graphing ................................... 76

Easy Printing ........................................ 76

Using PISO with Quattro Pro 4.0 or 5.0 for DOS ............ 76

APPENDIX C .................................................. 78

EFFECT 3.0 and P-LOAD 3.0 USER’S GUIDE ........................ 78

vi

INTRODUCTION ......................................... 78
Installing the Program Files ............................. 79
Retrieving the Programs ............................... 79

EFFECT 3.0 .............................................. 80

THE EFFECTIVE b CALCULATION PROGRAM ............... 80
Data Input ........................................... 80
Data Output ......................................... 81

P-LOAD 3.0 .............................................. 82

THE PHOSPHATE LOADING CALCULATION PROGRAM ...... 82
Data Input ........................................... 82
Data Output ......................................... 84

ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS ................................ 85
The Command Menu .................................. 85
Printing Your Data .................................... 85
Saving Your Data ..................................... 86
Exiting to DOS ....................................... 86

Using the Programs with Quattro Pro 4.0 and 5.0 for DOS . . . . 86

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................ 88

LIST OF TABLES

Table l-Langmuir b values (mg/kg) for soil series organized by soil management group ..... 20
Table 2-Langmuir K values (L/mg) for soil series organized by soil management group ..... 21
Table 3-Average Langmuir b and K for textural classes for n soil series in each class ....... 22
Table 4-Average Langmuir b and K for drainage classes for n soil series in each class ...... 23
Table 5-Soil classifications ................................................... 34
Table 6-Soil sampling locations ................................................ 35
Table 7-Bray-Pl, Ca, Fe and A1 ................................................ 36
Table 8-Data and parameters for phosphate sorption isotherms ........................ 41

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure l-Phosphate sorption capacity and Ca, Al & Fe for three Barry soil profiles ......... 24
Figure 2-Phosphate sorption capacity and Ca, Al & Fe for three Metea soil profiles ........ 25
Figure 3-Phosphate sorption capacity and Ca, Al & Fe for three Oakville soil profiles ...... 26
Figure 4-Phosphate sorption capacity and Ca, Al & Fe for three Owosso soil profiles ....... 27
Figure S-Phosphate sorption capacity and Ca, Al & Fe for three Tedrow soil profiles ....... 28
Figure 6-Phosphate sorption capacity and Ca, Al & Fe for three Thetford soil profiles ...... 29
Figure 7-The relationship between phosphate sorption capacity and Ca, Al & Fe .......... 30
Figure 8-PISO 3.0 custom menu tree ............................................ 72
Figure 9-PISO 3.0 data input area .............................................. 74
Figure 10-PISO 3.0 data output area ............................................ 75
Figure ll-Langmuir isotherm graph ............................................ 76
Figure 12-EFFECT 3.0 input and output table ..................................... 80
Figure l3-P-LOAD 3.0 general data input area .................................... 82
Figure 14-P-LOAD 3.0 specific data input area .................................... 83
Figure lS-P-LOAD 3.0 output data area ......................................... 84
Figure l6-Custom menu tree for EFFECT 3.0 and P-LOAD 3.0 ....................... 85

viii

INTRODUCTION

Phosphorus has long been recognizedas a major limiting nutrient in ecosystems and
a significant factor in lake eutrophication. In natural conditions phosphorus inputs to lake
ecosystems are relatively small. However, anthropogenic activities have increased the
amount of phosphorus present in soils, thereby increasing the total movement of phosphorus
to surface waters and leading to an increase in eutrophication rates.

Increasing human population requires higher productivity from agriculture and
increasingly innovative methods of disposing and/or renovating the wastewaters such a
population creates. Maintaining adequate phosphorus levels in soils for crop growth or
using soils to remove excess phosphorus from wastewaters while limiting the amount of
phosphorus in surface water will continue to be a challenge as the number of humans
placing demands on agriculture and the environment continues to grow. A key to meeting
this challenge is the ability to predict or quantifyI the chemical and biological processes that

take place in soils (Rai and Kittrick, 1989).

Using Soils for Wastewater Renovation or Disposal
The average person in Michigan uses 75 gallons of water a day (Bartholic, 1995).

In municipalities with high populations, greater and greater volumes of wastewater are

2

generated and require treatment and disposal each year.

As the demand for water for domestic and agricultural uses increases, the value of
wastewater also increases. Most wastewaters that undergo secondary treatment can be
safely used for crop irrigation, thereby diverting the demand for groundwater supplies to
wastewater supplies.

Determining an appropriate site for the land application of wastewater containing
relatively low concentrations of phosphorus requires an evaluation of several soil
parameters. In general, the appropriateness of the site can be determined by examining the
drainage characteristics and the phosphorus sorption characteristics of the soil.

The hydraulic conductivity or the permeability of the soil should be rapid enough
to allow positive drainage, however, for phosphate removal, the wastewater should remain
in contact with the soil mineral surfaces long enough for chemical equilibrium to occur. In
addition, the depth to the water table, which defines the volume of soil, and the soil particle
size will directly influence the surface area in the soil available to make contact with the
wastewater. The wastewater can be surface-applied or applied below the surface, as in the
case of domestic septic systems. The surface soil would not be available for sorption if the
wastewater is introduced to the soil below the surface. The total volume of wastewater that
requires disposal and the volume of water entering the soil from atmospheric precipitation
should also be considered.

The affinity of a soil for phosphorus as well as the total capacity of phosphorus
retention is crucial to determine an appropriate site to apply wastewater. The sorption

characteristics of a soil reflect the strength and capacity of phosphorus retention. These

3

characteristics can be highly variable within a soil profile, soil series and between soil series,

thus making phosphorus sorption prediction difficult.

Phosphorus in Soils

The total amount of phosphorus in a soil can vary dramatically depending on soil
mineralogy, land use, vegetation and depth. Labile P concentrations for Michigan soil series
can range from less than 10 ppm to greater than 100 ppm in the surface horizons. In general,
labile P concentrations are highest in the surface horizons and decrease with depth.
Vegetation acts to cycle the phosphorus from the root zone to the surface where it can
accumulate as a constituent of organic matter.

Phosphorus in soils may be divided into two broad categories, inorganic and
organic. The relative proportions of these two forms can vary widely. Furthermore, the two
forms of P are continuously converted from one to the other within the dynamic P cycle in
soils (Lindsay et al., 1989).

The soil solution can be viewed as a dynamic reservoir. Phosphorus concentrations
in the soil solution are a reflection of P inputs, outputs and the thermochemical properties
of the soil. Inputs from P-bearing minerals, wastewaters and fertilizers coupled with
biological uptake and sorption are the primary influences for soil solutions with typical P
concentrations. At higher P concentrations, precipitation may dominate.

Various kinds of secondary phosphate minerals, resulting from the weathering of
apatites, have been found in soils (Lindsay et al., 1989). Phosphorus released into solution

by weathering from P-bearing minerals and P additions from plant residues and fertilizers,

4
sorbs or reprecipitates primarily in the clay fraction (Black, 1967). As a result, the P per unit
weight in the clay fraction usually exceeds that in the coarser particle-size fractions. The
clay fraction of soils is typified by a large, reactive surface area formed by colloidal primary
and secondary minerals. These minerals tend to be more amorphous than crystalline

resulting in a surface area attractive to phosphate bearing complexes.

Phosphorus in Wastewater

The concentration of phosphate in wastewaters can vary depending upon its source.
“Different kinds of wastewaters are created from various water uses of society” (Jacobs,
1977). The concentration of phosphate in the primary effluent from a single family home
to be treated by a septic field can range from 8 to 14 ppm while municipal wastewaters that
undergo primary and secondary treatment prior to land application typically have effluent
phosphate concentrations around 10 ppm (Jacobs, 1977). In municipalities where storm
water runoff is isolated from sewage wastewater, the concentration of all pollutants in
sewage wastewater can be expected to be higher.

Both inorganic and organic phosphorus can be found in domestic wastewaters.
Organic phosphorus may predominate in wastewater originating from human or other animal
sewage, whereas inorganic phosphate can be expected to predominate from some industries.
The relative ratio of the two forms is dynamic in most systems. High numbers of bacteria
and other microorganisms in domestic septic tanks and municipal sewage wastewater prior

to chlorine treatment cycle the phosphonrs and other nutrients from form to form.

Phosphorus Sorption in Soils

Surface sorption of phosphate, which can include physical adsorption,
chemisorption, and anion exchange, is thought to be responsible for the removal of
phosphate from dilute phosphate solutions, i.e. typical wastewaters (Sample et al., 1980).
Iron and aluminum sesquioxides with surface metal OH groups can associate with metal
cations and various inorganic and organic anions (Rai and Kittrick, 1989). Anions of weak
acids, such as phosphate, are strongly sorbed on oxide surfaces. This sorption can occur in
excess of the surface charge, i.e. cations may be sorbed on a positively charged surface and
anions on a negatively charged surface (McKenzie, 1989)(Hsu, 1975; 1976). The phosphate
ion is strongly attracted to aluminum oxide surfaces, displacing OH' or H20 from the oxide
surface in a ligand exchange reaction (Hsu, 1989). Sorption may also involve the loss of H *

from H3 PO4 , HZPO4 ' , or HPO," (Hsu, 1975, 1976).

Sorption Isothenns

The amount of a particular ion sorbed in soils can vary depending mainly on its
activity in, and the pH and the ionic strength of, the equilibrium solution. Phosphate
sorption has been shown to vary with soil/solution ratios (Hope & Syers, 1976; Barrow &
Shaw, 1979), ionic strength (Ryden et al., 1977), and cation species of the supporting
electrolyte (Barrow et al., 1980; Helyar etal., 1976) (Nair et al., 1984). In general, however,
at a given pH, sorption increases with increasing activity (Schwertrnann and Taylor, 1989).
The relationship between phosphate activity (or concentration) and sorption can be

described by a sorption equation such as the Langmuir or the F reundlich isotherms.

6
The Langmuir equation has the form:
(P)/(X/m) = I/Kb + (P)/b
where: (P) = the “activity” of PO4-P in the equilibrium solution in mg/L
X/m = mg sorbed (X) per kg soil
b = the adsorption maximum of the soil (mg/kg)
K = a constant related to the bonding energy (L/m g)

The F reundlich equation has the form:

X/m = c[P]“K
where: X/m = mg sorbed (X) per kg soil
c = a constant
[P] = concentration of PO4-P in the equilibrium solution in mg/L
K = a constant

Olsen and Watanabe (1957) used the Langmuir isotherm to describe phosphate
sorption in soils. They concluded that the Langmuir equation applies for relatively smaller
amounts of sorbed phosphorus and consequently at more dilute equilibrium phosphorus
concentrations; whereas, the Freundlich isotherm is a better model over a wide range of
equilibrium concentrations and for large amounts of sorbed phosphorus. “The major
advantage of the Langmuir equation over the Freundlich equation is that an adsorption
maximum can be calculated” (Olsen and Watanabe, 1957). They affirmed that the constants
calculated from the Langmuir isotherm and interpretations based upon the meaning of these
constants permit a sound theoretical approach to some of the problems of phosphorus

retention in soils.

7

The Langmuir equation, originally developed to describe monolayer adsorption of
a gas on a surface, assumes that the sorption will be determined in a system in which the
surface initially would be free of the adsorbate ion. This, however, is not the case in a
natural soil system. To calculate the true sorption capacity in soils that contain phosphate
prior to a phosphate sorption experiment, the amount of initially sorbed phosphate should
be determined in a separate analysis and added to the quantity sorbed during the experiment
to give total sorbed phosphate. The Langmuir equation can be used to describe the relation
between total sorbed phosphate and the activity of phosphate in the equilibrium solution.
Olsen and Watanabe (1957) found that this correction increases both the Langmuir
adsorption maximum (b) and the constant, K, for a given soil, but tends to correct for

differences in the value of K as a result of the initial soil fertility level.

Variability of Phosphorus Sorption

“Variation in phosphate sorptivity is often associated with soil attributes used to
define soil mapping units’ (Burnham and Lopez-Hemandez, 1982). To date, little work has
been done to characterize the variability of phosphorus sorption within a soil profile, soil
series or soil management group. The identification of the source and characterization of
this variability can greatly enhance the accuracy of the prediction of phosphate sorption for
different soils.

Lopez-Hemandez (1987) studied the variation in phosphorus sorption within a soil
series using a one-point isotherm index He found the variation in sorption index within a

soil series to be considerably less than the variation in a more diverse collection of samples.

8

He also found that the magnitude of the variation remained relatively constant over small
and large distances. Lopez-Hemandez (1987) determined the variation over distance within
a soil series using the hierarchical, nested ANOVA classification analysis. For the topsoils,
Lopez-Hemandez (1987) found that, although the soil series differ according to their
capacity to sorb phosphate (F, 2699'”), variation among distant samples (e.g., 10 mi,

different sites) was not much larger than variation over short distances (100 m).

Sources of Variation

Variation in phosphorus sorption capacity can be due to a combination of factors,
particularly the calcium concentration of neutral and alkaline soils, and the iron and
aluminum oxide concentrations of neutral to acid soils. Soil heterogeneity caused by parent
material differences, vegetation influences, topography and weathering can all affect the
mineralogical, biological and chemical characteristics of a soil, which in turn can affect
phosphate sorption. Most of these differences can be normalized by examining soils
according to their soil series.

It is believed that the variation in phosphate sorption capacity can be characterized
for soils from different soil series and soil management groups making the accurate
prediction of sorption capacity for a wide variety of soils possible. My objectives were to
measure phosphate sorption capacity for a wide range of soil series, and determine whether
P sorption capacity and sorption coefficients measured for one location of a soil series are
applicable to other sites with the same soil series. A related objective was to determine

whether P sorption maxima can be predicted (from the data base produced by this and prior

9

research) based on a textural or a drainage class. A final objective was to determine whether

variation in phosphate sorption capacity can be explained in terms of an easily measured soil

prOPerty.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Selection of Soil Series and Sampling Locations

Soil series were chosen based upon 1) their potential as sites for wastewater
application, 2) high total acreage in Michigan and 3) a lack of reliable phosphonrs
adsorption parameter data. The soil sampling locations were identified by using published
Michigan Soil Survey reports. Sites were chosen based upon 1) the size of the mapping unit
(large units were preferred), 2) current land use (agricultural and nondisturbed sites were
preferred) and 3) the accessibility of the site. Soil series identifications were confirmed in
the field using color, texture, depth, and the presence of carbonates as described in published
Soil Survey reports for the appropriate county.

At each sampling site, samples were obtained from at least five soil borings, using
a standard 3 inch bucket auger. Individual soil horizons were sampled separately. If color
or textural changes in the parent material were observed above the water table, up to three
subsoil samples from depths below the last mapped horizon were obtained. The five soil
borings for each horizon were thoroughly mixed in the field. A subsample of the
composited sample for each horizon sampled was put into a labeled paper bag. The soils

were air-dried and mechanically ground to pass an 18-mesh (l-mm) sieve. The <l-mm

10

11

samples were thoroughly mixed and stored in labeled air-tight glass bottles. Samples for

each horizon from 3 complete profiles for each of six soil series were obtained.

Bray-Kurtz P1 Extraction

Extractable phosphorus for each composite sample was determined by using a
procedure similar to the one developed by Bray-Kurtz (1945). Five grams (i 0.01 g) of air-
dried soil from each sample was weighed, in duplicate, into 125-mL Erlenmeyer flasks.
F ifty mL of Bray-P1 extracting solution (0.025 N HCl + 0.03 N NIL F) was added to each
flask. The samples and a control (no soil) were shaken for 5 min on a rotary shaker at 180
rpm. The solutions were filtered through Whatrnan 5 filter paper into polyethylene
scintillation vials, which were then capped and stored at 4 °C until ready to analyze.

Standards for the analysis were made using the Bray-P1 extracting solution as the
matrix A top standard of 5 ppm P as KHZPO4 was used. The filtered samples were diluted
when necessary to remain within the standard range. The solutions were analyzed on a
Lachat Flow Injection Analyzer with a 880 nm filter using the ascorbic acid method of

Murphy and Riley (1962).1

Langmuir Adsorption Isotherms
Potassium phosphate was dried for 24 hours at 100 °C. One liter of 1000 ppm P
standard solution was prepared from the dried KH2P04 with 25 mL of 7 N H 2SO 4 added to
reduce microbial growth.

A series of equilibration solutions containing 0, 4, 8, l2, 16, 20, or 24 ppm P were

 

lReagent A was prepared saturated with boric acid to keep fluoride from interfering with color development.

12

prepared by adding the appropriate volume of 1000 ppm P standard solution to 0.01 M
CaClz. The final pH of the solutions was adjusted to 6.0 with 12 M HCl to prevent the
precipitation of Cal-1P04 .

For each initial P concentration, duplicate 5.0 g (i 0.01 g) soil samples from each
horizon were weighed into 125-mL Erlenmeyer flasks. F ifiy mL of appropriate equilibration
solution was added to each flask. The flasks were covered with parafilm. A small uniform
hole was placed in the center of each parafilm sheet to keep the samples aerobic. Samples
were shaken for 24 h at 200 rpm on a rotary shaker at 25:}:3 °C. After equilibration, the
solutions were filtered through Whatrnan 5 filter paper into polyethylene vials. The vials
were capped and frozen until the samples could be analyzed.

Prior to analysis, the frozen solutions were completely thawed in a warm water bath
and vigorously shaken for several minutes. The samples were analyzed for phosphorus by
the ascorbic acid method of Murphy and Riley (1962) on the Lachat FIA with an 880 nm
filter.

For most samples, a top standard of 2 ppm P as KH2P04 was used in the analysis.
Samples above this range were rerun with a 5 ppm top standard. If the equilibrium
phosphorus concentration was above 5 ppm, the sample was not reanalyzed due to the
probability that phosphorus would precipitate at those concentrations in the soil.

The amount of phosphate adsorbed by the soil was determined using the equation:

Bray P1(mg/kg) + [(Pmmlg/L) - PM (mg/14)) "‘ (50 1111/58 80“) ‘ (IL/1000 mL) ‘ (lOOOg/kg)]

= Psorbed (mg/kg)

A computer progranr, PISO 3.0, was developed and used to calculate the Langmuir

l3

sorption values. This program, which uses the linear form of the Langmuir equation,
modified to account for initially sorbed phosphorus, was used to calculate the “sorption
maximum” of the soil and the associated affinity constant. The form of the equation used
was:
(P)/(X/m) = 1/Kb + (P)/b
Where: (P) = the “activity” of PO4-P in the equilibrium solution in
mg/L

X/m = mg sorbed (X) per kg soil

b = the adsorption maximum of the soil (mg/kg)

K = a constant related to the bonding energy (lng)

The activity of P in the equilibrium solution was calculated by first calculating the
ionic strength of the matrix solution and then calculating an activity coefficient for
phosphate in solution. The ionic strength (I) is calculate by using the equation:

0.5 * (((CaCl2 mol/L) * (valence of Ca)2 ) + (2 *(CaC12 mol/L) * (valence of Cl)2)) = I

The activity coefficient (y) for phosphate is calculated by using the Davies Equation:

10 (-0.5085 " (valence ofH2PO4-Y‘2 " (1)“ 0.5 / (l + 1.312 ‘ (I) " 0.5) = ,Y

The activity of phosphate in the equilibrium solution (P) is calculated by:
(y) "‘ (Final P in solution mg/L) = (P)
The ratio of solution (P) to sorbed P is typically given the symbol (P)/X/m and is used as the
dependent variable in the linear form of the Langmuir equation:
(P)/X/m = 1le + (P)/b

Thus, when (P)/X/m is plotted as a linear function of (P), the adsorption maximum,

14

b, is equal to the inverse of the slope and the slope divided by the intercept is equal to K, the

Langmuir sorption coefficient.

1M and 0.1 M Sodium Acetate Extractions

Calcium was extracted and carbonates were freed from the soils with a double
sodium acetate extraction technique. One gram (:1: 0.01g) of soil for each sample was
weighed in duplicate into weighed 50 mL plastic centrifuge tubes. A water bath was
prepared and heated to 85 °C (i 10°).

The first extraction used a 1 M NaOAc solution acidified by the addition of 90 mL
of glacial acetic acid per L of sodium acetate solution. The extracting solution was
preheated in the water bath. Forty mL of the hot solution was added to each tube. The
samples were capped and shaken, the caps were loosened to allow gas exchange and the
tubes were placed into the water bath. After 30 minutes, the tubes were centrifuged at 2000
rpm for 8 minutes, the supematants decanted into labeled 125 ml. Erlenmeyer flasks, and
the remaining soil preserved for the next extraction.

The second extraction used a 1:10 dilution of the acidified 1M NaOAc solution
preheated in the water bath. Forty mL of hot diluted solution was added to each tube. The
sample tubes were capped and shaken, the caps were loosened and the tubes were placed
into the water bath After 30 minutes, the tubes were centrifuged at 2000 rpm for 8 minutes
and the supematants combined with the first supematants. The supematants were mixed and
a subsample of the solution decanted into labeled polyethylene scintillation vials and stored

on the bench top until analyzed. The tubes were reweighed to determine the volume of

15

solution remaining with the soil.

The combined extracts were analyzed for calcium using an atomic absorption
spectrophotometer with standards (0, 10, 25, 50, 75 and 100 ppm) made from a 1:1 mixture
of the two sodium acetate extractants. Samples were diluted when necessary to remain
within a 0.00 to 1.00 absorbance range. The concentration of calcium (mg/kg soil) was

determined using a standard curve from the laboratory analysis.

Ammonium Oxalate Extractions

Iron and Aluminum were extracted from the sodium-saturated samples after the
sodium acetate extraction using a 0.2 M (NH,,)2C,IO8 solution acidified to pH 3.1 with 12 M
HCl. Forty-five mL of extracting solution was added to each tube. Immediately after adding
the exuactant, the tubes were capped, shaken and placed into a dark drawer until one set of
sixteen tubes was completed (centrifuge capacity). The tubes were assembled in a rack,
wrapped in aluminum foil to protect from light and placed on a reciprocating shaker for 2
hours on low. At the end of the two hours the tubes were unwrapped and centrifuged at
2000 rpm for 8 minutes. The supematants were decanted into polyethylene scintillation
vials and stored on the bench top until analyzed. The concentration of iron and aluminum
(mg/L) was determined with a DCP atomic emission spectrometer and standards (0, 50 ppm)

prepared from the oxalate extracting solution.

RESULTS

Average Langmuir b values for A, B, and C master horizons of seventeen soil series
are reported in Table 1. The averages represent several different locations of one series, and
in some cases, individual horizons of B or C master horizons (see Figures 1 and 2 for
examples of the individual horizons that are averaged to give a single average for each main
horizon). Two-storied soils are listed twice, once for the upper material (designated I) and
once for the lower material (designated II). Although transitional horizons were sampled
and analyzed, data from these horizons and from layers beyond the deepest identified or
described horizon (881, SS2, and SS3) were not included in master horizon averages.

Average Iangmuir b values for master horizons in each soil series varied from 48
mg/kg (Emmet C) to 304 mg/kg (Thetford A) (Table 1). There was no general trend of
Langmuir B values being higher in one horizon or another, and in many cases, the average
b value did not differ significantly among A, B and C master horizons. Coefficients of
variation for b values exceeded 30% in 18 of 45 master horizons for which replicate data are
available; and exceeded 20% in 30 of 45 master horizons. It is not possible to compare
standard deviations (or coefficients of variation) among soil series because the number of
samples included in each average differs among horizons and ranges from one to twelve.

However, the horizons with the lowest coefficients of variation generally are horizons for

16

17

which the averages represent more than one horizon from a single profile, not profiles from
several locations.

Average Langmuir K values for A, B, and C horizons are reported in Table 2.
Average Langmuir K values ranged from 0.58 L/mg (Emmet A) to 10.4 L/mg (Tedrow B).
There was no general trend of one horizon always having the greatest or smallest Langmuir
K values, and often K values did not differ significantly between A, B, and C horizons, just
as was the case for b values. The coefficients of variation for Langmuir K values were
typically much greater than for b values; coefficients of variation were greater than 30% for
27 of 45 master horizons for which standard deviations are available and were over 20% for
40 of 45 master horizons (Table 2).

Given the uncertainty associated with using average b and K values for master
horizons in each soil series, a more general grouping based on soil texture class or drainage
class may provide average b and K values that are equally reliable but more broadly
applicable than those based on soil series. Such groupings would obviate the need to
measure b and K values for each soil series. A single value could be used for all soils in a
single textural or drainage class.

When b and K values for each series in a textural class (Table 3) or drainage class
(Table 4) are averaged together, the coefficients of variation are comparable to those when
soils are grouped by series. Further, the relative deviation for all three master horizons in
each texture class (Table 3) or drainage class (Table 4) is again comparable to that for
individual horizons of each series (Tables 1 and 2). Finally, the “global” average b (1743264

mg/kg; Table 4) and K (3.42zt2.40) values might be fairly close to the values obtained for

18

most individual soil profiles if profile “depth-weighted” averages were calculated, or if a
single isotherm was measured on composite borings from entire soil profiles.

In an effort to find a chemical explanation for the variability in Langmuir b and K
values within a single soil series, NaOAc-extractable Ca and oxalate-extractable Fe and Al
were measured in all horizons of eighteen soil profiles (three locations for each of six soil
series). Figures 1 through 6 Show P sorption capacity, Ca, Al, and Fe as a function of depth
for each profile. AS these figures clearly Show, phosphate sorption capacity and soil
chemical properties can vary widely within a soil profile, between locations for the same soil
series, and between soil series. Several soil series show so much variability that it is
suspected another soil series may have been sampled inadvertently. For example, Figure 1
shows the data for a Barry soil from three different locations. The profiles from location one
and three appear to be similar, whereas the profile from location two appears to be quite
different These figures also Show that at different sampling sites a particular horizon may
occur at different depths or may even be absent from some sampling sites of a single series.

Clearly, there is no simple trend between phosphate sorption capacity and soil
chemical properties (Figures 1-6). The relationship is obviously complex and dependent on
many things. A regression analysis was used to evaluate the dependence of phosphate
sorption on each chemical property measured.

When the dependence of Langmuir b values on calcium, aluminum, and iron was
determined by simple regression the relationship was only significant (ps0.01) for aluminum
(Figures 7abc). Next, the dependence of Langmuir b values on combined calcium,

aluminum, and iron concentrations was determined with multiple regression. Phosphate

l9

sorption capacity was found to be closely related to calcium, aluminum and iron oxide
content in the soils (p50.01; Figure 7d). That relationship can be described by the equation:
Langmuir b (mg/kg) = [(0.001]"‘ mg Ca/kg)+(0.0826 " mg Al/kg)+(0.0041*mg Fe/kg)]+153.50

This equation shows the relative dependence of phosphate sorption capacity on
calcium, aluminum and iron oxide content in the soil. Calcium has the smallest influence
on phosphate sorption capacity. Iron oxide shows a greater influence than Ca on phosphate
sorption capacity. Aluminum oxide content in the soils shows the greatest influence on
phosphate sorption capacity, more than 20 times that of iron and more than 75 times that of

calcium.

20

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table l-Langmuir b values (mg/kg) for soil series organized by soil
management group
SMG Soil Series A Horizon B Horizon C Horizon
1.5c Sims3 212 d: 124 150 i 40 198 i3
3/2a Owosso II2 “*1 252 201
4/2a Metea II2 *** 248 i 81 225 i 84
2.53 Miami3 138i4l 131 :t 14 173:1:17
2.5b Conover’ 107 :l: 3 202 :t 76 135 i 3
2.5c Brookston3 227 i 60 166 d: 8 141
2.5c Parkhill“ 147 d: 137 227 a: 134 223 a: 50
3a Emmet3 51 97 :1: 6 48
3a Oshtemo4 116 :l: 18 79 82 :t 57
3/2a Owosso I2 197 at 16 241 :t 23 232 i 8
3b Locke2 209 :t 40 264 :1: 37 260 :t 102
3c Bany’ 204i31 186i56 216:52
43 Spinksz' 3 128 at 49 129 d: 48 92 :t 21
4/2a Metea I2 60 d: 37 228 i 67 “*
4b Thetford2 304 i 81 198 i 72 162 :1: 74
5a Oakville2 197 i 44 180 :l: 50 191 :t 61
5b Tedrow2 274 i 154 206 :1: 130 115 :l: 37
5c Granby“ 254s45 105s25 8] s41

 

' Horizon not represented in featured textural class for SMG (two-storied soil)
2 Data from Remus (1995)
3 Data from Singh (1969)

" Data from personal communication with Ellis (1993)

 

21

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2-Langmuir K values (leg) for soil series organized by soil
management group
SMG Soil Series A Horizon B Horizon C Horizon
1.5c Sims3 0.85 d: 0.49 0.60 :l: 0.49 2.54 :1: 1.06
3/2a Owosso IF ”‘1 4.17 2.30
4/2a Metea II2 "* 4.69 i 0.62 4.20 i 1.22
2.5a Miami3 0.66 d: 0.69 3.28 i 3.74 4.12 :1: 0.91
2.5b Conover’ 0.91 3c 0.25 2.70 11.27 1.69 :t 0.38
2.5c Brookston3 1.06 d: 1.24 2.15 d: 0.10 0.95
2.5c Parkhill“ 2.49 :1: 0.66 1.63 i 1.17 1.69 :l: 0.40
3a Emmet} 0.58 1.18 :t 0.13 1.00
3a Oshtemo‘ 0.30 i 0.22 1.61 0.93 :1: 0.25
3/2a Owosso I" 4.93 :t 1.19 5.51 d: 1.71 3.00 :1: 0.88
3b Locke2 3.67 :l: 0.64 3.91 :t 0.87 4.71 :t 2.07
3c Barry“z 3.39 :t 0.78 4.76 i 1.65 3.39 i 0.84
4a Spinksz'3 2.57 :l: 2.93 1.11 a: 0.86 0.64 d: 0.45
4/2a Metea I2 6.03 d: 2.47 6.61 d: 2.66 ”*
4b Thetfordz 8.92 at 6.24 7.08 :t 3.44 4.35 :l: 1.36
5a Oakville2 5.95 i 0.72 5.74 :t 2.84 3.70 d: 2.59
5h Tedrow2 8.41 d: 3.33 10.4 :1: 6.20 3.09 :l: 0.76
5c Granbyz’4 5.73 i 5.86 6.94 i 2.85 1.47 d: 1.36

 

1 Horizon not represented in featured textural class for SMG (two-storied soil)
2 Data from Remus (1995)
3 Data from Singh (1969)

4 Data from personal communication with Ellis (1993)

 

22

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3—Average Langmuir b and K values for textural classes for n soil series in
each class
Textural A B C Ave A B C Ave
Class Horizon Horizon Hor'mon Horizon Horizon Horizon
h K
(ms/ks) (Ulla)
2
L to SiCL ""‘ 250 213 231 "" 4.43 3.25 3.84
2 $3 $17 $24 $0.37 $1.34 $1.05
n=2
2.5
LtoSiL 155 181 168 168 1.28 2.44 2.11 1.94
3 $51 $42 $40 $42 $0.82 $0.71 $1.38 $1.05
n=4
3
SL 151 163 158 157 2.31 3.10 2.37 2.59
’~ 3' ‘ $63 3:79 $89 :73 $1.93 $1.86 11.56 $172
n=5
4
LS 164 185 127 163 5.84 4.93 2.49 4.66
1 3 $126 $51 $49 $79 $3.18 $3.32 $2.62 $3.00
n=3
5
S 242 164 129 178 6.70 7.69 2.75 5.71
2" $40 $52 $56 $66 $1.49 $2.42 $1.15 $2.73
n=3
Ave 171 183 163 174 3.53 4.11 2.57 3.42
$73 $57 $63 $64 $2.84 $2.62 $1.36 $2.40

 

 

 

 

 

1 Horizon not represented in featured textural class (two-storied soils)
2 Data from Remus (1995)

3 Data from Singh (1969)

4 Data from personal communication with Ellis (1993)

23

 

Table 4-Average Langmuir b and K for drainage classes for n soil
series in each class

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Drainage Horizon Horizon
Class A B C Ave A B C Ave
b K
(mg/kg) (Ia/mg)
a
Well to
Well 127 176 155 155 2.75 3.55 2.34 2.91
Drained $58 $69 $71 $67 $2.50 $2.08 $1.45 $2.02
1, 2, 3
n=9
b
Somewhat
Poorly 262 223 179 203 5.48 6.02 3.46 4.99
Drained $87 $31 $64 $64 $3.85 $3.45 $1.37 $3.02
1.2
n=4
c
Poorly
to 208 167 172 182 2.70 3.22 2.01 2.64
VPoorly $39 $45 $60 $49 $1.99 $2.59 $0.96 $1.89
Drained
l. 2, 3
n=5
Ave 171 183 163 174 3.53 4.11 2.57 3.42
$73 $57 $63 $64 $2.84 $2.62 $1.36 $2.40
1 Data from Remus (1995)
2 Data from Singh (1969)

3 Data from personal communication with Ellis (1993)

 

24

 

 

 

0 so 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
(ms/ks)

l-D-Iangrmnrb 43- 1/500 Ca —v— 1/10Al ~O— 1/10 Fe

 

 

 

 

 

0 so 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
(mg/kg)

 

bunglnuirb-D—IISOOCa «whom +I/Iore j

 

 

N
UIO

Mk!!!)
3 8

 

i

0 so 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
(mg/kg)

E

 

 

 

 

 

l-I-Langmuil'b-D—I/SOOCa +i/10AI -<*1/10Fe j

 

 

Figure l-Phosphate sorption capacity and Ca, Al & Fe for three Barry soil profiles

 

 

 

 

 

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

 

F-ungmirb {s 1/500Ca —°—1/10Al + 1/10Fe

 

 

Metea 2

 

 

0 so 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
(me/ks)

 

l-O-Langmuirbfl—IISOOCa -°-1/10A1 +1/10Fe I

 

 

Metea 3

 

 

0 so 100150200250300350400450
(ms/ks)

 

FI-Langmuirb-D-USOOCa +1110“ -O—1/10Fe I

 

 

 

Figure 2-Phosphate sorption capacity and Ca, Al & Fe for three Metea soil profiles

26

 

 

Oakville 1

 

 

0 so 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
(Ma)

 

I’mgmiiiber/soou +1/10Al -°-1/10Fe ]

 

 

Oakville 2

 

 

0 so 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
(ma/ks)

 

l-I-Langmuirbfl—USOOCa —v—1/10Al -0—1/10Fe j

 

 

Oakville 3

 

 

0 so 100 Iso 200 250 300 350 400 450
(ma/ks)

 

[maximums «c» I/soooi + 1/10Al + 1/10Fe

 

 

 

Figure 3-Phosphatc sorption capacity and Ca, A1 & Fe for three Oakville soil profiles

27

 

Owosso l

 

 

0 50 IN 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

 

l-I-Langmuirb a} l/SOOCa -v-1/10A1 + 1/10 Fe

 

 

 

 

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
(

 

[*Langmuirb-v—IISOOCa —v—1/10Al +1/10Fe4]

 

 

 

 

0 so 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
(ms/ks)

 

I-D-Langmuirb s} 1500 Ca + 1/10A1 + 1/10 Fe

 

 

 

Figure 4-Phosphate sorpu'on capacity and Ca, A1 & Fe for three Owosso soil profiles

 

28

 

Tedrow 1

 

 

0 so 100 150 zoo 250 300 350 400 450
(ms/ks)

 

l-O-Iangrruh'b-D-IISOOCa +I/10Al -<>-1/10Fe J

 

 

Tedrow 2

 

 

0 so 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
(mg/kg)

[*Langmuirbfl-l/SOOCa —V—II10A1 -o—1/10Fe

 

 

 

Tedrow 3

 

 

0 so 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
(ma/k8)

 

 

l-l-Iangrruirb-G-l/SOOCa +1110» -<>—1/10Fe

 

 

Figure 5-Pbosphate sorption capacity and Ca, Al & Fe for three Tedrow soil profiles

 

29

 

Thetford 1

    

N
Mb)

Depth (cm)
2: u

0 so 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
(mg/kg)

[*Langrmrirb-G-I/SOOCa +1/10Al +1/10Fe j

 

 

 

Thetford 2

    

 

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

 

*ungrnuirb-D—l/SOOCa +1/10Al -O-l/10Fe j

 

 

Thetford 3

or,” m 1:. . Mm:

    

0 so 100 150 200 250 zoo 350 400 450
(mg/kg)

 

 

-- Langmuir b {s Ifsob Ca ed- 1562’? A 1/10 F

 

 

 

Figure 6-Phosphate sorption capacity and Ca, Al & Fe for three Thetford soil profiles

30

on d _< 60 van 3683 .8398 32323 c353 95:23.2 2:.4. 82w."—

 

meme 5 Auu_e8.+_<o~8.+eo_ 53
can own com on. 2: on o

 

Onm W

8v 6
Onv

 

 

 

 

oh on _< 60 no a he 3:965qu 25.

 

 

Ame—3.5 :9:
00mm coon 8mm coon can. coo— OOm o
_l 3.5 ..NSITESRSIBE oo o co! “mm:

 

 

 

 

 

.8..— c=a a #:5931—

 

 

 

 

 

Awocwfiv SEES?
8mm 08m SnN ooom . 8w— Goa: Cow C
On
fl re SET—2.348... ass-.91; o coo.\ oo—

 

 

 

 

E=£E2< was a n=5—wean—

 

 

 

 

 

Amccw—S Ego—a0
coach oooow oooon oooov 88m ooocN 88. o

. an
r32. .eao~+..o_£88.o.iuaa”5_ o coed. co. m.

. . ... . e2
1 -.. .. 8mm
........ ....onw
.- a 8m w;
. own w
o9. mt

. emv

 

 

EEO—«U ...—a a n=5—”55

 

 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The variation in most soil mapping units makes it difficult to predict phosphate
sorption at one location based on b and K values measured for the same soil series at another
location. Horizon designations could differ greatly between mapping units from different
counties. Figure 4 illustrates the variation in horizon designations for Oakville from three
different counties. As a result of this variation, not every horizon was found at all sites, so
the number of horizons included in master horizon averages differed among locations, and
consequently not all locations make equal contributions to these averages.

Differences in the depth of the soils and in the individual horizon depths from
boring to boring at the same location introduced additional variation. Individual horizons
were encountered at different depths and had varying relative size within the profile. Depths
to the top of each horizon listed for each location (Figures 1-6) are the averages of the 5 soil
borings taken at each location. The depth at which the upper boundary of like horizons was
found, for all horizons sampled, varied by as much as 33 cm between borings. And finally,
because the water table was encountered at different depths, not all 5 soil borings terminated
at the same depth. As a result, the soil samples from the lower horizons may or may not
‘ have been from the composite of 5 soil borings. Occasionally, only one soil boring for a

horizon was possible for a profile, however, this mainly applies to soils sampled below the

31

32

C horizon ($81, 882, SS3). (See Appendix A for subsoil data)

The “purity” of the mapping units can vary for each soil series. Mokma (1987)
found the agreement of transect observations with the soil series in the mapping unit name
varied from 45 to 63%. Such variability was found in this study, for example in the Barry
profiles (Figures 1-3). Barry 1 and Barry 3 show striking similarities between chemical
properties with depth, whereas Bany 2 appears to be quite different. Thus, it is difficult and
inaccurate at best to predict phosphate sorption, or any other chemical property for that
matter, on soil series mapping units.

Figures 1-6 show the variability of selected chemical properties within a soil profile
and soil series for six Michigan soil series. An examination of these figures shows the
prediction of phosphate sorption capacity based on other soil chemical properties would also
be difficult. Regardless of the number of different analyses used to predict phosphate
sorption capacity, the reliability of such predictions depends on obtaining a truly
representative sample in the field that, unfortunately, is dependent on the spatial variability
of soil properties at that site.

In the mean time, predicting sorption based on averages obtained from soil series
or soil management groups could lead to under- or over-estimated sorption capacities. Until
new mapping resources are available, such as high resolution soil maps or soil maps based
on chemical properties, phosphate sorption constants should be determined by isotherm
analysis on a site specific basis. Of course, the accuracy of these isotherms would be
dependent upon the quality of the soil samples obtained and subject to the spatial variability

of the sampling site.

33

In lieu of laboratory phosphate sorption examination, sorption capacity can be
predicted by using the conservative averages obtained from soil series or soil management
groups, calculated as the average less the standard deviation. Using the conservative
capacities would help to ensure that P movement from wastewater disposal sites to
groundwater and ultimately to surface water would be minimal. Whether soil series
averages or soil management group averages are used makes little difference as long as the
conservative estimate is used. The accuracy of an estimate of phosphate sorption capacity
based on overall averages from all soils would be comparable to the accuracy of an

assessment based on soil mapping units.

APPENDIX A

I Table 5-Soil clas_fca__s
Soil Series

APPENDIX A

 

 

Bany

Brookston

Capac
Conover

Emmet
Granby
Locke
Marlette
Metea
Miami
Oakville
Oshtemo
Owosso
Parkhill
Sims
Spinks
Teasdale
Tedrow
Thetford

 

Fine-loamy, mixed, mesic, Typic Argiaquolls
F inc-loamy, mixed, mesic, Typic Argiaquolls
Fine-loamy, mixed, mesic, Aerie Endoaqualfs
Fine-loamy, mixed, mesic, Aeric Endoaqualfs
Coarse-loamy, mixed, Typic Eutroboralfs
Sandy, mixed, mesic, Typic Endoaquolls
Fine-loamy, mixed, mesic, Aquollic Hapludalfs
Fine-loamy, mixed, mesic, Haplic Glossudalfs
Loamy, mixed, mesic, Arenic Hapludalfs
Fine-loamy, mixed, mesic, Typic Hapludalfs
Mixed, mesic, Typic Udipsamments
Coarse-loamy, mixed, mesic, Typic Hapludalfs
Fine-loamy, mixed, mesic, Typic Hapludalfs
Fine-loamy, mixed, nonacid, mesic, Mollic Endoaquepts
Fine, mixed, nonacid, frigid, Mollie Endoaquepts
Sandy, mixed, mesic, Psarnmentic Hapludalfs
Coarse-loamy, siliceous, mesic, Glossaquic Hapludalfs
Mixed, mesic, Aquic Udipsamments
Sandy, mixed, mesic, Psammaquentic Hapludalfs

 

34

 

 

35

 

Table 6-Soil samgling locgions

 

...—J

 

 

Soil Series County Township Section Number Location
Barry 1 Branch Union 13 SW% SE‘/4
Barry 2 Branch Union 32 SW% SE‘/4
Barry 3 Branch Quincy 18 NW‘/4 NW%
Capac 1 Eaton Hamlin 24 NE'/4 NE'/4

Granby 1 Wayne Sumpter 29 SE‘/4 SW‘/4
Granby 2 Washtenaw Augusta 36 SW‘/4 NE‘/4
Locke 1 Branch Union 13 815% SW%
Locke 2 Branch Bethel 22 SEM. NE'A

Marlette 1 Eaton Eaton Rapids 21 NE‘/4 SE‘/4
Metea l Gratiot New Haven 21 SW% NW%
Metea 2 Clinton Duplain 1 NW% NW%
Metea 3 Clinton Greenth 10 SW‘/4 SW‘/4

Oakville 1 Gratiot New Haven 17 SW‘/4 NE'/4

Oakville 2 Clinton Duplain 2 SE‘/4 SE‘/4

Oakville 3 Oakland Brandon 17 NW‘/4 SW74

Owosso 1 Lapeer Hadley 11 NW% NW%
Owosso 2 Branch Ovid 1 WA SW‘A
Owosso 3 Branch Bethel 24 SE‘/4 NE'/4
Parkhill 1 Eaton Oneida 17 NW% NW%
Spinks 1 Jackson Grass Lake 18 SE‘/4 SW'/4
Teasdale 1 Jackson Henrietta 7 NE% NW%
Tedrow 1 Wayne Sumpter 28 SW% SW‘A
Tedrow 2 Washtenaw Augusta 36 SEA NW'/4
Tedrow 3 Oakland Brandon 17 NE% SW%

Thetford 1 Wayne Sumpter 20 SE% NW‘/4

Thetford 2 Washtenaw Augusta 15 NW‘/4 NE'/4

Thetford 3 Clinton Duplain 2 NE‘/4 SE'/4

 

 

 

 

 

 

36

 

Table 7-Bray-Pl, Ca, Fe and Al

 

 

 

Soil Horizon Po,-r Ca Fe A1
Series (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
Buy 1 Ap 28.35 $ 0.49 3195 :1: 50 3379 $ 41 1738 $ 42

Btgl 1.20 $ 0.14 2274 $ 69 1252 $ 165 940 $ 179
Btg2 2.80 $ 0.00 1440 $ 37 977 $ 213 542 $ 111
BCg 3.80 $ 0.99 1233 $ 9 722 $ 68 336 $ 16
Cg 5.10 $ 0.99 14618 $ 35 598 $ 41 78 $ 13
851 4.65 $ 0.49 13434 $ 453 426 $ 41 101 $ 1
Barry 2 Ap 41.25 $ 0.78 2894 $ 92 2195 :l: 85 1054 $ 60
Btgl 3.25 $ 0.35 2446 $ 37 465 $ 26 158 $ 11
Btg2 1.30 $ 0.14 2524 $138 482 $ 10 200 :l: 39
BCg 1.20 $ 0.00 41807 $ 1604 1234 $ 49 144 $ 26
Cg 1.25 $ 0.07 55384 $1891 2022 $ 241 212 $ 14
S81 1.70 $ 0.71 34239 $ 35 1975 $ 76 82 $ 4
Barry 3 Ap 32.50 $ 1.13 2307 $ 32 2134 $ 18 1525 $ 104
Btgl 1.05 $ 0.78 2008 $ 50 1144 $ 4 1083 $ 67
Btg2 1.65 $ 0.07 1090 $ 28 826 $ 24 508 $ 85
BCg 1.85 $ 0.49 1836 $ 110 624 $ 9 261$ 10
Cg 1.60$0.l4 13977$ 1429 690$ 106 217$ 8
Capac l Ap 63.00 :1: 1.27 ‘" *" ”’
B & A 9.15 $ 0.07 *“ "’ ""
B21t 6.25 $ 0.21 ‘” ”* ”‘
B22t 4.70 $ 0.00 *“ ”* *“
B3 420 :i: am it. it. tit
C 2.05 i 007 8’. it. 0..
SS1 3.60 $ 0.71 "" *" “"
Granby 1 AP 68.60 :1: 0.14 no see our
Blg 25.25 $ 0.78 ‘“ ‘3‘ ‘”
82g 9.25 $ 0.35 "‘ "" ‘"
Cg 7.65 $ 0.64 on no no
Granby 2 Ap 221.50 $ 11.74 “‘ ”3 “‘
leg 30.70 $ 0.71 m m m
322g 14.00 $ 2.97 ”W ’3‘ ‘”
B3g 9.55 $ 0.92 “‘ "" ’”
C18 645 i 064 tit ttt $8.
C2g 10.20 $ 1.27 m m m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

37

 

 

 

 

Table 7-(cont’d)

Soil Horizon PO4-P Ca Fe Al
Serifi (mg/k8) (mg/k8) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
Locke l Ap 14,75 :1; 205 NW its an:

Btl 4.40 $ 0.14 "* *M n...
Bt2 4.00 $ 0.28 "* "It tn
C 9.60 $ 0.71 "W ”t mt
SSl 18.35 $ 1.06 "W a" tn
SS2 26.15 $ 0.21 *** ”It at
SS3 15.90 $ 0.42 “W "t in
Locke 2 Ap 45.30 $ 0.57 "‘I‘ "a t"
Btl 6.95 $ 0.35 ”W ml at
BIZ 1.40 :1: 0.00 "W at“ see
C 2.00 i 0.14 no on on
SS1 9.00 $ 0.14 "t "t m:
882 5.75 :t 0.07 "W tit sea
SS3 0.30 $ 0.42 "W m: «t
Marlettc 1 Ap 49.50 $ 0.14 no no on
B & A 6.05 $ 1.06 as” no no
82“ 3.40 :1: 0.85 *** in! ass
BZZt 1.10 $ 0.28 "W t“ an
BZ3t 1.20 $ 0.00 "t tn ass
C 1.10 $ 0.14 an an is”
SS1 1.80 $ 0.85 "t on ”at
852 1.20 $ 0.00 on an on
Marlettc 2 Ap 41.70 $ 0.14 t" us see
B & A 3.15 $ 0.92 "It on on
Bth 3.95 :1: 0.07 '1'" "It cos
B22t 0.95 $ 0.35 “W m: on
BZ3t 1.15 $ 0.07 "9 "a at
C 1.90 :1: 0.99 '1'" ”at us
Metea] Ap 59.30 $ 3.68 613 $ 32 712 $ 67 371$ 46
321 ll.00$0.00 188$0 291 $26 204$24
1322 5.15 $ 0.21 260 $ 9 403 $ 23 149 $ 148
IIBZt 4.00 $ 0.71 1534 $ 78 869 $ 25 993 $ 11
11C l.10$ 1.41 45011 $ 1185 353 $65 142$41
881 0.65 $ 0.07 46145 $ 139 334 $ 78 99 $ 25

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

38

 

 

 

 

Table 7-(c0nt’d)

Soil Horizon P04-P Ca Fe Al
Serie- (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
Metea 1 SS2 0.80 $ 0.00 61858 $ 3881 418 $ 34 117 $ 11
Metea 2 Ap 29.40 $ 0.28 1479 $ 46 1161 $ 166 662 $ 89

BI 3.45 $ 0.35 1142 $ 37 912 $ 124 582 $ 106
B21 3.45 $ 0.78 2774 $ 179 929 $ 49 813 $ 19
IIBZZt 2.20 $ 0.28 31034 $ 35 741 $ 61 136 $ 10
IIC 2.35 $ 0.07 29950 $ 1708 1214 $ 23 83 $ 14
Metea 3 Ap 11.20 $ 0.42 798 $ 0 833 $ 133 311 $ 57
BI 3.40 $ 0.28 1567 $ 216 1501 $ 284 553 $ 108
B2] 3.25 $ 0.07 4694 $ 151 1517 $ 138 516 $ 98
IIBZZt 3.30 $ 0.85 3971 $ 92 1316 $ 82 545 $ 53
IIC 2.70 $ 0.14 4869 $ 87 1292 $ 210 292 $ 45
Oakville 1 A1 75.05 $ 1.77 1103 $ 0 953 $ 2 1484 $ 1
BZ 15.95 $ 0.21 542 $ 50 306 $ 59 1394 $ 270
B3 4.90 $ 0.85 227 $ 18 87 $ 6 166 $ 2
BC 4.85 $ 0.21 240 $ 9 87 $ 1 154 $ 1
Cl 4.00$1.13 558$37 183$4 217$0
881 3.20 $ 0.85 12892 $ 662 179 $ 12 100 $ 12
SS2 1.95 $ 0.92 30714 $ 279 362 $ 75 107 $ 26
Oakville 2 Ap 126.60 $ 2.83 895 $ 18 911 $ 100 473 $ 60
821 93.85 $ 2.33 603 $ 18 830 $ 47 456 $ 71
B22 64.00 $ 0.71 393 $ 41 593 $ 45 313 $ 12
B3 23.35 $ 0.21 1278 $ 55 512 $ 54 226 $ 25
C 11.40$ 1.56 590$9 827$5 283 $3
SS1 5.60 $ 0.14 1337 $ 184 1251 $ 147 395 $ 44
S82 4.70 $ 0.14 34485 $ 4218 614 $ 112 78 $ 13
SS3 2.65 $ 0.07 50307 $ 4492 311 $ 33 24 $ 4
Oakville 3 Ap 13.75 $ 0.35 587 $ 5 832 $ 117 482 $ 74
821 16.70 $ 0.28 409 $ 28 411 $ 26 567 $ 53
822 4.95 $ 0.35 2225 $ 156 314 $ 25 245 $ 9
Cl 3.00 $ 0.14 16984 $ 1499 334 $ 25 168 $ 11
C2 2.10$0.42 31552$209 211 $8 67$9
Owosso 1 Ap 98.35 $ 1.06 954 $ 37 1235 $ 135 618 $ 84
A2 12.50 $ 0.42 542 $ 14 924 $ 53 494 $ 41
BI 6.30$0.l4 513$37 821$ 10 468$ 19

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

39

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7-(cont’d)
Soil Horizon PO4-P Ca Fe Al
Serb (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
Owosso 1 IIB2t 3.00 $ 0.14 2044 $ 404 863 $ 5 659 $ 16
IIC 3.10 :1: 0.00 16269 $ 2231 308 $ 12 113 $ 7
S81 3.85 $ 0.07 14322 $ 523 276 $ 61 88 $ 13
Owosso 2 Ap 47.15 $ 0.07 415 $ 9 984 $ 123 492 $ 72
BA 6.15 $ 0.49 548 $ 23 945 $ 119 411$ 81
Btl 4.75 $ 0.64 1204 $ 5 1088 $ 113 446 $ 72
2Bt2 3.55 $ 0.64 8410 $ 2957 1215 $ 113 337 $ 59
ZBt3 2.50 $ 0.00 14691 $ 279 1090 $ 50 335 $ 8
3C 2.90 $ 0.85 39391 $ 418 512 :1: 65 123 $ 23
Owosso 3 Ap 79.00 $ 1.41 766 $ 0 1826 $ 115 994 $ 99
BA 6.35 $ 0.35 503 $ 14 1747 $ 35 658 $ 24
Btl 3.35 $ 0.78 866 $ 23 1255 $ 207 460 $ 62
ZBt2 5.90 $ 0.42 882 $ 46 1627 $ 212 573 $ 56
286 3.60 $ 0.00 3831 $ 280 713 $ 200 219 $ 57
3C 2.55 $ 0.07 19769 $ 1185 450 $ 44 122 $ 9
Parkhill 1 Ap 65.05 $ 1.34 "W ‘3‘ "W
821g 2.95 $ 0.64 m m m
822g 2.15 $ 1.34 "" “* ”“
Clg 2.05 $ 0.07 ”" "W ”*
C2 190 :t 0m ##t 04$ 00*
Spinks 1 Ap 78.05 $ 2.76 m m m
A21 24.15 $ 0.21 “" “W 3”
A22 570 i 0.57 #1. it. ##t
A & B 5.50 $ 0.28 “" *" ‘“
S81 2.50 $ 0.14 ”‘ “" 3”
Teasdale 1 Ap 30.15 $ 0.78 "“ ”" "W
A2 275 i’ 0.49 #41 #4. ti#
B & A 2.95 $ 0.07 “W ”* “*
Bth 2.75 $ 0.07 “'1‘ *“ ““
Bzzt 260 :1: 0m ttt lit .0.
Cl 1.80 $ 0.00 "* ”* “W
C2 1.85 $ 0.07 ”" "‘ "‘
881 2.85 :1: 1.48 “* “W ”*
Tedrow 1 Ap 56.95 $ 0.78 451 $ 14 789 $ 122 1404 $ 260

 

 

 

Table 7-(cont’d)

 

J

 

 

Soil Horizon PO‘-P Ca Fe Al
Series (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
Tedrow 1 B21 12.85 $ 0.21 234 $ 9 354 $ 33 261 $ 32
B22 4.50 $ 0.28 279 $ 9 642 $ 17 95 $ 14
C 6.35 $ 0.07 214 $ 9 154 $ 33 60 $ 13
Tedrow 2 Ap 59.35 $ 1.63 733 $ 18 1218 $ 20 3081 $ 128
821 37.25 $ 0.35 75 $ 5 460 $ 42 3054 $ 384
BZZ 53.75 $ 0.49 45 $ 9 388 $ 124 1796 $ 374
823 34.20 $ 0.71 68 $ 14 802 $ 11 712 $ 31
B3 21.35$0.35 104$0 515$ 19 211$ 15
C 21.80 $ 0.42 221$ 0 730 $ 76 263 $ 130
Tedrow 3 Ap 4.80 $ 0.42 2657 $ 87 1614 $ 45 944 $ 40
821 2.25 $ 0.07 3293 $ 5 1626 $ 466 460 $ 175
B22 2.55 $ 0.07 4746 $ 491 774 $ 95 285 $ 14
BB 2.85 $ 0.64 5084 $ 96 129 $ 2 98 $ 1
C 2.20 $ 0.00 6255 $ 55 123 $ 23 61 $ 13
Thetford 1 Ap 51.50 $ 0.28 81 $ 14 1197 $ 33 1360 $ 6
A2 48.65 $ 2.47 52 $ 0 1250 $ 286 2073 $ 318
82 51.90 $ 0.99 32 $ 9 796 $ 108 1384 $ 93
A2 B’2t 27.60 $ 0.85 68 $ 5 516 $ 126 460 $ 120
B3 13.90 $ 2.12 130 $ 0 421 $ 122 134 $ 55
Cg 21.75 $ 0.35 208 $ 0 606 $ 55 145 $ 28
881 10.90 $ 2.55 107 $ 5 233 $ 20 106 $ 12
Thetford 2 Ap 94.45 $ 0.07 2345 $ 41 1953 $ 59 577 $ 22
82 4.90 $ 0.34 2670 $ 32 698 $ 25 441 $ 25
A2 & Bt 1.45 $ 0.85 26351 $ 1360 593 $ 319 122 $ 66
C 0.92 $ 0.66 20706 $ 139 201 $ 60 45 $ 16
SS1 1.03 $ 0.21 28989 $ 0 287 $ 20 50 $ 2
Thetford 3 Ap 51.55 $ 2.90 418 $ 87 1370 $ 44 852 $ 42
B1 24.45 $ 0.07 152 $ 23 646 $ 163 452 $ 126
A2 15.60 $ 0.00 88 $ 5 997 $ 50 639 $ 50
8’21 & A’2 8.35 $ 0.49 114 $ 5 1009 $ 36 276 $ 13
B’22tg 8.45 $ 0.07 88 $ 5 695 $ 40 173 $ 1
C 8.50 $ 0.00 334 $ 14 988 $ 22 205 $ 7
881 8.00 $ 0.99 279 $ 92 863 $ 336 179 $ 63
882 11.15 $ 0.07 279 $ 9 925 $ 86 205 $ 28

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

41

 

able 8-Data and arameters f0

H
Soil Series Horizon

r hos hate so tio

 

Final Langmuir

11 isotherms

Langmuir r’

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Initial
1’04 P0. K b
(Ila/L) (ma/L) (Una) (ms/ks)

Barry 1 Ap 2 0.12 $ 0.03 3.70 239 1.00
4 0.18 $ 0.04
8 0.36 $ 0.04
12 0.78 $ 0.02
16 1.70 $ 0.03
20 3.00 $ 0.01
24 4.86 $ 0.24

Barry 1 Btgl 4 0.10 $ 0.04 3.84 228 1.00
16 1.00 $ 0.06
20 2.17 $ 0.07
24 3.79 $ 0.03

Barry 1 Btg2 8 0.20 $ 0.00 4.19 216 0.99
16 1.24 $ 0.05
20 2.78 $ 0.20
24 4.18 $ 0.51

Bany 1 BCg 4 0.17 $ 0.02 3.27 175 1.00
8 0.43 $ 0.06
12 1.22 $ 0.02
16 2.66 $ 0.12
20 4.63 $ 0.04

Barry 1 Cg 2 0.07 $ 0.03 2.43 171 0.97
4 0.23 $ 0.01
8 0.80 $ 0.06
12 1.99 $ 0.05
16 3.32 $ 0.39
20 4.92 $ 0.00

Barry 1 SS1 2 0.07 $ 0.03 4.25 158 0.99
4 0.15 $ 0.03
8 0.60 $ 0.05
16 2.78 $ 0.25

Barry 2 Ap 4 0.44 $ 0.00 2.50 181 0.99
8 1.33 $ 0.15
12 2.78 $ 0.04
16 4.31 $ 0.06

 

 

42

 

 

Table ’cont’d) I
Soil Series Horizon Initial Final Langmuir Langmuir rz
P04 P0. K b
(mg/L) (Ills/L) (Um!) (ms/k8)

Barry 2 Btgl 2 0.14 $ 0.01 3.46 90 0.98
4 0.41 $ 0.02
6 0.99 $ 0.04
8 1.63 $ 0.01
10 3.23 $ 0.06
12 3.94 $ 0.02

Barry 2 Btg2 4 0.15 $ 0.01 3.44 147 0.99
8 0.67 $ 0.08
12 1.76 $ 0.13
16 3.23 $ 0.11

Barry 2 BCg 4 0.06 $ 0.01 4.21 214 0.99
8 0.22 :1: 0.00
12 0.66 $ 0.00
16 1.45 $ 0.04
20 2.76 $ 0.18
24 3.98 $ 0.02

Barry 2 Cg 4 0.07 $ 0.00 3.74 272 0.99
6 0.11 $ 0.00
8 0.16 $ 0.02
12 0.39 $ 0.00
16 0.86 $ 0.00
20 1.63 $ 0.01
24 2.68 $ 0.04

Barry 2 SS] 2 0.07 $ 0.02 5.05 119 0.99
4 0.12 :1: 0.01
6 0.35 $ 0.01
8 0.83 $ 0.01
12 2.62 $ 0.01
16 4.84 $ 0.08

Barry 3 Ap 2 0.16 $ 0.00 3.97 193 1.00
4 0.27 $ 0.00
6 0.41 $ 0.01
8 0.63 $ 0.01
12 1.37 $ 0.01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

43

 

, Table acont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Soil Series Horizon Initial Final Langmuir Langmuir r’
P0. P04 K 1)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (11mg) (mg/kg)

Barry 3 Ap 16 2.71 $ 0.07

Barry 3 Btgl 6 0.09 $ 0.00 7.34 227 1.00
8 0.12 :1: 0.00
12 0.29 $ 0.01
16 0.57 :1: 0.00
20 1.67 $ 0.00
24 2.83 :1: 0.12

Barry 3 Btg2 6 o. 10 $ 0.00 6.32 206 0.99
8 0.15 $ 0.00
12 03:42 0.03
16 1.03 :1: 0.05
20 2.76 :1: 0.02
24 4.30 $ 0.10

Barry 3 BCg 6 0.12 $ 0.03 5.41 214 0.99
8 0.14 :1: 0.00
12 0.48 $ 0.02
16 l. 10 :1: 0.12
20 2.51 :1: 0.25
24 3.89 $ 0.11

Barry 3 Cg 6 0.15 $ 0.02 4.00 204 0.99
8 0.26 $ 0.02
12 0.68 $ 0.05
16 1.51 $ 0.05
20 3.32 $ 0.06
24 4.90 $ 0.08

Capac 1 Ap 4 0.49 $ 0.05 5.25 165 1.00
8 1.49 :1: 0.03
12 3.38 :1: 0.01

Capac 1 B & A 4 0.18 $ 0.08 4.27 173 1.00
8 0.39 $ 0.06
12 1.03 $ 0.03
16 2.48 :1: 0.02
20 5.03 $ 0.47

Capac 1 Bth 4 0.14 $ 0.00 5.03 171 1.00

 

 

44

 

 

 

Table cont’d
Soil Series Horizon Initial Final Langmuir Langmuir 1”
00. P0. K b
(Ills/L) (mg/L) (Ulla) (ms/kg)
Capac 1 B2 1: 8 0.36 :1 0.01
12 0.86 :t 0.03
16 2.12 :1: 0.05
20 4.84 :1: 0.15
Capac 1 B22t 4 0.18 :1 0.03 3.26 173 1.00
8 0.50 :1: 0.02
12 1.19 A: 0.08
16 2.65 d: 0.09
20 4.95 :1: 0.47
Capac 1 B3 4 0.12 a: 0.02 2.60 248 0.98
8 0.34 :1: 0.04
12 0.75 i: 0.04
16 1.37 d: 0.17
20 2.39 d: 0.04
24 3.25 :1: 0.01
Capac 1 C 4 0.14 :1: 0.04 2.53 233 0.99
8 0.39 a: 0.02
12 0.88 :1: 0.11
16 1.31 :1: 0.17
20 2.37 :1: 0.21
Gmnby l Ap 4 0.22 d: 0.02 5.07 250 1.00
8 0.48 :1: 0.01
10 0.72 :1: 0.01
12 1.12 :1: 0.04
16 2.30 a: 0.06
20 3.72 i: 0.18
Granby 1 Blg 2 0.14 :1: 0.04 8.21 105 1.00
4 0.32 i: 0.01
6 0.73 :t 0.03
8 1.88 :t 0.21
10 2.51 d: 0.15
12 4.56 :1: 0.06
Granby l 323 2 0.27 :1: 0.05 4.18 69 1.00
4 0.69 :t 0.07

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

45

 

 

 

 

Table cont’d I
Soil Series Horizon Initial Final Langmuir Langmuir r'
P0. P0. K b
(mg/L) (mg/L) (Lima) (man‘s)

Granby 1 B2g 6 1.64 1 0.11
8 3.11 1 0.02
10 4.57 1 0.12

Granby 1 Cg 2 0.24 1 0.04 3.28 72 1.00
4 0.79 1 0.13
6 1.70 1 0.05
8 2.87 1 0.06
10 4.31 1 0.15

Gmnby 2 Ap 2 0.45 1 0.02 11.9 301 1.00
4 0.97 1 0.05
6 1.39 1 0.07
8 2.52 1 0.08
10 3.04 1 0.01

Granby 2 B21g 2 0.14 1 0.02 7.00 122 0.99
4 0.33 1 0.01
8 1.60 1 0.01
10 2.04 :1 0.04
12 3.61 1 0.16

Granby 2 B22g 2 0.18 1 0.06 4.32 95 0.99
4 0.41 1 0.10
6 1.05 1 0.04
8 2.14 1 0.17
12 4.58 1 0.15

Granby 2 B3g 2 0.04 1 0.05 1 1.0 133 1.00
4 0.08 1 0.02
s 0.48 1 0.02
12 1.23 1 0.38
14 2.52 1 0.36

Granby 2 Clg 2 0.21 1 0.01 2.25 92 0.97
4 0.61 1 0.03
6 1.46 1 0.21
8 2.35 1 0.25
10 3.57 1 0.09
12 4.35 1 0.11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

46

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table aeont’d}
Soil Series Horizon Initial Final Langmuir LangIniflr
P0. P0. K b
(mg/L) (ms/L) (LII-8) (mm)

Granby 2 C2g 2 0.32 1 0.01 3.03 67 0.99
4 0.94 1 0.01
6 2.20 1 0.04
8 3.50 1 0.08
10 4.84 1 0.01

Locke l Ap 8 0.30 1 0.04 3.22 238 0.99
12 0.73 1 0.04
16 1.62 1 0.10
20 2.19 1 0.01
24 4.40 1 0.12

Locke l Btl 8 0.13 1 0.04 4.97 279 1.00
20 1.07 1 0.00
24 1.83 1 0.02
30 4.60 1 0.09

Locke l Bt2 8 0.19 1 0.03 4.27 310 1.00
12 0.31 1 0.00
16 0.48 1 0.04
20 0.56 1 0.01
24 1.38 1 0.07
30 3.24 1 0.47

Locke l C 4 0.08 1 0.01 3.25 332 0.98
16 0.58 1 0.01
20 1.19 1 0.11
24 1.50 1 0.04
30 2.81 1 0.11

Locke 1 $81 8 0.10 1 0.01 9.80 221 0.99
12 0.27 1 0.01
16 0.58 1 0.06
18 1.83 1 0.20
20 1.81 1 0.01
24 4.27 1 0.49

Locke 1 SS2 4 0.17 1 0.00 3.62 270 0.99
8 0.29 1 0.01
12 0.58 1 0.04

 

 

 

47

I Table Hcont’d} I
Soil Series Horizon Initial Final Langmuir Langmuir r2
b

 

 

P0. 1'04 K
(ms/L) (mg/L) (11mg) (mg/kg)

Locke 1 882 16 1.05 1 0.00
20 2.25 1 0.13
24 2.83 1 0.01

Locke l SS3 4 0.17 1 0.00 4.06 215 1.00
8 0.35 1 0.02
16 1.37 1 0.19
20 3.05 1 0.01

Locke 2 Ap 2 0.14 1 0.00 4.12 181 0.98
4 0.33 1 0.01
6 0.61 1 0.04
8 1.32 1 0.02
12 2.09 1 0.09
16 3.90 1 0.02

Locke 2 Btl 4 0.13 1 0.02 3.11 231 1.00
8 0.32 1 0.01
12 0.78 1 0.03
16 1.33 1 0.09
20 2.52 1 0.28
24 4.27 1 0.25

Locke 2 Bt2 8 0.22 1 0.00 3.28 236 0.99
12 0.64 1 0.01
16 1.13 1 0.10
20 2.20 1 0.08
24 3.49 1 0.18

Locke 2 C 4 0.05 1 0.01 6.18 188 0.99
8 0.23 1 0.01
12 0.66 1 0.00
16 1.53 1 0.06
20 2.77 1 0.02

Locke 2 881 6 0.25 1 0.01 2.80 215 0.99
8 0.48 1 0.01
12 0.98 1 0.00
16 1.71 1 0.01
20 3.11 1 0.23

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

48

 

 

 

 

LTable ’cont’ (1)
Soil Series Horizon Initial Final Langmuir Langmuir r’
:0. 110. x n
(Ill/L) (ms/L) (LEO; (fl
Locke 2 $32 4 0.11 1 0.01 11.5 119 1.00
8 0.47 1 0.03
12 1.60 1 0.17
14 3.37 1 0.31
Locke 2 SS3 2 0.06 1 0.01 4.97 133 0.99
4 0.11 1 0.01
8 0.60 1 0.01
12 1.92 1 0.05
16 3.67 1 0.17
Marlettc 1 Ap 2 0.21 1 0.03 7.52 143 1.00
4 0.42 1 0.01
6 0.60 1 0.01
8 1.57 1 0.02
10 1.70 1 0.02
12 3.58 1 0.01
Marlettc 1 B & A 4 0.12 1 0.00 2.95 242 0.99
8 0.29 1 0.01
12 0.70 1 0.01
16 1.51 1 0.02
20 2.18 1 0.10
24 3.51 1 0.09
Marlettc 1 8211 4 0.07 1 0.00 3.67 297 0.99
8 0.14 1 0.00
12 0.35 1 0.00
16 0.72 1 0.00
20 1.33 1 0.01
24 1.87 1 0.03
30 3.55 1 0.14
Marlettc l B22t 4 0.08 1 0.01 3.61 226 0.97
8 0.22 1 0.00
12 0.68 1 0.02
16 1.46 1 0.08
20 2.52 1 0.12
24 3.27 1 0.07

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

49

 

 

 

ITable 'eont’d) fl 1
Soil Series Horizon Initial Final Langnuir Langmuir r’
P0. P0. K b
(mg/L) (mg/L) (11mg) (mm)
Marlettc 1 BZ3t 4 0.08 1 0.00 3.28 226 0.97
8 0.26 1 0.00
12 0.75 1 0.01
16 1.57 1 0.01
20 2.56 1 0.02
24 3.52 1 0.05
Marlettc l C 4 0.10 1 0.00 2.73 234 0.97
8 0.29 1 0.01
12 0.85 1 0.01
16 1.65 1 0.04
20 2.53 1 0.03
24 3.38 1 0.36
Marlettc l SS1 4 0.15 1 0.06 2.16 240 0.97
8 0.34 1 0.00
12 0.96 1 0.01
16 1.77 1 0.02
20 2.84 1 0.06
24 3.50 1 0.18
Marlettc 1 S82 4 0.15 1 0.06 2.40 240 0.98
8 0.29 1 0.00
12 0.79 1 0.01
16 1.61 1 0.08
20 2.62 1 0.05
24 3.46 1 0.13
Metea 1 Ap 2 0.08 1 0.04 8.12 230 1.00
4 0.11 1 0.02
8 0.39 1 0.06
12 1.12 1 0.08
16 1.86 1 0.13
20 3.92 1 0.21
Metea 1 B21 2 0.02 1 0.02 6.79 168 0.99
4 0.07 1 0.01
8 0.31 10.02
12 1.30 1 0.06

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

50

 

I Table ficont’d}

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

j ——
Soil Series Horizon Initial Final Langnuir Langmuir r’
90. P0. K b
(ms/L) (mg/L) (”'18) (mg/kg)

Metea 1 821 14 1.60 1 0.32
16 2.71 1 0.12
20 4.66 1 0.16

Metea 1 B22 2 0.02 1 0.02 10.5 178 0.99
4 0.02 1 0.01
8 0.19 1 0.03
12 0.51 1 0.05
14 0.83 1 0.03
16 1.56 1 0.16
20 3.32 1 0.23

Metea 1 11321 12 0.22 1 0.02 5.39 276 1.00
14 0.34 1 0.02
16 0.48 1 0.05
20 0.91 1 0.03
24 2.23 1 0.00
30 4.35 1 0.28

Metea 1 11C 4 0.09 1 0.05 3.25 245 0.99
8 0.31 1 0.01
12 0.65 1 0.03
16 1.07 1 0.10
20 1.36 1 0.28
24 3.35 1 0.25

Metea 1 SS] 4 0.15 1 0.01 2.16 262 1.00
8 0.39 1 0.01
12 0.76 1 0.06
16 1.12 1 0.06
20 1.81 1 0.09
24 3.45 1 0.01

Metea 1 S32 4 0.14 1 0.02 2.02 271 0.98
8 0.41 1 0.03
12 0.81 1 0.10
16 1.24 1 0.19
20 1.57 1 0.23
24 3.28 :1: 0.18

 

 

51

 

 

 

 

Table gcont’dl I
Soil Series Horizon Initial Final Langmuir Langmuir r’
P0. P0. K b
(mg/L) (mg/L) (11mg) (mg/kg)

Metea 2 Ap 2 0.20 1 0.01 6.66 122 1.00
4 0.30 1 0.01
8 1.21 1 0.04
12 3.62 1 0.10

Metea 2 Bl 4 0.14 :1: 0.01 4.71 176 0.99
8 0.27 1 0.01
12 0.71 1 0.01
16 2.40 1 0.35
20 3.91 1 0.28

Metea 2 1321 8 0.13 1 0.02 8.95 228 1.00
12 0.22 1 0.00
16 0.51 1 0.04
20 1.14 1 0.13

Metea 2 IIBZZt 4 0.12 1 0.02 4.45 157 0.98
8 0.44 1 0.06
12 1.36 1 0.01
16 2.41 1 0.03

Metea 2 11C 4 0.12 1 0.04 5.58 132 0.99
8 0.51 1 0.01
10 1.01 1 0.08
12 1.60 1 0.04
16 2.41 1 0.05

Metea 3 Ap 2 0.16 1 0.04 3.30 132 0.99
4 0.26 1 0.01
8 1.03 1 0.01
12 2.94 1 0.10
16 4.94 1 0.04

Metea 3 Bl 8 0.16 1 0.03 3.70 290 0.99
12 0.30 1 0.01
16 0.60 1 0.01
20 1.29 1 0.07
24 2.07 1 0.06
30 4.09 1 0.04

Metea 3 B21 8 0.13 1 0.03 5.00 327 1.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

k /_

52

 

 

 

 

. Table fieont’d}
Soil Series Horizon Initial Final Langmuir Langmuir r’
F0. F0. K b
(Ins/L) (M) (LII-8) (mg)
Metea 3 321 12 0.19 1 0.01
16 0.37 1 0.02
20 0.66 1 0.02
24 1.06 1 0.02
30 2.19 1 0.04
Metea 3 IIB221 8 0.15 1 0.01 4.22 311 0.99
12 0.23 1 0.00
16 0.51 1 0.01
20 0.90 1 0.01
24 1.50 1 0.03
30 2.91 1 0.08
Metea 3 IIC 8 0.16 1 0.00 3.77 297 0.99
12 0.28 1 0.03
16 0.58 1 0.06
20 1.28 1 0.08
24 1.87 1 0.07
30 3.61 1 0.04
Oakville 1 A1 2 0.11 1 0.01 6.47 234 0.99
4 0.21 1 0.01
8 0.58 1 0.02
12 1.64 1 0.10
16 2.96 1 0.12
20 4.92 1 0.11
Oakville 1 B2 4 0.13 1 0.00 4.90 209 0.99
8 0.24 1 0.01
12 0.73 1 0.04
14 1.05 1 0.18
16 1.51 :1 0.30
20 2.85 1 0.11
Oakville 1 B3 2 0.14 1 0.00 4.30 86 1.00
4 0.37 1 0.09
8 1.99 1 0.10
12 4.50 1 0.40
A Oakville 1 BC 4 0.23 1 0.02 4.36 88 0.99

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L /—

53

 

 

 

. Table ficont’d}
Soil Series Horbon Initial Final Langllmir Langmuir r’
P0. P0. K b
(ms/L) (ms/L) (11mg) (mall‘s)
Oakville 1 BC 6 1.05 1 0.27
8 1.72 1 0.17
12 4.42 1 0.07
Oakville 1 C1 4 0.14 1 0.02 6.97 101 0.99
6 0.54 :1 0.09
8 0.70 1 0.04
10 1.95 1 0.09
12 2.96 1 0.25
Oakville 1 SS] 4 0.27 :1 0.03 2.45 137 0.99
8 1.01 1 0.01
12 2.44 1 0.23
16 4.47 1 0.13
Oakville 1 $82 4 0.27 1 0.05 2.33 131 0.99
8 1.15 1 0.04
12 2.68 1 0.04
16 4.81 1 0.12
Oakville 2 Ap 2 0.47 1 0.00 6.24 209 1.00
4 0.96 1 0.01
6 1.62 1 0.01
8 2.55 1 0.03
12 4.83 1 0.11
Oakville 2 B21 2 0.18 1 0.03 10.4 191 1.00
4 0.41 :1 0.03
6 0.74 1 0.05
8 1.19 1 0.04
12 3.21 1 0.00
Oakville 2 B22 2 0.15 1 0.02 8.93 164 1.00
4 0.30 1 0.01
6 0.69 1 0.04
8 1.05 1 0.01
10 1.92 1 0.14
i 12 3.09 1 0.06
14 4.63 1 0.21
Oakville 2 B3 2 0.07 1 0.01 5.31 183 0.99

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L /—

54

 

 

 

Table eont’ll
Soil Series Horbou Initial Final Langmuir Langmuir r1
P0. P0. K b
(II-81L) (mg/L) (Una) (Inglis)
Oakville 2 B3 4 0.12 1 0.01
6 0.31 1 0.04
8 0.49 1 0.03
12 1.16 1 0.11
14 1.68 1 0.03
16 3.25 1 0.37
18 3.61 1 0.02
20 4.45 :1 0.18
Oakville 2 C 4 0.13 1 0.00 4.53 230 1.00
6 0.18 1 0.02
8 0.22 1 0.00
12 0.43 1 0.02
16 1.25 1 0.21
20 2.30 1 0.14
24 4.03 1 0.22
Oakville 2 SS] 6 o. 14 1 0.01 3.36 293 1.00
8 0.19 1 0.03
12 0.39 1 0.05
16 0.84 1 0.16
20 1.20 1 0.13
24 2.20 1 0.14
30 4.29 :1 0.48
Oakville 2 SS2 4 0.11 1 0.01 2.45 239 0.97
6 0.25 1 0.03
8 0.42 1 0.00
12 0.93 1 0.03
16 1.79 1 0.07
20 2.59 1 0.36
24 3.67 1 0.11
Oakville 2 SS3 4 0.14 1 0.01 1.86 246 0.94
6 0.30 1 0.03
8 0.50 1 0.01
12 1.08 1 0.03
16 2.10 1 0.01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

55

 

 

 

 

 

Table ’eont’d}
Hum 1.1.... 1...... MW
P0. P04 K b
(Ila/L) (ma/L) (“ESL (Inglis);

Oakville 2 S83 20 2.67 1 0.45
24 3.52 1 0.28

Oakville 3 Ap 2 0.10 1 0.03 5.13 148 1.00
4 0.17 1 0.04
8 0.57 1 0.07
12 1.88 1 0.00
16 3.69 1 0.08

Oakville 3 321 4 0.12 1 0.00 3.51 250 0.99
8 0.29 1 0.01
12 0.72 1 0.07
16 1.31 1 0.06
24 3.60 1 0.26

Oakville 3 322 4 0.16 1 0.00 2.83 174 0.99
8 0.60 1 0.02
12 1.42 1 0.11
16 3.07 1 0.28
20 4.80 1 0.21

Oakville 3 C1 4 0.17 1 0.00 2.08 208 0.94
6 0.33 1 0.04
8 0.59 1 0.00
12 1.56 1 0.00
16 2.05 1 0.08
20 3.15 1 0.06

Oakville 3 C2 2 o. 13 1 0.00 1.22 227 0.93
4 0.26 1 0.02
6 0.56 1 0.04
8 1.06 1 0.11
16 2.53 1 0.20
20 3.64 1 0.06

Owosso 1 Ap 4 0.63 1 0.02 5.29 202 1.00
8 1.67 1 0.03
. 12 3.47 1 0.13

Owosso 1 A2 6 0.30 1 0.04 3.25 180 0.99
8 0.52 1 0.14

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

56

 

 

Table eont’d)
Snil Series ’

m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Horizon Initial Final Langmuir Langmuir rz
P0. P0. K b
(mg/L) (mg/L) (L/mg) (ms/kg)

Owosso 1 A2 12 1.33 1 0.24
16 3.12 1 0.25
20 4.67 1 0.42

Owosso 1 Bl 6 0.26 1 0.01 3.49 202 1.00
8 0.35 1 0.02
12 0.78 1 0.04
16 1.78 1 0.30
20 3.20 1 0.06

Owosso 1 111321 4 0.09 1 0.01 4.17 252 0.99
8 0.18 1 0.01
12 0.41 1 0.01
16 0.90 1 0.11
20 1.64 1 0.23
24 2.40 1 0.03

Owosso 1 IIC 2 0.11 1 0.00 2.30 201 1.00
4 0.20 1 0.01
8 0.51 1 0.04
12 1.14 1 0.21
16 2.05 1 0.43
20 3.82 1 0.63

Owosso 1 SS] 4 0.20 1 0.01 1.99 185 0.98
8 0.73 1 0.09
12 1.67 1 0.13
16 3.13 1 0.30
20 4.40 1 0.21

Owosso 2 Ap 4 0.26 1 0.00 5.14 188 1.00
6 0.45 1 0.03
8 0.74 1 0.06
12 1.67 1 0.02
16 3.60 1 0.40

Owosso 2 BA 6 0.22 1 0.01 4.61 190 1.00
8 0.35 :1: 0.01
12 0.61 1 0.03
16 1.62 1 0.21

 

 

57

 

‘ Table ficont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Soil Series Horizon Initial Final Langmuir Langmuir r’
P0. P0. K b
(mg/L) (ms/L) (Una) (mg/ks)

Owosso 2 Btl 4 0.09 1 0.03 4.74 241 1.00
8 0.19 1 0.01
12 0.38 1 0.38
16 0.84 1 0.03
20 1.73 1 0.01
24 2.91 1 0.05

Owosso 2 ZBt2 4 0.06 1 0.01 5.19 241 0.99
8 0.17 1 0.01
12 0.44 1 0.04
16 0.79 1 0.00
20 1.53 1 0.04
24 2.73 1 0.09

Owosso 2 2Bt3 4 0.10 1 0.00 3.94 255 0.99
8 0.17 1 0.01
12 0.46 1 0.01
16 0.83 1 0.01
20 1.55 1 0.16
24 2.50 a: 0.04

Owosso 2 3C 4 0.15 1 0.01 2.37 238 0.98
8 0.33 1 0.01
12 0.85 1 0.03
16 1.68 1 0.02
20 2.73 1 0.10
24 3.76 1 0.11

Owosso 3 Ap 2 0.19 1 0.01 6.05 217 1.00
4 0.32 1 0.01
6 0.52 1 0.00
8 0.92 1 0.01
12 2.03 1 0.01
16 3.59 1 0.03

Owosso 3 BA 6 0.16 1 0.01 7.28 185 1.00
8 0.21 1 0.01
12 0.52 1 0.01
16 1.19 1 0.17

 

 

58

 

 

Table cont’d
Soil Series Horbon Initial Final Langmuir Langmuir rz
r0. r0. K b
(mg/L) (lit/L) (UM) (ms/kg)
Owosso 3 BA 20 3.50 1 0.18
Owosso 3 Btl 12 0.17 1 0.00 8.48 268 0.99
16 0.34 1 0.01
20 0.76 1 0.12
24 1.25 1 0.04
Owosso 3 ZBt2 8 0.13 1 0.01 6.23 260 1.00
12 0.26 1 0.00
16 0.58 1 0.01
20 1.07 1 0.01
24 1.87 1 0.04
Owosso 3 236 8 0.15 1 0.00 6.49 220 0.99
12 0.38 1 0.04
16 0.87 1 0.02
20 1.56 1 0.03
Owosso 3 3C 8 0.21 1 0.05 3.62 226 0.99
12 0.57 1 0.01
16 1.33 1 0.04
20 2.50 1 0.13
24 3.77 1 0.01
Parkhill 1 Ap 4 0.36 1 0.02 2.96 244 0.99
8 0.87 1 0.03
12 1.68 1 0.04
16 3.14 1 0.04
20 4.60 1 0.06
Parkhill 1 13213 8 0.25 1 0.00 2.96 237 0.99
12 0.69 1 0.01
16 1.28 1 0.03
20 2.54 1 0.01
24 3.50 1 0.42
Parkhill 1 322g 4 0.15 1 0.01 1.19 356 0.97
8 0.48 1 0.02
12 0.84 1 0.04
16 1.27 1 0.06
20 1.90 1 0.21

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

59

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, Table reont’tl)
Soil Series Horizon [lutial Final Langmuir Langmuir r’
P0. P0. K b
(Ila/L) (mg/L) (1ng) (M8)

Parkhill 1 822g 24 2.69 1 0.04
30 3.89 1 0.38

Parkhill 1 C1 g 2 0.12 1 0.00 1.41 236 0.92
4 0.29 1 0.04
8 0.70 1 0.08
12 1.13 1 0.06

Parkhill 1 C2 2 0.10 1 0.00 1.50 265 0.94
4 0.22 1 0.02
8 0.61 1 0.02
12 0.97 1 0.03
16 1.48 1 0.11

Spinks 1 Ap 2 0.17 1 0.02 7.13 172 1.00
4 0.54 1 0.06
6 0.85 1 0.04
8 1.84 1 0.05
10 2.31 1 0.04
12 4.02 1 0.22
14 5.06 1 0.12

Spinks 1 A21 4 0.22 :1 0.03 3.91 172 0.99
6 0.35 1 0.00
8 0.77 1 0.07
10 1.06 1 0.17
12 1.78 1 0.49
16 3.071 0.03

Spinks 1 A22 4 0.24 1 0.06 2.95 159 0.97
10 1.23 1 0.11
12 1.27 1 0.08
14 2.82 1 0.22
16 2.37 1 0.01
18 4.54 1 0.54

Spinks l A & B 4 0.26 1 0.08 2.75 158 0.98
8 0.82 1 0.04
12 2.03 1 0.19
14 1.95 1 0.16

 

 

60

Table eont’d)
Soil Seriel Horizon Initial Final Langmuir Langmuir H

 

 

 

 

 

P0. 1'0. X b
(Ins/L) (mg/L) (11mg) (ms/kg)

Spinks 1 A & B 16 2.48 1 0.23
18 4.96 1 0.25

Spinks l SS1 2 0.17 1 0.01 1.30 155 0.94
4 0.47 1 0.02
6 0.76 1 0.03
8 1.68 1 0.00
12 2.157 0.06
14 3.43 1 0.37
16 4.22 1 0.08

Teasdale 1 Ap 2 0.12 1 0.00 3.93 169 0.99
4 0.30 1 0.01
6 0.58 1 0.01
8 0.92 1 0.00
12 2.04 1 0.04
16 3.72 1 0.02

Teasdale 1 A2 4 0.07 1 0.01 5.59 208 0.99
6 0.13 1 0.01
8 0.23 1 0.01
12 0.55 1 0.02
16 1.08 1 0.02
20 2.08 1 0.06

Teasdale l B & A 4 0.05 1 0.00 8.03 212 1.00
6 0.09 1 0.01
8 0.15 1 0.00
12 0.38 1 0.03
16 0.77 1 0.01
20 1.58 1 0.06

Teasdale l Bth 4 0.08 1 0.00 4.69 171 0.99
6 0.19 1 0.01
8 0.37 1 0.01
12 1.17 1 0.01
16 2.32 1 0.06
20 4.26 1 0.20

Teasdale l 3221 4 0.23 1 0.01 4.40 102 l.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

61

Table eont’d)
Soil Series Horizon Initial Final Langmuir Langmuir r1

 

 

 

P04 P0. K b
(mt/L) (Ills/L) (Unis) (Ills/k8)
Teasdale 1 3221 6 0.62 1 0.04
8 1.15 1 0.02
12 3.24 1 0.05
Teasdale 1 C 4 0.25 1 0.00 2.51 124 0.98
6 0.60 1 0.01
8 1.17 1 0.02
12 3.10 1 0.03
16 4.91 1 0.09
Teasdale 1 SS] 4 0.21 1 0.01 2.59 138 0.97
6 0.54 1 0.01
8 0.97 1 0.01
12 2.65 1 0.03
16 3.88 1 0.09
Tedrow 1 Ap 8 0.01 1 0.01 11.8 313 1.00
12 0.16 1 0.00
16 0.37 1 0.00
20 0.54 1 0.05
24 2.34 1 0.11
30 4.93 1 0.08
Tedmw 1 321 16 1.23 1 0.06 3.38 224 0.99
20 3.24 1 0.01
24 4.86 1 o. 11
Tedrow 1 1322 8 0.07 1 0.01 17.3 207 1.00
12 o. 11 1 0.01
16 0.42 1 0.00
20 1.68 1 0.08
24 4.17 1 0.62
Tedrow 1 C 2 o. 12 1 0.01 3.63 141 1.00
12 1.71 1 o. 18
16 4.16 1 0.04
Tedrow 2 Ap 8 o. 11 1 0.03 8.28 404 1.00
20 0.43 1 0.02
24 0.66 1 0.03
30 1.32 1 0.04

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

62

 

 

 

 

P0. P04 K 11
(mg/L) (mg/L) (Ha-g) (mg/kg)

Tedrow 2 B21 12 0.07 1 0.10 16.2 402 1.00
16 0.11 1 0.00
20 0.19 1 0.05
24 0.26 1 0.00
30 0.54 1 0.01

Tedrow 2 B22 8 0.10 1 0.02 8.16 346 1.00
20 0.74 1 0.05
24 1.25 1 0.11
30 3.01 1 0.11

Tedrow 2 B23 20 0.42 1 0.01 ”* *" "‘
24 3.76 1 0.38

Tedrow 2 B3 2 0.11 1 0.03 *“ fl" "*
4 0.14 1 0.02
8 0.27 1 0.03
10 1.01 1 0.04
12 1.05 1 0.16

Tedrow 2 C 8 0.34 1 0.06 *“ W" *"
14 2.06 1 0.06
16 1.77 1 0.41

Tedrow 3 Ap 4 0.27 1 0.01 5.14 104 1.00
6 0.52 1 0.01
8 1.04 1 0.07
10 1.57 1 0.06
12 3.24 1 0.01

Tedrow 3 821 4 0.11 1 0.00 12.2 92 1.00
8 0.24 1 0.01
12 0.82 1 0.01
16 1.87 1 0.11
20 3.34 1 0.20

Tedrow 3 B22 4 0.13 1 0.00 14.2 75 0.99
8 0.43 1 0.01
12 1.24 1 0.15
16 3.59 1 0.00
20 4.51 1 0.15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

63

 

 

 

 

Table reont’cl)
Soil Series Horizon Initial Final Langmuir Langmuir r’
Po. r0. K 1)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (11mg) (mg/kg)
Tedrow 3 B3 4 0.64 1 0.13 1.60 93 0.98
6 1.43 1 0.01
8 2.38 1 0.02
10 3.62 1 0.05
12 4.60 1 0.01
Tedrow 3 C 2 0.17 1 0.01 2.55 88 0.97
4 0.52 1 0.08
6 1.10 1 0.04
8 2.43 1 0.06
12 4.34 1 0.23
Thetford l Ap 2 0.10 1 0.01 4.48 387 0.99
4 0.11 1 0.00
20 0.98 1 0.16
24 0.98 1 0.02
30 2.24 1 0.08
Thetford 1 A2 12 0.06 1 0.05 19.0 397 1.00
16 0.13 1 0.00
20 0.17 1 0.01
24 0.28 1 0.05
30 0.61 1 0.03
Thetford 1 32 4 0.10 1 0.00 12.2 290 0.98
18 0.24 1 0.04
20 1.26 1 0.45
24 1.63 1 0.54
Thetford 1 A’2 3’21 2 0.10 1 0.00 6.74 232 0.95
10 0.19 1 0.06
14 0.38 1 0.08
16 2.21 1 0.01
20 1.44 1 0.06
24 3.50 1 0.95
Thetford 1 B3 2 0.10 1 0.01 3.45 176 0.96
10 0.62 1 0.19
12 2.20 1 0.60
14 1.65 1 0.04

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 'cont’d)
Soil Series Horizon Initial Final Langmuir Langmuir r’
r0. r0. K b
(ms/L) (mg/L) (11mg) (mike)
Thetford 1 B3 16 2.46 1 o. 15
20 4.97
Thetford 1 Cg 2 0.10 1 0.00 5.88 173 0.99
12 1.35 1 0.64
14 1.29 1 0.11
16 2.72
Thetford 1 SS1 2 0.11 1 0.00 m m m
4 1.23 1 0.40
6 0.27 1 0.01
10 1.73 1 0.19
12 3.85 1 0.77
Thetford 2 Ap 4 0.56 3.69 222 0.99
8 1.49
12 3.28
16 4.88
Thetford 2 32 4 0.31 1 4.39 97 1.00 ’
1 8 1.35
12 3.77
Thetford 2 1 A2 & 31 4 0.09 3.86 159 *' 0.98 ‘
8 0.40
12 1.65
16 3.17
20 5.07
Thetford 2 1' C 4 0.44 3.28 84 ’ 1.00 b
8 1.81 -
12 4.62
Thetford 2 SS1 4 0.13 5.47 126 ’ 0.99 '
8 0.47
12 2.15
16 4.17 1'
Thetford 3 Ap 4 g 0.05 1 0.00 , 6.84 261 , 0.99 g
8 0.27 1 0.04
n ‘QM10H1
16 1.26 1 0.03

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

65

 

 

P Table gcont’d)
Soil Series Horizon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Initial Final Langmuir Langmuir
P0. P0. K b
(ms/L) (mg/L) (was) (me/ks)

Thetford 3 Ap 20 2.57 1 0.05
24 4.07 1 0.20

Thetford 3 Bl 4 0.04 1 0.00 7.75 236 0.99
8 0.17 1 0.08
12 0.45 1 0.02
16 0.97 1 0.00
20 2.28 1 0.46
24 3.72 1 0.05

Thetford 3 A’2 4 0.04 1 0.02 10.6 255 1.00
8 0.09 1 0.00
12 0.22 1 0.02
16 0.45 1 0.01
20 0.97 1 0.10
24 1.92 1 0.11

Thetford 3 B’21 & A’22 4 0.03 1 0.01 8.74 193 0.99
8 0.17 1 0.02
12 0.59 1 0.06
16 1.36 1 0.19
20 2.54 1 1.11

Thetford 3 B’ZZtg 4 0.04 1 0.00 7.63 189 0.98
8 0.19 1 0.03
12 0.69 1 0.06
16 1.68 1 0.18
20 2.75 1 1.05

Thetford 3 C 4 0.16 1 0.00 3.90 230 0.99
8 0.25 1 0.00
12 0.49 1 0.02
16 0.97 1 0.06
20 2.56 1 0.21
24 4.00 1 0.57

Thetford 3 SS1 4 0.14 1 0.00 4.24 247 0.99
8 0.22 1 0.03
12 0.37 1 0.00
16 0.75 1 0.05

 

 

66

 

I Table flcont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Soil Series Horizon Initial Final Langmuir Langmuir r’
r0. r0. K 1)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (11mg) (meme)
Thetford 3 $81 20 1.70 1 0.03
24 3.17 1 0.54
Thetford 3 332 4 0.15 :1: 0.01 3.92 222 1.00
8 0.28 1 0.00
12 0.61 1 0.07
16 1.20 1 0.03
20 2.99 1 0.30
24 4.58 1 0.13

 

 

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B

PISO 3.0 USER’S GUIDE

INTRODUCTION

 

The Phosphate Isotherm calculation

 

:1 _fi -.

{ 1 WELcomsro i program (PISO 3.0) is a user-friendly macro

s: 1 N

1 P150 3'0 1 1 computer program that allows the user to
canwu I ,.

 

L* 1 i determine sorption constants from soil analysis in
‘ (1993mm mandala 8.6.. vmemmmwm ,‘g the laboratory quickly and easily. The added
i! Wammsam 1‘

L 9* functions of automatic graphing and easy printing
make this program even more useful to a wide variety of users. Because the basic form of
the program is from the Quattro Pro 3.0 spreadsheet program, it is first necessary to

purchase and familiarize yourself with Quattro Pro. The program was written using Quattro

Pro 3.0 for DOS and is not compatible with earlier versions as written."

Laboratory Isothenn Analysis
The input data for the calculation program comes from the laboratmy analysis. The

exact procedure may differ slightly from lab to lab, however, the general techniques remain

 

2See Using PISO with Quattro Pro 4.0 or 5.0 for DOS on page 76 of this user’s manual.

67

68

consistent.

First, the amount of phosphate initially sorbed to the soil is determined by using the
Bray-P1 extraction technique. Then, phosphate sorption is measured by equilibrating the
soil with increasing concentrations of phosphate (initial equilibration solution) made in a
dilute calcium chloride matrix solution for twenty-four hours at constant temperature. The
soil suspension is then filtered or centrifuged. The final concentration of phosphate (final
equilibration solution) in mg/L is determined by an approved method such as the ascorbic
acid method of Murphy and Riley (1962). The difference between the initial and the final
equilibration solution concentrations converted to mg/kg soil, plus the amount of initially
adsorbed phosphate (Bray-P1) in mg/kg, is the total amount of phosphate adsorbed by the

soil.

Calculations

The Phosphate Isothenn Calculation program completes a series of calculations
automatically. From the input data, the program calculates the ionic strength and sorbed P.
The ionic strength is defined by:

0.5 * (((mol Ca/L)*(Ca valence)2) + (2 * (mol Cl/L)*(Cl valence)2)) = I
and the sorbed P is defined by:

(Initial P - F inal P) * (matrix solution volume)/(soil sample weight) + (Bray-Pl) = Sorbed P

PISO 3.0 calculates an activity coefficient (y) from the ionic strength by using the Davies
Equation:

10(4).5()85‘(H2PO4- valcncc)"2‘(ionic strength)N).5/(1+l.312*(ionic strcngth)"0.5) = Y

69

The activity of P in the equilibrium solution is calculated by:
(Y )*(Final P) = (P)
and (P)/X/m is calculated by:
(P)/(Sorbed P) = (P)/X/m

The amount of phosphate sorbed to the soil (P)/X/m in mg/kg is dependent on the
activity of phosphate (P) in the equilibrium solution in mol/L. The relationship between
these two variables is clmacterized by the Langmuir b and K values. PISO 3.0 regresses the
linear plot of these variables and from the regression output, calculates the Langmuir b and
K values. The sorption maximum (Langmuir b) is determined by taking the inverse of the

X coefficient and the Languir K, by dividing the X coefficient by the linear constant.

SETTING UP PISO 3.0

PISO 3.0 Files
The Phosphate Isothenn Calculation program (PISO 3.0) is contained in two files in
addition to your Quattro Pro program files. PISO3.WQ! contains the spreadsheet and macro
portion of the program, and PISO3.MU contains the custom menu tree required to operate
the program correctly. It is important that both PISO files are copied to your hard disk

in the same directory as Quattro Pro.

Installing PISO 3.0

Before the calculation program can be used, it must be installed onto the hard disk
of your computer. Determine where (in what directory) your Quattro Pro 3.0 program files
are stored. The default directory is QPRO>.

Use the DOS COPY command to copy the PISO program files into the Quattro Pro
directory. For example, users of the default directory name, QPRO>, can copy their PISO
program files by typing:

COPY PISO3.WQ! C:\QPRO <enter>
and
COPY PISO3.MU C:\QPRO <enter>

at the DOS prompt for the drive containing the PISO files diskette. Or, the user can

take advantage of a batch file that will install the program files automatically to the default

directory QPRO>. Type “INSTALL” at the DOS prompt for the drive containing the PISO

7O

71

files diskette.

Loading Qualtro Pro and PISO 3.0
Although the initial command for loading Quattro Pro may differ among users, the
default command is Q’ Once Quattro Pro is loaded, retrieve PISO 3.0 by using the menu
tree at the top of the screen. The menu tree is accessed by using the back slash key (/).
Choose [FILE] and then [RETRIEVE] to display a listing of Quattro Pro files. Use the

arrow keys to highlight the PISOB.WQ! file and press <enter>.

USING PISO 3.0

PISO 3.0 Menu Tree
The Phosphate Isothenn Calculation program operates using a custom menu tree that
is accessed in the same manner as the standard Quattro Pro menu. The commands are
purposefully limited to reduce the chance of accidental program alteration.

The first command

 

 

 

1} FILE 1] REGRESSION H VIEW N PRINT wmoow H
- ~ ~ * available is the [FILE] command.
Finlre s-PISO 3.0 custom menu tree

With it, the user has the option of opening or retrieving another Quattro Pro spreadsheet file

 

or exiting the calculation program and Quatrro Pro. Because this is a macro spreadsheet
program, saving the data to a file also saves the calculation program in the file. This has the
potential for using a large amount of disk space very quickly. For this reason, printing hard
copies of the input and output data and the graphs is the recommended method available to
the user for saving results. However, if disk space is plentiful and the user would still like
to save the data and spreadsheet program a macro is available in the program to do this.
Pressing the [Alt] and the [D] keys simultaneously will save the spreadsheet to a file. The
program will prompt the user for the appropriate file name.

The second command is the [REGRESSION] command When the user chooses this
option, a listing of seven sub-options is displayed. The user chooses the proper option based
on the number of equilibration samples used in their analysis.

The [VIEW] command is the third command available to the user. When this is

chosen, the user has the option of viewing either the Langmuir or the Freundlich graphs

72

73

created automatically when the regression analysis is complete.

A [PRINT] command option is also available to the user. When chosen, the user can
print a hard copy of the combined data tables or either of the isotherm graphs.

Finally, a [WINDOW] command is available. This option allows the user to tile the
screen allowing two or more spreadsheet files to be viewed simultaneously. This is useful
when the laboratory isotherm data to be entered into the calculation program is also in a

spreadsheet file.

Data Input

The procedure for entering data into the spreadsheet is the same as that used in
Quattro Pro. By using the arrow keys, the cursor (the highlighted area) is moved to the data
input cells. Enter the appropriate data and press <enter>. Be sure to enter the data using the
correct units shown beneath the heading for each box or cell.

The first cell encountered in the program is the SAMPLE I.D. box. Enter the
identification coding of your choice here, limiting its length to 15 characters.

Next to the Sample ID. cell is the BRAY-Pl RESULTS cell. This is the amount
(mg/kg) of extractable phosphorus in the soil prior to the isotherm analysis. The actual
method used to determine this amount can differ depending on geographic region.
Substituting Olsen’s Test data is acceptable. Be sure to enter the data in mg per kg 8011.

The next three cells or boxes for input data are for the SOIL SAMPLE WEIGHT (g),
the MATRD( SOLUTION VOLUME (mL), and the CONCENTRATION OF CALCIUM

(mol/L) in the matrix solution. These cells do not reset or zero themselves when you load

74

the program like the other cells, as this

 

" 9' 8mm: ’ $33; data should be standard in the analysis of

 

your soils. However, should you need to

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SOIL MATRIX CONCENTRATION
SAME SOLUTION 0F
WEIGHT VOLUME CALCIUM .
1 1g 1 4'33! 1 ("1313/11 J change the data, the new data can be
mm mm masses entered in its place in the usual manner.
[P] 13 some»:
(mg/L) (mg/L) POMS ! . . .
3 3,22 .1, } Again, be certain the correct umts are
12 3:23 i
I :2 2:2: 2 used-
1 7
i 1 3 J The last two columns are for the
Figure9-PISO 3.0datainputarea INITIAL and FINAL phosphate

equilibrium solution concentration. The concentrations can be entered in either ascending
or descending order", however, the final concentrations should be paired with their
appropriate initial concentrations using the same units (mg P/L). The number of isotherm
points that can be entered into the program is limited to nine. Please use averages if

necessary.

Regression Execution
In order to determine the Langmuir constants, a regression analysis must be done on
the input data The amount of phosphate adsorbed to the soil (P) in mg/kg is dependent on
the equilibrium solution-phase P concentration, corrected for the ionic strength of the
solution. The relationship between the ratio (P)/(P sorbed) and the final solution
concentration (P) is characterized by the Langmuir b and K values. PISO 3.0 automatically

corrects the measured P concentration for the ionic strength of the solution.

75

To execute the regression, use the back slash key (I) to access the command menu
at the top of the screen Choose [REGRESSION] by moving the highlighted area with the
arrow keys and pressing <enter>, or simply press the highlighted letter in the command
name (in this case “R”). A second menu will appear with a listing of isotherm point sample
sizes. Choose the appropriate number of isotherm points by using the arrow keys and then
press <enter> or press the highlighted number corresponding to the number of points. Your
computer and the Phosphate Isotherm Calculation Program will do the rest. NOTE: If you

change any of the input data, a new regression must be calculated.

Data Output
When the regression analysis is complete, an OUTPUT TABLE is displayed on the
screen. The top row contains the constants as calculated from the Langmuir equation The

first cell reports the equilibrium constant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

r *Wm‘fi - 11 . . . .
I] { WW momma: new: . (1 (K) m llters per mllllgram P. The second
‘ ' 9.57E+oo 300 0.99 i 3‘
N m __mm_5 i . . .
13 [ cell reports the sorptlon maxrmum (b) in
il 1"
3; Freundlich K- ' Freundl' ca RSquar . 2 l . . . .
1! 2.21m we? , 1.00“ . 1 mg P per kilogram $011. The third cell 1n
.1 cumm—

, the row reports the calculated r2 value for
Figure Ill-PISO 3.0 data output area

the regression.
The Freundlich isotherm constants are displayed in the second row. These values
are reported for those certain cases where the Freundlich equation represents a closer

approximation of the sorption model.

76

Automatic Graphing
The isotherm data points are easily checked by viewing the graphs made
automatically by the program. Access the [VIEW] option in the menu tree and choose the

appropriate graph from the sub-menu.

 

LANGMUIR
Phosphorus Isothenn

Easy Printing

With the [PRINT] option, the user

_. -. .._.____-.—__._. +-1

can print a hard copy of the data table and

MIX/m

 

, graphs. The data table reports both the
input and the output data in an easy-to-

1

 

s—h---..__.__-.1.-.__._ -___. ....—

read, summary format. With the

 

Fir-Ire “-me mm" 8W" LANGMUIR GRAPH or the

FREUNDLICH GRAPH sub-option, a hard copy of either graph can be generated.

Using PISO with Quattro Pro 4.0 or 5.0 for DOS
This program functions by using macros written with Quattro Pro 3. 0. If you own
version 4.0 or 5.0 and would like to use this program, install the files to your hard drive
according to the instructions beginning on page 3 of this manual, although this program was
designed for use with Quattro Pro 3. 0, and use with other versions is not recommended.
The custom menu tree file can be translated to the newer version by typing
NEWMU PISOB PISOn (Where it = newer version number)

at the DOS prompt for the directory containing the Quattro Pro 4.0 or 5.0 files and then

77

press <enter>. Printing functions may not translate properly. The extension .MU is
automatically appended to the new name. Delete the outdated menu tree file from the

directory before trying to load PISO. This program will not translate into a Windows

format.

APPENDIX C

 

APPENDIX C

EFFECT 3.0 and P-LOAD 3.0 USER’S GUIDE

INTRODUCTION

The Effective b Calculation Program (EFFECT 3.0) is designed to calculate an
adjustment to the phosphate sorption maximum (b), as calculated by the Langmuir sorption
isotherm, to account for the concentration of phosphate in the incoming wastewater. It
allows the user to instantly see how minor changes can affect the effective b variable.

The Phosphate Loading Calculation Program (P-LOAD 3.0) calculates the total
amount of phosphate that can be loaded to a volume of soil made up of several layers. It
utilizes the effective b variable, calculated by EFFECT 3.0, to estimate the total quantity of
phosphate a soil will sorb. It also calculates the “life” of a waste system in years.

Both programs use a custom menu tree that gives the user saving and printing
capabilities for both the input and the output data. The data tables are presented in an easy
to read format. Both programs utilize Quattro Pro 3.0.3

The EFFECT 3.0 and P-LOAD 3.0 calculation programs, when combined together,

offer an easy method for determining the suitability of a soil for phosphate removal from

 

3See Using the Programs with Quatrro Pro 4.0 and 5.0 for DOS, on page 86 of this user’s manual.

78

79

W381€W31€L

Installing the Program Files
To install the Phosphate Sorption Calculation Programs to your hard drive, first
determine the location of Quattro Pro 3.0 on your hard drive. Manually copy all the files
(except the Installbat file) on the Phosphate Sorption Calculation Programs diskette into the
same directory as Quattro Pro 3.0 using the DOS COPY command. Or, if the default
Quatrro Pro directory (QPRO>) is used, type “INSTALL” at the DOS prompt for the drive
containing the Phosphate Sorption Calculation Programs diskette. The Phosphate Sorption

Calculation Program files will automatically copy to the default Quattro Pro directory.

Retrieving the Programs
Once the calculation program files have been copied to your hard drive, the
programs are used by first loading Quartro Pro. Type “Q” at the DOS prompt and then press
<enter> to load Quattro Pro. Access the menu tree by using the back slash key (l) and
choose [FILE], and then [RETRIEVE]. When the listing of the available files is displayed,
use the arrow keys to highlight either of the program files (EFFECT3.WQ! or

PLOAD3.WQ!) and then press <enter>.

EFFECT 3.0

THE EFFECTIVE b CALCULATION PROGRAM

The Langmuir equation has been used to describe phosphate sorption by soils. The
Langmuir equation allows the estimation of a sorption maximum or b value, is the maximum
amount of phosphate that a soil can sorb, based on laboratory sorption isotherms and on
Bray-Pl values, as described in the manualfor PISO 3.0.

The sorption maximum can be adjusted for a particular site by correcting for the
amount of phosphate sorbed initially to the soil and for the concentration of phosphate in the
influent wastewater. This “effective” b value is calculated with the equation:

Effective b = (Langmuir b "' 6) - Bray-P1= mg/kg
Where 0 = (Langmuir K * [mg P/L in efiluent])/(l + (K " [P]))
The effective b is the total amount of phosphate a soil can sorb at a particular equilibrium

concentration less the amount of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

g phosphate already adsorbed.
f L_DATE I 1M?! L sunfish) IGOSPRTNSI i
i mgjlugdm magnum UNiMUIR BRAYPI Ii
. RESULTS 1
f 41le (make) (Um) (mare) Data Input
.1 . 1o « 300 . W177 r—To‘o‘fi .1
1 =5 ,
9 arms . '——'1197 ,1" The mam screen for the
:L ("‘9 P9103010 i
Effective b Calculation Program is the
Firm ll-EFFECT 30 input and output table data input and output table combined It

features a series of boxes or cells into which the user enters the appropriate data into. Each

box is labeled with a title, and the correct units are displayed beneath. Be sure to enter your

80

81

data using the correct units (see below each title). Use the arrow keys to move the
highlighted cursor to the various input boxes, type in the requested input data and then press
<enter>.

The first input box is the Sample ID. box. Enter your choice of identification,
limiting the length to nine characters. Both letters and numbers are acceptable.

Enter the average concentration of phosphate in the influent, using mg per liter, into
the next input box. The sorption maximum (Langmuir b), in mg per kg, and the constant
(Langmuir K), in liters per mg, are entered into the next two input boxes.

Enter the amount of phosphate initially sorbed to the soil into the final input box.

Again, make certain the correct units are used.

Data Output
The adjusted sorption maximum or the effective b is automatically calculated as
the user inputs the data and is reported in the final box in the table. The value reported is
in milligrams of phosphate per kilogram of soil (mg P/kg soil) and represents the available,

unused portion of the total P sorption capacity.

P-LOAD 3.0

THE PHOSPHATE LOADING CALCULATION PROGRAM

To accurately assess a soil’s suitability for municipal and domestic septic waste
disposal, it is important first to predict the maximum quantity (pounds/acre) of phosphate
that can be applied to the soil and how long the wastewater system can be used until the
sorption maximum is reached.

The Phosphate Loading Calculation Program (P-LOAD 3.0) is designed to calculate
the total amount of phosphate, in pounds, that can be loaded to a volume of soil with a
known bulk density and the total time the system can be used Each soil layer or horizon is
considered separately. To use this program, you must first obtain sorption isotherm and
Bray-Pl data for each layer or horizon of soil, and use PISO 3.0 to calculate a sorption

maximum (b value) for each layer.

Data Input
The data table for P-LOAD 3.0 is divided into three areas; a general input area, a
specific input area, and the output area Each area contains labeled boxes or cells where the

data is entered. The arrow keys are used

 

[MIDI «sun Hm n‘e‘T—fl 36m W. 718 .000 ii
H to move the cursor to the vanous cells.

 

 

 

Fist"! l3-P-L0AD 3-0 general data input area The first area is for the general
information needed The SAMPLE I.D. box is the first cell encountered. The user should

enter their choice of identification, limiting its length to nine characters and/or numbers.

82

83

Thesecondboxinthe general areais labeledAREA(ft"2). This isthe surface area
of the site under consideration. The data should be entered in square feet.‘

The final box in the general area is labeled # (PM This is the average amount
of phosphate, in pounds P, that will be applied to the Specified area of soil each year. It is
not necessary to input this data if you don’t need to know how long the soil can be used for
waste disposal.

The main part of the data table consists of the specific data input area. It is divided
into four subareas, one for each layer or horizon under consideration. The user should enter

the data into the appropriate boxes using the correct units displayed.

 

 

.4 The first cell encountered in the
smm wan NW3 4
g3? "32 fl? 1&3] 1 specific input area is titled Effective b.

 

H Law
H 1 b um mMy a i
” 6mm uw wan awn ;
P 2 (93",! $31 “$3 mgm 13 T1118 avarlable P sorptron capacrty,

L m MAJ T rmjfigmm‘ f

1 EM" W WM Pom calculated as the difference between the

f
|
6 mm mMy d 1
none: mm Phosphorus 3'
I W41112111fl4HWQMJ A . . ' .
1' sorptron maxrmurn (the Langmuir b
4 b mm hwy a H

1
1
1|
H 5mm aw wan hmn
1
l _J@q 7m mmmu
1 n5 L127] m’mflgmj

variable) and the amount of phosphate

 

m 14-P-LOAD 3.0 Specific data input m sorbed prior to isotherm analysis and
adjusted for the amount of phosphate in the influent. It can be calculated by using The
Effective b Calculation Program (EFFECT). The units for this variable are mg P per kg soil.

The second cell in the specific input area is labeled Layer Depth. This is where the

thickness of the soil horizon or layer is entered. This is not necessarily the depth from the

surface but the actual thickness of the layer under consideration. Only consider the horizons

 

‘ One acre is equivalent to 43,560 square feet.

84

or layers that will be in contact with the wastewater and are above the water table. The data
should be entered in inches. The Soil Bulk Density is entered in the third cell. This is the
mass of the soil (in grams) per soil volume (in cubic centimeters). The fourth box reports

the amount of phosphate (in pounds) that the soil layer can sorb.

Data Output
The output data area is at the bottom of the data table. The total amount of
phosphate (in pounds) and the number of years the soil can be used for phosphate disposal

is reported here. If the rate of loading

 

 

 

 

 

 

{TOTALIPHOSPl'ORUSl 260546 I WGUSE 85.14 i
' (pounds of phosphate-P per year added to
Fill!" 15-P-L0AD 3-0 output data area the soil) was not entered in the input area

at the top of the data table, the years of use will not be reported at the bottom of the data

table.

ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS

The Command Menu
The Effective b and The Phosphate Loading Calculation Programs share a custom

menu tree that greatly simplifies use of the programs. It gives the user automatic printing

 

capability and allows the easy

 

 

 

 

PRINT H SAVE 11 EXIT

Figure l6—Custom menu tree for EFFECT 3.0 and P-LOAD 3.0
limited to increase its simplicity and lessen the chance of accidental program alteration.

 

saving of data. It is purposefully

The custom menu tree is accessed in the same manner that Quattro Pro uses. The
back slash key U) is used to access the menu and the arrow keys are used to highlight the
choices. Choose the commands by pressing <enter>.

The commands available to the user are:

PRINT - Allows the user to print a copy of the data table. The program automatically
sets all fonts and blocks.

SAVE - Allows the user to save the data Be sure to change the file name when saving
your data.

EXIT - Exit Quattro Pro and return to DOS.

Printing Your Data
Printing a hardcopy of your data is quick and easy with the Phosphate Sorption

Calculation Programs. The programs automatically block the data tables and set the font.

85

86

Saving Your Data
The [SAVE] command available to the user of the Phosphate Sorption Calculation
Programs is the same as the [SAVE AS] command in Quattro Pro. Choosing this option
displays a filename prompt. Use the escape key <ESC> to delete the program file name
(EFFECT3.WQ! or PLOAD3.WQ!), type in the new file name and then press <enter>.
It is important to note that when this option is used, the entire spreadsheet is saved.
This means that not only will you save your data, but the calculation program too. Printing

out hard copies of data is the suggested method of data saving.

Exiting to DOS
When you are finished using the programs and would like to return to DOS, choose
the [EXIT] command fi'om the menu Quartro Pro may prompt you to save your data at this
time, however, a new file name cannot be chosen with this option. If you would like your

data saved, choose SAVE first, and then exit from the program.

Using the Programs with Quattro Pro 4.0 and 5.0 for DOS
These programs run from macros written using Quattro Pro 3. 0. Although it is not
recommended, if you own version 4.0 or 5.0, and would like to use these programs, install
the files to your hard drive according to the instructions on page 2 of this User’s Guide. The
custom menu tree file can then be translated to the newer version by typing
NEWMU TREES3 TREESn (Where n = newer version number)

at the DOS prompt for the directory containing the Quattro Pro 4.0 or 5.0 files and then

87

press <enter>. Printing functions may not translate properly. The extension .MU is
automatically appended to the new name. Be sure to delete the outdated menu tree file from
the directory before trying to load either of the calculation programs with the new menu

trees. These programs will not translate into a Windows format.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barrow, N.J., J .W. Bowden, A.M. Posner, and J .P. Quirk. 1980. Describing the effects of
electrolyte on adsorption of phosphate by a variable charge surface. Aus. J. Soil Res.
18:395-404.

Barrow, N.J., and TC. Shaw. 1979. Effects of solutionzsoil ratio and vigour of shaking on
the rate of phosphate adsorption by soil. J. Soil Sci. 30:67-76.

Bartholic, J. 1995. Personal communication. Michigan State University.
Black, CA. 1967. Soil-plant relationships. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Bray, RH, and LT. Kurtz. 1945. Determination of total, organic and available forms of
phosphorus in soil. Soil Sci. 59:39-45.

Bumham, GP, and D. Lopez-Hemandez. 1982. Phosphate retention in different soil
taxonomic classes. Soil Sci. 1342376-380.

Ellis, 36. 1993. Personal communication. Michigan State University.
Helyar, K.R., D.N. Munns, and R.G. Burau. 1976. Adsorption of phosphate by gibbsite. I.
Effects of neutral chloride salts of calcium, magnesium, sodium and potassium. J.

Soil Sci. 27:307-314.

Hope, GO, and J .K. Syers. 1976. Effects of solutionzsoil ratio on phosphate sorption by
soils. J. Soil Sci. 27:301-306.

Hsu, RH. 1975. Precipitation of phosphate from solution using aluminum salts. Water Res.
921155-1161.

Hsu, PH. 1976. Comparison of iron (III) and aluminum in precipitation of phosphate from
solution. Water Res. 10:903-905.

88

89

Hsu, RH. 1989. Aluminum hydroxides and oxyhydroxides. p. 331-378. In J .8. Dixon and
SB. Weed (ed) Minerals in soil environments. SSSA Book Series 1, Madison, WI.

Jacobs, L.W. 1977. Utilizing municipal sewage wastewaters and sludges and land for
agricultural production. North Central Regional Extension Publication No. 52.

Lindsay, W.L., P.L.G. Vlek, and SH. Chien. 1989. Phosphate minerals. p. 1089-1130. In
J .8. Dixon and SB. Weed (ed.) Minerals in soil environments. SSSA Book Series
1, Madison, WI.

Lopez-Hemandez, D. 1987. Phosphate adsorption variability within soil series and in diverse
soil populations. Soil Sci. 144:408-411.

McKenzie, RM. 1989. Manganese oxides and hydroxides. p. 439-465. In J .3. Dixon and
SB. Weed (ed.) Minerals in the soil environment. SSSA Book Series 1, Madison,
WI.

Mokma, D.L. 1987. Soil variability of five landforms in Michigan. Soil Survey and Land
Evaluation, 7:25-31.

Murphy, J ., and J .P. Riley. 1962. A modified single solution method for the determination
of phosphate in natural waters. Anal. Chem. Acta 27:31-36.

Nair, P.S., T.J. Logan, A.N. Sharpley, L.E. Sommers, M.A. Tabatabai, and TL. Yuan. 1984.
Interlaboratory comparison of a standardized phosphorus adsorption procedure. J.
Environ. Qual. 13:591-595.

Olsen, SR, and F .S. Watanabe. 1957. A method to determine a phosphorus adsorption
maximum of soils as measured by the Langmuir isotherm. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.
144-149.

Rai, D., and IA. Kittrick. 1989. Mineral equilibria and the soil system. p. 161-198. In J .3.
Dixon and SB. Weed (ed) Minerals in soil environments. SSSA Book Series 1,
Madison, WI.

Ryden, J.C., J.K. Syers, and JR. McLaughlin. 1977. Effects of ionic strength on
chernisorption and potential-determining sorption of phosphate by soils. J. Soil Sci.
28:62-71.

Sample, E. C., R.J. Soper, and GI. Racz. 1980. Reactions of phosphate fertilizers in soils.
p. 263-310. In FE. Khasawneh et al. (ed.) The role of phosphorus in agriculture.
ASA, Madison, WI

9O

Schwertrnann, U., and RM. Taylor. 1989. Iron oxides. p. 379-438. In J .8. Dixon and SB.
Weed (ed.) Minerals in soil environments. SSSA Book Series 1, Madison, WI.

Singh, D. 1969. Equilibrium concentrations of inorganic phosphorus and adsorbed
phosphorus in soils. PhD dissertation. Michigan State University. '

Snedecor, G.W. 1946. Statistical Methods, 4th ed. Iowa State College Press, Ames, Iowa.
p453.

"I111111111111111111111111