| Soil Testing | | Print | |
| Written by Lori Donath | |||
| Friday, 03 April 2009 21:57 | |||
|
Testing soil fertility is a good idea for any grower (see http://www.clemson.edu/agsrvlb/interest.htm to learn how). But sites with potential pollutants call for special testing. To follow is documentation of our 2006 soil testing at the Edisto Court Community Garden.
The types of contaminants you might want to test for depend on the history of and possible risks at your site, as well as the concerns of stakeholders. (Check the phone book for private labs in your area; two labs in Columbia are Shealy Labs and Data Resources Inc.). In 2006 I sought out labs to test the soil at the Edisto Court Community Garden for heavy metals due to proximity of a former auto paint shop and concerns of residents; radioactive isotopes due to the former proximity of Interstate Laundry, or Unitech (a laundering service for nuclear processing facilities) and concerns of residents and Carolina Peace Board members; and organic contaminants common in cleaning solvents due to proximity of Unitech and concerns of some analysts I approached.
All three types of tests found levels to be in range and hence not a contamination threat. Reports from those tests follow below. We are grateful to Dr. Claudia Benitez-Nelson, Dr. Scott Goode, and and Dr. Bruce Watt for making available their expertise, time, and lab equipment in service to this project. Thanks also to T. Shaw, and Dr. W.E. Cotham (USC Dept. of Chemistry and Biochemistry), Dr. M. Aelion (USC Environmental Health Sciences), K. Tappa (DHEC), and Dr. G. Geidel (USC School of the Environment) for generous meetings, consultation, and referrals for the soil testing.
Radioactive Isotope Analysis:
Dr. Claudia Benitez-Nelson
Associate ProfessorUndergraduate Director, Marine Science Program Department of Geological Sciences University of South Carolina "The soil was tested for gamma emitting radioactive isotopes, 238U and 137Cs, common contaminants associated with nuclear processing. Concentrations of these elements within the soil were at background; no elevated activities indicative of contamination were measurable. Actual activities in dpm/gram:
210Pb 0.94 234Th 0.85 (238U direct daughter) 226Ra 0.80 228Ra 0.76 228Th 0.74 137Cs below detection All are very typical of "natural" or background sandy sediments." Heavy Metal Analysis:
Dr. Scott R. Goode
Professor
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry University of South Carolina barium
beryllium
cadmium
copper
lead
antimony were found to be 1/1000 of the EPA limits.
*Chromium was found at about 5 ppm in all the soils, but according to the EPA ranges from 1 to 2,000 ppm with an average of 54 ppm. No other element even made the radar screen. The soil samples can be pronounced free of heavy metal contamination.
Organic Analysis:
Dr. Bruce Watt
Data Resources Inc.
SAMPLE ID: 060829X003-01 SITE: Sample # 1
COLLECTED: 2006-08-24 16:00:00.000 TENTATIVE COST: 0.00 TEST: 5030-5035/8260 Analytes by GC/MS for RCRA PARAMETER RESULT RDL UNITS ANALYSIS DT ANALYST (Surr) 1,2-Dichloroe 113 0 % 2006-09-06 16:11 bcarpenter (Surr) 4-Bromofluoro 119 0 % 2006-09-06 16:11 bcarpenter (Surr) Dibromofluoro 111 0 % 2006-09-06 16:11 bcarpenter (Surr) Toluene-d8 113 0 % 2006-09-06 16:11 bcarpenter Benzene BDL 25 ug/Kg 2006-09-06 16:11 bcarpenter m-&p-Xylene BDL 50 ug/Kg 2006-09-06 16:11 bcarpenter o-Xylene BDL 25 ug/Kg 2006-09-06 16:11 bcarpenter Tetrachloroethene BDL 25 ug/Kg 2006-09-06 16:11 bcarpenter Toluene BDL 25 ug/Kg 2006-09-06 16:11 bcarpenter Trichloroethene BDL 25 ug/Kg 2006-09-06 16:11 bcarpenter ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SAMPLE ID: 060829X003-02 SITE: Sample # 2 COLLECTED: 2006-08-24 16:10:00.000 TENTATIVE COST: 0.00 TEST: 5030-5035/8260 Analytes by GC/MS for RCRA PARAMETER RESULT RDL UNITS ANALYSIS DT ANALYST (Surr) 1,2-Dichloroe 92 0 % 2006-09-06 16:44 bcarpenter (Surr) 4-Bromofluoro 104 0 % 2006-09-06 16:44 bcarpenter (Surr) Dibromofluoro 90 0 % 2006-09-06 16:44 bcarpenter (Surr) Toluene-d8 86 0 % 2006-09-06 16:44 bcarpenter Benzene BDL 25 ug/Kg 2006-09-06 16:44 bcarpenter m-&p-Xylene BDL 50 ug/Kg 2006-09-06 16:44 bcarpenter o-Xylene BDL 25 ug/Kg 2006-09-06 16:44 bcarpenter Tetrachloroethene BDL 25 ug/Kg 2006-09-06 16:44 bcarpenter Toluene BDL 25 ug/Kg 2006-09-06 16:44 bcarpenter Trichloroethene BDL 25 ug/Kg 2006-09-06 16:44 bcarpenter ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SAMPLE ID: 060829X003-03 SITE: Sample # 3 COLLECTED: 2006-08-24 16:20:00.000 TENTATIVE COST: 0.00 TEST: 5030-5035/8260 Analytes by GC/MS for RCRA PARAMETER RESULT RDL UNITS ANALYSIS DT ANALYST (Surr) 1,2-Dichloroe 103 0 % 2006-09-06 17:17 bcarpenter (Surr) 4-Bromofluoro 119 0 % 2006-09-06 17:17 bcarpenter (Surr) Dibromofluoro 99 0 % 2006-09-06 17:17 bcarpenter (Surr) Toluene-d8 93 0 % 2006-09-06 17:17 bcarpenter Benzene BDL 25 ug/Kg 2006-09-06 17:17 bcarpenter m-&p-Xylene BDL 50 ug/Kg 2006-09-06 17:17 bcarpenter o-Xylene BDL 25 ug/Kg 2006-09-06 17:17 bcarpenter Tetrachloroethene BDL 25 ug/Kg 2006-09-06 17:17 bcarpenter Toluene BDL 25 ug/Kg 2006-09-06 17:17 bcarpenter Trichloroethene BDL 25 ug/Kg 2006-09-06 17:17 bcarpenter ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SAMPLE ID: 060829X003-04 SITE: Sample # 4 COLLECTED: 2006-08-24 16:30:00.000 TENTATIVE COST: 0.00 TEST: 5030-5035/8260 Analytes by GC/MS for RCRA PARAMETER RESULT RDL UNITS ANALYSIS DT ANALYST (Surr) 1,2-Dichloroe 90 0 % 2006-09-06 17:50 bcarpenter (Surr) 4-Bromofluoro 100 0 % 2006-09-06 17:50 bcarpenter (Surr) Dibromofluoro 89 0 % 2006-09-06 17:50 bcarpenter (Surr) Toluene-d8 89 0 % 2006-09-06 17:50 bcarpenter Benzene BDL 25 ug/Kg 2006-09-06 17:50 bcarpenter m-&p-Xylene BDL 50 ug/Kg 2006-09-06 17:50 bcarpenter o-Xylene BDL 25 ug/Kg 2006-09-06 17:50 bcarpenter Tetrachloroethene BDL 25 ug/Kg 2006-09-06 17:50 bcarpenter Toluene BDL 25 ug/Kg 2006-09-06 17:50 bcarpenter Trichloroethene BDL 25 ug/Kg 2006-09-06 17:50 bcarpenter A Common Ground volunteer compared these findings to
EPA soil guidelines and found them to be in range and hence not a contamination threat.
|
|||
| Last Updated on Saturday, 04 April 2009 17:25 |












