Advertisement

Plant and Soil

, Volume 85, Issue 3, pp 433–436 | Cite as

Comparison of selected washing treatments onAgrostis gigantea samples from mine tailings near Copper Cliff, Ontario, before analysis for Cu, Ni, Fe and K content

  • B. E. McLaughlin
  • G. W. van Loon
  • A. A. Crowder
Short Communications

Summary

Plants ofAgrostis gigantea Roth collected from Cu/Ni tailings near Copper Cliff, Ontario, were contaminated by substrate particles, and also on roots by an iron hydroxide plaque. Three washing treatments were compared on shoots and six on roots, prior to analysis for Cu, Ni and Fe. K content was compared to detect leaching. For both shoots and roots, rinsing with de-ionized water was as effective as Extran-300 or ultrasound. These three treatments caused no measured leaching from shoots. DCB removed iron plaque from roots; hot or cold EDTA removed some plaque. All treatments caused leaching of K from roots.

Key words

Agrostis gigantea Copper mine Nickel Tailings 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bacha R E and Hossner L R 1977 Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 41, 931–935.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chen C C et al., 1980 Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 44, 635–639.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Crowder A A et al. 1982 Reclam. Reveg. Res. 1, 177–193.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hogan G D et al. 1977 Can. J. Bot. 55, 1043–1050.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jackson M L 1958 Soil chemical analysis. Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, WS.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kowalenko C G 1984 J. Soil Sci. 64, 147–149.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mason A C 1953 Ann. Rep. East Malling Res. Stn. Kent 104–107.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    McLaughlin B E 1983 M.Sc. Thesis. Queen's University, Kingston, Ont.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nicholas D J D et al. 1957 Plant and Soil 8, 367–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rutherford G K et al. 1982 J. Environ. Qual. 11, 511–518.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Smith P F et al. 1950 Plant Physiol. 25, 496–506.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Steyn W J A 1959 J. Agric. Food Chem. 7, 344–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stenlid G 1958In Encyclopedia Plant Physiology 4, 615–637 Berlin.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Taylor G J and Crowder A A 1983 Am. J. Bot. 70, 1254–1257.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wallace A J et al. 1980 J Plant Nutr. 2, 1–9.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Webber M D 1971 Can. J. Soil Sci. 51, 471–476.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ziemkiewicz P F 1979 Proc. Canadian Land Reclamation Assoc., 195–206.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff/Dr W. Junk Publishers 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. E. McLaughlin
    • 1
  • G. W. van Loon
    • 2
  • A. A. Crowder
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyQueen's UniversityKingstonCanada
  2. 2.Department of ChemistryQueen's UniversityKingstonCanada

Personalised recommendations