Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Short Communications
  • Published:
Plant and Soil Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Bacha R E and Hossner L R 1977 Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 41, 931–935.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Chen C C et al., 1980 Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 44, 635–639.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Crowder A A et al. 1982 Reclam. Reveg. Res. 1, 177–193.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hogan G D et al. 1977 Can. J. Bot. 55, 1043–1050.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Jackson M L 1958 Soil chemical analysis. Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, WS.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kowalenko C G 1984 J. Soil Sci. 64, 147–149.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Mason A C 1953 Ann. Rep. East Malling Res. Stn. Kent 104–107.

  8. McLaughlin B E 1983 M.Sc. Thesis. Queen's University, Kingston, Ont.

  9. Nicholas D J D et al. 1957 Plant and Soil 8, 367–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Rutherford G K et al. 1982 J. Environ. Qual. 11, 511–518.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Smith P F et al. 1950 Plant Physiol. 25, 496–506.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Steyn W J A 1959 J. Agric. Food Chem. 7, 344–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Stenlid G 1958In Encyclopedia Plant Physiology 4, 615–637 Berlin.

  14. Taylor G J and Crowder A A 1983 Am. J. Bot. 70, 1254–1257.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Wallace A J et al. 1980 J Plant Nutr. 2, 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Webber M D 1971 Can. J. Soil Sci. 51, 471–476.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ziemkiewicz P F 1979 Proc. Canadian Land Reclamation Assoc., 195–206.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, Queen's University, K7L 3N6, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

    B. E. McLaughlin & A. A. Crowder

  2. Department of Chemistry, Queen's University, K7L 3N6, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

    G. W. van Loon

Authors
  1. B. E. McLaughlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. G. W. van Loon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. A. Crowder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McLaughlin, B.E., van Loon, G.W. & Crowder, A.A. Comparison of selected washing treatments onAgrostis gigantea samples from mine tailings near Copper Cliff, Ontario, before analysis for Cu, Ni, Fe and K content. Plant Soil 85, 433–436 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02220198

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02220198

Key words

Search

Navigation