APPENDIX H – BIOFILTER EMISSION RESULTS 
CE Schmidt, Ph.D. 

Environmental Consultant

19200 Live Oak Road Red Bluff, CA 96080 (530) 529-4256 FAX- 4878 

CES#042004/YoloCounty/SOP

April 21, 2004 

Mr. Ramin Yazdani 

Yolo County Public Works Department 

Division of Integrated Waste Management 

292 West Beamer Street 

Woodland, CA 95695 

Dear Mr. Yazdani: 

Enclosed please find (1) copy of the draft work plan for the flux chamber testing program at 

the Yolo County landfill and biofilter research site located in Woodland, California. This 

testing program involves conducting a baseline air emissions testing from two biofilters 

established for removal of constituents from the research landfill cells. The goal is to 

provide data that can assist in the research effort by assessing fugitive air emissions from the 

biofilter system. 

Testing is scheduled for Friday, April 30, 2004, on site at 0900. Please send me a map 

where the site is located and an address/contact phone number. Mr. Rash will not be 

conducting testing with us on Friday. 

Please call with any questions that you may have and thanks for your help. 
CE Schmidt, Ph.D. 

Environmental Consultant

19200 Live Oak Road Red Bluff, CA 96080 (530) 529-4256 FAX- 4878 

CES#042004/YoloCounty/SOP

Sincerely, 

CE Schmidt, Ph.D. 

SOURCE TEST PROTOCOL 

BIOFILTER FACILITY BASELINE EMISSIONS TESTING AT THE 

YOLO COUNTY RESEARCH FACILITY LOCATED IN WOODLAND, 

CALIFORNIA USING THE USEPA FLUX CHAMBER FOR FUGITIVE 

EMISSIONS 

 DRAFT 

 Prepared for: 

Mr. Ramin Yazdani 

Yolo County Public Works Department 

Division of Integrated Waste Management 

292 West Beamer Street 

Woodland, CA 95695 
CE Schmidt, Ph.D. 

Environmental Consultant

19200 Live Oak Road Red Bluff, CA 96080 (530) 529-4256 FAX- 4878 

CES#042004/YoloCounty/SOP

 

 Prepared by: 

 CE Schmidt 

 19200 Live Oak Road 

 Red Bluff, California 96080 

April 2004 
CE Schmidt, Ph.D. 

Environmental Consultant

19200 Live Oak Road Red Bluff, CA 96080 (530) 529-4256 FAX- 4878 

CES#042004/YoloCounty/SOP

 TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 HISTORY, BACKGROUND, AND OPERATION OF THE EPA RECOMMENDED SURFACE EMISSION ISOLATION FLUX CHAMBER

2.1 HISTORY

2.2 BACKGROUND

3.0 QUALITY CONTROL

3.1 FIELD QC SUMMARY 

3.2 SAMPLE MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

4.0 SAMPLING STRATEGY

5.0 PROJECT INSTRUCTIONS

5.1 SCHEDULE 

5.2 EQUIPMENT LIST

6.0 SAMPLING PROTOCOLS

6.1 US EPA RECOMMENDED SURFACE EMISSION ISOLATION FLUX 

 CHAMBER 

6.2 GRAB SAMPLING 

7.0 ANALYTICAL PROTOCOLS 

TO-15 HYDROCARBON SPECIATION/FIXED GASES ANALYSIS 

DETECTOR TUBE AND INSTRUMENT SCREENING FOR METHANE, CARBON 

DIOXIDE, HYDROGEN SULFIDE, AND AMMONIA 

REFERENCES 
CE Schmidt, Ph.D. 

Environmental Consultant

19200 Live Oak Road Red Bluff, CA 96080 (530) 529-4256 FAX- 4878 

CES#042004/YoloCounty/SOP

 

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This source test protocol describes the methodology and sampling procedure for using the 

USEPA surface emission isolation flux chamber to assess fugitive air emissions in support of 

a Yolo County Public Works Department, Division of Integrated Waste Management 

(DIWM) research project. A conceptual approach has been developed that uses the USEPA 

surface emission isolation flux chamber assessment technology to assess air emissions from 

the face of two biofilter units that may be operated at different feed rates. The proposed 

program can satisfy the objective of assessing actual air emissions from the biofilter units; 

the duct sample collection activity (needed to determine removal efficiency in the biofilters) 

and the analysis of samples collected from both the ductwork leading to the biofilters and the 

samples collected from the flux chamber are not included in this proposal and are the 

responsibility of the Yolo County DIWM. 

A description of the history, background, and operation of the USEPA recommended surface 

emission isolation flux chamber (flux chamber) is provided along with sampling and 

analytical protocol, sampling strategy, quality control requirements, and sample management 

protocol. 

This source-specific test protocol is intended to provide area source flux data representative 

of site-specific fugitive air emissions of hydrocarbon compounds including methane from the 

research biofilter unit treatment process. Data will be collected representing volatile organic 

compound (VOC0 flux and fixed gases including methane from representative surfaces on 

one or both biofilter units. The number of samples and test locations indicated below 
CE Schmidt, Ph.D. 

Environmental Consultant

19200 Live Oak Road Red Bluff, CA 96080 (530) 529-4256 FAX- 4878 

CES#042004/YoloCounty/SOP

6 

represent a cost-effective strategy that will provide unique characterization data and are 

subject to change based on process operation and site conditions. 

The testing scheduled for the site is summarized below. Testing will be conducted on the 

biofilter operated in a start-up condition and later throughout the remainder of the research 

program. The testing strategy includes a total of six field samples for the start-up testing and 

1 media blank and 1 field replicate sample. Testing at other times will include the use of the 

testing protocols described herein and will vary in sampling effort based on the objective of 

each process-related activity or condition of the biofilter. 

The technical effort includes: preparing and submitting a source test protocol for the 

collection of flux data; preparation of field test equipment including flux chamber equipment 

and expendable field supplies; field testing including flux chamber testing at up to 6 

locations for the start-up condition test, chain-of-custody; sample shipping; sample analysis 

for VOCs and methane; laboratory reporting and review of laboratory data, reporting of the 

source test results. 

2.0 HISTORY, BACKGROUND, AND OPERATION OF THE EPA RECOMMENDED SURFACE EMISSION ISOLATION FLUX CHAMBER

This section briefly describes the history, background, and operation of the US EPArecommended surface emission isolation flux chamber. This device is used to measure the 

emission rates from surfaces emitting gas species. The primary reference for this section is 

the document entitled "Measurement of Gaseous Emission Rates from Land Surfaces Using 
CE Schmidt, Ph.D. 

Environmental Consultant

19200 Live Oak Road Red Bluff, CA 96080 (530) 529-4256 FAX- 4878 

CES#042004/YoloCounty/SOP

7 

an Emission Isolation Flux Chamber, Users Guide," US EPA Environmental Monitoring 

Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada, US EPA Contract No. 68-02-3889, Work 

Assignment No. 18, February 1986 1

. 

2.1 History

Assessing the rate of emissions of gas phase species from area sources has been, and 

continues to be, a challenge for scientists and engineers. The interest in assessing emission 

rates from area or "fugitive" sources has been steadily increasing over the past 23 years, 

largely due to two factors: 

1) Fugitive emission sources are contributing to the non-attainment of state and federal 

ambient air quality standards; and 

2) Fugitive emissions from controlled and uncontrolled facilities are often toxic (air 

toxics) and the impact to receptors near these sources is an issue. 

The later has been the primary driving force in the development of the current emission 

assessment methods, in particular, the flux chamber method. There are four basic 

assessment approaches for assessing air emissions rates: direct measurement technologies; 

indirect measurement technologies; fenceline monitoring and modeling technologies; and 

predictive emission modeling. The most promising of these approaches is the direct 

measurement approach2

. One reason for this is that there is no modeling or estimation 

involved which reduces the uncertainty in the assessment. If emission rate data are to be 

used as input to exposure assessment and health risk assessment, it is important to use 
CE Schmidt, Ph.D. 

Environmental Consultant

19200 Live Oak Road Red Bluff, CA 96080 (530) 529-4256 FAX- 4878 

CES#042004/YoloCounty/SOP

8 

measured versus modeled emission rate input data. This will reduce the uncertainty in the 

health risk assessment output. 

Although the other three approaches have been used successfully, the direct approach is 

versatile, provides reproducible emission rate data, and is a cost-effective assessment 

approach. The other advantages include superior detection limit capabilities, the lack of 

upwind interferences, and the operation of the technology is not dependent upon meteorological conditions. 

The use of enclosures for assessing emission rates was first reported in the literature by 

Zimmerman3

 (1977) and Adams4 (1978). The basic approach uses an enclosure or chamber 

of some design to isolate a surface emitting gas species. The chamber must be well 

characterized and qualify as a continuously stirred reactor. Clean sweep air is added to the 

chamber at a controlled, fixed rate, and the contents are sampled and analyzed for species of 

concern. The emission rate of species, ERi (milligrams per minute per square meter), is 

calculated by knowing the sweep air flow rate, Q (cubic meters/minute), species 

concentration Yi (milligrams/cubic meters), and exposed (to the chamber) surface area A 

(square meters) as follows: 

 ERi = (Q, m3/min) (Yi, ug/m3) / (A, m2) Equation 1 

This emission assessment approach has been used on a variety of solid and liquid surfaces 

and for a variety of species5

. 
CE Schmidt, Ph.D. 

Environmental Consultant

19200 Live Oak Road Red Bluff, CA 96080 (530) 529-4256 FAX- 4878 

CES#042004/YoloCounty/SOP

9 

2.2 Background

The development of the current EPA-recommended flux chamber started with the need to 

assess the emissions of air toxics at an uncontrolled hazardous waste landfill (superfund site) 

as part of a Remedial Investigation effort. Literature on direct measurement technologies 

was used to develop flux chambers of different size, shape, and construction materials. After 

several site assessment reports where this technology was used at uncontrolled superfund 

sites, EPA became interested at using the approach to characterize fugitive emissions from 

controlled treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs). This interest leads to a study 

where the most promising direct, indirect, and predictive modeling technologies were 

evaluated by conducting side-by-side emission rate assessments at TSDFs. The results of 

this study demonstrated the advantages of the flux chamber measurement technology when 

compared to the other assessment technologies. Further interest lead to the redesign and 

parametric evaluation of the flux chamber as described in the EPA Users Guide. This design 

represents the best compromise in design, construction materials, and suitability for different 

types of applications. EPA then funded the preparation of the Users Guide, which provides 

the results of the chamber evaluation and recommended operating protocols. 

Test data indicate that the flux chamber is a reliable assessment technology. Precision is 

reported at +5 percent and accuracy is +30 percent. The recovery studies conducted on 40 

hydrocarbon species (alkanes, alkenes, aromatics, halogenated, sulfur containing, cyclic) 

averaged 103 percent1

. The sensitivity and range of the technology is a function of the 

analytical methods used, the selection of operating conditions, the level of the emission 

source, and, to some degree, the type of species encountered. 
CE Schmidt, Ph.D. 

Environmental Consultant

19200 Live Oak Road Red Bluff, CA 96080 (530) 529-4256 FAX- 4878 

CES#042004/YoloCounty/SOP

10 

3.0 QUALITY CONTROL 

Quality control procedures that are used to assure quality data are listed and described 

below. The flux chamber has no specific quality control requirements except that the flow 

meter used to introduce the sweep air at 5.0 liters per minute requires representative 

calibration (i.e., multipoint calibration using a primary standard current for the year). The 

rotometer used as part of the emission measurement test should not be used for other 

applications insuring the clean operation of the air introduction system. Operation of the 

chamber should follow the specific protocol for use described in the USEPA User's Guide. 

This includes using a 5.0 liters per minute sweep air flow rate and allowing for 5 residence 

times equilibration prior to sample collection. Other sampling quality control procedures are 

listed below. 

System Blank Sample -- A system blank sample is obtained by operating the flux chamber as 

per protocol on a clean Teflon surface and filling the sample media as a sample, and 

submitting the blank sample for analysis. The frequency of blank samples is a minimum of 

5% or one per batch. A system blank sample will be collected at the onset of testing. 

Replicate Sample -- Determine sample precision by collecting a replicate sample 

immediately after a sample is collected. The frequency of replicate sample collection is 5% 

or one per mill. The criteria for acceptable field precision is +50% relative percent 

difference (RPD). 

Specific Method Performance -- Specific method quality control is conducted as per ASTM 

Method E-679-91 for olfactory odor analysis. 
CE Schmidt, Ph.D. 

Environmental Consultant

19200 Live Oak Road Red Bluff, CA 96080 (530) 529-4256 FAX- 4878 

CES#042004/YoloCounty/SOP

11 

Sample Management -- Sample management is defined by the specific sampling method 

used to satisfy the program objectives. A summary of the sample management information 

for the field measurement activities is given in Table 1. 

Data qualifiers that will be used to assist in data usage include: J- estimated value or below 

method detection limit; B- value found in blank sample and data may be baseline corrected; 

and E- value found at level that exceeds calibration range. Laboratory recovery and 

precision data, as well as field precision data, will be used to qualify data usage on data 

tables and in the text of the report. 

3.1 FIELD QC SUMMARY 

The field QC activities scheduled for the field testing are summarized in Table 2. Deviation 

in schedule or frequency in QC activities will require corrective action including 

documentation of corrective action in the field notebook and notifying Total Compliance 

Management of the deviation and corrective action. 

3.2 SAMPLE MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

Sample management includes all activities involving the recording, preserving, storing, 

handling, and shipping of the field samples. These activities are summarized below by 

method in Table 1. 

4.0 SAMPLING STRATEGY

The sampling strategy includes using the flux chamber to assess the area source emissions of 

project target compounds from the operating biofilter facilities. The data collection approach 
CE Schmidt, Ph.D. 

Environmental Consultant

19200 Live Oak Road Red Bluff, CA 96080 (530) 529-4256 FAX- 4878 

CES#042004/YoloCounty/SOP

12 

will involve using the USEPA recommended surface emission isolation flux chamber. This 

approach will provide data of high quality (accuracy and precision) that will be 

representative of target compound emissions from unique components released as fugitive 

air emissions from the biofilter operations. The technical approach provided below will 

generate a minimum data set that can be used to estimate the emissions (species and flux 

rate) from the biofilters. 

This source-specific test protocol is intended to provide area source flux data representative 

of the fugitive air emissions from the biofilter units. Data will be collected representing 

VOC emissions and fixed gases from the operating units. The number of samples and test 

locations indicated below are subject to change based on process operation and site 

conditions, and may be finalized after a site walk-through prior to the site assessment. 

The goal of this technical approach is to provide a matrix of flux data on unique surface 

representing the emissions from the biofilter units as a start-up conditions emissions 

assessment. The matrix of representative flux data is used, along with detailed operations 

knowledge of the process and estimates of surface areas these sources, to generate the 

baseline emissions estimate. 

All analytes will be tested for at all locations. The total sample count is up to 6 field samples 

and 2 QC samples. The technical effort includes: preparing and submitting a source test 

protocol for the collection of flux data; preparation of field test equipment including flux 

chamber equipment and expendable field supplies; field testing including the collection of up 
CE Schmidt, Ph.D. 

Environmental Consultant

19200 Live Oak Road Red Bluff, CA 96080 (530) 529-4256 FAX- 4878 

CES#042004/YoloCounty/SOP

13 

to6 field samples (plus 2 QC samples); chain-of-custody; sample shipping; sample analysis 

for VOC/fixed gases; and reporting of the source test results. 

The standard operating procedure using the flux chamber includes placing the chamber 

approximately 1/4"-to-1” into the surface emitting the target compounds (forming an airtight seal) and adding clean, sweep gas (ultra high purity air) until the contents are at 

equilibrium. (Note- media materials will also be added to the outside wall of the chamber to 

assist in sealing the chamber to the surface preventing ambient air infiltration into the 

chamber from the bottom seal.) This occurs after about four or five residence times or about 

30 minutes (following the USEPA flux chamber User's Guide). At equilibrium, the grab 

samples for VOC analysis and instrument measurements will be collected/conducted. The 

flux chamber testing in the field per location will require about one hour per sample. Site 

operations will need to be altered to create the test surfaces of interest. 

The sample matrix shown in Table 3 will generate the minimum QC samples and field data 

from up to 6 locations. The total sample count for the start-up program is up to 8 samples. 

A summary of all sample collection is given below. All surface area data will be reported in 

flux units (ug/m2,min-1 or mg/m2,min-1) and these data, along with unit dimensions, will be 

used to calculate species emissions from the biofilters. 

5.0 PROJECT INSTRUCTIONS
CE Schmidt, Ph.D. 

Environmental Consultant

19200 Live Oak Road Red Bluff, CA 96080 (530) 529-4256 FAX- 4878 

CES#042004/YoloCounty/SOP

14 

It is estimated that the start-up field testing will require one day of flux chamber testing 

using one flux chambers. This will require a crew of one person and one complete flux 

chamber system. 

5.1 SCHEDULE

The project will be executed on the schedule given below. The project team will arrive the 

morning of testing. All equipment and field supplies will be inventoried and pre-testing 

calibrations will be performed. The first order of business will be to review health and safety 

issues (if necessary) and orient to the site. Then, locations for testing will be selected. After 

this, testing will be conducted the remainder of the day. It is anticipated that all testing will 

be completed within one day per facility. All field progress will be recorded in a project 

logbook and all chain-of-custody will be completed on the day of sample collection. All 

shipping records will be retained as part of the field data set and the person shipping samples 

is responsible for contacting the laboratory prior to sample receipt. 

PROJECT SCHEDULE 

Draft Work Plan 04/22/04 

Final Work Plan Within Five (5) Days of Receipt of Comments 

Field Sampling 04/30/04 

Draft Report Ten (10) Working After Receipt of Lab Data 

Final Report Within 5 Days of Receipt of Comments from Contractor 

5.2 EQUIPMENT LIST
CE Schmidt, Ph.D. 

Environmental Consultant

19200 Live Oak Road Red Bluff, CA 96080 (530) 529-4256 FAX- 4878 

CES#042004/YoloCounty/SOP

15 

The list of field equipment and expendable supplies for the proposed field testing is provided 

below. All sampling media (prepared as per method specifications) is to be provided by the 

laboratories, including tedlar bags. The laboratory typically provides the sampling media for 

this method and conducts blank testing to insure proper laboratory service. Dr. C.E. Schmidt 

will supply all other sampling equipment. CE Schmidt will supply the flux chamber system 

that will be required for this effort. The complete flux chamber system shall include the 

following: 

1) Modified USEPA flux chamber as per USEPA design including stainless steel Swagelock fittings, 

2) Support cooler with a mounted rotometer (0-to-5 liter per minute) through the cooler 

walls, 

3) Brass, 2-stage regulator for bottled air (CGA 590 fitting for air and 1/4" Swage-lock 

(male) adaptor fitting, 

4) Ten foot, 1/4" Teflon line with female fittings, 

5) Ten foot, 1/4" Teflon air inlet/outlet support line, 

6) Large size plastic support cooler, 

7) Set of miscellaneous hand-tools including an adjustable crescent wrench for the CGA 580 

regulator fitting, small adjustable crescent wench for the 1/4" swage fittings, assorted 

medium and small size screw drivers, 

8) Teflon sheet (1/32" or thicker) for blank system testing, 

9) Type K thermocouple wires (2, 12') and temperature readout, 

10) Rigid-wall shipping/storage crate for the flux chamber mounted on roller wheels, 

11) Open-bed truck or van or sampling vehicle (rent vehicle), 
CE Schmidt, Ph.D. 

Environmental Consultant

19200 Live Oak Road Red Bluff, CA 96080 (530) 529-4256 FAX- 4878 

CES#042004/YoloCounty/SOP

16 

12) Decontamination supplies including Alconox soap, paper towels, and wash water, 

13) One (1) bottle of ultra high purity air (size 150) supplied by CE Schmidt, 

14) Purge pump for sample line purging, and 

15) Hand tools. 

 

6.0 SAMPLING PROTOCOLS 

6.1 US EPA RECOMMENDED SURFACE ISOLATION FLUX CHAMBER 

The surface emission isolation flux chamber (flux chamber) can be used on any liquid 

surface and solid surface. The only requirement regarding application is that there must be 

access to the surface for testing. If the surface cannot support the chamber, the chamber 

must be suspended or equipped with a flotation devise or suspended from over-head. The 

most critical issue regarding application is that the location and number of locations for 

testing be sufficient so that these data can be used to calculate the total emissions from the 

emitting surface area. 

Volumetric flow is assessed by either recovering a trace gas that is added to the sweep air, or 

by measuring the flow using a calibrated bag on the exhaust port of the chamber. Carbon 

monoxide is used as a tracer and the recovery of carbon monoxide, as compared to the added 

amount, is used to calculate an ‘advective flow’ correction factor for each measurement. If 

there is no measurable volumetric flow from a green material pile location, then the carbon 

monoxide level in the flux chamber will equal that of the QC response of the field carbon 

monoxide instrument on the sweep air from the standard gas bottle. Advective correction 

factors are commonly used to generate an accurate flux assessment from advective flow 
CE Schmidt, Ph.D. 

Environmental Consultant

19200 Live Oak Road Red Bluff, CA 96080 (530) 529-4256 FAX- 4878 

CES#042004/YoloCounty/SOP

17 

surfaces and will be used for this baseline investigation. At a minimum, the volumetric flow 

calculated from process flow rates can be used to correct emission rates on this surface. 

The operation of the flux chamber involves: 1) identifying the test area; 2) initiating sweep 

gas flow rate to the flux chamber; 3) operating the chamber for at least four residence times; 

4) collecting exhaust gas for analysis and/or recording instrument response; 5) 

decontaminating the chamber; and 6) relocating the measurement equipment to the next test 

area. The specific operating protocol for soil surfaces is given below. 

1) Locate the flux chamber, sweep gas, sample collection equipment, and field 

documents at the test location. Perform screening activities as needed to select the exact test 

location (i.e., venting, non-venting surface). 

2) Document site information, location information, equipment information, name of 

sampler, date, and time on the Field Data Sheet. 

3) Select the exact test location and place the chamber approx. 1/4"-to-1” into the test 

surface. Biofilter media should also be piled along the outside edge to insure sealing. The 

chamber should be sealed along the base preventing air infiltration. Thermocouples will be 

used to measure the media/air temperatures. 

4) Initiate the sweep gas flow rate and set the rotometer at 5.0 liters per minute. 

Constant sweep gas flow rate is critical. Record time. 
CE Schmidt, Ph.D. 

Environmental Consultant

19200 Live Oak Road Red Bluff, CA 96080 (530) 529-4256 FAX- 4878 

CES#042004/YoloCounty/SOP

18 

5) Collect instrument background data (gas analyzers, thermocouples) and record data if 

needed. 

6) Operate the chamber sweep air flow rate at 5.0 liters per minute and record data 

every residence time (6 minutes) for four to five residence times or 24 to 30 minutes. Record 

data. The chamber is at steady-state. 

7) Connect the purge pump. A total of 5.0 liters per minute is added to the chamber and 

the gas not sampled is exhausted out the pressure equalization port in the top of the chamber. 

 The chamber is operated at near atmospheric pressure. Do not exceed an exhaust gas sample/purge rate of 2.5 liters per minute. This will prevent entraining of ambient air into the 

chamber and maintain an exhaust rate of at least 2.5 liters per minute out of the pressure 

equalization port. Ten plunges of the hand pump are adequate. 

8) Interface the canister to the purged sample line and collect the grab sample by slowly 

filling the tedlar bag sample(s) and metering the collection rate. Do not exceed a collection 

rate of 2.5 liters per minute at any time. This will prevent unwanted dilution of chamber 

exhaust gas by ambient air. 

9) Collect any field measurement data by interfacing the purged sample line to the 

measurement device (colorometric tube, micro-FID for total VOCs, CO analyzer for carbon 

monoxide tracer recovery, etc.), and collecting field data. Record the field data. 
CE Schmidt, Ph.D. 

Environmental Consultant

19200 Live Oak Road Red Bluff, CA 96080 (530) 529-4256 FAX- 4878 

CES#042004/YoloCounty/SOP

19 

10) Discontinue the flux measurement, shut off the sweep air, remove chamber and 

secure equipment. 

12) Decontaminate the chamber where contact was made with the green material using a 

clean paper towel and water (if needed) to remove any residual materials and condensation 

from the inside of the chamber. Purge the sample lines with sweep gas (5 lpm) for 2 

minutes. Purging is accomplished by switching inlet and outlet lines at the cooler housing 

the rotometer. 

13) Relocate equipment to the next test location and follow steps 1) through 14). 

6.2 GRAB SAMPLING 

Grab samples using tedlar bags will be collected from the purged exhaust line of the flux 

chamber at steady-state conditions for VOC analysis and fixed gas analysis. Sampling rate 

will be maintained at less than 2.5 lpm. Canister samples will collected by interfacing the 

canister to the sample line using the 1/4" Swage-lock fittings, drawing a vacuum on the 

sample line from the canister and filling the canister over the appropriate time period. 

7.0 ANALYTICAL PROTOCOLS

This section describes the analytical protocols that will be used to analyze the field samples. 

 Copies of all protocols used are available upon request. 
CE Schmidt, Ph.D. 

Environmental Consultant

19200 Live Oak Road Red Bluff, CA 96080 (530) 529-4256 FAX- 4878 

CES#042004/YoloCounty/SOP

20 

7.1 TO-15 HYDROCARBON SPECIATION/FIXED GASES ANALYSIS 

Flux chamber samples will be analyzed by USEPA Method TO-15 operated in the full scam 

mode. A copy of the analytical method is available on request. TO-15 retrieves whole air 

sample from a Summa polished, stainless-steel canister. Sample is transferred from the 

canister that is sampled at atmospheric pressure to the analytical system by pressurizing the 

canister with ultra-pure nitrogen. An aliquot of sample is retrieved by the pressurized 

canister to the sample loop and cryotrap. Calibrated volumes of sample are frozen in the trap 

and then desorbed via heating and transferred into the GC/MS. The project compound list 

was derived from historic groundwater data is represented below along with expected 

method detection limit (MDL) and reporting limit (RL) information. 

The method detection limit (MDL) for EPA TO-15 utilizing gas chromatography/mass 

spectrometry (GC/MS) in the full scan mode is about 0.1 ppbv or less, or a flux of less than 

about 0.02 ug/m2,min-1 for VOCs. 

Fixed gases can also be analyzed from the canister using a variety of methods. 

7.2 DETECTOR TUBE AND INSTRUMENT SCREENING FOR VOCs, CARBON 

MONOXIDE, HYDROGEN SULFIDE, AND AMMONIA 

Screening-level data may be collected for VOCs, carbon monoxide, or other compounds 

from the flux chamber using field instruments and measurement devices. Gas species 

emitted from the biofilters can be detected using instruments, including total VOCs and other 

compounds. Carbon monoxide can also be used as a tracer added to the sweep air and is also 

detected using a field instrument. Gas samples are withdrawn from the flux chamber (post 
CE Schmidt, Ph.D. 

Environmental Consultant

19200 Live Oak Road Red Bluff, CA 96080 (530) 529-4256 FAX- 4878 

CES#042004/YoloCounty/SOP

21 

steady state conditions) by interfacing the instrument or colorometric tube of interest to the 

purged sample collection line, and collecting field readings until a stable or repeatable 

detection is recorded. These screening-level data are not critical to the program, but do 

provide useful information that can be obtained with minimal effort. 
CE Schmidt, Ph.D. 

Environmental Consultant

19200 Live Oak Road Red Bluff, CA 96080 (530) 529-4256 FAX- 4878 

CES#042004/YoloCounty/SOP

22 

REFERENCES 

1) US EPA, "Measurement of Gaseous Emission Rates from Land Surfaces Using an 

Emission Isolation Flux Chamber- User's Guide," EPA 600/8-86-008 (NTIS PB86-223161), 

February 1986. 

2) US EPA, "Procedures for Conducting Air Pathway Analysis for Superfund Activities, 

Interim Final Documents, Volume 2- Estimation of Baseline Air Emissions at Superfund 

Sites, EPA-450/1-89-002a (NTIS PB90-270588), August 1990. 

3) Zimmerman, Pat. "Procedures for Conducting Hydrocarbon Emission Inventories of 

Biogenic Sources and Some Results of Recent Investigations." Presented at the 1977 EPA 

Emissions Inventory/Factor Workshop, Raleigh, North Carolina, September 13-15, 1977. 

4) Adams, D.T., et al, "Measurement of Biogenic Sulfur-Containing Gas Emissions from 

Soils and Vegetation." Presented at the 71st Annual Meeting of the APCA, Houston, Texas, 

June 25-30, 1978. 

5) Winegar, E.D., L.H. Keith editors, Sampling and Analysis of Airborne Pollutants, C.E. 

Schmidt, Chapter 3, "Theory and Applications of the US EPA Recommended Surface 

Emission Isolation Flux Chamber for Measuring Emission Rates of Volatile and Semivolatile Species." Lewis Publishers, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1993. 
CE Schmidt, Ph.D. 

Environmental Consultant

19200 Live Oak Road Red Bluff, CA 96080 (530) 529-4256 FAX- 4878 

CES#042004/YoloCounty/SOP

23 

Table 1. Summary of Sample Management Information. 

Analy

tical 

Meth

od 

Samp

le 

Conta

iner 

Hold 

Time 

Prese

rvatio

n 

Speci

al 

Consi

derations 

Com

ment 

USEP

A 

TO15 

Sum

ma 

Canis

ter 

14-

Days 

Close 

Valve

; Cap 

Port 

Store 

sampl

e in 

prote

ctive 

contai

ner 

None 

Table 2. Summary of Field Quality Control Information. 

Samplin

g 

Method 

Activity Frequenc

y 

Criteria 

Commen

t 

 
CE Schmidt, Ph.D. 

Environmental Consultant

19200 Live Oak Road Red Bluff, CA 96080 (530) 529-4256 FAX- 4878 

CES#042004/YoloCounty/SOP

24 

Flux 

Chamber 

Rotomet

er 

SinglePoint 

Calib. 

Once per 

year 

Define 

Rotomet

er 

Setting 

None 

Field 

Blank 

All 

media 

5% None Use 

As 

Baseline 

Data 

Replicate 

Sample 

All 

media 

5% + 50 

RPD 

Qualify 

Exceede

nces 
CE Schmidt, Ph.D. 

Environmental Consultant

19200 Live Oak Road Red Bluff, CA 96080 (530) 529-4256 Fax- 4878 ceschmidt.com schmidtce@aol.com

CES#042004 

Table 3. Testing Schedule- Summary of Sampling Schedule- Start-up Test. 

TEST 

CONDITION 

VOC 

FLU

X 

COMMENT 

Open Soil 

Flux on the 

Biofilter #1 

3 Define the Range and Maximum 

Flux on the Biofilter Surface 

Open Soil 

Flux on the 

Biofilter #2 

3 Define the Range and Maximum 

Flux on the Biofilter Surface 

Field Blank 1 1 Flux 

Field 

Replicate 

1 1 Flux 

TOTAL 

FLUX 

8 
CE Schmidt, Ph.D. 

Environmental Consultant

19200 Live Oak Road Red Bluff, CA 96080 (530) 529-4256 Fax- 4878 ceschmidt.com schmidtce@aol.com

CES#042004 

SAMPLES 

TOTAL 

DUCT 

SAMPLES 

3 12” Duct (main), Each 6” Duct (to 

Biofilter #1 and #2) 

TOTAL 

CANISTER 

SAMPLES 

(TO-15; Fixed 

Gases) 

12 
SANTA CLARA OFFICE 

May 24, 2004 

Lab. No. 50748 

YOLO COUNTY PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS 

292 W. Beamer St. 

Woodland, CA 95695 

Attn: Ramin Yazdani 

RE: BIOFILTER TEST-WOODLAND 

BACKGROUND 

The three samples received represent organic biofilter materials that are for use in a gas-cleaning project. 

Sample 1 and 2 are assumed to represent unused materials since only #3 was described as having been 

used. 

The detailed analysis of the media is performed on just the smaller than 1/2" fraction since that is the 

portion that is biologically the most active. Since a substantial amount of each these materials exceeds 

1/2" moisture content as a percentage of weight was determined first on the entire sample and is also 

included in the analysis of only that 1/2" minus fraction. Particle size results also reflect the entire 

sample with data entered for the percentage by weight retained on the 1" screen and on the 1/2". 

ANALYTICAL RESULTS

BIOFILTER MEDIA 1 AND 2 

Differences between 1 and 2 are slight. Sample 2 is just a little coarser than 1 and this is both with 

respect to more material in excess of 1/2" and a slightly more coarse texture of the fraction passing the 

1/2". In both cases very little of the material passes a 1.0-mm screen. Organic content as a percentage 

of weight is high compare to mature compost. 

Moisture content of the entire sample is a little lower as a percentage of weight than when just 

determined on the 1/2" minus fraction. Values for the unscreened 1 and 2 materials are 62.4 and 64.2% 

while the screened samples show 50.7 and 62.7%. 

Total elemental makeup does not appear to be significantly different between the two materials. Sample 

2 shows slightly lower level of nitrogen, potassium, calcium, magnesium, manganese and iron but it is 

doubtful that the variation is to a degree of significance. Total nitrogen levels are fairly low and are 

resulting in high estimated carbon to nitrogen levels. In order for the microbial population to have 

sufficient nitrogen to accommodate the utilization of the organic component the C/N ratio should be less 

than 35, while these are in the 45-51 range. 

Soil and Plant Laboratory, Inc.

www.soilandplantlaboratory.com 

352 Mathew Street 

Santa Clara, CA 95050 

408-727-0330 phone 

408-727-5125 fax
YOLO COUNTY PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS 

May 24, 2004 

Lab. No. 50748 

Both materials are slightly alkaline and show low levels of qualitative lime. This is typical for compost. 

Salinity, sodium and chloride are very safely low. Boron levels would be considered very slightly high 

for plants but at this level would not interfere with biological activity. Typically, a compost derived 

from a wide range of greenwaste materials will have high potassium content and also substantial 

phosphorous. This is not at all the case with these materials as phosphorous and potassium are very 

deficient. Available nitrogen is also quite low as a reflection of the high C/N ratio. All of the other 

required nutrients are available at normal levels. 

USED MEDIA #3 

Particle size data show this a little finer than the others both with respect to amounts larger than 1/2" and 

the distribution of sizes finer than 1/2". Organic content as a percentage of weight is in a range more 

normally associated with mature compost. 

Moisture content as 61% for the unscreened sample is again a bit higher than the 56.9% found on just 

the 1/2" minus fraction. 

The most significant difference in chemistry is with respect to potassium. Both total and available 

potassium are much higher than found in the unused materials. Total nutrient levels are also moderately 

higher for nitrogen, phosphorous, calcium, sulfur, copper, zinc and iron. The estimated carbon to 

nitrogen ratio at 29 does show an appropriate balance to support active microbial activity. Available 

levels of phosphorous, copper and zinc are moderately higher with magnesium sharply lower. Nitrogen 

availability is still very low and the other nutrients are in sufficient supply. 

Chemical characteristics such as pH, salinity and the soluble levels of sodium and chloride remain 

favorable and no different than in the other two materials. Boron is also at about the same level. 

DISCUSSION 

Please feel free to call should you have any questions regarding the evaluation of these data. If the 

intent of samples 1 and 2 is to have a very active microbial population, then this may be inhibited by the 

present lack of nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium. There might also be some benefit to increasing 

calcium a little to put it in better balance with magnesium. Magnesium is presently about 1.8 times the 

calcium level. With respect to plant nutrition this should be greater than 2 and more ideally 3 or above. 

I am not sure how this might affect microbial activity but in the used media it is 3.8. 

JIM WEST 

E-mail 8 pages. 

Soil and Plant Laboratory, Inc. -2- 
 Soil and Plant Laboratory, Inc. 

 www.soilandplantlaboratory.com 

YOLO COUNTY PLANNING & PUBLIC WORKS Santa Clara 292 W. Beamer St. Lab No. 5074Woodland, CA 95695 BIOFILTER TE Samples Rec'd: 5/7/04 Sam ple  # Analysis Requested Quantity Units Sample Description & Log Number ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________11 Moisture Percentage 62.4 % as rec'd Biofilter #1 12 Moisture Percentage 64.2 % as rec'd Biofilter #2 13 Moisture Percentage 61.0 % as rec'd Biofilter Media #3 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 Soil and Plant Laboratory, Inc. 

 www.soilandplantlaboratory.com 

YOLO COUNTY PLANNING & PUBLIC WORKS COMPOST EVALUATION Santa Clara 292 W. Beamer St (A91) Lab No. 5074Woodland, CA 95695 BIOFILTER TE Samples Rec'd: 5/7/04  TOTAL NUTRIENT LEVELS Sam ple --------------Percent-------------------- ---Parts Per Million--  # | N P K Ca Mg Na S || Cu Zn Mn Fe B | Sample Description ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1 0.88 0.10 0.10 0.88 0.44 0.06 0.24 52 92 256 6874 58 Biofilter #1 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ AVAILABLE NUTRIENT LEVELS  Sam Half pH/ ------------Parts Per Million Parts Dry Soil--------------Sat Ext-----------Sat Ex ple Sat%/ Qual | NO3 NH4 PO4 | B | SO4 Na 

 # TEC Lime ECe | N N P K Ca Mg Cu Zn Mn Fe | ppm | As % ECe A___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1 148 7.2 1.4 10 12 114 199 3821 2372 4.8 48 36 128 1.46 4.4 4.9  376 Low 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.6 2.7 0.6 2.6 0.9 0.7 1.5 31.6 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ PHYSICAL PROPERTIES  |-------------------------------------Fraction of Sample Passing 1/2 Inch Screen-------- |  --------------------------------As Received---------------------------|---------Values Based upon dry Sam | Wt Percent | Bulk Water Dry Organic Mineral | |----------percent pasple | Retained |Density Moisture Fraction Matter Fraction Fraction |Organic |9.51 6.35 4.75 2.38 1 # | 1" 1/2" |lbs/yd3 % lbs/yd3 lbs/yd3 lbs/yd3 lbs/yd3 | % | mm mm mm mm m___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1 11.1 28.3 1146 59.7 684 462 330 132 71.4 78.2 61.7 50.2 31.7 1___________________________________________________________________________________________________________Salinity (ECe (dS/m at 25 deg.C.)) by sat ext method. Available Major Nutrients by sodium chloride extractsodium bicarbonate extraction. Micronutrients by DTPA extraction. Interpretation guide below each element sufficiency level for average fertility requiring crops). TEC(listed below Half Sat)=Est. Total ExchangeabTotal Nutrient values expressed as element in oven dried sample ground to 40 mesh. Total N (corrected for mis determined on as received sample. N=nitrogen, P=phosphorus, K=potassium Ca=calcium, Mg=magnesium, Na=soCl=chloride, Cu=copper, Zn=zinc, Mn=manganese, Fe=iron and B=boron. 
 Soil and Plant Laboratory, Inc. 

 www.soilandplantlaboratory.com 

YOLO COUNTY PLANNING & PUBLIC WORKS COMPOST EVALUATION Santa Clar292 W. Beamer St (A91) Lab No. 5074Woodland, CA 95695 BIOFILTER TE Samples Rec'd: 5/7/04 Sample 1 - Biofilter #1 Log Number 04-A9095  AMOUNT PER CUBIC YARD AMOUNT PER TON, As Rec'd  at 59.7% Moisture ELEMENT OF INTEREST TOTAL AVAILABLE TOTAL AVAILABLE ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________Nitrogen 4.06 lbs 0.01 lbs 7.09 lbs 0.02 lbs Phosphorus 0.48 lbs 0.05 lbs 0.84 lbs 0.09 lbs Potassium 0.46 lbs 0.09 lbs 0.81 lbs 0.16 lbs Calcium 4.06 lbs 1.76 lbs 7.09 lbs 3.08 lbs Magnesium 2.04 lbs 1.10 lbs 3.56 lbs 1.91 lbs Sulfur 1.11 lbs 0.09 lbs 1.93 lbs 0.16 lbs Copper 0.38 ozs 0.04 ozs 0.67 ozs 0.06 ozs Zinc 0.68 ozs 0.35 ozs 1.19 ozs 0.62 ozs Manganese 1.89 ozs 0.27 ozs 3.30 ozs 0.46 ozs Iron 50.8 ozs 0.95 ozs 88.65 ozs 1.65 ozs Boron 0.43 ozs 0.0319 ozs 0.74 ozs 0.0557 ozs Organic Matter 330. lbs 575. lbs ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________The above results reflect only the fraction smaller than 1/2 inch. If a substantial portion of this sampl1/2 inch, the above values should be adjusted accordingly if further screening is not intended. The coarsmuch slower with the soil and not have significant impact upon soil nutrition over the short term. 
 Soil and Plant Laboratory, Inc. 

 www.soilandplantlaboratory.com 

YOLO COUNTY PLANNING & PUBLIC WORKS COMPOST EVALUATION Santa Clar292 W. Beamer St (A91) Lab No. 5074Woodland, CA 95695 BIOFILTER TE Samples Rec'd: 5/7/04  TOTAL NUTRIENT LEVELS Sam ple --------------Percent-------------------- ---Parts Per Million--  # | N P K Ca Mg Na S || Cu Zn Mn Fe B | Sample Description ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2 0.80 0.09 0.08 0.72 0.37 0.08 0.24 46 96 200 5596 62 Biofilter #2 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ AVAILABLE NUTRIENT LEVELS  Sam Half pH/ ------------Parts Per Million Parts Dry Soil--------------Sat Ext-----------Sat Ex ple Sat%/ Qual | NO3 NH4 PO4 | B | SO4 Na 

 # TEC Lime ECe | N N P K Ca Mg Cu Zn Mn Fe | ppm | As % ECe A___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2 176 7.3 1.0 11 12 59 214 3539 1737 7.0 46 32 108 1.27 3.0 3.7  314 Low 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.6 2.2 1.1 2.9 0.9 0.7 1.0 33.7 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ PHYSICAL PROPERTIES  |-------------------------------------Fraction of Sample Passing 1/2 Inch Screen-------- |  --------------------------------As Received---------------------------|---------Values Based upon dry Sam | Wt Percent | Bulk Water Dry Organic Mineral | |----------percent pasple | Retained |Density Moisture Fraction Matter Fraction Fraction |Organic |9.51 6.35 4.75 2.38 1 # | 1" 1/2" |lbs/yd3 % lbs/yd3 lbs/yd3 lbs/yd3 lbs/yd3 | % | mm mm mm mm m___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2 20.8 22.5 1000 62.7 627 373 276 97 74.1 63.6 50.0 39.9 22.5 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________Salinity (ECe (dS/m at 25 deg.C.)) by sat ext method. Available Major Nutrients by sodium chloride extractsodium bicarbonate extraction. Micronutrients by DTPA extraction. Interpretation guide below each element sufficiency level for average fertility requiring crops). TEC(listed below Half Sat)=Est. Total ExchangeabTotal Nutrient values expressed as element in oven dried sample ground to 40 mesh. Total N (corrected for mis determined on as received sample. N=nitrogen, P=phosphorus, K=potassium Ca=calcium, Mg=magnesium, Na=soCl=chloride, Cu=copper, Zn=zinc, Mn=manganese, Fe=iron and B=boron. 
 Soil and Plant Laboratory, Inc. 

 www.soilandplantlaboratory.com 

YOLO COUNTY PLANNING & PUBLIC WORKS COMPOST EVALUATION Santa Clar292 W. Beamer St (A91) Lab No. 5074Woodland, CA 95695 BIOFILTER TE Samples Rec'd: 5/7/04 Sample 2 - Biofilter #2 Log Number 04-A9096  AMOUNT PER CUBIC YARD AMOUNT PER TON, As Rec'd  at 62.7% Moisture ELEMENT OF INTEREST TOTAL AVAILABLE TOTAL AVAILABLE ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________Nitrogen 2.98 lbs 0.01 lbs 5.97 lbs 0.02 lbs Phosphorus 0.32 lbs 0.02 lbs 0.64 lbs 0.04 lbs Potassium 0.30 lbs 0.08 lbs 0.60 lbs 0.16 lbs Calcium 2.69 lbs 1.32 lbs 5.37 lbs 2.64 lbs Magnesium 1.39 lbs 0.65 lbs 2.78 lbs 1.30 lbs Sulfur 0.90 lbs 0.06 lbs 1.79 lbs 0.12 lbs Copper 0.27 ozs 0.04 ozs 0.55 ozs 0.08 ozs Zinc 0.57 ozs 0.27 ozs 1.15 ozs 0.55 ozs Manganese 1.19 ozs 0.19 ozs 2.39 ozs 0.38 ozs Iron 33.4 ozs 0.64 ozs 66.79 ozs 1.29 ozs Boron 0.37 ozs 0.0267 ozs 0.74 ozs 0.0534 ozs Organic Matter 276. lbs 553. lbs ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________The above results reflect only the fraction smaller than 1/2 inch. If a substantial portion of this sampl1/2 inch, the above values should be adjusted accordingly if further screening is not intended. The coarsmuch slower with the soil and not have significant impact upon soil nutrition over the short term. 
 Soil and Plant Laboratory, Inc. 

 www.soilandplantlaboratory.com 

YOLO COUNTY PLANNING & PUBLIC WORKS COMPOST EVALUATION Santa Clar292 W. Beamer St (A91) Lab No. 5074Woodland, CA 95695 BIOFILTER TE Samples Rec'd: 5/7/04  TOTAL NUTRIENT LEVELS Sam ple --------------Percent-------------------- ---Parts Per Million--  # | N P K Ca Mg Na S || Cu Zn Mn Fe B | Sample Description ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3 1.13 0.13 0.32 1.12 0.43 0.06 0.36 70 152 308 9518 66 Biofilter Media Used #3 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ AVAILABLE NUTRIENT LEVELS  Sam Half pH/ ------------Parts Per Million Parts Dry Soil--------------Sat Ext-----------Sat Ex ple Sat%/ Qual | NO3 NH4 PO4 | B | SO4 Na 

 # TEC Lime ECe | N N P K Ca Mg Cu Zn Mn Fe | ppm | As % ECe A___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3 140 7.2 1.2 9 16 158 1717 3712 965 9.2 64 30 142 1.65 4.5 3.8  284 Low 0.1 0.9 2.2 0.8 1.4 1.6 4.5 1.0 1.0 1.5 29.1 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ PHYSICAL PROPERTIES  |-------------------------------------Fraction of Sample Passing 1/2 Inch Screen-------- |  --------------------------------As Received---------------------------|---------Values Based upon dry Sam | Wt Percent | Bulk Water Dry Organic Mineral | |----------percent pasple | Retained |Density Moisture Fraction Matter Fraction Fraction |Organic |9.51 6.35 4.75 2.38 1 # | 1" 1/2" |lbs/yd3 % lbs/yd3 lbs/yd3 lbs/yd3 lbs/yd3 | % | mm mm mm mm m___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3 8.3 17.9 933 56.9 531 402 238 164 59.1 77.9 66.2 57.7 41.9 2___________________________________________________________________________________________________________Salinity (ECe (dS/m at 25 deg.C.)) by sat ext method. Available Major Nutrients by sodium chloride extractsodium bicarbonate extraction. Micronutrients by DTPA extraction. Interpretation guide below each element sufficiency level for average fertility requiring crops). TEC(listed below Half Sat)=Est. Total ExchangeabTotal Nutrient values expressed as element in oven dried sample ground to 40 mesh. Total N (corrected for mis determined on as received sample. N=nitrogen, P=phosphorus, K=potassium Ca=calcium, Mg=magnesium, Na=soCl=chloride, Cu=copper, Zn=zinc, Mn=manganese, Fe=iron and B=boron. 
 Soil and Plant Laboratory, Inc. 

 www.soilandplantlaboratory.com 

YOLO COUNTY PLANNING & PUBLIC WORKS COMPOST EVALUATION Santa Clar292 W. Beamer St (A91) Lab No. 5074Woodland, CA 95695 BIOFILTER TE Samples Rec'd: 5/7/04 Sample 3 - Biofilter Media Used #3 Log Number 04-A9097  AMOUNT PER CUBIC YARD AMOUNT PER TON, As Rec'd  at 56.9% Moisture ELEMENT OF INTEREST TOTAL AVAILABLE TOTAL AVAILABLE ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________Nitrogen 4.54 lbs 0.01 lbs 9.74 lbs 0.02 lbs Phosphorus 0.52 lbs 0.06 lbs 1.12 lbs 0.14 lbs Potassium 1.29 lbs 0.69 lbs 2.76 lbs 1.48 lbs Calcium 4.50 lbs 1.49 lbs 9.65 lbs 3.20 lbs Magnesium 1.72 lbs 0.39 lbs 3.69 lbs 0.83 lbs Sulfur 1.45 lbs 0.08 lbs 3.10 lbs 0.17 lbs Copper 0.45 ozs 0.06 ozs 0.97 ozs 0.13 ozs Zinc 0.98 ozs 0.41 ozs 2.10 ozs 0.88 ozs Manganese 1.98 ozs 0.19 ozs 4.25 ozs 0.41 ozs Iron 61.2 ozs 0.91 ozs 131.3 ozs 1.96 ozs Boron 0.42 ozs 0.0297 ozs 0.91 ozs 0.0637 ozs Organic Matter 238. lbs 509. lbs ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________The above results reflect only the fraction smaller than 1/2 inch. If a substantial portion of this sampl1/2 inch, the above values should be adjusted accordingly if further screening is not intended. The coarsmuch slower with the soil and not have significant impact upon soil nutrition over the short term.