APPENDIX H – BIOFILTER EMISSION RESULTSCE 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 s ite 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 FACILI TY 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 95695CE 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 2004CE 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

REFERENCESCE 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 me thodology and sampling procedure for using the

USEPA surface emission isolation flux chamber to assess fugitive air em issions in support of a Yolo County Public Works Department, Di vision of Integrated Waste Management (DIWM) research project. A conceptual appro ach has been developed that uses the USEPA

surface emission isolation flux chamber assessm ent technology to assess air emissions from

the face of two biofilter units th at 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 de termine removal efficiency in the biofilters) and the analysis of samples co llected 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 cham ber) is provided along with sampling and analytical protocol, sampling strategy, quality c ontrol 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 sa mples and test locations indicated belowCE 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 summari zed below. Testing will be conducted on the biofilter operated in a start-up condition and la ter throughout the remainder of the research program. The testing strategy in cludes a total of six field samples for the start-up testing and 1 media blank and 1 field replicat e 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 a nd 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 testi ng including flux chamber testing at up to 6 locations for the start-up condition test, chain-of -custody; sample shippi ng; 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 hist ory, background, and operation of the US EPArecommended surface emission isolation flux chambe r. 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 UsingCE 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; fencelin e monitoring and modeling technologies; and predictive emission modeling. The most promising of these approaches is the direct measurement approach 2 . One reason for this is that there is no modeling or estimation involved which reduces the uncertainty in the a ssessment. If emission rate data are to be used as input to exposure assessment and health risk assessment, it is important to useCE 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 da ta. 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

Zimmerman 3 (1977) and Adams 4 (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 stirre d reactor. Clean sweep air is added to the chamber at a controlled, fixed rate, and the cont ents 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 us ed on a variety of solid and liquid surfaces and for a variety of species 5

.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-recommende d 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 appr oach to characterize fugitive emissions from controlled treatment, storage, and disposal fac ilities (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 de scribed 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 pr eparation 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, aromatic s, halogenated, sulfur containing, cyclic) averaged 103 percent 1 . The sensitivity and range of th e 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 pr imary 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 th e 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 su mmary 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 activitie s 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 cham ber to assess the area source emissions of project target compounds from the operating biof ilter facilities. The data collection approachCE 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 surf ace emission isolation flux chamber. This approach will provide data of high quality (accuracy and precision) that will be representative of target compound emissions fr om 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 opera ting 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 pr ovide a matrix of flux data on unique surface representing the emissions from the biofilte r units as a start-up conditions emissions assessment. The matrix of representative fl ux data is used, along with detailed operations knowledge of the process and estimates of su rface 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 in cludes: preparing and submitting a source test protocol for the collection of flux data; prep aration of field test equipment including flux chamber equipment and expendable field supplies; field testing including the collection of upCE 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 (ultr a 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 afte r about four or five re sidence times or about 30 minutes (following the USEPA flux chamber User's Guide). At equilibrium, the grab samples for VOC analysis and instrument m easurements 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 th ese data, along with unit dimensions, will be used to calculate species emissions from the biofilters.

5.0 PROJECT INSTRUCTIONSCE 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 give n 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. Th en, locations for testing will be selected. After this, testing will be conducted the remainder of th e 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 comple ted on the day of sample collection. All shipping records will be retained as part of th e 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 LISTCE 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 supp lies 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 labor atory 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 co mplete 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 we nch 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 re garding application is that there must be access to the surface for testing. If the su rface cannot support the chamber, the chamber must be suspended or equipped with a flota tion 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 th e standard gas bottle. Advective correction factors are commonly used to generate an accurate flux assessment from advective flowCE 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 inve stigation. 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 a nd/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 in formation, equipment information, name of sampler, date, and time on the Field Data Sheet.

3) Select the exact test location and place th e 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 se t 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 fi ve 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 lite rs 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 th e collection rate. Do not exceed a collection rate of 2.5 liters per minute at any time. Th is 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 collecti ng 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 in let 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 anal ysis 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 th at 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 US EPA Method TO-15 operated in the full scam mode. A copy of the analytical method is av ailable 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. Calibrate d volumes of sample are frozen in the trap and then desorbed via heating and transferre d into the GC/MS. The project compound list was derived from historic gr oundwater 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 instrume nts and measurement devices. Gas species

emitted from the biofilters can be detected us ing 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 samp les are withdrawn from the flux chamber (postCE 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 fi eld readings until a stable or repeatable detection is recorded. These screening-leve l 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 Em ission 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- Estima tion of Baseline Air Emissions at Superfund Sites, EPA-450/1-89-002a (NTIS PB90-270588), August 1990.

3) Zimmerman, Pat. "Procedures for C onducting Hydrocarbon Emission Inventories of Biogenic Sources and Some Results of Recent Investigations." Presented at the 1977 EPA Emissions Inventory/Factor Workshop, Ra leigh, 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, Sa mpling and Analysis of Airborne Pollutants , C.E. Schmidt, Chapter 3, "Theory and Applica tions of the US EPA Recommended Surface

Emission Isolation Flux Chamber for Measur ing 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

tCE 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

erSinglePoint

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

ncesCE 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 8CE 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) 12SANTA 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 mate rials since only #3 was de scribed 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 percenta ge of weight was determined first on the entire sample and is also included in the analys is of only that 1/2" minus fraction. Particle size results also reflect the entire sample with data entered for the percentage by wei ght 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 sli ghtly more coarse texture of the fraction passing the 1/2". In both cases very little of the material passes a 1.0-mm scr een. 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 fo r 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 significan tly different between the two materials. Sample 2 shows slightly lower level of nitrogen, potassium, calcium, magnesi um, manganese and iron but it is doubtful that the variation is to a de gree of significance. Total nitrog en levels are fa irly low and are resulting in high estimated carbon to nitrogen levels . In order for the microbial population to have sufficient nitrogen to accommodate th e utilization of the organic compone nt the C/N ratio should be less than 35, while these are in the 45-51 range. 

# S oil and Plant Laborator y , Inc.

www.soilandplantlaboratory.com 352 Mathew Street S

anta Clara, CA 95050 408-727-0330 phone 408-727-5125 faxYOLO 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. Bo ron levels would be considered very slightly high for plants but at this level would not interfere w ith biological activity. T ypically, a compost derived from a wide range of greenwaste materials will ha ve high potassium conten t and also substantial phosphorous. This is not at all the case with thes e 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 availa ble at normal levels.

USED MEDIA #3

Particle size data show this a littl e finer than the others both with resp ect to amounts larger than 1/2" and the distribution of sizes finer than 1/2". Organic content as a percenta ge of weight is in a range more normally associated with mature compost.

Moisture content as 61% for the uns creened 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 mate rials. Total nutrient leve ls are also moderately higher for nitrogen, phosphorous, cal cium, sulfur, copper, zinc a nd 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 zi nc are moderately higher with magnesium sharply lower. Nitrogen availability is still very low and the ot her nutrients are in sufficient supply.

Chemical characteristics such as pH, salinity and th e soluble levels of sodium and chloride remain favorable and no different than in th e other two materials. Boron is al so at about the same level.

DISCUSSION

Please feel free to call should you ha ve any questions regarding the ev aluation 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 al so be some benef it to increasing calcium a little to put it in bett er balance with magnesium. Magnesi um is presently about 1.8 times the calcium level. With respect to pl ant 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.com352 Mathew StreetSanta Clara, CA 95050408-727-0330 phone408-727-5125 fax**YOLO COUNTY PLANNING & PUBLIC WORKS Santa Clara Office 292 W. Beamer St. Lab No. 50748** **Woodland, CA 95695 BIOFILTER TEST-WOODLAND 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 04-A9098 23 12 Moisture Percentage 64.2 % as rec'd Biofilter #2 04-A9099 23** **13 Moisture Percentage 61.0 % as rec'd Biofilter Media #3 04-A9100 23 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5/18/04** Soil and Plant Laboratory, Inc.www.soilandplantlaboratory.com352 Mathew StreetSanta Clara, CA 95050408-727-0330 phone408-727-5125 fax**YOLO COUNTY PLANNING & PUBLIC WORKS COMPOST EVALUATION Santa Clara Office 292 W. Beamer St (A91) Lab No. 50748** **Woodland, CA 95695 BIOFILTER TEST-WOODLAND 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 Log Number** **______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1 0.88 0.10 0.10 0.88 0.44 0.06 0.24 52 92 256 6874 58 Biofilter #1 1.0004-A9095 23 4** **_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5/18/04 AVAILABLE NUTRIENT LEVELS** **Sam Half pH/ ------------Parts Per Million Parts Dry Soil--------------Sat Ext-----------Sat Ext meq/l----- -dilute- ple Sat%/ Qual | NO** **3 NH** **4 PO** **4 | B | SO** **4 Na Cl | acid |** **# TEC Lime ECe | N N P K Ca Mg Cu Zn Mn Fe | ppm | As % ECe As % of ECe | Fe % | ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________** **1 148 7.2 1.4 10 12 114 199 3821 2372 4.8 48 36 128 1.46 4.4 4.9 4.3 0.112 376 Low 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.6 2.7 0.6 2.6 0.9 0.7 1.5 31.6 27.9** **______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ PHYSICAL PROPERTIES** **|-------------------------------------Fraction of Sample Passing 1/2 Inch Screen---------------------------| | |** **--------------------------------As Received---------------------------|---------Values Based upon dry weight------------| Sam | Wt Percent | Bulk Water Dry Organic Mineral | |----------percent passing------| Est. |** **ple | Retained |Density Moisture Fraction Matter Fraction Fraction |Organic |9.51 6.35 4.75 2.38 1.00 0.50 | C/N | # | 1" 1/2" |lbs/yd** **3 % lbs/yd** **3 lbs/yd** **3 lbs/yd** **3 lbs/yd** **3 | % | mm mm mm mm mm mm | Ratio |** **______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1 11.1 28.3 1146 59.7 684 462 330 132 71.4 78.2 61.7 50.2 31.7 12.3 4.5 45.1** **______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Salinity (ECe (dS/m at 25 deg.C.)) by sat ext method. Available Major Nutrients by sodium chloride extraction. Phosphorus by** **sodium bicarbonate extraction. Micronutrients by DTPA extraction. Interpretation guide below each element (1.0=predicted sufficiency level for average fertility requiring crops). TEC(listed below Half Sat)=Est. Total Exchangeable Cations (meq/kg)** **Total Nutrient values expressed as element in oven dried sample ground to 40 mesh. Total N (corrected for moisture content) is determined on as received sample. N=nitrogen, P=phosphorus, K=potassium Ca=calcium, Mg=magnesium, Na=sodium, S=sulfur,** **Cl=chloride, Cu=copper, Zn=zinc, Mn=manganese, Fe=iron and B=boron.**Soil and Plant Laboratory, Inc.www.soilandplantlaboratory.com352 Mathew StreetSanta Clara, CA 95050408-727-0330 phone408-727-5125 fax**YOLO COUNTY PLANNING & PUBLIC WORKS COMPOST EVALUATION Santa Clara Office 292 W. Beamer St (A91) Lab No. 50748** **Woodland, CA 95695 BIOFILTER TEST-WOODLAND 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 AVAILABLE ELEMENT OF INTEREST TOTAL AVAILABLE TOTAL AVAILABLE % OF TOTAL** **______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Nitrogen 4.06 lbs 0.01 lbs 7.09 lbs 0.02 lbs 0.25** **Phosphorus 0.48 lbs 0.05 lbs 0.84 lbs 0.09 lbs 10.98 Potassium 0.46 lbs 0.09 lbs 0.81 lbs 0.16 lbs 19.85** **Calcium 4.06 lbs 1.76 lbs 7.09 lbs 3.08 lbs 43.42 Magnesium 2.04 lbs 1.10 lbs 3.56 lbs 1.91 lbs 53.67** **Sulfur 1.11 lbs 0.09 lbs 1.93 lbs 0.16 lbs 8.25 Copper 0.38 ozs 0.04 ozs 0.67 ozs 0.06 ozs 9.23** **Zinc 0.68 ozs 0.35 ozs 1.19 ozs 0.62 ozs 52.2 Manganese 1.89 ozs 0.27 ozs 3.30 ozs 0.46 ozs 14.1** **Iron 50.8 ozs 0.95 ozs 88.65 ozs 1.65 ozs 1.86 Boron 0.43 ozs 0.0319 ozs 0.74 ozs 0.0557 ozs 7.50** **Organic Matter 330. lbs 575. lbs ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________** **The above results reflect only the fraction smaller than 1/2 inch. If a substantial portion of this sample is larger than 1/2 inch, the above values should be adjusted accordingly if further screening is not intended. The coarse fractions will reac** **t much slower with the soil and not have significant impact upon soil nutrition over the short term.** Soil and Plant Laboratory, Inc.www.soilandplantlaboratory.com352 Mathew StreetSanta Clara, CA 95050408-727-0330 phone408-727-5125 fax**YOLO COUNTY PLANNING & PUBLIC WORKS COMPOST EVALUATION Santa Clara Office 292 W. Beamer St (A91) Lab No. 50748** **Woodland, CA 95695 BIOFILTER TEST-WOODLAND 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 Log Number** **______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2 0.80 0.09 0.08 0.72 0.37 0.08 0.24 46 96 200 5596 62 Biofilter #2 1.0004-A9096 23 4** **_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5/18/04 AVAILABLE NUTRIENT LEVELS** **Sam Half pH/ ------------Parts Per Million Parts Dry Soil--------------Sat Ext-----------Sat Ext meq/l----- -dilute- ple Sat%/ Qual | NO** **3 NH** **4 PO** **4 | B | SO** **4 Na Cl | acid |** **# TEC Lime ECe | N N P K Ca Mg Cu Zn Mn Fe | ppm | As % ECe As % of ECe | Fe % | ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________** **2 176 7.3 1.0 11 12 59 214 3539 1737 7.0 46 32 108 1.27 3.0 3.7 3.5 0.090 314 Low 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.6 2.2 1.1 2.9 0.9 0.7 1.0 33.7 31.8** **______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ PHYSICAL PROPERTIES** **|-------------------------------------Fraction of Sample Passing 1/2 Inch Screen---------------------------| | |** **--------------------------------As Received---------------------------|---------Values Based upon dry weight------------| Sam | Wt Percent | Bulk Water Dry Organic Mineral | |----------percent passing------| Est. |** **ple | Retained |Density Moisture Fraction Matter Fraction Fraction |Organic |9.51 6.35 4.75 2.38 1.00 0.50 | C/N | # | 1" 1/2" |lbs/yd** **3 % lbs/yd** **3 lbs/yd** **3 lbs/yd** **3 lbs/yd** **3 | % | mm mm mm mm mm mm | Ratio |** **______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2 20.8 22.5 1000 62.7 627 373 276 97 74.1 63.6 50.0 39.9 22.5 7.4 2.7 51.5** **______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Salinity (ECe (dS/m at 25 deg.C.)) by sat ext method. Available Major Nutrients by sodium chloride extraction. Phosphorus by** **sodium bicarbonate extraction. Micronutrients by DTPA extraction. Interpretation guide below each element (1.0=predicted sufficiency level for average fertility requiring crops). TEC(listed below Half Sat)=Est. Total Exchangeable Cations (meq/kg)** **Total Nutrient values expressed as element in oven dried sample ground to 40 mesh. Total N (corrected for moisture content) is determined on as received sample. N=nitrogen, P=phosphorus, K=potassium Ca=calcium, Mg=magnesium, Na=sodium, S=sulfur,** **Cl=chloride, Cu=copper, Zn=zinc, Mn=manganese, Fe=iron and B=boron.**Soil and Plant Laboratory, Inc.www.soilandplantlaboratory.com352 Mathew StreetSanta Clara, CA 95050408-727-0330 phone408-727-5125 fax**YOLO COUNTY PLANNING & PUBLIC WORKS COMPOST EVALUATION Santa Clara Office 292 W. Beamer St (A91) Lab No. 50748** **Woodland, CA 95695 BIOFILTER TEST-WOODLAND 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 AVAILABLE ELEMENT OF INTEREST TOTAL AVAILABLE TOTAL AVAILABLE % OF TOTAL** **______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Nitrogen 2.98 lbs 0.01 lbs 5.97 lbs 0.02 lbs 0.28** **Phosphorus 0.32 lbs 0.02 lbs 0.64 lbs 0.04 lbs 6.86 Potassium 0.30 lbs 0.08 lbs 0.60 lbs 0.16 lbs 26.81** **Calcium 2.69 lbs 1.32 lbs 5.37 lbs 2.64 lbs 49.15 Magnesium 1.39 lbs 0.65 lbs 2.78 lbs 1.30 lbs 46.70** **Sulfur 0.90 lbs 0.06 lbs 1.79 lbs 0.12 lbs 6.87 Copper 0.27 ozs 0.04 ozs 0.55 ozs 0.08 ozs 15.2** **Zinc 0.57 ozs 0.27 ozs 1.15 ozs 0.55 ozs 47.9 Manganese 1.19 ozs 0.19 ozs 2.39 ozs 0.38 ozs 16.0** **Iron 33.4 ozs 0.64 ozs 66.79 ozs 1.29 ozs 1.93 Boron 0.37 ozs 0.0267 ozs 0.74 ozs 0.0534 ozs 7.21** **Organic Matter 276. lbs 553. lbs ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________** **The above results reflect only the fraction smaller than 1/2 inch. If a substantial portion of this sample is larger than 1/2 inch, the above values should be adjusted accordingly if further screening is not intended. The coarse fractions will reac** **t much slower with the soil and not have significant impact upon soil nutrition over the short term.** Soil and Plant Laboratory, Inc.www.soilandplantlaboratory.com352 Mathew StreetSanta Clara, CA 95050408-727-0330 phone408-727-5125 fax**YOLO COUNTY PLANNING & PUBLIC WORKS COMPOST EVALUATION Santa Clara Office 292 W. Beamer St (A91) Lab No. 50748** **Woodland, CA 95695 BIOFILTER TEST-WOODLAND 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 Log Number** **______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3 1.13 0.13 0.32 1.12 0.43 0.06 0.36 70 152 308 9518 66 Biofilter Media Used #3 1.0004-A9097 23 4** **_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5/18/04 AVAILABLE NUTRIENT LEVELS** **Sam Half pH/ ------------Parts Per Million Parts Dry Soil--------------Sat Ext-----------Sat Ext meq/l----- -dilute- ple Sat%/ Qual | NO** **3 NH** **4 PO** **4 | B | SO** **4 Na Cl | acid |** **# TEC Lime ECe | N N P K Ca Mg Cu Zn Mn Fe | ppm | As % ECe As % of ECe | Fe % | ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________** **3 140 7.2 1.2 9 16 158 1717 3712 965 9.2 64 30 142 1.65 4.5 3.8 1.7 0.140 284 Low 0.1 0.9 2.2 0.8 1.4 1.6 4.5 1.0 1.0 1.5 29.1 12.9** **______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ PHYSICAL PROPERTIES** **|-------------------------------------Fraction of Sample Passing 1/2 Inch Screen---------------------------| | |** **--------------------------------As Received---------------------------|---------Values Based upon dry weight------------| Sam | Wt Percent | Bulk Water Dry Organic Mineral | |----------percent passing------| Est. |** **ple | Retained |Density Moisture Fraction Matter Fraction Fraction |Organic |9.51 6.35 4.75 2.38 1.00 0.50 | C/N | # | 1" 1/2" |lbs/yd** **3 % lbs/yd** **3 lbs/yd** **3 lbs/yd** **3 lbs/yd** **3 | % | mm mm mm mm mm mm | Ratio |** **______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3 8.3 17.9 933 56.9 531 402 238 164 59.1 77.9 66.2 57.7 41.9 24.3 11.8 29.1** **______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Salinity (ECe (dS/m at 25 deg.C.)) by sat ext method. Available Major Nutrients by sodium chloride extraction. Phosphorus by** **sodium bicarbonate extraction. Micronutrients by DTPA extraction. Interpretation guide below each element (1.0=predicted sufficiency level for average fertility requiring crops). TEC(listed below Half Sat)=Est. Total Exchangeable Cations (meq/kg)** **Total Nutrient values expressed as element in oven dried sample ground to 40 mesh. Total N (corrected for moisture content) is determined on as received sample. N=nitrogen, P=phosphorus, K=potassium Ca=calcium, Mg=magnesium, Na=sodium, S=sulfur,** **Cl=chloride, Cu=copper, Zn=zinc, Mn=manganese, Fe=iron and B=boron.**Soil and Plant Laboratory, Inc.www.soilandplantlaboratory.com352 Mathew StreetSanta Clara, CA 95050408-727-0330 phone408-727-5125 fax**YOLO COUNTY PLANNING & PUBLIC WORKS COMPOST EVALUATION Santa Clara Office 292 W. Beamer St (A91) Lab No. 50748** **Woodland, CA 95695 BIOFILTER TEST-WOODLAND 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 AVAILABLE ELEMENT OF INTEREST TOTAL AVAILABLE TOTAL AVAILABLE % OF TOTAL** **______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Nitrogen 4.54 lbs 0.01 lbs 9.74 lbs 0.02 lbs 0.22** **Phosphorus 0.52 lbs 0.06 lbs 1.12 lbs 0.14 lbs 12.14 Potassium 1.29 lbs 0.69 lbs 2.76 lbs 1.48 lbs 53.65** **Calcium 4.50 lbs 1.49 lbs 9.65 lbs 3.20 lbs 33.15 Magnesium 1.72 lbs 0.39 lbs 3.69 lbs 0.83 lbs 22.55** **Sulfur 1.45 lbs 0.08 lbs 3.10 lbs 0.17 lbs 5.39 Copper 0.45 ozs 0.06 ozs 0.97 ozs 0.13 ozs 13.1** **Zinc 0.98 ozs 0.41 ozs 2.10 ozs 0.88 ozs 42.1 Manganese 1.98 ozs 0.19 ozs 4.25 ozs 0.41 ozs 9.74** **Iron 61.2 ozs 0.91 ozs 131.3 ozs 1.96 ozs 1.49 Boron 0.42 ozs 0.0297 ozs 0.91 ozs 0.0637 ozs 7.00** **Organic Matter 238. lbs 509. lbs ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________** **The above results reflect only the fraction smaller than 1/2 inch. If a substantial portion of this sample is larger than 1/2 inch, the above values should be adjusted accordingly if further screening is not intended. The coarse fractions will reac** **t much slower with the soil and not have significant impact upon soil nutrition over the short term.**