1. CONTAMINATION OF MOTOR OIL ON PLANT LIFE Sandra Fields Undergraduate Biology, Health Sciences Tennessee Tech University Cookeville, TN 38505 Spring 2007

2. INTRODUCTION Smoke and other remittents from petrol and diesel engines in urban India have had adverse effects on Nyctanthes and Quisqualis. (Rai and Kulshreshtha 2006.) Used motor oil has been noted to have altering affects on the growth of different plants as noted to professors at Ball State University. (Dominguez-Rosado et al 2004.) The Noria Corporation has noted that over the course of a day a small leak could result in the loss of 0.7L of oil. (Barnes 2003.) Some plants are used to help with the clean up of different kinds of contaminated soils, sludge, sediments and other kinds of contaminants. (EPA 1998.) Plants do participate in support of boosting oxygen levels in the atmosphere as well as the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. (Hamilton et al 2005).

3. INTRODUCTION cont. Objective: Does the contamination of motor oil on plant life does have altering affects to their growth. Hypothesis: Pollution of oils by automobiles, lawn and garden machinery as well other equipment decreases the growth of plant life. Null Hypothesis: No difference with the growth of either group of plant life.

4. METHODS AND MATERIALS This experiment will be done on four different types of plants ranging from garden vegetables and fruits to flowering beautiful household plants. As in India, they used plants that they found were more frequently noticed to have problems with petroleum products. (Rai and Kulshreshtha 2006). These results will be monitored over a six week period of time. Plants are placed indoors due to the cold climate outside so the experiment can be conducted effectively. Measurements will be taken on a weekly basis.

5. METHODS AND MATERIALS cont. Measurements will be collected as done by Rosado et al., (2004) by wrapping a thread around the stem to determine the girth. A metric ruler will be used to obtain other measurements as well. After the allotted period of time, these measurements will be plotted on a graph and their differences discussed to reveal changes between each group. The average difference between the two groups will be seen in this graph. Five plants are placed in the experimental group as well a five plants in the control group, see Table 1. Visual changes will be noted as they occur. Refer to the data form in Table 2 for these results

6. METHODS AND MATERIALS cont. TABLE 1. Layout of two separate groups of plants and the methods that will be used on each group. (Group 1) Control Five plants are placed in this group. These plants will not be allowed the contamination of oils. They will be nourished normally. (Group 2) Experiment Five plants are placed in this group These plants will be contaminated with motor oil during the watering.

7. RESULTS African violet African violet Tomato plant Tomato plant Cabbage Petunia Cactus Succulent Cactus Succulent Data form Data form

8. DISCUSSION As Nyctanthes and Quisqualis were used to check for contamination, the tomato, AV, petunia, cabbage and CS also revealed similar characteristics. (Rai and Kulshreshtha 2006.) As shown by the professors of Ball University, clean motor oil also revealed altering affects on the growth of different plants. (Dominguez-Rosado et al 2004.) The Noria Corporation noted with their 0.7L loss in a day, it only takes a small amount of contamination to show altering effects. (Barnes 2003.) Some plants are useful to help clean up the problems that we help to cause such as oils spills and other kinds of contaminants. (EPA 1998.) Plants do participate in support of boosting oxygen levels in the atmosphere as well as the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. (Hamilton et al 2005).

9. CONCLUSION Experimental group did show a positive result for the hypothesis. The null hypothesis was also positive with the cabbage plant. This experiment, if carried and tested with the production of plants, as well would also show a difference with the end product.

10. LITERATURE CITED Barnes, M. 2003. “Squeezing Every Last Cent from Your Oil”. Practicing Oil Analysis Magazine. (www.practicingoilanalysis.com) www.practicingoilanalysis.com Bishop, J. 1997. “Phytoremediation : A new technology gets ready to bloom. Environmental Solutions Magazine. May/June 1997 Dominguez-Rosado, E., M. Coughlin and, J. Pichtel 2004. Phytormediation of Soil Contaminated with Used Motor Oil: II. Greenhouse Studies. Environmental Engineering Science. 21: 169-180 Hamilton, R. et al 2005. Plant Biotechnology: Advances in Food, Energy, and Health. e Journal USA: Economic Perspectives. (http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/ites/1005/ijee/hamilton.htm) Rai, A. and K. Kulshreshtha. 2006. Effects of particulates generated from automobile emission on some common plants. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment. 4: 253-259 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 2006. Impacts on Species, Oil Program. (www.epa.gov/oilspill/impact.htm) www.epa.gov/oilspill/impact.htm