Lesson Title:
Plants versus Pollutants Model Eliciting Activity
Resource ID:
37190
Description:
The Plants versus Pollutants MEA provides students with an openended problem in which they must work as a team to design a procedure toselect the best plants to clea
n up certain toxins. This MEA requires students to formulate a phytoremediationbased solution to a probleminvolving cleaning of a contaminated land site. Students are provided the co
ntext of the problem, a request letter from a client asking them toprovide a recommendation, and data re
levant to the situation. Students utilize the data to create a defensible model solution to present to the
client.
Document Note
This file contains the student handouts for the MEA; you can access and download all of the teacher
instructional materials at: http://www.cpalms.org/Public/PreviewResourceLesson/Preview/37190
Subject(s):
NGSSS: Science,CCSS: Mathematics,CCSS: English Language Arts
Grade Level(s):
9,10,11,12
Intended Audience:
Educators
Instructional Time:
3 Hour(s)
Resource supports reading
Yes
in content area:
Keywords:
Instructional Component
Type(s):
MEA, model eliciting activity, model-eliciting activity, modeling, phytoremediation, toxins, pollution,
problem-solving, plants
Lesson Plan (Primary Type), Problem-Solving Task, Model Eliciting Activity (MEA) STEM Lesson
Center for Opportunities in Environmental Research
1414 Copper Road, Dirty Dirt, GA 30000
________________________________________________
Dear Research Advisors,
I am the Senior Vice President of Toxins Research at the Center for Opportunities in Environmental Research
(COPPER). We are interested in learning more about how plants can be used to clean up land areas contaminated
by industrial chemical waste. This process is known as phytoremediation.
Briefly, phytoremediation is a plant-based method for extracting toxic material from contaminated areas. This
method is less invasive than methods that involve digging and physical removal of material for cleaning. To carry
out this method, plants are selected for their ability to remove certain contaminants, planted, and cultivated on a
contaminated site. After harvest, toxins that have been taken up by the plants may possibly be recovered. More
research must be done, however, to understand which plants are good at accumulating which contaminants.
We are writing to you to request a research plan for conducting phytoremediation studies at four new research
laboratories. These labs are located in the immediate vicinity of abandoned industrial manufacturing sites. In the
past, the industrial operations produced waste byproducts that have, over time, contaminated the surrounding soil
with compounds containing arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc. Residents at new home developments in the
area are potentially at risk because these toxins remain in the soil for long periods of time. Children and pets
frequently play outdoors near these sites and may possibly ingest dust or otherwise be exposed to the
contaminated soils. Each site has a unique soil contamination profile.
Ideally, the research conducted at each lab will address the contamination in that area. You will be provided with
basic information to help in decision making and in planning how research efforts should be distributed at each
laboratory.
Your formal response must contain the following:
• A list of plant species you think would be most useful to our research at each of the sites
• A step-wise description of the procedure you used to select these plants
• Evidence of quantitatively-supported reasoning
To support your choice of plants to be studied at each test site, please provide mathematical and/or graphical
evidence demonstrating each plant's effectiveness at phytoremediation after 1 growing/harvest cycle, 1 year, 5
years, and 10 years for a contaminated plot of approximately 7 hectares.
Please also be sure that your response letter is written in a formal style, with cohesive structure, transitions,
precise language, concrete details and information, a formal style and tone, and a concluding statement so that we
can share your letter with our funding agency to request more funding in the future. Thank you for your
cooperation in this important endeavor. We look forward to conducting this research aided by your
recommendations.
Sincerely,
Selene Argentum, PhD
SVP Toxins Research
COPPER
Provided Materials
Project Notes


Research Advisors may suggest up to three plants to be studied at each laboratory
Any plant may be studied at any site
Deliverables
Research Advisors are responsible for the following deliverables:



A list of plant(s) and associated metal(s) to be studied at each laboratory (fill out the Research Advisor Reporting Guide)
A formal response letter (use the Letter Template if needed) that must contain the following:
o A list of plant species you think would be most useful to our research at each of the sites
o A step-wise description of the procedure you used to select these plants
o Please be sure that your response letter is written in a formal style, with cohesive structure, transitions, precise
language, concrete details and information, a formal style and tone, and a concluding statement
Mathematical and/or graphical evidence demonstrating each plant's effectiveness at phytoremediation after 1 growing/harvest
cycle, 1 year, 5 years, and 10 years for a contaminated plot of approximately 7 hectares. This can be included in your letter or
as a separate attachment.
Data
Provided for you are data related to what we know already about certain plant species and their ability to accumulate particular metals
from contaminated soil (Dataset: Metal Concentrations in Herbaceous Crops). You will need to use these data to inform your
decisions. You may wish to consult additional sources as this may improve your ability to make informed decisions.
Industrial Site Contamination Profiles
Table 1. Contamination by Industrial Site
Site
Associated Laboratory
Contaminant(s) and Percentage of Contamination 1
A
1
Arsenic (60%), Cadmium (73%), Copper (100%)
B
2
Cadmium (30%), Lead (90%), Zinc (50%)
C
3
Cadmium (40%), Copper (100%)
D
4
Arsenic (50%), Lead (80%), Zinc (60%)
1
Soil at each site was tested with random selection of multiple samples across the suspected contaminated area. Percentage values
represent the fraction of samples that tested positive for toxic levels of that particular contaminant.
Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) Information:
Health Hazard Ratings
Health Hazard Data includes information on acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) health effects, signs and symptoms. This
section may be less relevant for residential settings where long-term exposures to low doses and complex chemical mixes are more
common. Also, since most of the information was developed in relation to adult male exposures, it may be less relevant in residential
settings where at-risk populations such as children, the infirm and the elderly live.
*Retrieved online from: www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/gemare/gemare_012.cfm
Table 2. MSDS Health Hazard Codes and Meanings
Rating Code
Meaning
0
No unusual hazard
1
May be irritating
2
May be harmful if inhaled or absorbed
3
Corrosive or toxic. Avoid skin contact or inhalation
4
May be fatal on short exposure. Specialized protective equipment required
* MSDS information retrieved online from: www.ehs.neu.edu/laboratory_safety/general_information/nfpa_hazard_rating/
Table 3. Health Hazard Ratings
Contaminant
Rating
Arsenic
3
Cadmium
3
Copper
2
Lead
1
Zinc
1
* MSDS information retrieved online from: www.sciencelab.com
Material Safety Data Sheet: Exposure Effects
Arsenic (As)
Short term/acute exposure: Very hazardous in case of ingestion, of inhalation. Slightly hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of
eye contact (irritant).
Long term/chronic exposure: The substance is toxic to kidneys, lungs, the nervous system, mucous membranes. Repeated or
prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target organs damage.
Cadmium (Cd)
Short term/acute exposure: Hazardous in case of ingestion, of inhalation. Slightly hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant,
sensitizer), of eye contact (irritant). Severe over-exposure can result in death.
Long term/chronic exposure: The substance is toxic to kidneys, lungs, liver. Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can
produce target organs damage. Repeated exposure to an highly toxic material may produce general deterioration of health by an
accumulation in one or many human organs.
Copper (Cu)
Short term/acute exposure: Very hazardous in case of ingestion. Hazardous in case of eye contact (irritant), of inhalation. Slightly
hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant).
Long term/chronic exposure: The substance is toxic to lungs, mucous membranes. Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance
can produce target organs damage.
Lead (Pb)
Short term/acute exposure: Slightly hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of eye contact (irritant), of ingestion, of inhalation.
Long term/chronic exposure: The substance may be toxic to blood, kidneys, central nervous system (CNS). Repeated or prolonged
exposure to the substance can produce target organs damage.
Zinc (Zn)
Short term/acute exposure: Slightly hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of eye contact (irritant), of ingestion, of inhalation.
Long term/chronic exposure: Repeated or prolonged exposure is not known to aggravate medical condition.
* MSDS information retrieved online from: www.sciencelab.co
Dataset: Metal Concentrations in Herbaceous Crops*
Latin Name
Common
Name
As
Cd
Cu
Pb
Zn
Plants/ hectare
(ha)
Metric tons
/ha (Dry)
Root
Depth
(m)
Root
Type
Days or
Years to
maturity
Notes
Brassica carinata A.
Braun1
Ethiopian
mustard
12
12
37
50
1650
1250000
5.50
<1
Fibrous
160d
Brassica juncea (L.)
Czern.1
Mustard
greens
30
10
71
55
2029
200000
9.53
<1
Fibrous
60d
Hordeum vulgare L. 1
Barley
20
0.4
4
16
27
334
3000000
2.24
<1
Fibrous
90d
Oryza sativa L. 1
Rice
ND
ND
34
6
90
220000
20.18
<1
Fibrous
150d
Raphanus sativus L. 1
Radish
ND
9.4
34
28
1450
300000
13.45
<1
Taproot
28d
Triticosecale, cv.
‘Trujillo’1
Triticale
21
1.9
27.
5
37
588
4000000
7.85
<2
Fibrous
110d
extensive
roots
Salix viminalis 'Orm'2
Osier (tree),
leaves only
ND
4.3
7.6
2.9
362.5
14000
13.61
<2
Fibrous
4y
extensive
roots
cultivated
under
flooded
conditions
*metal concentrations are expressed as mg of metal per kg of plant material
Note. All data values are to be considered reasonable and approximate.
ND=no data available
1
Vamerali, T., Bandiera, M., & Mosca, G. (2010). Field crops for phytoremediation of metal-contaminated land. A review. Environmental Chemistry Letters, 8, 1-17.
2
Vervaeke, P., Luyssaert, S., Mertens, J., Meers, E., Tack, F.M.G., & Lust, N. (2003). Phytoremediation prospects of willow stands on contaminated sediment: a field trial.
Environmental Pollution, 126, 275-282.
5
Research Advisor Reporting Guide
Laboratory 1 (Industrial Site A)
Plant(s)
Associated Metal(s)
Laboratory 2 (Industrial Site B)
Plant(s)
Associated Metal(s)
Laboratory 3 (Industrial Site C)
Plant(s)
Associated Metal(s)
Laboratory 4 (Industrial Site D)
Plant(s)
Associated Metal(s)
Center for Opportunities in Environmental Research
1414 Copper Road, Dirty Dirt, GA 30000
________________________________________________
Dear Research Advisors,
Thank you for your earlier efforts to help us choose plants for our phytoremediation research. We
sincerely appreciate that effort and would like to invite you to provide an additional analysis with new
information we received just this week. Based on your earlier performance, we are confident you can
utilize your methods from before to carry out this new analysis swiftly.
Recent efforts in our program have identified a new set of plants that may be of use in our
phytoremediation program (see Dataset 2; new plants are shaded) and we would like for your group to
evaluate these plants against the earlier set of plants. The new plant information should be considered
with the earlier information as we do not know how the entire group of plants compares. Please send a
formal response in the same style as before, including all required material, but be sure to consider the
new plants as part of your evaluation. If any new plants are determined to be superior in any way versus
the plants considered earlier, please highlight this change in your response.
Public outreach is an important component of scientific research. To help explain to a public audience
how this research is important, please also include a statement of how your site-specific phytoremediation
research decisions might impact the global discussion on remediation of industrial waste sites.
Following this round of analysis, we will be able to make a final decision to guide our research program
efforts. Thank you very much.
Regards,
Selene Argentum, PhD
SVP Toxins Research
COPPER
Dataset 2: Metal Concentrations in Herbaceous Crops*
Latin Name
Common
Name
As
Cd
Cu
Pb
Zn
Brassica carinata A.
Braun1
Ethiopian
mustard
12
12
37
50
1650
Brassica juncea (L.)
Czern.1
Brassica napus L. 1
Mustard
greens
Canola
30
10
71
55
2029
5.8
11
40
39
1400
Festuca spp. 1
Fescue
ND
ND
106
ND
90
Glycine max (L.) Merr.
1
Plants/
hectare (ha)
Metric
tons /ha
(Dry)
Root
Depth
(m)
Root
Type
Days or
Years to
maturity
1250000
5.50
<1
Fibrous
160d
200000
9.53
<1
Fibrous
60d
500000
6.73
<1
Taproot
90d
500000
15.69
<0.2
Fibrous
180d
Soybean
230
2.4
440
72
430
250000
2.76
<2
Fibrous
90d
Hordeum vulgare L. 1
Barley
20
0.44
16
27
334
3000000
2.24
<1
Fibrous
90d
Oryza sativa L. 1
Rice
ND
ND
34
6
90
220000
20.18
<1
Fibrous
150d
300000
13.45
<1
Taproot
28d
4000000
7.85
<2
Fibrous
110d
14000
13.61
<2
Fibrous
4y
100000
2.74
<1
Fibrous
1y
Raphanus sativus L. 1
Radish
ND
9.4
34
28
1450
Triticosecale, cv. ‘Trujillo’1
Triticale
21
1.9
27.5
37
588
Salix viminalis 'Orm'2
Pteris vittata L.3
Osier (tree),
leaves only
Brake fern
ND
4.3
7.6
2.9
362.5
2000
ND
ND
ND
ND
Notes
Requires
flooding
extensive
roots
extensive
roots
extensive
roots
*metal concentrations are expressed as mg of metal per kg of plant material
Note. Plants new to the table are highlighted.
ND=no data available
1
Vamerali, T., Bandiera, M., & Mosca, G. (2010). Field crops for phytoremediation of metal-contaminated land. A review. Environmental Chemistry
Letters, 8, 1-17.
2
Vervaeke, P., Luyssaert, S., Mertens, J., Meers, E., Tack, F.M.G., & Lust, N. (2003). Phytoremediation prospects of willow stands on contaminated
sediment: a field trial. Environmental Pollution, 126, 275-282.
3
Koller, C.E., Patrick, J.W., Rose, R.J., Offler, C.E., & MacFarlane, G.R. (2008). Arsenic and Heavy Metal Accumulation by Pteris vittata L. and P. umbrosa
R. Br. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 80, 128-133.
Research Advisor Reporting Guide
Laboratory 1 (Industrial Site A)
Plant(s)
Associated Metal(s)
Laboratory 2 (Industrial Site B)
Plant(s)
Associated Metal(s)
Laboratory 3 (Industrial Site C)
Plant(s)
Associated Metal(s)
Laboratory 4 (Industrial Site D)
Plant(s)
Associated Metal(s)
Dear __________________________,
Our team, ___________________________________, has determined that the following plants should be studied at
each of the following sites:
Site 1:
Site 2:
Site 3:
Site 4:
Our team has determined that you should use the following procedure for selecting plants:
Sincerely,
______________________________
Dear __________________________,
Our team, ___________________________________, has determined that the following plants should be studied at
each of the following sites:
Site 1:
Site 2:
Site 3:
Site 4:
Our procedure (did/did not) _____________ change. The changes we made to our procedure are:
How our site-specific phytoremediation research decisions might impact the global discussion on
remediation of industrial waste sites:
Sincerely,
______________________________
PRESENTATION REVIEW FORM
Your name/reviewer: ___________________________________________________________
Name of presenting team: _______________________________________________________
Rate the team’s presentation for the following:
Presentation Components
Delivery
(speech, mannerisms)
1
Needs improvement
Poor volume, eye
contact, or pace of
speech (too fast/slow)
Visuals
(graphs, charts, diagrams,
powerpoints)
Visually unattractive,
confusing
Persuasiveness
(information, argument)
Information is not
convincing; little or
no evidence is
presented for
arguments
The focus of the
presentation was
mainly on the types of
plants; little or no
information was
presented about the
procedure to select the
plants
Most of the scientific
and/or mathematical
content was
inaccurate
Procedure
(model solution)
Scientific/mathematical
information
2
Satisfactory
For the most part has
overall satisfactory
volume, eye contact,
and pace of speech
Shows some clutter or
lack of structure but
overall
understandable
Includes persuasive
information; some
evidence is presented
for arguments
The focus of the
presentation was
partially on the
procedure to select
the plants with more
focus on the plant
descriptions
Most of the scientific
and/or mathematical
content was accurate
3
Excellent
Excellent volume,
eye contact, and pace
of speech
Your
rating
Visually pleasing,
enhances
understanding
Main idea is
communicated
convincingly; clear
evidence is presented
for arguments
The focus of the
presentation was on
the procedure to
select the plants
types of plants;
information about
plant descriptions
was also included
All scientific and/or
mathematical content
presented was
accurate
Total Score
Articulate why you provided the rating for “Persuasiveness,” making sure to identify how the evidence was
used, any incorrect reasoning, or exaggerated evidence.
What are the strengths of this team’s procedure?
Do you have any suggestions for improving this team’s procedure?