600W Purple Kush Scrog
- Thread starter unity
- Start date
These are pics from my current grow, mind you that I started with 4 Strawberry coughs which looked like this after 1 week in my space:
Let's move on to the Purples that I used to replace the Strawberry's with. Why, you ask?
Because I'm dense, and I still had not connected the dots lol.
Let's move on to the Purples that I used to replace the Strawberry's with. Why, you ask?
Because I'm dense, and I still had not connected the dots lol.
Attachments
OK, so why am I showing you guys pics of my past three grows going to shit?!
BECAUSE I DO NOT WISH ANY OF THIS HAPPENING TO YOU GUYS!
Here is a word that was not new to me but never paid much attention to:
"OFF-GASSING"
There are some interesting study's out there regarding the impact of DBP (many plastics, spray glues, panda film etc. contain it) on plants in greenhouses with optimal environmental conditions for growth. Many growers will never experience this problem due to high air exchange, but once the room gets sealed the story changes
I think we need to reconsider the use of products containing DBP in our growing environment, especially when operating 'sealed' environments.
I wish that there would have been more info on this, it may have saved my last three grows lol.
Here is an excerpt from on of the study's:
"CHRONIC PLANT STUDY
Results
Visual injury was observed on all species, varying from chlorosis and necrosis, leaf crinkling to a total loss of colour in the leaves and needles. The variation in sensitivity between plant species was quantified on the basis of whole plant biomass (shoot plus root) in order to derive NOEC and EC10 values.
Interestingly, white clover was found to be more sensitive to DBP than cabbage. Further details can be found in the PRI (2002) report and IUCLID.
PNECplant-air proposal
The PRI (2002) study is considered acceptable and useful for deriving a PNECplant-air. Two different routes can be used for deriving the PNECplant-air: 1) the standard method (lowest NOEC/EC10 divided by assessment factor, and 2) statistical extrapolation with an additional assessment factor.
Using the lowest EC10 value, i.e. 0.33 µg/m3, and applying the standard factor of 10 would result in a PNECplant-air of 0.03 µg/m3. Calculating the 5th percentile of the species sensitivity distribution (EC10 values for effects on total biomass) would result in a median (50% confidence interval) value of 0.2 µg/m3 (ETX, 1993). The 5th percentile estimation meets the statistical goodness-of-fit requirements (Anderson-Darling test for normality). Calculating 5th percentile values for either root or shoot biomass, rather than total biomass, results in nearly the same 5th percentile.
The problem now is that there is no guidance yet on deriving a plant-air PNEC in the Technical Guidance Document (TGD) (EC, 2003b). The TGD focuses on the PNEC derivation for water, sediment and soil, but the assumptions etc. for those compartments may not directly hold for plants (airborne route). A number of considerations can be given here on the PNECplant-air derivation for DBP:
1. the focus is only on deriving a PNEC air for plants. This means that other taxonomic groups of the atmospheric compartment (e.g. insects) will remain beyond the scope of the PNEC. This implies that assessment factors may cover less ecosystem than normally for water, soil and sediment.
2. the TGD (2003b) criteria for using statistical extrapolation are not all met here (e.g. number of NOECs), but they may also not be relevant here as the focus is only on plants (see point 1). There is a fairly well coverage of plant diversity in the selected plant species, and, in addition, an acceptable goodness-of-fit is shown. One may speculate then about the introduction of an additional assessment factor. Such additional assessment factor should still cover species diversity (see point 3). It is highly uncertain, however, whether a factor of 2, 3 or 4 should then be used. An arbitrary factor of 3 on the current 5th percentile would, for example, yield a PNEC of 0.07 µg/m3.
3. the focus in the tiered testing program, of which the PRI (2002) test is the last part, has been on sensitive species (Brassica in particular). This is supported by literature data. It should be noted, however, that the PRI (2002) test showed that white clover was even more sensitive than Brassica. Some factor is needed therefore for possible other, even more sensitive species than clover.
4. according to plant experts, the conditions in greenhouses, are very unfavourable to plants with respect to their sensitivity to toxicants. This due to optimal light and feeding conditions which optimise the exposure and therefore the toxicity. Therefore the standard factor of 10 for extrapolating from laboratory tests to the field-situation may be argued here (lower factor).
Taking all these points into consideration, it is clear that a quantitative approach on the PNEC derivation would be very difficult in this case. The standard assessment factor of 10 is most probably too high, but should it then be 4, 6 or 7.5? The same is true for the additional assessment factor on the 5th percentile. It is pragmatically proposed therefore to use a PNECplant-air of 0.1 µg/m3 for DBP in the revised risk assessment. "
For the complete Article go to:
http://www.greenfacts.org/en/dbp-dib...nvironment.htm
Anybody with more info, please chime in. If you know of acceptable encapsulates for DBP containing plastics, please chime in!
Unity
BECAUSE I DO NOT WISH ANY OF THIS HAPPENING TO YOU GUYS!
Here is a word that was not new to me but never paid much attention to:
"OFF-GASSING"
There are some interesting study's out there regarding the impact of DBP (many plastics, spray glues, panda film etc. contain it) on plants in greenhouses with optimal environmental conditions for growth. Many growers will never experience this problem due to high air exchange, but once the room gets sealed the story changes
I think we need to reconsider the use of products containing DBP in our growing environment, especially when operating 'sealed' environments.
I wish that there would have been more info on this, it may have saved my last three grows lol.
Here is an excerpt from on of the study's:
"CHRONIC PLANT STUDY
Results
Visual injury was observed on all species, varying from chlorosis and necrosis, leaf crinkling to a total loss of colour in the leaves and needles. The variation in sensitivity between plant species was quantified on the basis of whole plant biomass (shoot plus root) in order to derive NOEC and EC10 values.
Interestingly, white clover was found to be more sensitive to DBP than cabbage. Further details can be found in the PRI (2002) report and IUCLID.
PNECplant-air proposal
The PRI (2002) study is considered acceptable and useful for deriving a PNECplant-air. Two different routes can be used for deriving the PNECplant-air: 1) the standard method (lowest NOEC/EC10 divided by assessment factor, and 2) statistical extrapolation with an additional assessment factor.
Using the lowest EC10 value, i.e. 0.33 µg/m3, and applying the standard factor of 10 would result in a PNECplant-air of 0.03 µg/m3. Calculating the 5th percentile of the species sensitivity distribution (EC10 values for effects on total biomass) would result in a median (50% confidence interval) value of 0.2 µg/m3 (ETX, 1993). The 5th percentile estimation meets the statistical goodness-of-fit requirements (Anderson-Darling test for normality). Calculating 5th percentile values for either root or shoot biomass, rather than total biomass, results in nearly the same 5th percentile.
The problem now is that there is no guidance yet on deriving a plant-air PNEC in the Technical Guidance Document (TGD) (EC, 2003b). The TGD focuses on the PNEC derivation for water, sediment and soil, but the assumptions etc. for those compartments may not directly hold for plants (airborne route). A number of considerations can be given here on the PNECplant-air derivation for DBP:
1. the focus is only on deriving a PNEC air for plants. This means that other taxonomic groups of the atmospheric compartment (e.g. insects) will remain beyond the scope of the PNEC. This implies that assessment factors may cover less ecosystem than normally for water, soil and sediment.
2. the TGD (2003b) criteria for using statistical extrapolation are not all met here (e.g. number of NOECs), but they may also not be relevant here as the focus is only on plants (see point 1). There is a fairly well coverage of plant diversity in the selected plant species, and, in addition, an acceptable goodness-of-fit is shown. One may speculate then about the introduction of an additional assessment factor. Such additional assessment factor should still cover species diversity (see point 3). It is highly uncertain, however, whether a factor of 2, 3 or 4 should then be used. An arbitrary factor of 3 on the current 5th percentile would, for example, yield a PNEC of 0.07 µg/m3.
3. the focus in the tiered testing program, of which the PRI (2002) test is the last part, has been on sensitive species (Brassica in particular). This is supported by literature data. It should be noted, however, that the PRI (2002) test showed that white clover was even more sensitive than Brassica. Some factor is needed therefore for possible other, even more sensitive species than clover.
4. according to plant experts, the conditions in greenhouses, are very unfavourable to plants with respect to their sensitivity to toxicants. This due to optimal light and feeding conditions which optimise the exposure and therefore the toxicity. Therefore the standard factor of 10 for extrapolating from laboratory tests to the field-situation may be argued here (lower factor).
Taking all these points into consideration, it is clear that a quantitative approach on the PNEC derivation would be very difficult in this case. The standard assessment factor of 10 is most probably too high, but should it then be 4, 6 or 7.5? The same is true for the additional assessment factor on the 5th percentile. It is pragmatically proposed therefore to use a PNECplant-air of 0.1 µg/m3 for DBP in the revised risk assessment. "
For the complete Article go to:
http://www.greenfacts.org/en/dbp-dib...nvironment.htm
Anybody with more info, please chime in. If you know of acceptable encapsulates for DBP containing plastics, please chime in!
Unity
So, needless to say, I'm pissed, but also somewhat confident that I have found the reason for my inability to keep my plants alive once I move them into my sealed grow space. I will continue to post in this thread to let you guys know if my remediation regarding the DBP containing products in my grow environment. For now I have removed the mylar, have painted the walls that had the spray glue on them with a shellac and will next deal with the plastic drain lines etc I have got.
I am not hopefull regarding my plants, It looks to be a one way trip for them
I will not seal my space for another week or so in order to allow the paint to 'off-gass' properly. Meanwhile I start me some new clones.
Gime in mates, share your knowlage regarding this nightmare DBP!
Unity
I am not hopefull regarding my plants, It looks to be a one way trip for them
I will not seal my space for another week or so in order to allow the paint to 'off-gass' properly. Meanwhile I start me some new clones.
Gime in mates, share your knowlage regarding this nightmare DBP!
Unity
Here is another study from back in 1984:
http://133.5.207.201/ijob/Biotronics/1984_IJOBS_V13/V13_p39-42.pdf
Here is an Excerpt:
"PLANT DAMAGE AND DEATH CAUSED BY PLASTICS
CONTAINING THE PLASTICISER
DIBUTYLPHTHALATE
T. P. FYFJ ELD, R. C. HARDWICK and R. A. COLE
National Vegetable Research Station, Wellesburne, Warwick, England
(Received Jun e 4. J984)
FYFfELD T. P., HARDWICK R. C. and COLE R. A. Plant damage and death caused
by plastics containing the plasticiser di butyl phthalate. BIOTRONICS 13,
39-41, 1984. Various items made of flexible plastic contain the plasticiser di
butyl phthalate (DBP). Vapours of DBP emitted by such plastics ar e toxic to
cert ain plants, notably some varieties of Brassica and tomato. The symptoms
may be part icularly severe in an enclosed volume such as a controlled environment
growth chamber.
INTRODUCflON
Problems of plastic phytotoxicity occurred at the National Vegetable Research
Station (NVRS) in 1968 when damage to the leaves of plants in newly-installed
growth chambers was traced to emissions from certain types of flexible plastics.
The toxic principle at that time, however, was not identified (2).
INTRODUCTlON
Problems of plastic phytotoxicity occurred at the National Vegetable Research
Station (NVRS) in 1968 when damage to the leaves of plants in newly-installed
growth chambers was traced to emissions from certain types of flexible plastics.
The toxic principle at that time, however, was not identified (2).
Similar problems have arisen in Japan (5), Germany (1) and Scandinavia (6),
where workers have separately and independently traced the cause of plant damage
to particular items in the vicinity that were made of flexible polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
and contained di butyl phthalate (DBP) as the plasticiser. However, this work did
not receive wide attention and plastic item s containing DBP continued to be manufactured
for use in horticulture.
In 1982 severe leaf necrosis developed in Brassica seedlings grown in newly erected
glasshouses at NVRS. Typical symptoms were leaf greying and marginal
necrosis followed by leaf collapse and the death of seedlings, and patchy bleaching
and necrosis of leaves of older plants. Similar symptoms were reported in tomato
crops also growing in new aluminium-frame glasshouses elsewhere in the United
Kingdom. Following the work of Hannay (3) the problem was traced to vapours
of DBP emanating from the flexible PVC....."
http://133.5.207.201/ijob/Biotronics/1984_IJOBS_V13/V13_p39-42.pdf
Here is an Excerpt:
"PLANT DAMAGE AND DEATH CAUSED BY PLASTICS
CONTAINING THE PLASTICISER
DIBUTYLPHTHALATE
T. P. FYFJ ELD, R. C. HARDWICK and R. A. COLE
National Vegetable Research Station, Wellesburne, Warwick, England
(Received Jun e 4. J984)
FYFfELD T. P., HARDWICK R. C. and COLE R. A. Plant damage and death caused
by plastics containing the plasticiser di butyl phthalate. BIOTRONICS 13,
39-41, 1984. Various items made of flexible plastic contain the plasticiser di
butyl phthalate (DBP). Vapours of DBP emitted by such plastics ar e toxic to
cert ain plants, notably some varieties of Brassica and tomato. The symptoms
may be part icularly severe in an enclosed volume such as a controlled environment
growth chamber.
INTRODUCflON
Problems of plastic phytotoxicity occurred at the National Vegetable Research
Station (NVRS) in 1968 when damage to the leaves of plants in newly-installed
growth chambers was traced to emissions from certain types of flexible plastics.
The toxic principle at that time, however, was not identified (2).
INTRODUCTlON
Problems of plastic phytotoxicity occurred at the National Vegetable Research
Station (NVRS) in 1968 when damage to the leaves of plants in newly-installed
growth chambers was traced to emissions from certain types of flexible plastics.
The toxic principle at that time, however, was not identified (2).
Similar problems have arisen in Japan (5), Germany (1) and Scandinavia (6),
where workers have separately and independently traced the cause of plant damage
to particular items in the vicinity that were made of flexible polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
and contained di butyl phthalate (DBP) as the plasticiser. However, this work did
not receive wide attention and plastic item s containing DBP continued to be manufactured
for use in horticulture.
In 1982 severe leaf necrosis developed in Brassica seedlings grown in newly erected
glasshouses at NVRS. Typical symptoms were leaf greying and marginal
necrosis followed by leaf collapse and the death of seedlings, and patchy bleaching
and necrosis of leaves of older plants. Similar symptoms were reported in tomato
crops also growing in new aluminium-frame glasshouses elsewhere in the United
Kingdom. Following the work of Hannay (3) the problem was traced to vapours
of DBP emanating from the flexible PVC....."
Yeah, it,s crazy lol. Was your room sealed or were you venting?
I have decided to post some pics of plants that are affected by this problem. My new clones are not ready, so I thought I try to bring them back, just to see if they can recover, but I do not have high hopes lol. The plants have started to grow again in the last two days there foliage has increases dramatically, but the new growth is still severely mg & nitrogen deficient. The EC is at 1.2, which is still a tat hot, but that's what I have noticed from the beginning, they run rich, but still show significant signs of deficiencies.
Attachments
Here is a pic of a AI mother that is re-vegging (that's why the salad look lol). I added here to the mix because I needed a plant that was not getting the hydro feed of the others. She was only in the toxic space for 2 days and see what it did to the new growth.
Attachments
Well, for anybody that has experienced a 'toxic-tent' or off-gassing from any other source, the plants will come back once the situation is rectified. I am starting to get healthy growth after about 9 days. For a complete turnaround we are probably looking at 2-3weeks.
I will add some pics later on
I will add some pics later on
tilemaster
Well-Known Member
hey, if i get some better pics while the hps's are off, u think u could help evaluate wut going on....
i'll check back w/ u later . thanks .
i'll check back w/ u later . thanks .
Well, for anybody that has experienced a 'toxic-tent' or off-gassing from any other source, the plants will come back once the situation is rectified. I am starting to get healthy growth after about 9 days. For a complete turnaround we are probably looking at 2-3weeks.
I will add some pics later on