Carbon Sequestration Lab Report

Carbon sequestration is the process which carbon the environment captures is stored for
years at a time in trees and vegetation. With the rising amount of carbon pollution and global
warming because of that pollution, carbon sequestration is a viable solution to the issue and even
a combatant. Countries and government agencies use reforestation to utilize carbon sequestration
to quell their environmental demands. The popularity of carbon sequestration as a way to combat
carbon emissions has increased over the years as more people realized it is potential. Carbon
sequestration is the process where trees take the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it
the form of trunks and parts of the plant that need to grow. Reforestation and afforestation can
increase the rate of carbon sequestration and, at the same time, restore the environment.
According to the United States Department of Agriculture, sustainable forestry practices can
increase the ability of forests to sequester atmospheric carbon while enhancing other ecosystem
services, such as improved soil and water quality. (Carbon Sequestration, 2016) According to an
article on carbon sequestration by the Scientific American, carbon sequestration that occurs in
the peatlands, bogs, and swamps across the world is vital to filtering out the carbon emissions in
the atmosphere. David Biello, says, Perhaps preserving peatlands in the first place should be a
priority. (Biello, 2009) Peatlands are all over the globe and are drained or cut down for their
production of paper and palm oil in Indonesias case. Essential to the growing economies of the
surrounding countries, they use peatland for palm oil and paper production; this affects the
environments ability to mitigate the CO2 emissions produced from the population. Another
reason is that carbon sequestration can reduce the carbon emissions of the power plants, natural
gas, and coal plants in particular. This allows for low-carbon electricity generation and which
will affect the amount of pollution significantly. According to the Environmental Protection

Agency, more than 40% of CO2 emissions in the United States are from electric power
generation. CCS (carbon capture and sequestration) technologies are currently available and can
dramatically reduce (by 80-90%) CO2 emissions from power plants that burn fossil fuels.
(Carbon Dioxide Capture and Sequestration, 2016) Carbon sequestration is a viable way for the
carbon emissions produced from an industrialized society to reduced and put back into the
environment for the better. Coupled environmental reforestation efforts, and with the
advancement of alternative energies, carbon capture could be instrumental to a solution to global
warming.

Work Cited:
Biello, D. (2009). Peat and Repeat: Can Major Carbon Sinks Be Restored by Rewetting the
World's Drained Bogs? Retrieved November 03, 2016, from
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/peat-and-repeat-rewetting-carbon-sinks/
Carbon Dioxide Capture and Sequestration. (2016, August 9). Retrieved November 03, 2016,
from https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ccs/
Carbon Sequestration. (October 7, 2016). Retrieved November 03, 2016, from
http://www.fs.fed.us/ecosystemservices/carbon.shtml
Experimental Design:
Problem Question: How does peat moss affect the levels of carbon dioxide in the surrounding
area?
Hypothesis: I hypothesize that the peat moss will lower the levels of carbon dioxide in the ecobottle because the peat moss will be using carbon sequestration to store that carbon for growth.
Independent Variable: The varying levels of fertilizers in the peat moss.

Dependent Variable: The level of the carbon dioxide in the eco-bottle.

Control Group: Eco-bottle with peat moss and soil (no fertilizer)
Experimental Group: Eco-bottle with peat moss and soil with fertilizer

Materials and Methods:

When designing our eco-bottles, we used two recycled juice bottles and two water
bottles. We cut holes in the bottoms to make an entry point for the CO2 probe and be able to seal
the eco-bottle back up to preserve the gases inside to get an accurate reading of the contents of
the air. Both eco-bottles have a cap that seals them and contain the same amount peat moss and
soil. The experimental group, the eco-bottle with the fertilizer, is the only one with anything
different. We used duct tape, knifes, drills, a saw, four recycled bottles of various sizes, soil, peat
moss, a scoop, a funnel, and fertilizer to make our two eco-bottles. Measuring the amounts put
into the eco-bottles to make sure there was consistency in the soil and peat moss amounts. We
sealed them with duct tape after prepared and we filled the bottoms with water. Finally, we
placed the eco-bottles in front of a bright window to give them the necessary light from growth.
Data:

CO2 (ppm) Control Group

5000
4000
3000

CO2 ppm 2000

1000
0

Time (sec.)
Control Data 11/11

Control Data 11/15

Control Data 11/16

CO2 (ppm) Experimental Group

20000
15000

CO2 ppm

10000
5000
0

Time (sec.)
Experimental Data 11/11

Experimental Data 11/15

Experimental Data 11/16

Rates of Increase

Trial #1: 11/11

Trial #2: 11/15
Trial #3: 11/16
Average Rates:

Results:

Control Group
2.2316 ppm/min
82.703 ppm/min
157.4308 ppm/min
80.78846667 ppm/min

Experimental Group
593.052 ppm/min
292.0726 ppm/min
43.106 ppm/min
309.4102 ppm/min

In our experiment, we tested the effects of fertilizer on peat moss and its ability to
perform carbon sequestration. Our experimental group, we included fertilizer along with the peat
moss to add variety in the rate of growth for the peat moss. The CO2 sensor took samples every
4 seconds for 10 minutes, and we did three different trials. Our data suggests that the CO2
actually increased, with the average rate of increase across the three trials being 309.4102
ppm/min. In our control group, the results were the same, but a less drastic. This group did not
contain any fertilizer and only had the peat moss. The average rate of increase for the control
group was 80.79 ppm/min.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, our hypothesis was refuted, because neither group displayed signs of
decreasing carbon dioxide levels. The data suggests that the carbon dioxide levels were
increasing but the rates of increase slowed down in the experimental group while in the control
group they only got higher.