Which is why this table isn't too bad for a starting point. It gives a base idea of what minerals are going to be present in the substrate. Bioavailability depends on so many different variables that you cannot place it on a chart like Tom said, but at the same time, you can make an educated guess based upon your current water chemistry.
No, not really even worth a starting point for that. CEC helps and that's the most useful parameter on there. The rest really does not say much except atoms.
Tourmaline is a classic wonky new age mixed with "some one is Asia is doing, it must be good" aquaschisters.
It has lots of plant nutrients at the elemental state, but they are essentially totally unavailable for plant growth. Bottom line= does not do squat.
Perhaps we should add diamonds as a carbon source also.........?
Think about it..........Borosilicate glass..........not exactly the type of stuff that dissolves too easily. It has to dissolve at a decent rate and under the specific conditions in a wetland sediment.
I suppose if you waited a few million years the glass in your tanks would dissolve too.
When comparing sediments, you need to ask the relevant biological question.
Jamie's overview did not address much except CEC and elemental composition. pH is semi useful but not without Redox and under submersed conditions.
Redox and organic matter, and bioavailable N, P, K+ etc, these are the parameters that affect growth.
Folks see something like this and think it must mean something and is useful for comparing growth. You have to be careful about what it is measuring.