element concentrations in soils and other surficial ... · ing samples of surficial materials and...

EPA Region 5 Records Ctr.

259791

Element Concentrations in Soils andOther Surficial Materials of theConterminous United States

U.S. G E O L O G I C A L S U R V E Y PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1270

Element Concentrations in Soils andOther Surficial Materials of theConterminous United StatesBy HANSFORD T. SHACKLETTE and JOSEPHINE G. BOERNGEN

U . S . G E O L O G I C A L S U R V E Y P R O F E S S I O N A L P A P E R 1270

An account of the concentrations of50 chemical elements in samples ofsoils and other regoliths

U N I T E D STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING O F F I C E , W A S H I N G T O N : 1984

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

WILLIAM P. CLARK, Secretary

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Dallas L. Peck, Director

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication D»t»Shacklette, Hanaford T.Element concentration* in toil* and other aurfidal nwteriala of the conterminoua United SUtea.(Geological Survey profearional paper; 1210)Bibliography: 106 p.Supt. of Doca. No.: 119.161. SoiU—United Statec—Compoaltion.I. Boerngen, Josephine G. II. Title. III. Seriei

36W.A186 SS1.4'7'73 82-400064AACR2

For sale by the Diftribution Branch, U.S. Geological Survey,604 South Pickett Street, Alexandria, VA 22304

CONTENTS

Abstract 1Introduction 1Acknowledgment* 2Review of literature 2Collection and analysis of geocbemkal data 8

Sampling plan 8Sampling media 6Chemical-analysis procedure* 6

Data presentation 6Discussion of result* 7References cited 9

ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURE 1. Map showing location of mapllng *>tes '" the conterminous United Stateswhere element! not commonly detected in surfitial deposits were found,and the amounts of the element* present 12

2-47. Maps showing element content of snrficial materials in the conterminousUnited State*:2. Aluminum 148. Antimony 164. Arsenic 185. Barium 206. Beryllium 227. Boron 248. Bromine 269. Calcium 28

10. Carbon (total) 8011. Cerium 8212. Chromium 8413. CobaH 8614. Copper 8816. Fluorine 4016. Gallium 4217. Germanium 4418. Iodine 4619. Iron 4820. Lanthanum 5021. Lead 6222. Lithium 6428. Magnesium 6624. Manganese 6826. Mercury 6026. Molybdenum 6227. Neodymhim 6428. Nickel 6629. Niobium 68SO. Phosphorus 7081. Potassium 7282. Rubidium 7488. Scandium 7684. Selenium 7836. Silicon 8086. Sodhim 82

in

IV CONTENTS

FIGURES 37-47. Maps showing element content of rorficial material* in the conterminousUnited SUtea:37. Strontium 8438. Sulfur 8639. Thorium 8840. Tin 9041. TiUnium 9242. Uranium 9443. Vanadium 9644. Ytterbium 9846. Yttrium 10046. Zinc 10247. Zirconium 104

TABLES

TABLE 1. Average or median contents, and range in content!, reported for elements in soils and other surficial materials . .2. Mean concentrations, deviations, and range* of elements in sample* of soils and other surficial materials in the conterminous

United States .........................................................

ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS AND OTHERSURFICIAL MATERIALS OF THE

CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

By HANSFORDT. SHACKLETTE and JOSEPHINI- G. BOERNGEN

ABSTRACT

Samples of soils or other regoliths, taken at a depth of approxi-mately 20 cm from locations about 80 km apart throughout the conter-minous United States, were analyzed for their content of elements,[n this manner, 1,318 sampling sites were chosen, and the resultsof the sample analyses for 60 elements were plotted on maps. Thearithmetic and geometric mean, the geometric deviation, and a histog-ram showing frequencies of analytical values are given for 47 ele-ments.

The lower concentrations of some elements (notably, aluminum,barium, calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, and strontium) inmost samples of surficial materials from the Eastern United States,and the greater abundance of heavy metals in the same materialsof the Western United States, indicates a regional geochemical pat-tern of the largest scale. The low concentrations of many elementsin soils characterize the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Soils of the PacificNorthwest generally have high concentrations of aluminum, cobalt,iron, scandium, and vanadium, but are low in boron. Soils of theRocky Mountain region tend to have high concentrations of copper,lead, and zinc. High mercury concentrations in surficial materials arecharacteristic of Gulf Coast sampling sites and the Atlantic coast sitesof Connecticut, Hasaachuetts, and Maine. At the State level, Floridahas the most striking geochemical pattern by having soils that arelow in the concentrations of most elements considered in this study.Some smaller patterns of element abundance can be noted, but thedegree of confidence in the validity of these patterns decreases asthe patterns become less extensive.

INTRODUCTION

The abundance of certain elements in soils and othersurficial materials is determined not only by the ele-ment content of the bedrock or other deposits fromwhich the materials originated, but also by the effectsof climatic and biological factors as well as by influencesof agricultural and industrial operations that have actedon the materials for various periods of time. The diver-sity of these factors in a large area is expected to resultin a corresponding diversity in the element contentsof the surficial materials.

At the beginning of this study (1961), few data wereavailable on the abundance of elements in surficial ma-terials of the United States as a whole. Most of theearly reports discussed only the elements that were ofeconomic importance to mining or agriculture in a

metallogenic area or State; and the data, for the mostpart, cannot be evaluated with reference to average,or normal, amounts in undisturbed materials becausethey were based on samples of deposits expected tohave anomalous amounts of certain elements, or werebased only on samples from cultivated fields.

We began a sampling program in 1961 that was de-signed to give estimates of the range of element abun-dance in surficial materials that were unaltered or verylittle altered from their natural condition, and in plantsthat grew on these deposits, throughout the contermin-ous United States. We believed that analyses of thesurficial materials would provide a measure of the totalconcentrations of the elements that were present at thesampling sites, and that analysis of the plants wouldgive an estimate of the relative concentrations amongsites of the elements that existed in a chemical formthat was available to plants. Because of the greatamount of travel necessary to complete this sampling,we asked geologists and others of the U.S. GeologicalSurvey to assist by collecting samples when travelingto and from their project areas and to contribute appro-priate data they may have collected for other purposes.The reponse to this request, together with the samplesand data that we had collected, resulted in our obtain-ing samples of surficial materials and plants from 863sites. The analyses of surficial materials sampled in thisphase of the study were published for 35 elements byplotting element concentrations, in two to five fre-quency classes, on maps (Shacklette, Hamilton, andothers, 1971).

Soon after the publication of the results of this study,interest in environmental matters, particularly in theeffects of contamination and industrial pollution, in-creased greatly. At the same time, technological ad-vances in analytical methods and data processing facili-tated measurements of geochemical and other parame-ters of the environment. In response to the need forbackground data for concentrations of certain elementsof particular environmental concern, the samples of sur-ficial materials that were collected for the first study(Shacklette, Hamilton, and others, 1971) (with some ad-

ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

ditional samples) were analyzed for other elements, andthe results were published in U.S. Geological SurveyCirculars: for mercury, Shacklette, Boerngen, andTurner (1971); for lithium and cadmium, by Shacklette,and others (1973); and for selenium, fluorine, and arse-nic, Shacklette and others (1974).

The collection of samples for this study continued,as opportunities arose, until autumn 1975, resulting inthe sampling of an additional 356 sites that wereselected to give a more uniform geographical coverageof the conterminous United States. This sampling con-tinuation is referred to as phase two. These sampleswere analyzed, and the data were merged with thoseof the original samples to produce the results given inthe present report. In addition, the availability ofanalytical methods for elements not included in the ear-lier reports permitted data to be given on these ele-ments in the more recently collected samples.

The collection localities and dates, sample descrip-tions, and analytical values for each sample in the pre-sent report were published by Boerngen and Shacklette(1981). The elemental compositions of only the surfkialmaterials are given in this report; the data on analysesof the plant samples are held in files of the U.S. Geolog-ical Survey.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was made possible by the cooperation ofmany persons in the U.S. Geological Survey. We thankD. F. Davidson, A. T. Miesch, J. J. Connor, R. J.Ebens, and A. T. Myers for their interest in, and con-tinued support of, this study. The sampling plan wassuggested by H. L. Cannon, who also contributedanalytical data from her project areas and samples fromher travel routes. Others of the Geological Survey whocollected samples, and to whom we express gratitude,are: J. M. Bowles, F. A. Branson, R. A. Cadigan, F.C. Canney, F. W. Cater, Jr., M. A. Chaffey, ToddChurch, J. J. Connor, Dwight Crowder, R. J. Ebens,J. A. Erdman, G. L. Feder, G. B. Gott, W. R. Griffitts,T. P. Hill, E. K. Jenne, M. I. Kaufman, J. R. Keith,Frank Kleinhampl, A. T. Miesch, R. F. Miller, R. C.Pearson, E. V. Post, Douglas Richman, R. C. Sever-son, James Scott, D. A. Seeland, M. H. Staatz, T. A.Steven, M. H. Strobell, V. E. Swanson, R. R. Tidball,H. A. Tourtelot, J. D. Vine, and R. W. White. Wethank the following members of the U.S. Departmentof Agriculture Soil Conservation Service for providingsoil samples from areas in Minnesota: D. D. Barron,C. R. Carlson, D. E. DeMartelaire, R. R. Lewis,Charles Sutton, and Paul Nyberg.

We acknowledge the analytical support provided bythe following U.S. Geological Survey chemists: Lowell

Artis, Philip Aruscavage, A. J. Bartel, S. D. BotiL. A. Bradley, J. W. Budinsky, Alice Caemmerer,P. Cahill, E. Y. Campbell, G. W. Chloe, Don ColE. F. Cooley, N. M. Conklin, W. B. Crandell, MauriDevalliere, P. L. D. Elmore, E. J. Finlay, JohniGardner, J. L. Glenn, T. F. Harms, R. G. HaveaR. H. Heidel, M. B. Hinkle, Claude Huffman, Jr.,!B. Jenkins, R. J. Knight, B. W. Lanthorn, L. M. LaK. W. Leong, J. B. McHugh, J. D. Mensik, V. M. MBritt, H. T. Millard, Jr., Wayne Mountjoy, H. 1Nakagawa, H. G. Neiman, Uteana Oda, C. S. E. PanR. L. Rahill, V. E. Shaw, G. D. Shipley, HezekiiSmith, A. J. Sutton, Jr., J. A. Thomas, Barbara TobaJ. E. Troxel, J. H. Turner, and G. H. VanSickle.

We were assisted in computer programming for thdata by the following persons of the U.S. GeologiesSurvey: W. A. Buehrer, G. I. Evenden, J. B. FifiAllen Popiel, M. R. Roberts, W. C. Schomburg, G. ISeiner, R. C. Terrazas, George VanTrump, Jr., adR. R. Wahl.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The literature on the chemical analysis of soils anlother surficial materials in the United States is extetsive and deals largely with specific agricultural problems of regional interest. Many of the papers were written by soil scientists and chemists associated with Stattagricultural experiment stations and colleges of agricul-ture, and most reports considered only elements th*were known to be nutritive or toxic to plants or antmals.

Chemists with the U.S. Department of Agricultunprepared most early reports of element abundance nsoils for large areas of the United States. (See Robin-son, 1914; Robinson and others, 1917). The 1938 yearbook of agriculture was devoted to reports on soils ofthe United States; in this book, McMurtrey and Robin-son (1938) discussed the importance and abundance oftrace elements in soils. Amounts of the major elementsin soil samples from a few soil profiles distributedthroughout the United States were compiled by the soilscientist C. F. Marbut (1935) to illustrate characteris-tics of soil units.

The use of soil analysis in geochemical prospectingbegan in this country in the 1940/s, and many reportswere published on the element amounts in soils fromareas where mineral deposits were known or suspectedto occur. Most of these reports included only a few ele-ments in soils from small areas. This early geochemicalwork was discussed by Webb (1953) and by Hawkes(1957). In succeeding years, as soil analyses became anaccepted method of prospecting and as analytical

COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS OF GEOCHEMICAL DATA

methods were improved, many elements in soils wereanalyzed; still, the areas studied were commonly small.

An estimate of the amounts of elements in average,or normal, soils is useful in appraising the amounts ofelements in a soil sample as related to agricultural, min-eral prospecting, environmental quality, and health anddisease investigations. Swaine (1965) gave an extensivebibliography of trace-element reports on soils of theworld, and he also summarized reports of the averageamounts of elements as given by several investigators.The most comprehensive bst of average amounts of rareand dispersed elements in soils is that of Vinogradov(1969), who reported the analytical results of extensivestudies of soils in the Union of Soviet Socialist Repub-lics, as well as analyses of soils from other countries.He did not state the basis upon which he establishedthe average values; however, these values are presuma-bly the arithmetic means of element amounts in samplesfrom throughout the world. In their discussions of theprinciples of geochemistry, Goldschmidt (1954) andRankama and Sahama (1955) reported the amounts ofvarious elements present in soils and in other surficialmaterials, Hawks and Webb (1962) and, more recently,Brooks (1972), Siegal (1974), Levinson (1974), and Roseand others (1979) gave average amounts of certain ele-ments in soils as useful guides in mineral exploration.

A report on the chemical characteristics of soils wasedited by Bear (1964). In this book, the chapter onchemical composition of soils by Jackson (1964) and thechapter on trace elements in soils by Mitchell (1964)gave the ranges in values or the average amounts ofsome soil elements.

Regional geochemical studies conducted by scientistsof the U.S. Geological Survey within the past two de-cades have been largely directed to the establishmentof baseline abundances of elements in surficial mate-rials, including soils. Most of the earlier work investi-gated these materials that occurred in their natural con-dition, having little or no alterations that related tohuman activities, with the objective of establishing nor-mal element concentrations in the materials by whichanomalous concentrations, both natural or man induced,could be judged. Some of these studies were conductedin cooperation with medical investigators who weresearching for possible relationships of epidemiologies!patterns to characteristics of the environment. In onestudy, the geochemical characteristics of both naturaland cultivated soils were determined in two areas ofGeorgia that had contrasting rates of cardiovascular dis-eases (Shacklette and others, 1970). In an extensivegeochemical study of Missouri, also conducted coopera-tively with medical researchers, both cultivated andnatural soils were sampled. The results were presentedfor the State as a whole, and for physiographic regions

or other subdivisions and smaller areas, as follows:Erdman and others (1976a, 1976b); Tidball (1976, 1983a,1983b); and Ebens and others (1973). The results ofthese studies, and of other regional geochemical investi-gations, were summarized and tabulated by Connor andShacklette (1975).

Recent regional studies of soil geochemistry by theU.S. Geological Survey related to the development ofenergy resources in the western part of the UnitedStates, including North Dakota, South Dakota, Mon-tana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico.These studies established regional geochemicalbaselines for soils, both in undisturbed areas and inareas that had been altered by mining and related ac-tivities. Some of these studies considered the elementsin soils both as total concentrations and as concentra-tions that were available to plants of the region. Theresults of these studies were published in annual prog-ress reports (U.S. Geological Survey, 1974, 1975, 1976,1977, and 1978). The data on soils, as well as on othernatural materials, in these reports were summarizedand tabulated by Ebens and Shacklette (1981). In astudy of the elements in fruits and vegetables from 11areas of commercial production in the United States,and in the soils on which this produce grew, soils wereanalyzed for 39 elements, as reported by Boerngen andShacklette (1980) and Shacklette (1980).

The average amounts of elements in soils and othersurficial materials of the United States, as determinedin the present study, are given in table 1, with theaverage values or ranges in values that were reportedby Vinogradov (1959), Rose and others (1979), Jackson(1964), Mitchell (1964), and Brooks (1972). The averagesfrom the present study given in table 1 are the arithme-tic means. Although the averages were computed bythe methods described by Miesch (1967), the values ob-tained are directly comparable with the arithmeticmeans derived by common computational procedures.

COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS OFGEOCHEMICAL DATA

SAMPLING PLAN

The sampling plan was designed with the emphasison practicality, in keeping with the expenditures of timeand funds available, and its variance from an ideal planhas been recognized from the beginning. Because thecollection of most samples was, by necessity, incidentalto other duties of the samplers, the instructions forsampling were simplified as much as possible, so thatsampling methods would be consistent within the widerange of kinds of sites to be sampled. The samples were


TABLE 1. — Average or median content*, and range in contents, reported for element* in loili and otter ntrfieial material*[Titiiriainsrursrimllns: isrti-rrar j leaden (-) in Bfure o>tamss tadleata w data anDsMa. A, mnfc, M. madias. <, less tin;

> . (rater thai)

EICsMDt

Aa

R,

C. totalCa

Cu

r«Ga

Kb

5, total

Sn

ZnZi

TMi

ATerage

72,0007.2

33MO

.92

.8525,00024,000

759.1

5425

43026.000

17

1.2.09

1.215.000

37

249,000

550.97

12.000

114619

43019

671,600

.668.9

.39

310,0001.3

2402,900

9.4

2.780

253.1

60230

i report

lange

700 -do, 000<0. 1 -^7

<20 - 3OO10 - 5,000<l - 15

<0.5 - 11600 - 370.0OO100 - 3 20.0OO

<I50 - 300<3 - 70

1 - 2,000<1 - 700

<10 - 3,700100 - MOO, 000

<5 - 70

<0.1 - 2.5<0.01 - 4.6<0.5 - 9.6

50 - 63,000<30 - 200

<5 - 14050 - MOO, 000<2 - 7,000<3 - 15

<5OO - 100.000

<10 - 100<70 - 300<5 - 700

<20 - 6,800<10 - 700

<20 - 210<800 - 48,000

<1 - 8.8<5 - 50

<0.1 - 4.3

16.000 - 450.000<0.1 - 10

<5 - 3,00070 - 20,000

2.2 - 31

0.29 - 11<7 - 500

<10 - 200<1 - 50<5 - 2,900

<20 - 2,000

lose, snd others(1979) (elements

useful Ingeochevlcal

prospecting)

7.529

3OO0.5

10

6.315

30021.000

0.056

11.000

6.2

3202.5

15

17300

17

35100

2

0.31

1067

157

36270

(K)(H)(ID

- 4

(M)

(M)

(H)(M)

(H)

(M)

(N)

(H)(A)

(A)

(H)(10(M)

(M)- 2.0OO

(A)

(K)

(A)(M)

(A)cm

(K)(M)

VinoRTadov(19W)

(presumably

wor Idvldeaanpl 1 rig)

71,3005

10

6

520,00013,700

8

20020

20038.000

30

1

13,600

306,300

8502

6.300

40800

100850

7.001

330.000

3004,600

10050

50300

Jackson (1964) Mltcbsll (1964) Brooks (1972)

" T i l " 1 ISM 1sverage, contaats In

or range Scottish sur- Average orIn values face soils rsage

. ,00 - 3,000 500

20 <10 - 100 20

7,000 - 42,000 10,000 - 501 5 - 7 0 20

.01

inn «. ««*

'

20-250 100

_ 200 - >1.000

— -

,000

—

Author's usage; generally used to Indicate the sjost ccessonly occurring value.

collected by U.S. Geological Survey personnel alongtheir routes of travel to areas of other types of fieldstudies or within their project areas.

The locations of the routes that were sampled de-pended on both the network of roads that existed andthe destinations of the samplers. Sampling intensitywas kept at a minimum by selecting only one samplingsite every 80 km (about 50 miles; selected for conveni-ence because vehicle odometers were calibrated inmiles) along the routes. The specific sampling sites

were selected, insofar as possible, that had surficial ma-terials that were very little altered from their naturalcondition and that supported native plants suitable forsampling. In practice, this site selection necessitatedsampling away from readouts and fills. In some areas,only cultivated fields and plants were available for sam-pling.

Contamination of the sampling sites by vehicularemissions was seemingly insignificant, even thoughmany sites were within 100 m or less of the roads. Col-

DATA PRESENTATION

lecting samples at about 20 cm depth, rather than atthe upper soil horizons, may have avoided the effectsof surface contamination on the samples. However, wehad no adequate way of measuring any contaminationthat may have occurred. (See Cannon and Bowles,1962.) Many of the sampled routes had only light veh-icular traffic, and some were new interstate highways.Routes through congested areas generally were notsampled; therefore, no gross contamination of the sam-ples was expected.

The study areas that were sampled follow: Wisconsinand parts of contiguous States, southeastern Missouri,Georgia, and Kentucky, sampled by Shacklette; Ken-tucky, sampled by J. J. Connor and R. R. Tidball;Nevada, New Mexico, and Maryland, sampled by H.L. Cannon; various locations in Arizona, Colorado, Mon-tana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, sampled byF. A. Branson and R. F. Miller; Missouri, sampled byShacklette, J. A. Erdman, J. R. Keith, and R. R. Tid-ball; and various locations in Colorado, Idaho, Montana,South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming, sampled by A. T.Miesch and J. J. Connor. Sampling techniques used inthese areas varied according to the primary objectivesof the studies being conducted, but generally thesetechniques were closely similar to the methods used insampling along the roads.

In general, the sampling within study areas was moreintensive than that along the travel routes. To makethe sampling intensity of the two sampling programsmore nearly equal, only the samples from selected sitesin the study areas were used for this report. Theselected sites were approximately 80 km apart. Wheretwo or more samples were collected from one site, theywere assigned numbers, and one of these samples wasrandomly chosen for evaluation in this study.

SAMPLING MEDIA

The material sampled at most sites could be termed"soil" because it was a mixture of comminuted rock andorganic matter, it supported ordinary land plants, andit doubtless contained a rich microbiota. Some of thesampled deposits, however, were not soils as definedabove, but were other kinds of regoliths. The regolithsincluded desert sands, sand dunes, some loess deposits,and beach and alluvial deposits that contained little orno visible organic matter. In some places the distinc-tions between soils and other regoliths are vague be-cause the materials of the deposits are transitional be-tween the two. Samples were collected from a few de-posits consisting mostly of organic materials that wouldordinarily be classified as peat, rather than soil.

To unify sampling techniques, the samplers wereasked to collect the samples at a depth of approximately20 cm below the surface of the deposits. This depth

was chosen as our estimate of a depth below the plowzone that would include parts of the zone of Uluviationin most well-developed zonal soils, and as a convenientdepth for sampling other surficial materials. Where thethickness of the material was less than 20 cm, as inshallow soils over bedrock or in lithosols over large rockfragments, samples were taken of the material that layiust above the rock deposits. About 0.25 liter of thismaterial was collected, put in a kraft paper envelope,and shipped to the U.S. Geological Survey laboratoriesin Denver, Colo.

CHEMICAL-ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

The soil samples were oven dried in the laboratoryand then sifted through a 2-mm sieve. If the soil mate-rial would not pass this sieve, the sample was pul-verized in a ceramic mill before seiving. Finally, thesifted, minus 2-mm fraction of the sample was used foranalysis.

The methods of analysis used for some elements werechanged during the course of this study, as new tech-niques and instruments became available. For most ele-ments, the results published in the first report(Shacklette, Hamilton, and others, 1971) were obtainedby use of a semiquantitative six-step emission spec-trographic method (Meyers and others, 1961). Themethods used for other elements were: EDTA titrationfor calcium; colorimetric (Ward and others, 1963) forphosphorus and zinc; and flame photometry for potassi-um. Many of the elements analyzed in the 355 samplescollected in phase two of the study were also analyzedby the emission spectrographic method (Neiman, 1976).Other methods were used for the following elements:flame atomic absorption (Huffman and Dinnin, 1976) formercury, lithium, magnesium, sodium, rubidium, andzinc; flameless atomic absorption (Vaughn, 1967) formercury; X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (Wahlberg,1976) for calcium, germanium, iron, potassium, seleni-um, silver, sulfur, and titanium; combustion (Huffmanand Dinnin, 1976) for total carbon; and neutron activa-tion (Millard, 1975, 1976) for thorium and uranium.

DATA PRESENTATION

Summary data for 46 elements are reported in tables1 and 2. In table 1, the element concentrations foundin samples of soil and other surficial materials of thisstudy are compared with those in soils reported in otherstudies. Arithmetic means are used for the data of thisstudy to make them more readily compared with thedata generally reported in the literature. These arith-metic means were derived from the estimated geomet-ric means by using a technique described by Miesch(1967), which is based on methods devised by Cohen(1959) and Sichel (1952). The arithmetic means in table


1, unlike the geometric means shown in table 2, areestimates of geochemical abundance (Miesch, 1967).Arithmetic means are always larger than correspondinggeometric means (Miesch, 1967, p. Bl) and are esti-mates of the fractional part of a single specimen thatconsists of the element of concern rather than of thetypical concentration of the element in a suite of sam-ples.

Concentrations of 46 elements in samples of thisstudy are presented in table 2, which gives the determi-nation ratios, geometric-mean concentrations and devia-tions, and observed ranges in concentrations. Theanalytical data for most elements as received from thelaboratories were transformed into logarithms becauseof the tendency for elements in natural materials, par-ticularly the trace elements, to have positively skewed

TABLE 2.—Mean concentration*, deviations, and range* of element* m sampUs of soil* and otlur nerfieial material* in the conterminoiuUntied States

[Meaae ud raafea we reported ta DarU per naVeo (fftl), and I I ud deviation are geometric wept u indicated Haifa, ranter of maftt* fa *Ueh the elaroeet wae tendni uimmiu aim eaatmaamumm w mmnum at mmnptn mnmtyvaa *-, «• 10*0, '. BXT.M.W uwoj

Ucacnt

•U . percentAa

Ba—

BrC, percent-C«, p*rceatt,e —C^-

c,CuTPe , percentQJ

Hg

1C, percent1

La

Hg, percentHnHoNa, percent

KbNd

""I""""

Pb

KbS, percent-SbSc

SI , percentSnSiTl , percentTh

V

K

YbZnZi

ContenlnoaaUnited Statea

Keen

4.75.2

zo440

. O J

. 561.6.92

6* 7

3717

2101.8

] 3

1.2.058.75

1.930

20.44

330.59.59

9.3to1 3

26016

58.12.48

7.5.26

31.89

120.24

8.6

2.358212. 6

48180

Devia-tion

2.482.231.7'

2.14£., JO

2* 502.574.001 < /V

2. 19

2.372.443.342.382.03

1.372. 522.63.79

1.92

1.853.282.772.723.27

1.751.682. 312.671.86

1.722.042.271.822.46

6.482.363.301.891.53

1.732. 251.781 « 791.951.91

Eetlaetedarithmetic

ecan

7.27.2

Jj

58049.7 f.

a it. D J

2.52.4

/ J

9* 1

5425

4302.6

1 7

1.2.089

1.2Rone37

24.90

550.97

1.2

1146

19430

19

67.16.67

8.9.39

Done1.)

240.29

9.4

2.78025

3* 160

230

latlo

661:770728:730VIA- 77Bjut): / /o778:778i in* 77*J 1UI f '6

1 1 V 5 9ft1 1 J. alatU250:250777:777

A 1 • ftHlBl I OOJ698* 778

778:778778:778598:610776:7777 ft 7* 77*fo/ J / /o

224:224729i 733169:246777:777462:777

731 : 73l777:778777:777

57:774744:744

418:771120:5387*1 7 1 7?8524:524712:778

221:22434:22435:223

685:778590:733

250:250218:224778:778777:777195:195

224:224778: 778759:7787«* . 7*4/3* ; /t»*t766:766777:778

Vevtern United States{ve«C of 96th • e r ld (An)

Keen

5.85.5

2J580

£•.OB

1.71.8

A SO 37 1

4121

2802.1

16

1.2•046.79

1.830

22.74

380.85.97

8.7361 5

t2017

.9.13.47

8.2.23

30.90

too.22

9.1

2.57022

2* 655

160

Devia-tion

2.001.981 OO.TV1.72Z. JU

2* 742.373.051 711 • / 11 .97

2.192.072.521.951 .68

1.322.332.55

.711.89

1. 582.211.982.171.95

1.821.762. 102.331.80

1.502.372.151.742.43

5.702.112.16.78.49

.45

.95

.66

.63

.79

.77

range

0.5 -<0. 10 -

70 -

<0. 5 -0.16 -0.06 -V I 3U -

(3 -

1 -2 -

<IO -0.1 -

<^ 5 -

0.58 -^0 .01 -

<0.5 -0.19 -<30 -

5 -0.03 -

Jf> -<3 -

0.05 -

<10 -<70 -

< 5 -40 -

<10 -

<20 -< O . O B -

<1 -<5

<0.1

15 -<0.1 -

10 -0.05 -

2.4 -

0.68 -7 -

<10 -<1 -10 -

<20 -

> i n•»7

5,000

1012

2,0003001,900>10

2. 5A . 69.66.3200

1 30> i ni.om710

1003007004,51X1700

2104.82.65J'd.1

4t7.43,0002.031

7.95OO1 50202,1001.500

tit luted

atean

7.47.0

?9670

9 7

062.53.1

7 g

9 0

5627

4402.6

1 9

1 .2. 065

1.2Hone37

1.0'•80

1. 11 .2

104]] 9

46020

74. 19.62

•).6.34

None1.2

270.26

9.8

2.788253. 0

65190

Ratio

450:477521:527425: 541541: 5411 69: 525

78: 128162:162514:514

70: 489403: 533

541:541523:533390:435539: 54043] * 340

130:131534 * 53490: 1 53

537:537294:516

4 79 * 527528: 528537:54032: 524

363:449

322:498109:332443: 540380:382422:541

107:13120:13131:131

389: 526449: 534

156:156123:131501:540540:540102:102

130:130516: 541477:541452: 4A6473:482539:541

Kaetern United(eaat of 96th •

Mean

3.34.8

31

290. 55

.621.5.34

635.9

3313

1301.49. 3

1.1.081.68

1.229

i 7

.21260

.32

.25

10461 1

20014

43.10.52

6.5.30

34.86

53.28

7.7

2.1I •** J

202 6

40220

DeTla-tlon

2.872.561 882.'352 53

2 182.883.081 .852. 57

2.602.804.192.872 38

1.452 r-y

. Jf.

2.81|.751.98

2 1 A. I D3.553.823.934.55

1.651.582.642.951.95

1.941.342.381.902.44

6.642.813.612.001.58

2.122. 511.972.062.112.01

Scateaerldlan)

EatlutedObserved arithmetic

range

0.7 - >10<0. 1 - 73

fX\ — 1 VI^*W ~ 1 DU

10 - 1,500<1 - 7

s n 5 — 3 3

0.06 - 370.01 - 28s i jrt _ joo

^0 3 ~ 70

1 - 1,000<1 - 700

<10 - 3.7000.01 - >10

£ \ — 7fts 3 *u

<0. 1 - 2.00.01 ~ 3.4<0.5 - 7.0

0.005 - 3.7<30 - 200

0 1 i n— 1 *U

O.OOJ - 5<2 - 7,000<3 - 15

<0.05 - 5

<10 - 50<70 - 300

<5 - 700<20 - 6,800<10 - 300

<20 - 160<0.08 - 0.31

<1 - 8.8<5 - 30

<0. 1 - 3.9

1.7 - 45<0.1 - 10

<5 - 7000.007 - 1.5

2 . 2 - 2 3

0.29 - 11<7 - 300

<10 - 200^ 1 — 50<5 - 2,900

<20 - 2,000

•ean

5.77.4

38420

• 85

.852.6.63

769. 2

5222

3602.5

]4

1.21 j

1.2

—37

22.46

640.79.78

12511 8

36017

53.11.76

8.0.45

—1.5120

.358.6

2.766253. 3

52290

He«Q» «r« •rltta.aMtlc, deviation* are standard.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

frequency distributions. For this reason, the geometricmean is the more proper measure of central tendencyfor these elements. The frequency distributions for po-tassium and silicon, on the other hand, are more nearlynormal if the data are not transformed to logarithmsand the mean is expressed as the arithmetic average.

In geochemical background studies, the magnitude ofscatter to be expected around the mean is as importantas the mean. In lognormal distributions, the geometricdeviation measures this scatter, and this deviation maybe used to estimate the range of variation expected foran element in the material being studied. About 68 per-cent of the samples in a randomly selected suite shouldfall within the limits MID and M-D, where M repre-sents the geometric mean and D the geometric devia-tion. About 95 percent should fall between Af/D2 andM-L?, and about 99.7 percent between Mil? and M-D?.

The analytical data for some elements include valuesthat are below, or above, the limits of numerical deter-mination, and these values are expressed as less than(<) or greater than (>) a stated value. These data aresaid to be censored, and for these the mean was com-puted by using a technique described by Cohen (1959)and applied to geochemical studies by Miesch (1967).This technique requires an adjustment of the summarystatistics computed for the noncensored part of thedata. The censoring may be so severe in certain setsof data that a reliable adjustment cannot be made; withthe data sets used in the present study, however, nosuch circumstances were encountered. The use of theseprocedures in censored data to quantify the central ten-dency may result in estimates of the mean that arelower than the limit of determination. For example, intable 2 the geometric-mean molybdenum concentrationin soils from the Eastern United States is estimatedto be 0.32 ppm, although the lower limit of determina-tion of the analytical method that was used is 3 ppm.Use of this procedure permits inclusion of the censoredvalues in the calculation of expected mean concentra-tions.

The determination ratios in table 2—that is, the ratioof the number of samples in which the element wasfound in measurable concentrations to the total numberof samples—permit the number of censored values, ifany, to be found that were used in calculating the mean.This number is found by subtracting the left value inthe ratio from the right.

The distribution of the sampling sites and the concen-trations of elements determined for samples from thesites are presented on maps of the conterminous UnitedStates (figs. \-VT). Figure 1 shows the locations of siteswhere four elements, bismuth, cadmium, praseodymi-um, and silver, were found in the samples. These ele-ments were determined too uncommonly for reliable

mean concentrations to be calculated. Each of the re-maining maps (figs. 2-47) gives the locations where anelement was found in a sample from a site and the con-centration of the element, shown by a symbol that rep-resents a class of values. By examining the tables offrequency for concentration values of the elements, wewere able to divide the ranges of reported values formany elements into five classes so that approximately20 percent of the values fell into each class. The limitedrange in values for some elements, however, prohibitedthe use of more than two or three classes to representthe total distribution. Symbols representing the classeswere drawn on the maps by an automatic plotter thatwas guided by computer classification of the data, in-cluding the latitude and longitude of the sampling sites.A histogram on each map gives the frequency distribu-tion of the analytical values, and the assignment ofanalytical values to each class as represented by sym-bols.

We were able to obtain analyses of 11 more elementsfor the 355 samples of phase two of this study thanfor the 963 samples of phase one because of improvedanalytical methods and services. These elements are an-timony, bromine, carbon, germanium, iodine, rubidium,silicon, sulfur, thorium, tin, and uranium. The con-straints of resources and time prohibited analysis of the963 samples of the first phase for these additional ele-ments. Results of -analysis of the plant samples thatwere collected at all soil-sampling sites are not pre-sented in this report.

Some elements were looked for in all samples butwere not found. These elements, analyzed by thesemiquantitative spectrographic method, and their ap-proximate lower detection limits, in parts per million,are as follows: gold, 20; hafnium, 100; indium, 10; plati-num, 30; palladium, 1; rhenium, 30; tantalum, 200; tellu-rium, 2,000; and thallium, 50. If lanthanum or ceriumwere found in a sample, the following elements, withtheir stated lower detection limits, were looked for inthe same sample but were not found: dysprosium, 50;erbium, 50; gadolinium, 50; holmium, 20; lutetium, 30;terbium, 300; and thulium, 20.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

The data presented in this report may reveal evi-dence of regional variations in abundances of elementsin soils or other regoliths; single values or small clustersof values on the maps may have little significance ifconsidered alone. Apparent differences in values shownbetween certain sampling routes, such as some of thoseacross the Great Plains and the North Central Stateswhere high values for cerium, cobalt, gallium, and leadpredominate, suggest the possibility of systematic er-

8 ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS. CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

rors in sampling or in laboratory analysis. Some grosspatterns and some of lesser scale, nevertheless, are evi-dent in the compositional variation of regoliths, asshown in figures 2-47.

The lower abundances of some elements (notably alu-minum, barium, calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodi-um, and strontium) in regoliths of the Eastern UnitedStates, and the greater abundances of the heavy metalsin the same materials of the Western United Statesindicate a regional pattern of the largest scale. Thisvisual observation of the maps can be substantiated byexamining the mean concentrations for these two re-gions given in table 2. The abundances of these ele-ments differ markedly on either side of a line extendingfrom western Minnesota southward through east-cen-tral Texas. This line is generally from the 96th to 97thmeridian, and corresponds to the boundary proposedby Marbut (1936, p. 14), which divides soils of theUnited States into two major groups—the pedalfersthat lie to the east, and the pedocals to the west. Mar-but (1928) attributed the major differences in chemicaland physical qualities of these two major groups to theeffects of climate on soils. A line approximating the 96thmeridian also separates the Orders, Suborders, andGreat Groups of moist-to-wet soils in the EasternUnited States from the same categories of dry soils thatlie to the west, as mapped by the [U.S.] Soil Conserva-tion Service (1969). As shown in table 2, soils of theWestern United States have the highest mean valuesfor all elements considered in this report except for an-timony, boron, bromine, mercury, neodymium, seleni-um, titanium, and zirconium. The differences, however,probably are not significant for these latter elements,except for zirconium.

Superimposed upon this large-scale compositionalvariation pattern are several features of intermediatescale. Perhaps the most notable of these are the lowconcentrations of many elements in soils of the AtlanticCoastal Plain. Soils of the Pacific Northwest are highin concentrations of aluminum, cobalt, iron, scandium,and vanadium, but low in boron, and soils of the RockyMountain region tend to be high in copper, lead, andzinc.

Several small-scale patterns of compositional varia-tion can be noted, among them the high mercury con-centrations in surficial materials from the Gulf Coastof eastern Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, andnorthwest Florida, and a similar pattern on the AtlanticCoast in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Maine. Highphosphorus values occur in soils along a line extendingwest across Utah and Nevada to the coast of California,then south-east in California and Arizona. At the Statelevel, Florida shows the most striking pattern by hav-

ing low soil concentrations of most of the elements con-sidered in this study.

The concentrations of certain elements do not showwell-defined patterns of distribution, and the regionalconcentrations of some other elements cannot beevaluated because they were not present in detectableamounts in most of the samples, or because the sam-pling density was insufficient. The degree of confidencein regional patterns of element abundance is expectedto be in direct proportion to the number of samplesanalyzed from the region. As the observed patterns be-come smaller, the probability increases that the charac-teristics that form the patterns are the results ofchance.

Some features of element-abundance patterns proba-bly reflect geologic characteristics of the areas that thesoils overlie. Samples from most of the regoliths overly-ing basic volcanic rocks of Washington and Oregon con-tained higher than average concentrations of iron andother elements, as mentioned earlier. A few soil sam-ples with high phosphorus content are associated withphosphate deposits in Florida, and a single sample inMichigan with high copper content is known to be ofsoil that occurs over a copper deposit.

These data do not provide obvious evidences of north-south trends in elemental compositions that might beexpected to relate to differences in temperature re-gimes under which the surficial materials developed.There is, moreover, no consistent evidence of signifi-cant differences in element abundances betweenglaciated and nonglaciated areas (the general area ofcontinental glaciation includes the northern tier ofStates from Montana to Maine and south in places toabout lat 40°N.; see fig. 1).

The world averages of abundance for some elementsin soils, as given by Vinogradov (1959) and by others(table 1), do not correspond to the averages of abun-dance for these elements in the soils of the UnitedStates, according to the data presented in this report.The world averages are too low for the concentrationsof boron, calcium, cerium, lead, magnesium, potassium,and sodium in United States soils and other surficialmaterials, and too high for beryllium, chromium, galli-um, manganese, nickel, phosphorus, titanium, vanadi-um, and yttrium.

The stability of values for concentrations of most ele-ments seems to be satisfactory because the addition ofanalytical values for 356 samples of phase two of thestudy to values for 963 samples of the first phase didnot significantly change the geometric means and devia-tions of element abundance that were reported earlier(Shacklette, Boerngen, and Turner, 1971; Shacklette,Hamilton, and others, 1971; Shacklette and others,

REFERENCES CITED

1973, 1974). Although additional sampling of the sametype as reported here might give a clearer picture ofsmall-to-intermediate element-abundance patterns,mean values reported herein most likely would notchange significantly.

REFERENCES CITEDBear, F. E., ed., 1964, Chemistry of the soil [2d ed.J: New York,

Reinhold Publishing Corp., 515 p.Boerngen, J. G., and Shacktette, H. T., 1980, Chemical analyses of

fruits, vegetables, and their associated soils from areas of com-mercial production in the conterminous United States: U.S.Geological Survey Open-File Report 80-84,134 p.

1961, Chemical analysis of soils and other surficial materialsof the conterminous United States: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 81-197,143 p.

Brooks, R. R., 1972, Geobotany and biogeochemistry in mineral ex-ploration: New York, Harper and Row, 290 p.

Cannon, H. L., and Bowles, J. M., 1962, Contamination of vegetationby tetraethyl lead: Science, v. 137, no. 3532, p. 765-766.

Cohen, A. C., Jr., 1969, Simplified estimators for the normal distribu-tion when samples are singly censored or truncated: Technomet-rics, v. 1, no. 3, p. 217-237.

Connor, J. J., and Shacklette, H. T., 1975, Background geochemistryof some rocks, soils, plants, and vegetables in the conterminousUnited States, with uctiont on Field studies by R. J. Ebens,J. A. Erdman, A. T. Miesch, R. R. Tidball, and H. A. Tourtelot:U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 574-F, 168 p.

Ebens, R. J., Erdman, J. A., Feder, G. L., Case, A. A., and Selby,L. A., 1973, Geochemical anomalies of a claypit area, CallawayCounty, Missouri, and related metabolic imbalance in beef cattle:U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 807, 24 p.

Ebens, R. J., and Shacklette, H. T., 1981, Geochemistry of somerocks, mine spoils, stream sediments, soils, plants, and watersin the western energy region of the conterminous United States,with sections on Field studies by B. M. Anderson, J. G.Boerngen, J. J. Connor, W. E. Dean, J. A. Erdman, G. L.Feder, L. P. Gough, J. R. Herring, T. K. Hinkley, J. R. Keith,R. W. Klusman, J. H. McNeal, C. D. Ringrose, R. C. Severson,and R. R. Tidball: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper1237, 173 p.

Erdman, J. A., Shacklette, H. T., and Keith, J. R., 1976a, Elementalcomposition of selected native plants and associated soils frommajor vegetation-type areas in Missouri: U.S. Geological SurveyProfessional Paper 954-C, p. C1-C87.

1976b, Elemental composition of corn grains, soybean seeds,pasture grasses, and associated soils from selected areas in Mis-souri: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 964-D, p. Dl-D23.

Goldschmidt, V. M., 1954, Geochemistry: Oxford, Clarendon Press,730 p.

Hawkes, H. E., 1967, Principles of geochemical prospecting: U.S.Geological Survey Bulletin 1000-F, p. 225-365.

Hawkes, H. E., and Webb, J. S., 1962, Geochemistry in mineralexploration: New York, N. Y., and Evanston, 111., Harper andRow, 415 p.

Huffman, Claude, Jr., and Dinnin, J. I., 1976, Analysis of rocks andsoil by atomic absorption spectrometry and other methods, inMiesch, A. T., Geochemical survey of Missouri—Methods of sam-pling, laboratory analysis, and statistical reduction of data: U.S.Geological Survey Professional Paper 954-A, p. 12-14.

Jackson, M. L., 1964, Chemical composition of soils, in Bear, F. E.,ed., Chemistry of the soil [2d ed.]: New York, Reinhold Publish-ing Corp., p. 71-141.

Levinson, A. A., 1974, Introduction to exploration geochemistry: Cal-gary, Applied Publishing, Ltd., 612 p.

Marbut, C. F., 1928, Classification, nomenclature, and mapping ofsoils in the United States—The American point of view: Soil Sci-ence, v. 25, p. 61-70.

1935, Soils of the United States, pt. 3 of Atlas of Americanagriculture: Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office,98 p.

McMurtrey, J. E., Jr., and Robinson, W. 0., 1938, Neglected soilconstituents that affect plant and animal development, in Soilsand men—Yearbook of Agriculture 1938: Washington, D.C., U.S.Government Printing Office, p. 807-829.

Miesch, A. T., 1967, Methods of computation for estimating geochemi-cal abundance: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 574-B,15 p.

Millard, H. T., Jr., 1975, Determination of uranium and thorium inrocks and soils by the delayed neutron technique, in U.S. Geolog-ical Survey, Geochemical survey of the western coal region, sec-ond annual progress report, July 1975: U.S. Geological SurveyOpen-File Report 75-136, p. 79-S1.

1976, Determination of uranium and thorium in U.S.G.S. stan-dard rocks by the delayed neutron technique, in Flanagan, F.J., ed. and compiler, Description and analyses of eight newU.S.G.S. rock standards: U.S. Geological Survey ProfessionalPaper 840, p. 61-65.

Mitchell, R. L., 1964, Trace elements in soils, in Bear, F. E., ed.,Chemistry of the soil [2d ed.]: New York, Reinhold PublishingCorp., p. 320-368.

Myers, A. T., Havens, R. G., and Dunton, P. J., 1961, A spec-trochemical method for the semiquantitative analysis of rocks,minerals, and ores: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1084-1, p.207-229.

Neiman, H. G., 1976, Analysis of rocks, soils, and plant ashes byemission spectroscopy, in Miesch, A. T., Geochemical survey ofMissouri—Methods of sampling, laboratory analysis, and statisti-cal reduction of data: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper594-A, p. 14-15.

Rankama, K. K., and Sahama, T. G., 1956, Geochemistry: Chicago,Chicago University Press, 912 p.

Robinson, W. O., 1914, The inorganic composition of some importantAmerican soils: U.S. Department of Agriculture Bulletin 122,27 p.

Robinson, W. 0., Steinkoenig, L. A., and Fry, W. H., 1917, Variationin the chemical composition of soils: U.S. Department of Agricul-ture Bulletin 651,1$ p.

Rose, A. W., Hawkes, H. E., and Webb, J. S., 1979, Geochemistryin mineral exploration [2d ed.]: London, Academic Press,668 p.

Shacklette, H. T., 1980, Elements in fruits and vegetables from areasof commercial production in the conterminous United States:U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1178, 149 p.

Shacklette, H. T., Boerngen, J. G., Cahill, J. P., and Rahill, R. L.,1973, Lithium in surficial materials of the conterminous UnitedStates and partial data on cadmium: U.S. Geological Survey Cir-cular 673, 8 p.

Shacklette, H. T., Boerngen, J. G., and Keith, J. R., 1974, Selenium,fluorine, and arsenic in surficial materials of the conterminousUnited States: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 692, 14 p.

Shacklette, H. T., Boerngen, J. G., and Turner, R. L., 1971, Mercuryin the environment—Surficial materials of the conterminous

10 ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

United State*: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 644, 5p.Shacklette, H. T., Hamilton, J. C., Boemgen, J. G., and Bowles,

J. M., 1971, Elemental composition of surficial materials in theconterminous United States: U.S. Geological Survey ProfessionalPaper 674-D, 71 p.

Shacklette, H. T., Sauer, H. I., and Mieseh, A. T., 1970, GeoehemiealenvironmenU and cardiovascular mortality rates in Georgia: U.S.Geological Survey Professional Paper 574-C, 39 p.

Sichel, H. S., 1962, New methods in the statistical evaluation of minesampling data: Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Transactions,v 61. p. 261-288.

Siege), F. R , 1974. Applied geochemistry: New York, John Wileyand Sons, 363 p.

Swain, D. J., 1966, The trace-element content of soils: England Com-monwealth Agricultural Bureau, Commonwealth Bureau of SoilScience Technical Communication 48, 167 p.

Tidball, R. R., 1976, Chemical variation of soils in Missouri associatedwith selected levels of the Soil Classification System: U.S.Geological Survey Professional Paper 964-B, 16 p.

19B3a, Geography of soil geochemistry of Missouri agriculturalsoils, tn Geoehemieal survey of Missouri: U.S. Geological SurveyProfessional Paper 964-H, in press.-1963b, Geoehemieal classification by (actor analysis of Missouri

agricultural soils, in Geoehemieal survey of Missouri: U.S.Geological Survey Professional Paper 964-1, in press.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1974, Geoehemieal survey of the westerncoal regions, first annual progress report, July 1974: U.S. Geolog-ical Survey Open-File Report 74-260, 38 p.

1976, Geoehemieal survey of the western coal regions, secondannual progress report, July 1976: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 76-436, 132 p.

1976, Geoehemieal survey of the western energy regions, thin)annual progress report, July 1976: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 76-729, 138 p. t appendix, 44 p.

—1977, Geoehemieal survey of the western energy regions,fourth annual progress report, July 1977: U.S. Geological SurveyOpen File Report 77-872, 207 p.-1978, Geoehemieal survey of the western energy regions, fifth

annual progress report, July 1978: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 78-1106, 194 p.

[U.S.] Soil Conservation Service, 1969, Distribution of principal kindsof soils—Orders, Suborders, and Great Groups, in National Atlasof the United States of America: U.S. Geological Survey, Sheet86, 2 p.

Vaughn, W. W., 1967, A simple mercury vapor detector for geochenu-cal prospecting: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 640, 8 p.

Vinogradov, A. P., 1969, The geochemistry of rare and dispersedchemical elements in soils [2d ed., revised and enlarged]: NewYork, Consultants Bureau Enterprises, 209 p.

Wahlberg, J. S., 1976, Analysis of rocks and sous by X-ray fluores-cence, in Miesch, A. T., Geoehemieal survey of Missouri—Methods of sampling, laboratory analysis, and statistical reduc-tion of data: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 964-A,p. 11-12.

Ward, F. N , LaJtin, H. W., Canney, F. C., and others, 1963, Analyti-cal methods used in geochemical exploration by the U.S. Geologi-cal Survey: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1162, 100 p.

Webb, J. S., 1963, A review of American progress in geochemicalprospecting and recommendations for future British work in thisfield: Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Transactions, v. 62, pt.7, p. 321-348.

ILLUSTRATIONS


.& )>":* '.-I1 . Mr "ff "6 J '.' ' Jtr '.I.' IK- 36- '»- B- *ILLUSTRATIONS

13

•to,

•<*.,

• 4*0.7)

^~\N norm DAKOTAVtfi.

' 81(151

o

MEXICO

\ MEBRASKA \

1 V--> \ -

•C*»

•Cdll.5)

OKLAHOMA

INDIANA

KEISTUCKY

TENNESSEE

TEXASATLANTIC

- K

^

5OLTHCAROHN*

^

oX^

J4<r

\

ii4- ur nir '08' 'OB- 102' KXT 98*

FIGUKC 1.—Location of umpting lite* in the eontcmaiMXU United Sute* whert elenwnU not commonly o>c«ct«d indepoctu ven found, ind the wnounts of the eletMnts pntent, io put* per million, in panntheMt.

94' 92°82' 80' If '" iff

ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATESILLUSTRATIONS

IP ii4- nr no- toe- IOF w IDT iro- W jf 8r ar 90-• . , 1 1 .' i 1 r-E- 84' ar ar 79- TF 74' re TV &• w

<8°^T7 1 T

-^«°

y, •<V B • •

f .1. " • ,. . " " a B ' » ^ • B ° -—.».. •", iB-x : • . s . • • . B 8 . B . * . - • • _ . . _ . . - • ••0 3 »"« B

,T/

16

0 • a"" s = V. 9» B B .•'.*.

.-iT

r •.

SYMi(XS«NOPfllClNT»GIOf TOTAL MMPUS

"*~H~ 'tJ -

QB BB. B • B

d-8"".".0.^08 °

DBBBBa.1 "flB^^B* ., "•. B B B

b •«• B«a u"VlL B B„-»-- — a-i-oJJ

>° -a B ' . - BU

B c;o • ." • c :• " . B0 v' ° B 0 . ;.• ..;_ ° a, u B * - B B «..•• - -^^^u

B ~Q~a ^ a o^ T

1 • B . B ' • * '

BB g B B 0 sJ ,

B B B B l. 1

. B BB8aB~^-^u „ 0 „

" ° 'a Si--" °B .'' B BD U i BB u B'." B LJ B °

' ° ° B 1 ° °VVSVVJ'^

0 1° H "l' U ' ° 0 'r^J .

' °0 0 b B B B B B ,-B ' " 'S?BV •"'.-• •> -"-^ ° ° °B^ : r, -'-^ v ° M^B -S -•" - ^- ' B B N.1 ' :

B 8 '"? ? *' ' O/ U '-

;

H =8 U *,.-.-' - -, ,Vu B' •-•%• B X, •• B - - B __„.... -- ;£,U u

B^-.- ; n_-B^-0-"--" ' B UB V/',

uu a ° B B , J — — -- B B " ^ a B. u

u B-*-; .'

-oV.-1 ".1-,! o ° B BD

U '."xivlj. ^ ^' B n a • B ° a _H_^ C -f * ' ' '-^ •

u^s./vrq--^ °-f! ' '. B '"'\ --1

"L u_y_iJ_?; 8 " ° " u ' u L j1 ; B >_v -

'

BO1 'B1 76' 74-

118* 116' H4' 112* 110*

Fiauu 2.— Ahinunum content of nirfkiml material*.

16 ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN BOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

iza- 12? i2«p nr IOT us1 up nr nr ner ior IDS* iw ior nxr w <r^Rn j 7 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ,jV-

' "u a

u I u u u

' u It ,,"u u u

ILLUSTRATIONS 17

«..«

,L

.130-

CYMMLS AND HKfOFTUTALSAMt

>' »'•"r~•i-i0^ —«-s"«

AWOUN* M PANTS HK

J 1

HTAM " • \

uu u H^YV«V - T - - v - u

^ -- "u ^ , , : "'' '^m - --x ^. ' ••, ip- '• -••• . . . . ^.

CMnwiMn 00 ' rW

Gmn *. un ?7T u V> U«*nQvi*MmplM»««iM'M* 3M u „'.;. U

\u i'\ • ' n '- "

•-- ju f 500 MISS

WUKW

Btr ir ,v 74 - "

.—Antimony cement nf aurfldal mteriAb.

18 ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES iLLUSTRATlONS

!r 94- 32" 6T 66' U-

19

I ,•">« '•«-U-tl..^-_

44-L /B*

a e . f 0

up "<• nr no* ira4

FIGUUC 4.—Amnk content of turfid*! material!.

20ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

ion* v f 54' 9?1 90*

ILLUSTRATIONS

M: i" «* '!' -6' ''' V

21

FIGURE 5—Barium content of turfidal tnatettola.

22ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS. CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

\!f .26' \'lf |i£ |!£ "•* "6' _ri* "!• 13" 'M1 '06' 'X' U2*

ILLUSTRATIONS 23

PiCUU 6.—Berylltum contaot of nirflciil mtariali.


v>«- nii- pi- ,27- 120- MS- '16' 114- M? MX 108" i«" IW IW 1BT W T »T 9P ST »r arILLUSTRATIONS

;r JS- 74- 7?- TO- &F

>a u u

. <. • " u u

u u u u

0 • B °o i. -o = « "8 a BBB a 0» . o ^ 0 a B H, 0j- -. . . • °o° c»- - =8 ,; v? . ^a^ \° ;% •".'. v-.- a ° n ' '•- • °. - - •- '

. c= S „ f . . B 0

• ' D ' - ' ' " ° • •

I \ D ° n .B B a a u1 u B ., ,-J °u U' - ^ *.-"

.;" u U

J 28-

M-- 'Or '06-

FKUtl 7.—Baron content of turftaftl mtUrult

-or SB-

26

12T 12P 124- I2r IW nr US' "«• n? up IOP I OF 'W Iflr lOIT «• • 94- 97' W SB- St.- 84- a?- eg. '8- V 74- — -o. sj. M.

:*- • .i , - -.,_^

i ^ ' ' " • • "••-•- - - _}'.' " / 1 ." °u u u - T''ry-^ r^^^, .^- {

• f- -~i I "" -.-\>:-- '::"''^-5^-. ^'V -- £ ^ 1-r— --•-1

irr- l '/ 7^^ -/ f v/ j<~-~- / • I o i. " 1 \ <• 1 " / : \ ^^>

/ "~ '--J- . - . / " ! 1 - /( ^V ,.-v •:>&».-C u. / — — r~- j ".L-^. .."..•_•*. ,r*^ i Vu >f - -^ ^.^ ; , _^

rJ4P

i

«•

4?

4|T

27

"t"

28-L.

«n»OL! »~0 rdKXNTAGIOr TOTA1. CAJUFlfS

AMOlMT M FMT( HH MtUOH

zz-L

118" 116* n<* \\r lip 108*

riouu 8.—Bromine content of rarHcU natcrult.

u _ \i u

i _ i - 1 - 1inr

'9- 76- !4-

ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN BOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

izB- 126- 124' :«' yc* MF MS' "<• 11?- ntr me- 'OF -gr «• y g-' r~

ILLUSTRATIONS

-^ 'i_4L_^! "• 66-

a = •*v^ .

up nr "«• nz* 'itr IOP 'OB' i«- 'of 'ocr w »r 92-

Pwull ».— C«ldum eaMtnt of urfidil miuritU.

if 54'


ITT 12P 'if nr i?<r nr np_ ur IIP no- IPS' me* 104* iic* igr 99* 94' 32- sir

ILLUSTRATIONS

«• 8r ar so* 781 7r 74- ?r TIT

31

GE* 64*

MS- '16* "41 ; ' . • MO"

Ficuu 10.—Carbon (UJUl) content of turikul Butcmll.

if V H? 8C"

ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS. CONTERMINOUS UNITED 9TAT ILLUSTRATIONS

128- 176- I?*1 •!.' 120" "?• "6' '."' ''•MU- lor '56- 'V "If 'CO1 9f 8?' 90-_ W _ 16"

' ' . u. u i " i

_ d " • H • u •» • V" ''"",='if-

" V" '. u'.u " ' J>"u-aBv<r'

38"

AMOUNT M PARTS «« UU.ON

MF IU* 112' IIP IOP 10P

riGUU II.—Orim contant ornrfleul nttoub.

ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS. CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

i;r i2f i?r irr ';o* in* r,- m* nz* "cr ice1 'OF io«* IDT* mr xr sr as1 er

ILLUSTRATIONS

'»• '6- M- .•;• tr 68- be-

36

us- in- ur IIP IDF ior

rnuu It—OmxnfcuD toutoit of lurflcUl >ut«Ui.

84' tO- SO1 78- 76-

I

.-38-

ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTEJUUNOU8 UNITED STATES

iir us- M«- nr no- i or me* io»' 'oz* 100*

37

!15" 1I41 117° 110*

Ficuu II.—CoUlt eonuiit of nrteU n«umk.

ior UK- '«• 10?- 100" 9P 94- 9?° 90°

CLEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN BOILS. CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

i2F nr 122- 120- us- IIP nr nr no- tor ice- KM- __ 102 lor _ ar

ILLUSTRATIONS

i r n r e e - as-

• ' < " •!.-• - ' 0 " ' I f

FICUHE H.—Copper cont«ni of wrflciil m«Un«li.


-z(r up IIP nr nz- ncr_ iw toe ior • mr i»r sr

ILLUSTRATIONS

8P 84' 6P 80- 78- 76' '4' I?

41

,<• ,12- i if IDS' '06' IOC HB" IOC1 W 9T 9? 90-


'Zff 'Iff 124* 12" '20* HET '16' )M' M;= -ip IW

ILLUSTRATIONS

V if -X' E4'

up up ;i4' nr ntr ioe* ins*

Plcuu 16.—G«lUum content of nirfieitl n«t«rlAl«.

ioc us- io<r ar 94- 9r 90- as- a- 84- is- sr

44 ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS

128- 126° 124' 122- 120* US' IIP '14- 112" HP 10T IOP W 102* 100* 9T 9T 92" 90" W 86' W 82" 80° 78" 76° 74° 72° 70° 68°-7 r 1 r -i 1 r -i 1— r -i 1 ; r-

66* 64°

-I

42V «

a

o-'a

I D

36>

30'k

• u u

•if • ' < • ii.'- i - -.if »' ";j'

FIGURE 17 —Ormwuum cont«n: i.f lurficuJ mat«ruU


128" 1ZF 12«" 172* iZtr I1F IIP 114" 112" 110" 108" 106* 104' tor lOT 9Tr

44*

«rLjiI

r 1 r

a e '

u '..

1—-—i r

'• *—-w%a__

ILLUSTRATIONS

90- as- «• M- sr «r ir K- ie ir TVr~ i T r-

U| B

1 •

47

SYMtdS AND PCHCf IVTAGEW TOTM SAMfUS

1 18- 116- i U' < ir i IP 10P '06' 1 W 102' lOT 98* * 9T 92° 90* 98° 86*

FlQUU 18. — Iodine content of lurficul nutcriali.

MD BT 80°


128* 126' I2r 122" I201 MB" HP 114' I12

1 H(r 108" 106* HH' 102* HHT W~r ~r

8<- 82' 80°

ILLUSTRATIONS

>6° 7»° 7r IT 68' 6F H-

•• • • "

.j mf •

= • a

m*B

• • e BBaB

,VBB *BV a .

•- a B •- u _

a ° o B n ;'l

n EJ B e

B ""-D a

J?

a-

\

K 19 —Iron content of mi-flail nutcruli


128" i2F i2<* i?2* 120* na* 'IF ur 112* no- tor me* ior 'or iar sr . te 92°

ILLUSTRATIONS

78- K' 74' 72* W 68* 66" 64'

i.- «• US' »• J4; If

BE 20.—LtnttuuiujB content ufiurficuJ nutehaU


12F izb" '24' -2i' 120" IIP "P IK' "71 'ir '08° 106* 104' IDT IOCP SB- »• «• ar ecc

ILLUSTRATIONS

••6: «• >:•—T~ -T T ^.r

!

1 * , D B

a a ° aBcB

B

• ^

• u a • •

• • • 1;• ' ' . ' <?

V.'

30° | SYUWLS AND PI net NTAU or TOTAL SAMIES

5 9 ff 8 » S S 8 SI g § § S

AMOUNT INP*PTSPf»MluO«*

•'5' 114" 112' HP US' 'C£' '3<c 102' 1BT 98°

FIGURE 21.— Lc«d content of jurficul matemli.

BE- 84- er air

ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN BOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

>»<• 176 i7v !:?• '73- ;«•_ re- \*r n;' ^^ff- _'Jf

ILLUSTRATIONS 56

'Mr _w gr xr *• *•

ar sr 78- IB- ?«•

PICUU &..— Utkiun catunt of nuficUl luterbOi.

66 ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS 57

-20- nr ne- HIT 'or ior IDT inr i«r SF r 9f a?"1 - i - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 — v — i i

82' BO1 78"

• a BB e B

B O B ' • B • 8a

B aH B . . * . B B B

" = " • • " a »l u |» • "^. a 6 o | e

B "

if e

FIGURE 23 — Mtgnetium content of furflcutl material*

68 ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS 59

'I*1 '.K Lj4 .. 'JO'

, - u a ,* ' a °• a B o a

6 BB B '

" " • « -B,=•" B B

S 0*a o

.

•I . I

38V B §" 0 V B0

'. " ' '

»a " JT

O' G ' ' B B -

° ° B « « VD = u ' o' -

^,BU - "B«Q--B"B . „" B ° -

. - - = »..„.. ca« ; u , Q . .

o • '

I.HT

SYMBOLS *NO Pf-ftCENTAGEO» TQTAt SAMPLES j ~ y°

NwrtMi ol ivntfH ind ln*»r>«l '3W

Ai40UHT IN PMTS PCfl MI.LION

i i _ I - 1 - 1ii6° in' 112- nr imr 106' w

FIGURE 24.—ManguMM contanl of •onVul materials.

100' 98-


128" 12F 124- 12?1 120" nr US' 114' 112" HIT lor 106' 104' 9P 94"

ILLUSTRATIONS

84- a?- «r ;s- '5- •«• ;r •0s 68- 66' 64'

go "« flu

B •- .- .

B BBB « c I". "_'

61

„ a' O BB u B H B Bug UBU UOB J ,_, B B Q B B » B ° " " " " s „ = " B ^ .

• . •• v •• .-•-•.>.".•-':-.i:--.--.-^v:.•:•-•.•: ••—«'\v-- ' - :*- *. "u B V " " " 8

B U B ° B S u B U " ^ - uS u u . 0 k, a " , B^ % =.

; V . - . . ^ U0 - " - " u.".^,-: •.-:•••";•• " . . I : ' • • „ ' - • * • • - '" ,-V n-

3,[ ' •' °on Gu S'-'. B°Ba U

DB '. -' " ^"B ! a .•*••. .• . . - ' • B " . „ -. . • -.\ : u^ B0 • • . . _ . • ^ BU ,v*. "U 'U . :°°H^U • • • • • • - • . • „ • • • aB^B .D° s.' =,• „••

O U D H B Ua —

SVMKLS ANO Pf KENTAGECtf TOTAL SAMFUS

•4 16 33 It '3a ac a

l i t - '14 ••.- i:,]" 'W 106- -U4

Ficuu 2C—Uemiry content of lurflda! mueri>li.

• r — - „ - •


1281 126' I2<" Mr 120" US' 'IS' !!«• '12- IKT 108" IDF IOC 10T IOCT 961

-i r3f

—1—

ILLUSTRATIONS

?6° ;<• 12- itr

63

U u

,,,.*

- - ^ " u1-' 1 "

-[-L..-U .

_^?U L. • 1

Au U

u S!j u J._"-"•V-^-i -

LJi u u '- u

lju HJ

Ul u ' u

-. " u u uUJ I 04

u u u ^u uu

U Li

U u u u. U U u u '

u u uu , uu . u

" yu

*--"", u -u" O'-n

„ "1 u u ujd" u u uuu a "u" • u I \

"" ^ u U S U . '

uu u u u u ^ u u ; u y u

115- Mr Mi- MQT i Off '

PiOVRE 28.—Molybdenum content of surficul matcnaii.

«' J." 30°


U LI

b -

J J6 -

•15" 1:4' 112- HO- 106" 'Of

FIGURE 27.— Nwdymium ccntoDt ufsurficial r-l T"-1-

I OT 'OP 9T W" 92" 3CT 88' 96° BT 92° XT


128* l?6* l?<* 122" 120" HP I'6' in" II?- 'NT 108" '06° 104' IGZ' 100' 981 V 92' 90" 98* 86* if 82' 80" If Iff I<" IT V 66° 66' tf


"It' P4' ij. - •;[- Mir US' •;» •!(- : i c - "X 106' 11)4 1JJ" 100* *f

ILLUSTRATIONS 69

B u U

UUQ U u B^ a B B B

BS* B

u BJ L

-B,w

-.''

n e B B

*-a • • t B,

b U

s B y B 8 a B . B B

B %

SVMBOl S AND PtHCEhTAGEOF TOTAL SAMPtES

l l / ' 3' IU8 :36' ' IMC

FIGURE 29.—Niobium content of surficul rn&lchali

30" «cf

70 ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN 3O1L3. CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

•;«• •;? \;r -..,- >:r 3 ro" n n." i,.- B •;;• 'GO' 9a r 3*' *&

ILLUSTRATIONS

'h '4' '.

71

•ri • a sO '-1

aa ° a c

BO a „ y --.,-•- -^v.

e . S y .•„.. . ••" y'.yD • LT C— •*• . B a

£•' o ;"o"a^*LJ- » y y

SVM8OLS AND ERCtNTAOF TOTAL SAMPLES

?J '6 JJ 1 it

y a B B O

' '"--v-; f

118' US' :14' 112- 110' 108' 106° IW US' lOtf 9ff

FIGURE 80.—Phoaphonu content of nirfidil mitemla.

34- 92* 9CT 86* 84- tr «r if 76-

72 ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS

,28- i2ff !?<• nr iztr nv 116- 114- nr MO- inr IPS' iw in?- iar 3F :p v v so* w a* 84- sr ar ;y ;s° ;<• ir .'ti°73

.-:.'" • - • - • • ••-*;• e j

FTOUBK 81. —PoUMtua content of jurticUl nut«ral«.


I/IT -?6' •:«• i.1.- -IT • ••• ME- ••' •<" •'•- -M •>:

ILLUSTRATIONS

.. - * . * " *' *'

B • _•

_j i 1 L-16* in* n? no* ior IOP 104- IOT ictr w

ricvu H.—Jtubidiuiii content o/mrOda) iMtouli.

SO" 88- 86- 82" SO" ?r


•28" _ w i.'«' IP." 'm us0 l ib- 'nj iir HIT 'OBJ

ILLUSTRATIONS

ID?- '00- yr 7 yr v yr er 86' «' ai- ar IB* '6° :r ;?•

77

FIGURE 33.—Scvdium conunt of sur^cia] nutcnal


V<f li'b' Ti' '<V ":(T 8- I'*;* ' 1 M." ILr J(?

ILLUSTRATIONS 79

.•--'-."O • B O

39- ..

*

HP 116' iu° 112' HO1 I081 106'

FlcuiE M—Selenium content of vurficu] material.

96" r g4> 86' 84* 82" 8CP 7ET


>Ur l?6- 17T __ I.1," I701 HIT "f 114' 'I?' 110" lOT I06' 10"' llg IOC' 9T 92' 90" »• 84- tV

ILLUSTRATIONS

'6- ••«• •;• nr

81

B a c = DI • D • O o • I

„ • B

B ° ' " " *!

I •

a B B OB.

SVMKXA AND KKE NTAOCOf TOTAL SAWUS

-,;• D. . f

flCUKE 36.—Silicon content of lurflcul nuunill.


1Z81 1J6- !.'<• 1.." -ZIT "-g I16_' _ in' nr '10- '08- '06' 'V

ILLUSTRATIONS

100' 98' f 9f 9; StT -T J6_'_ 84' 8?' 8g 'ff '6' -4 C 'f SS1 bb: 64-

nr lie- nr n?° no* KB* '06' KM* 102* 100* 98*


i;ir -K <ii' •:. •;•- • • » • • > • > * i' :• • • : : ••»,•

ILLUSTRATIONS

•0" of it' -.1

MB- M5 "1- • ; / - :\7 ljfi= '06°

FIGURE 37.—Strontium content of lurficul material!.


12ff 126' 124- 12?° ^0- I'S" 'IB' '14' '12' '10" '06'

ILLUSTRATIONS 87

r "u

U u u u U u U

r a--a u

'u £>i

T"

!JJT

SYMBOLS AND PCnCENTAOf TOTAI SAMPLE s

LMB1

116- 114- -tr HIT

FlOUBE 38.—Sulfur oooUnt of iui

'or «• 90" IT 86' 84' 82" 80" V 7F


l;8' '.'6' !/«' !;.'• 'I? I'ff r» "I- IT I!:' I08" IW IM1 '&' '30" 98" »"' 9." 90'

ILLUSTRATIONS

*' a- ar ic <ff 'f v '.-- >a- w-

11 U

I

.Vf

Of TOTAL SAMPLE 5

L._118° '15' '1C II?' l'f iW '06'

B 39.— ThomuD content of lurficial Mterab.

I!!?* 100° 98" 90° 88° 96° 84-

-la-

'f ;«•


i/r -.26" i?"' i22- i2c° na" _ut '_ mj ;ir no- me- 10$'

ILLUSTRATIONS

66- b6" M-

91

ua a u y B° a ' 8 • • g

J38-iI

e i" i,

SYMBOLS AMD PCRCENTAGfOF TOTAL SAUPU5

AMUJN1 l»i 'ARTS PTR un I CM

HP 116' "<• 112° nQ' :yf 106' KM* 102° 100'

PIOUII 40.—Tin conUnt of nirOcial nutwiib.

94° 92- XT W 86'


„ 17ff 126" 124° 127 123" 118" !'6' <14- 11?- HD" 108° 1DP IW 10?° IW » . V SB' 9T~r

[LLUSTRATIONS

84° «?' 8U-' .'tr '8' /4' ?? ;C' 68" 66

g. ' S • ' ' B• • = • . •e * *

FIGURE 41 — TiUniuni iui ,cnl of surficiaJ maten


128* 126° !.'«• lir >21T 'IF 116' "<• M2- 110s 10T 10T IM* ICC1 IOJT 9T-7 r 1 r ~i r~ -i 1 1—--—r

ILLUSTRATIONS

79- 7F 74' 7?- 70'

96

(4f

SYMBOLS AND rtKCNTAGCOf TOTAL SAMPICS

e- -u- ' i?1 i ? o ; ar

FICUKL 42 —Urmnrum content of mirflcimJ materials

96 ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS [N SOILS. CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS

116 M4- nj- lie" 'OF 'D60 134' "J2" 100=

FIGURE 43.— Vanadium content of lurficial material.


126" 126' 12*' 12:° 12CT llfp ilfi' T4' ^^7' HIT 108° 106' 1W° 102* 100* 94' 92" 90-77 T~ ~~r ~T~ —T~

ILLUSTRATIONS

86' 84' B2' 8tT 7tT W 74' 7? 70"~T~ ~T T~ -T i*8-

99

B ac o

0 n • •

SYMBOLS AND PERCENTAGEOF TOTAL SAMPUS

c a -. s a

° B %= ,» ?-/ a-s- i B B 0 B a »

kl u /

llj- Mfi' 1'4 U?' I ~ -JK 'J.

FIGURE 44. — Ytterbium content of judicial mat«nali.

*&" H, HU' 'S1

100 ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATESILLUSTRATIONS

118- -.I*' • • < " "2°it- !,£• 64'

QU u u a BUH B =

B Q B _

B B •

_• o a R

=. . . = 0 „ B „ -S°"B B B •

'

101

3tT - SYMiOLS AND PtBCINTAGEOf TOTAL SAMPLES

a c a B

iar 98- 94° 9i" 90°

Ficuat 46.—Yttrium content of Kiirfiritl ra»urUlJ.

,v -^


tjf i?p 124- i;?° 170- IIB° '16' 114- ii2- nrr ids* ior iw

ILLUSTRATIONS

9?' 9tT 8P 86' w 82° BIT ;8"

103

• IB a

B

' B 4 . . E ,B • B . .

\ u .

. 3m y F «B

* " « - tft,; ^

b -i n "*Drlil '= " " - -

Fn;t'RE 4fi -Zinc cunltnl of Mirflcui rr.au-nal


i iff lib" i;«- •.-.• ' :a ij- ' i s - •*- •;. 'if ••$

ILLL'ST NATION!) 106

c„ o B

-C nB^cr% .%Q a oO n L

U UU^ B u Bi-P u B a

B D ri°U B Q "^U L B

0 a B B u u

B O

% "O D

o a 9 B

u n ^* .*U u B 'J

^O'- 'L- B p B B • B

-I -.

-•> • ;-:;:-;- | j •.. •

•• • .. •

«M(XAT IN PftflTS PfDMIl

H6C na- nr "0" 'OT '06'

PlGUHt 47 —Zirconium content of surficul mttehali.

element concentrations in soils and other surficial ... · ing samples of surficial materials and...

Documents