U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Techniques and Methods 5-D3

U.S. Geological Survey Field Leach Test for Assessing Water 

Reactivity and Leaching Potential of Mine Wastes, Soils, and 

Other Geologic and Environmental Materials
U.S. Geological Survey Field Leach Test for 

Assessing Water Reactivity and Leaching 

Potential of Mine Wastes, Soils, and Other 

Geologic and Environmental Materials

By Philip L. Hageman

Techniques and Methods 5-D3

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Chapter 3

Section D, Geologic Analysis

Book 5, Laboratory Methods and Analysis
U.S. Department of the Interior

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Mark D. Myers, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2007

For product and ordering information:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

For more information on the USGS­—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, 

natural hazards, and the environment:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Hageman, P.L., 2007, U.S. Geological Survey field leach test for assessing water reactivity and leaching potential of 

mine wastes, soils, and other geologic and environmental materials: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and 

Methods, book 5, chap. D3, 14 p.
iii

Contents

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1

Development of the U.S. Geological Survey Field Leach Test................................................................1

Equipment needed to use the U.S. Geological Survey Field Leach Test ..............................................2

Procedure for using the U.S. Geological Survey Field Leach Test........................................................4

Collecting and processing of a composite sample for use in the Field Leach Test............................5

Equipment needed to collect a composite sample ..................................................................................5

Procedure for collecting and processing a mine-waste sample ..........................................................6

Studies that have used the U.S. Geological Survey Field Leach Test...................................................6

Results .............................................................................................................................................................6

Summary..........................................................................................................................................................7

References cited..........................................................................................................................................13

Figures

1–3 Graphs showing:

1. Leachate geochemistry comparison of the Sunday #2 mine-waste composite 

sample using the 18-hour U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 1312, 

Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure and the 5-minute U.S. Geological 

Survey Field Leach Test...............................................................................................................3

2. Leachate geochemistry of the Yukon mine-waste composite sample using the 

18-hour U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 1312, Synthetic Precipitation 

Leaching Procedure and the 5-minute U.S. Geological Survey Field Leach Test..............3

3. Leachate pH data for eight mine dump composite samples using the 18-hour U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency Method 1312, Synthetic Precipitation Leaching 

Procedure and the 5-minute U.S. Geological Survey Field Leach Test ...............................4

4–6 Photographs showing:

4. Most of the equipment and materials needed to leach a sample using the Field 

Leach Test......................................................................................................................................4

5. Close-up of small field balance that can be used to weigh sample for leaching 

on-site using the U.S. Geological Survey Field Leach Test ...................................................5

6. Materials needed to collect a composite sample...................................................................5

7–10 Graphs showing:

7a. Selected leachate trace metal concentration signatures for a variety of matrices 

leached using the U.S. Geological Survey Field Leach Test .................................................7

7b. Field Leach Test leachate pH and specific conductance signatures for some of the 

samples shown in figure 7a ........................................................................................................8

8a. Field Leach Test leachate geochemical trends for selected trace metals from three 

different surficial mine-waste composite samples collected from mine-waste sites 

in Colorado.....................................................................................................................................8

8b. Field Leach Test leachate geochemical trends for pH and specific conductance for 

three mine-waste composite samples......................................................................................9
iv

8c. Field Leach Test leachate geochemical trends for selected major ions for three 

mine-waste composite samples ............................................................................................. 9

9a. Field Leach Test leachate geochemical trends for selected trace metals from 

three different volcanic ash composite samples............................................................... 10

9b. Field Leach Test leachate geochemical trends for pH and specific conductance 

for three different volcanic ash composite samples......................................................... 10

9c. Field Leach Test leachate geochemical trends for selected major ions from three 

different volcanic ash composite samples ......................................................................... 11

10a. Field Leach Test leachate geochemical trends for selected trace metals from five 

World Trade Center (WTC) dust composite samples ........................................................ 11

10b. Field Leach Test leachate geochemical trends for pH and specific conductance 

for five World Trade Center (WTC) dust composite samples........................................... 12

10c. Field Leach Test leachate geochemical trends for selected major ions for five 

World Trade Center (WTC) dust composite samples ........................................................ 12

Table

1. Leaching conditions of the U.S. Geological Survey Field Leach Test and the 

modified U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 1312, Synthetic Precipitation 

Leaching Procedure ..................................................................................................................... 2

Conversion Factors

ISI to Inch/Pound

Multiply By To obtain

 Length

centimeter (cm) 0.3937 inch

micrometer (μm) 0.00003937 inch

millimeter (mm) 0.03937 inch

 Volume

liter (L) 0.2642 gallon

milliliter (mL) 0.000264 gallon

 Mass

gram (g) 0.03527 ounce

kilogram (kg) 2.205 pound
v

Abbreviations and symbols used in report

DI deionized water

FLT Field Leach Test

ICP–MS inductively coupled plasma–mass spectrometry

mg/L milligram per liter

SPLP Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

μg/L microgram per liter

μS/cm microsiemens per centimeter

< less than

~ approximately
Abstract

The U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) has developed a 

fast (5-minute), effective, simple, and cost-effective leach 

test that can be used to simulate the reactions that occur 

when materials are leached by water. The USGS Field Leach 

Test has been used to predict, assess, and characterize the 

geochemical interactions between water and a broad variety 

of geologic and environmental matrices. Examples of some 

of the samples leached include metal mine wastes, various 

types of dusts, biosolids (processed sewage sludge), flood and 

wetland sediments, volcanic ash, forest-fire burned soils, and 

many other diverse matrices. The Field Leach Test has been 

an integral part of these investigations and has demonstrated 

its value as a geochemical characterization tool. It has enabled 

investigators to identify which constituents are water reactive, soluble, mobilized, and made bioaccessible because of 

leaching by water, and to understand potential impacts of these 

interactions on the surrounding environment.

Introduction

Water-induced leaching of major elements, trace metals, 

acids, bases, organic constituents, pharmaceutical by-products, 

and other constituents from geologic and anthropogenicially 

derived materials and the effects of resulting runoff on adjacent streams, water bodies, and ecosystems are common environmental concerns. Another concern is the direct or indirect 

uptake of potentially toxic constituents from the leachates into 

the food chain. 

Because leaching is constantly taking place in the environment as materials are exposed, weathered, and influenced 

by natural precipitation, leachate in the form of runoff is 

produced and released into the environment on an on-going 

basis. Leachates are derived from materials that include the 

following: naturally mineralized soil, industrial sites, mining 

wastes from active or abandoned mine sites, construction sites, 

natural and amended soils, a wide variety of dusts, volcanic 

or other ash, dried sludge and sediments, and a nearly endless 

variety of other materials. To address this potential, it is important to have a tool that aids the geoscientist in quantifying and 

understanding the leachability of these materials.

Laboratory leach studies have been a useful way to assess 

this potential. However, the leach tests most commonly used 

are often expensive, complicated, time consuming, and often 

require specialized, expensive equipment. In light of these factors, the USGS developed the Field Leach Test (FLT), which 

can be performed on-site or in the laboratory to simulate 

quickly, effectively, and inexpensively the chemical reactions 

that occur when materials are leached by water. The USGS 

FLT is summarized in Fact Sheet 2005-3100 (Hageman, 

2005). 

Development of the U.S. Geological 

Survey Field Leach Test

The USGS Field Leach Test (FLT) is based on a leach 

test developed by Hageman and Briggs (2000), which was 

originally developed to quickly assess, predict, and compare 

leachate geochemistry from historical metal mine dumps. The 

procedure uses readily available equipment and deionized 

water (DI) to leach the less than (<) 2-mm fraction of a sample 

using a 20:1 leaching ratio (20 parts leachate to one part solid). 

The leachate sample is hand shaken for 5 minutes and then 

allowed to settle for 10 minutes. After settling, subsamples of 

the leachate are used to determine pH, specific conductance 

(SC), and other characteristics. A portion of the leachate is 

then filtered using a 60-cm2 syringe and 0.45-μm filter, and 

subsamples of the filtrate are collected and preserved for 

geochemical analysis. After analysis, the element concentration trends (geochemical signatures) of the leachates are used 

to rank the waste piles for cleanup. Since its inception, use of 

the USGS FLT has expanded, and the procedure is now used 

to predict and characterize the leaching potential of a diverse 

variety of materials.

As part of developing the FLT, extensive research and 

comparative studies were undertaken using many other types 

of leach tests. After the initial set of tests, USGS scientists 

U.S. Geological Survey Field Leach Test for Assessing 

Water Reactivity and Leaching Potential of Mine Wastes, 

Soils, and Other Geologic and Environmental Materials

By Philip L. Hageman
 USGS Field Leach Test

focused their comparison on studies between the USGS FLT 

and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 

Method 1312, Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure 

(SPLP) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2002). Characteristics of the USGS FLT and USEPA Method 1312 are 

listed in table 1. 

The comparison of these two leaching procedures was 

emphasized because the SPLP was one of the leach tests most 

commonly used for leaching studies of mine wastes. Comparison of mine waste leachate geochemical data produced by the 

two procedures showed that element-concentration trends produced using the 5-minute USGS FLT procedure are similar to 

those produced by the 18-hour USEPA SPLP leach test (figs. 1 

and 2). Similar trends are seen when comparing other leachate characteristics, such as mine waste leachate pH from eight 

mine dump composites leached using the two procedures (fig. 

3). As a result of this comparison and other studies, the USGS 

adopted the FLT as a procedure that can be used as a surrogate 

for the USEPA SPLP procedure. Complete results and the 

methodology used in this study are reported in Hageman and 

Briggs (2000). 

An important and advantageous feature of the USGS FLT 

procedure is that it was designed to use the same extraction ratio 

(20 parts leachate to 1 part solid) as the SPLP leach test. Use of 

the 20:1 ratio ensures that the readily soluble components of a 

sample can be taken into solution without exceeding leachate 

saturation limits. Use of this leaching ratio also allows geochemical results produced using the USGS FLT to be compared 

directly with other leaching studies that have used the SPLP 

procedure. Finally, this leaching ratio ensures that the FLT 

provides sufficient leachate to obtain all desired measurements 

and elemental analyses. This is important because many leach 

tests, such as paste pH test, do not provide enough leachate for 

geochemical analysis and characterization. 

Finally, the USGS FLT is convenient to use. It can easily 

be performed either on-site or in the laboratory with equipment and reagents that are readily available and can be taken 

to the field in the back of a vehicle. On-site leaching requires 

only the return of the preserved filtrate to the laboratory for 

analysis. In contrast, the USEPA SPLP procedure requires 

specific, costly equipment, and must be performed under 

stringent conditions in the laboratory. 

Equipment Needed to Use the 

U.S. Geological Survey Field Leach 

Test

Most of the equipment needed to use the FLT is shown in 

figure 4.

Laboratory or field balance. Field balance shown in 

figure 5 (Pocket Pro 150-B manufactured by ACCULAB, 

Newton, PA.) is capable of weighing 50 g of sample.

Disposable styrene weighing boats capable of holding 50 

g of sample.

1.0-L wide-mouth, capable plastic bottles.

1,000-mL graduated cylinder.

Deionized water. 

Disposable 50-mL styrene beakers.

pH meter and electrode. 

Specific conductance meter. 

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Characteristics Modified USEPA 1312 SPLP USGS FLT

Test type batch batch

Leachate to solid ratio 20:1 20:1

Leachate composition 60/40 H2SO4/HNO3 deionized water

Leachate pH 4.2 (for mine wastes) ~ 5.7

Particle size used < 1 centimeter < 2 millimeters

Sample mass 100.0 grams 50.0 grams

Duration of agitation 18 hours 5 minutes

Agitation method end-over-end rotary hand shaken

Filtration positive pressure syringe

Filter type borosilicate glass fiber nitrocellulose

Filter pore size 0.70 micrometer 0.45 micrometer

Table 1. Leaching conditions of the U.S. Geological Survey Field Leach test and the modified 

Environmental Protection Agency Method 1312, Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure

[USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; SPLP, Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure; USGS FLT, 

U.S. Geological Survey Field Leach Test; <, less than; ~, approximately]
Figure 1. Leachate geochemistry comparison of the Sunday #2 mine-waste composite sample using the 

18-hour U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 1312, Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2002) and the 5-minute U.S. Geological Survey Field Leach Test. 
" 

 /,/" ]Ê Ê,- Ê*
,Ê/
,

ä

Ó

{

È

n

£ä

£Ó

£{

£È

}   
>  i 
Õ < 
` *L

",Ê" Ê",Ê/,

Ê
/

&IELD,EACH4EST

%0!-ETHOD

Figure 2. Leachate geochemistry of the Yukon mine-waste composite sample using the 

18-hour U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 1312, Synthetic Precipitation Leaching 

Procedure and the 5-minute U.S. Geological Survey Field Leach Test.

xä

{x

{ä

Îx

Îä

Óx

Óä

£x

£ä

x

ä


" 

 /,/" ]Ê Ê,-Ê

*
,Ê/
,

",Ê" Ê",Ê/,

Ê
/

i`Êi>VÊ/iÃÌ


*ÊiÌ`Ê£Î£Ó

 > }   
>  i 
Õ < 
` *L

Equipment Needed to Use the U.S. Geological Survey Field Leach Test 
 USGS Field Leach Test

Figure 3. Leachate pH data for eight mine dump composite samples using the 18-hour U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency Method 1312, Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure and 

the 5-minute U.S. Geological Survey Field Leach Test.


*ÊiÌ`Ê£Î£Ó

i`Êi>VÊ/iÃÌ

>ÞÊ>Þ

9Õ

-Õ`>ÞÊÓ

6iÀ

*iÌÀ}Þ«


>ÀÃi

>ÊÀÊVi

/ÕVÃ

 
7-/
Ê
"*"-/


£

Ó

Î

{

x

È

Ç

n



£ä

«

Other meters or kits as desired, such as alkalinity.

60-cm2 Leur Lock syringes.

0.70-μm glass fiber pre-filter, and 0.45-μm nitrocellulose, 

Leur Lock capsule filters.

Prepared (acid washed if needed) bottles to store filtered 

leachate for analysis.

Note: Bottles are acid washed with 10 percent HCl and 

triple rinsed with deionized water.

9.

10.

11.

12.

Procedure for Using the U.S. Geological 

Survey Field Leach Test

50.0 g of prepared sample (see following sample collecting and processing section) is weighed using a small field 

balance (fig. 5) or a laboratory balance, and carefully 

added to a 1.0-L wide-mouth, plastic bottle. 

1.0-L deionized water is measured in 1,000-mL clean 

graduated cylinder and slowly added to the bottle so that no 

dust is lost. (NOTE: Depending upon the amount of solid 

material available, other leaching volumes can be used as 

long as the 20:1 water-to-solid ratio is maintained.) 

The bottle is tightly capped and vigorously hand shaken 

for 5 minutes. Alternatively, the sample can be shaken on 

a bench-top horizontal shaker for 5 minutes.

After shaking, the bottles are turned upright and the contents are allowed to settle for 10 minutes. 

After settling, unfiltered subsamples of the leachate are 

dispensed into disposable plastic beakers and measured 

for pH, specific conductance, alkalinity, and other characteristics. 

A portion of leachate is filtered using a 60-cm2 Leur Lock 

syringe and a 0.45-μm pore-size nitrocellulose filter. If 

filtration is difficult, a 0.70-μm glass fiber pre-filter can 

be used in conjunction with the 45-μm filter in a serial 

manner. Subsamples of the filtrate are collected and 

preserved for analysis. 

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Figure 4. Most of the equipment and materials needed to leach 

a sample using the Field Leach Test.
Collecting and Processing of a 

Composite Sample for Use in the Field 

Leach Test 

A “representative” sample must be collected prior to 

using the USGS FLT. Accurate, appropriate sampling is 

extremely important to produce meaningful results. An important 

first step that must be taken prior to designing a sampling plan 

is to accurately define the question to be answered with the 

leaching study. (Is the study trying to identify surficial run-off 

potential or is it more concerned with the long-term leaching 

characteristics of a sample?) Only after the goal of the leaching study has been defined can the sampling objectives and 

sampling strategy be designed. 

Many studies have been conducted in the science and 

strategies of sampling and a broad range of techniques and 

approaches have been used successfully. For many studies, scientific investigators have found that collecting a composite sample of a material is an effective and representative way to sample 

a selected population. An important advantage of using the 

composite method of sampling is that it saves time and money 

because “one 30-increment dump-composite sample collected 

using this sampling strategy contains as much information, 

relative to average value, as 30 individual grab samples at 1/30 

of the analytical cost” (Smith and others, 2000). The composite 

sampling method used by the USGS is statistically based and is 

used to characterize the average geochemical properties and/or 

geochemical behavior of a material (Smith and others, 2000). 

Using this composite sampling method, numerous increments 

from a site are collected and mixed together to form a “bulk” 

composite sample that statistically represents the area sampled. 

Some examples of studies that have used composite sampling 

are Hageman (2004), Hageman and Briggs (2000), Piatak and 

others (2004), Smith and others (2006), Kathleen S. Smith, U.S. 

Geological Survey, oral commun. (2006),Van Gosen and others 

(2000, 2005). 

The composite sampling procedure has worked effectively for the collection of metal-mining waste, soils, biosolids, sediments (any type), crushed and ground rock samples, 

many types of dusts, and volcanic ash. Following is a description of the materials needed and the procedure used to collect 

and process a mine-waste composite sample. Keep in mind, 

that the step-by-step process presented here can also be used to 

collect a composite sample of the other types of geologically 

derived material. 

Equipment Needed to Collect a 

Composite Sample

Most of the equipment needed to collect a composite 

sample using this method is shown in figure 6.

One or more (depending on number of people collecting 

sample) 1.5 – 2 gallon heavy duty sample collection pails 

with handle.

5-gallon plastic bucket/s (for mixing bulk composite 

sample).

Leather gloves.

Small stainless steel or heavy duty plastic garden scoops.

Stainless steel three-prong garden scrapers that can be 

used if the surface material is hard.

3- by 5-foot (or larger) plastic tarp, or large, heavy duty 

garbage bags (for drying sample).

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Figure 5. Close-up of small field balance that can be used 

to weigh sample for leaching on-site using the U.S. Geological 

Survey Field Leach Test.

Figure 6. Materials needed to collect a composite sample.

Collecting and Processing of a Composite Sample for Use in the Field Leach Test   
   USGS Field Leach Test

Global Positioning System for identifying sampling location.

9.5-mm, 5.0-mm, 2.0-mm stainless steel sieves, along 

with a catch pan and lid (for sieving the bulk composite 

sample).

Jones splitter®, or materials needed to cone and quarter 

samples. 

Large re-sealable plastic storage bags for storing splits of 

the < 2-mm composite sample.

Procedure for Collecting and 

Processing a Mine-Waste Sample

 There are two methods that can be used to collect a 

surficial (upper 15 cm) mine-waste composite sample. In the 

first method, the mine waste pile is divided into a grid of at 

least 30 cells of roughly equal surface area. Next, increments 

(subsamples) are collected of the surficial material from each 

cell using a stainless steel or plastic shovel and plastic bucket. 

After collection from all cells, the increments are mixed 

together in a 5-gallon bucket or plastic tub. 

The second method that can be used is to collect a nongrid composite sample. For this procedure, instead of dividing 

the mine dump pile into grided cells, the composite sample 

is collected by randomly walking back and forth across the 

entire mine waste pile or site and collecting a minimum of 30 

increments. When collecting in this manner, it is important 

to collect the increments in a random, nonbiased manner. 

An example of a good way to ensure unbiased sampling is to 

collect increments at specific intervals, say every ten paces 

regardless of what the materials look like. Refrain from collecting from an area just because it looks interesting since this 

will introduce bias into the sample. For very large mine waste 

piles or sites, a nongrid composite sample could be collected 

randomly along transects of the pile. After collection, all increments are combined to form the bulk composite. Note that 

for both these collection methods, the final composite sample 

should weigh at least 1,000 g (1 kg) after sieving.

After collection, further processing needs to take place 

before the composite sample can be leached:

If the bulk composite sample is wet, it must be air dried 

at ambient temperature, either on-site or in the laboratory. 

Dry the sample by spreading it out on a disposable plastic 

garbage bag or plastic tarp on a flat surface, and then 

periodically mix the sample with a plastic scoop until all 

the material is dry. Never use heat to dry the composite, 

because heat could alter the geochemical characteristics 

of the sample.

After drying, a portion of the bulk composite can be split 

from the sample and saved for archive and further studies 

7.

8.

9.

10.

1.

2.

(for example, other leach studies or mineralogy). After 

splitting, the remaining composite material is dry sieved 

[< 2 mm (10 mesh) for most samples] using stainless steel 

sieves. Note that sieves can be stacked to make sieving 

easier. To do this, stack three sieves (9.5 mm, 5.0 mm, and 

2.0 mm), along with a catch pan and lid. Place portions of 

the bulk composite material into the top sieve (9.5 mm), 

and as the stack is agitated, the < 2-mm fraction settles 

into the catch pan and is saved. Discard the material in 

the three sieves. Note that some samples do not need to 

be sieved (for example, ash or dusts) because they are 

already < 2 mm.

After sieving the entire bulk composite, place the < 2-mm 

material in 1-gallon re-sealable plastic bags and store until 

needed. 

Studies That Have Used the 

U.S. Geological Survey Field Leach Test

The USGS FLT has been used in diverse investigations of 

a broad range of sample types that include studies detailing the 

geochemical characterization of metal mine wastes (Diehl and 

others, 2005, 2006; Hageman, 2004; Hageman and Briggs, 

2000; Moehle and others, 2005; Piatak and others, 2004; 

Kathleen S. Smith, U.S. Geological Survey, oral commun., 

2006; Van Gosen and others, 2000, 2005; Wildeman and others, 2004). Other applications include environmental studies 

of the World Trade Center area after the September 11, 2001, 

attack (Clark and others, 2001; Plumlee and others, 2005); 

studies of the effects of surface applications of biosolids on 

soil, crops, ground water, and streambed sediment (Yager and 

others, 2004); as well as leach studies of mine-dump cores, 

naturally mineralized soils, forest-fire burned soils, dried 

chemical slurries (used to fight forest fires), various types of 

eolian dust, volcanic ash, and dried Hurricanes Katrina and 

Rita flood sediments (Plumlee and others, 2006), as well as 

stream and wetland sediments. 

Leachates produced using these procedures have been 

analyzed for a wide variety of constituents. In addition to characterization of inorganic constituents, FLT leachate has been 

analyzed for organic and pharmaceutical compounds (Yager 

and others, 2004). Field Leach Test leachates have also been 

used for bioassessibilty testing. 

These studies have shown that the USGS FLT is a useful 

tool for geochemical characterization of the reactive, readily soluble, and potentially bioavailable constituents that are 

mobilized when these materials are leached by water.

Results

Some examples of geochemical results produced using the 

FLT procedures are presented here. These data show leachate 

3.
geochemical signatures for selected inorganic constituents in a 

wide variety of materials. In these examples, data are presented 

for leachate pH and specific conductance, as well as element 

concentration data that were generated using inductively 

coupled plasma–mass spectrometry (ICP–MS) (Lamothe and 

others, 2002). Comparison of these data show that unique geochemical profiles for trace metals (fig. 7a), and pH and specific 

conductance (fig. 7b) are produced, identified, and compared 

for a variety of sample matrices.

In other examples, FLT leachate geochemical data from 

one mine waste site can be plotted against other sites to compare their geochemical signatures. Examples of these types 

of comparisons are shown in figures 8a, 8b, and 8c. Field 

Leach Test leachates of other materials, such as volcanic ash, 

are compared in a similar manner (figs. 9a, 9b, and 9c), along 

with World Trade Center dust (figs.10a, 10b, and 10c). 

All of these comparisons show the unique leachate geochemical fingerprints that are produced using the USGS FLT, 

and how useful leachate geochemical profiles can be whether 

assessing one site or comparing a number of different sites. 

Summary

The U.S. Geological Survey Field Leach Test has proven 

to be a valuable tool for a diverse group of investigators including Federal, State, and other governmental agencies, environmental professionals, and academia. The procedure has been 

used extensively on-site and in the laboratory and has proven 

effective for the characterization of geologic and environmental materials for a variety of geochemical, environmental, and 

toxicological investigations. The FLT is very useful in revealing 

the readily soluble, water reactive geochemical components and 

characteristics of a sample, and has been a critical and integral 

part of these studies.

Figure 7a. Selected leachate trace metal concentration signatures for a variety of matrices leached using 

the U.S. Geological Survey Field Leach Test.

Summary   

-INING
AFFECTEDWETLANDSEDIMENT

-ANCOSSOIL

-OUNT3T(ELENSASH

!GRICULTURALSOILAFTERBIOSOLIDSAPPLICATION

&OREST
FIREBURNEDSOIL

-INEWASTEDUMP

)RAQSOIL

7INDBLOWNDUSTFROMDRYLAKEBED

7ORLD4RADE#ENTERDUST

%80,!.!4)/.


" 

 /,/" ]Ê
,",-Ê*
,Ê/
,

/,

Ê
/-

£ää]äää

£ä]äää

£]äää

£ää

£ä

£

ä°£

ä°ä£

ä°ää£

ÕÕ 
>`Õ 
««iÀ À i>` >}>iÃi Vi <V
 USGS Field Leach Test

Figure 7b. Field Leach Test leachate pH and specific conductance 

signatures for some of the samples shown in figure 7a.

Figure 8a. Field Leach Test leachate geochemical trends for selected trace metals from 

three different surficial mine-waste composite samples collected from mine-waste sites in 

Colorado.

,OWER#HATAUQUA-INE7ASTE

$INERO-INE7ASTE

2ATTLER-INE7ASTE

%80,!.!4)/.

£ä]äää

£]äää

£ää

£ä

£


" 

 /,/" ]Ê 


,",-Ê*
,Ê/
,

/,

Ê
/

ÕÕ

ÀÃiV


>`Õ


««iÀ

À

>}>iÃi

 Vi

i>`

<V

Ó]äää

£]nää

£]Èää

£]{ää

£]Óää

£]äää

nää

Èää

{ää

Óää

ä

-*





" 1
/ 

]


,"-

 -Ê*
,



 /
/
,

}

>vviVÌi`

ÜiÌ>`

Ãi`iÌ

iÊÜ>ÃÌi

`Õ«

Ì°Ê-Ì°

iiÃÊ>Ã

}ÀVÕÌÕÀ>

Ã

7À`

/À>`i


iÌiÀ

`ÕÃÌ

ÕÀÀV>i

>ÌÀ>

v`Ê

Ãi`iÌÃ

3PECIFIC#ONDUCTANCE

-*
Ê




P(

%80,!.!4)/.

«

£Ó

£ä

n

È

{

Ó

ä
Figure 8b. Field Leach Test leachate geochemical trends for pH and specific 

conductance for three mine-waste composite samples.

Figure 8c. Field Leach Test leachate geochemical trends for selected major ions for three mine-waste composite samples. 

Summary 

ää

nää

Çää

Èää

xää

{ää

Îää

Óää

£ää

ä

È

x

{

Î

Ó

£

ä

3PECIFIC#ONDUCTANCE P(

%80,!.!4)/.

-*





" 1
/ 

]Ê 


,"-

 -Ê*
,



 /
/
,

-*
Ê




ÜiÀÊ
>Ì>ÕμÕ>

iÊ7>ÃÌi

iÀÊiÊ7>ÃÌi ,>ÌÌiÀÊiÊ7>ÃÌi

«

£]äää

£ää

£ä

£

ä

",Ê" 

"Ê"Ê
" 

 /,/" ]

 Ê,-Ê*
,Ê/
,


>VÕ *Ì>ÃÃÕ >}iÃÕ -`Õ

,OWER#HATAUQUA-INE7ASTE

$INERO-INE7ASTE

2ATTLER-INE7ASTE

%80,!.!4)/.
10 USGS Field Leach Test

Figure 9a. Field Leach Test leachate geochemical trends for selected trace 

metals from three different volcanic ash composite samples.

 Figure 9b. Field Leach Test leachate geochemical trends for pH and 

specific conductance for three different volcanic ash composite samples.

Ó]äää

£]xää

£]äää

xää

ä


" 

 /,/" ]Ê 


,",-Ê*
,Ê/
,

/,

Ê
/

ÕÕ


>`Õ


««iÀ

À

>}>iÃi

 Vi

i>`

<V

%80,!.!4)/.

!NATAHAM 2EDOUBT 3PURR

«

ää

nää

Çää

Èää

xää

{ää

Îää

Óää

£ää

ä



n

Ç

È

x

{

Î

Ó

£

ä

%80,!.!4)/.

3PECIFICCONDUCTANCE P(

-*





" 1
/ 

]


,"-

 -Ê*
,



 /
/
,

-*
Ê




>Ì>> ,i`ÕLÌ -«ÕÀÀ
Figure 9c.­ Field Leach Test leachate geochemical trends for selected major ions from 

three different volcanic ash composite samples.

Figure 10a. Field Leach Test leachate geochemical trends for selected trace metals from 

five World Trade Center (WTC) dust composite samples.

Summary 11

",Ê" 

"Ê"Ê
" 

 /,/" ] Ê,-Ê*
,Ê/
,


>VÕ *Ì>ÃÃÕ >}iÃÕ -`Õ

£]äää

£ää

£ä

£

ä°£

%80,!.!4)/.

!NATAHAM 2EDOUBT 3PURR


" 

 /,/" ]Ê 


,",-Ê*
,Ê/
,

/,

Ê
/

Èää

xää

{ää

Îää

Óää

£ää

ä

 
` 
Õ i *L   <

%80,!.!4)/.

74# 74# 74# 74# 74#
12  USGS Field Leach Test

Figure 10b. Field Leach Test leachate geochemical trends for pH and 

specific conductance for five World Trade Center (WTC) dust composite 

samples. 

Figure 10c. Field Leach Test leachate geochemical trends for selected major ions for five 

World Trade Center (WTC) dust composite samples.

-*
Ê




Î]äää

Ó]xää

Ó]äää

£]xää

£]äää

xää

ä

£{

£Ó

£ä

n

È

{

Ó

ä

-*





" 1
/ 

]Ê 


,"-

 -Ê*
,



 /
/
,

«

7/
Ê{ 7/
Ê£Ó 7/
Ê£n 7/
ÊÓ{ 7/
ÊÎÓ

%80,!.!4)/.

3PECIFICCONDUCTANCE P(

"Ê"Ê
" 

 /,/" ]Ê 

,-Ê*
,Ê/
,

",Ê" 

£]äää

£ää

£ä

£

ä°£


>  } >

%80,!.!4)/.

74# 74# 74# 74# 74#
References Cited

Clark, R.N., Green, R.O., Swayze, G.A., Meeker, G.P., Sutley, 

S.J., and others, 2001, Environmental studies of the World 

Trade Center area after the September 11, 2001, attack: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 01-0429. 

Diehl, S.F., Hageman, P.L., and Smith, K.S., 2006, What’s 

weathering? Mineralogy and field leach studies in mine 

waste, Leadville and Montezuma mining districts, Colorado, in Barnhisel, R.I., ed., Gateway to the future: Society 

for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration (SME) Annual 

Meeting and 7th International Conference on Acid Rock 

Drainage (ICARD), March 26–30, St. Louis, Mo. CD 

ROM, p. 508–527.

Diehl, S.F., Hageman, P.L., Smith, K.S., Herron, J.T., and Desborough, G.A., 2005, Sources of acid and metals from the 

weathering of the Dinero waste pile, Lake Fork watershed, 

Leadville, Colorado, in Barnhisel, R.I., ed., Raising reclamation to new heights: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting 

of the American Society of Mining and Reclamation, June 

19–23, Breckenridge, Colo., CD ROM, p. 268–282.

Hageman, P.L., and Briggs, P.H., 2000, A simple field leach 

for rapid screening and qualitative characterization of mine 

waste material on abandoned mine lands, in ICARD 2000, 

Proceedings from the Fifth International Conference on Acid 

Rock Drainage, Denver, Colo., May 21–24, 2000: Society for 

Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration Inc., p 1463–1475.

Hageman, P.L., 2004, Use of short-term (5-minute) and long-term 

(18-hour) leaching tests to characterize, fingerprint, and rank 

mine waste material from historical mines in the Deer Creek, 

Snake River, and Clear Creek watersheds in and around the 

Montezuma mining district, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5104, 41 p.

Hageman, P.L., 2005, A simple field leach test to assess potential leaching of soluble constituents from mine waste, soils, 

and other geologic materials: USGS Fact Sheet 2005-3100. 

(Available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2005/3100/)

Lamothe, P.J., Meier, A.L., and Wilson, S.A., 2002. The 

determination of forty four elements in aqueous samples by 

inductively coupled plasma–mass spectrometry, in Taggart, J.E, Jr., ed., Analytical methods for chemical analysis 

of geologic and other materials: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 02-223, p. H1–H11. (Available online at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2002/ofr-02-0223/)

Moehle, J., Fox, S., Ranville, J., Wildeman, T., and Ross, P., 

2005, Characterization and leach test assessment at the Tip 

Top Mine, a marginally impacted site, in Proceedings of 

the 22nd National Conference of the American Society for 

Mining and Reclamation, p. 737–749.

Piatak, N.M., Hammarstrom, J.M., Seal, R.R., II., Briggs, P.H., 

Meier, A.L., Muzik, T. L., and Jackson, J.C., 2004, Geochemical characterization of mine waste at the Ely copper 

mine superfund site, Orange County, Vermont: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2004-1248.

Plumlee, G.S., Hageman, P.L., Lamothe, P.J., Ziegler, T.L., 

Meeker, G.P., Brownfield, I., Adams, M., Swayze, G.A., 

Hoefen, T., Taggart, J.E., Clark, R.N., Wilson, S., and 

Sutley, S.J., 2005, Inorganic chemical composition and 

chemical reactivity of settled dust generated by the World 

Trade Center building collapse, in Urban aerosols and their 

impacts—Lessons learned from the World Trade Center 

tragedy: American Chemical Society Special Publication, 

p. 238–276.

Plumlee, G.S., Meeker, G.P., Lovelace, J.K., Rosenbauer, R.J., 

Lamothe, P.J., Furlong, E.T., and Demas, C.R., 2006, U.S. 

Geological Survey, environmental characterization of flood 

sediments left in the New Orleans area after Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita, 2005–—Progress report: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006–1023, 74 p. (Available 

online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1023/)

Smith, K.S., Hageman, P.L., Ramsey, C.A., Wildeman, T.R., 

and Ranville, J.F., 2006, Reconnaissance sampling and 

characterizing of mine waste material: Proceedings, U.S. 

EPA Hard Rock Mining 2006 Conference, Tucson, Ariz., 

November 14–16, 2006.

Smith, K.S., Ramsey, C.A., and Hageman, P.L., 2000. Sampling strategy for the rapid screening of mine waste dumps 

on abandoned mine lands: Proceedings from the 5th International Conference on Acid Rock Drainage, Society for 

Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Littleton, Colo., 

p. 1453–1462.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2002, Test methods 

for evaluating solid wastes, physical and chemical methods, accessed December 19, 2006, at URL http://www.epa.

gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/test/sw846.htm

Van Gosen, B.S., Eppinger, R.G., Hammarstrom, J.M., Briggs, 

P.H., Crock, J.G., Gent, C., Meier, A.L., Sutley, S.J., and 

Theodorakos, P.M., 2000, Analytical data for reconnaissance 

geochemical samples from mine dumps, stream sediments, and 

waters at the Thompson Creek tungsten mine, Custer County, 

Idaho: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-0239, 28 p. 

(Available online at URL http://pubs.usgs.gov/ofr-00-0239/)

Van Gosen, B.S., Hammarstrom, J.M., Eppinger, R.G., Briggs, 

P.H., Crock, J.G., Meier, A.L., Sutley, S.J., Theodorakos, 

P.M., and Hageman, P.L., 2006, A reconnaissance geochemical and mineralogical study of the Stanley uranium district, 

Custer County, Central Idaho: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5264.

References Cited 13
14  USGS Field Leach Test

Wildeman, T.R., Pinto, A.P., and Fregadolli, L.L., 2004, 

Chemical characterization of a receiving lake at the MSF 

Nickel mine, Minas Gerais, Brazil, in Tailings and mine 

waste ’04: A.A. Balkema, Leiden, The Netherlands, 

p. 3–10.

Yager, T.J.B., Smith, D.B., and Crock, J.G., 2004, Effects 

of surface applications of biosolids on soil, crops, ground 

water, and streambed sediment near Deer Trail, Colorado, 

1999–2003: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5289, 98 p. (Available online at URL 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/sir/sir2004-5289)
Hageman—USGS Field Leach Test—Techniques and Methods 5–D3

Printed on recycled paper