Concentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic 

Hydrocarbons and Inorganic

Constituents in Ambient Surface Soils,

Chicago, Illinois: 2001-02

Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4105

In cooperation with the

Chicago Department of Environment

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Urbana, Illinois

2003

Concentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic 

Hydrocarbons and Inorganic

Constituents in Ambient Surface Soils,

Chicago, Illinois: 2001-02

By Robert T. Kay1, Terri L. Arnold1, William F. Cannon1, David Graham2, Eric Morton3, and 

Raymond Bienert3

1 U.S. Geological Survey

2

 Chicago Department of Environment

3

 TetraTech EM, Inc.

In cooperation with the

Chicago Department of Environment

Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4105
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

GALE A. NORTON, Secretary

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Charles G. Groat, Director

The use of firm, trade, and brand names is for descriptive purposes only and 

does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

For additional information, write to:

District Chief

U.S. Geological Survey

221 N. Broadway Ave, Suite 101

Urbana, Illinois, 61801

Copies of this report can be purchased from:

U.S. Geological Survey

Branch of Information Services

Box 25286

Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225-0286
Contents III

CONTENTS

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

Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................................2

Purpose and Scope.........................................................................................................................................................5

Acknowledgments...........................................................................................................................................................5

Methods ...................................................................................................................................................................................5

Site Selection ...................................................................................................................................................................5

Sample Collection and Analysis....................................................................................................................................8

Statistical Analysis of Uncensored Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon Data ....................................................10

Population Tests........................................................................................................................................................10

Test for Lognormal Distribution ..............................................................................................................................11

Graphical Analysis....................................................................................................................................................11

Descriptive Statistics ...............................................................................................................................................11

Outlier Test .................................................................................................................................................................11

95th Percentile, 95-Percent Confidence Interval for the Mean, and Geometric Mean ................................11

Relation Between Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon Concentrations and Land Use...............................11

Simple Linear Regression ...............................................................................................................................12

Unbalanced One-Way Analysis of Variance ...............................................................................................12

Geospatial Analyses of Benzo(a)pyrene Concentrations ..................................................................................13

Statistical Analysis of Censored Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon Data .........................................................13

Graphical Analysis....................................................................................................................................................13

Descriptive Statistics ...............................................................................................................................................14

Outlier Test .................................................................................................................................................................14

Relation Between Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon Concentrations and Land Use...............................14

Correlation of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon and Inorganic Concentrations.............................................14

Analysis of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon Data .....................................................................................................15

Analysis of Inorganic Data....................................................................................................................................................25

Summary and Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................................26

References Cited ....................................................................................................................................................................27

Appendixes:

1. Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Ambient Surface Soils, Chicago, Illinois...........................................61

2. Inorganic Constituents in Ambient Surface Soils, Chicago, Illinois....................................................................67

Figures

1-4. Maps showing:

1. Land use within the city of Chicago, Illinois............................................................................................................3

2. Locations of (A) subareas, (B) vertical strips, and (C) equal-area cells used for

selection of random sample locations, Chicago, Illinois .....................................................................................6

3. Locations of (A) properties owned by the city of Chicago and Commonwealth Edison,

(B) final fixed population of potential sites used to randomly select sampling sites, and

(C) randomly selected sampling sites, Chicago, Illinois ......................................................................................7

4. Locations of surface-soil sampling sites, Chicago, Illinois ..................................................................................9

5-8. Graphs showing:

5. Boxplots of (A) uncensored and (B) censored polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon

concentrations in ambient surface soils, Chicago, Illinois .................................................................................16

6. Boxplots of natural-log transformed (A) uncensored and (B) censored

polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations in ambient surface soils,

Chicago, Illinois ..........................................................................................................................................................18
IV Concentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Inorganic Constituents in Ambient Surface Soils, 

Chicago, Illinois: 2001-02

7. Normal probability plots of natural-log transformed (A) uncensored and

(B) censored polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations in ambient surface

soils, Chicago, Illinois ................................................................................................................................................20

8. Frequency of detections of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in ambient surface soils,

Chicago, Illinois, plotted against molecular weight of compound.....................................................................22

9. Map showing (A) kriged concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene in ambient surface soils,

Chicago, Illinois and (B) standard errors of predicted concentrations...................................................................24

Tables

1. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Tier 1 remediation objectives for polynuclear

aromatic hydrocarbons in soils......................................................................................................................................33

2. Soil-sampling site data collected during the investigation, Chicago, Illinois ..........................................................34

3. Summary of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon data in ambient surface soils, Chicago, Illinois.......................36

4. Mean distance from sample locations to nearby major land-use categories, Chicago, Illinois ..........................37

5. Percentages of major land-use categories around soil-sampling sites, Chicago, Illinois ....................................39

6. Number of soil-sampling sites near each major land-use category, Chicago, Illinois...........................................45

7. Shapiro-Wilk test statistic for normal distribution of natural-log-transformed polynuclear

aromatic hydrocarbon data in ambient surface soils, Chicago, Illinois..................................................................45

8. Statistical summary of natural-log transformed polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon data for censored

compounds in ambient surface soils, Chicago, Illinois..............................................................................................46

9. Test for outliers in polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations in sample

PAH-CE-19, Chicago, Illinois ...........................................................................................................................................47

10. Statistical summary of natural-log transformed polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations

in ambient surface soils, Chicago, Illinois....................................................................................................................48

11. Results of Wilcoxon-Rank-Sum test comparing polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon

concentrations in surface soils collected at city properties and Commonwealth Edison

properties, Chicago, Illinois ............................................................................................................................................49

12. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients for natural-log transformed concentrations

of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons and total organic carbon in ambient surface soils,

Chicago, Illinois.................................................................................................................................................................50

13. Physical properties of select polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons ........................................................................51

14. Summary of average polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations in air samples,

Chicago, Illinois.................................................................................................................................................................52

15. Results of one-way analysis of variance of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations

and distance from nearest roadway, Chicago, Illinois...............................................................................................52

16. Statistical description of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in ambient soils for different

land-use categories, Chicago, Illinois...........................................................................................................................53

17. Results of analysis of variance of uncensored polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon

concentrations in ambient soils by land use, Chicago, Illinois.................................................................................55

18. Regression of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations in surface soils and

percent industrial land use within a 1-mile radius of the sample, Chicago, Illinois..............................................55

19. Summary of data on inorganic constituents in ambient surface soils, Chicago, Illinois .....................................56

20. Comparison of arithmetic mean concentrations of select inorganic constituents in

ambient surface soils, Chicago, Illinois with mean concentrations from surrounding agricultural soils .........57

21. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients for selected inorganic constituents in

ambient surface soils, Chicago, Illinois ........................................................................................................................58
 CONVERSION FACTORS AND ABBREVIATED SOIL- AND AIR-QUALITY UNITS

 Multiply By To obtain

 Length

 inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter

 foot (ft) 0.3048 meter

 mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer

 Area

 acre 0.4047 hectare

 square foot (ft2) 0.09290 square meter

 square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer

 Mass

 ounce, avoirdupois (oz) 28.35 gram

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

 °F = (1.8 x °C) + 32

Abbreviated soil- and air-quality units: Chemical concentration is given in metric units. Chemical 

concentration is given in micrograms per kilogram (μg/Kg) and in micrograms per cubic meter

(μg/m3

). Micrograms per kilogram is a unit expressing the concentration of chemical constituents as 

weight (micrograms) of the constituent per unit mass (kilogram) of soil. One milligram equals 1,000 

micrograms. Micrograms per cubic meter is a unit expressing the concentration of chemical constituents as weight (micrograms) of the constituent per unit volume (cubic meter) of air.

Abbreviations:

μg/L micrograms per liter

mg/Kg milligrams per kilogram

Contents V

Abstract 1

Concentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

and Inorganic Constituents in Ambient Surface Soils, 

Chicago, Illinois: 2001-02

By Robert T. Kay, Terri L. Arnold, William F. Cannon, David Graham, Eric Morton, and Raymond Bienert

Abstract

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) 

compounds are ubiquitous in ambient surface 

soils in the city of Chicago, Illinois. PAH 

concentrations in samples collected in June 2001 

and January 2002 were typically in the following 

order from highest to lowest: fl uoranthene, pyrene, 

benzo(b)fl uoranthene, phenanthrene, benzo(a)pyrene, 

chrysene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(k)fl uoranthene, 

indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, 

dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, and anthracene. 

Naphthalene, acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, 

and fl uorene were consistently at the lowest 

concentrations in each sample.

Concentrations of the PAH compounds 

showed variable correlation. Concentrations of PAH 

compounds with higher molecular weights typically 

show a higher degree of correlation with other PAH 

compounds of higher molecular weight, whereas 

PAH compounds with lower molecular weights 

tended to show a lower degree of correlation with all 

other PAH compounds. These differences indicate 

that high and low molecular-weight PAHs behave 

differently once released into the environment.

Concentrations of individual PAH compounds 

in soils typically varied by at least three orders of 

magnitude across the city and varied by more than 

an order of magnitude over a distance of about 1,000 

feet. Concentrations of a given PAH in ambient 

surface soils are affected by a variety of site-specifi c 

factors, and may be affected by proximity to 

industrial areas. Concentrations of a given PAH in 

ambient surface soils did not appear to be affected by 

the organic carbon content of the soil, proximity to 

non-industrial land use, or proximity to a roadway.

The concentration of the different PAH 

compounds in ambient surface soils appears 

to be affected by the propensity for the PAH 

compound to be in the vapor or particulate phase 

in the atmosphere. Lower molecular-weight PAH 

compounds, which are primarily in the vapor 

phase in the atmosphere, were detected in lower 

concentrations in the surface soils. Higher molecularweight PAH compounds, which are present primarily 

in the particulate phase in the atmosphere, tended to 

be in higher concentrations in the surface soils. The 

apparent effect of the PAH phase in the atmosphere 

on the concentration of a PAH in ambient surface 

soils indicates that atmospheric settling of particulate 

matter is an important source of the PAH compounds 

in ambient surface soils in Chicago.

The distribution of PAH compounds within the 

city was complex. Comparatively high concentrations 

were detected near Lake Michigan in the northern 

part of the city, in much of the western part of the 

city, and in isolated areas in the southern part of 

the city. Concentrations were lower in much of the 

northwestern, south-central, southwestern, and far 

southern parts of the city.

The arithmetic mean concentration of arsenic, 

mercury, calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, copper, 

molybdenum, zinc, and selenium was from 2 to 6 

times higher in ambient surface soils in the city of 

Chicago than in soils from surrounding agricultural 

areas. The arithmetic mean concentration of 

lead in Chicago soils was about 20 times higher. 

Concentrations of calcium and magnesium above 
2 Concentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Inorganic Constituents in Ambient Surface Soils, 

Chicago, Illinois: 2001-02

those of surrounding agricultural areas appear to 

be related to the effects of dolomite bedrock on 

the chemical composition of the soil. Elevated 

concentrations of the remaining elements listed above 

indicate a potential anthropogenic source(s) of these 

elements in Chicago soils.

INTRODUCTION

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon compounds 

(PAHs) are a family of fused ring hydrocarbon 

compounds derived primarily from the incomplete 

combustion of organic material including wood, 

coal, oil, gasoline, and garbage and from leaching 

from coal-tar products such as asphalt and roofi ng 

shingles. PAHs also are derived from natural sources 

such as forest fi res and volcanic eruptions. However, 

the majority of PAHs released to the environment 

are derived from anthropogenic sources such as the 

operation of motor vehicles; burning coal, wood, 

or trash in a residential furnace; and industrial 

sources such as thermoelectric power generation 

and coking operations. There are more than 100 

PAH compounds. However, the PAH compounds 

of interest for environmental investigations are 

acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, anthracene, 

benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fl uoranthene, 

benzo(k)fl uoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, 

benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, 

fl uoranthene, fl uorene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, 

naphthalene, phenanthrene, and pyrene.

PAH compounds are released to the 

environment largely from emissions to the 

atmosphere. PAHs in the atmosphere typically are 

in the vapor phase or attached to particulate matter 

and are capable of being transported long distances 

from their sources before deposition on the land 

surface during precipitation and particle settling. 

Additionally, PAH compounds can be emplaced in 

surface soils by routine operations or leaks from 

storage tanks and during waste-disposal activities 

such as the historical use of coal ash and debris from 

the Great Chicago Fire as fi ll material. Surface-fi ll 

material is common in the Chicago area (Kay and 

others, 1997). PAH compounds enter surface water 

and sediment primarily in discharges from industrial 

and wastewater-treatment plants, and roadside runoff. 

Although PAHs do not easily dissolve in water, given 

the proper conditions PAHs in soils, sediments, and 

surface water are capable of degrading ground-water 

quality. Because of their physical properties and 

methods of production and dispersal, PAHs typically 

occur as a mixture of compounds in environmental 

media.

As in all urban areas, substantial quantities of 

PAH compounds have been generated within the city 

of Chicago (fi g. 1) as a result of incineration of wood, 

coal, and trash; construction of roads and parking 

lots; operation of motor vehicles; coking operations 

associated with steel manufacturing; production 

of electricity at manufactured gas facilities; use of 

creosote for wood preservation; and a variety of other 

processes (Simcik and others, 1997). As a result of 

current (2003) and historical production and disposal 

practices, PAH compounds have been detected in a 

number of environmental media within the city of 

Chicago. PAH compounds have been detected in soils 

at a number of residential, commercial, industrial, 

and waste-disposal sites (Ecology and Environment, 

Inc., 1990; Harza Engineering, Inc., 1994; Ecology 

and Environment, Inc., 2001; U.S. Army Corp of 

Engineers, 2001). An investigation of ground-water 

quality in the southern part of the city detected 

PAH compounds (Duwelius and others, 1996) that 

may have been derived from fi ll materials and road 

runoff. PAH compounds also have been detected in 

surface water and streambed sediment in the Chicago 

area (HydroQual Inc., 1985; U.S. Army Corp of 

Engineers, 1986, 2001; Sullivan and others, 1998) 

and in lake-bottom sediments in Lake Michigan 

(Simcik and others, 1996). PAH compounds in 

streambed sediments are at least partially derived 

from erosion of surface soils.

Many PAH compounds are suspected 

carcinogens or mutagens, and are deemed hazardous 

substances by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (USEPA). Consequently, cleanup of 

residential, commercial, industrial, and wastedisposal sites, including Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA), Superfund, and Brownfi eld 

sites, in the city of Chicago requires remediation 

of soils containing concentrations of PAH 

compounds above what is prescribed in the Illinois 

Environmental Protection Agency’s (IEPA) Tiered 

Approach to Cleanup Objectives (TACO) guidance 

(table 1). The TACO cleanup objectives vary with 

the intended future land use (industrial/commercial 

or residential) of the site, the route of exposure 

(ingestion, inhalation, and potential for migration 
Introduction 3

Figure 1. Land use within the city of Chicago, Illinois.
4 Concentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Inorganic Constituents in Ambient Surface Soils, 

Chicago, Illinois: 2001-02

to ground water), and the type of activity leading to 

the exposure (resident or site-construction worker). 

Because the city of Chicago derives its water supply 

entirely from Lake Michigan and city ordinances 

prohibit the use of ground water wells for potable 

water use, TACO remedial objectives pertaining to 

potential for migration to ground water will not be 

discussed in this report.

The TACO cleanup objectives for a compound 

are based on assessment of the risk or hazard it poses 

to human health and the environment and do not 

automatically take its ambient concentration into 

account. The site-specifi c cleanup goals governed by 

the TACO guidance are intended to allow property 

remediation of hazardous compounds present as a 

result of historical operations, based on the site’s 

future use, not to remove compounds present as a 

result of ambient (background) deposition. Therefore, 

the TACO guidance does allow for an interested 

party to calculate the background concentration of 

a compound in soil, which then can be used as the 

remediation objective.

Without an accurate determination of the 

ambient concentrations of PAH compounds in urban 

soils, it can be diffi cult to determine if concentrations 

of PAH compounds encountered in soils during 

site remediation are the result of contamination 

or ambient effects. Soil remediation may include 

excavation and disposal of contaminated soil to an 

appropriate waste-disposal facility or installation 

of an engineered barrier (clean soils, pavement, 

buildings) to prevent human contact. Often, excess 

soil removed during construction projects containing 

PAH compounds at concentrations similar to ambient 

concentrations but above site-remediation objectives 

must be disposed of in local landfi lls at additional 

cost. Therefore, the absence of values for the ambient 

concentrations of PAH compounds in surface soils 

in the city of Chicago may result in increased siteremediation costs associated with unnecessary 

soil excavation and disposal and installation and 

maintenance of unnecessary engineered barriers. 

Site-specifi c removal of soils containing ambient 

concentrations of PAH compounds also is unlikely 

to result in an improvement to human health and 

the environment. Development of a scientifi cally 

valid assessment of ambient concentrations of 

PAH compounds in surface soils and identifi cation 

of the factors that affect PAH concentrations in 

surface soils has the potential to substantially help 

project managers and site investigators increase the 

effectiveness of remediation at waste-disposal sites in 

Chicago.

Potential receptors (with the exception of 

construction workers under some circumstances) 

are most likely to be exposed to PAHs through 

ingestion and direct contact with compounds in 

surfi cial soil, rather than to PAHs in soil at greater 

depths. As a consequence, it particularly is important 

to characterize surfi cial soils. For the purposes of 

conducting Tier 3 risk assessments under TACO, the 

IEPA requires that exposure point concentrations for 

soil ingestion be calculated based on analytical data 

for surface soil (typically 0 to 6 in. below ground 

surface) in addition to the requirement of evaluating 

the upper 3 ft of the soil.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in 

cooperation with the city of Chicago, Department 

of Environment, assessed the concentration of 

each of the regulated PAH compounds in ambient 

surface soils within the city. For the purposes of 

this report, ambient soils are those soils whose 

chemical composition is affected by ubiquitous 

natural and anthropogenic processes rather than 

the site-specifi c disposal of waste materials. This 

investigation did not include O’Hare Airport on 

the far northwestern part of the city. Samples were 

collected in June 2001 and January 2002 from areas 

near residential, commercial, and industrial land use. 

Based on discussions with IEPA personnel, analytical 

results from surfi cial soil samples, for the purposes 

of comparison, were considered applicable for all 

depths. This approach is consistent with the TACO 

guidelines, which recommend use of a single set of 

inorganic chemical background concentrations in 

surface soil for comparison to analytical results from 

site-specifi c soil samples collected at various depths 

(Illinois Pollution Control Board, 2002; Illinois 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1994).

In addition to PAH compounds, samples 

of surface soils were analyzed to characterize 

concentrations of a number of inorganic constituents, 

including metals and major elements. Analysis of 

the concentration of inorganic constituents was 

performed by the USGS as part of a program to 

chemically characterize surface soils in the United 

States.
Methods 5

Purpose and Scope

This report describes the results of an 

investigation that used stratifi ed random sampling 

techniques and geographic information system 

(GIS) analysis to characterize the concentration of 

PAH compounds in ambient surface soils in the city 

of Chicago. In addition, a preliminary assessment 

is provided of the concentrations of inorganic 

constituents in these soils. This report presents 

the results of soil-quality sampling for PAHs and 

inorganic constituents at 57 randomly selected sites. 

It also presents statistical and GIS analysis of the soil 

PAH data. This report provides summary statistics 

of the concentrations of the PAH compounds, 

including the mean concentration of the individual 

PAH compounds. A summary of the concentrations 

of inorganic constituents is given. Potential sources 

of PAH compounds and inorganic constituents are 

identifi ed, along with some of the factors that may 

affect the concentrations of these constituents in 

ambient soils.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Commonwealth Edison 

for allowing access to their property for sample 

collection.

METHODS

This investigation required the selection 

of appropriate sampling sites, collection of 

representative samples, accurate measurement of 

concentrations of PAHs and inorganic constituents 

in the samples, and statistical analysis of PAH 

concentrations. Because sampling for inorganic 

constituents was designed to provide only a general 

assessment of the distribution and concentration of 

these compounds in Chicago and was not designed 

to meet regulatory needs, the inorganic data were not 

statistically analyzed.

Site Selection

A random site-selection computer program 

(Scott, 1990) was used with a GIS spatial data base 

to select 173 potential sampling sites in Chicago. Of 

these potential sampling sites, 60 were selected as 

primary sites and 113 were selected as alternate sites 

in the event that a primary site could not be sampled. 

For the purpose of site selection, the city of Chicago 

boundary was used as the boundary of the study 

area (fi g. 1). Using the program, the study area was 

divided into 4,601 small square polygons (subareas), 

each of which was approximately 0.05 mi2

 (fi g. 2a). 

These subareas later were aggregated to create 

equal-area cells from which sites were selected 

randomly. To create the cells from which the sites 

were selected, the subareas were accumulated into 

eight vertical strips (fi g. 2b). The number of vertical 

strips was determined by taking the square root of the 

number of primary sites and rounding the result to 

the nearest whole number. The area of each vertical 

strip was approximately 30 mi2

. The number of cells 

created was equal to the number of primary sites 

(60), resulting in 60 equal-area cells (fi g. 2c). Cells 

were created by aggregating each horizontal row of 

subareas within consecutive vertical strips, beginning 

in the lower left corner of the study area, until the 

desired area was obtained. The resulting cells had 

irregular shapes and were approximately 3.8 mi2

 in 

area.

A total of 374 properties owned by the city 

of Chicago and Commonwealth Edison (a local 

utility) were used as the population of potential 

sampling sites for this study (fi g 3a). Properties 

owned by the city of Chicago including libraries, fi re 

stations, and police stations and properties owned 

by Commonwealth Edison are located throughout 

the city. Point locations of these properties were 

combined into one layer using the GIS, with one 

point location representing each property. The density 

of the properties in the study area was about 0.5 of a 

point per square mile.

The modifi ed GIS layer of properties owned 

by the city and Commonwealth Edison contained a 

total of 373 points (fi g. 3b). These points were used 

as a fi xed population of potential sites from which 

the site-selection program could choose randomly. 

From this fi xed population of 373 points and the 60 

equal-area cells, the site-selection program randomly 

selected 60 primary sites (one per cell), 58 secondary 

sites, and 55 tertiary sites (fi g. 3c). The secondary 

and tertiary sites are alternate sites that could have 

been used if the primary site in a cell could not be 
6 Concentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Inorganic Constituents in Ambient Surface Soils, 

Chicago, Illinois: 2001-02

Figure 2. Locations of (A) subareas, (B) vertical strips, and (C) equal-area cells used for selection of random sample locations, Chicago, Illinois.
Methods

7

Figure 3. Locations of (A) properties owned by the city of Chicago and Commonwealth Edison, (B) final fixed population of potential sites used to randomly select sampling sites, and (C) randomly selected sampling sites, Chicago, Illinois.
8 Concentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Inorganic Constituents in Ambient Surface Soils, 

Chicago, Illinois: 2001-02

sampled. Because of the distribution of potential 

sites, not every cell had enough points for the 

program to select two alternate sites from each cell.

Historical land use at each of the sample 

locations was evaluated by the Chicago Department 

of Environment (CDOE) to determine if PAH 

compounds derived from industrial activities or 

waste-disposal operations at the site might be 

present. Evaluation of historical land use consisted 

of reviewing available Sanborn Fire Insurance maps 

and aerial photographs. Within each cell, the primary 

location was the preferred sampling location unless 

it was deemed unsuitable based on the historical 

evaluation. For example, if the historical analysis 

indicated that land use at a particular location could 

have resulted in PAH contamination specifi c to the 

property, an alternative location within the cell was 

considered.

Following the historical review, the CDOE 

performed an inspection of the potential sampling 

sites. Sampling sites were rejected if there were 

indications of industrial sources of PAHs (electrical 

plants, steel mills, coke plants, gas stations, 

incinerators, and heating plants) at the site, if the 

property was paved entirely or contained structures 

so that soil samples could not be collected, or if 

stains or stressed vegetation were evident. If the 

site inspection indicated possible problems with the 

sampling site, the secondary or tertiary sampling 

locations were evaluated. Gravel areas that were 

not parking lots were considered for sampling if the 

gravel was less than 6 in. thick and could be scraped 

away to reveal soil.

Sample Collection and Analysis

Soil samples were collected at 57 sites (table 2). 

Samples collected from properties owned by the 

city of Chicago are denoted by a SS prefi x. Samples 

collected from properties owned by Commonwealth 

Edison are denoted by a CE prefi x. Samples were 

collected in accordance with the IEPA approved 

fi eld sampling plan, which is included in the IEPA 

approved quality-assurance project plan (QAPP) 

(TetraTech EM, Inc., 2001) (table 2, fi g. 4). Inorganic 

samples were collected and analyzed in accordance 

with standard USGS procedures (Arbogast, 1996).

Soil samples were collected from the upper 6 in. 

of the soil horizon (from 0 to 6 in. in an undisturbed 

soil horizon or from the upper 6 in. of a soil horizon 

where it may be covered by gravel) using a dedicated 

stainless-steel spoon or trowel. Samples were 

collected by personnel from Tetra Tech EM, Inc. and 

the CDOE. The soil type was characterized at the 

time of sample collection. Soil samples were placed 

in a disposable foil pan and homogenized by stirring 

the soil using the stainless-steel spoon or trowel. One 

16-ounce and one 4-ounce sample jar were fi lled by 

spooning soil from the foil pan into the container. 

The latitude and longitude of the sample sites were 

determined with a global positioning system (GPS) 

unit (table 2).

Sampling activities were documented in the 

fi eld. For each sample, all pertinent data including 

property address; cell number and whether primary, 

secondary, or tertiary property; sample number; date 

and time of sample collection; weather conditions; 

GPS coordinates; description of sample location; 

proximity to stained soil, stressed vegetation, asphalt, 

underground storage tanks, above-ground storage 

tanks, parking lots, or other distinguishing property 

characteristics, which could be a source of PAHs; 

soil characteristics; and sample depth were recorded. 

Samples were packaged, cooled to 4o

 C with ice, and 

shipped overnight to the laboratory for PAH analysis. 

Samples for inorganic analysis were stored at 4o

 C for 

as long as 7 days prior to shipment to the laboratory. 

Chain-of-custody procedures were followed for all 

samples collected for PAH analysis.

Soil samples were analyzed for PAHs in 

accordance with the approved QAPP (TetraTech 

EM, Inc., 2001). Soil samples used for PAH 

analysis were prepared according to SW-846 

Method 3550 and analyzed by SW-846 Method 

8270 SIM (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1994a). All fi eld and laboratory data were 

validated in accordance with accepted guidelines 

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994b).

Analyses for inorganic constituents were 

performed using inductively coupled plasma-atomic 

emission spectrometry. Methods for handling 

and analysis of these samples are provided by 

Arbogast (1996). Samples were disaggregated and 

sieved to recover the minus 180 micrometer fraction 

for chemical analyses. Analyses were performed 

at Xral Laboratories in Toronto, Canada, using 

techniques developed by the USGS, and at USGS 

analytical laboratories in Lakewood, Colorado. Forty 

major, minor, and trace elements were determined 

by inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission 
Methods 9

Figure 4. Locations of surface-soil sampling sites, Chicago, Illinois.
10 Concentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Inorganic Constituents in Ambient Surface Soils, 

Chicago, Illinois: 2001-02

spectrometry (ICP-AES). The technique yields 

quantitative data for 28 elements (appendix 2); 

the remaining 12 have all or most analyses below 

the detection limit. In addition, total carbon was 

determined by an automated carbon analyzer 

and carbonate carbon was determined as carbon 

dioxide by coulometric titration. Organic carbon 

was calculated as the difference between total and 

carbonate carbon. Total sulfur was determined 

using an automated sulfur analyzer and mercury 

was determined by cold-vapor atomic absorption 

spectrometry. Arsenic and selenium were analyzed by 

hydride generation atomic absorption spectrometry.

Calibration of the inorganic samples was 

performed by standardizing with digested rock 

reference materials and a series of multi-element 

solution standards. Data were deemed acceptable 

if recovery for all was ±15 percent at fi ve times 

the Lower Limit of Determination (LOD) and the 

calculated Relative Standard Deviation (RSD) of 

duplicate samples was no greater than 15 percent for 

all elements except mercury, arsenic, and selenium. 

For these elements, ±20 percent recovery and an RSD 

no greater than 20 percent was considered acceptable.

Field and internal laboratory quality controls 

were performed to determine the precision, accuracy, 

completeness, representativeness, and comparability 

of the data. To assist in this effort, one fi eld duplicate 

sample was collected for every 10 investigative 

samples. One matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate 

PAH sample was collected for every 20 investigative 

samples. The laboratory prepared one PAH method 

blank sample for every 20 investigative samples. All 

data for both PAH and inorganic constituents were 

reviewed following quality-assurance/quality-control 

(QA/QC) procedures.

Statistical Analysis of Uncensored 

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon Data

Benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fl uoranthene, 

benzo(k)fl uoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, 

benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, 

fl uoranthene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, phenanthrene, 

and pyrene were detected in each of the samples 

collected (table 3). As a consequence, the actual 

reported concentrations were used in the statistical 

analysis for these compounds (uncensored data). 

For sites where duplicate samples were collected, 

the average value was used for all analyses. 

Concentrations of all of the PAH compounds in 

sample PAH-CE-19 except acenaphthylene were 

substantially higher than in the remaining samples 

(table 3). Because sampling location PAH-CE-19 was 

considered a potential outlier, most of the preliminary 

statistical analyses were performed both with and 

without this data point.

The sample location of PAH-CE-19 is adjacent 

to a Commonwealth Edison transfer station with 

no obvious source of atmospheric discharge. 

The property was grass covered and vacant with 

remnants of a former building foundation. Historical 

property use was residential, based on Sanborn 

Fire Insurance maps. Land use in the surrounding 

area was predominately residential according to the 

Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (1994) 

maps. No obvious sources of PAHs were identifi ed 

during site reconnaissance or sample collection.

The uncensored PAH data were analyzed 

statistically using standard parametric techniques as 

follows: test for two independent samples from the 

same population; graphical exploratory techniques; 

calculation of basic descriptive statistics; test for 

lognormal distribution; test for outliers; re-test for 

two independent samples from the same population 

without the outlier; re-test for lognormal distribution 

without the outlier; re-calculation of basic 

descriptive statistics without the outlier; calculation 

of the 95th percentile of the population, 95-percent 

confi dence interval for the mean, and the mean; 

simple linear regressions of PAH concentration with 

percent land use and PAH concentration with mean 

distance to land use. Estimates of the actual values of 

the mean, standard deviation, and the 95th percentile 

of the lognormal distribution were estimated using 

techniques recommended by Gilbert (1987).

Population Tests

City of Chicago properties were sampled in 

the summer of 2001 and Commonwealth Edison 

properties were sampled in the winter of 2002. 

Because all of the data were not collected at the 

same time or on the same set of properties, there 

potentially were two separate data populations (city 

of Chicago properties and Commonwealth Edison 

properties) for each of the PAHs. A two-sided 

Wilcoxon-Rank-Sum test in S-Plus (MathSoft, 2000) 
Methods 11

was used to test if the one population contained larger 

or smaller values than the other. If the results of the 

test showed the populations likely were similar, then 

data from the city of Chicago and Commonwealth 

Edison properties could be combined into one dataset 

for further analysis. The null hypothesis was that 

the values in the two populations were similar and 

the alternate hypothesis was that the values from 

one population were larger or smaller than the other 

population. A 95-percent confi dence interval (alpha 

of 0.05) was used for the Wilcoxon-Rank-Sum test. 

The Wilcoxon-Rank-Sum test was performed with 

and without sample PAH-CE-19.

Test for Lognormal Distribution

PAH concentrations were transformed in SAS 

(SAS Institute, Inc, 1999) by applying the natural 

logarithm (log transformation). The transformed 

data then were evaluated for lognormality using 

the Shapiro-Wilk test in SAS interactive data 

analysis with a signifi cance level (alpha) of 0.1 

as recommended by Helsel and Hirsch (1995) for 

normality tests. The Shapiro-Wilk test was performed 

with and without the data from sample PAH-CE-19.

Graphical Analysis

The raw uncensored data initially were 

investigated using graphical exploratory data 

techniques, including boxplots, histograms, and 

normal probability plots. Boxplots, histograms, and 

normal probability plots were graphed using Data 

Desk (Data Description, Inc., 1996). Natural-log 

transformed uncensored data also were explored 

using boxplots and normal probability plots graphed 

in Data Desk with and without the data from sample 

PAH-CE-19.

Descriptive Statistics

Standard descriptive statistics were calculated 

using interactive data analysis in SAS (SAS Institute, 

Inc, 1999). Descriptive statistics were calculated 

for raw and natural-log transformed data both with 

and without the data from sample PAH-CE-19. 

Calculated statistics (not all of which are presented 

in this report) include: mean, standard deviation, 

standard error, variance, number of observations, 

minimum, maximum, median, range of values, sum, 

corrected and uncorrected sum of squares, coeffi cient 

of variation, skewness, and kurtosis.

Outlier Test

A data point is classifi ed as a mild outlier if the 

value is more than 1 step above the 75th percentile 

and classifi ed as an extreme outlier if the value is 

more than 2 steps above the 75th percentile. A step is 

equal to 1.5 times the interquartile range (Helsel and 

Hirsch, 1995). To evaluate for an extreme outlier, the 

interquartile range and number of steps between the 

75th percentile and the highest value were calculated. 

The interquartile range was calculated by subtracting 

the 25th percentile from the 75th percentile. The 

number of steps was calculated by subtracting the 

75th percentile from the maximum value and dividing 

the result by 1.5 times the interquartile range. The 

outlier test was performed with the suspected outlier, 

PAH-CE-19, included.

To further determine if PAH-CE-19 is an 

outlier, the magnitude of the difference between the 

concentration of the PAH compound in this sample 

(the maximum value) and the next lowest value was 

examined using the number of standard deviations 

between them. The number of standard deviations 

between the maximum and next lowest value was 

calculated by subtracting the next lowest from 

the maximum value and dividing the result by the 

standard deviation.

95th Percentile, 95-Percent Confidence

Interval For The Mean, and Geometric Mean 

The 95th percentile and 95-percent confi dence 

interval for the mean of the natural-log transformed 

data were calculated using interactive data analysis 

in SAS (SAS Institute, Inc, 1999). For natural-log 

transformed PAH concentrations, the geometric 

mean was calculated in Microsoft Excel (Microsoft 

Corporation, 2000) by taking the anti-log of the 

mean. The data from sample PAH-CE-19 were not 

included in these calculations. 

Relation Between Polynuclear Aromatic 

Hydrocarbon Concentrations and Land Use

Various analyses were performed to determine 

if PAH concentrations in ambient surface soils were 
12 Concentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Inorganic Constituents in Ambient Surface Soils, 

Chicago, Illinois: 2001-02

affected by nearby land use. For the purposes of 

this discussion, land use also includes the distance 

between the sampling point and the middle of the 

nearest roadway.

The Northeastern Illinois Planning 

Commission’s 1990 land-use summary (Northeastern 

Illinois Planning Commission, 1994) was used to 

identify the current land use for each sample location. 

Chicago’s land-use code is broadly classifi ed as 

urban, built-up land (85 percent), agricultural (less 

than 1 percent), open space (7 percent), vacant and 

wetland (6 percent), water (less than 2 percent), and 

unclassifi ed (less than 1 percent). Urban, built-up 

land is further subdivided as residential (47 percent), 

commercial services (10 percent), institutional 

(6 percent), industrial (11 percent), transportation, 

communication, and utility (11 percent). Therefore, 

about 15 percent of the land composing the city of 

Chicago is considered undeveloped and the majority 

of the land use is for residential purposes.

Simple Linear Regression

The mean distance from each sampling point 

to each type of land use in the area of the sampling 

point was calculated (table 4). Land use was 

classifi ed as residential, commercial, institutional, 

industrial/warehousing/wholesale (hereafter referred 

to as industrial), transportation/communications/

utilities (hereafter referred to as transportation), 

agriculture, open space, vacant/wetland (hereafter 

referred to as vacant), and water according to 1990 

land-use spatial data obtained from the Northeastern 

Illinois Planning Commission (1994) (fi g. 1). 

To calculate the mean distance to each land-use 

category from each sampling point, ArcInfo GIS 

(Environmental Systems Research Institute, 2001a) 

was used with four raster data layers representing 

soil-sampling point locations, sampling-point zones, 

distance, and land use in 1990 (Northeastern Illinois 

Planning Commission, 1994). Cell size of raster 

data layers was 30 ft2

. Each sampling-point location 

was enclosed by Thiessen (also called proximal) 

polygons using a Euclidean allocation function, 

which created sampling-point zones. The Thiessen 

polygons formed a zone around each sampling point 

such that any location inside the zone was closer to 

that zone’s sampling point than any other sampling 

point. Zones ranged in area from 1 mi2

 to 10 mi2. 

The distance layer was created by calculating the 

Euclidean distance outward in every direction from 

each sampling point to the edge of the zone. The 

distance layer then was combined spatially with the 

land-use and sampling-point-zone layers to calculate 

the mean distance to each land use in the zone from 

the sampling point. Simple linear regressions of 

mean distance to each land use with natural-log 

transformed PAH concentrations were calculated 

using Data Desk (Data Description, Inc., 1996). The 

suspected outlier, PAH-CE-19, was not included in 

the regressions.

Land use surrounding the sampling site also 

was examined. Buffers of 0.25, 0.5, and 1 mi radius 

around the sampling site were created using ArcInfo 

GIS (Environmental Systems Research Institute, 

2001a). The buffers were overlaid spatially with 

the land use layer (Northeastern Illinois Planning 

Commission, 1994) and the percent of land-use 

category within 0.25, 0.5, and 1 mi of the sampling 

point was calculated (table 5). Simple linear 

regressions of percent land use within a 0.25, 0.5, 

and 1 mi radius of the sample with natural-log 

transformed PAH concentrations were performed 

for all uncensored PAHs using Data Desk (Data 

Description, Inc., 1996). The data from sample PAHCE-19 were not included in the regressions. 

The distance between the sample location and 

the nearest roadway was estimated by use of an 

on-screen digitizer. The location of the sampling 

point was determined by GPS measurement, and 

the location of the nearest roadway was determined 

visually from a GIS coverage. The distance between 

the point and the road then was calculated by use 

of ArcInfo. Correlation between the natural-log 

transformed concentration of the PAH and the 

natural-log of the distance from the roadway then 

were estimated by simple linear regression in 

Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation, 2000). The 

data from sample PAH-CE-19 were not included in 

the regressions. 

Unbalanced One-Way Analysis of Variance

A spatial overlay of sampling locations and 

land use (Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, 

1994) was performed in ArcInfo GIS (Environmental 

Systems Research Institute, 2001a) to identify the 

land use at the sampling point. Sample locations were 

grouped into seven land-use categories: residential; 

commercial and service; institutional; industrial, 
Methods 13

warehousing, and wholesale; transportation, 

communication, and utilities; open space; and vacant 

and wetland (table 6). The Shapiro-Wilk test in 

S-Plus (MathSoft, 2000) was used to verify that the 

natural-log transformed PAH concentrations for those 

land uses with fi ve or more samples (vacant and 

wetland; transportation, communication and utilities; 

commercial and service; industrial, warehousing, and 

wholesale; and residential) were normally distributed. 

To test if mean log-transformed PAH concentrations 

varied for different land uses, a one-way unbalanced 

analysis-of-variance (ANOVA) was performed 

for each uncensored PAH using S-Plus. The null 

hypothesis was that the mean natural-log transformed 

values statistically were the same for each land use. 

The alternate hypothesis was that at least one of 

the means differed with land use. An alpha value 

of 0.05 was used for the test. The data from sample 

PAH-CE-19 were not included in the ANOVA.

The distance between the sampling locations 

and the roadway were grouped into fi ve categories: 

10 ft or less (20 data points), 11 to 30 ft (15 data 

points), 31 to 50 ft (9 data points), 51 to 100 ft (6 data 

points), and greater than 100 ft (6 data points). The 

Shapiro-Wilk test in S-Plus was used to verify that 

the natural-log transformed PAH concentrations for 

distances were normally distributed. To test if mean 

log-transformed PAH concentrations varied with 

distance from the roadway, a one-way unbalanced 

ANOVA was performed for each uncensored PAH 

using S-Plus. The null hypothesis was that the mean 

natural-log transformed values statistically were 

the same for each distance category. The alternate 

hypothesis was that at least one of the means differed 

with distance. An alpha value of 0.05 was used for 

the test. The data from sample PAH-CE-19 were not 

included in the ANOVA.

Geospatial Analyses of Benzo(a)pyrene 

Concentrations

ArcMap Geostatistical Analyst, (Environmental 

Systems Research Institute, 2001b) was used to 

spatially evaluate variations in benzo(a)pyrene 

concentrations with land use and location. 

Benzo(a)pyrene was used because it typically is 

the compound of greatest concern. To obtain the 

spatial distribution of benzo(a)pyrene concentrations, 

the natural-log transformed data was kriged 

using geospatial statistics in the GIS. Kriging is a 

geostatistical method used to statistically predict 

values at unsampled location based on the theory 

that points closer together are more similar than 

those farther apart. Kriging compares the values at 

pairs of sampling points (called bins) and considers 

the distance the points are from each other. The 

distribution of the bins were fi t visually to a 

spherical spatial model using a semivariogram. A 

semivariogram graphs the variance in values with the 

distance that separates each pair of points. 

Statistical Analysis of Censored Polynuclear 

Aromatic Hydrocarbon Data

Concentrations of naphthalene, acenaphthylene, 

acenaphthene, fl uorene, and anthracene were 

below the detection limit in some of the samples 

(appendix 1) (table 3). Each of these compounds 

had multiple detection limits (the data are censored 

at multiple levels). Because concentrations for all of 

the samples are not known, assumptions about the 

presence of a normal or lognormal data distribution 

cannot be verifi ed for the censored PAH compounds, 

which is a requirement for the use of parametric 

analytical techniques. As a consequence, the 

censored data were analyzed using nonparametric 

techniques described in Helsel and Hirsch (1995), 

Helsel and Cohn (1988), and Cohn (1988). Censored 

data were analyzed statistically as follows: test for 

two independent samples from the same population, 

graphical exploratory techniques, calculation of 

limited descriptive statistics, graphical analysis 

of lognormal distribution, test for outliers, and 

calculation of the 95th percentile and geometric 

mean. As was the case for the uncensored data, 

results of duplicate samples were averaged.

Graphical Analysis

Boxplots of raw and natural-log transformed 

censored data were made using Data Desk (Data 

Description, Inc., 1996). For construction of the 

boxplots, the censored values were used to create 

the portions of the box below the median. However, 

during visual analysis of the boxes, the highest 

censoring level of each PAH was considered and the 

parts of the box below that highest censored value 

were ignored. Boxplots were drawn with and without 

the data from sample PAH-CE-19.
14 Concentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Inorganic Constituents in Ambient Surface Soils, 

Chicago, Illinois: 2001-02

Normal probability plots also were utilized 

during exploratory graphical analysis. Plotting 

positions for normal probability plots were calculated 

using a C program (Dave Lorenz, U.S. Geological 

Survey, written commun., 2002), which utilizes the 

methods outlined in Helsel and Cohn (1988). The 

program input is a specifi cally formatted ASCII fi le 

of the natural-log transformed data above and below 

the detection limit. The plotting positions output from 

the C program then were used in Data Desk (Data 

Description, Inc., 1996) to graph a scatterplot of the 

plotting positions with the natural-log transformed 

PAH concentrations. A regression line then was 

drawn for the scatterplot. Boxplots and normal 

probability plots were drawn with and without the 

data from sample PAH-CE-19.

Descriptive Statistics

Limited descriptive statistics for raw and 

natural-log transformed censored PAHs were 

calculated and estimated using robust methods 

described in Helsel and Hirsch (1995). Calculated 

statistics include: number of observations, number 

of censored values, range of censored values, 

maximum, median, 25th, 75th, and 95th percentile 

of the distribution, and geometric mean. The mean 

and standard deviations were estimated using 

robust log-probability regression based on plotting 

points for data censored at multiple levels using 

the methods outlined by Helsel and Cohn (1988) 

and Cohn (1988) and the C program (Dave Lorenz, 

U.S. Geological Survey, written commun, 2002). 

Another C program (Dave Lorenz, U.S. Geological 

Survey, written commun., 2002) that calculates an 

adjusted maximum-likelihood estimator following 

methods outlined by Helsel and Cohn (1988) and 

Cohn (1988) was used to estimate the median and 

quartiles. Descriptive statistics were performed with 

and without the data from sample PAH-CE-19.

Outlier Test

Outlier testing for the uncensored data set 

was performed using most of the same procedures 

as for the censored data. However, the 25th, 50th, 

and 75th percentiles for the censored data were 

estimated using a C program, which calculates an 

adjusted maximum-likelihood estimator following 

methods outlined by Helsel and Cohn (1988) and 

Cohn (1988). Estimates of the standard deviation 

were calculated by log-probability regression using 

a C program, which follows the methods outlined in 

Helsel and Cohn (1988), Cohn (1988), and Helsel 

and Hirsch (1995). 

Relation between Polynuclear Aromatic 

Hydrocarbon Concentrations and Land Use

Because of the high number of non-detects 

for some of the censored PAH compounds, simple 

linear regression of PAH concentrations with land 

use could not be performed for these constituents. 

The natural-log transformed concentrations of 

individual censored PAH compounds were compared 

for samples grouped by land-use category using 

multiple-population parametric and nonparametric 

statistical tests in a manner similar to the analysis 

of the uncensored data. Censored analytes were not 

analyzed with regard to distance from the roadway. 

Censored data in the distribution testing and multiplepopulation tests were treated by replacing each 

censored datum with its estimated value calculated 

using robust log-probability regression, following 

Helsel (1990), Helsel and Cohn (1988), and Akritas 

and others (1994). 

Correlation of Polynuclear Aromatic 

Hydrocarbon and Inorganic Concentrations

Pearson product-moment correlations (r values) 

were obtained from the natural-log transformed 

concentration of each of the PAH pairs as well as 

each of the PAHs and total organic carbon using 

Microsoft Excel. PAH samples below the detection 

limit were assigned a concentration value of 

1.39 μg/Kg, the natural log of 4 μg/Kg, which is 

1 μg/Kg lower than the lowest detection limit for 

any PAH. Correlations involving the PAHs were 

performed with and without the data from site 

PAH-CE-19. Pearson product-moment correlations 

also were obtained for every pair of inorganic 

constituents detected in more than 75 percent of 

the samples. Inorganic constituents below the 

detection limit were assigned a concentration value 
Analysis of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon Data 15

of two-thirds the detection limit. Results from 

site PAH-CE-19 were used for correlation of the 

inorganic constituents.

ANALYSIS OF POLYNUCLEAR 

AROMATIC HYDROCARBON DATA

The results of soil-quality sampling indicate that 

11 or more of the 16 PAH compounds were detected 

in each of the 57 soil samples collected (samples and 

duplicates are counted as one sample) (appendix 1). 

Of the 57 samples collected, 35 contained detectable 

concentrations of every PAH compound analyzed 

(table 3). Of the 22 samples in which 1 or more 

PAH compounds were not detected, naphthalene 

was the most frequent non-detect, followed by 

acenaphthylene, fl uorene and acenaphthene, and 

anthracene. 

Fluoranthene was the PAH detected 

at the highest concentration of all the PAH 

compounds in every sample except samples 

PAH-SS-10 and PAH-SS-11. The concentration 

of benzo(g,h,i)perylene was highest in 

sample PAH-SS-10 and second highest in 

sample PAH-SS-11. The concentration of 

indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene was highest in sample 

PAH-SS-11 and second highest concentration in 

sample PAH-SS-10. Pyrene was present at the 

second highest concentration of any PAH compound 

in 37 of the samples. Samples PAH-SS-10 and 

PAH-SS-11 were the only samples where the ratio 

of fl uoranthene to pyrene was less than one. Because 

the fl uoranthene/pyrene ratio is an indicator of the 

temperature at which the PAHs were generated 

(McCarthy and others, 2000), the low value of this 

ratio in samples PAH-SS-10 and PAH-SS-11 may 

indicate that the PAHs at these locations were derived 

from a different source, or combination of sources, 

than most of the remainder of the city. However, there 

are no obvious anomalies in location, land use, or the 

soil descriptions at these sites to indicate differences 

in the source(s).

After fl uoranthene and pyrene, PAH 

concentrations in a given sample, from highest 

to lowest, were roughly in the following 

order: benzo(b)fl uoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, 

phenanthrene, chrysene, benzo(a)anthracene, 

indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, benzo(k)fl uoranthene, 

benzo(g,h,i)perylene, anthracene, and 

dibenzo(a,h)anthracene. Naphthalene, acenaphthene, 

acenaphthylene, and fl uorene consistently were 

present at the lowest concentrations in each sample 

(appendix 1).

Boxplots and histograms of the concentrations 

of the individual PAH compounds showed that the 

majority of the samples were in the lower end of 

the concentration range, with a smaller number of 

samples in the higher end of the range, including a 

number of potential outliers (fi gs. 5a and 5b). This 

left-skewed distribution indicated that the PAH 

concentrations in these samples did not exhibit a 

normal distribution. Boxplots and histograms of the 

natural-log transformed concentration data typically 

displayed a more symmetrical distribution, indicating 

that the PAH compounds may exhibit a lognormal 

distribution (fi gs. 6a and 6b). One remaining potential 

outlier (sample PAH-CE-19) was identifi ed for each 

of the PAH compounds, except acenaphthylene, from 

the boxplots of the natural-log transformed data.

Analysis of the natural-log transformed 

concentration data for the uncensored PAH 

compounds indicated that the null hypothesis of a 

lognormal distribution could be accepted (p-value 

was greater than alpha level of 0.1) if the data from 

sample location PAH-CE-19 were excluded from the 

analysis (table 7). If the data from site PAH-CE-19 

were included in the analysis, the hypothesis of a 

lognormal distribution was rejected (p-value was 

less than or equal to alpha level of 0.1) for pyrene, 

benzo(b)fl uoranthene, benzo(k)fl uoranthene, 

dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, and 

indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene. Normal probability plots of 

natural-log transformed censored PAH data without 

sample PAH-CE-19 were similar visually to those 

of the natural-log transformed uncensored PAH 

data without this sample (fi gs. 7a and 7b). Based 

on the visual comparison, the censored natural-log 

transformed PAH data also had a normal, or nearly 

normal distribution.

Maximum-likelihood estimation and logprobability regression on the natural-log transformed 

concentration data for the censored PAH compounds 

were used to calculate the mean, standard deviation, 

25th percentile, median, and 75th percentile of the 

distribution for these compounds (table 8). Estimates 

of the values of these parameters varied with the 

method, but agreed within a factor of four in all 

cases, and typically agreed within a factor of two. 
16 Concentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Inorganic Constituents in Ambient Surface Soils, 

Chicago, Illinois: 2001-02

Figure 5. Boxplots of (A) uncensored and (B) censored polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations in ambient surface soils, Chicago, Illinois.
Analysis of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon Data 17 Figure 5. Boxplots of (A) uncensored and (B) censored polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations in ambient surface soils, Chicago, Illinois—Continued.
18 Concentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Inorganic Constituents in Ambient Surface Soils, 

Chicago, Illinois: 2001-02

Figure 6. Boxplots of natural-log transformed (A) uncensored and (B) censored polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations in ambient surface soils, Chicago, Illinois.
Analysis of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon Data 19 Figure 6. Boxplots of natural-log transformed (A) uncensored and (B) censored polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations in ambient surface soils, Chicago, Illinois—Continued.
20 Concentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Inorganic Constituents in Ambient Surface Soils, 

Chicago, Illinois: 2001-02

Figure 7. Normal probability plots of natural-log transformed (A) uncensored and (B) censored polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon 

concentrations in ambient surface soils, Chicago, Illinois.
Analysis of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon Data 21

Estimates of mean and standard deviation were 

obtained by use of the log-probability regression, and 

estimates of percentiles were obtained by use of the 

maximum-likelihood regression (Helsel and Hirsch, 

1995).

Outlier testing indicates that with the exception 

of acenaphthylene, concentrations of all of the 

PAHs in the sample from site PAH-CE-19 were fi ve 

or more standard deviations greater than the next 

highest concentration, indicating that the PAH data 

from sample PAH-CE-19 are a statistical outlier 

(Helsel and Hirsch, 1995) (table 9). Therefore, the 

results from site PAH-CE-19 were omitted from all 

statistical analyses of the PAH compounds, including 

kriging of the benzo(a)pyrene distribution. As a 

consequence, the distribution of the uncensored PAH 

compounds in the surface soils could be considered 

lognormal, and reliably described by parametric 

statistical analyses (table 10). 

The two-sided Wilcoxon-Rank-Sum test 

resulted in a p-value greater than the alpha value of 

0.05, indicating that the null hypothesis, that the data 

from the city of Chicago and Commonwealth Edison 

properties represented a similar population, was 

acceptable (table 11). As a consequence, combination 

of all of the data (excluding the outlier sample from 

site PAH-CE-19) into one dataset for analysis was 

acceptable.

The Pearson product moment correlation 

coeffi cients for the natural-log transformed 

concentrations of the PAH compounds were 0.70 

or greater (table 12), indicating a high degree of 

correlation. Naphthalene and acenaphthylene, the 

PAH compounds with the lowest molecular weights 

(table 13), were the only PAHs that did not show a 

correlation coeffi cient of 0.90 or higher with at least 

one other PAH. Naphthalene, the PAH compound 

with the lowest molecular weight (table 13), was the 

only PAH that did not show a correlation coeffi cient 

of 0.80 or higher with at least one other PAH. 

The Pearson product moment correlation 

coeffi cients showed a low degree of positive 

correlation between the natural-log transformed 

concentrations of PAHs and the natural-log 

Figure 7. Normal probability plots of natural-log transformed (A) uncensored and (B) censored polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon 

concentrations in ambient surface soils, Chicago, Illinois—Continued.
22 Concentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Inorganic Constituents in Ambient Surface Soils, 

Chicago, Illinois: 2001-02

transformed concentration of total organic carbon, 

with the value of the correlation coeffi cient typically 

about 0.50 (table 12). This positive correlation may 

indicate that the PAH compounds attach to organic 

matter in the soil. However, the low value of the 

correlation coeffi cient indicated that the organic 

carbon content of the soil does not have a substantial 

limiting effect on PAH concentrations.

As would be expected of PAH compounds 

that tend to show a high degree of correlation, the 

concentrations of the various PAH compounds in 

soils tended to show similar patterns (appendix 1). 

Samples with high concentrations of one compound 

tended to have high concentrations of all compounds. 

Samples with low concentrations of one compound 

tended to have low concentrations of all compounds.

The distribution of PAH compounds at 

concentrations below the detection limit showed 

similar patterns. In all samples in which anthracene 

was not detected, acenaphthylene, fl uorene, 

acenaphthene, and naphthalene also were not 

detected. In all samples in which fl uorene and 

acenaphthene were not detected, acenaphthylene 

and naphthalene also were not detected. Sampling 

locations in which fl uorene and acenaphthene were 

not detected are identical. In all samples in which 

acenaphthylene was not detected, naphthalene also 

was not detected. 

Although this 

interpretation is 

complicated by differences 

in the detection limit 

among compounds, the 

frequency of detection 

tended to increase as 

the molecular weight of 

the compound increased 

(fi g. 8). Naphthalene, the 

compound with the lowest 

frequency of detection, 

also has the lowest 

molecular weight of any 

PAH (128 grams per 

mole). Acenaphthylene 

(molecular weight 

154 grams per mole) 

had the second lowest 

frequency of detection. 

Acenaphthene, fl uorene, 

and anthracene, all with 

molecular weights below 180 grams per mole, also 

did not have a 100-percent detection frequency. 

Every PAH with a molecular weight of 202 grams per 

mole or higher, and phenanthrene with a molecular 

weight of 178 grams per mole, were detected in every 

sample analyzed.

Comparison of the PAH concentration and 

frequency of detection in ambient soils with PAH 

concentrations in the atmosphere over Chicago 

obtained from June through December 2000 

show large differences. Naphthalene, the PAH 

detected least frequently and at among the lowest 

concentrations in soil samples, was the PAH detected 

at the highest concentrations in ambient air, by 

at least a factor of four (Illinois Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2002) (table 14). Fluoranthene 

and pyrene, the predominant PAH compounds in 

Chicago soils, were detected at the fourth and fi fth 

highest concentrations, respectively, of the PAHs 

in the atmosphere. These results are consistent 

with air samples affected by various PAH sources 

within Chicago (Khalili and others, 1995), which 

typically show naphthalene present in the highest 

concentrations and substantially lower concentrations 

of fl uoranthene and pyrene in air (table 14). These 

sampling efforts did not distinguish between 

concentrations of PAHs in the vapor and in the 

particulate phase. 

Figure 8. Frequency of detections of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in ambient surface 

soils, Chicago, Illinois, plotted against molecular weight of compound.
Analysis of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon Data 23

The comparatively low correlation coeffi cient 

for the PAHs with low molecular weight, the 

frequency of detection of the PAH compounds 

in the soils, and the lack of correlation between 

the concentration of PAH compound in the 

atmosphere and in the ambient soils indicate that the 

concentration of PAH compounds in surface soils 

in the city of Chicago was affected by the physical 

properties of the compound. There are two aspects to 

this relation. First, the stability of a PAH compound 

in the soil environment increases with its molecular 

weight because of a decrease in its solubility in water 

and potential for volatilization and an increase in the 

potential to partition onto organic carbon and clay 

minerals (table 13). As a consequence, the tendency 

of a PAH to attach to particulate matter, and to 

stay attached to particulate matter, increases with 

increasing molecular weight. Second, the molecular 

weight of the PAH compound affects its phase in the 

atmosphere, through which the PAHs must travel 

from their sources to the ambient soil.

Although affected by temperature and particle 

size (Baek and others, 1991), PAHs with molecular 

weights equal to or less than that of phenanthrene 

(178 grams per mole) with a higher Henry’s Law 

constant (table 13) partition primarily to the gas 

phase in the atmosphere. As the molecular weight 

of the PAH increases, partitioning to the gas phase 

decreases and partitioning to the particulate phase 

increases (Dickhut and Gustafson, 1995; Yaffe and 

others, 2001). PAHs with a molecular weight of 

more than about 247 grams per mole are primarily 

bound to particulate matter in the atmosphere. In 

comparison to the particulate-bound PAHs with 

higher molecular weights, the gas-phase PAHs 

with low molecular weights tend to remain in 

the atmosphere because they are less effi ciently 

scavenged from the atmosphere by precipitation or 

particle settling. Higher molecular weight PAHs, 

therefore, are transported preferentially to the land 

surface where they can be incorporated into soils. 

The apparent effect of the phase of the PAH in the 

atmosphere on the presence of a PAH in ambient 

surface soils indicates that atmospheric settling of 

particulate matter is an important source of the PAH 

compounds in Chicago soils.

Concentrations of individual PAH compounds 

in ambient surface soils typically vary by at least 

three orders of magnitude across the city if the 

outlier sample is excluded (table 3). Data from sites 

PAH-SS-12 and PAH-CE-15 and 15D (fi g. 4) indicate 

that individual PAH concentrations can vary by more 

than an order of magnitude across a distance of about 

1,000 ft (appendix 1). Comparison of concentrations 

of the 16 PAH compounds at the 6 locations where 

duplicate samples were collected shows that PAH 

concentrations in the sample and its duplicate vary by 

less than a factor of 2 for 82 of the 96 analyses, vary 

by less than a factor of 3 for 90 of the 96 analyses, 

vary by less than a factor of 4 for 93 of the analysis, 

and vary by a factor of 7 or less in the remaining 

3 analyses (appendix 1). Eleven of the analyses 

that varied by more than a factor of two were from 

sample PAH-CE-15 and its duplicate. The generally 

good agreement between the PAH concentrations 

in the sample and its duplicate indicates that PAH 

concentrations in ambient surface soils typically do 

not vary substantially over distances of less than 

about 10 ft.

The variability of PAH concentrations in the 

soils across the entire city, over distances of about 

1,000 ft, and between samples and their duplicates 

indicates that PAH concentrations in ambient soils 

in Chicago are affected by site-specifi c factors. 

The apparent decrease in the variability of PAH 

concentrations with a decreasing scale of observation 

indicates that PAH concentrations in ambient soils 

also are affected by larger-scale processes.

The variability of PAH concentrations 

within the city is approximated by the distribution 

of benzo(a)pyrene, which showed a complex 

distribution (fi g. 9). Higher concentrations were 

detected in the area near Lake Michigan in the 

northern part of the city, in much of the western 

part of the city, and in various pockets in the 

southern part of the city. Lower concentrations were 

detected in much of the northwestern, south-central, 

southwestern, and far southern parts of the city. Areas 

of lower benzo(a)pyrene concentration corresponded 

to areas where one or more PAH compound was not 

detected.

Previous investigators have identifi ed an 

inverse correlation between concentrations of PAH 

compounds in surface soils and distance from a 

roadway (Bradley and others, 1994). Therefore, it 

was anticipated that proximity to a roadway may have 

been one of the site-specifi c factors affecting PAH 

concentrations in the city. However, linear regression 

of the concentrations of the uncensored PAHs and 

distance from the nearest roadway indicated no trend, 
24 Concentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Inorganic Constituents in Ambient Surface Soils, 

Chicago, Illinois: 2001-02

Figure 9. (A) Kriged concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene in ambient surface soils, Chicago, Illinois and (B) standard errors of 

predicted concentrations.
Analysis of Inorganic Data 25

with all coeffi cients of determination (R2) less than 

0.02. An analysis of variance did not indicate that 

mean concentrations of the uncensored PAHs differ 

in a statistically signifi cant manner with distance 

from the roadway (table 15). These analyses indicate 

either that distance from roadways does not have a 

substantial affect on PAH concentrations in ambient 

soils in the city of Chicago or that other factors, 

such as the amount of traffi c and the prevailing wind 

direction, need to be considered. 

Analysis was performed to determine if PAH 

concentrations are related to land use. Results of the 

multiple-population tests for comparing the naturallog transformed concentrations of individual PAH 

compounds indicate that there are no statistically 

signifi cant differences in the mean PAH concentration 

among land-use categories (tables 16 and 17). It 

should be cautioned that the unequal sample sizes or 

“lack of balance” in the statistical tests can result in 

low power, or diminished capability of the tests to 

correctly reject the null hypothesis that the means of 

the land-use categories are not statistically different 

when the null hypothesis is false. 

Linear regression of natural-log transformed 

PAH concentrations with the percent industrial 

land use within a 1-mi radius of the sampling 

location yields a t-statistic for the slope coeffi cient 

greater than two for each PAH. Linear regression 

of natural-log transformed PAH concentrations 

with percent industrial land use within a 0.5-mi 

radius of the sampling location yields a t-statistic 

for the slope coeffi cient greater than 2 for each 

PAH except dibenzo(a,h)anthracene. Regressions 

using percentages of transportation, commercial, 

vacant, and residential land use showed no relation. 

A t-statistic for the slope coeffi cient greater than 

2 indicates a statistically signifi cant direct linear 

relation between the amount of industrial land use 

in the area and the PAH concentration in the sample 

(Helsel and Hirsch, 1995) (table 18). The t-statistic 

for the slope coeffi cient was near two for each 

compound and the linear correlation coeffi cient 

between percent industrial land use and the PAH 

concentration is less than 0.10, indicating that this 

correlation (if present) is weak. Linear regression of 

natural-log transformed PAH concentrations with 

percent industrial land use within a 0.25-mi radius 

of the sampling location yielded a t-statistic for the 

slope coeffi cient less than 2 for each PAH. This 

result indicates no statistically signifi cant direct 

linear relation between the amount of industrial 

land use within 0.25 mi of the sample and the 

PAH concentration in the sample. Simple linear 

regressions of mean distance to industrial land use 

and concentrations of uncensored PAH compounds 

did not show a relation. These data are insuffi cient 

to determine if the apparent relation between PAH 

concentrations and percent industrial land use is 

because of industrial emissions, increased traffi c 

density in industrial areas, or some other source. 

ANALYSIS OF INORGANIC DATA

Surface soils in the city of Chicago are 

composed of a mixture of compounds, and 34 of the 

45 inorganic constituents were detected in more than 

75 percent of the samples collected. This frequency 

of detection allowed the arithmetic mean, standard 

deviation, and ranges for these analytes to be 

calculated (table 19). An additional 11 constituents 

were not quantifi able because all or many samples 

contained less than the lower limit of detection 

(LOD). Those elements, with their LOD, are silver 

(2 mg/Kg), gold (8 mg/Kg), beryllium (1 mg/Kg), 

bismuth (50 mg/Kg), cadmium (2 mg/Kg), europium 

(2 mg/Kg), holmium (4 mg/Kg), tin (50 mg/Kg), 

thallium (40 mg/Kg), uranium (100 mg/Kg), and 

ytterbium (1 mg/Kg).

The arithmetic mean of the concentration of 

the 34 inorganic analytes detected in more than 

75 percent of the samples of Chicago soils was 

compared with the arithmetic mean concentration 

of these analytes in 106 samples of A-horizon soils 

collected primarily from agricultural areas within 

500 kilometers of Chicago (Boerngen and Shacklette, 

1981). The mean concentration of arsenic, 

mercury, calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, copper, 

molybdenum, zinc, and selenium was from two to six 

times higher in Chicago soils, and concentrations of 

lead were about 20 times higher than in soils from the 

surrounding area (table 20).

Inter-element correlation coeffi cients for 

the inorganic analytes were calculated to provide 

additional insight into the sources of the inorganic 

constituents (table 21). The sets of elements 

showing strong mutual correlations can indicate 

causative factors for the observed concentrations and 

distribution of these elements.
26 Concentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Inorganic Constituents in Ambient Surface Soils, 

Chicago, Illinois: 2001-02

Concentrations of all of the major element 

compositions, except for sodium, and many of 

the trace elements showed trends consistent with 

naturally developed soils. Bedrock beneath and 

near Chicago is composed of dolomite (a calcium, 

magnesium carbonate) and shale, a rock composed 

largely of clays, which are alumino-silicate minerals 

often rich in aluminum and potassium. The high 

(r2

 greater than 0.98) Pearson product moment 

correlation coeffi cients among calcium, magnesium, 

and carbonate carbon refl ect the widespread 

distribution of dolomite in the soils. The lack of other 

highly correlated elements further suggests that the 

dolomite does not contain appreciable amounts of 

other trace elements. Likewise, high correlations 

(r2

 greater than 0.70) between aluminum and other 

clay-borne elements such as potassium and trace 

constituents expected in clays including barium, 

cerium, gallium, lanthanum, lithium, neodymium, 

scandium, titanium, vanadium, and yttrium 

demonstrate the extent the clays affect the soil 

composition.

Although the bulk of the compositional 

trends in Chicago soils are explainable by varying 

proportions of dolomite and shale, which likely are 

soil parent material, the elevated (in comparison 

to surrounding agricultural soils) concentrations 

of arsenic, copper, lead, mercury, molybdenum, 

nickel, phosphorus, selenium, and zinc indicate a 

potential anthropogenic source of these elements. 

Lead (concentration factor of 20.4), zinc (7.4), and 

mercury (4.5) especially are enriched relative to 

background soils and all seem likely to indicate 

substantial and widespread anthropogenic 

modifi cations to the trace-element character of the 

soils.

The high correlation between lead and zinc 

(r2

 = 0.91) suggests that the two elements have 

been added to soils largely from the same material 

or process rather than as independently distributed 

constituents. Mercury shows low correlation with 

all other constituents, including organic carbon 

(r2

 = 0.135). In many natural settings mercury 

and organic carbon are highly correlated so the 

lack of correlation in Chicago soils suggests an 

anthropogenic addition largely independent of 

natural processes.

Other correlations of possible signifi cance 

are among chromium, manganese, iron, and 

molybdenum. All four of these elements are major 

or trace constituents in various ferroalloys, which 

indicates that man-made steel products, or breakdown 

products from them, might be widely dispersed. The 

strong correlation among sulfur, organic carbon, 

and molybdenum also is noteworthy. In Chicago 

soils, sulfur primarily occurs in organic compounds 

in contrast to more typical occurrences as naturally 

occurring iron-sulfi de minerals. Conversely, the lack 

of strong correlation among sulfur and elements 

that typically concentrate in sulfi de minerals, such 

as copper, lead, zinc, nickel, and cobalt, further 

indicates that sulfi de minerals do not substantially 

affect the composition of Chicago soils.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation 

with the Chicago Department of Environment, 

assessed the concentration of polynuclear aromatic 

hydrocarbons (PAHs) and inorganic constituents in 

ambient surface soils within the city of Chicago. At 

least 11 of the 16 polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon 

constituents were detected in each of the 57 soil 

samples collected. The distribution of the uncensored 

PAH compounds in the surface soils can be 

considered log normal once the data from the outlier 

location were excluded from the analysis.

PAH concentrations, from highest to lowest, 

were typically in the following order: fl uoranthene, 

pyrene, benzo(b)fl uoranthene, phenanthrene, 

benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, benzo(a)anthracene, 

benzo(k)fl uoranthene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, 

benzo(g,h,i)perylene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, 

and anthracene. Naphthalene, acenaphthene, 

acenaphthylene, and fl uorene consistently were at the 

lowest concentrations in each sample. Concentrations 

of the PAH compounds were highly correlated, but 

did show some variation with the molecular weight of 

the compound. PAH compounds appear to be derived 

from similar combinations of sources, and most of 

the PAHs tend to behave similarly once released into 

the air, water, and soil.

Concentrations of individual PAH compounds 

in soils typically varied by at least 3 orders of 

magnitude for each compound across the city and 

varied by more than an order of magnitude over 

a distance of about 1,000 ft. Data from duplicate 
References Cited 27

samples indicate that PAH concentrations typically 

varied by less than a factor of two over a distance 

of a few feet. Variations in the concentrations of a 

given PAH in ambient surface soils may be affected 

by proximity to industrial areas. Variations in the 

concentrations of a given PAH in ambient surface 

soils did not appear to be affected by proximity to 

roadways or non-industrial land uses and did not 

appear to be strongly affected by the organic carbon 

content of the soil.

The concentration of the different PAH 

compounds in ambient surface soils appears to 

have been affected by the physical properties of 

the compound, which are affected by its molecular 

weight. Lower molecular-weight PAH compounds, 

which were in lower concentrations in the soils, 

were primarily in the vapor phase in the atmosphere. 

Higher molecular-weight PAH compounds, which 

often were in higher concentrations in the soils, were 

primarily in the particulate phase in the atmosphere. 

The apparent effect of the phase of the PAH in the 

atmosphere on the concentration of a PAH in ambient 

surface soils indicated that atmospheric settling of 

particulate matter is an important source of the PAH 

compounds in ambient Chicago soils.

The distribution of benzo(a)pyrene, which 

approximated the distribution of the remaining PAH 

compounds within the city, was complex. Elevated 

concentrations (greater than 4,084 micrograms per 

kilogram) were detected near Lake Michigan in the 

northern part of the city, in much of the western 

part of the city, and in isolated areas in the southern 

part of the city. Comparatively low concentrations 

(less than 419 micrograms per kilogram) were 

detected in much of the northwestern, south-central, 

southwestern, and far southern parts of the city.

Concentrations of various inorganic constituents 

in surface soils in the city of Chicago appeared to 

be affected by the natural development of the soils. 

The arithmetic mean concentration of arsenic, 

mercury, calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, copper, 

molybdenum, zinc, selenium were from 2 to 8 

times higher, and concentrations of lead were about 

20 times higher, than in typical soils from the 

surrounding area and may indicate an anthropogenic 

source for these analytes. Elevated concentrations 

of calcium and magnesium appeared to be related 

to the effects of dolomite bedrock on the chemical 

composition of the soil. 

REFERENCES CITED

Akritas, M.G., Ruscitti, T.F., and Patil, G.P., 1994, Statistical analysis of censored environmental data: In 

G.P. Patil and C.R. Rao (eds), Handbook of Statistics, 

vol. 12, Elsevier Science, p. 221-242.

Arbogast, Belinda F., ed., 1996, Analytical methods 

manual for the Mineral Resource Survey Program: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-525, 149 p.

Baek, S.O., Goldstone, M.E., Kirk, P.W.W., Lester, J.N., 

and Perry, R., 1991, Phase distribution and particle size 

dependency of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in 

the urban atmosphere: Chemosphere, v. 22, nos. 5-6, p. 

503-520.

Boerngen, J.G., and Shacklette, H.G., 1981, Chemical 

analysis of soils and other surficial materials of the 

contemporaneous United States: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 81-197, 79 p.

Bradley, L.J.N., Magee, B.H., and Allen, S.L., 1994, Background levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and 

selected metals in New England urban soils: Journal of 

Soil Contamination, v. 3, no. 4, p. 349-361.

Cohn, T.A., 1988, Adjusted maximum likelihood estimation of the moments of lognormal populations from type 

I censored samples: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 88-350, 34 p.

Data Description, Inc, 1996, Data Desk 6.0 (Windows): 

Data Description, Inc., Ithaca, New York: accessed 

July 3, 2002, at URL http://www.datadesk.com.

Dickhut, R.M., and Gustafson, K.E., 1995, Atmospheric 

washout of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the 

southern Chesapeake Bay region: Environmental 

Science and Technology, v. 29, p. 1518-1525.

Duwelius, R.K., Kay, R.T., and Prinos, S.T., 1996, 

Ground-water quality in the Calumet region of 

northwestern Indiana and northeastern Illinois: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 95-4244, 179 p.

Ecology and Environment, Inc., 1990, Special study report 

for U.S. Scrap: Prepared for the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Chicago, Illinois, variously paginated.

Ecology and Environment, Inc., 2001, Engineering evaluation and cost analysis Liquid Dynamics site: Prepared 

for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, 

Illinois, variously paginated.
28 Concentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Inorganic Constituents in Ambient Surface Soils, 

Chicago, Illinois: 2001-02

Environmental Systems Research Institute, 2001a, 

ArcInfo 8.1 with service pack 1 (Solaris: Operating 

System): Environmental Systems Research Institute, 

Redlands, California, accessed July 3, 2002, at URL 

http://www.esri.com.

Environmental Systems Research Institute, 2001b, 

ArcGIS 8.1 (build 649) with service pack 1 Geostatistical Analyst: Environmental Systems Research Institute, 

Redlands, California, accessed July 3, 2002, at URL 

http://www.esri.com.

Gilbert, R.O., 1987, Statistical methods for environmental 

pollution monitoring: Van Norstrand Rheinhold Co., 

New York, 320 p.

Harza Engineering, Inc., 1994, Limited phase 1 site 

characterization, Inland metals: Prepared for the Illinois 

Environmental Protection Agency, Springfield, Illinois, 

12 p.

Helsel, D.R., and T. Cohn, 1988, Estimation of the 

descriptive statistics for multiply censored water quality 

data: Water Resources Research, v. 24, no. 12, p. 1997- 

2004.

Helsel, D.R., 1990, Less than obvious. Statistical treatment 

of data below the detection limit: Environmental 

Science and Technology, v. 24, no. 12, p. 1766-1774.

Helsel, D.R., and Hirsch, R.M., 1995, Statistical methods in water resources, third printing: U.S. Geological 

Survey, Studies in Environmental Science 49, Reston, 

Virginia, 532 p.

HydroQual, Inc., 1985, Grand Calumet river wasteload 

allocation study: Report to the State Board of Helath, 

Indianapolis, Indiana, 198 p.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 1994, A summary of selected background conditions for inorganics 

in soil: Office of Chemical Safety, Springfield, Illinois, 

variously paginated.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 2002: Chicago 

O’Hare airport toxic air monitoring program, JuneDecember 2000, final report: Bureau of Air, Springfield, 

Illinois, variously paginated.

Illinois Pollution Control Board, 2002, Title 35 Illinois 

Administrative Code, Part 742. Tiered Approach to 

Corrective Action Objectives. February 5: accessed 

January 25, 2002, at URL http://www.ipcb.state.il.us.Ar

chive/dscgi/ds_py/Get/File-27495.

Kay, R.T., Greeman, T.K., Duwelius, R.F., King, R.B., 

Nazimek, J.E., and Petrovski, D.M., 1997, Characterization of fill deposits in the Calumet region of northwestern Indiana and northeastern Illinois: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4126, 

36 p.

Khalili, N.R., Scheff, P.A., and Holsen, T.M., 1995, PAH 

source fingerprints for coke ovens, diesel and gasoline 

engines, highway tunnels, and wood combustion 

emission: Atmospheric Environment, v. 29, no. 4, p. 

533-42.

MathSoft, 2000, S-Plus 2000 Professional edition for 

windows, release 3: MathSoft, Inc. 1988-2000, accessed 

June 17, 2002, at URL http://www.mathsoft.com/splus.

McCarthy, K.J., Emsbro-Mattingly, S.D., Stout, S., and 

Uhler, A.D., 2000, Identifying manufactured gas plant 

residues in industrial sediments: Soils, Sediment, and 

Groundwater, v. 4, no. 5, p. 21-25.

Microsoft Corporation, 2000, Microsoft Excel 2000 for 

windows: Microsoft Corporation, accessed July 3, 2002, 

at URL http://www.microsoft.com.

Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, 1994, 1990 

Land Use Inventory: Northeastern Illinois Planning 

Commission, ReGIS, Research Services, Chicago, 

Illinois, 1994, digital data.

SAS Institute, Inc., 1999, SAS for SunOS version 

8.00.00M0P122099: SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North 

Carolina, 577 p.

Scott, J.C., 1990, Computerized stratified random siteselection approaches for design of a ground-waterquality sampling network: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 90-4101, 109 p.

Simcik, M.F., Eisenreich, S.J., Liu, S., Lipiatou, E., 

Swackhammer, D.L., and Long, D.L., 1996, Atmospheric loading of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons to 

Lake Michigan as recorded in sediments: Environmental 

Science and Technology, v. 30, no. 10, p. 3039-3046.

Simcik, M.F., Zhang, H., Eisenreich, S.J., and Franz, T.P., 

1997, Urban contamination of Chicago/coastal Lake 

Michigan atmosphere by PCBs and PAHs during 

AERLOS: Environmental Science and Technology, 

v. 31, no. 7, p. 2141-2147.
References Cited 29

Sullivan, D.J., Stinson, T.W., Crawford, J.K., and 

Schmidt, A.J., 1998, Surface-water quality assessment 

of the upper Illinois river basin in Illinois, Indiana, 

and Wisconsin-pesticides and other synthetic organic 

compounds in water, sediment, and biota, 1975-1990: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 96-4135, 131 p.

Tetra Tech EM Inc., 2001, Quality assurance project plan 

for PAH background study, Chicago, Illinois: Prepared 

for the City of Chicago, Department of Environment, 

Chicago, Illinois, variously paginated.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1986, Draft environmental impact statement, Indiana Harbor confined disposal 

facility and maintenance dredging, Lake County, 

Indiana: Prepared for the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, 

Chicago District, 273 p.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2001, Supplemental 

environmental assessment for section 1135 ecosystem 

restoration at Indian Ridge Marsh, Chicago, Cook 

County, Illinois: Prepared for the Chicago Department 

of Environment, Chicago, Illinois, variously paginated.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994a, Test 

methods for evaluating solid waste, physical/chemical 

methods SW-846, 3rd Edition: Office of Solid Waste 

and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C., variously 

paginated.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994b, USEPA 

contract laboratory program national functional guidelines for organic data review: Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response, Washington, D.C., 

EPA 540/R-99/008, variously paginated.

Yaffe, D., Cohen, Y., Arey, J., and Grosovsky, A., 2001, 

Multimedia analysis of PAH and nitro-PAH daughter 

products in the Los Angeles basin: Risk Analysis, v. 21, 

no. 2, p. 275-294.

Tables 31

 Tables

Table 1 33

Table 1. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Tier 1 remediation objectives for polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in soils[na, not applicable]

Constituent

Remedial objective for residential soil Remedial objective for industrial or commercial soil

Exposure route-specific 

values for soils

Soil component of the 

ground-water ingestion 

exposure route values

Exposure route-specific values for soils Soil component of the ground-water ingestion 

exposure route values Industrial commercial Construction worker

Ingestion 

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Inhalation 

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Class I 

(milligrams 

per kilogram)

Class II 

(milligrams 

per kilogram)

Ingestion 

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Inhalation 

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Ingestion 

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Inhalation 

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Class I 

(milligrams 

per kilogram)

Class II 

(milligrams 

per kilogram)

Acenaphthene 4,700. na 570 2,900. 120,000. na 120,000 na 570 2,900Acenaphthylene na na na na na na na na na naAnthracene 23,000. na 12,000 59,000. 610,000. na 610,000 na 12,000 59,000Benzo(a)anthracene .9 na 2 8. 8. na 170 na 2 8Benzo(b)fluoranthene .9 na 5 25. 8. na 170 na 2 8Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9. na 49 250. 78. na 1,700 na 49 250Benzo(g,h,i)perylene na na na na na na na na na naBenzo(a)pyrene .09 na 8 82. .8 na 17 na 8 82Chrysene 88. na 160 800. 780. na 17,000 na 160 800Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene .09 na 2 7.6 .8 na 17 na 2 8Fluoranthene 3,100. na 4,300 21,000. 82,000. na 82,000 na 4,300 21,000Fluorene 3,100. na 560 2,800. 82,000. na 82,000 na 560 2,800Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene .9 na 14 69. 8. na 170 na 14 69Naphthalene 3,100. na 84 420. 82,000. na 82,000 na 84 420Phenanthrene na na na na na na na na na naPyrene 2,300. na 4,200 21,000.0 61,000. na 61,000 na 4,200 21,000
34 Concentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Inorganic Constituents in Ambient Surface Soils, 

Chicago, Illinois: 2001-02

Table 2. Soil-sampling site data collected during the investigation, Chicago, Illinois

[D, duplicate sample; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

Sample number 

(location shown 

in figure 4) Latitude Longitude

USGS site

identification number Land use at site

Distance from 

nearest

roadway 

(feet)

Date of 

sample 

collection

PAH-CE-1 42o00’35” 87o46’20” 420003508746201 Commercial 25 1/24/2002

PAH-CE-2 41o

58’46” 87o48’25” 415846087482501 Transportation 40 1/24/2002

PAH-CE-3 41o57’40” 87o42’41” 415740087424101 Commercial 61 1/24/2002

PAH-CE-4 41o

54’04” 87o38’18” 415404087381801 Commercial 190 1/24/2002

PAH-CE-4D 41o

54’04” 87o38’18” 415404087381802 Commercial 190 1/24/2002

PAH-CE-5 41o

53’16” 87o40’11” 415316087401101 Industrial 118 1/24/2002

PAH-CE-6 41o

51’07” 87o42’14” 415107087421401 Commercial 7 1/24/2002

PAH-CE-7 41o50’42” 87o37’31” 415042087373101 Industrial 74 1/24/2002

PAH-CE-8 41o

49’17” 87o36’38” 414917087363801 Residential 78 1/24/2002

PAH-CE-9 41o

47’43” 87o37’41” 414743087374101 Vacant or wetland 125 1/24/2002

PAH-CE-10 41o

43’24” 87o36’16” 414324087361601 Transportation 16 1/24/2002

PAH-CE-11 41o

44’57” 87o40’37” 414457087403701 Industrial 221 1/24/2002

PAH-CE-12 41o

45’18” 87o42’51” 414518087425101 Residential 37 1/24/2002

PAH-CE-13 41o

45’51” 87o44’12” 414551087441201 Industrial 626 1/24/2002

PAH-CE-14 41o

46’42” 87o44’26” 414642087442601 Commercial 41 1/24/2002

PAH-CE-15 41o

42’11” 87o39’13” 414211087391301 Industrial 140 1/25/2002

PAH-CE-15D 41o

42’11” 87o39’13” 414211087391302 Industrial 140 1/25/2002

PAH-CE-16 41o

42’49” 87o32’45” 414249087324501 Vacant or wetland 85 1/25/2002

PAH-CE-17 41o

42’15” 87o31’33” 414215087313301 Transportation 69 1/25/2002

PAH-CE-18 41o

44’42” 87o38’37” 414442087383701 Commercial 69 1/25/2002

PAH-CE-19 41o

46’52” 87o37’08” 414652087370801 Vacant or wetland 120 1/25/2002

PAH-SS-01 41o

55’57” 87o43’37” 415557087435701 Industrial 30 6/5/2001

PAH-SS-02 41o

55’15” 87o41’50” 415515087415001 Commercial 10 6/5/2001

PAH-SS-03 41o

54’33” 87o46’08” 415433087460801 Commercial 10 6/5/2001

PAH-SS-04 41o

56’20” 87o45’00” 415620087450001 Commercial 45 6/5/2001

PAH-SS-05 41o

55’25” 87o48’02” 415525087480201 Commercial 35 6/5/2001

PAH-SS-06 41o

56’42” 87o48’57” 415642087485701 Residential 1 6/5/2001

PAH-SS-07 41o

57’05” 87o48’26” 415705087482601 Commercial 45 6/5/2001

PAH-SS-08 41o

58’37” 87o50’12” 415837087501201 Residential 16 6/5/2001

PAH-SS-09 41o

59’31” 87o47’54” 415931087475401 Open space 22 6/5/2001

PAH-SS-10 41o

58’27” 87o45’59” 415827087455901 Commercial 32 6/5/2001

PAH-SS-11 41o

41’35” 87o42’03” 414135087420301 Commercial 30 6/5/2001

PAH-SS-12 41o

42’18” 87o39’24” 414218087392401 Transportation 25 6/5/2001

PAH-SS-13 41o

41’14” 87o37’18” 414114087371801 Commercial 20 6/5/2001

PAH-SS-14 41o

40’36” 87o31’21” 414036087312101 Residential 10 6/5/2001
Table 2 35

Table 2. Soil-sampling site data collected during the investigation, Chicago, Illinois—Continued

[D, duplicate sample; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

Sample number 

(location shown 

in figure 4) Latitude Longitude

USGS site

identification number Land use at site

Distance from 

nearest

roadway 

(feet)

Date of 

sample 

collection

PAH-SS-15 41o39’19” 87o35’50” 413919087355001 Commercial 50 6/5/2001

PAH-SS-16 41o

39’34” 87o32’55” 413934087325501 Vacant or wetland 10 6/5/2001

PAH-SS-17 41o40’58” 87o32’24” 414058087322401 Vacant or wetland 23 6/5/2001

PAH-SS-17D 41o

40’58” 87o32’24” 414058087322402 Vacant or wetland 23 6/5/2001

PAH-SS-18 41o

43’35” 87o33’00” 414335087330001 Vacant or wetland 10 6/5/2001

PAH-SS-19 41o

45’06” 87o34’38” 414506087343801 Commercial 20 6/5/2001

PAH-SS-20 41o

45’44” 87o33’50” 414544087335001 Residential 20 6/5/2001

PAH-SS-21 41o46’00” 87o36’20” 414600087362001 Commercial 10 6/5/2001

PAH-SS-21D 41o

46’00” 87o36’20” 414600087362002 Commercial 10 6/5/2001

PAH-SS-22 41o

45’07” 87o38’38” 414507087383801 Commercial 5 6/5/2001

PAH-SS-23 41o

46’43” 87o43’25” 414643087432501 Commercial 5 6/6/2001

PAH-SS-24 41o

46’55” 87o42’11” 414655087421101 Commercial 5 6/6/2001

PAH-SS-25 41o

47’06” 87o39’51” 414706087395101 Commercial 10 6/6/2001

PAH-SS-25D 41o

47’06” 87o39’51” 414706087395102 Commercial 10 6/6/2001

PAH-SS-26 41o

49’49” 87o40’24” 414949087402401 Commercial 5 6/6/2001

PAH-SS-27 41o

48’54” 87o42’09” 414854087420901 Commercial 20 6/6/2001

PAH-SS-28 41o

50’14” 87o43’41” 415014087434101 Residential 20 6/6/2001

PAH-SS-29 41o

52’06” 87o41’45” 415206087414501 Residential 20 6/6/2001

PAH-SS-30 41o

52’25” 87o42’50” 415225087425001 Institutional 10 6/6/2001

PAH-SS-31 41o

53’18” 87o42’23” 415318087422301 Institutional 10 6/6/2001

PAH-SS-32 41o

52’22” 87o45’20” 415222087452001 Transportation 10 6/6/2001

PAH-SS-33 41o

53’42” 87o44’54” 415342087445401 Commercial 10 6/6/2001

PAH-SS-33D 41o

53’42” 87o44’54” 415342087445402 Commercial 10 6/6/2001

PAH-SS-34 41o

59’42” 87o41’58” 415942087415801 Commercial 10 6/6/2001

PAH-SS-35 41o

59’47” 87o40’10” 415947087401001 Residential 50 6/6/2001

PAH-SS-36 41o

56’50” 87o38’58” 415650087385801 Institutional 10 6/6/2001

PAH-SS-37 41o

53’27” 87o37’48” 415327087374801 Transportation 20 1/25/2002

PAH-SS-38 41o

57’52” 87o45’28” 415752087452801 Commercial 10 1/25/2002
36 Concentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Inorganic Constituents in Ambient Surface Soils, 

Chicago, Illinois: 2001-02 Table 3. Summary of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon data in ambient surface soils, Chicago, Illinois [<, less than; na, not applicable]

Constituent

Number of 

samples 

collected

Number of 

detections

Percentage 

of samples 

with 

analyte 

detected

Range of detected 

concentrations 

including sample 

PAH-CE-19 

(micrograms per 

kilogram)

Range of detected 

concentrations 

without sample 

PAH-CE-19 

(micrograms per 

kilogram)

Number of 

samples

exceeding Tier 1 

remedial 

objectives for 

residential soil 

because of 

ingestion1

Number of 

samples

exceeding Tier 1 

remedial

objectives for 

industrial or 

commercial soil 

because of

ingestion1

Number of

samples exceeding Tier 1 

remedial 

objectives for 

construction 

workers because 

of ingestion1

Acenaphthene 57 51 89 <5-43,000 <5-1,500 0 0 0Acenaphthylene 57 43 75 <6-1,035 <6-1,035 na na naAnthracene 57 54 95 <7-120,000 <7-4,600 0 0 0Benzo(a)anthracene 57 57 100 26-370,000 26-16,000 27 5 1Benzo(b)fluoranthene 57 57 100 40-550,000 40-18,000 32 6 1Benzo(k)fluoranthene 57 57 100 36-280,000 36-10,000 3 1 0Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 57 57 100 24-290,000 24-8,100 na na naBenzo(a)pyrene 57 57 100 39-460,000 39-17,000 51 31 2Chrysene 57 57 100 31-350,000 31-15,000 1 0 0Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 57 57 100 8-41,000 8-1,600 38 7 1Fluoranthene 57 57 100 52-1,100,000 52-35,000 0 0 0Fluorene 57 51 89 <6-36,000 <6-2,000 0 0 0Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 57 57 100 31-370,000 31-9,900 22 3 1Naphthalene 57 35 61 <13-2,500 <13-700 0 0 0Phenanthrene 57 57 100 22-520,000 22-19,000 na na naPyrene 57 57 100 51-720,000 51-30,000 0 0 0

1 Illinois Pollution Control Board, 2002
Table 4 37

Table 4. Mean distance from sample locations to nearby major land-use categories, Chicago, Illinois

[--, no data]

Sample 

number 

(location 

shown in 

figure 4)

Mean

distance 

to unclassified 

land use

Mean

distance 

to residential 

land use

Mean 

distance 

to commercial 

land use

Mean 

distance 

to institutional 

land use

Mean

distance

to

industrial, 

warehousing, 

and 

wholesale 

land use

Mean 

distance 

to transportation, 

communication, and 

utilities 

land use

Mean

distance 

to agricultural land 

use

Mean 

distance 

to open 

space 

land use

Mean

distance 

to vacant 

or

wetland 

land use

Mean 

distance 

to water

(feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)

PAH-CE-1 -- 4,356 4,265 5,216 2,395 8,144 -- 4,936 6,384 --

PAH-CE-2 5,253 3,403 2,645 3,441 -- 1,970 -- 2,294 1,361 --

PAH-CE-3 -- 4,911 4,974 6,659 6,082 6,244 -- 5,373 6,979 5,111

PAH-CE-4 -- 4,967 5,055 4,288 4,737 4,944 -- 5,459 3,786 5,235

PAH-CE-5 -- 5,073 4,787 6,209 3,516 4,838 -- 4,939 3,947 --

PAH-CE-6 -- 3,767 3,531 3,957 4,944 4,428 -- 2,922 4,585 6,241

PAH-CE-7 -- 5,086 5,436 3,846 5,595 5,536 -- 5,017 5,503 6,224

PAH-CE-8 -- 4,727 4,621 4,601 6,503 5,926 -- 5,385 3,801 --

PAH-CE-9 -- 4,479 4,415 4,592 6,564 3,681 -- 4,572 3,907 --

PAH-CE-10 -- 4,973 5,277 4,041 5,024 5,901 -- 7,191 6,299 --

PAH-CE-11 9,308 4,924 4,597 4,531 3,720 3,549 -- 5,767 5,197 --

PAH-CE-12 10,330 5,321 5,448 7,313 2,457 3,294 -- 4,829 3,933 4,874

PAH-CE-13 4,376 4,523 4,736 2,909 2,531 2,102 -- 2,320 2,054 --

PAH-CE-14 11,084 9,809 9,386 10,373 10,686 5,856 -- 8,757 5,353 --

PAH-CE-15 10,271 5,054 4,971 5,196 6,916 5,514 -- 5,525 7,751 --

PAH-CE-16 -- 4,386 3,752 5,079 3,195 5,434 -- 5,964 6,269 2,825

PAH-CE-17 -- 2,963 1,882 3,162 1,260 1,939 -- 4,104 2,331 --

PAH-CE-18 -- 4,829 4,670 4,213 3,401 4,642 -- 4,908 4,800 --

PAH-CE-19 -- 5,081 4,985 5,618 2,469 3,748 -- 6,244 4,103 4,854

PAH-SS-01 -- 4,130 3,963 3,865 4,061 5,186 -- 3,497 5,280 --

PAH-SS-02 -- 4,772 5,106 5,193 6,193 5,571 -- 4,559 5,644 6,288

PAH-SS-03 4,951 3,904 4,059 4,690 3,946 3,012 -- 4,016 3,757 --

PAH-SS-04 -- 4,269 4,200 4,708 3,253 5,039 -- 4,270 3,086 --

PAH-SS-05 5,112 4,083 4,035 3,988 3,297 5,758 -- 4,542 3,632 --

PAH-SS-06 3,942 3,482 4,513 5,343 9,768 -- -- 7,798 5,695 9,734

PAH-SS-07 4,008 4,556 3,244 3,868 4,659 -- -- 4,504 5,144 --

PAH-SS-08 6,461 8,073 7,135 14,488 19,612 19,974 25,114 6,211 19,443 13,079

PAH-SS-09 12,046 6,017 5,384 4,158 3,059 4,909 -- 4,396 6,918 --

PAH-SS-10 6,691 4,678 3,765 4,720 4,678 4,054 -- 5,734 7,861 --
38 Concentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Inorganic Constituents in Ambient Surface Soils, 

Chicago, Illinois: 2001-02

Table 4. Mean distance from sample locations to nearby major land-use categories, Chicago, Illinois—Continued

[--, no data]

Sample 

number 

(location 

shown in 

figure 4)

Mean

distance 

to unclassified 

land use

Mean

distance 

to residential 

land use

Mean 

distance 

to commercial 

land use

Mean 

distance 

to institutional 

land use

Mean

distance

to

industrial, 

warehousing, 

and 

wholesale 

land use

Mean 

distance 

to transportation, 

communication, and 

utilities 

land use

Mean

distance 

to agricultural land 

use

Mean 

distance 

to open 

space 

land use

Mean

distance 

to vacant 

or

wetland 

land use

Mean 

distance 

to water

(feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)

PAH-SS-11 7,930 5,957 6,824 5,864 9,956 7,545 5,100 4,773 9,022 8,472

PAH-SS-12 9,651 5,263 6,921 4,228 4,723 3,305 -- 5,157 4,614 --

PAH-SS-13 -- 4,071 3,364 3,495 5,610 5,632 -- 7,401 7,434 9,507

PAH-SS-14 9,539 5,118 4,268 6,900 5,639 4,961 -- 4,125 6,320 7,822

PAH-SS-15 6,413 3,198 2,922 2,360 6,322 4,260 -- 3,128 5,162 6,367

PAH-SS-16 -- 3,092 3,149 1,965 4,905 4,658 -- 4,534 4,836 5,619

PAH-SS-17 -- 3,126 1,875 2,911 5,158 4,474 -- 3,609 5,864 6,788

PAH-SS-18 -- 4,660 3,464 3,910 5,408 4,188 -- 4,147 4,286 4,422

PAH-SS-19 -- 3,958 3,961 3,745 3,807 3,729 -- 4,842 4,620 --

PAH-SS-20 -- 3,460 3,179 3,261 7,256 6,708 -- 5,963 3,163 7,755

PAH-SS-21 -- 4,331 4,516 3,113 3,236 3,680 -- 7,257 4,838 7,231

PAH-SS-22 -- 4,080 3,679 4,115 3,914 4,162 -- 3,911 3,804 --

PAH-SS-23 -- 3,492 3,705 3,033 6,983 7,376 -- 3,410 1,243 --

PAH-SS-24 -- 3,738 3,586 5,390 6,296 5,196 -- 4,974 2,384 4,936

PAH-SS-25 -- 4,606 4,585 4,682 5,326 5,788 -- 4,556 4,311 --

PAH-SS-26 -- 4,776 5,471 5,451 5,491 4,644 -- 3,512 5,365 5,106

PAH-SS-27 -- 4,472 4,286 5,376 5,175 4,607 -- 6,033 6,008 6,165

PAH-SS-28 4,916 4,148 4,412 4,414 5,242 5,287 -- 4,592 5,995 5,768

PAH-SS-29 -- 4,666 4,839 4,706 3,737 5,070 -- 3,823 4,047 2,323

PAH-SS-30 -- 3,954 3,596 3,410 3,009 3,201 -- 3,723 3,457 --

PAH-SS-31 -- 4,316 4,518 3,347 3,486 3,529 -- 3,914 3,455 3,401

PAH-SS-32 4,696 4,580 4,329 3,628 4,288 3,680 -- 4,197 5,107 3,300

PAH-SS-33 -- 4,077 4,636 3,977 4,068 4,148 -- 4,630 4,471 --

PAH-SS-34 -- 5,083 4,959 5,919 7,734 4,692 -- 5,801 5,036 3,950

PAH-SS-35 -- 5,303 5,328 4,591 5,361 7,664 -- 6,556 4,915 4,792

PAH-SS-36 -- 5,728 5,115 5,708 7,533 5,392 -- 6,121 6,529 7,589

PAH-SS-37 -- 4,946 3,944 4,716 5,538 5,058 -- 5,559 4,974 3,570

PAH-SS-38 -- 4,175 3,898 6,574 4,395 3,785 -- 5,187 -- --
Table 5 39

Table 5. Percentages of major land-use categories around soil-sampling sites, Chicago, Illinois

Sample number

(location shown in

figure 4) Residential

Commercial 

and services Institutional

Industrial, 

warehousing, 

and wholesale

Transportation, 

communication, 

and utilities

Open 

space

Vacant or 

wetland

Agriculture Water

Unclassified 

(outside of city 

boundary)

Percent land use within a 0.25-mile radius (0.5-mile diameter) around the sampling site

PAH-CE-1 46.9 28.9 0 15.3 0 0 0 0 0 8.9PAH-CE-2 66.3 13.6 0 0 19.3 0 .8 0 0 0PAH-CE-3 71.2 26.3 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0PAH-CE-4 37.1 8.9 10 11.5 3.3 13.1 16.2 0 0 0PAH-CE-5 7.9 3.7 1.4 68.8 10.9 .2 7.0 0 0 0PAH-CE-6 59.4 30.7 5.6 1.0 0 0.9 2.4 0 0 0PAH-CE-7 19.6 11.4 14.9 22.0 6.8 3.8 21.5 0 0 0PAH-CE-8 60.5 10.3 7.2 3.1 .0 1.3 17.6 0 0 0PAH-CE-9 33.2 24.9 1.9 6.6 12.5 6.9 14.1 0 0 0PAH-CE-10 31.5 7.0 16.8 21.2 16.2 .7 6.6 0 0 0PAH-CE-11 45.2 15.5 0 16.0 14.5 8.8 0 0 0 0PAH-CE-12 59.9 0 0 21.6 16.9 0 1.6 0 0 0PAH-CE-13 0 0 0 48.0 33.6 0 18.4 0 0 0PAH-CE-14 48.4 26.2 .2 0 15.3 3.5 6.4 0 0 0PAH-CE-15 39.5 2.8 11.1 21.4 19.2 0 6.0 0 0 0PAH-CE-16 0 0.7 0 31.0 32.3 4.3 20.0 0 11.7 0PAH-CE-17 27.8 16.0 0 9.3 14.1 0 1.3 0 0 31.5PAH-CE-18 58.6 12.5 .6 25.5 0 1.0 1.8 0 0 0PAH-CE-19 44.0 8.7 4.8 10.5 25.3 0 6.7 0 0 0PAH-SS-01 47.4 15.2 .7 28.3 0 7.7 .7 0 0 0PAH-SS-02 61.4 28.6 6.3 2.1 0 1.5 0.1 0 0 0PAH-SS-03 77.1 14.7 3.6 1.6 0 3.0 0 0 0 0PAH-SS-04 63.9 21.6 10.6 2.6 .8 0 .5 0 0 0PAH-SS-05 62.7 25.5 4.9 4.5 0 1.9 .5 0 0 0PAH-SS-06 94.4 2.5 3.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0PAH-SS-07 59.7 15.1 11.6 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 13.1PAH-SS-08 80.7 9.7 5.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.7PAH-SS-09 68.9 15.5 10.8 2.5 0 2.3 0 0 0 0PAH-SS-10 54.7 14.5 3.3 6.5 21.0 0 0 0 0 0PAH-SS-11 76.1 20.7 3.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
40 Concentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Inorganic Constituents in Ambient Surface Soils, 

Chicago, Illinois: 2001-02

Table 5. Percentages of major land-use categories around soil-sampling sites, Chicago, Illinois—Continued

Sample number

(location shown in

figure 4) Residential

Commercial 

and services Institutional

Industrial, 

warehousing, 

and wholesale

Transportation, 

communication, 

and utilities

Open 

space

Vacant or 

wetland

Agriculture Water

Unclassified 

(outside of city 

boundary)

PAH-SS-12 31.7 10.2 14.5 16.6 17.8 0.4 8.8 0 0 0PAH-SS-13 52.5 41.2 5.1 0 0 .2 1.0 0 0 0PAH-SS-14 84.6 14.2 0 0 0 0 1.2 0 0 0PAH-SS-15 55.6 14.1 10.4 0 1.3 16.5 2.1 0 0 0PAH-SS-16 58.4 2.9 2.8 0 10.0 13.6 12.3 0 0 0PAH-SS-17 5.8 28.9 0 23.8 0 9.6 31.8 0 0 0PAH-SS-18 15.9 31.7 0.8 11.1 20.0 0 20.5 0 0 0PAH-SS-19 78.9 14.8 5.9 0 0 0 .4 0 0 0PAH-SS-20 82.5 11.5 2.4 1.0 0 0 2.6 0 0 0PAH-SS-21 28.2 11.4 28.8 8.3 17.1 0 2.8 0 3.4 0PAH-SS-22 60.4 26.8 8.0 0 1.3 0 3.5 0 0 0PAH-SS-23 66.6 31.1 1.8 0 0 0 .5 0 0 0PAH-SS-24 78.2 17.7 3.5 0 0 0 .6 0 0 0PAH-SS-25 60.7 24.0 4.5 1.4 0 2.4 7.0 0 0 0PAH-SS-26 60.8 26.1 1.8 3.3 0 .7 7.3 0 0 0

PAH-SS-27 54.8 28.6 4.3 12.3 0 0 0 0 0 0PAH-SS-28 78.4 5.3 2.5 .9 0 12.2 .7 0 0 0PAH-SS-29 36.6 7.1 5.7 15.5 4.7 9.7 20.7 0 0 0PAH-SS-30 42.5 14.6 10.8 12.2 11.0 5.1 3.8 0 0 0PAH-SS-31 43.1 4.2 16.8 15.1 1.7 8.1 11.0 0 0 0PAH-SS-32 43.2 12.8 7.9 11.9 21.9 0 2.3 0 0 0PAH-SS-33 66.3 23.7 2.8 6.3 0 0 .9 0 0 0PAH-SS-34 68.5 25.0 6.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0PAH-SS-35 66.6 25.0 6.0 0 0 1.1 1.3 0 0 0PAH-SS-36 63.7 23.2 10.4 0 2.4 0 .3 0 0 0PAH-SS-37 1.8 56.2 8.6 3.8 22.1 0.3 3.7 0 3.5 0PAH-SS-38 66.4 18.9 4.1 0 3.6 7.0 0 0 0 0
Table 5 41

Table 5. Percentages of major land-use categories around soil-sampling sites, Chicago, Illinois—Continued

Sample number

(location shown in

figure 4) Residential

Commercial 

and services Institutional

Industrial, 

warehousing, 

and wholesale

Transportation, 

communication, 

and utilities

Open 

space

Vacant or 

wetland

Agriculture Water

Unclassified 

(outside of city 

boundary)

Percent landuse within a 1/2-mile radius (1-mile diameter) around the sampling site

PAH-CE-1 48.4 9.3 1.9 19.5 0 1.2 0 0 0 19.8PAH-CE-2 71.5 10.0 4.5 0 9.6 3.9 .6 0 0 0PAH-CE-3 79.5 15.9 4.3 0 .3 0 .1 0 0 0PAH-CE-4 29.7 15.7 9.1 21.4 7.1 5.1 9.7 0 2.1 0PAH-CE-5 25.6 10.7 5.3 39.2 5.0 3.6 10.7 0 0 0PAH-CE-6 55.9 19.2 8.0 0.3 1.8 11.8 3.1 0 0 0PAH-CE-7 23.7 10.5 14.5 16.7 16.2 8.3 10.1 0 0 0PAH-CE-8 58.1 9.9 4.3 1.1 .9 8.4 17.5 0 0 0PAH-CE-9 47.2 12.5 4.6 1.9 14.4 4.2 15.2 0 0 0PAH-CE-10 45.2 6.3 20.9 12.8 7.9 2.3 4.6 0 0 0PAH-CE-11 53.5 12.4 6.4 8.9 10.1 8.1 0.7 0 0 0PAH-CE-12 57.9 3.8 4.1 18.7 13.2 1.0 1.2 0 0 0PAH-CE-13 8.4 2.1 2.4 44.2 27.8 1.7 13.4 0 0 0PAH-CE-14 48.9 14.0 1.6 9.0 20.1 2.1 4.4 0 0 0PAH-CE-15 63.3 5.1 5.8 7.7 9.7 4.0 4.4 0 0 0PAH-CE-16 20.7 2.8 0.7 26.5 17.7 2.7 17.3 0 11.6 0PAH-CE-17 33.5 8.3 .7 2.9 9.2 1.1 1.6 0 0 42.7PAH-CE-18 56.4 10.5 6.8 15.1 4.0 1.5 5.7 0 0 0PAH-CE-19 44.0 8.5 2.6 13.9 19.2 2.6 9.2 0 0 0PAH-SS-01 56.9 12.4 3.5 23.4 .9 2.7 .3 0 0 0PAH-SS-02 65.2 20.7 5.2 2.8 0.2 4.8 1.1 0 0 0PAH-SS-03 75.4 8.2 2.1 5.8 5.5 1.2 1.8 0 0 0PAH-SS-04 72.9 13.6 3.5 9.5 .2 0 .4 0 0 0PAH-SS-05 61.3 15.2 4.4 6.3 0 3.3 0.5 0 0 9.1PAH-SS-06 83.7 4.5 10.7 0 0 1.1 0 0 0 0PAH-SS-07 53.6 8.2 12.2 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 25.9PAH-SS-08 77.7 12.3 4.8 0 4.3 0 0 0 0 1.0PAH-SS-09 79.5 6.6 7.0 1.9 0 5.1 0 0 0 0PAH-SS-10 71.0 12.2 2.2 2.5 9.0 3.1 0 0 0 0PAH-SS-11 69.0 7.1 23.2 0 0 .7 0 0 0 0
42 Concentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Inorganic Constituents in Ambient Surface Soils, 

Chicago, Illinois: 2001-02

Table 5. Percentages of major land-use categories around soil-sampling sites, Chicago, Illinois—Continued

Sample number

(location shown in

figure 4) Residential

Commercial 

and services Institutional

Industrial, 

warehousing, 

and wholesale

Transportation, 

communication, 

and utilities

Open 

space

Vacant or 

wetland

Agriculture Water

Unclassified 

(outside of city 

boundary)

PAH-SS-12 65.9 4.7 5.6 7.7 10.0 1.3 4.9 0 0 0PAH-SS-13 61.2 24.6 6.2 0 0 7.2 .9 0 0 0PAH-SS-14 81.8 9.6 2.4 .4 1.7 1.1 2.6 0 .5 0PAH-SS-15 30.6 3.5 10.1 0 17.2 26.8 6.3 0 5.6 0PAH-SS-16 51.3 4.6 2.8 .5 23.2 6.2 11.4 0 0 0PAH-SS-17 15.9 9.7 4.1 32.6 6.0 5.4 26.2 0 0 0PAH-SS-18 34.9 14.3 3.4 14.5 14.3 1.3 12.3 0 5.0 0PAH-SS-19 71.1 8.6 5.5 2.9 7.0 3.1 1.8 0 0 0PAH-SS-20 65.1 11.1 2.0 .3 0 8.3 2.9 0 0 10.4PAH-SS-21 45.3 8.2 28.1 4.9 9.1 .7 1.7 0 1.9 0PAH-SS-22 66.0 13.1 3.5 4.2 4.2 1.5 7.6 0 0 0PAH-SS-23 77.1 15.2 3.1 0 0 4.4 .2 0 0 0PAH-SS-24 80.9 16.1 2.3 0 0 0 .7 0 0 0PAH-SS-25 69.4 17.2 4.4 .8 .8 1.0 6.4 0 0 0PAH-SS-26 55.4 12.8 2.2 15.5 2.4 7.3 4.4 0 0 0PAH-SS-27 60.7 15.8 4.6 18.7 0 0.2 0 0 0 0PAH-SS-28 60.4 5.7 2.1 19.5 5.8 4.8 1.8 0 0 0PAH-SS-29 35.8 6.2 7.4 16.6 7.5 12.0 13.0 0 1.6 0PAH-SS-30 45.6 11.2 7.7 11.3 7.6 2.5 14.1 0 0 0PAH-SS-31 44.0 4.9 5.9 20.9 4.8 7.4 12.3 0 0 0PAH-SS-32 44.2 5.8 6.2 24.4 16.6 1.5 1.4 0 0 0PAH-SS-33 60.2 11.0 4.0 19.9 4.0 0 .8 0 0 0PAH-SS-34 73.5 18.0 3.7 .3 0 4.3 .3 0 0 0PAH-SS-35 68.6 15.5 8.5 3.3 .1 2.4 1.6 0 0 0PAH-SS-36 58.7 22.7 4.4 .7 4.6 7.7 .7 0 0 .6PAH-SS-37 1.9 56.3 6.9 5.9 17.9 2.9 2.4 0 5.9 0PAH-SS-38 68.1 15.9 1.7 3.7 6.8 3.8 0 0 0 0

Percent landuse within a 1-mile radius (2-mile diameter) around the sampling site

PAH-CE-1 32.0 3.8 1.8 8.5 0 17.1 0.1 0 0 36.9PAH-CE-2 74.2 3.9 9.7 .5 4.2 2.5 .2 0 0 4.8
Table 5 43

Table 5. Percentages of major land-use categories around soil-sampling sites, Chicago, Illinois—Continued

Sample number

(location shown in

figure 4) Residential

Commercial 

and services Institutional

Industrial, 

warehousing, 

and wholesale

Transportation, 

communication, 

and utilities

Open 

space

Vacant or 

wetland

Agriculture Water

Unclassified 

(outside of city 

boundary)

PAH-CE-3 71.4 15.5 4.0 0.8 0.3 6.5 0.2 0 1.4 0PAH-CE-4 25.1 19.1 6.5 19.6 10.1 5.3 7.7 0 3.0 3.6PAH-CE-5 32.8 15.7 7.1 25.0 7.8 2.7 9.0 0 0 0PAH-CE-6 49.4 12.7 8.6 8.8 3.8 10.3 5.8 0 .6 0PAH-CE-7 23.6 13.5 10.1 11.3 20.2 7.5 9.5 0 .9 3.4PAH-CE-8 42.9 11.1 5.8 1.5 4.9 10.5 12.5 0 0 10.9PAH-CE-9 39.6 9.5 4.9 4.2 15.6 13.8 12.0 0 .5 0PAH-CE-10 52.2 3.7 10.8 14.5 9.2 3.9 5.8 0 0 0PAH-CE-11 53.9 8.5 4.1 8.3 9.6 12.8 2.8 0 0 0PAH-CE-12 55.5 7.0 7.4 11.1 9.6 5.4 3.5 0 .6 0PAH-CE-13 28.8 10.4 6.0 24.8 11.5 1.9 5.7 0 0 11.0PAH-CE-14 39.1 7.3 1.0 6.4 30.5 3.3 6.1 0 0 6.3PAH-CE-15 75.7 6.8 4.9 2.2 5.5 2.5 2.5 0 0 0PAH-CE-16 33.7 6.0 1.3 17.9 13.4 6.3 15.0 0 5.8 .6PAH-CE-17 30.3 3.5 1.4 4.3 4.5 5.9 1.5 0 .7 47.9PAH-CE-18 58.4 10.0 3.8 12.4 6.2 3.2 6.0 0 0 0PAH-CE-19 45.1 9.3 7.7 6.2 12.1 10.3 8.5 0 .9 0PAH-SS-01 68.2 12.0 3.3 12.2 1.3 2.4 .6 0 0 0PAH-SS-02 59.9 17.1 3.5 6.2 3.4 6.6 3.0 0 .4 0PAH-SS-03 65.7 9.0 3.3 9.1 3.1 4.5 1.8 0 0 3.4PAH-SS-04 72.7 13.0 3.7 7.4 0.5 2.6 0.3 0 0 0PAH-SS-05 49.8 12.7 2.2 8.7 0 2.8 1.1 0 0 22.7PAH-SS-06 67.0 5.0 13.7 0 0 1.8 .0 0 0 12.5PAH-SS-07 46.5 5.1 20.3 .3 0 1.0 2.8 0 0 24.0PAH-SS-08 56.4 10.3 2.8 0 4.7 17.4 .6 0 .1 7.8PAH-SS-09 62.8 6.3 16.8 1.5 3.5 8.2 0.2 0 0 0.8PAH-SS-10 69.4 10.2 2.8 5.5 5.0 6.9 .2 0 0 0PAH-SS-11 65.0 5.0 14.1 .1 0 7.6 1.2 2.6 .1 4.4PAH-SS-12 77.5 5.8 4.3 2.2 5.4 2.5 2.4 0 0 0PAH-SS-13 64.7 11.3 5.3 10.3 2.6 2.5 3.2 0 .2 0
44 Concentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Inorganic Constituents in Ambient Surface Soils, 

Chicago, Illinois: 2001-02

Table 5. Percentages of major land-use categories around soil-sampling sites, Chicago, Illinois—Continued

Sample number

(location shown in

figure 4) Residential

Commercial 

and services Institutional

Industrial, 

warehousing, 

and wholesale

Transportation, 

communication, 

and utilities

Open 

space

Vacant or 

wetland

Agriculture Water

Unclassified 

(outside of city 

boundary)

PAH-SS-14 59.3 8.8 2.4 9.9 11.6 2.6 4.6 0 0.9 0PAH-SS-15 14.7 1.5 3.5 13.5 39.5 13.2 6.6 0 7.5 0PAH-SS-16 24.0 2.2 .8 18.8 19.5 5.3 17.6 0 11.9 0PAH-SS-17 14.4 3.4 2.8 26.2 10.8 15.7 13.7 0 7.7 5.3PAH-SS-18 40.3 7.1 2.7 14.9 13.9 3.2 13.8 0 4.0 0PAH-SS-19 71.1 11.9 5.0 3.3 4.6 2.4 1.6 0 0 0PAH-SS-20 53.4 7.2 2.4 .5 .6 9.1 1.5 0 25.3 0PAH-SS-21 58.0 11.1 12.4 4.4 7.2 1.5 5.0 0 .5 0PAH-SS-22 61.1 10.6 4.1 12.6 3.0 3.5 5.1 0 0 0PAH-SS-23 77.1 9.7 2.4 1.1 2.5 4.7 2.4 0 0 0PAH-SS-24 77.5 9.4 3.4 0 1.2 7.0 0.4 0 1.1 0PAH-SS-25 61.6 10.6 4.6 4.6 1.4 8.3 8.9 0 0 0PAH-SS-26 22.3 8.2 1.2 40.3 10.7 5.1 8.3 0 4.0 0PAH-SS-27 40.1 9.4 1.7 34.1 12.4 1.0 1.4 0 0 0PAH-SS-28 34.0 7.1 1.3 31.9 13.0 1.2 4.0 0 2.1 5.3PAH-SS-29 35.6 11.8 6.9 14.2 10.1 9.2 11.5 0 0.6 0PAH-SS-30 43.3 8.9 5.7 9.0 5.8 12.9 13.0 0 1.3 0PAH-SS-31 43.2 8.0 4.6 15.1 7.4 11.7 9.3 0 .7 0PAH-SS-32 35.8 10.6 3.0 22.6 7.4 7.2 3.0 0 .3 10.2PAH-SS-33 55.0 8.8 3.6 20.0 6.2 1.8 4.5 0 0 0PAH-SS-34 56.7 13.9 10.3 1.6 0.6 8.8 1.8 0 1.1 5.3PAH-SS-35 56.3 10.2 16.4 2.9 .2 4.8 1.3 0 .2 7.7PAH-SS-36 47.2 14.5 8.7 .7 2.8 8.8 .8 0 0 16.6PAH-SS-37 11.0 36.0 5.6 7.5 15.8 8.5 7.5 0 4.0 4.1PAH-SS-38 67.3 13.1 2.8 5.7 7.5 3.5 .1 0 0 0
Table 6 45

Table 7. Shapiro-Wilk test statistic for normal distribution of natural-log-transformed polynuclear aromatic 

hydrocarbon data in ambient surface soils, Chicago, Illinois

[Alpha = 0.1. Null hypothesis (Ho) is that the distribution is lognormal.]

Shapiro-Wilk test statistic

Excluding sample PAH-CE-19 Including sample PAH-CE-19

Constituent

(natural-log transformed) Value p-value Conclusion Value p-value Conclusion

Phenanthrene 0.968 0.14 Fail to reject Ho 0.971 0.19 Fail to reject Ho

Fluoranthene .969 .16 Fail to reject Ho .967 .13 Fail to reject Ho

Pyrene .969 .16 Fail to reject Ho .962 .07 Reject Ho

Benzo(a)anthracene .973 .24 Fail to reject Ho .971 .18 Fail to reject Ho

Chrysene .977 .35 Fail to reject Ho .971 .19 Fail to reject Ho

Benzo(b)fluoranthene .976 .31 Fail to reject Ho .965 .10 Reject Ho

Benzo(k)fluoranthene .970 .17 Fail to reject Ho .961 .08 Reject Ho

Benzo(a)pyrene .977 .35 Fail to reject Ho .966 .11 Fail to reject Ho

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene .981 .50 Fail to reject Ho .937 .01 Reject Ho

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene .974 .26 Fail to reject Ho .931 .00 Reject Ho

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene .978 .40 Fail to reject Ho .939 .01 Reject Ho

Table 6. Number of soil-sampling sites near each major land-use category, Chicago, Illinois.

Land-use category

Residential

Commercial 

and

services Institutional

Industrial, 

warehousing

and

wholesale

Transportation,

communication, and

utilities

Open 

space

Vacant or 

wetland

Code 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 3000 4000

Number of samples in the 

category

9 26 3 5 5 2 6
46 Concentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Inorganic Constituents in Ambient Surface Soils, 

Chicago, Illinois: 2001-02

Table 8. Statistical summary of log-transformed polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon data for censored compounds in ambient 

surface soils, Chicago, Illinois

[Bold denotes retained estimates]

Constituent

(natural-log

transformed)

Number

of 

samples

Number 

less than 

detection 

limit

Number 

of

detection 

limits

Maximum 

detection 

limit Mean

Standard 

deviation

Value of 

25th

percentile Median

Value of 

75th

percentile

(micrograms per 

kilogram)

(micrograms per 

kilogram)

(micrograms per 

kilogram)

(micrograms per 

kilogram)

(micrograms per 

kilogram)

(micrograms per 

kilogram)

Estimates using log-probability regression of samples with concentrations greater than the detection limit

All Samples

Acenaphthene 57 7 5 3.05 4.24 1.86 2.41 4.44 5.63

Acenaphthylene 57 16 6 3.18 3.22 1.55 1.91 2.83 4.18

Anthracene 57 3 3 3.05 5.22 1.89 3.68 5.39 6.48

Fluorene 57 7 5 3.05 4.36 1.88 2.53 4.51 5.75

Naphthalene 57 22 7 3.18 3.56 1.44 2.42 3.00 4.54

Excluding Sample PAH-CE-19

Acenaphthene 56 7 5 3.05 4.14 1.65 2.45 4.44 5.52

Acenaphthylene 56 16 6 3.18 3.16 1.47 1.90 2.80 4.10

Anthracene 56 3 3 3.05 5.10 1.69 3.66 5.32 6.44

Fluorene 56 7 5 3.05 4.25 1.69 2.53 4.43 5.72

Naphthalene 56 22 7 3.18 3.51 1.30 2.46 2.97 4.49

Estimates using adjusted lognormal maximum likelihood regression of samples with concentrations above the detection limit

All Samples

Acenaphthene 57 7 5 3.05 4.26 2.32 2.66 4.44 5.63

Acenaphthylene 57 16 6 3.18 3.22 1.76 2.00 2.83 4.18

Anthracene 57 3 3 3.05 5.24 2.15 3.68 5.39 6.48

Fluorene 57 7 5 3.05 4.38 2.27 2.79 4.51 5.75

Naphthalene 57 22 7 3.18 3.51 1.65 2.35 3.18 4.54

Excluding Sample PAH-CE-19

Acenaphthene 56 7 5 3.05 4.15 2.17 2.64 4.44 5.52

Acenaphthylene 56 16 6 3.18 3.16 1.68 1.99 2.79 4.10

Anthracene 56 3 3 3.05 5.13 2.02 3.66 5.32 6.44

Fluorene 56 7 5 3.05 4.27 2.13 2.78 4.43 5.72

Naphthalene 56 22 7 3.18 3.44 1.54 2.36 3.14 4.49
Table 9 47

Table 9. Test for outliers in polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations in sample PAH-CE-19, Chicago, Illinois[%, percent; unk, unknown]

Constituent

Lowest 

value

(0%)

First 

quartile

(Q1)

(25%)

Median

(50%)

Third

quartile 

(Q3)

(75%)

Interquartile 

range

(IQR)

(Q3-Q1)

Value in

sample

PAH-CE-19

Next

highest 

value

below

PAH-CE-19

Standard 

deviation

1 Step

(1.5 * IQR)

Number of steps 

between Q3 and 

the value in

PAH-CE-19

Number of

standard

deviations

between

maximum value 

and the next 

highest value 

Phenanthrene 22 230 1,200 3,700 3,470 520,000 19,000 68,633 5,205 99 7Fluoranthene 52 495 2,100 7,100 6,605 1,100,000 35,000 145,200 9,907 110 7Pyrene 51 350 1,700 5,000 4,650 720,000 30,000 95,044 6,975 103 7Benzo(a)anthracene 26 210 880 2,700 2,490 370,000 16,000 48,825 3,735 98 7Chrysene 31 245 910 2,900 2,655 350,000 15,000 46,176 3,982 87 7Benzo(b)fluoranthene 40 350 1,100 3,700 3,350 550,000 18,000 72,593 5,025 109 7Benzo(k)fluoranthene 36 230 820 2,200 1,970 280,000 10,000 36,932 2,955 94 7Benzo(a)pyrene 39 270 1,000 3,200 2,930 460,000 17,000 60,710 4,395 104 7Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 8 70 140 290 220 41,000 1,600 5,404 330 123 7Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 24 190 490 1,200 1,010 290,000 8,100 38,298 1,515 191 7Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 31 220 610 1,500 1,280 370,000 9,900 48,861 1,920 192 7Naphthalene unk 8 26 94 86 2,500 700 350 128 19 5Acenaphthene unk 16 85 279 263 43,000 1,500 5,678 393 109 7Anthracene unk 40 220 655 616 120,000 4,600 15,848 923 129 7Fluorene unk 18 91 315 297 36,000 2,000 4,753 445 80 7
48 Concentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Inorganic Constituents in Ambient Surface Soils, 

Chicago, Illinois: 2001-02 Table 10. Statistical summary of natural-log transformed polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations in ambient surface soils, Chicago, Illinois [na, not applicable.] Constituent

(natural-log

transformed)

Number of 

samples 

collected1

Censored 

data

Mean

concentration

(micrograms per 

kilogram)

Standard 

deviation 

(micrograms per 

kilogram)

Median 

(micrograms 

per kilogram)

95th percentile 

of the

distribution 

(micrograms 

per kilogram)

Upper

95-percent 

confidence 

limit on the mean 

(micrograms per 

kilogram)

Lower

95-percent 

confidence limit 

on the mean 

(micrograms per 

kilogram)

Acenaphthene 56 yes 4.14 1.65 4.44 7.00 na naAcenaphthylene 56 yes 3.16 1.47 2.79 6.09 na naAnthracene 56 yes 5.10 1.69 5.32 7.84 na naBenzo(a)anthracene 56 no 6.58 1.65 6.75 9.12 7.03 6.14Benzo(b)fluoranthene 56 no 6.90 1.56 6.96 9.32 7.32 6.49Benzo(k)fluoranthene 56 no 6.52 1.51 6.64 8.97 6.92 6.11Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 56 no 6.19 1.34 6.13 8.75 6.55 5.83Benzo(a)pyrene 56 no 6.78 1.56 6.88 9.24 7.19 6.36Chrysene 56 no 6.65 1.59 6.78 9.08 7.08 6.23Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 56 no 5.03 1.16 4.94 7.00 5.34 4.72Fluoranthene 56 no 7.49 1.67 7.63 9.90 7.93 7.04Fluorene 56 yes 4.25 1.69 4.43 7.24 na naIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 56 no 6.41 1.37 6.39 8.87 6.77 6.04Naphthalene 56 yes 3.51 1.30 3.14 6.02 na naPhenanthrene 56 no 6.75 1.76 7.00 9.39 7.22 6.28Pyrene 56 no 7.14 1.61 7.41 9.39 7.57 6.71

1 Excludes data from sample PAH-CE-19
Table 11 49

Table 11. Results of Wilcoxon-Rank-Sum test comparing 

polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations in surface soils 

collected at city properties and Commonwealth Edison properties, 

Chicago, Illinois

[Value of detection limit used to compute rank for censored data. Data from site 

PAH-CE-19 excluded from analysis. Alpha = 0.05. Null hypothesis (Ho) is that city and 

Commonwealth Edison properties have the same mean value.]

Constituent

Rank sum 

normal 

statistic with

correction p-value Conclusion

Uncensored Data

Phenanthrene 1.26 0.207 Fail to reject Ho

Fluoranthene 1.09 .277 Fail to reject Ho

Pyrene 1.00 .317 Fail to reject Ho

Benzo(a)anthracene .98 .326 Fail to reject Ho

Chrysene 1.16 .247 Fail to reject Ho

Benzo(b)fluoranthene .75 .456 Fail to reject Ho

Benzo(k)fluoranthene .54 .593 Fail to reject Ho

Benzo(a)pyrene .90 .366 Fail to reject Ho

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 1.85 .064 Fail to reject Ho

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1.40 .160 Fail to reject Ho

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1.16 .247 Fail to reject Ho

Censored Data

Naphthalene 1.82 0.069 Fail to reject Ho

Acenaphthylene -.46 .648 Fail to reject Ho

Acenaphthene -.48 .629 Fail to reject Ho

Fluorene -.64 .522 Fail to reject Ho

Anthracene -.97 .335 Fail to reject Ho
50 Concentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Inorganic Constituents in Ambient Surface Soils, 

Chicago, Illinois: 2001-02 Table 12. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients for natural-log transformed concentrations of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons and total organic carbon in ambient surface soils, Chicago, Illinois [Italic denotes constituents with censored data. --, not applicable]

Constituent

Acenaphthene

Acenaphthylene

Anthracene

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Chrysene

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene

Fluoranthene

Fluorene

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

Naphthalene

Phenanthrene

Pyrene

Total organic carbon

Acenaphthene -- 0.79 0.97 0.93 0.92 0.92 0.86 0.92 0.92 0.81 0.94 0.98 0.88 0.73 0.95 0.94 0.48Acenaphthylene -- -- .83 .87 .87 .87 .84 .87 .86 .75 .85 .83 .86 .78 .83 .87 .49Anthracene -- -- -- .98 .97 .96 .92 .97 .98 .87 .98 .98 .94 .76 .99 .97 .52Benzo(a)anthracene -- -- -- -- .99 .99 .95 1.00 1.00 .89 1.00 .95 .97 .74 .99 .99 .55Benzo(b)fluoranthene -- -- -- -- -- .99 .95 1.00 .99 .89 .99 .94 .97 .74 .98 .98 .56Benzo(k)fluoranthene -- -- -- -- -- -- .94 .99 .98 .88 .98 .94 .96 .75 .97 .97 .57Benzo(g,h,i)perylene -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .96 .96 .95 .95 .88 .99 .72 .94 .95 .57Benzo(a)pyrene -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1.00 .90 .99 .94 .98 .74 .98 .99 .57Chrysene -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .90 .99 .94 .98 .73 .98 .99 .56Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .88 .82 .95 .70 .89 .88 .57Fluoranthene -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .95 .96 .72 .99 .99 .55Fluorene -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .90 .77 .96 .95 .48Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .73 .96 .96 .57Naphthalene -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .75 .75 .40Phenanthrene -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .99 .53Pyrene -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .54
Table 13 51

Table 13. Physical properties of select polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons

[°C, degrees Celsius]

Constituent

Molecular 

weight 

(grams per 

mole)

Solubility in 

water at 25°C 

(micrograms 

per liter)

Octonal-water 

partition coefficient 

(dimensionless)

Organic carbon 

partition coefficient 

(milliliters water per 

gram carbon)

Henry’s Law Constant 

(cubic meters 

atmosphere per 

mole)

Acenaphthene 154 3,930. 9,600 4,600 1.40E-04

Acenaphthylene 154 3,420. 5,300 2,500 1.45E-03

Anthracene 178 59. 14,000 28,000 5.87E-05

Benzo(a)anthracene 228 11. 410,000 200,000 3.01E-06

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 252 2.4 1,100,000 550,000 1.22E-05

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 252 2.4 1,150,000 550,000 7.48E-07

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 276 .3 3,200,000 1,600,000 1.44E-07

Benzo(a)pyrene 252 3.8 1,550,000 5,500,000 1.28E-09

Chrysene 228 1.9 410,000 200,000 8.45E-05

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 278 .4 6,900,000 3,300,000 1.33E-08

Fluoranthene 202 260. 79,000 38,000 1.45E-05

Fluorene 166 800. 15,000 7,300 5.74E-05

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 276 .5 3,200,000 1,600,000 6.95E-08

Naphthalene 128 12,500. 2,344 1,290 1.08E-03

Phenanthrene 178 435. 28,000 14,000 1.45E-04

Pyrene 202 133. 80,000 38,000 9.92E-06
52 Concentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Inorganic Constituents in Ambient Surface Soils, 

Chicago, Illinois: 2001-02

Table 15. Results of one-way analysis of variance of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations and 

distance from nearest roadway, Chicago, Illinois

[Alpha = 0.05. Null hypothesis (Ho) is that all means are equal.]

Constituent

(natural-log transformed) F value Probability of (F)1 Conclusion

Benzo(a)anthracene 0.31 0.93 Fail to reject Ho

Benzo(a)pyrene .29 .94 Fail to reject Ho

Benzo(b)fluoranthene .36 .90 Fail to reject Ho

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene .34 .91 Fail to reject Ho

Benzo(k)fluoranthene .32 .93 Fail to reject Ho

Chrysene .42 .86 Fail to reject Ho

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene .39 .88 Fail to reject Ho

Fluoranthene .31 .93 Fail to reject Ho

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene .56 .76 Fail to reject Ho

Phenanthrene .26 .95 Fail to reject Ho

Pyrene .43 .86 Fail to reject Ho

1

 Probability of observing an F value this large by chance alone. Probabilities less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant.

Table 14. Summary of average polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations in air samples, Chicago, Illinois

[bdl, below detection limit]

Constituent

ChicagoWashington 

School 1

(micrograms 

per cubic 

meter)

Coke ovens 2

(micrograms 

per cubic 

meter)

Warm diesel 

engines2

(microgram 

per cubic 

meter)

Highway 

tunnel2

(micrograms 

per cubic 

meter)

Gasoline

engines2

(micrograms per 

cubic meter)

Wood

combustion2

(micrograms per 

cubic meter)

Acenaphthene 12.8 0.023 0.566 0.168 0.0377 0.0515

Acenaphthylene 3.6 .747 .464 .445 .0708 1.83

Anthracene 1.5 .158 .251 .177 .0446 .0959

Benzo(a)anthracene 1. .0076 .249 .09 .0059 .0187

Benzo(b)fluoranthene .6 .0048 .137 .044 .033 .0234

Benzo(k)fluoranthene bdl .008 .098 .041 .0255 .0446

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene bdl .0007 .108 .017 .0092 bdl

Benzo(a)pyrene .1 .0053 .302 .063 .027 .203

Chrysene 1.2 .0147 .143 .078 .0283 .0328

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene bdl bdl .170 .015 bdl bdl

Fluoranthene 8.6 .0883 .081 .117 .0446 .0959

Fluorene 14.7 .502 .651 .406 .123 .128

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene bdl .0011 .250 .02 bdl bdl

Naphthalene 202.9 22.4 .386 8.03 2.46 .402

Phenanthrene 46.8 .5 .472 .3 .0398 .219

Pyrene 4.9 .0563 .049 .193 .0719 .100

1

 From Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 2002

2

 From Khalili and others, 1995
Table 16 53

Table 16. Statistical description of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in ambient soils for different land-use categories, Chicago, 

Illinois

[Bold denotes rejection of the assumption of normal distribution for the constituent. %, percent]

Constituent

(natural-log transformed) Mean

Standard 

deviation

Lowest 

value

(0%)

First

quartile

(25%)

Median

(50%)

Third

quartile

(75%)

Highest 

value

(100%)

ShapiroWilk test 

(p-value)

Vacant or Wetland (6 cases)

Phenanthrene 6.34 2.37 3.40 4.03 6.46 8.65 9.02 0.47

Fluoranthene 7.22 2.43 4.16 5.08 7.38 9.31 10.02 .45

Pyrene 6.74 2.20 4.09 4.61 6.87 8.67 9.31 .41

Benzo(a)anthracene 6.34 2.39 3.33 4.08 6.49 8.50 9.13 .53

Chrysene 6.45 2.28 3.58 4.37 6.53 8.61 9.08 .51

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 6.83 2.30 3.91 4.57 7.17 8.82 9.32 .35

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 6.49 2.23 3.78 4.06 6.96 8.19 8.97 .28

Benzo(a)pyrene 6.72 2.30 3.81 4.39 7.11 8.63 9.24 .36

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 4.95 1.58 2.30 4.23 5.08 6.25 6.72 .74

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 6.23 2.11 3.18 4.79 6.22 8.22 8.75 .88

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 6.38 2.09 3.43 4.87 6.40 8.32 8.87 .83

Transportation, Communication, and Utilities (5 cases)

Phenanthrene 5.69 2.33 3.09 4.87 5.08 6.02 9.39 0.54

Fluoranthene 6.42 2.04 4.30 5.44 6.02 6.59 9.74 .46

Pyrene 6.09 2.05 3.93 5.01 5.86 6.25 9.39 .52

Benzo(a)anthracene 5.62 1.99 3.40 4.70 5.35 5.89 8.76 .66

Chrysene 5.66 1.95 3.56 4.79 5.30 5.89 8.79 .56

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 5.94 1.79 3.91 5.01 5.77 6.29 8.70 .78

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 5.71 1.98 3.58 4.55 5.30 6.36 8.75 .77

Benzo(a)pyrene 5.84 1.91 3.71 4.87 5.52 6.31 8.79 .78

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 4.30 1.80 2.08 3.30 4.22 5.08 6.85 .99

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 5.38 1.88 3.18 4.60 4.87 6.06 8.19 .84

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 5.58 1.85 3.50 4.87 4.94 6.15 8.43 .66

Commercial (26 cases)

Phenanthrene 6.54 1.60 3.30 5.44 6.76 7.65 9.85 0.67

Fluoranthene 7.29 1.56 3.95 6.36 7.55 8.27 10.46 .76

Pyrene 6.99 1.49 4.48 6.06 7.27 7.86 10.31 .40

Benzo(a)anthracene 6.39 1.55 3.26 5.39 6.59 7.31 9.68 .89

Chrysene 6.47 1.46 3.43 5.52 6.71 7.31 9.62 .91

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 6.70 1.47 3.69 5.83 6.85 7.65 9.80 .95

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 6.29 1.40 3.58 5.39 6.53 7.17 9.21 .80

Benzo(a)pyrene 6.57 1.44 3.66 5.58 6.80 7.38 9.74 .90

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 4.94 .98 3.64 4.22 4.74 5.39 7.38 .01

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 6.07 1.10 4.61 5.30 6.02 6.36 9.00 .09

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 6.26 1.16 4.59 5.42 6.29 6.77 9.20 .36
54 Concentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Inorganic Constituents in Ambient Surface Soils, 

Chicago, Illinois: 2001-02

Table 16. Statistical description of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in ambient soils for different land-use categories, Chicago, 

Illinois—Continued

[Bold denotes rejection of the assumption of normal distribution for the constituent. %, percent]

Constituent

(natural-log transformed) Mean

Standard 

deviation

Lowest 

value

(0%)

First

quartile

(25%)

Median

(50%)

Third

quartile

(75%)

Highest 

value

(100%)

ShapiroWilk test 

(p-value)

Industrial, Warehousing, and Wholesale (5 cases)

Phenanthrene 7.15 1.28 5.19 6.55 7.65 8.10 8.27 0.34

Fluoranthene 7.91 1.14 6.13 7.44 8.40 8.70 8.87 .28

Pyrene 7.55 1.14 6.06 6.72 7.74 8.56 8.68 .48

Benzo(a)anthracene 7.00 1.17 5.35 6.40 7.09 8.07 8.10 .49

Chrysene 7.04 1.10 5.39 6.58 7.17 7.97 8.07 .52

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7.37 1.01 5.86 6.91 7.63 8.13 8.34 .57

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 6.95 1.13 5.44 6.11 7.33 7.90 7.97 .31

Benzo(a)pyrene 7.18 1.08 5.60 6.63 7.41 8.07 8.19 .51

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 5.07 1.01 3.30 5.25 5.39 5.56 5.83 .03

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 6.35 1.02 4.70 6.02 6.84 7.09 7.09 .12

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 6.59 0.98 5.08 6.15 7.04 7.31 7.38 .21

Residential (9 cases)

Phenanthrene 7.33 1.77 4.87 5.48 7.60 8.67 9.68 0.40

Fluoranthene 8.03 1.61 5.70 6.48 8.37 9.39 9.90 .33

Pyrene 7.65 1.63 5.52 5.86 8.24 8.73 9.74 .22

Benzo(a)anthracene 7.10 1.64 4.94 5.35 7.44 8.54 9.12 .24

Chrysene 7.14 1.64 5.08 5.39 7.44 8.67 9.31 .27

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7.38 1.61 5.25 5.91 7.55 8.88 9.55 .47

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 6.91 1.52 4.61 5.67 7.17 8.29 9.11 .82

Benzo(a)pyrene 7.24 1.60 5.08 5.67 7.50 8.73 9.39 .45

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 5.28 1.21 3.33 4.44 5.30 6.23 7.00 .82

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 6.52 1.51 4.79 5.14 6.59 7.60 8.84 .41

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 6.81 1.54 4.87 5.39 6.82 8.37 9.00 .37
Table 17 55

Table 17. Results of analysis of variance of uncensored polynuclear aromatic 

hydrocarbon concentrations in ambient soil by land use, Chicago, Illinois

[Alpha = 0.05. Null hypothesis (Ho) is that mean concentrations are not significantly different among 

land-use categories.]

Constituent

(natural-log

transformed) F value Probability1 Conclusion

Benzo(a)anthracene 0.92 0.49 Fail to reject Ho

Benzo(a)pyrene .94 .48 Fail to reject Ho

Benzo(b)fluoranthene .93 .48 Fail to reject Ho

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene .66 .68 Fail to reject Ho

Benzo(k)fluoranthene .81 .57 Fail to reject Ho

Chrysene .92 .49 Fail to reject Ho

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene .85 .54 Fail to reject Ho

Fluoranthene 1.01 .43 Fail to reject Ho

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene .69 .66 Fail to reject Ho

Phenanthrene 1.01 .43 Fail to reject Ho

Pyrene 1.12 .37 Fail to reject Ho

1

 Probability of observing an F value this large by chance alone. Probabilities less than 

0.05 are considered statistically significant. 

Table 18. Regression of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations in 

surface soils and percent industrial land use within a 1-mile radius of the sample, 

Chicago, Illinois.

Constituent

(natural-log

transformed)

T-ratio of 

slope

coefficient p-value Correlation coefficient

Phenanthrene 2.01 0.049 0.070

Fluoranthene 2.27 .027 .087

Pyrene 2.33 .023 .092

Benzo(a)anthracene 2.41 .019 .097

Chrysene 2.32 .024 .091

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 2.34 .023 .092

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 2.38 .021 .095

Benzo(a)pyrene 2.43 .019 .098

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 2.11 .040 .076

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 2.22 .030 .084

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 2.24 .030 .085
56 Concentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Inorganic Constituents in Ambient Surface Soils, 

Chicago, Illinois: 2001-02

Table 19. Summary of data on inorganic constituents in ambient surface soils, Chicago, Illinois

[<, less than; nc, not calculated]

Constituent

Number

of 

samples 

collected

Number of

detections

Percentage 

of samples 

with analyte 

detected

Arithmetic 

mean

Standard 

deviation

Range of

detected

concentrations

Aluminum (weight percent) 57 57 100 4.8 1.7 0.775-7.45 

Arsenic (milligrams per kilogram) 57 47 82 19.5 31.8 <10-220 

Barium (milligrams per kilogram) 57 57 100 427.2 126. 100-697 

Beryllium (milligrams per kilogram) 57 49 86 nc nc <1-14 

Bismuth (milligrams per kilogram) 57 1 2 nc nc <50-57 

Cadmium (milligrams per kilogram) 57 18 32 nc nc <2-7

Calcium (weight percent) 57 57 100 4.1 3.4 0.61-16.4 

Cerium (milligrams per kilogram) 57 55 96 47.4 21.8 6-104 

Chromium (milligrams per kilogram) 57 57 100 71.2 49.6 8-363 

Cobalt (milligrams per kilogram) 57 57 100 11.1 3.7 4-26 

Copper (milligrams per kilogram) 57 57 100 150.5 373.7 9-2,780 

Europium (milligrams per kilogram) 57 1 2 nc nc <2-3 

Gallium (milligrams per kilogram) 57 54 95 13.9 4.3 5-23 

Gold (milligrams per kilogram) 57 0 0 nc nc <8 

Holmium (milligrams per kilogram) 57 0 0 nc nc <4 

Iron (weight percent) 57 57 100 3.3 2.1 0.56-14.5 

Lanthanum (milligrams per kilogram) 57 57 100 25.7 9.3 6.5-52 

Lead (milligrams per kilogram) 57 57 100 395. 494.2 13-1,910 

Lithium (milligrams per kilogram) 57 57 100 31.3 14.3 5-67 

Magnesium (weight percent) 57 57 100 2.5 2.2 0.504-11.3 

Manganese (milligrams per kilogram) 57 57 100 583.4 511. 158-3,670 

Mercury (milligrams per kilogram) 57 56 98 .6 1.9 <0.02-13.1

Molybdenum (milligrams per kilogram) 57 52 91 5.7 3.7 <2-17 

Neodymium (milligrams per kilogram) 57 51 89 24.8 7.7 <9-49 

Nickel (milligrams per kilogram) 57 57 100 36.4 23.5 5-154 

Niobium (milligrams per kilogram) 57 56 98 9.7 3.3 <4-23 

Phosphorus (weight percent) 57 57 100 .1 .1 0.01-.28 

Potassium (weight percent) 57 57 100 1.8 .6 0.33-2.86 

Scandium (milligrams per kilogram) 57 55 96 8.6 3.3 3-18 

Selenium (milligrams per kilogram) 57 55 96 1. .6 <0.2-3.1 

Silver (milligrams per kilogram) 57 0 0 nc nc <2 

Sodium (weight percent) 57 57 100 0.5 0.2 0.0825-8.05 

Strontium (milligrams per kilogram) 57 57 100 113.6 31.5 66-299 

Sulfur (weight percent) 57 57 100 .1 .1 0.05-0.63

Tantalum (milligrams per kilogram) 57 0 0 nc nc <40 

Thorium (milligrams per kilogram) 57 44 77 9. 1.7 6-13 

Tin (milligrams per kilogram) 57 4 7 nc nc <50-248 

Titanium (weight percent) 57 57 100 .2 .1 0.045-3.83 

Uranium (milligrams per kilogram) 57 0 0 nc nc <100 

Vanadium (milligrams per kilogram) 57 57 100 76.5 26.9 24-145 

Ytterbium (milligrams per kilogram) 57 48 84 nc nc <1-3 

Yttrium (milligrams per kilogram) 57 57 100 15.8 5.2 6-38 

Zinc (milligrams per kilogram) 57 57 100 396.6 410.8 79-1,690 

Carbonate carbon (weight percent) 57 57 100 1.9 2.3 0.04-11.15

Organic carbon (weight percent) 57 57 100 5.7 3.9 0.22-22.31
Table 20 57

Table 20. Comparison of arithmetic mean concentrations of select inorganic 

constituents in ambient surface soils, Chicago, Illinois with mean concentrations from surrounding agricultural soils

[Bold denotes analytes concentrated by a factor of two or more; mg/Kg, milligrams per kilogram]

Constituent

Arithmetic 

mean

concentration 

in 57 Chicago 

soil samples

Arithmetic 

mean

concentration

in 106 soil 

samples 

collected 

within 500 

kilometers of 

Chicago

Concentration 

factor in

Chicago soils 

relative to 

soils within 

500 kilometers 

of Chicago

Aluminum (weight percent) 4.8 4.86 0.99

Arsenic (mg/Kg) 19.5 6.56 2.97

Barium (mg/Kg) 427.3 499.3 .86

Beryllium (mg/Kg) 2.2 1.2 1.83

Calcium (weight percent) 4.06 .82 4.95

Total Carbon (weight percent) 7.61 2.55 2.98

Chromium (mg/Kg) 71.2 44.1 1.61

Cobalt (mg/Kg) 11. 8.51 1.29

Copper (mg/Kg) 150.5 18.4 8.18

Gallium (mg/Kg) 13.9 12.8 1.09

Iron (weight percent) 3.3 1.85 1.78

Lanthanum (mg/Kg) 25.7 36.2 .71

Lead (mg/Kg) 395.3 19.4 20.38

Lithium (mg/Kg) 31.3 19.74 1.59

Magnesium (weight percent) 2.47 .4 6.18

Manganese (mg/Kg) 583.4 460.4 1.27

Mercury (mg/Kg) .64 .14 4.57

Molybdenum (mg/Kg) 5.74 2.46 2.33

Nickel (mg/Kg) 36.44 15.95 2.28

Phosphorus (weight percent) .086 .043 2.00

Potassium (weight percent) 1.75 1.56 1.12

Scandium (mg/Kg) 8.6 8.2 1.05

Selenium (mg/Kg) 1. .46 2.17

Sodium (weight percent) .52 .73 .71

Strontium (mg/Kg) 113.6 122.1 .93

Thorium (mg/Kg) 9. 8.2 1.10

Titanium (weight percent) .22 .27 .81

Vanadium (mg/Kg) 76.5 61.1 1.25

Yttrium (mg/Kg) 15.8 20.8 .76

Zinc (mg/Kg) 396.68 53.57 7.40
58 Concentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Inorganic Constituents in Ambient Surface Soils, 

Chicago, Illinois: 2001-02

Table 21. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients for selected inorganic constituents in ambient surface soils, Chicago, 

Illinois

[Positive coefficients greater than 0.70 in bold] ALUMINUM ARSENIC

BARIUM

CALCIUM

CARBONATE CARBON

ORGANIC CARBON

CERIUM

CHROMIUM

COBALT

COPPER

GALLIUM

IRON

LANTHANUM

LEAD

LITHIUM

MAGNESIUM

ALUMINUM 1.00

ARSENIC -.13 1.00

BARIUM .71 .13 1.00

CALCIUM -.73 .07 -.71 1.00

CARBONATE

CARBON -.75 .07 -.73 .99 1.00

ORGANIC

CARBON .02 .19 .13 -.17 -.26 1.00

CERIUM .94 -.17 .69 -.62 -.62 -.14 1.00

CHROMIUM .25 .16 .33 -.15 -.24 .29 .27 1.00

COBALT .75 .14 .66 -.44 -.50 .39 .72 .34 1.00

COPPER -.07 .17 .12 .08 .05 .21 -.05 .13 .11 1.00

GALLIUM .92 -.07 .72 -.62 -.65 .08 .89 .30 .79 .02 1.00

IRON .29 .22 .39 -.28 -.35 .68 .20 .57 .62 .21 .37 1.00

LANTHANUM .96 -.14 .71 -.64 -.65 -.05 .98 .30 .76 -.08 .90 .25 1.00

LEAD -.22 .46 .33 .12 .07 .42 -.19 .29 .25 .51 -.01 .48 -.18 1.00

LITHIUM .93 -.13 .62 -.52 -.55 .03 .91 .30 .80 -.03 .91 .30 .92 -.13 1.00

MAGNESIUM -.70 .05 -.71 .98 1.00 -.28 -.57 -.23 -.47 .07 -.59 -.35 -.60 .06 -.49 1.00

MANGANESE .17 -.04 .18 -.11 -.19 .21 .21 .93 .20 .05 .17 .53 .23 .11 .18 -.19

MERCURY .00 .13 .14 .14 .14 .03 .02 .10 .20 .10 .06 .06 .05 .29 .10 .14

MOLYBDENUM .21 .31 .34 -.11 -.22 .66 .10 .75 .57 .34 .26 .79 .19 .51 .27 -.22

NICKEL .27 .18 .44 -.12 -.19 .39 .28 .47 .53 .78 .39 .55 .29 .61 .37 -.16

PHOSPHOROUS .41 .08 .55 -.30 -.35 .30 .51 .47 .61 .26 .57 .53 .50 .44 .49 -.32

POTASSIUM .88 -.22 .55 -.68 -.67 -.27 .83 .11 .47 -.13 .80 .01 .80 -.39 .81 -.61

SCANDIUM .96 -.08 .67 -.61 -.64 .15 .91 .29 .86 -.01 .91 .39 .94 -.10 .95 -.59

SELENIUM .29 .24 .48 -.26 -.31 .57 .32 .41 .66 .24 .48 .65 .32 .60 .36 -.30

SODIUM .49 -.02 .58 -.74 -.74 -.04 .45 .04 .21 -.06 .44 .14 .44 -.09 .25 -.73

SULFUR -.06 .22 .11 -.04 -.13 .90 -.25 .26 .36 .17 -.03 .68 -.15 .46 -.06 -.16

STRONTIUM .29 .17 .46 -.21 -.29 .39 .32 .33 .58 .11 .36 .42 .36 .40 .35 -.31

THORIUM .22 .12 .28 -.39 -.35 -.12 .17 -.17 .13 -.23 .06 -.15 .22 -.17 .14 -.38

TITANIUM .95 -.10 .71 -.68 -.70 .14 .89 .30 .78 .00 .87 .40 .94 -.12 .87 -.66

VANADIUM .89 -.02 .66 -.56 -.61 .27 .83 .55 .86 .01 .85 .60 .88 .01 .88 -.57

YTTRIUM .83 .01 .66 -.48 -.54 .30 .81 .35 .91 .05 .81 .53 .87 .07 .84 -.50

ZINC -.19 .46 .32 .16 .09 .52 -.18 .30 .32 .54 .00 .49 -.14 .91 -.08 .08
Table 21 59

Table 21. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients for selected inorganic constituents in ambient surface soils, Chicago, 

Illinois–Continued

[Positive coefficients greater than 0.70 in bold] MANGANESE MERCURY

MOLYBDENUM

NICKEL

PHOSPHOROUS

POTASSIUM

SCANDIUM

SELENIUM

SODIUM

SULFUR

STRONTIUM

THORIUM

TITANIUM

VANADIUM

YTTRIUM

ZINC

ALUMINUM

ARSENIC

BARIUM

CALCIUM

CARBONATE

CARBON

ORGANIC

CARBON

CERIUM

CHROMIUM

COBALT

COPPER

GALLIUM

IRON

LANTHANUM

LEAD

LITHIUM

MAGNESIUM

MANGANESE 1.00

MERCURY -.03 1.00

MOLYBDENUM .62 .12 1.00

NICKEL .31 .16 .65 1.00

PHOSPHOROUS .37 .28 .42 .60 1.00

POTASSIUM .07 -.06 -.06 .07 .20 1.00

SCANDIUM .17 .08 .34 .39 .49 .78 1.00

SELENIUM .28 .20 .57 .56 .70 .02 .40 1.00

SODIUM .08 -.15 -.09 -.03 .22 .49 .32 .12 1.00

SULFUR .17 .04 .74 .33 .13 -.34 .08 .46 -.14 1.00

STRONTIUM .22 .23 .48 .43 .59 -.02 .41 .56 .22 .35 1.00

THORIUM -.20 .05 -.10 -.14 -.10 .19 .16 -.09 .24 -.12 .19 1.00

TITANIUM .20 .01 .30 .36 .43 .74 .94 .33 .42 .06 .33 .15 1.00

VANADIUM .45 .08 .55 .47 .56 .64 .93 .49 .26 .22 .43 .10 .90 1.00

YTTRIUM .24 .16 .47 .47 .60 .51 .92 .52 .27 .24 .61 .14 .89 .92 1.00

ZINC .11 .37 .59 .68 .43 -.41 -.04 .57 -.15 .56 .50 -.11 -.06 .07 .16 1.00

Appendix 1 61

Appendix 1. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in

 ambient surface soils, Chicago, Illinois.
62 Concentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Inorganic Constituents in Ambient Surface Soils, 

Chicago, Illinois: 2001-02

Appendix 1. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in ambient surface soils, Chicago, Illinois

[μg/Kg, micrograms per kilogram; 15 U, constituent not detected and detection limit; J, estimated; D, duplicate sample]

Sample 

Number

Constituent

Naphthalene

(μg/Kg)

Acenaphthylene

(μg/Kg)

Acenaphthene

(μg/Kg)

Fluorene

(μg/Kg)

Phenanthrene

(μg/Kg)

Anthracene

(μg/Kg)

Fluoranthene

(μg/Kg)

Pyrene

(μg/Kg)

PAH-SS-01 15 UJ 9 UJ 44 49 700 150 1,700 830 J

PAH-SS-02 14 U 6 UJ 9 11 200 38 580 240 J

PAH-SS-03 15 U 7 J 93 77 1,000 220 2,100 1,300 J

PAH-SS-04 14 U 14 J 57 53 900 140 2,000 1,700 J

PAH-SS-05 13 U 6 J 37 36 690 97 1,600 1,200 J

PAH-SS-06 160 340 370 400 8,100 1,000 20,000 12,000

PAH-SS-07 14 U 7 U 7 UJ 8 UJ 83 14 J 130 100 J

PAH-SS-08 15 U 7 U 14 J 10 J 190 37 480 290 J

PAH-SS-09 15 J 23 450 680 5,900 1,300 7,800 4,400 J

PAH-SS-10 14 U 7 U 6 U 7 U 27 7 U 52 88 J

PAH-SS-11 14 U 6 U 5 U 7 U 33 8 J 81 98 J

PAH-SS-12 14 U 6 U 8 J 11 J 130 28 230 150 J

PAH-SS-13 30 62 320 260 4,600 890 8,400 4,100

PAH-SS-14 41 440 110 330 5,800 680 12,000 6,200 J

PAH-SS-15 16 U 7 U 8 J 8 J 130 25 340 220 J

PAH-SS-16 14 U 6 U 5 U 7 U 56 11 J 160 100

PAH-SS-17 290 970 520 990 11,000 3,200 26,000 13,000

PAH-SS-17D 240 1,100 74 460 5,600 1,900 19,000 9,200

PAH-SS-18 15 U 77 640 420 5,700 980 11,000 5,800

PAH-SS-19 13 U 6 U 5 U 6 U 84 14 J 220 110

PAH-SS-20 13 UJ 7 J 7 J 7 J 130 22 300 250

PAH-SS-21 19 J 21 8 J 12 J 210 39 460 430

PAH-SS-21D 19 J 26 10 J 16 J 250 53 530 430

PAH-SS-22 350 J 480 1,500 2,000 19,000 4,600 35,000 30,000

PAH-SS-23 15 J 28 39 46 820 150 2,000 1,600

PAH-SS-24 58 J 390 98 310 3,700 540 7,200 5,500

PAH-SS-25 14 UJ 10 J 12 J 12 J 220 39 570 490

PAH-SS-25D 14 UJ 11 J 17 J 18 J 280 48 650 560

PAH-SS-26 17 J 16 J 41 43 670 120 1,300 1,000

PAH-SS-27 90 J 130 220 210 3,500 620 8,400 7,000

PAH-SS-28 40 J 51 140 130 2,000 380 4,300 3,800

PAH-SS-29 78 J 35 380 390 4,000 620 5,300 4,500

PAH-SS-30 65 J 37 190 170 1,800 400 3,600 2,900

PAH-SS-31 290 J 74 330 340 4,500 1,000 6,000 5,000

PAH-SS-32 610 J 100 1,100 1,400 12,000 2,500 17,000 12,000

PAH-SS-33 36 J 39 150 170 1,900 390 3,200 2,700
Appendix 1 63

Appendix 1. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in ambient surface soils, Chicago, Illinois—Continued

[μg/Kg, micrograms per kilogram; 15 U, constituent not detected and detection limit; J, estimated; D, duplicate sample]

Sample 

Number

Constituent

Benzo(a)-

anthracene

(μg/Kg)

Chrysene

(μg/Kg)

Benzo(b)-

fluoranthene

(μg/Kg)

Benzo(k)-

fluoranthene

(μg/Kg)

Benzo(a)-

pyrene

(μg/Kg)

Dibenzo-

(a,h)anthracene

(μg/Kg)

Benzo-

(g,h,i)-

perylene

(μg/Kg)

Indeno-

(1,2,3-cd)-

pyrene

(μg/Kg)

PAH-SS-01 600 720 1,000 450 760 190 410 470 

PAH-SS-02 200 250 340 220 260 93 200 210 

PAH-SS-03 720 800 920 650 850 140 430 500 

PAH-SS-04 740 910 1,100 900 1,000 150 490 610 

PAH-SS-05 510 650 760 530 680 110 360 430 

PAH-SS-06 9,100 11,000 14,000 9,000 12,000 770 6,900 8,100 

PAH-SS-07 47 54 100 53 81 68 120 110 

PAH-SS-08 180 220 260 220 250 96 170 200 

PAH-SS-09 2,700 2,900 3,000 2,200 3,000 290 1,000 1,300 

PAH-SS-10 26 31 40 36 39 62 110 98 

PAH-SS-11 43 61 63 59 66 62 100 110 

PAH-SS-12 110 120 150 95 130 68 130 140 

PAH-SS-13 3,400 3,500 4,000 1,900 3,700 640 1,300 1,500 

PAH-SS-14 5,100 5,800 7,200 4,400 6,200 510 2,000 4,300 

PAH-SS-15 160 180 240 140 200 82 160 170 

PAH-SS-16 59 79 97 58 81 69 120 130 

PAH-SS-17 10,000 9,300 13,000 7,100 11,000 870 7,100 8,100 

PAH-SS-17D 8,400 8,200 9,400 8,600 9,700 780 5,500 6,100 

PAH-SS-18 4,900 5,500 6,800 3,600 5,600 520 3,700 4,100 

PAH-SS-19 77 99 99 70 95 70 130 140 

PAH-SS-20 140 160 190 100 160 28 120 130 

PAH-SS-21 210 230 300 170 250 44 180 210 

PAH-SS-21D 230 260 330 190 280 52 200 240 

PAH-SS-22 16,000 15,000 18,000 10,000 17,000 1,600 8,100 9,900 

PAH-SS-23 880 980 970 1,000 1,000 110 490 620 

PAH-SS-24 2,500 2,600 3,700 2,000 3,000 290 1,500 1,800 

PAH-SS-25 240 280 340 210 280 59 210 250 

PAH-SS-25D 280 330 380 270 340 70 230 280 

PAH-SS-26 550 540 530 340 570 71 280 370 

PAH-SS-27 3,800 4,200 5,700 2,900 4,200 760 3,200 3,800 

PAH-SS-28 2,000 1,900 2,600 1,300 2,100 280 920 1,100 

PAH-SS-29 1,700 1,700 1,900 1,300 1,800 200 730 920 

PAH-SS-30 1,700 1,600 1,600 1,500 1,600 280 640 830 

PAH-SS-31 2,400 2,500 3,000 1,700 2,400 370 930 1,200 

PAH-SS-32 6,400 6,600 6,000 6,300 6,600 940 3,600 4,600 

PAH-SS-33 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,400 1,400 220 570 700 
64 Concentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Inorganic Constituents in Ambient Surface Soils, 

Chicago, Illinois: 2001-02

Appendix 1. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in ambient surface soils, Chicago, Illinois—Continued

[μg/Kg, micrograms per kilogram; 15 U, constituent not detected and detection limit; J, estimated; D, duplicate sample]

Sample 

Number

Constituent

Naphthalene

(μg/Kg)

Acenaphthylene

(μg/Kg)

Acenaphthene

(μg/Kg)

Fluorene

(μg/Kg)

Phenanthrene

(μg/Kg)

Anthracene

(μg/Kg)

Fluoranthene

(μg/Kg)

Pyrene

(μg/Kg)

PAH-SS-33D 50 J 48 130 150 1,700 340 3,000 2,500

PAH-SS-34 50 J 17 J 190 180 2,100 380 3,900 3,100

PAH-SS-35 700 J 300 1,200 1,500 16,000 3,000 20,000 17,000

PAH-SS-36 190 J 250 510 630 8,200 1,400 16,000 12,000

PAH-SS-37 68 54 210 210 2,200 470 4,700 2,000

PAH-SS-38 24 UJ 24 UJ 33 40 430 84 990 500

PAH-CE-1 21 UJ 21 UJ 17 J 18 J 330 48 880 610

PAH-CE-2 18 U 18 U 18 U 18 U 22 18 UJ 74 51

PAH-CE-3 110 8 J 46 52 620 120 1,100 840

PAH-CE-4 20 13 J 170 170 2,100 300 3,500 2,600

PAH-CE-4D 14 J 9 J 100 110 1,400 200 3,100 1,800

PAH-CE-5 97 72 140 180 2,100 510 6,000 5,200

PAH-CE-6 50 17 J 84 91 1,200 190 1,800 1,800

PAH-CE-7 410 50 260 320 3,900 680 7,100 5,900

PAH-CE-8 20 7 J 110 120 1,200 290 2,300 1,500

PAH-CE-9 21 U 21 U 21 U 21 U 30 21 U 64 60

PAH-CE-10 21 UJ 7 J 9 J 9 J 160 29 410 350

PAH-CE-11 18 UJ 18 U 9 J 9 J 180 28 460 430

PAH-CE-12 14 J 13 J 36 31 240 49 650 350

PAH-CE-13 51 69 85 110 1,500 260 5,700 2,800

PAH-CE-14 110 55 110 130 1,700 260 3,400, 2,100

PAH-CE-15 180 J 17 J 920 J 950 J 5,100 980 J 6,200 3,400

PAH-CE-15D 38 11 J 250 220 1,500 280 2,700 1,200

PAH-CE-16 84 14 J 9 J 13 J 270 41 450 330

PAH-CE-17 98 20 17 J 17 J 410 53 730 520

PAH-CE-18 86 40 310 290 3,600 770 8,600 6,000

PAH-CE-19 2,500 1,000 43,000 36,000 520,000 120,000 1,100,000 720,000 J
Appendix 1 65

Appendix 1. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in ambient surface soils, Chicago, Illinois—Continued

[μg/Kg, micrograms per kilogram; 15 U, constituent not detected and detection limit; J, estimated; D, duplicate sample]

Sample 

Number

Constituent

Benzo(a)-

anthracene

(μg/Kg)

Chrysene

(μg/Kg)

Benzo(b)-

fluoranthene

(μg/Kg)

Benzo(k)-

fluoranthene

(μg/Kg)

Benzo(a)-

pyrene

(μg/Kg)

Dibenzo-

(a,h)anthracene

(μg/Kg)

Benzo-

(g,h,i)-

perylene

(μg/Kg)

Indeno-

(1,2,3-cd)-

pyrene

(μg/Kg)

PAH-SS-33D 1,300 1,300 1,700 950 1,400 220 540 700 

PAH-SS-34 1,500 1,600 2,100 720 1,600 220 920 1,200 

PAH-SS-35 8,100 7,800 9,000 4,000 7,500 1,100 4,100 5,000 

PAH-SS-36 6,100 6,400 8,500 3,900 6,600 1,100 4,000 5,200 

PAH-SS-37 1,800 J 1,500 2,600 1,300 1,700 130 570 870 J

PAH-SS-38 300 J 310 440 J 490 490 140 220 360 J 

PAH-CE-1 320 380 480 330 410 38 200 270 

PAH-CE-2 30 35 50 36 41 8 J 24 33 

PAH-CE-3 430 430 550 410 480 48 200 260 

PAH-CE-4 1,400 1,400 1,800 1,400 1,600 120 560 790 

PAH-CE-4D 1,000 1,000 1,300 950 J 1,200 130 J 560 770 

PAH-CE-5 3,200 2,900 3,400 2,900 3,600 260 J 1,200 1,500 

PAH-CE-6 880 850 1,200 820 950 120 580 700 

PAH-CE-7 3,300 3,200 4,200 2,700 3,200 340 J 1,200 1,600 

PAH-CE-8 830 730 830 620 780 78 290 410 

PAH-CE-9 28 36 50 44 45 10 J 24 31 

PAH-CE-10 210 200 320 200 250 27 99 130 

PAH-CE-11 210 220 350 230 270 27 110 160 

PAH-CE-12 210 J 200 370 J 290 290 85 130 220 J 

PAH-CE-13 1,800 J 1,800 3,900 2,900 3,500 200 820 J 1,200 

PAH-CE-14 1,300 J 1,300 2,100 1,800 1,600 200 390 580 J

PAH-CE-15 1,600 J 1,800 J 2,600 2,100 2,100 220 J 1,300 J 1,500 J 

PAH-CE-15D 810 J 790 1,500 J 960 1,200 220 560 780 J

PAH-CE-16 240 J 260 430 J 380 430 130 310 300 J 

PAH-CE-17 360 J 360 540 J 580 550 160 430 470 

PAH-CE-18 4,100 3,700 4,000 3,200 4,100 980 2,100 3,100 

PAH-CE-19 370,000 350,000 J 550,000 280,000 460,000 41,000 290,000 370,000 

Appendix 2 67

Appendix 2. Inorganic constituents in ambient surface soils,

 Chicago, Illinois.
68 Concentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Inorganic Constituents in Ambient Surface Soils, 

Chicago, Illinois: 2001-02

Appendix 2. Inorganic constituents in ambient surface soils, Chicago, Illinois

[percent, percent-weight; D, duplicate sample; <50, constituent not detected and detection limit]

Sample Number

Constituent

Carbon

Dioxide

(percent)

Carbonate 

Carbon

(percent)

Total Carbon

(percent)

Total 

Organic 

Carbon

(percent)

Aluminum

(percent)

Calcium

(percent)

Iron

(percent)

Magnesium

(percent)

PAH-SS-01 0.91 0.25 6.01 5.76 5.66 1.27 2.78 0.92

PAH-SS-02 2.02 .55 4.50 3.95 5.83 1.77 2.29 1.16

PAH-SS-03 2.38 .65 5.64 4.99 6.90 1.94 3.50 1.47

PAH-SS-04 3.77 1.03 6.79 5.76 5.68 2.65 2.63 1.77

PAH-SS-05 16.30 4.45 7.77 3.32 4.33 7.95 2.57 5.25

PAH-SS-06 16.40 4.48 11.50 7.02 4.58 8.95 3.19 5.65

PAH-SS-07 1.97 .54 2.49 1.95 7.13 1.68 3.23 1.43

PAH-SS-08 1.54 .42 4.85 4.43 6.26 1.48 2.90 1.18

PAH-SS-09 1.88 .51 5.99 5.48 5.89 1.70 2.97 1.23

PAH-SS-10 .14 .04 2.21 2.17 6.04 .62 2.99 .59

PAH-SS-11 2.76 0.75 4.88 4.13 5.54 2.34 2.83 1.39

PAH-SS-12 .35 .10 2.39 2.29 6.12 .86 2.88 .74

PAH-SS-13 3.15 .86 5.13 4.27 6.74 2.64 3.63 1.71

PAH-SS-14 3.38 .92 6.95 6.03 6.52 2.77 3.94 1.68

PAH-SS-15 3.49 .95 3.50 2.55 6.39 2.66 3.30 1.67

PAH-SS-16 1.46 0.40 3.32 2.92 6.48 1.67 3.21 1.04

PAH-SS-17 4.40 1.20 8.26 7.06 5.42 4.15 5.27 1.82

PAH-SS-17D 4.54 1.24 7.94 6.70 5.32 4.58 5.61 1.82

PAH-SS-18 3.85 1.05 16.00 14.95 3.78 3.43 14.50 1.52

PAH-SS-19 1.33 .36 2.62 2.26 6.49 1.32 3.05 1.16

PAH-SS-20 4.23 1.15 9.30 8.15 4.58 3.30 3.83 1.76

PAH-SS-21 .76 .21 3.21 3.00 6.71 1.15 3.00 .94

PAH-SS-21D .80 .22 3.16 2.94 6.78 1.18 3.02 .98

PAH-SS-22 15.10 4.12 7.93 3.81 4.82 8.55 2.76 4.58

PAH-SS-23 1.83 .50 5.91 5.41 5.86 1.80 3.07 1.09

PAH-SS-24 0.61 0.17 5.69 5.52 6.26 1.15 3.19 0.94

PAH-SS-25 .90 .25 3.55 3.30 5.78 1.15 2.63 .86

PAH-SS-25D .94 .26 3.56 3.30 5.83 1.23 2.70 .95

PAH-SS-26 6.97 1.90 7.98 6.08 4.92 4.42 2.75 2.53

PAH-SS-27 9.55 2.61 10.50 7.89 4.73 5.45 4.18 3.46

PAH-SS-28 2.18 0.59 6.07 5.48 7.00 1.89 3.98 1.67

PAH-SS-29 26.90 7.34 9.77 2.43 3.09 12.90 2.24 8.06

PAH-SS-30 1.97 .54 4.73 4.19 6.44 1.79 4.28 1.22

PAH-SS-31 3.07 .84 10.90 10.06 4.56 2.41 5.75 1.39

PAH-SS-32 5.49 1.50 8.99 7.49 5.89 3.96 3.67 2.09
Appendix 2 69

Appendix 2. Inorganic constituents in ambient surface soils, Chicago, Illinois—Continued

[percent, percent-weight; D, duplicate sample; <50, constituent not detected and detection limit]

Sample Number

Constituent

Carbon

Dioxide

(percent)

Carbonate 

Carbon

(percent)

Total Carbon

(percent)

Total 

Organic 

Carbon

(percent)

Aluminum

(percent)

Calcium

(percent)

Iron

(percent)

Magnesium

(percent)

PAH-SS-33 4.25 1.16 8.38 7.22 5.97 3.10 3.36 1.95

PAH-SS-33D 4.30 1.17 8.34 7.17 5.86 3.18 3.31 1.94

PAH-SS-34 6.89 1.88 5.53 3.65 5.44 3.85 2.79 2.82

PAH-SS-35 5.68 1.55 11.50 9.95 7.46 4.55 5.51 1.94

PAH-SS-36 6.97 1.90 11.80 9.90 4.30 4.53 4.32 2.59

PAH-SS-37 7.35 2.01 6.94 4.93 2.60 3.89 2.15 2.16

PAH-SS-38 .65 .18 7.35 7.17 5.26 1.23 2.44 .81

PAH-CE-01 16.00 4.37 13.40 9.03 2.33 7.38 1.23 4.60

PAH-CE-02 29.20 7.97 8.19 .22 1.21 12.30 .56 7.84

PAH-CE-03 18.40 5.02 9.11 4.09 3.44 8.10 2.38 5.44

PAH-CE-04 40.00 10.92 12.10 1.18 0.83 15.90 0.80 10.80

PAH-CE-04D 41.70 11.38 12.20 .82 .73 16.90 .73 11.80

PAH-CE-05 7.13 1.95 11.60 9.65 3.81 4.09 5.59 2.20

PAH-CE-06 9.89 2.70 6.60 3.90 1.92 5.29 2.52 3.03

PAH-CE-07 5.22 1.42 16.20 14.78 3.45 3.38 6.36 1.76

PAH-CE-08 8.46 2.31 3.46 1.15 2.91 4.68 0.91 2.44

PAH-CE-09 .28 .08 2.71 2.63 5.94 .75 2.75 .77

PAH-CE-10 1.79 .49 3.78 3.29 3.07 1.37 1.24 .68

PAH-CE-11 33.20 9.06 10.20 1.14 1.47 14.20 .78 9.42

PAH-CE-12 5.35 1.46 6.37 4.91 5.34 3.00 2.96 2.02

PAH-CE-13 1.44 0.39 22.70 22.31 5.74 3.48 9.31 0.50

PAH-CE-14 9.11 2.49 8.44 5.95 3.45 5.23 2.90 2.76

PAH-CE-15 1.50 .41 8.48 8.07 4.48 1.74 2.10 .89

PAH-CE-15D 1.38 .38 8.33 7.95 4.47 1.69 2.09 .87

PAH-CE-16 9.29 2.54 5.50 2.96 2.64 4.85 1.47 2.88

PAH-CE-17 5.25 1.43 5.99 4.56 3.04 3.85 2.69 1.68

PAH-CE-18 4.02 1.10 5.59 4.49 3.70 2.74 2.52 1.40

PAH-CE-19 11.20 3.06 18.70 15.64 1.75 6.04 1.45 3.31
70 Concentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Inorganic Constituents in Ambient Surface Soils, 

Chicago, Illinois: 2001-02

Appendix 2. Inorganic constituents in ambient surface soils, Chicago, Illinois—Continued

[percent, percent-weight; D, duplicate sample; <50, constituent not detected and detection limit]

Sample Number

Constituent

Phosphorus

(percent)

Potassium

(percent)

Sodium

(percent)

Sulfur

(percent)

Titanium

(percent)

Arsenic

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Barium

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Beryllium

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

PAH-SS-01 0.080 2.04 0.56 0.08 0.273 15 445 2

PAH-SS-02 .090 1.84 .74 .05 .273 <10 449 1

PAH-SS-03 .070 2.45 .47 .09 .278 16 453 2

PAH-SS-04 .175 2.19 .49 .10 .247 10 403 2

PAH-SS-05 .070 1.71 .56 .06 .210 12 278 1

PAH-SS-06 0.090 1.62 0.67 0.12 0.221 12 403 2

PAH-SS-07 .055 2.63 .59 .05 .305 11 475 2

PAH-SS-08 .085 2.31 .76 .06 .284 <10 481 2

PAH-SS-09 .110 2.24 .70 .08 .252 11 463 2

PAH-SS-10 .065 1.98 .81 <0.05 .305 13 540 1

PAH-SS-11 0.095 1.84 0.61 0.05 0.268 11 499 1

PAH-SS-12 .065 1.88 .69 <0.05 .310 10 543 1

PAH-SS-13 .210 2.60 .51 .09 .257 20 572 2

PAH-SS-14 .100 2.28 .54 .13 .268 12 666 3

PAH-SS-15 .055 2.34 .52 .05 .289 17 442 2

PAH-SS-16 .070 2.43 0.53 0.05 0.326 15 485 2

PAH-SS-17 .120 1.91 .45 .16 .252 <10 426 2

PAH-SS-17D .130 1.87 .44 .14 .247 <10 436 2

PAH-SS-18 .240 .94 .64 .30 .200 25 477 3

PAH-SS-19 .060 2.45 .58 <0.05 .305 13 505 2

PAH-SS-20 0.140 1.55 0.70 0.14 0.210 19 397 2

PAH-SS-21 .065 2.51 .60 <0.05 .305 <10 473 2

PAH-SS-21D .065 2.53 .60 .05 .294 14 483 2

PAH-SS-22 .055 1.93 .42 .11 .221 11 450 2

PAH-SS-23 .125 1.94 .58 .09 .289 17 588 2

PAH-SS-24 0.090 2.25 0.66 0.08 0.294 15 498 2

PAH-SS-25 .080 2.16 .62 .05 .305 10 494 1

PAH-SS-25D .085 2.20 .63 .05 .294 15 536 2

PAH-SS-26 .075 1.91 .53 .17 .226 13 394 1

PAH-SS-27 .150 1.72 .46 .13 .242 13 451 2

PAH-SS-28 .095 2.86 0.46 0.10 0.268 21 460 3

PAH-SS-29 .050 1.24 .29 .11 .158 11 284 1

PAH-SS-30 .100 2.34 .63 .07 .284 16 494 2

PAH-SS-31 .120 1.53 .54 .25 .221 27 414 2

PAH-SS-32 .125 2.16 .41 .14 .257 18 519 3
Appendix 2 71

Appendix 2. Inorganic constituents in ambient surface soils, Chicago, Illinois—Continued

[percent, percent-weight; D, duplicate sample; <50, constituent not detected and detection limit]

Sample Number

Constituent

Phosphorus

(percent)

Potassium

(percent)

Sodium

(percent)

Sulfur

(percent)

Titanium

(percent)

Arsenic

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Barium

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Beryllium

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

PAH-SS-33 0.095 2.09 0.50 0.14 0.268 13 431 2

PAH-SS-33D .090 2.06 .51 .13 .273 12 428 2

PAH-SS-34 .075 2.25 .53 .07 .226 <10 394 2

PAH-SS-35 .280 1.32 .49 .20 .383 32 697 9

PAH-SS-36 .140 1.30 .49 .17 .236 28 541 2

PAH-SS-37 0.095 1.10 0.48 0.11 0.145 <10 390 <1

PAH-SS-38 .100 1.84 .49 .07 .245 14 437 1

PAH-CE-01 .080 1.12 .38 .12 .090 31 227 <1

PAH-CE-02 .010 .82 .20 <0.05 .045 <10 106 <1

PAH-CE-03 .090 1.51 .35 .10 .155 51 412 1

PAH-CE-04 0.020 0.35 0.10 <0.05 0.050 35 110 <1

PAH-CE-04D .015 .31 .07 .05 .040 31 91 <1

PAH-CE-05 .080 1.18 .60 .24 .180 220 521 4

PAH-CE-06 .075 .85 .35 .09 .125 35 506 1

PAH-CE-07 .050 .98 .56 .52 .180 20 693 3

PAH-CE-08 0.025 1.62 0.78 <0.05 0.075 11 349 <1

PAH-CE-09 .045 2.34 .50 <0.05 .275 13 468 1

PAH-CE-10 .070 1.45 .65 .05 .105 13 378 <1

PAH-CE-11 .020 .88 .13 <0.05 .075 <10 113 <1

PAH-CE-12 .070 2.35 .46 .09 .230 14 366 2

PAH-CE-13 0.020 1.08 0.25 0.63 0.345 <10 257 14

PAH-CE-14 .045 1.45 .44 .19 .140 16 362 2

PAH-CE-15 .065 1.62 .52 .16 .175 11 413 1

PAH-CE-15D .060 1.63 .53 .14 .180 13 408 1

PAH-CE-16 .020 1.32 .67 .10 .085 11 295 1

PAH-CE-17 0.040 1.22 0.71 0.11 0.120 <10 371 2

PAH-CE-18 .075 1.51 .57 .08 .150 15 407 2

PAH-CE-19 .030 .75 .42 .20 .090 <10 169 <1
72 Concentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Inorganic Constituents in Ambient Surface Soils, 

Chicago, Illinois: 2001-02

Appendix 2. Inorganic constituents in ambient surface soils, Chicago, Illinois—Continued

[percent, percent-weight; D, duplicate sample; <50, constituent not detected and detection limit]

Sample Number

Constituent

Bismuth

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Cadmium

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Cesium

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Chromium

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Cobalt

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Copper

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Europium

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Gallium

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

PAH-SS-01 <50 <2 63 65 11 43 <2 14

PAH-SS-02 <50 <2 61 53 10 37 <2 15

PAH-SS-03 <50 <2 63 75 13 57 <2 18

PAH-SS-04 <50 3 54 66 11 69 <2 17

PAH-SS-05 <50 <2 41 44 9 51 <2 16

PAH-SS-06 <50 6 44 78 12 343 <2 17

PAH-SS-07 <50 <2 72 70 14 39 <2 19

PAH-SS-08 <50 <2 62 64 12 35 <2 16

PAH-SS-09 <50 <2 61 64 11 43 <2 16

PAH-SS-10 <50 <2 64 54 11 28 <2 13

PAH-SS-11 <50 <2 61 56 9 36 <2 16

PAH-SS-12 <50 <2 71 68 11 38 <2 15

PAH-SS-13 <50 <2 69 78 14 66 <2 20

PAH-SS-14 <50 <2 67 102 13 73 <2 17

PAH-SS-15 <50 <2 68 63 14 42 <2 16

PAH-SS-16 <50 <2 75 66 15 36 <2 15

PAH-SS-17 <50 <2 55 340 11 75 <2 16

PAH-SS-17D <50 <2 60 387 11 76 <2 13

PAH-SS-18 <50 7 38 192 16 395 <2 14

PAH-SS-19 <50 <2 69 61 12 42 <2 16

PAH-SS-20 <50 <2 43 66 11 67 <2 13

PAH-SS-21 <50 <2 70 76 11 44 <2 18

PAH-SS-21D <50 <2 73 72 12 47 <2 17

PAH-SS-22 <50 <2 46 57 13 89 <2 15

PAH-SS-23 <50 <2 63 69 12 74 <2 16

PAH-SS-24 <50 <2 64 73 13 57 <2 17

PAH-SS-25 <50 <2 58 59 10 35 <2 16

PAH-SS-25D <50 <2 63 61 10 37 <2 14

PAH-SS-26 <50 <2 51 64 11 48 <2 10

PAH-SS-27 <50 5 48 94 12 2,780 <2 14

PAH-SS-28 <50 2 70 78 16 117 <2 23

PAH-SS-29 <50 3 33 50 9 208 <2 8

PAH-SS-30 <50 <2 66 76 14 99 <2 18

PAH-SS-31 <50 <2 44 82 13 214 <2 17

PAH-SS-32 <50 <2 60 79 14 134 <2 18
Appendix 2 73

Appendix 2. Inorganic constituents in ambient surface soils, Chicago, Illinois—Continued

[percent, percent-weight; D, duplicate sample; <50, constituent not detected and detection limit]

Sample Number

Constituent

Bismuth

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Cadmium

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Cesium

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Chromium

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Cobalt

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Copper

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Europium

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Gallium

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

PAH-SS-33 <50 <2 60 77 12 84 <2 17

PAH-SS-33D <50 <2 59 81 14 83 <2 18

PAH-SS-34 <50 <2 54 61 11 46 <2 16

PAH-SS-35 <50 3 104 129 26 234 3 23

PAH-SS-36 <50 7 45 118 12 355 <2 17

PAH-SS-37 <50 3 15 67 7 73 <2 7

PAH-SS-38 57 <2 52 45 12 35 <2 13

PAH-CE-01 <50 3 19 29 8 47 <2 6

PAH-CE-02 <50 <2 <5 8 5 9 <2 <4

PAH-CE-03 <50 4 23 90 10 66 <2 10

PAH-CE-04 <50 3 <5 20 5 98 <2 <4

PAH-CE-04D <50 2 <5 17 4 77 <2 <4

PAH-CE-05 <50 7 23 131 14 475 <2 11

PAH-CE-06 <50 6 8 87 5 419 <2 6

PAH-CE-07 <50 7 16 88 14 484 <2 11

PAH-CE-08 <50 <2 11 19 5 12 <2 7

PAH-CE-09 <50 <2 60 55 13 25 <2 17

PAH-CE-10 <50 <2 18 31 4 24 <2 8

PAH-CE-11 <50 <2 13 23 5 24 <2 <4

PAH-CE-12 <50 <2 47 54 13 78 <2 15

PAH-CE-13 <50 5 13 82 16 45 <2 11

PAH-CE-14 <50 <2 29 45 10 63 <2 9

PAH-CE-15 <50 <2 41 43 11 46 <2 12

PAH-CE-15D <50 <2 38 42 9 42 <2 11

PAH-CE-16 <50 <2 16 26 6 13 <2 6

PAH-CE-17 <50 <2 25 56 6 59 <2 8

PAH-CE-18 <50 3 30 45 9 200 <2 11

PAH-CE-19 <50 3 6 26 5 59 <2 5
74 Concentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Inorganic Constituents in Ambient Surface Soils, 

Chicago, Illinois: 2001-02

Appendix 2. Inorganic constituents in ambient surface soils, Chicago, Illinois—Continued

[percent, percent-weight; D, duplicate sample; <50, constituent not detected and detection limit]

Sample Number

Constituent

Gold

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Holmium

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Lanthanum

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Lead

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Lithium

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Manganese

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Mercury

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Molybdenum

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

PAH-SS-01 <8 <4 32 93 36 561 0.11 4

PAH-SS-02 <8 <4 33 40 32 327 .09 2

PAH-SS-03 <8 <4 34 198 52 461 .86 5

PAH-SS-04 <8 <4 30 283 43 365 .31 4

PAH-SS-05 <8 <4 23 150 29 433 .17 4

PAH-SS-06 <8 <4 25 654 37 628 0.32 6

PAH-SS-07 <8 <4 35 42 52 390 .07 5

PAH-SS-08 <8 <4 33 87 40 507 .09 3

PAH-SS-09 <8 <4 31 224 38 582 .38 3

PAH-SS-10 <8 <4 34 27 28 751 .08 3

PAH-SS-11 <8 <4 33 35 30 699 0.08 3

PAH-SS-12 <8 <4 36 39 29 651 .19 2

PAH-SS-13 <8 <4 34 323 51 524 1.89 6

PAH-SS-14 <8 <4 33 504 55 821 .33 6

PAH-SS-15 <8 <4 34 47 42 694 .07 5

PAH-SS-16 <8 <4 36 65 44 795 0.08 5

PAH-SS-17 <8 <4 30 240 39 3,250 .18 15

PAH-SS-17D <8 <4 33 246 38 4,090 .16 17

PAH-SS-18 <8 <4 21 1,690 28 2,330 .93 14

PAH-SS-19 <8 <4 35 44 43 634 .07 3

PAH-SS-20 <8 <4 24 239 25 802 0.25 4

PAH-SS-21 <8 <4 34 72 51 427 .27 3

PAH-SS-21D <8 <4 35 70 51 420 .59 3

PAH-SS-22 <8 <4 25 303 36 541 1.91 6

PAH-SS-23 <8 <4 33 198 39 442 .28 5

PAH-SS-24 <8 <4 34 109 38 683 0.17 5

PAH-SS-25 <8 <4 31 82 33 471 .06 2

PAH-SS-25D <8 <4 33 90 35 549 .06 3

PAH-SS-26 <8 <4 27 105 31 459 .14 6

PAH-SS-27 <8 <4 24 1,310 33 697 1.65 11

PAH-SS-28 <8 <4 35 275 49 415 0.39 7

PAH-SS-29 <8 <4 18 473 25 512 .70 5

PAH-SS-30 <8 <4 34 355 42 544 .25 6

PAH-SS-31 <8 <4 24 469 26 631 .31 7

PAH-SS-32 <8 <4 29 528 42 495 .21 7
Appendix 2 75

Appendix 2. Inorganic constituents in ambient surface soils, Chicago, Illinois—Continued

[percent, percent-weight; D, duplicate sample; <50, constituent not detected and detection limit]

Sample Number

Constituent

Gold

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Holmium

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Lanthanum

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Lead

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Lithium

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Manganese

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Mercury

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Molybdenum

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

PAH-SS-33 <8 <4 31 281 46 411 0.44 6

PAH-SS-33D <8 <4 31 283 45 405 .43 6

PAH-SS-34 <8 <4 28 175 36 533 .12 4

PAH-SS-35 <8 <4 52 1,270 67 710 5.13 12

PAH-SS-36 <8 <4 24 1,910 28 642 .75 6

PAH-SS-37 <8 <4 13 1,000 12 390 0.25 4

PAH-SS-38 <8 <4 28 85 32 484 .08 3

PAH-CE-01 <8 <4 13 260 13 240 .12 2

PAH-CE-02 <8 <4 10 13 7 196 <0.02 <2

PAH-CE-03 <8 <4 18 886 24 335 13.10 5

PAH-CE-04 <8 <4 7 270 5 166 0.08 <2

PAH-CE-04D <8 <4 6 200 5 150 .12 <2

PAH-CE-05 <8 <4 19 1,450 20 415 .38 13

PAH-CE-06 <8 <4 11 1,500 8 327 .21 6

PAH-CE-07 <8 <4 17 1,680 17 517 .41 15

PAH-CE-08 <8 <4 12 70 7 276 0.03 <2

PAH-CE-09 <8 <4 32 30 42 479 .03 3

PAH-CE-10 <8 <4 12 98 8 241 .28 <2

PAH-CE-11 <8 <4 13 66 15 236 .02 2

PAH-CE-12 <8 <4 28 167 40 368 .06 6

PAH-CE-13 <8 <4 21 49 32 579 0.03 17

PAH-CE-14 <8 <4 18 977 22 405 .11 6

PAH-CE-15 <8 <4 23 135 32 346 .10 6

PAH-CE-15D <8 <4 22 114 32 333 .07 6

PAH-CE-16 <8 <4 11 30 8 311 .03 2

PAH-CE-17 <8 <4 17 332 14 954 0.48 4

PAH-CE-18 <8 <4 20 428 22 414 .44 3

PAH-CE-19 <8 <4 10 90 7 320 .09 <2
76 Concentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Inorganic Constituents in Ambient Surface Soils, 

Chicago, Illinois: 2001-02

Appendix 2. Inorganic constituents in ambient surface soils, Chicago, Illinois—Continued

[percent, percent-weight; D, duplicate sample; <50, constituent not detected and detection limit]

Sample Number

Constituent

Niobium

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Neodymium

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Nickel

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Scandium

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Selenium

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Silver

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Strontium

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Tantalum

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

PAH-SS-01 9 27 29 10 0.7 <2 98 <40

PAH-SS-02 7 31 27 9 .7 <2 102 <40

PAH-SS-03 7 30 41 12 1.0 <2 100 <40

PAH-SS-04 8 27 37 10 .8 <2 125 <40

PAH-SS-05 10 24 26 7 .6 <2 100 <40

PAH-SS-06 11 24 52 8 0.9 <2 123 <40

PAH-SS-07 6 29 38 13 .5 <2 98 <40

PAH-SS-08 8 30 30 11 .7 <2 99 <40

PAH-SS-09 6 32 29 10 .8 <2 107 <40

PAH-SS-10 10 32 25 9 .7 <2 98 <40

PAH-SS-11 7 28 24 9 0.7 <2 122 <40

PAH-SS-12 10 31 27 10 .6 <2 99 <40

PAH-SS-13 12 33 41 13 1.2 <2 106 <40

PAH-SS-14 13 31 45 12 1.3 <2 106 <40

PAH-SS-15 9 30 32 11 .8 <2 104 <40

PAH-SS-16 10 32 31 12 0.9 <2 94 <40

PAH-SS-17 10 25 54 10 1.2 <2 132 <40

PAH-SS-17D 13 32 57 9 1.2 <2 127 <40

PAH-SS-18 16 21 77 7 2.7 <2 143 <40

PAH-SS-19 7 29 30 11 .6 <2 91 <40

PAH-SS-20 9 23 28 8 1.5 <2 122 <40

PAH-SS-21 10 30 34 12 .8 <2 141 <40

PAH-SS-21D 7 32 33 12 .7 <2 141 <40

PAH-SS-22 11 23 34 9 .7 <2 133 <40

PAH-SS-23 7 30 34 10 .7 <2 131 <40

PAH-SS-24 11 28 34 11 1.0 <2 101 <40

PAH-SS-25 11 29 25 9 .7 <2 98 <40

PAH-SS-25D 10 30 25 10 .7 <2 99 <40

PAH-SS-26 10 24 32 9 1.0 <2 112 <40

PAH-SS-27 14 22 154 9 1.3 <2 115 <40

PAH-SS-28 11 34 51 14 1.9 <2 94 <40

PAH-SS-29 11 19 35 6 .7 <2 97 <40

PAH-SS-30 9 28 43 11 1.3 <2 114 <40

PAH-SS-31 10 26 43 8 2.7 <2 102 <40

PAH-SS-32 11 27 53 11 1.2 <2 146 <40
Appendix 2 77

Appendix 2. Inorganic constituents in ambient surface soils, Chicago, Illinois—Continued

[percent, percent-weight; D, duplicate sample; <50, constituent not detected and detection limit]

Sample Number

Constituent

Niobium

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Neodymium

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Nickel

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Scandium

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Selenium

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Silver

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Strontium

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Tantalum

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

PAH-SS-33 10 31 41 11 1.2 <2 116 <40

PAH-SS-33D 10 27 40 11 1.2 <2 114 <40

PAH-SS-34 8 29 31 10 .9 <2 94 <40

PAH-SS-35 18 49 93 18 3.1 <2 299 <40

PAH-SS-36 10 23 55 8 3.1 <2 144 <40

PAH-SS-37 7 <9 22 3 0.5 <2 104 <40

PAH-SS-38 10 25 24 9 1.0 <2 108 <40

PAH-CE-01 6 <9 26 3 .8 <2 103 <40

PAH-CE-02 6 <9 5 <2 <0.2 <2 78 <40

PAH-CE-03 13 13 25 6 .9 <2 93 <40

PAH-CE-04 12 9 15 <2 0.3 <2 65 <40

PAH-CE-04D 6 <9 12 <2 .3 <2 67 <40

PAH-CE-05 10 18 48 7 1.5 <2 153 <40

PAH-CE-06 8 12 88 3 .7 <2 94 <40

PAH-CE-07 16 10 48 6 1.6 <2 125 <40

PAH-CE-08 5 <9 8 3 0.2 <2 128 <40

PAH-CE-09 13 23 28 10 .8 <2 87 <40

PAH-CE-10 9 <9 10 3 .5 <2 117 <40

PAH-CE-11 8 13 11 3 <0.2 <2 83 <40

PAH-CE-12 12 20 39 9 .8 <2 91 <40

PAH-CE-13 23 11 50 13 0.9 <2 142 <40

PAH-CE-14 8 16 24 6 .8 <2 114 <40

PAH-CE-15 13 14 27 7 1.4 <2 114 <40

PAH-CE-15D 7 17 26 7 1.7 <2 113 <40

PAH-CE-16 <4 11 11 3 .3 <2 115 <40

PAH-CE-17 4 10 19 4 0.6 <2 153 <40

PAH-CE-18 6 18 23 6 .8 <2 121 <40

PAH-CE-19 6 <9 12 3 .7 <2 83 <40
78 Concentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Inorganic Constituents in Ambient Surface Soils, 

Chicago, Illinois: 2001-02

Appendix 2. Inorganic constituents in ambient surface soils, Chicago, Illinois

[percent, percent-weight; D, duplicate sample; <50, constituent not detected and detection limit]

Sample Number

Constituent

Thorium

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Tin

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Uranium

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Vanadium

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Ytterbium

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Yttrium

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Zinc

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

PAH-SS-01 9 <50 <100 84 2 17 137

PAH-SS-02 8 <50 <100 82 2 19 83

PAH-SS-03 10 <50 <100 104 2 19 213

PAH-SS-04 <6 <50 <100 83 2 17 380

PAH-SS-05 <6 <50 <100 63 2 14 109

PAH-SS-06 <6 <50 <100 70 2 16 804

PAH-SS-07 8 <50 <100 106 3 19 97

PAH-SS-08 9 <50 <100 91 2 17 112

PAH-SS-09 9 <50 <100 85 2 17 170

PAH-SS-10 9 <50 <100 89 2 18 79

PAH-SS-11 9 <50 <100 83 2 18 90

PAH-SS-12 9 <50 <100 93 2 20 105

PAH-SS-13 10 <50 <100 105 2 19 235

PAH-SS-14 8 <50 <100 106 2 20 388

PAH-SS-15 9 <50 <100 99 3 19 112

PAH-SS-16 9 <50 <100 95 3 18 108

PAH-SS-17 <6 <50 <100 116 2 18 325

PAH-SS-17D 7 <50 <100 122 2 17 320

PAH-SS-18 <6 105 <100 105 1 19 1,180

PAH-SS-19 8 <50 <100 94 3 18 99

PAH-SS-20 <6 <50 <100 70 2 18 239

PAH-SS-21 9 <50 <100 95 2 18 173

PAH-SS-21D 8 <50 <100 95 3 18 165

PAH-SS-22 <6 <50 <100 72 2 16 359

PAH-SS-23 9 <50 <100 90 2 20 243

PAH-SS-24 9 <50 <100 92 3 18 172

PAH-SS-25 9 <50 <100 81 2 16 115

PAH-SS-25D 9 <50 <100 86 2 17 124

PAH-SS-26 <6 <50 <100 73 2 16 172

PAH-SS-27 <6 248 <100 78 1 17 1,240

PAH-SS-28 7 <50 <100 115 2 20 260

PAH-SS-29 <6 <50 <100 47 1 12 623

PAH-SS-30 8 <50 <100 93 2 19 243

PAH-SS-31 <6 <50 <100 79 1 14 507

PAH-SS-32 7 <50 <100 96 2 18 760
Appendix 2 79

Appendix 2. Inorganic constituents in ambient surface soils, Chicago, Illinois

[percent, percent-weight; D, duplicate sample; <50, constituent not detected and detection limit]

Sample Number

Constituent

Thorium

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Tin

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Uranium

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Vanadium

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Ytterbium

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Yttrium

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

Zinc

(milligrams 

per

kilogram)

PAH-SS-33 8 <50 <100 91 2 18 348

PAH-SS-33D 8 <50 <100 88 2 18 339

PAH-SS-34 <6 <50 <100 81 2 17 191

PAH-SS-35 13 <50 <100 145 3 38 1,500

PAH-SS-36 <6 <50 <100 79 1 16 1,140

PAH-SS-37 6 <50 <100 42 1 9 431

PAH-SS-38 11 <50 <100 71 2 16 133

PAH-CE-01 7 <50 <100 35 <1 9 606

PAH-CE-02 10 <50 <100 24 <1 6 100

PAH-CE-03 8 101 <100 62 1 13 930

PAH-CE-04 8 <50 <100 34 <1 7 242

PAH-CE-04D <6 <50 <100 32 <1 8 187

PAH-CE-05 11 <50 <100 73 2 16 1,260

PAH-CE-06 10 <50 <100 38 <1 8 1,400

PAH-CE-07 8 51 <100 70 1 14 1,690

PAH-CE-08 11 <50 <100 27 <1 7 83

PAH-CE-09 10 <50 <100 88 3 17 80

PAH-CE-10 8 <50 <100 30 <1 7 106

PAH-CE-11 <6 <50 <100 34 <1 9 142

PAH-CE-12 13 <50 <100 82 2 15 174

PAH-CE-13 8 <50 <100 124 3 26 490

PAH-CE-14 7 <50 <100 58 2 13 251

PAH-CE-15 11 <50 <100 65 2 14 163

PAH-CE-15D 12 <50 <100 63 2 14 158

PAH-CE-16 10 <50 <100 34 <1 8 89

PAH-CE-17 12 <50 <100 50 2 11 528

PAH-CE-18 7 <50 <100 53 2 13 371

PAH-CE-19 6 <50 <100 34 <1 7 264


Surface Soils, Chicago, Illinois: 2001-02—U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4105

Kay and others—Concentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Inorganic Constituents in Ambient