Descriptions and Analyses of 

Eight New USGS Rock Standards 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 840 

Descriptions and Analyses of 

Eight New USGS Rock Standards 

Compiled and edited by F. J. FLANAGAN 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 840 

T1venty-eight papers present analytical data on new 

and previously described whole-rock standards 

UNITED STATES GOVERNME'NT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON 1976 
UNITED STATES DEPARTl\'IENT OF THE INTERIOR 

CECIL D. ANDRUS, Secretary 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

W. A. Radlinski, Acting Director 

Firat printing lfn'6 

Second printing lfn'8 

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data 

Descriptions and analyses of eight new USGS rock standards. 

(Geological Survey professional paper; 840) 

Supt. of Docs. no.: I 19.16:840 · 

1 . Rocks-- Analysis--Standards. 2. Geochemistry, Analytic--Standards. I. Flanagan, Francis James, 

1915- II. Series: United States. Geological Survey. Professional paper; 840. 

QE438.D37 552'.06 76-608172 

For sale by the Supe1)ntendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, D.C. 20402 

Stock Number 024-001-02866-2 
CONTENTS 

Abbreviations 

Introduction, by F. J. Flanagan --------------------------------------------

Nepheline syenite, STM-1, from Table Mountain, Oregon, by P. D. Snavely, Jr., 

N. S. MacLeod~ F. J. Flanagan, Sol ~erman, H. G. Neiman, and Harry 

Bastron ------------------------------------------------------------- Rhyolite, RGM-1, from Glass Mountain, Cal~fornia, by D. B. Tatlock, F. J. Flanagan, Harry Basrtron, Sol Berman, and A. L. Sutton, Jr -------------------

Quartz latite (dellenite), QL0-1, from southeastern Oregon, by G. W. Walker, 

F. J. Flanagan, A. L. Sutton, Jr., Harry Bastron, Sol Berman, J. I. Dinnin, 

and L. B. Jenkins ---------------------------------------------------- Cody Shale, SCo--1, from Natrona County, Wyoming, by L. G. Schultz H. A. 

Tourtelot, and F. J. Flanagan -----------------------------------------

MaTine mud, MAG-1, from the Gulf of Maine, by F. T. Manheim, J. C. Hathaway, 

F. J. Flanagan, and J. D. Fletcher ------------------------------------ Mica schist, SDC-1, from Rock Cre,ek Park, Washington, D.e., by F. J. Flanagan 

and G. V. Carroll ---------------------------------------------------- Basalt, BHV0-1, from Kilauea Crater, Hawaii, by F. J. Flanagan, T. L. Wright, 

S. R. Taylor, C. S. Annell, R. C. Christian, and J. I. Dinnin --------------

Mass spectrometric isotope dilution determinations of barium, by J. R. de Laeter, 

R. Date, and I. D. Abercrombie -----------------------------------------

The bismuth content of six new USGS standard rocks, by L. P. Greenland, E. Y. 

Campbell, and F. J. Flanagan ------------------------------------------

Molybdenum in USGS standard rocks, by E. G. Lillie and L. P. Greenland -----

Intercalibration of 17 standard silicates for 14 elements by instrumental neutron 

activation analysis, by Amitai Katz· and Lawrence Grossman -------------

Bismuth contents of USGS rock samples RGM-1 and BHV0-1, by P. M. Santoliquido and W. D. Ehmann ----------------------------------------------

Determination of uranium and thorium in USGS standard rocks by the delayed 

neutron technique, by H. T. Millard, Jr ---------------------------------

The determination of antimony, hafnium, and tantalum in the new USGS standard 

rocks, by L. J. Schwarz and J. J. Rowe --------------------------------

Gold content of USGS standard rocks, by L. J. Schwarz and J. L. Barker -----

The be·ryllium, fluorine, lithium, copper,zinc, and strontium contents of USGS 

standard rock samples STM-1, RGM-1, QL0-1, S.Co-1, MAG-1, SDC-1, and 

SGR-1, by V. Machacek, I. Rubeska, V. Sixta, and Z. sulcek --------------

Instrumental analyses of major and minor oxides in USGS standard rocks BHV0-

1, QL0-1, SDC-1, and RGM-1, by P. W. Weigand, K. Thoresen, W. L. 

Griffin, and K. S. Heier -----------------------------------------------

The determination of selected elements in the USGS standard rocks STM-1 and 

RGM-1, by A. C. S. Smith and J. N. Walsh ----------------------------

Hom~neity of niobium content of eight' USGS standard rocks, by E. Y. Campbell and L. P. Greenland ---------------------------------------------

X-ray fl.uOTescence analysis of 21 selected major, minor, and trace elements in 

eight new USGS standard rocks, by B. P. Fabbi and L. F. Espos ----------

Titanium and trace element data in USGS ·standard rocks SCo--1 and SGR-1, by 

Isaac B. Brenner and A. Harel ----------------------------------------

Computerized spectrographic data for USGS standards, by F. G. Walthall, A. F. 

Dorrzapf, Jr., and F. J. Flanagan --------------------------------------

Determinations of rare alkalis and alkaline earths in USGS standard rocks, by 

Sydney Abbey ------------------------------------------------------- Copper, lithium, manganese, strontium, zinc, sodium, potassium, and magnesium 

contents of eight new USGS ·standard rock samples, by J. A. Thomas, Wayne 

Mountjoy, and Claude Huffman, Jr ------------------------------------

Page 

VI 

1 

7 

11 

15 

21 

25 

29 

33 

41 

45 

47 

49 

59 

61 

67 

71 

73 

79 

83 

87 

89 

95 

99 

117 

119 

III 
IV 

FIGURES 

TABLE 

CONTENTS 

Pa.re 

The carbon contents of USGS volcanic rock standards, by F. J. Flanagan, J. C. 

Chandler, I. A. Breger, C. B. Moore, and C. F. Lewis -------------------- 123 

Final compilation of K-Ar and Rb-Sr measurements on P-207, the USGS interlaboratory standard muscovite, by M. A. Lanphere and G. B. Dalrymple --- 127 

197.2 compilation of data on USGS standards, by F. J. Flanagan -------------- 131 

Determination of gold, silver, and tantalum in the new USGS standards by neutron activation analysis, by G. N. Anoshin and G. A. Perezhogin --------- 185 

G-1 et W-1: Requiescant in Pace!, by F. J. Flanagan ----------------------- 189 

ILLUSTRATIONS 

Page 

1-4. Maps showing: 

1. Sourc·e of STM-1 on Table Mountain, Oreg --------------------------------------- 7 

2. Lava flow at Glass Mountain, Calif., with location of RGM-1 ------------------------ 11 

3. Source of QL0-1 south of Juniper Mountain, Ore·g ---------------------------------- 15 

4. Southwest corner of Edgerton quadrangle, Wyo., showing source of SCo-1 -------------- 21 

5. Plane table sketch map and diagrammatic cross section showing the rocks in the immediate area 

of the source of SCo-1 --------------------------------------------------------------- 22 

6. Sketch map showing location of the source of MAG-1 in the Wilkinson Basin, Gulf of Maine --- 25 

7. Geologic sketch map of the Washington West quadrangle, District of Columbia-Maryland-Virginia, showing the source of SDC-1 ---------------------------------------------------- 29 

8. Part of the geologic map of Kilauea Crater, Hawaii, with the souroo of BHV0-1 -------------- 33 

9. Scatter diagram of Si02 determinations in G-2 and GSP-1 ---------------------------------- 190 

10. Scatter diagram of Si02 determinations in AGV-1 and BCR-1 ------------------------------- 191 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

6. 

·7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

17-22. 

23. 

24. 

25. 

26. 

2'7. 

28. 

TABLES 

Si,eve analyses of S TM-1 _________________ ------- ________________________________________ _ 

Chemical analyses and norms of STM-1 ----------------------------------------------------

Spectrochemical determinations of el·ements in STM-1 ---------------------------------------

Averages and standard deviations for spectrographic data for STM-1 -------------------------

Published dete·rminations by neutron activation analysis of STM-1 --------------------------- Sieve analyses of RG M-1 ------- ____________________________________________________ ------ _ 

Chemical analy;ses of RG M-1 _____________________________________________________________ _ 

Norms (CIPW) for RGM-1 -------------------------------------------------------------- Spectrochemical determinations of elements in RG M-1 ______________________________________ _ 

Averages and standard deviations for sp·ectrographic data for RGM-1 -------------------------

Sieve analyses of quartz latite, QL0-1 ------------------------------------------------------ Cl-emical analyses of QL0-1 ____________________________ - ______________ - ___ -- _ -------------

Norms (CIPW) of QL0-1 ----------------------------------------------------------------

Spectrochemical deteTininations of elements in QL0-1 ----------------------------------------

Averages and standard deviations for spectrographic data for QL0-1 -------------------------

Sieve analyses of quartz latite, QLO_..,. ------------------------------------------------------

Determinations and analyses of variance of: 

17. Uranium in QL0-1 --------------------------------------------------------------- 18. Thorium in QL0-1 _______________________ - _____________________ - ____ -- ___ ---------

19. K20 in QL0-1 __________________________ ---------------·---- ___ -------------------

20. Uranium in QLO_..,. ______________ ------------ _________________________ ------------

21. Thorium in QLO-"Y ---------------------------------------------------------------

22. K20 in QLO-~ ------------------------------------------------------------------- Estimates of the U, Th, and K20 contents, and of the Th:U ratio, of QL0-1 and QLO-~ ---------

~~:~i~ia~:~~s~: o~C~~~-l-================================================================ Semiquantitative spectrographic estimate's of some trace elements in· SCo-1 --------------------

Grain-size estimates of the marine mud MAG-1 ----------------------------------------------

Bulk n.ineralogy of MAG-1 determined by X-ray diffracto~eter ------------------------------

Page 

8 

8 

9 

10 

10 

12 

12 

13 

13 

14 

16 

16 

16 

17 

17 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

19 

19 

19 

23 

23 

23 

26 

26 
CONTENTS V 

Page 

TABLE 29. Mineralogy of the clay fraction of MAG-1 detennined by X-ray diffractometer --------------- 26 

30. Mineralogy of the sand fraction of MAG-1 -------------------------------------------------- 26 

31. Sieve analyses of MAG-1 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 26 

32. Chemical analyses of MAG-1 -------------------------------------------------------------- 26 

33. Quantitative spectrographic detenninations of trace elements in marine mud, MAG-1 ----------- 27 

34. Conclusions from the analYisis of variance and estimates of the spectrographic data from MAG-1 - 28 

35. Sieve analyses of SDC-1 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 30 

36. Analyses of SDC-1 by rapid rock methods and by X-ray fluorescence -------------------------- 31 

37. Norms (CIPW) for SDC-1, bottle 21./5 ---------------------------------------------------- 31 

38. Semiquantitative spectrographic estimates of the trace element cont~nts of SDC-1 --------------- 31 

39. Chemical analysis of a grab samyle of BHV0-1 -------------------------------------------- 34 

40. Sieve analyses of batches of BHV0-1 ------------------------------------------------------ 34 

41. Quantitative spectrographic determinations of trace elements in Hawaiian basalt, BHV0-1 ---- 35 

42. D-eterminations of the potassium content of BHV0-1 ---------------------------------------- 35 

43. Determinations of the niobium content of BHVO-L------------------------------------------- 35 

44. Determinations of the uranium content of BHVO-L------------------------------------------- 35 

45. Instrumental ~utron activation analyses of the chromium, scandium, and thori~ contents of 

BHV0-1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 35 

46. X-ray fluorescence determinations of several oxides in BHV0-1 ------------------------------- 36 

47. Spark source mass spectrometric determination of elements in BHV0-1 ----------------------- 37 

48. Means and standard deviations of data for BHVO-L------------------------------------------ 38 

49. Isotopic composition of barium nitrate tracer and natural barium ---------------------------- 42 

50. Determinations of barium in USGS standard rock samples ---------------------------------- 42 

51. Estimates of the barium contents of standard rocks-------------------------------------------- 43 

52. Bismuth content of USGS standard rocks --------------------------------------------------- 45 

58. Summary of estimates for the bismuth content of six USGS standard rocks -------------------- 46 

54. Molybdenum content of USGS standard rocks ----------------------------------------------- 48 

55. Nuclides, gamma-ray peaks, and half-lives of el.ements determined ----------------------------- 50 

56. Best values seLected from literatu~e for the "primary" standards ------------------------------ 51 

57. New data for the "primary" standards ----------------------------------------------------- 52 

58. Data for the new (1971 series) USGS silicate standards ------------------------------------ 53 

59. Deviations between the new and the selected data of the "primary" standards ------------------ 56 

60. Neutron activation determinations and estimates of bismuth in USGS standard rocks RGM-1 and 

BHV0-1 _________________________________________________________ - __ ---- -~- --------- 59 

61. Calibration of uranium and thorium monitors against a set of laboratory standard rocks by the delay.ed neutron technique --------------------------------------------------------------- 62 

62. Neutron fluxes in the Geological Survey TRIGA reactor for pneumatic tube irradiations in the "G" 

ring --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 62 

63. Analytical parameters for the determination of uranium and thorium using one cycle of two irradiations and countings with the delayed neutron system --------------------------------- 63 

64. Concentrations of uranium and thorium in USGS standard rocks ----------------------------- 64 

65. Estimate.s for uranium and thorium in USGS standard rocks -------------------------------- 65 

66. Determinations of antimony, hafnium, and tantalum in USGS standard rocks ----------------- 68 

67. Gold in standard rocks -------------------------------------------------------------------- 72 

68. Analytical data for seven USGS standard rock samples -------------------------------------- 75 

69. Conclusions from the analysis of variance, averages, and standard deviations for USGS standard 

rock samples ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 76 

70. Operating conditions for X-ray analyses ----------------------------------------------------- 79 

71. Determinations of oxides and summary of estimate.s for USGS standard rock samples BHV0-1, 

QL0-1, SDC-1, and RGM-1 ----------------------------------------------------------- 80 

72. Replicate data for minor oxides in RGM-1 and STM-1 ---------------------------------------- 83 

73. Replicate data for trace elements in RGM-1 and STM-1 ------------------------------------- 84 

74. Results of anal}'isis of variance of n;inor-oxide data for RGM-1 and STM-1 ------------------ 84 

75. Results of analysis of variance of trace-element data for RGM-1 and STM-1 ------------------- 85 

76. Niobium content of USGS standard rocks --------------------------------------------------- 87 

77. X-ray Quantometer operating conditions _ _ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ 89 

78. X-ray spectrograph operating conditions _ __ _ _ _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ 90 

79. X-ray fluorescence determinations and estimates for standard ,samples -------------------------- 90 

80. Quantitative spect~ographic determinations of trace and minor .elements in Cody Shale, SCo-1 ___ 96 

81. Quantitative spectrographic determinations of trace and minor .elements in shal·e of the Green River 

Formation, SGR-1 ____________ ------------------------------ __________ --------------- 97 
VI 

TABLE 82-96. 

97. 

98. 

99. 

100·. 

101. 

102. 

103. 

104. 

105. 

106. 

107. 

108. 

109. 

CONTENTS 

Computerized spectrographic data for: 

82. Diabase, W -1 ___________________ ------------------ _________ --------------------- __ 

83. Granite, G-2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

84. Granodiorite, GSP-1 ----------- ___ -------------------------------------------------

85. Andesite, AGV -1 ------------------------------------ ________ ----------------------

86. Peridotite, PCC-1 _______ ------------------------ _________ ------------------------ __ 

87. Dunite, DTS-1 ______ --------------------------------------------------------------

88. Basalt, BCR-1 ______ -·- _____________________ - ------ __ ------------------------------

89. Nepheline syenite, STM-1 __________________ --- __ -- _-------------------------------

90. Rhyolite, RGM-1 ----·------------------------------------------------------------- 91. Quartz lat1te, QL0-1 ·- _____________________ --- _ --- ___ - __ -- __ ----------------------

92. Mica schist, SDC-1 ---------------------------------------------------------------

93. Cody Shale, SCo-1 --------------------------------.--------------------------------

94. Gr.een River Shal·e, SGR-1 ---------------------------------------------------------

95. Marine mud, MAG-1 --------------------------------------------------------------

96. Hawaiian basalt, BHV0-1 ______ ---------------------------------------------------

Estimates of the less common alkali and alkaline-earth contents of USGS samples ---------------

Determinations and estimates of several elements and oxides in eight USGS samples -----------

Determinations of carbon and summary of estimates for USGS samples by Arizona State University --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Determinations of carbon and summary of estimates for USGS samples by USGS laboratory ____ _ 

Potassium and argon analyses of P~207 ------------------------------------------------------

Rubidium and strontium measurements of P-207 ---------------------------------------------

New rock analyses -------------------------------------------------------,---------------- Determinations of major and minor constituents in eight USGS standard rock samples -----------

Determinations of trace elements in eight USGS standard samples ----------------------------

Estimates of components normally determined in a ,rock analysis ------------------------------

Estimates for trace el·ements in USGS samples -----------------------------------------------

Determinations of gold, silver, and tantalum in USGS standard rocks --------------------------

Particle-size distribution of six USGS samples -----------------------------------------------

ABBREVIATIONS 

A --------------Angstrom 

em --------------Centimeter 

,m --------------meter 

M --------------mole cm3 _____________ cubic centimeter 

cps _____________ counts per second 

cps/JLg __________ counts per second per microgram 

oF ______________ degrees Far.enheit 

ft ______________ foot 

ft2 ______________ square ioot 

ft'l ______________ cubic foot 

g _______________ gram 

g/kg ____________ grams per kilogram 

gal _____________ gallon 

gal/ton _________ gallons per ton 

h _______________ hour 

in ______________ inch 

rnA -------------milliampere 

MeV ------------megaelectronvolts 

mg -------------milligram 

mi --------------mile 

mF -------------square mile 

min -------------minute 

ml/min ----------milliliters per minute 

mm -------------millimeter 

MW ------------megawatt 

m.y. ------------million years 

p,g --------------microgram 

P.m _____________ micrometer 

p.s --------------micros.econd 

Page 

101 

102 

103 

104 

105 

106 

107 

108 

109 

110 

111 

112 

113 

114 

115 

117 

120 

124 

125 

128 

129 

132 

135 

145 

171 

171 

186 

192 

keV _____________ kiloelectronvolts neutrons cm-2 s-1 __ neutrons p·er square centimeter per second 

kg ______________ kilogram 

km _____________ kilometer 

kp ______________ kilopond force 

kp/cm2 __________ kilopond force per centimeter squared 

kV _____________ kilovolt 

kW _____________ kilowatt 

1 _______________ liter 

1/min ___________ liter per minute 

lb ______________ pound 

ng ______________ nanogram 

nm -------------nanometer 

oz --------------ounce 

ppb -------------Parts per billion 

ppm ____________ parts per million 

psi _____________ pounds per square inch 

yd2 _____________ squal'e yard 

yr ______________ year 
DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

INTRODUCTION 

By F. J. FLANAGAN 

Eight new whole-rock sample powders have been 

added to the U.S. Geological Survey's standard sample program. These samples supplement the first 

two samples, G-1 and W-1 (Fairbairn and others, 

1951; Stevens and others, 1960; Fleischer and 

Stevens, 1962; Fleischer, 1965, 1969), and the more 

recent set of six samples, G-2, GSP-1, AGV-1, 

PCC-1, DTS-1, and BCR-1 (Flanagan 1967, 1969). 

The supply of G-1 became exhausted in 1965, but 

requests for the remaining samples will be considered as long as supplies last. 

The new samples consist of six rocks-a nepheline syenite from Table Mountain, Oreg. ; a rhyolite obsidian from Glass Mountain, Calif. ; a quartz 

latite from Lake County, Oreg.; a mica schist from 

Rock Creek Park, Washington, D.C.; the Cody 

Shale from Natrona County, Wyo.; and a basalt 

from Kilauea Crater, Hawaii-and a m.arine sediment from Wilkerson Basin, Gulf of Maine. The 

marine sediment is probably the first standard sample of its kind and should be of substantial value 

to analysts dealing with such samples. A second portion of the quartz latite is intended for gamma ray 

spectrometry. Seven of the samples, collected by 

geologists familiar with the geologic settings, are 

described in separate sections in this report, and 

analyses of the contents for many of the elements 

are given for all eight standard rocks. 

The samples were prepared primarily as reference materials for geochemical investigations. Although intended for use principally in our laboratories, they are available for distribution to investigators in geological surveys, other government organizations, unive~sities, and research institutes 

whose problems and interests are similar to ours. 

N orm:ally, 1-oz bottles :are supplied, but requests for 

larger amounts may be considered. 

Our laboratories have made preliminary chemical 

and spectrographic analyses of these new samples, 

and the data are included in the descriptive .. papers. 

Periodic compilations of data for all available 

USGS samples are planned. Because of the difficulties inherent in simultaneous.ly compiling data for 

a dozen or more samples, analysts are requested to 

send us the references to papers in which they have 

published data on our samples. 

The processing of these new samples, with only 

a few exceptions, follows without change the procedure previously described (Flanagan, 1967). An 

important part of the procedure consists of the 

selection, using random normal deviates, of (1) four 

bottles for sieve tests from each third of the entire 

batch of bottles; (2) three bottles from each third 

for spectrographic determinations in which one bottle from each third is given to each of our three 

spectrographic laboratories ; and ( 3) two bottles 

from each third for the initial chemical analysis by 

our laboratories. 

As these selections are made upon completion of 

bottling, sieve :analyses are available for all samples. 

Chemical analysis by the methods of Peck (1964) 

and quantitative spectrographic analysis by the 

method of Bastron, Barnett, and Murata (1960) 

are available for the first three samples, STM-1, 

RGM-1, and QL0-1. The compositions of the remaining s·amples were determined by rapid rock 

analy,sis methods (S:hap,iro :and Brannock, 1962; 

Shapiro, 1967) and by semiquantitative spectrographic analysis (Myers and others, 1961). Data 

on trace elements that had concentrations below the 

limits of detection for either spectrographic method 

have not been entered in the tables. 

The quantitative spectrographic data for the 

minor and trace elements are entered as parts per 

1 
2 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

million for ease .in comparison of data and in computation in the analysis of variance. These data are 

significant to two figures (hut only one near the 

limit of detection), and the zeros to the right of the 

significant digits are intended only to locate the 

decim3il point. The two digits for some semiquantitative data serve only to indicate the midpoint of 

an interval because the data are reported as a number in the series 1.0, 0.7, 0.5, 0.3, 0.2, 0.15, 0.1, and 

so on, which represent midpoints of intervals on a 

geometric scale. The standard deviation of these 

semiquantitative data is one interval. 

The :analysis of variance was used with the quantitative spectrochemical determinations for the first 

three samples to determine if the .samples are homogeneous for those elements for which the laboratories reported duplicate determinations on their 

three bottles. The data for each element are cast 

into the form of a two-way experimental design 

with duplicate determinations in which the laboratories and the bottles from the three thirds of the 

lot of sarnples are the variables of classification. As 

an example, the data for beryllium in STM-1 are 

shown below. 

Beryllium determinations for STM-1, ·in parts per million 

Laboratory Totals 

Thirds Menlo Wash- for 

Park Denver ington thirds 

1 -------------------- 5 10 7 

6 11 14 

Subtotal ------- 11 21 21 53 

2 -------------------- 6 17 11 

6 12 10 

Subtotal ------- 12 29 21 62 

3 -------------------- 5 7 14 

7 6 8 

Subtotal ------- 12 13 22 47 

Laboratory totals 

and grand total ----- 35 63 64 162 

Because of the reLatively small number of determinations ( 18), it was not determined if the assumptions underlying the analysis of variance 

(Eisenhart, 1947) were tenable. On the assumption 

that they are valid, the calculations of the sums of 

squares for the sources of variation were made as 

shown in numerous texts, (for example, Dixon and 

Massey, 1951, p. 135-136), ·and the sums of squares 

and the degrees of freedom were entered in the 

analysis of (variance taJble below. 

Analysis of variance 

[NS, not si.gnifieant] 

Source of 

variation 

Degrees 

of Mean Sum of free- sum of 

squares dom squares 

Thirds --------- 19.00 2 

Laboratories ____ 90.33 2 

Interaction _____ 45.67 4 11.42 

Subtotal __ 15·5.00 8 

Within --------- 59.00 9 6.55 

Total ____ 214.00 17 

F ratio 

11.42/6.55=1.74 NS 

Fo.uG ( 4,9) =3.63 

The sum of squares for the interaction was obtained by the difference between the subtotal and 

the sums of squares for the thirds and laboratories, 

and that for the within, by the difference between 

the total variation and the subtotal. 

The mean sums of squares (MSS) for the sources 

of variation are obtained. by dividing the sums of 

squares by their degrees of freedom, and the significance of the interaction is tested by the ratio, 

MSSinteracuon/ MSSwithin' !shown in the table. For most 

elements in the fivst three samples the computed 

ratio does not ex·ceed the allowable value, Fo.9s (4, 9) 

=3.63, and the interaction is judged to be not significant. The interaction and the within sums of 

squares and their degrees of freedom are then pooled 

to form an error sum of squares and degrees of 

freedom which are entered in the final analysis of 

varianc,e table below. Ratios of the variation attributable to thirds and to laboratories are then 

formed with the error mean square, and if a ratio 

does not exceed the value of Fo.95 (2, 13) =3.81, as 

shown in F tables, it is not declared to be signficantly larger than the error. When the variation 

due to the bottles randomly selected from the three 

thirds .is not si·gnificant, the sample is declared to be 

homogeneous for that element by the spectrographic 

data of the three laboratories. 

Analysis of variance 

[S, significant; NS, not signifieant] 

Degrees 

of Mean Source of Sum of free- sum of 

variation squares dom squares F ratio 

Thirds --------- 19.00 2 9.50 9.50/8.05=1.18 NS 

Laboratories ---- 90.33 2 45.16 45·.16/8.05=5.61 s 

Error ---------- 104.67 13 8.05 Fo.95(2,13) =3.81 

Total ---- 214.00 17 

The standard deviations listed in the summary 

tables are the estimates for analytical error and for 

laboratory error. Other designs have been used in 

some papers that ·result in estimates of the bottle 
INTRODUCTION 8 

error and the analytical error. Bennett and Franklin (1954, table 7.14, p. 362) show that the average 

value for the mean square for subclasses (in this 

case, laboratories) is the sum of the mean square 

for error and n times the laboratory variance, where 

n is the number of determinations by each laboratory. If we subtract the error mean square from the 

mean square of the variation attributable to laboratories and divide this answer by 6, the number of 

determinations by each laboratory, we obtain the 

laboratory variance. The square root of the latter 

value and the square root of the error mean square 

are entered in the summary tables as their respective standard deviations. 

For several F ratios of the mean sum of squares 

for the variation attributable to laboratories over 

the error mean square, we have obtained values less 

than, but not significantly less than, one. The resulting negative values for the estimates of the 

laboratory variance may be attributed to sample 

fluctuations about an average value of zero. We 

should anticipate this effect in half the tests in which 

our hypothesis, that the variation due to laboratories is not significantly greater than the error 

mean square, is true. These negative values have 

been indicated in the summary tables by the abbreviation "Neg." 

With few exceptions, the first three samples are 

homogeneous for the several elements that were determined, whereas the' laboratory variation was frequently significantly greater than the error mean 

square and the laboratories therefore estimate these 

elements differently. For several elements, the interaction mean square was significantly greater 

than the within mean square. There appears to be 

no physical reason for the significance of the interaction, and this significance may be due to chance, 

which may occur 5 percent of the time at the level 

of significance used. These significant interactions 

were used in the denominator of the F ratio to test 

the mean squares for thirds and for laboratories. 

The data below for the significance of the variation due to laboratories for STM-1, RGM~1, and 

QL0-1 can furnish material for speculation. If the 

nepheline syenite, STM-1, is classified as crystalline, and the rhyolite obsidian, RGM-1, and the 

quartz latite, QL0-1, as noncrystalline (the very 

fine grain size and the minor glass content give 

the quartz latite a noncrystalline appearance), then 

the ratio of nonsignificant conclusions for the cry~­

talline rock is 0.38 and for the noncrystalline, 0.56. 

The difference between these ratios lends slight support to the idea that the spectrographic determinaSignificance of the variation due to laboratories for STM-1, 

RGM-1, and QL0-1 

[S, significant; NS, not significant] 

Element 

Ba ---------------- Be ---------------- Co ---------------- Cu ----------------

Ga ---------------- La ---------------- ]{o ----------------

Nb ---------------- Ph ----------------

Sc ----------------

Sr ----------------- V ----------------- y -----------------

Yb ----------------

Zr ----------------- ]{n ---------------- Ti ---- -- - -------

NS/ (S+NS) ------

STM-1 

NS 

s 

NS 

s 

s 

NS 

NS 

NS 

s 

s 

s 

s 

s 

5/13 

RGM-1 

NS 

NS 

s 

NS 

NS 

s 

NS 

NS 

s 

s 

NS 

7/11 

QLG-1 

s 

NS 

NS 

NS 

s 

NS 

s 

s 

NS 

s 

NS 

s 

6/12 

tion of trace elements in noncrystalline materials is 

more precise than those in crystalline rocks, possibly 

because of the more uniform distribution of the elements in the noncrystalline rocks. The data also show 

that, as with G-1, W-1, and other standards, spectrographic laboratories can agree with only moderate differences on ele~ments such as copper but that 

improvements in the technique are still neces·sary 

for elements such as barium, strontium and zirconium. 

The last two-thirds of this volume contain compilations of data on muscovite P-207 and on the USGS 

rocks that have been made available since 1951, as 

well as individual studies of the newer USGS standard·s by U.S. Geological Survey laboratories and by 

laboratories throughout the world. These "Studies of 

the newer samples report data obtained by using 

an experimental design with a single variable of 

classification. The use of this simple design was 

based on the argument below. 

The user of a standard sample generally has a 

single unit of issue--for our rocks, a single bottle. 

If an analyst makes determination'S on a number of 

portions of ,sample from the bottle, he can calculate 

a mean and a standard deviation of the data. These 

estimates adequately summarize the data obtained, 

but they apply only to the powder in the bottle that 

was analyzed and cannot be extrapolated to another 

bottle. Further, the standard deviation is of dubious 

value for estimating sample variability as it contains some estimate of the variability of the material in the bottle and of the variability due. to the 

analyst and to the method. As each analyst has his 

own bottle, there is an obvious need for some measure of the bottle-to-bottle variation, and the simple 
4 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

experimental design with a single variable of classification is one of the least costly ways of achieving 

the desired goal. 

The variable of classification for the design is the 

three or more bottles of a standard, randomly selected from the stock. Analysts were requested to 

make two or more determinations on each bottle 

(but the sam.e number of determinations per bottle 

to preserve the simplicity of the arithmetic) and to 

make the determinations in random order. The 

analysis of variance allows us to calculate a mean 

sum of squares for the variation within bottles, 

which we equate to the analytical v·ariance; and also 

allows us to separate the components of the mean 

sum of squares between bottles, so that we can estimate a bottle variance. Of at least equal importance, 

the F test involving the ratio of the two mean sums 

of squares, where the analytical error is used as the 

yardstick for ·measuring, affords us an objective test 

of the homogeneity of an element in the bottles of 

sample. Because of the random selection of the bottles, the conclusions may be extrapolated to the entire lot of bottles. 

Many estimates of the bottle vari·ance obtained in 

these studies are negative, and these negative estimates are clearly em.barrassing becaus.e variance 

components are, by definition, positive. The problem of negative estimates of vadances has been discussed by McHugh and Mielke (1968), Neider 

(1954), Thompson (1961, 1962), and Searle (1971). 

Searle lists seve.~al possible steps, few of which are 

considered by him to be satisfactory, that may be 

taken when such estimates occur. 

Bennett and Franklin (1954, p. 329) state that 

one can expect such negative estimates in about half 

of the tests on the type of data for which our hypothesis, that u2

n (the bottle variance) is zero, is 

true and that these negative estimates may be attributed to sample fluctuations about an average 

value of zero. We might, therefore, as a temporary 

expedient rewrite a negative estimate of the bottle 

variance, -u2n, as u2n (-1), or as cr2

8 i 2 , and table the 

negative estimate as ~bottle standard deviation, uni, 

where i is the conventional symbol for ,/ -1. If such 

a convention were adopted, the i, especially if italicized, should be a sufficient warning that the tabled 

standard deviation was obtained from a negative 

bottle variance. We would then have a numerical 

but partly imaginary estimate that might be useful 

until a simpler, but rigorous, statistical solution to 

the problem is available. 

Among the sampl.es for which data are reported 

in the analytical papers is one of oil shale from the 

Mahogany zone of the Green River Formation. No 

descriptive paper is available for this sample. The 

rock was sent to the laboratory by G. U. Dinneen, 

Laramie Petroleum Research Center, U.S. Bureau 

of Mines, as a possible standard for the determination of shale oil yields and for use by the Organic 

Geochemistry Division of the Geochemical Society. 

Thirty determinations by several analysts yielded 

an average of 53.4 gal of oil per ton of shale, with 

a range of 52.2-55.7 gal/ton. This range does not 

necessarily indicate heterogeneity of the sample as 

the Fischer assay method for oil determinations, or 

modifications thereof, is an .empirical method somewhat dependent on the analyst and on his specific 

technique. 

The number of samples avaHable or being prepared as standards (Flanagan, 1970) now threatens 

to tax the analysts of laboratories that can cooperate 

in-the analysis of such s!amples. Invariably, the organization that prepares a proposed standard cannot 

afford the time and effort to make all determinations 

necessary for standardiz·ation, and it must depend 

on the generosity of cooperating laboratories. 

Despite the large size of our organization, we must 

also depend on such assistance. 

Our gratitude is extended to collaborators who 

contributed analyses of our samples. 

While this paper was in page proof, Kosiewicz and 

others (1974) published rare-earth data for STM-1 

and SCo-1 from neutron activation. 

REFERENCES CITED 

Bastron, Harry, Barnett, P. R., and Murata, K. J., 1960, 

Method for the quantitative spectrochemical analysis of 

rocks, minerals, ores, and other materials by a powder 

d-e arc technique: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1084-G, p. 

165-182. 

Bennett, C. A., and Franklin, N. L., 1954, Statistical analysis in chemistry and the chemical industry: New York, 

John Wiley and Sons, 724 p. 

Dixon, W. J., and Massey, F. J., Jr., 1951, Introduction to 

statistical analysis: New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 370 p. 

Eisenhart, Churchill, 1947, The assumptions underlying the 

analysis of variance: Biometrics, v. 3, p. 1-21. 

Fairbairn, H. W., and others, 1951, A cooperative investigation of precision and accuracy in chemical, spectro-

. chemic·al, and modal analysis of silicate rocks: U.S. 

Geol. Survey Bull. 980, 71 p. 

Flanagan, F. J., 1967, U.S. Geological Survey silicate rock 

standards: Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 31, p. 289-

308. 

-- 1969, U.S. Geological Survey standards-H. First 

compilation of data for the new U.S.G.S. rocks: Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 33, p. 81-120. 

-- 1970, Sources of geochemical standards-II: Geochim. et Cosmoehim. Acta, v. 34, p. 121-125. 
INTRODUCTION 5 

Fleischer, Michael, 1965, Summary of new data on rock 

samples G-1 and W-1, 1962-19·65; Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 29, p. 1263-1283. 

--- 1969, U.S. Geological Survey standards-I. Additional data on rocks G-1 and W-1, 1965-1967: Geoehim. 

et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 33, p. 65-79. 

Fleischer, Mi-chael, and Stevens, R. E., 1962, Summary of 

new data on rock samples G-1 and W-1: Geochim. et 

Cosmochim. Acta, v. 26, p. 525-543. 

Kosiewicz, S. T., Schomberg, P. J., and Haskin, R. A., 1974, 

Rare earth analysis of USGS SCo-1 and STM-1-

Evaluation of standards for homogeneity and of the precision and accuracy of a procedure for neutron activation 

analysis: Jour. Radioanal. Chemistry, v. 20, p. 619-626. 

McHugh, R. B., and Mielke, P. W., Jr., 1968, Negative variance es.timates and statistical dependence in nested 

sampling: Am. Statistical Assoc. Jour., v. 63, 1000-1003. 

Myers, A. T., Havens, R. G., and Dunton, P. J., 1961, A spectrochemical method for the semiquantitative analysis of 

rocks, minerals, and ores: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1084-1, 

p. 207-229. 

Neider, J. A., 1954, The inte.rpretation of negative components of variance: Biometrika, v. 41, p. 544-548. 

Peck, L. C., 1964, Systematic analysis of silicates: U.S. Geol. 

Survey Bull. 1170, 89 p. 

Searle, S. R., 1971, Topics in variance component estimation: 

Biometrics, v. 27, p. 1-76. 

Shapiro, Leonard, 1967, Rapid analysis of rocks and minerals by a single-solution method: U.S. Geol. Survey 

Prof. Paper 575-B, p. B187-B191. 

Shapiro, Leonard, and Brannock, W. W., 1962, Rapid analysis of silicate, carbonate, and phosphate rocks: U.S. 

Geol. Survey Bull. 1144-A, 56 p. 

Stevens, R. E., and others, 1960, Second report on a cooper~ 

tive investigation of the composition of two silicate 

rocks: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1113, 126 p. 

Thompson, W. A., Jr., 1961, Negative estimates of variance 

components: an introduction: Inst. lnternat. Statistique 

(Rome) Bull., v. 34, p. 181-184. 

--- 1962, The p·roblem of negative es·timates of variance 

components: Annals Math. s.tatisties, v. 33, p. 273-289. 

DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

NEPHELINE SYENITE, STM-1, FROM TABLE MOUNTAIN, OREGON 

By P. D. SNAVELY) JR.) N. S. MAcLEOD) F. J. FLANAGAN) SoL BERMAN) 

H. G. NEIMAN) and HARRY BASTRON 

A sample of peralkaline nepheline syenite for the 

reference sample program of the U.S. Geological 

Survey was collected from a sill that underlies Table 

Mountain (Georgia-Pacific quarry, SE% sec. 36, 

T. 12 S., R. 10 W., Tidewater 15-min quadrangle, 

lat. 44°28.6' N.; long 123°50.2' W. see fig. 1) in the 

y, 0 

.5 0 

Geology by P. D. Snavely, Jr., 

and H. C. Wagner, 1959 

!MILE 

I KILOMETER 

CONTOUR INTERVAL 50 FEET 

FIGURE 1.-Source of STM-1 on Table Mountain, Oreg. 

Shaded areas indicate outcrops of nepheline syenite. 

Base from U.S. Geological Survey, Tidewater 15-min 

quadrangle, 1942-56. 

Oregon Coast Range. The nepheline syenite sill is 

250-400 ft thick, underlies an area of 'about 1% mi 2 , 

and intrudes graded sandstone and siltstone beds of 

the Tyee Formation (middle Eocene). The Table 

Mountain sill is a remnant of a much larger sill tha;t 

may have underlain an area of more than 50 mi2

• 

Numerous small dikes of nepheline syenite, shonkinite, and camptonite that crop out in the Tidewater 

and adjoining quadrangles appear to be consanguineous with the nepheline syenite at T·able Mountain. 

Nepheline syenite from a dike in Indian Creek, 

Mapleton quadrangle (approximately 18 miles south 

of Table Mountain), has a potassium-argon age of 

33.6 m.y. (determined by R. W. Kistler, U.S. Geol. 

Survey) and this probably is also the age of the 

nepheline syenite at T·able Mountain. The petrography, petrochemistry, and field relations of nepheline syenite in the central part of the Oregon Coast 

Range are briefly described by Snavely and Wagner 

(1961). 

The fresh nepheline syenite is light to medium 

gray and has a glassy luster; weathered surfaces 

are pitted because of leaching of nepheline and 

analcime. The nepheline syenite is holocrystalline 

and very fine to fine grained and has a very pronounced trachytic texture. According to grain size 

and texture, it might more properly be termed 

phonolite, but, because ·it is intrusive and somewhat 

coarser grained in places, it is referred to as nepheline syenite. The rock is composed of alkali feldspar, 

nepheline, analcime, aegmne, riebeckite-arfvedsonite, biotite, olivine, opaque minerals, and apatite. 

Alkali feldspar, about Abno-Or,o, constitutes 75-

80 percent of the nepheline syenite and occurs as 

flow-alined laths. A more potassic feldspar, revealed 

by sodium cobaltinitrite staining, is interstitial to 

the albitic feldspar. Nepheline constitutes 5-10 percent of the nepheline syenite and occurs as euhedral 

to subhedral crystals and as smaller anhedral grains 

interstitial to feldspar. Analcime constitutes about 

5 percent and is generally associated with nepheline. 

7 
8 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

The mafic minerals occur surrounding larger 

nepheline and analcime crystals and as anhedral 

gmins ophiticaly intergrown with alkali feldspar. 

Aegirine makes up about 10 percent of the rock, and 

riebeckite-a.rfvedsonite about 3 percent. Olivine is 

less than 1 percent of the rock and has reaction rims 

of biotite surrounded by alkali amphibole. Biotite 

(less than 0.5 percent) also occurs ophitically intergrown with feldspar and rimming nepheline or analcime crystals. Opaque minerals and apatite make up 

less than 0.5 percent. 

Sieve analyses of portions of the processed sample 

are given in table 1. Chemical analyses of two bottles of the sample and CIPW norms computed from 

t.he!':e analvses are given in taJble 2. For c\3.kulation 

of the norms, total water was removed from the 

analyses, and the remaining oxides were recalculated to 100 percent. 

TABLE 1.-Sieve analyses of STM-1 (percent) 

Thirds ___________ ______ 2 3 Avg 

Sieve size: 

+100 --- 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 

-100+120 --- .1 .1 .1 .1 

-120+170 --- .9 1.3 1.0 1.1 

-170+200 - -- 1.9 2.3 2.2 2.1 

-200 -------- 96.9 96.2 96.5 96.5 

Total ------ 99.9 100.0 99.9 99.9 

TABLE 2.-Chemical analyses and norms of STM-1 

[In weight percent. Chemical analyses by methods of Peck (1964). Analysts: bottle 9/ 17, E. L . Munson; bottle 29/31, V . C. Smith] 

Bottle No ___________________ _ 

Chemical analyses 

SiO, ------------------ ALO., ----------------- Fe,O. -----------------

FeO - ----------------- ~gO ------------------

CaO -------- ---------- Na.O ----------------- K,O ------------------ H,O+ ---------------- H.O- ----------------

TiO, ------------------

P,O, ------------------ ~nO ----------------- co. ------------------ Cl --------------------

F -------------------- S -------------------- BaO ------------------ Subtotal _______ _ 

Less 0 ---------------

Total -----------

9/ 17 

59.62 

18.61 

2.86 

2.10 

.10 

1.16 

9.01 

4.27 

1.41 

.18 

.13 

.16 

.23 

.01 

.05 

.10 

.00 

.05 

99.95 

.05 

99.90 

29/31 

59.46 

18.60 

2.87 

2.08 

.10 

1.15 

8.92 

4.21 

1.38 

.19 

.14 

.16 

.22 

.02 

.05 

.10 

.00 

.05 

99.70 

.05 

99.65 

TABLE 2.-Chemical analyses and norms of STM-1-

Continued 

lk>ttle No ------------------

Orthoclase ------------ Albite ---------------- Nepheline ------------- Halite ---------------- Acmite ---------------

Wollastonite ---------- Enstatite ------------- Ferrosilite ------------ Forsterite ------------- Fayalite _-------------

~agnetite ------------ Ilmenite -------------- Apatite --------------- Fluorite -------------- CaCO. ----------------

Total -----------

CIPW norm 

9/17 

25.65 

50.75 

12.13 

.08 

3.51 

1.74 

.16 

1.77 

.06 

.75 

2.46 

.25 

.39 

.18 

.02 

99.90 

29/ 31 

25.35 

52.43 

11.48 

.08 

2.58 

1.70 

.18 

1.70 

.05 

.54 

2.95 

.27 

.39 

.18 

.05' 

99.93 

Quantitative spectrographic determinations are 

presented in table 3. The data for the 13 elements 

for which our three spectrographic laboratories reported duplicate determinations on their three bottles were treated by the 3Jna,lysis .of variance. These 

tests showed that without exception the variation 

attributable to samples selected from the three thirds 

was not significant. We may therefore conclude that 

the samples are homogeneous for the 13 elements. 

Because of the random ,selection of the bottles, the 

conclusions may be .extended to the entire sample. 

The variation due to laboratories was not significant for Ba, Cu, Mo, Nb, .and Sr, and the :laboratories may use the grand ave-rage to estimate these 

elements. The variation due to laboratory means for 

the remaining eight elements was significantly 

greater than the error mean square, and the J.aboratories estimate these elements differently. Inspection of the data in table 3 shows that the tests of 

significance for some elements served only to confirm visual judgments that significant differences 

might be attributed to laboratory means 

Laboratory averages are given in table 4 for all 

elements for which quantitative determinations 

were reported, and grand averages, standard deviations and conclusions from the analysis of variance 

are given for the 13 elements for which tests were 

made. Although the variation due to laboratories 

was significant for eight elements, some differences 

among the laboratory means are not unduly large, 

and the grand average may be used as the estimate. 

The laboratories should use their own estimates for 

Zrand Ti. 

Means of the La data for two laboratories agree 

well between themselves and both differ markedly 
NEPHELINE SYENITE, STM-1, FROM TABLE MOUNTAIN, OREGON 9 

TABLE 3.-Spectrochemical determinations of elements in STM-1 

[In parts per million. Method of Bastron and others (1960)] 

Laboratory ------------ Washington Denver Menlo Park 

Bottle No _______________ 10/13 29/22 50/11 10/12 30/10 49/28 9/20 29/32 50/14 

Ba --------------- 500 470 470 480 420 440 460 480 460 

370 390 420 760 620 620 480 440 440 

Be --------------- 7 11 14 10 17 7 5 6 5 

14 10 8 11 12 6 6 6 7 

Ce --------------- 800 400 600 

500 600 300 

Cr --------------- 2 3 2 1 1 1 

3 3 3 1 1 1 

Cu --------------- 4 3 2 5 3 2 2 2 2 

4 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 

Ga --------------- 35 36 37 42 46 46 40 32 32 

35 29 31 41 45 45 26 26 26 

La --------------- 260 260 300 110 150 160 190 160 150 

280 240 210 160 160 160 140 140 160 

Mo --------------- 6 4 3 15 <5 7 5 6 6 

5 5 4 12 5 7 5 7 6 

Nb --------------- 280 290 350 310 330 330 280 260 300 

290 240 250 310 340 300 300 320 280 

Ni --------------- 3 2 2 

1 1 1 

Ph --------------- 30 20 20 14 11 8 

20 20 20 10 8 9 

Sn --------------- 13 12 12 

9 11 12 

Sr --------------- 740 420 380 840 1,100 640 900 840 740 

400 500 590 1,400 1,000 900 800 880 740 

y ---------------- 70 70 70 58 62 54 40 50 50 

80 60 50 52 60 67 60 40 40 

Yb --------------- 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 

6 4 4 5 5 4 4 3 4 

Zr --------------- 1,000 990 1·,000 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,300 1,100 1,300 

960 1,000 900 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,100 1,200 1,300 

Mn --------------- 1,600 1.600 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,8'00 1,600 1,500 1,400 

1,700 1,800 1,400 1,800 2,000 1,500 1,400 1,600 1,500 

Ti ---------------- 840 820 1,100 1,200 1,100 1,200 840 720 790 

940 860 690 1,200 1,100 1,200 800 840 830 

from the third. These two laboratories may wish to might wish to estimate their own means and standrecalculate a single estimate for their common use. ard deviations. 

Although the variation in the Sr data attributable to Before the processing of this sample had been both thirds of the lot and to the laboratories were 

declared not significant, the pooled mean square for completed, a request was received for a portion, and 

error is larger than those attributable to thirds and two 1-oz bottles were dipped into the ground and 

laboratories. After partitioning the variation due partly mixed, but unbottled, bulk sample. Data for 

to laboratories into its two components of laboratory several trace elements obtained by neutron activaand error variance, the laboratory standard devia- tion on these two unnumbered bottles are given in 

tion was entered in the table as negative, but be- table 5 and lend further credence to the above claims 

cause of the poor precision for Sr, the laboratories of sample homogeneity. 
10 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

TABLE 4.-Averages and standard deviations for spectographic data for STM-1 

[In parts per million. S, significant. NS, not significant, when tested against Fo.95. d.f., degrees of freedom] 

Conclusion from analysis Standard deviation 

Laboratory averages Grand of variance Laboratories Error 

Element Washington Denver Menlo Park average Thirds Laboratories (d.f.=2) (d.f.=13) 

Ba ------------ 437 557 460 484 NS NS 53 86 

Be ------------- 10.7 10.5 6.2 9.1 NS s 2.2 2.6 

Ce ------------- 530 

Cr ------------ 2.6 1 

Gu ------------ 3.0 3.0 2.3 2.8 NS NS .24 .74 

Ga ------------ 34 44 30 36 NS s 7.0 4.1 

La ------------ 258 150 156 188 NS s 60 25.6 

Mo ------------ 4.5 8.5 5.8 6.3 1 NS 1 NS 1.3 3.9 

Nb ------------ 283 320 290 298 NS NS 15.6 28.8 

Ni ------------- 1.6 

Ph ------------- 22 10 

Sn ------------- 12 

Sr ------------- 505 980 817 767 NS NS Neg. 940 

y ------------- 67 59 47 57.4 NS s 9.5 8.5 

Yb ------------ 4.8 4.5 3.8 4.4 NS s .46 .51 

Zr ------------- 975 1,500 1,217 1,230 NS s 265 63.6 

Mn ------------ 1,600 1,800 1,500 1,600 NS s 110 120 

Tf ------------- 875 1,166 803 948 NS s 189 88.5 

1 The significant interaction was used to test the variation due to thirds and to laboratories. 

TABLE 5.-Published determinations by neutron activation 

analysis of STM-1 

[In parts per million, except where indicated] 

Determina- Element tions Average 

Ce -------------- 298,286, 308 

Cl -------------- 430,432 Co -------------- <1 Cr ---- _________ _ 

Cu ------------- 2.0, 1.9, 2.1 

Eu ------------- 4.0, 3.9, 4.2 

Ga ----'--------- 36, 39, 38 

In -------------- 0.0852, 0.0879 

La ------------- 133, 155, 141 

Mn ------------- 1,420, 1,540, 1,440 Na (percent) ___ 6.12, 6.56, 5.99, 5.76, 5.68, 6.39 P205 (percent) __ 1 (0.178, 

0.0180). 1 (0.194, 

0.176) Sc -------------- 0.6, 0.6 

Se -------------- 0.012, 0.008 

Sm ------------- 17.3, 18.3 16.6 

Zn ------------- 204, 206,218 

1 ·Two irradiations 

297 

431 

1.4 

2.0 

4.1 

38 

. 087 

143 

1,470 

6.08 

. 182 

. 6 

. 010 17.4 

209 

References 

Brunfelt and Steinnes ( 1967a). Johansen and Steinnes (1967). Brunfelt and Steinnes ( 1966). Brunfelt and Steinnes ( 1967b). Brunfelt, Johansen, and Steinnes (1967). Brunfelt and Steinnes ( 1967a). Brunfelt, Johansen, and 

Steinnes (1967). Johansen and Steinnes (1966) . Brunfelt and Steinnes ( 1966). Do. 

Do. 

Brunfelt and Steinnes ( 1968) . 

Brunfelt and Steinnes ( 1966) . Brunfelt and Steinnes (1967c) . Brunfelt and Steinnes ( 1966). 

Brunfelt, Johansen, and Steinnes (1967). 

REFERENCES CITED 

Bastron, Harry, Barnett, P. R., and Murata, K. J., 1960, 

Method for the quantitative spectrochemical analysis of 

rocks, minerals, ores and other materials by a powder 

d-e arc technique: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1084-G, p. 

165-182. 

Brunfelt, A. 0., Johansen, 0., and Steinnes, Eiliv, 1967, 

Determination of copper, gallium, and zinc in "standard 

rocks" by neutron activation: Anal. Chim. Acta, v. 37, 

p. 172-178. 

Brunfelt, A. 0., and Steinnes, Eiliv, 1966 Instrumental neutron activation analysis of "standard rocks": Geochim. 

et Cosmochim. Acta, v .30, p. 921-928. 

--- 1967a, Cerium and europium content o.f some standard 

rocks: Chern. Geology, v. 2, no. 3, p. 199-2'07. 

--- 1967b, Determination of chromium in rocks by neutron activation and anion exchange: Anal. Chemistry, 

v. 39, no. 7, p. 833-834. 

--- 1967c, Determination of selenium in standard rocks 

by neutron activation analysis: Geochim. et Cosmochim. 

Acta, v. 31, no. 2, p. 283-285. 

--- 1968, The determination of phosphorus in rocks by 

neutron activation: Ana. Chim. Acta, v. 41, p. 155-158. 

Johansen, 0., and Steinnes, Eiliv, 1966, Determination of 

indium in standard rocks by neutron activation analysis: 

Talanta, v. 13, p. 1177-1181. 

--- 1967, Determination of chlorine in U.S.G.S. standard 

rocks by neutron activation ·analysis: Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 31, p. 1107-1109. 

Peck, L. C., 1964, Systematic analysis of silicates: U.S. Geol. 

Survey Bull. 1170, 89 p. 

Snavely, P. D., Jr., and Wagner, H. C., 1961, Differentiated 

gabbroic sills and associated alkalic rocks in the central 

part of the Oregon Coast Range, Oregon: U.S. Geol. 

Survey Prof. Paper 424-D, p. D156-Dl61. 
DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

RHYOLITE, RGM-1, FROM GLASS MOUNTAIN, CALIFORNIA 

By D. B. TATLOCK) F. J. FLANAGAN) HARRY BAsTRONJ SoL BERMAN) 

and A. L. SUTTON J j R. 

The rhyolite from Glass Mountain, Siskiyou 

County, Calif. (lat 41 °37.2' N., long 121 °29.0' W.), 

was selected for the U.S. Geological Survey standard sample program chiefly because it is a glass 

and is therefore less subject to the phase heterogeneities likely to be encountered in a crystalline 

rock. A sample weighing about 135 kg (300 lb) was 

broken from a single block of massive obsidian 

near the terminal front of a Holocene obsidian flow, 

about 2.7 km northeast of, and about 500 m lower 

than, its probable source vent on Glass Mountain 

proper. This youngest of the Glass Mountain flows 

and the sample location are shown in figure 2. The 

flow may be as young as 500 yr (Friedman, 1968). 

Glass Mountain, altitude 2,323 m, is in the Medicine Lake Highland (Anderson, 1941; Peacock, 

1931; Powers, 1932) on the eastern margin of the 

Cascade Range. It is about 63 km east-northeast of 

Mount Shasta and about 10 km south of Lava Beds 

National Monument. 

The Medicine Lake Highland has a diameter of 

about 30 km and rises from an undulating plateau 

whose average altitude is about 1,500 m. The plateau 

is underlain chiefly by basalt and andesite of Miocene and Pliocene age. Silicic volcanic rocks of probable late Pliocene age are found at several places 

around the margin of the present highland. 

The growth of the highland began with the eruption of olivine andesites which formed a broad shield 

volcano. According to Anderson (1941), the central 

part of the shield collapsed, forming a caldera some 

10 km long and 6 km wide. At the same time, 

andesitic lava was squeezed upward along boundary 

fractures, forming rim volcanos that in time were 

high enough to discharge lava down the slopes of 

the original shield volcano. The inner walls of the 

original caldera were obliterated, leaving an enclosed central basin which is now occupied by Medicine Lake and is surrounded by a rampart of cones. 

Discharge of more silicic differentiates, ranging 

from dacites to rhyolites, began in the caldera area 

at this time. 

In the vicinity of what is now Glass Mountain, 

flows of spherulitic obsidian and dacite terminated 

some 5 km east of the rim of the Medicine Lake 

basin. These flows and the surrounding area were 

MEDICINE LAKE 

¥., 0 

I I 

1 .5 0 

TIMBER MTN 

I 

2 MILES 

I 

2 KILOMETERS 

CONTOUR INTERVAL 40 FEET 

DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVE L 

FIGURE 2.-Lava flow at Glass Mountain, Calif., with the 

source of RGM-1. Base from U.S. Geological Survey, 

Medicine Lake and Timber Mountain 15-min quadrangles, 1952. 

11 
12 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

then mantled by white rhyolitic pumiceous ejecta 

from vents along a fissure striking N. 30° W.; a 

large pumice cone formed at one of the vents on or 

near the site of Glass Mountain. 

Following this explosive activity, dacite (rhyodacite) and rhyolite obsidian were discharged simultaneously and apparently from the same vent. 

Anderson (1933) termed this a composite flow, but 

with obsidian forming the major portion. It extends 

more than 5 km east of Glass Mountain, riding out 

over the older dacite and spherulitic obsidian flows. 

Locally, lenses and bands of obsidian are found cutting through the dacite, but there is no suggestion 

of diffusion of one rock type into the other. It is 

probable that two separate magma chambers existed 

but that explosive eruptions made it possible for the 

dacite to erupt from the rhyolite vent. 

The last of the Glass Mountain flows, and the one 

from which the sample was taken, consists entirely 

of rhyolitic obsidian; it flowed predominantly to 

the east and northeast. It is smaller than, and stands 

out sharply from, the underlying composite flow. 

Chemically, however, it is indistinguishable from the 

older pumice ejecta and obsidian of the composite 

flow. The geology of Glass Mountain, including eight 

analyses of the various rhyolitic rocks, has been 

thoroughly discussed by Anderson (1933). 

Pieces making up the sample displayed no phenocrysts or spherulites and no pumiceous or perlitic 

phases. The luster of the glass on freshly broken 

surfaces ranged from semiglossy to brilliant. 

The obsidian appears to be black from a distance, 

but on close inspection it shows gray to very dark 

gray or black mottling and banding; the bands 

range in thickness from about a millimeter to several 

centimeters. The darker bands seem to result from 

a concentration of microlites, too small to polarize 

light appreciably, that are roughly parallel to the 

banding. Rare opaque crystallite, probably magnetite, may be seen in thin section. 

The index of refraction of the glass ranges from 

about 1.491 to almost 1.494, with an average of 

1.492 ± 0.002. The bulk specific gravity of 14 pieces, 

varying in size from small chips to iarge band specimens, ranges from 2.380 to 2.385, with a mean 

of 2.383 ± 0.003. The specific gravity of the small 

chips was determined by the sink-float method in 

solutions of zinc iodide, and that of the hand specimens was determined by the specific-gravity balance. The powder density of the ground sample is 

2.45. No consistent appreciable differences in either 

the index of refraction or the specific gravity could 

be detected between the lighter and darker colored 

parts of the glass. 

Sieve analyses of portions of the ground samples 

are given in table 6. Chemical analyses of portions 

TABLE 6.-Sieve analyses of RGM-1, in percent 

[Tr., trace] 

Thirds ------------- 2 3 Avg. 

Sieve size: 

+100 - Tr. 0.1 Tr. Tr. 

-100+120 - Tr. Tr. Tr. Tr. 

-120+170 - 1.0 0.6 0.8 0.8 

-170+200 - 1.5 1.7 1.9 1.7 

-200 97.4 97.5 97.3 97.4 

Sum ----- 99.9 99.9 100.0 99.9 

from two randomly selected bottles of RG M -1 are 

given in table 7, and the CIPW norms calculated 

TABLE 7.-Chemical analyses of RGM-1, in weight percent 

[Method of Peck, 1964, Analysts: bottle 31/ 14, E. L. Munson; bottle 52/ 32, 

V. C. Smith] 

Bottle No. --------

SiO, --- --------------------- Al,O, ------------------------ Fe,O:. ----------------- ------ -

FeO ------------------------

~gO ------------------- -- ---

CaO ------------------------ Na,O ------------------------ K,O ------------------------- H,O+ __ ------------- -------- H,O- - ----------------------

31/ 14 52/32 

73.43 73.44 

13.76 13.72 

.50 .49 

1.24 1.23 

.29 .29 

1.16 1.19 

4.19 4.17 

4.34 4.34 

.32 .35 

.12 .11 

TiO, ---------------- -------- .26 .27 

P,O. -------- - --------------- .05 .05 ~nO - - ---------------------- .04 .04 

co, ------------------------- .01 .00 

Cl -------------------------- .05 .06 

F ---- --- -------------------- .04 .04 

s --------------------------- .00 .00 

BaO _____________ _____ _____ ----~·:..;;0.;;7 ---~~.0~9 

Subtotal ------------ - -- 99.87 99.88 

Less 0 ------ -- --- -- -------====::;:;:~.0~3~= =;;:;;:~0~3 

Total ---- -------------- 99.84 99.85 

Total Fe as F eO ____ __ 1.69 1.67 

from the analyses are given in table 8. 

The low water content (reflecting the absence of 

any perlitic phase), the low ratio of ferric to ferrous iron, and the low excess alumina (normative 

corundum) suggest that the glass has undergone no 

appreciable alteration. The sample is classified as a 

rhyolite on the basis of its high silica and total 

alkali contents, and it is assigned to the calc-alkali 

series because of its high ratio of CaO to total iron 

and the relatively high (for a rhyolite) anorthite 

content of its normative plagioclase (An",_,.J ). Except for its lower ratio of potassium to sodium, the 
RHYOLITE, RGM-1, FROM GLASS MOUNTAIN, CALIFORNIA 13 

TABLE B.-Norms (CIPW) for RGM-1, in weight percent 

Bottle No. ________ ----_______________ _ 31/14 52/32 

Quartz --------------------- 28.99 29.06 

Orthoclase ------------------ 25.65 25.65 

Albite ---------------------- 35.46 35.29 

Anorthite ------------------- 5.43 5.58 

Corundum ------------------ .18 .12 

Enstatite ------------------- .72 .72 

Ferrosilite ------------------ 1.51 1.48 

Magnetite ------------------ .73 .71 

Ilmenite -------------------- .49 .51 

Apatite --------------------- .12 .12 

Total _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ----=-9-=-9 .--::::-2-=-s -----=9--=-9--=.2-4 

Niggli values: 

k ---------------------- mg ---------------------

Ratios averaged from two analyses: 

.41 

.23 

.41 

.23 

Q:Or: (Ab+An) ---------------------- 30.4 26.8:42.8 

Or:Ab:An ---------------------------- 38.5 53.2:8.3 

Alk: F: M (mol. percent) --------------- 78.4 16.6:5.0 

rhyolite obsidian from Glass Mountain closely 

matches the average calc-alkali rhyolite of N ockolds 

(1954). 

Quantitative determinations by our three spectrographic laboratories are shown in table 9. The 

data for those 11 elements for which the laboratories 

reported their six determinations were treated by 

the two-way analysis of variance with duplicate determinations. Significant mean squares for interaction for the copper and strontium data were used 

to test the significance of the v·ariation due to thirds 

and laboratories, but the tests for the remaining 

nine elements were made in the normBil fashion. 

Estimates of the means and standard deviations 

and the conclusions from the analyses of variance 

are given in table 10. The standard deviations were 

calculated as described in the "Introduction," except those for the Cu and Sr da;ta. Because of the 

significant interaction for these .elements, the sums 

of squares and degrees of freedom for the interaction .and the within sources of variation were pooled, 

and the standard deviation for error w•as obtained 

from this pooled estimate. The F tests for the sigTABLE 9.-Spec.trochemical determinations of elements in RGM-1 

[In parts per million. Method of Bastron and others (1960) 1 

Laboratory ______________ Washington Denver Menlo Park 

Bottle No _______________ 10/28 31/5 56/26 10/3 31/15 52/29 10/27 31/25 52/11 

B ---------------- 30 30 40 30 30 40 

30 30 30 40 30 30 

Ba --------------- 750 660 740 760 720 740 740 740 740 

590 690 700 660 720 640 680 680 740 

Be --------------- 3 3 3 

3 3 2 

Co --------------- 3 2 3 

2 2 2 

Cr --------------- 3 2 3 4 2 3 

4 2 3 2 2 2 

Cu --------------- 12 13 8 8 9 10 13 8 9 

12 14 7 8 8 8 11 10 15 

Ga --------------- 10 12 11 17 12 14 

8 12 12 15 16 15 

Mo --------------- 4 4 3 

3 3 3 

Nb --------------- 18 18 18 

15 15 17 

Pb --------------- 30 30 20 20 20 20 13 16 26 

30 30 30 20 20 20 12 12 13 

Sc --------------- 5 6 6 5 5 6 6 6 5 

5 7 5 5 6 6 5 5 5 

Sr --------------- 100 100 150 120 110 120 100 100 100 

96 120 170 120 110 110 80 100 100 

v ---------------- 10 13 15 10 10 10 19 19 18 

8 4 8 10 10 10 17 16 20 

y ---------------- 30 30 30 20 20 30 30 30 30 

30 40 20 20 30 30 20 20 20 

Yb --------------- 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 

3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 

Zr --------------- 210 190 200 180 190 210 240 210 200 

210 220 180 170 210 200 220 240 210 

Mn --------------- 280 330 330 320 330 310 280 240 240 

330 300 310 330 310 290 220 200 220 

Ti ---------------- 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,200 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,600 1,400 

1,800 2,100 1,500 1,400 1,800 1,500 1,900 1,900 1,400 
14 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

TABLE 10.-Averages and standard deviatilYns for spectrographic data for RGM-1 

[In parts per million. S, significant, NS, not significant, when tested against Fo.95.d.f., degrees of freedom] 

Conclusions 

Laboratory averages from analysis Standard deviation 

Washing- Menlo Grand of variance La boraElement ton Denver Park average La bora- tories Error 

Thirds tories (d.f.=2) (d.f.=13) 

B ----------- 31.7 33.3 

Ba ---------- 688 707 720 705 NS NS Neg. 49 

Be ---------- 2.8 

Co ---------- 2.3 

Cr ---------- 2.8 2.6 

Cu ---------- 11 8.5 11 10.2 1 NS 1 NS 1.1 2.4 

Ga ---------- 10.8 14.8 

Mo ---------- 3.3 

Nb ---------- 16.8 

Ph ---------- 28 20 15.3 21.2 NS s 6.4 4.2 

Sc ---------- 5.7 5.5 5.3 5.5 NS NS Neg. .61 

Sr ---------- 123 115 97 111 1 NS 1 NS 6.9 28 

v ----------- 9.7 10 18.2 12.6 NS s 4.7 2.5 

y ----------- 30 25 25 26.7 NS NS 1.5 6.0 

Yb ---------- 2.5 2.3 2.0 2.3 NS NS .19 .43 

Zr ---------- 202 193 220 205 NS s 11.8 16.4 

Mn --------- 313 315 233 287 NS s 45.8 22.6 

Ti ---------- 1750 1480 1680 1630 NS NS 110 190 

1 The significant interaction was used to test the variation due to thirds and to laboratories. 

nificance of the variation of the Ba and Sc data attributabl,e to laboratories resulted in ratios of less 

than one (but not significantly so). The lraboratory 

standard deviations for Ba and Sc are therefore 

negative and are so entered in ,table 10. 

The variation attributable to the bottles randomly 

selected from the three thirds of the sample was not 

significant for the 11 e,le·ments for which there was 

complete data by the three .laboratories, and the 

sample may be claimed to be homogeneous for these 

elements. The variation due to l31boratories was not 

significant for Ba, Cu, Sc, Sr, Y, Yb, and Ti, and a 

single estimate can be used for the three laboratories. Conclusions of significant differences due to 

the laboratory m·eans were obtained for Pb, V, Zr, 

and Mn. Of thes.e, the laboratory means for Zr each 

fall within one standard deviation of the grand average, and it is ~appropriate to us.e the grand average 

as the single estimate for the 131boratorie,s. There 

are some fairly large differences among the laboratory me31ns for Ph, V, and Mn, and the laboratories 

should estimate these elements by their own averages. 

A study of the gold cont,ent of som·e volcanic rocks 

(Gottfried, and others, 1972) indicates that gold is 

also homogeneously distributed in both bottles and in 

chips from hand rspecimens of RGM-1. In contrast 

to the average of 16.8 ppm Nb by the Menlo Park 

spectrographic laboratory, Esma Oamphell of the 

Washington la,boratory obtained 9.51 ppm Nb for 

a single determination by the modified thiocyanate 

spectrophotometric method of Grimaldi (1960). 

REFERENCES CITED 

Anderson, C. A., 1933, Volcanic history of Glass Mountain, 

northern California: Am. Jour. Sci., 5th ser., v. 26, p. 

485-506. 

-- 1941, Volcanoes of the Medicine Lake highland, California: Calif. Univ. Dept. Geol. Sci. Bull., v. 25, no. 7, 

p. 347-422. 

Bastron, Harry, Barnett, P. R., and Murata, K. J., 1960, 

Method for the quantitative spectrochemical analysis of 

rocks, minerals, ores, and other materials by a powde,r 

d-e arc technique: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1084-G, p. 

165-182. 

Friedman, Irving, 1968, Hydration rind dates rhyolite flows: 

Sciencre, v. 159, no. 3817, p. 878-880. 

Gottfried, David, Rowe, J. J., and Tilling, R. I., 1972, Distribution of gold in ign·eous rocks: U.S. Geol. Survey 

Prof. Paper 727, 42 p. 

Grimaldi, F. S., 1960, Determination of niobium in the parts 

per million range in rocks: Anal. Chemistry, v. 32, no. 

1, p. 119-121. 

Nockolds, S. R., 1954, Average chemical compositions of 

some igneous rocks: Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 65, no. 

10, p. 1007-1032. 

Peacock, M. A., 1931, The Modoc lava field, northern California: Geog. Rev., v. 21, no. 2, p. 259-275. 

Peck, L. C., 1964, Syst:ematic analysis of silicates: U.S. Geol. 

Survey Bull. 1170, 89 p. 

Powers, H. A., 1932, The 1avas of the Modoc Lava Bed quadrangle, California: Am. Mineralogis,t, v. 17, no. 7, p. 

253-294. 
DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

QUARTZ LATITE (DELLENITE), QL0-1, FROM SOUTHEASTERN 

OREGON 

By G. W. WALKE R, F . .J. FLANAGAN, A. L. SuTTON, JR., HARRY BASTRON, 

SoL BERMAN, ]. I. DINNIN, and L. B. JENKINS 

As part of the U.S. Geological Survey rock standards program, a sample of dense black volcanic rock 

was collected in Lake County, Ore., ·about 21 km ( 13 

miles) south of Juniper Mountain in sec. 35 ?, T. 32 

f I I I I 

5 0 

5 MILES 

I I 

5 KILO METERS 

CONTOUR INTERVAL 200 FEET WITH SUPPLEMENTARY CONI OURS AT 100· FOOT INTERvALS 

FIGURE 3.-Source of QL0-1 south of Juniper Mountain, 

Oreg. Base by U.S. Geological Survey, 1:250,000, 

Walker and Repenning ( 1965). 

S., R. 23 E. (lat 42°44.8' N.; long 119° 58' W.) 

(fig. 3). The sample was collected from outcrops 

about 10 m east of a poor road that heads southsoutheast down a shallow unnamed desert wash. 

Although outcrops are poor in this area, the sample appears to represent part of a lava flow on the 

flanks of a low exogeneous dome that is composed 

dominantely of the same dense black volcanic rock. 

The dome is located on the northern extension of 

the large tilted fault block dominated on the west 

by Abert Rim. Correlation with adjacent volcanic 

units indicates that the exogeneous dome and related flow are either of late Miocene or possibly 

early Pliocene age. Most of the region adjacent to 

the dome is underlain by upper Miocene and lower 

Pliocene basalt, Pliocene ash flow tuff of rhyolitic 

composition, and Pleistocene lake sediments (Walker 

and Repenning, 1965). 

Several more or less synonomous petrographic 

names can be applied to this rock, depending on 

which classification is used. According to the cla,ssification of Rittman ( 1952), this rock is a quartz 

latite, and in the classification of Nockolds (1954) 

and Wahlstrom (1955) it is a dellenite. Very similar volcanic rocks from south-central Nevada, but 

with slightly different N a20: K20 ratios, have been 

broadly classed as dellenite and more precisely as 

rhyodacite by O'Connor (1965). 

Characteristically the rock is greasy black and is 

aphanitic with a conchoidal fracture. In hand specimen, a few small feldspar phenocrysts; mostly 1 or 

2 mm in maximum dimension, can be recognized. A 

specific gravity of 2.553 ± 0.003 was obtained by 

averaging measurements from 10 different hand specimens. The powder density of the processed sample 

is 2.60. 

In thin section, the rock is finely porphyritic 

with an extremely fine grained trachytic to felted 

groundmass texture or, in places, a vitrophyric tex15 
16 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

ture. Phenocrysts, representing less than 1 percent 

of the rock, consist of rounded and embayed, zoned 

and twinned plagioclase (about Anso-7o), hypersthene, magnetite, and clinopyroxene?; the plagioclase phenocrysts contain abundant inclusions of 

pinkish-brown glass. The groundmass consists of 

abundant minute subparallel microlites of plagioclase (approximately An25-3o ) in either a cryptocrystalline mesostasis or rarely in pinkish-brown 

glass. 

Sieve analyses of portions of the processed sample are given in table 11, chemkal analyses in table 

12, and norms in table 13. In the calculation of the 

TABLE 11.-Sieve analyses of quartz latite, QL0-1, in percent 

[Tr., trace)] 

Thirds-___ ____________ 

Sieve size: 

+100 - 0.1 

-100+120 - .1 

-120+170 - 1.1 

-170+200 - 2.3 

-200 ------ 96.4 

Total ---- 100.0 

2 

Tr. 

Tr. 

1.0 

1.9 

97.1 

100.0 

3 

0.1 

.1 

1.1 

2.2 

96.5 

100.0 

Avg 

0.1 

.1 

1.1 

2.1 

96.6 

100.0 

TABLE 12.-Chemical analyses of QL0-1 

[In weight percent. Method of Peck (1964). Analysts: bottle 9/ 23, V. C. 

Smith; bottle 51 / 6, E. L. Munson 1 

Bottle No __ __ __ ___ ___________ _ 

SiO, ------------------ Al,03 ----------------- Fe,O, -----------------

FeO ----------------- MgO ------ -----------

CaO ----------------- Na,O -----------------

K,O - ----------------- H,O+ ----------------

H,O- ----------------

9/ 23 51/6 

65.91 65.96 

16.34 16.35 

.97 1.01 

3.0 2.96 

1.00 1.05 

3.19 3.22 

4.22 4.28 

3.60 3.61 

.28 .25 

.16 .21 

TiO, ----------------- .61 .60 

P,O. ------------------ .25 .26 

MnO ----------------- .10 .09 

co, ------------------ .01 .01 

Cl -------------------- .02 .03 

F -------------------- .03 .03 

Subtotal - ------- ------.,99~""69:;------::c99 92 

Less 0 --------------- .02 .02 ======~~======~~ Total ------- ---- 99.67 99.90 

TABLE 13.-Norms (CIPW) of QL0-1 in weight percent 

Bottle No __ ______ ---------------

Quartz --- -------------- Corundum --- ----------- Orthoclase -------------- Albite - ----------------- Anorthite --------------- Enstatite ________ __ ____ .:. 

Ferrosilite ------------ Magnetite _____________ _ 

Ilmenite - --------------- Apatite ---- -------------

9/ 23 

18.4 

.3 

21.4 

36.0 

14.2 

2.5 

3.9 

1.4 

1.2 

.6 

51 / 6 

17.9 

.2 

21.5 

36.4 

14.3 

2.6 

3.8 

1.5 

1.1 

.6 

Total 99.9 99.9 ------------- ------;;-;~-----=~ 

norms, total water, Cl, and F were omitted, and the 

remaining 12 oxides were recalculated to 100 percent. 

Spectrographic determinations of several elements, including Mn and Ti normally classified as 

minor elements and reported as oxides in a rock 

analysis, are given in table 14. The analysis of 

varia;nce was used to determine the significance of 

the sources of variation in the data for the 12 elements for which the three laboratories reported 

duplicates on their bottles. Laboratory averages for 

all data reported, plus grand averages, standard 

deviations, and conclusions of significance from the 

analysis of variance, are given in table 15. 

The data in table 15 indicate that, except for Sr, 

the variation attributable to the thirds of the lot 

from which the sample bottles were selected is not 

significantly larger than the error term against 

which they were tested. The variation of the Sr 

data attributable to thirds is significant at the upper 5 percent of the F distribution, but that due to 

laboratories is not. 

The variation attributable to laboratories is not 

significant for Co, Cu, Pb, Sr, Yh, and Mn, but it 

is significantly larger than the pooled error mean 

square for the remaining elements in table 15 for 

which estimates are given. The significance of the 

l·aboratory variation at F o.99 for barium confirms 

the often-noted observation that the determination 

of this element by optical emission spectroscopy is 

not too precise. 

Estimates of the laboratory standard de·viations, 

obtained after partitioning the mean square for 

laboratories into its variance components, have been 

entered in table 15. During testing of the significance of the variation attributable to laboratories, 

F ratios of less than 1 were obtained for the Co, 

Cu, and Pb data. The variance for the analytical 

error is obviously greater than the mean squares 

due to laboratori.es, resulting in negative values for 

the laboratory variance when the variance components are partitioned. The laboratory standard deviations for Co, Cu, and Pb have been entered as 

negative in table 15. 

Preliminary determinations of uranium and 

thorium for another study yielded estimates of about 

3.4 ppm Th and 1.6 ppm U, with a resultant Th:U 

ratio of about 2.2 These data are slightly higher 

than those for some selected reference igneous 

suites given by Tilling and Gottfried (1969) but 

they are fairly typical o.f similar volcanic rocks of 

the circumpacific region. 

Data on the thorium, uranium, and potassium con-
QUARTZ LATITE (DELLENITE), QL0-1, FROM SOUTHEASTERN OREGON 17 

TABLE 14.-Spectrochemic,al determinations of elements in QL0-1 

[In parts per million. Method of Bastron and others (1960)] 

Laboratory ______________ Washington Denver Menlo Park 

Bottle No _______________ 10/23 31/22 51/30 9/23 31/31 51/6 9/30 31/32 52/1 

B ---------------- 40 30 30 40 40 40 

30 30 40 50 40 40 

Ba --------------- 1,400 1,400 1,100 1,400 1,300 1,300 1,600 1,500 1,400 

1,100 1,200 1,100 1,500 1,200 1.200 1,500 1.300 1,500 

Be --------------- 2 2 2 

2 2 2 

Co --------------- 7 8 5 6 7 7 7 6 8 

7 11 7 7 6 6 6 6 8 

Cr --------------- 2 2 2 1 1 1 

2 2 2 1 1 4 

Cu --------------- 28 33 29 32 32 32 28 28 28 

36 33 28 30 30 31 32 32 32 

Ga --------------- 12 12 11 20 21 20 

14 17 12 19 18 18 

Mo --------------- 4 3 4 

4 4 4 

Nh --------------- 10 10 10 26 24 22 

10 10 10 22 20 18 

Ni --------------- 3 2 3 

1 2 2 

Ph --------------- 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 13 16 

10 40 10 20 20 30 20 14 18 

·sc --------------- 11 11 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 

10 14 10 9 10 10 9 8 10 

Sr --------------- 420 360 320 420 370 360 380 320 380 

380 280 320 430 360 330 380 320 320 

v ---------------- 60 42 40 84 79 73 64 46 56 

41 46 32 81 73 81 62 72 66 

y ---------------- 40 40 30 20 20 20 40 40 40 

30 50 30 20 30 30 30 30 40 

Yb --------------- 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 

2 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 

Zr ---------------- 130 150 110 160 160 160 180 170 200 

130 200 120 150 160 160 190 210 180 

Mn --------------- 730 500 680 610 690 640 500 640 600 

720 790 740 640 650 650 600 500 700 

Ti --------------- 4,400 4,000 3,400 2,800 3,100 3,100 3,700 3,500 3,800 

3,800 5,400 3,500 2,900 3,100 3,000 4,000 3,500 3,400 

TABLE 15.-Averages and standard deviations for spectographic data for QL0-1 

[In parts per million. S, significant, NS, not significant, when tested against Fo.95. d.f., degrees of freedom] 

Laboratory averages Conclusions 

from analysis Standard deviation 

Washing- Grand of variance Labor a- Element ton Denver Menlo average La bora- tories Error 

Park Thirds tories (d.f.=2) (d.f.=13) 

B ------------- 33 42 

Ba ------------ 1,210 1,320 1,460 1,330 NS s 170 110 

Be ------------ 2 

Co ------------ 7.5 6.5 6.8 6.9 NS NS Neg. 1.4 

Cr ------------ 2 1.5 

Cu ------------ 31 31 30 30.8 NS NS Neg. 2.4 

Ga ------------ 13 19 

Mo ------------ 3.8 

Nh ------------ 10 22 

Ni ------------ 2 

Ph ------------ 20.0 21.7 16.8 19.5 NS NS Neg. 7.3 

Sc ------------ 10.8 9.3 9.0 9.7 NS s .86 1.1 

Sr ------------ 347 378 350 358 s NS 14 26 

v ------------- 43.5 78.5 61.0 61.0 NS s 17 7.7 

y ------------- 36.7 23.3 36.7 32.2 NS s 7.2 6.3 

Yh ------------ 2.2 2.5 2.0 2.2 NS NS .19 .41 

Zr ------------ 140 158 188 162 NS s 23 19.4 

Mn ----------- 693 647 590 643 NS NS 41 78.3 

Ti ------------ 4.080 3.000 3.650 3,570 NS s 160 440 
18 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

tents of rocks are essential for the calculation of 

rndiogenic heat production and heat flow, and as 

such data are frequently obtained by gamma-ray 

spectrometry for which samples of about 0.5 kg 

may be required, another portion of the quartz 

latite was obtained and processed for gamma counting. After being process,ed the bulk sample was divided in half, and the portions were poured into 

two large plastic bags for storag·e. Sieve analyses 

representing the two halves of the finished product, 

QLO-y, are given in table 16. 

TABLE 16.-Sieve analyses of QLO-'Y, in percent 

Halves of bulk sample ____________ 2 Avg 

Sieve sizes: 

+100 --------- 0.2 0.3 0.2· 

-100+120 --------- .4 .6 .5 

-120+170 --------- 2.7 3.1 2.9 

-170+200 --------- 3.5 4.2 3.9 

-200 -------------- 93.1 91.8 92.5 

Sum ------------- 99.9 100.0 100.0 

Because it is almost inevitable that comparisons 

will be made of the thorium, uranium, and potassium 

contents of the two samples, QL0-1 and QLO-y, nine 

bottles of QL0-1 were randomly selected from the 

bottled stock, and nine portions of QLO-y were 

taken at random intervals during the final mixing 

of the bulk stock. 

Duplicate determinations of uranium were made 

by the fluorimetric method of Grimaldi, May, and 

Fletcher (1952), and of K20 by atomic-absorption 

spectrometry. The experimental design was that for 

a one-way analysis of variance with duplicate determinations per bottle or portion. The data and the 

analy,sis of variance are given in tables 17, 19, 20, 

TABLE 17.-Determinations and analysis of variance of 

uranium in QL0-1 

[In parts per million. Fluorimetric method of Grimaldi and others (1952)] 

Determination Bottle _________________ _ First Second Total 

1 ---------------- 2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

1.6 3.2 

1.6 3.2 

1.5 1.9 

1.4 2.8 

1.5 3.3 

1.6 3.2 

1.5 3.3 

8 1.8 3.4 

9 

1.6 

1.6 

1.4 

1.4 

1.8 

1.6 

1.8 

1.6 

---------------- 1.6 1.5 3.1 Grand total _-_-_-_-_-_-__ -_-_-_-_-_-__ -_-_-_-_-_-__ -_-_-_-_-_-_--_-~~~28-,-.:..:..:.4 

Average 

Source of variation 

Analysis of variance 

Degrees Mean sum Sum of of of squares freedom squares 

Bottles _______ 0.15 8 0.0188 

Within _______ -.,--·-=-1_2 __ 9_~·_0_13:....:3:...__ 

Total __ . 0.27 17 

1.58 

F ratio 

0.0188/0.0133=1.41 

NS at Fo.95 

and 22. The ,estimates derived therefrom are summarized in table 23. 

TABLE 18.-Determinations and analysis of variance of thorium in QL0-1 

[In parts per million. Arenazo Ill method of May and Jenkins ( 1965) ] 

Bottle First 

1 --------~-------- 4.3 

2 ----------------- 3.6 

3 ----------------- 3.4 

4 ----------------- 2.1 

5 ----------------- 3.1 

6 ----------------- 4.2 

7 ----------------- 3.7 

8 ----------------- 3.6 

9 ----------------- 4.0 

Determination 

Second 

4.4 

3.5 

3.2 

2.4 

2.9 

4.6 

3.4 

4.2 

3.6 

Third 

3.3 

3.0 

3.3 

3.3 

2.7 

2.7 

3.3 

2.4 

2.4 

Total 

12.0 

10.1 

9.9 

7.8 

8.7 

11.5 

10.4 

10.2 

10.0 

Grand total ------------------------------ 90.6 

Average --------------------------------- 3.36 

Analysis of variance 

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean sum variation squares freedom of squares Fratio 

Bottles ---- 4.32 8 0.540 0.540/0.388=1.39 

Within ---- 6.99 18 .388 NS at Fo.95 

Total_ 11.31 26 

TABLE 19.-Determinations and analysis of variance of K20 

in QL0-1 

[In weight percent. Determined by atomic absorption] 

Determination 

Bottle First Second 

1 ------------------ 3.60 3.58 

2 ------------------ 3.59 3.60 

3 ------------------ 3.61 3.58 

4 ------------------ 3.58 3.58 

5 ------------------ 3.58 3.56 

6 ------------------ 3.58 3.56 

7 ------------------ 3.58 3.58 

8 ------------------ 3.57 3.59 

9 ------------------ 3.58 3.58 

Total 

7.18 

7.19 

7.19 

7.16 

7.14 

7.14 

7.16 

7.16 

7.16 

Grand total ------------------------------- 64.48 

Average --------------------------------- 3.582 

Analysis of variance 

Source of Sum of Degrees Mean sum variation squares of freedom of squares F ratio 

Bottles ---- 0.0012 8 0.00015 0.00015/ 

0.000144=1.04 

Within ---- .0013 9 .000144 NS at Fo.9s 

Total_ .0025 17 

TABLE 20.-Determinations and analysis of variance of 

uranium in QLO-'Y 

[In parts per million. Method of Grimaldi and others (1952)] 

Determination 

Portions First Second Total 

1 ------------------ 1.8 1.6 3.4 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

1.3 1.4 2.7 

1.6 1.6 3.2 

1.5 1.8 3.3 

1.6 1.6 3.2 

1.8 1.7 3.5 

1.3 1.6 2.9 

1.5 1.8 3.3 

----------------- -~--~1:.:..:..3..:..___ __ __:1::.:..6..:..__ __ __:2::.:..9..:..__ 

Grand total ------------------------------ 28.4 

Average 1.58 
QUARTZ LATITE (DELLENITE), QL0-1, FROM SOUTHEASTERN OREGON 19 

TABLE 20.-Determinations and analysis of variance of 

uranium in QL04~Continued 

Analysis of variance 

Source of Sum of Degrees Mean sum variation squares of freedom of squares F ratio 

Portions ---- 0.2812 8 0.03515 0.03515/ 

0.02333=1.51 

Within ----- .2100 9 .02333 NS at Fo.oo 

Total - .4912 17 

TABLE 21.-Determinations and analysis of variance of thorium in QL04 

[In parts per million. Arsenazo III method of May and Jenkins (1952)] 

Determination 

Thirds First Second Third Total 

1st ---------------- 3.0 2.3 4.2 9.5 

2d ---------------- 4.1 3.6 3.5 11.2 

3d ---------------- 3.2 3.9 3.9 11.0 

Grand total ------------------------------- 31.7 

Alverage 3.52 

Analysis of variance 

Source of Sum of Degrees Mean sum variation squares of freedom of squares F ratio 

Thirds ----- 0.576 2 0.288 0.288/0.397= 

Within ----- 2.380 6 .397 <1 NS 

Total _ 2.956 8 

TABLE 22.-Determinations and analysis of variance of K20 

in QLO-'Y 

[In weight percent. Determination by atomic absorption] 

Determination 

Bottle First Second 

1 ------------------ 3.583 3.580 

2 ------------------ 3.572 3.580 

3 ------------------ 3.580 3.580 

4 ------------------ 3.580 3.580 

5 ------------------ 3.600 3.590 

6 ------------------ 3.580 3.580 

7 ------------------ 3.573 3.565 

8 ------------------ 3.580 3.580 

9 ------------------ 3.580 3.598 

Grand total ------------------------------

Alverage 

Analysis of variance 

Total 

7.163 

7.152 

7.160 

7.160 

7.190 

7.160 

7.138 

7.160 

7.178 

64.461 

3.581 

Source of 

variation 

Sum of 

squares 

Degrees Mean sum of freedom of squares F ratio 

Portions --- 0.00087 8 0.000109 0.000109/ 

0.0000311 =3.50 

Within ---- .00028 9 .0000311 S at Fo.~5, 

NS at Fo.oo 

Total_ 0.00115 17 

TABLE 23.-Estimates of the U, Th, and K20 contents, and 

of the Th: U ratio, of QLO-'Y and QL0-1 

[See tables 17-22. Nonsignificant. digits shown as subscripts] 

Average and 

standard 

deviation 

Alverage ________ 

Standard deviation: 

Bottles or 

portions -- Alnalytical 

error ----

QLO-'Y QL0-1 

QLO-'Y and 

QL0-1 

De~rees 

Esti- of Estimate freedom mate 

K20 (percent) 

3.581 3.582 

.00~ 8 .002 

.005a 9 .012 

Degrees of Estifreedom mate 

3.582 

8 

9 .0094 

Degrees of 

freedom 

18 

TABLE 23.-Estimates of the U, Th, and K20 contents, and 

of the Th: U ratio, of QL04 and QL0-1-Continued 

Alverage -------- 1.5s 

Standard deviation: 

Bottles or portions __ .024 

Alnalytical 

error ---- .15 

Average -------- 3.5a 

Standard deviation: 

Bottles ----- Alnalytical 

error ---- .68 

Average ________ 2.23 

Standard deviation 

(analytical 

error) _______ .42 

U (ppm) 

l.os 1.5s 

8 .05s 8 

9 .12 9 .14 18 

Th (ppm) 

3.36 3.4o 

.23 8 

6 .62 18 .62 24 

Th:U ratio 

2.13 2.15 

15 .51 27 .48 42 

Because of an oversight during the sampling for 

the determinations of thorium, three portions for 

analysis were taken f~om the bottles of QL0-1 but 

the nine portions of QLO-y were sampled only once. 

The thorium determinations by the arsenazo III 

method of May and Jenkins (1965), the analysi.s of 

variance table, .and the e~stimate of the thorium content of QL0-1 are given in tabl~e 18. During the 

random selection of bottles of QL0-1 or of portions of QLO-y, the additional restraint was imposed that the bottles or portions herein numbered 

1 to 3, 4 to 6, ~and 7 to 9 should also be selected 

from among the 1st, 2d, and 3d thirds, respectively, 

of the entire lot sampled. Because of this precaution, 

the nine single determinations of thori urn in QLOY wer·e treated as a one-way experimental design 

with the three thirds of the bulk .sample as the 

variable of classification and wi.th the single de .. 

terminations on the nine portions considered as 

replicate anal~ses within their proper thirds. The 

data and the analysis of variance table are given in 

table 21. 

The ·estimates for the thorium, uranium, and 

KzO contents of the two samples are summarized in 

table 23 whe·re nonsignificant digits are shown as 

subscripts. The ·source of variation termed "within" 

in the analysis of variance tables has been called 

analytical error in table 23 as it re.pr·esents any 

variation not attributable to the main variable of 

cl.as,sification of either bottles or portions. Most of 

the error so included probably repres.ents the error 

of the analytical· method, that associated with sampling heterogeneous material, and random error. 

F ratios between the two samples for the comparable mean squares of the KzO and of the uranium 

data, and of only the analytical error for the thorium 

data, yield one significant ratio, that of the analyti-
20 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

cal .error for K20, 0.000144/0.0000311=4.63, which 

is greater than Fo_(,,(d.f.=9, 9) =3.18 but less than 

Fo.9!1 (d.f.=9, 9) =5.35. The same analyst made all 

K20 determinations, and the slightly higher variance 

for the one set of data may reflect instrumental differences that cannot be separated by the simple design used. We have considered the tested mean 

squares homogeneous and have pooled the comparable pairs of sums of squares and degrees of 

freedom for analytieal error to obtain the combined 

estimates in table 23. The standard deviations among 

bottles or portions are tabled separately as the sampling unit is different for QL0-1 and QLO-y, and 

the necessary change in the experimental design for 

QLO-y reduces further any comparability between 

the two sets of these Th data. 

The uranium contents of the two sample8 are identical, the K~O contents nearly so, and the thorium 

contents differ slightly but not significantly. The 

average ratios for Th: U are tabled with the analytical standard deviation and degrees of freedom. 

Analysts may wish to us~e our estimates for the 

samples to judge the appropriateness of their own 

data. 

REFERENCES CITED 

Bastron, Harry, Barnett, P. R., and Murata, K. J., 1960, 

Method for the quantitative spectrochemical analysis of 

rocks, minerals, ores, and other materials by a powder 

d-e arc technique: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1084-G, p. 

165-182. 

Grimaldi, F. S., May, Irving, and Fletcher. M. H., 1952, 

U.S. Geological Survey fluorimetric methods of uranium 

analysis: U.S. Geol. Survey Circ. 199, 20 p. 

May, Irving, and Jenkins, L. B., 1965, Use of arsenazo III 

in determination of thorium in rocks and minerals, in 

Geological Survey Research 1965: U.S. Geol. Survey 

Prof. Paper 525-D, p. D192-195. 

Nockolds, S. R., 1954, Average chemical compositions of some 

igenous rocks. Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 65, no. 10. p. 

1007-1032. 

O'Connor, J. T., 1965, A classification for quartz-rich igneous 

rocks based on feldspar ratios in Geological Survey Research 1965: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 525-B, p. 

B79-B84. 

Peck, L. C., 1964, Systematic analysis of silicates. U.S. Geol. 

Survey Bull. 1170, 89 p. 

Rittman, Alfred, 1952, Nomenclature of volcanic rocks: 

Bull. Volcano!., ser. 2, v. 12, p. 75-102. 

Tilling, R. I., and Gottfried, David, 1969. Distribution of 

thorium, uranium, and potassium in igneous rocks of 

the Boulder batholith region, Montana, and its bearing 

on radiogenic heat production and heat flow: U.S. Geol. 

Survey Prof. Paper 614-E, 29 p. 

Wahlstrom, E. E .. 1955, Petrographic mineralogy: New York, 

John Wiley and Sons, Inc .. 408 p. 

Walker, G. W., and Repenning, C. A., 1965, Reconnaissance 

geologic map of the Adel quadrangle, Lake, Harney, 

and Malheur Counties, Oregon: U.S. Geol. Survey Misc. 

Geol. Inv. Map I-446, scale 1:250,000. 
DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

CODY SHALE, SCo- l, FROM NATRONA COUNTY, WYOMING 

By L. G. ScHU LTz) H. A. Tou RTELOTJ and F . .J. FLANAGAN 

Sample SCo-1 was collected in 1963 by J. R. Gill 

and R. E. Burkholder from a bulldozer cut in an 

abandoned road on the west side of Teapot Dome in 

the SE '4SE14 sec. 4, T. 38 N., R. 78, W., Natrona 

County, Wyo. (fig. 4). It is from the upper part of 

the Cody Shale just above the ba8e of the Baculites 

perplexus range zone in rocks stratigraphically 

equivalent to the Claggett Shale to the north and the 

Y.> 0 

I I I 

2 MILES 

I 

I .5 0 2 KILO METERS 

CONTOUR INTERVA L 40 FEET 

DATUM IS MEA N SEA LEVEL 

FIGURE 4.-Southwest corner of Edgerton quadrangle, 

Wyoming, showing source of SCo-1. Base from U.S. 

Geological Survey 15-min quadrangle, 1959. 

Mitten Black Shale Member of the Pierre Shale to 

the east (Gill and Cobban, 1966, pl. 3, Ioc. 10). The 

exact location and stratigraphic relations of the 

sample are shown in figure 5. 

Sample SCo-1 is typical of the Upper Cretaceous 

silty marine sha.les intermediate between the finegrained offshore marine shales common fa:rther to 

the east and the coarser nearshore marine siltstones 

and sandstone such as those in the Parkman Sandstone overlying it (fig. 5). The rock is a mediumdark-gray (Munsell N-4) silty shale having thin 

lighter colored silty laminations. Mineralogical composition, estimated from the X-ray diffractometer 

method of Schultz (1964), is (in percent) 29 quartz, 

6 dolomite, 6 plagioclase, about 1 potas,sium feldspar, 

5 kaolinite, 2 chlorite, 10 illite, and 40 of a mixedlayer clay mineral composed of about three-fourths 

nonexpanding illite-like layers and two fifths expanding montmorillonite-like layers. Judged from 

the chemical analysis (table 25), the sample also 

may contain pyrite, apatite, and gypsum in amounts 

too small to be detected in the diffractometer 

analysis. 

Thin-section examination shows the shale to be 

made up of interlaminated clay and clayey silt in 

P'roportions of about 2 to 1. The clay laminae contain about 8 percent quartz and 1 percent each of 

muscovite and dolomite. Biotite is present in smaller 

amounts. Typical quartz grains measure about 0.02 

by 0.01 mm, and the sharply angular elongated 

shape is characteristic. Several grains as large as 

0.05 mm were noted. The dolomite grains are about 

0.02 by 0.02 mm and are rudely euhedral with indistinct boundaries such as might be expected of 

grains of diagenetic origin. The sparse biotite grains 

are pale and frayed; a typical grain measures 0.05 

by 0.01 mm. The muscovite is much more flaky; 

several grains measure about 0.025 by 0.002 mm. 

The silty laminae contain 30-35 percent quartz, 

10 percent dolomite, and minor amounts of mus21 
22 

4 3° 

17' ' 

30 "1 

T. 

38 

N. 

A 

I 

DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

Upper part of CODY SHALE 

X 

--= = ======x ROAD --==-- ~ Qi L £ 0 _ _ ===--

~p= ====--

L . Reserve. --~~. --~~ndary • 

II Govt·Harpur l II dry hol e 1 ~ \\ "-.. . \ ···-·j··-q--. . .·."·.". -;" ~~ ._____ · · . + SCo~~se of sandy 

~ 1 :::~· · un1t 

~++ / .y-:9 ~ + .. -::?" ~ l :X 

-::?" ~/ .-::/ ·~ 

B 

USN 302 

shutin 

gas well ~ . 

J 

Base of Sussex 

Sandstone Member 

.y-:7 ~ +/ 0.9 ft benton1te ) 

""" . ~ ---~--~~------------~L{-- -----------------2 _3 _________________________ __ 

~""" ~· ~ """ ;. :" ~ ... --· : . '~ 9 10 

3. 

0>· I ~ ~ /"· \ • --- .. 500 0 500· 1000 FEET 

L.l~~~~~lrf------,--~1--r-----~' II I I I I 500 0 500 1000 METERS 

R. 78 W. 106. 12'30" 

FIGURE 5.--Plane table sketch map and diagrammatic cross section showing the rocks in the immediate area of the source 

of SCo-1. Mapped by J. R. Gill and L. G. Schultz. 

covite and biotite. The quartz grains are angular 

and elongate and average about 0.09 by 0.02 mm. 

Poorly formed dolomite rhombs measure about 0.04 

by 0.04 mm. A very minor part of the dolomite 

.seems to fill voids. Biotite measures about 0.075 by 

0.01 mm, and the more flaky muscovite measures 

0.15 by 0.01. A few greenish grains of indistinct 

character seem to represent alteration products of 

fernie minerals. Several pellets of glauoonite were 

noted. 

Iron oxides in thin stringers seem to he oxidation 

products of pyrite, and pyrite may be present but 

obscured by the iron oxides. Particulate organic 

matter with high reflectamce, and hence probably 

coaly in nature, forms films along bedding planes. 

The clay is highly ori·ented parallel to bedding. 
CODY SHALE, SCo-1, FROM NATRONA COUNTY, WYOMING 23 

Recognizable com,paction features consist of clay 

flakes wratpped around quartz grains in both the 

clay laminae and silt laminae. The clay matrix has 

a mass apparen,t birefringence of lower first order 

'red, and individual clay minerals could not be recognized. 

Feldspar grains could not be recognized jn thin 

section. 

The amount of quartz inferred from the X-ray 

analysi,s is nearly double that determined from the 

·microscopic examination. Analyses by particle size 

of numerous samples similar to SCo-1 indicate that 

much of the quartz is in particles less than 2 p.m 

equivalent settling diameter and therefore is unlikely to be identified microscopically. 

Measured bulk and powder densities of 2.20 and 

2.55, respectively, have been obtained by Paul 

Elmore. 

The sample was ,proces·sed in the normal fashion 

(Flanagan, 1967), and sieve analyses representing 

the three thirds of the finished product are shown 

in table 24. During ball milling a comparatively 

TABLE 24.-Sieve analyses of SCo-1, in percent 

Thirds _____________________ _ 2 3 Avg 

S.ieve size: 

+ 100 1.0 2.0 1.4 1.5 

-100+120 0 .2 .3 .2 

-120+ 170 .6 .5 .4 .5 

-170+200 1.0 .8 1.4 1.1 

-200 ----------- 97.4 96.4 96.5 96.7 

Total _____________ -~10=-:o,..---,.o::----=9-=-9.-=9---=-1-=-oo=-.-=-o --1::-:0=-:o:-::-.o 

large amount of sample adhered to the balls and the 

liner of the mill, and probably the moisture content 

of the sample may be partly responsible. The material that was retained on the 100-mesh screen during sieve tests is readily friable and can easily be reduced to powder between the fingers. The material 

in the sealed bottles shows a tendency to "ball," 

.and therefore the sample should be dried at 105°C 

before analysis. The chemical analysis and semiquantitative estimates of some trace elements are given 

in tables 25 and 26. 

TABLE 25.--Chemical analysis of SCo-1 

[Analyst: Sarah M. Berthold] 

Constituent 

Si02 ------------------------------ Al20a ----------------------------- F~Oa -----------------------------

FeO ------------------------------ MgO ------------------------------

Weight percent 

61.84 

13.40 

3.83 

1.15 

2.69 

TABLE 25.--Chemical analysis of SCo-1-Continued 

Constituent 

CaO ------------------------------ Na20 ----------------------------- K20 ------------------------------ H20+ 1 ----------------------------

H20-- ----------------------------

TiOa 

P20s 

MnO 

C022 

S0a3 

W ei~~:ht nercent 

2.68 

.97 

2.8 

3.85 

2.45 

.83 

.44 

.05 

2.55 

.44 

Cl -------------------------------- .16 

F --------------------------------- .15 

s --------------------------------- .12 Organic material ------------------- ___ --,--: . ..,.,.18...:..__ __ _ 

Subtotal -------------------- ===1=0=0=.5=8=== 

Less O=Cl ------------------------ .04 

Less O=F ------------------------ .06 

Less O=S ------------------------- ====·=06==== 

Total ----------------------- 100.42 

1 Corrected for Organic H~H20 +, assuming organic material contains 

5 percent hydrogen. 2 Acid evolution. 3 Sulfate soluble in HCl. 

TABLE 26.-Semiquantitative spectrographic estimates of 

some trace elements in SCo-1 

[Ag was detected but could not be estimated. Other elements were not detected. Analyst: Joseph J. Harris] 

Element Parts per million 

B ------------------------------ Ba 

Be 

Ce 

Co 

Cr 

Cu 

Ga 

La 

Nb 

Ni -----------------------------

Pb ----------------------------- Sc -----------------------------

Sr ----------------------------- V ------------------------------

y ------------------------------ Yb ----------------------------- Zr -----------------------------

REFERENCES CITED 

70 

300 

1 

100 

10 

70 

30 

10 

50 

15 

30 

15 

10 

200 

100 

30 

3 

150 

Flanagan, F. J., 1967, U.S. Geological Survey silicate rock 

standards: Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 31, no. 3, p. 

289-308. 

Gill, J. R., and Cobban, W. A., 1966, The Red Bird section 

of the Upper Cretaceous Pierre Shale in Wyoming: U.S. 

Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 393-A, 69 p. 

Schultz, L. G.. 1964, Quantitative interpretation of mineralogical composition from X-ray and chemical data for 

the Pierre Shale: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 391-C, 

31 p. 

DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

MARINE MUD, MAG-1, FROM THE GULF OF MAINE 

By F. T. MANHEIM, J. C. HATHAWAY, F. J. FLANAGAN, and J.D. FLETCHER 

Another sample for the standards program is 

MAG-1, a fine-grained gray-brown clayey mud from 

the Wilkinson Basin of the Gulf of Maine. The sample, collected by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution R/ V Gosnold, J ohst Hiilseman, scientistin-charge, was obtained with a 125-1 Campbell grah 

sampler (clamshell type) from a depth of 282 m at 

lat 42°34.6' N., long 69 °32.6' W. (Loran A), about 

125 km east of Boston, Mass. (fig. 6). The sample 

is from station 2197 of the joint U.S. Geological 

·,i r 

ATlANTIC OCEAN 

25 0 25 50 75 100 MILES 

I I I I I I I I I ' I I' 

f 

\ 2

1

5 I I I 0 Js ~0 ~5 1~0 KILOMETERS n I 

CO NTOURS IN METERS ~I 

40;l'::-:c--. -====L JV!~. FIGURE 6.- Location of source of MAG-1 in the Wilkinson 

Basin, Gulf of Maine. 

Survey-Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution continental margin program (Hathaway, 1971). 

The bottom sediment is a gray-brown very finegrained clayey mud with a low carbonate content. 

Benthonic fauna collected with the sample included 

mainly sparse worm tubes, scaphopods, and foraminifers; planktonic forms include sparse diatoms, 

spores and pollen, and foraminifers. The age of the 

sediment is Holocene, but it probably includes reworked Pleistocene sediments from surrounding 

areas. The sediment, as shipped, probably included 

more than 60 percent of its bulk weight as seawater having an estimated salinity of about 33-34 

g/ kg. The salts are assumed to be in essentially the 

same proportions as in seawater. Soluble constituents reported in analyses may partly reflect modifications of the original salts resulting from the action of the water on the sediment during the drying 

process. 

The sample was shipped to the laboratory in 30-

gal polyethylene containers, and the ·sediment was 

allowed to settle for several weeks. Because of the 

size of the sample, no attempt was made to leach 

the soluble salts. The water (about 4-5 1) then remaining above the sediment in eaoh container was 

decanted, and portions of the mud were transferred 

to pyrex dishes and dried at 170° F. Lumps of sample formed during the drying process were broken 

every several hours to ensure oomplete drying. The 

dried sample was passed through a rolls crusher to 

ensure the absence of lumps and was then transferred to a ball mill to complete the normal processing previously described (Flanagan, 1967). 

The grain-size characteristics of the sediment are 

given in table 27. The mineralogy of the bulk sample and of the clay fraction as determined by X-ray 

diffractometer analyses are given in tables 28 and 

29, and the mineralogy of the sand fraction is given 

in table 30. 

25 
26 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

TABLE 27.-Grain-size characteristic3 of the marine mud 

MAG-1 

[Wentworth scale unless otherwise indicated. Determinations made under 

supervision of J. S. Schlee] 

Component Weight percent 

Gravel ---------------------- 0.0 

Sand ------------------------ .1 

Silt ( 62-4 ~tm) --------------- 19.5 

Clay ( 4-2 ~tm) --------------- 18.0 

Clay (<2 ~tm) --------------- 63.4 

Parameters of particle size distribution 

Mode ----------------------- 8.6 phi (about 4 ~tm) 

Median -------------------- -- 9.88 phi 

Mean------------------------ 9.92 phi 

Standard deviation ----------- 2.2 phi 

Skewness -------------------- 0.02 

Kurtosis -------------------- -0.32 

TABLE 28.- Bulk mineralogy of MA G-1 determined by X-ray 

diffractometer 

Constituent Weight percent 

Quartz ---------------------------------- 6 

Potassuim feldspar ------------------------ 0 

Plagioclase feldspar ---------------------- 7 

Calcite ---------------------------------- 0 

Layer silicates --------------------------- 83 

1Iornblende ------------------------------ 0 

Pyrite ----------------------------------- 1 

TABLE 29.-Mineralogy of the clay fraction ( <2 ~tm) of MAG1 determined by X-ray difractiometer 

Constituent Concentration in units of parts per 10 

Montmorillonite ----------------------- Chlorite ------------------------------ Illite ___________________ .:, ____________ _ 

Kaolinite ----------------------------- Feldspar -----------------------------

Qulj.rtz ------------------------------- Hornblende ---------------------------

Trace to 1 

2 

5 

1 

1 

Trace 

Trace 

TABLE 30.-Mineralogy of the sand fraction of MAG-1 

[Determinations by J . V . A. Trumbull] 

Constituent Weight percent 

Rock fragments -------------------------- 3 

Quartz and feldspar ---------------------- 63 

Dark minerals ---------------------------- 1 

Glauconite ------------------------------- 3 

Mica ------------------------------------ .1 Foraminifers _ ___ ______ _____ _ _ __ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ 30 

TABLE 31.-Sieve analyses of MAG-1, in percent 

Thirds ____________ ------- ___ 2 3 Avg 

Sieve size: 

+100 4.0 5.5 7.5 5.7 

-100+120 .6 .5 .5 .5 

-120+170 1.1 2.2 2.2 1.8 

-170+200 .8 .8 1.0 .9 

-200 ----------- 93.4 91.0 88.8 91.1 

Total ---------- 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 

The size analyses of the processed sample (table 

31) show that the proportion of +100-mesh material 

increases from the first to the last third of the lot 

of bottled samples. Much of the material consists 

of friable platy clay :ag.gregates not present in the 

odginal sample (table 27). These aggregates were 

probably formed during the drying of the wet sample and did not disaggregate in the ball mill. Possibly the increase in coarse material occurs because the platy aggregates concentmted near the 

top of the bulk material being tumbled in the 

blender. Analysts may wish to make sure of sample 

homogeneity by hand-grinding the contents of bottles to reduce the platy aggregates to powder. 

The chemical analysis of the sample is given in 

table 32, and quantitative spectrographic determinations of some trace elements are given in table 33. 

Booause the sediment was processed without prior 

leaching of •soluble .salts, the powdered material may 

contain about 4 percent evaporated seawater salts. 

These salts, predominately N aCl, have an appreciable effect on the N a and S contents and contribute 

virtually all the Cl. If we can assume ·that the salinity was 33.5 g/kg, typical for bottom water from the 

Gulf of Maine, with a corresponding chlorinity of 

18.7 •g/kg, and that all Gl in the sample is derived 

from seawater, one can calculate that the seawater 

amounted to rubout 62 percent of the sediment. Other 

TABLE 32.-Chemical analysis of MAG-1 

[Analyst: S. M. Berthold. Organic constituents by J. H. Chandler] 

Constituent 

SiOz ---------------------------------- Al,O, ---------------------------------

Fe,Os - - ------------------------------- FeO ----------------------------------

]dgO ----------------------------------

CaO ----------------------------------

~a,O --------------------------------- K,O - --------------------------------- H,O +1 --------------------------------

H,O-- --------------------------------

TiO, 

P,O, 

MnO 

CO.' 

so: 

Weight 

percent 

49.74 

16.44 

2.64 

3.65 

2.98 

1.50 

3.9 

3.6 

5.22 

2.58 

.70 

.32 

.10 

.51 

.15 

Cl ------------------------------------ 2.86 

F ------------- ----------------------- .12 

s ------------------------------------- .52 

Organic C ----------------------------- 1.43 

Organic N ----------------------------- .08 

Organic H ----------------------------- .12 

Organic remainder (=0?) -------------- --=-;;:'-;.70::4'..---

Subtotal ------------------------ ==='(=99=.=:c90=)= = 

Less O= Cl ---------------------------- .64 

Less O= F ----------------------------- .05 

Less O=S ---------------------------- ==~=::.2o::6o==== 

Total --------------------------- (98.95) 

1 Corrected for Organic H~HzO +. 2 Acid evolution. 'Sulfates soluble in HCI. 
MARINE MUD, MAG-1, FROM THE GULF OF MAINE 27 

TABLE 33.-Quantitative spectrographic determinations (in parts per million) of trace elements in marine mud, MAG-1 

Spectral line 

Element 4/21 

B ----------------------- I 2497.73 120 

130 

Ba ---------------------- II 4554.0 540 

440 

Co ---------------------- I 3453.50 16 

16 

Cr ---------------------- I 3021.56 130 

130 

Cu ---------------------- I 3273.96 46 

48 

Ga ---------------------- I 2943.64 22 

20 

Ni ---------------------- I 3413.94 42 

50 

Sc ---------------------- II 4246.83 19 

17 

Sr ---------------------- I 4607.33 180 

120 

v ----------------------- I 3183.41 120 

120 

y ----------------------- II 3327.88 58 

58 

Yb ---------------------- 3289.37 3.8 

3.2 

Zr ---------------------- II 3279.26 140 

130 

constituents Jess influenced by the evaporated salts 

are Mg, Oa, K, and C02. The sediment-associated 

amounts of B and Sr may be ,slightly enhanced as a 

result of dried interstitial salt, but most other trace 

elements should not be appreciably affected. 

J. Hiilseman and coworkers (written commun., 

1969) found 1.9 percent or~anic carbon, 1.8 percent calcium carbonate, and 0.27 percent Kjeldahl 

nitrogen in a portion of the sample taken before 

.shipment to the laboratory, and these data yield a 

C :N ratio of 7.0. Differences between the above data 

for the organic carbon, the Kj eldahl nitrogen, and 

the C02 equivalent of the carbonate v~alue, and their 

equivalents(?) in table 32 may be partly due to 

processing. 

Defining processing as ,anything that happened 

to the sample between the time of collection and the 

end of drying, one can assume that two possible 

CaJuses of such differences are the decantation of the 

supernrutent seawater in the laboratory and the drying of the mud at 170° F (76° C). One should not 

ignore possible losses due to evapora;tion or steam 

distillation during the isolation of the organic material that was sepal"ated in the laboratory by repeated HF -HCl treatment, followed by washing with 

distilled water and drying at 110° C. One might also 

question the correction of H20+ for the contribution 

due to the assumed total conversion of the organic 

hydrogen to water. Because of these possible uncerThirds and bottle number (below) 

2 3 

18/23 35/31 38/20 59/22 60/10 

140 120 120 130 140 

130 120 140 140 130 

540 520 480 560 480 

420 400 420 520 600 

19 19 18 15 17 

20 19 20 15 17 

120 120 100 120 120 

120 140 120 120 110 

50 44 46 50 48 

50 52 50 52 50 

19 18 22 20 24 

22 20 20 20 24 

52 50 44 50 52 

52 56 56 50 54 

19 19 17 19 19 

19 19 17 19 17 

150 170 170 170 140 

160 190 170 140 140 

130 130 120 140 130 

150 150 110 130 150 

58 62 60 60 56 

58 5·6 50 58 52 

3.0 3.0 2.4 3.2 3.2 

3.0 3.2 3.0 3.6 4.0 

130 130 120 140 120 

120 130 120 130 120 

tainties, both the subtotal and the total of the 

analysis in table 32 are enclosed in parentheses. The 

total of the analysis for MAG-1 is below the range 

generally considered acceptable by rock analysts, 

and analy,ses of portions of the sampl'e from which 

soluble salts have been leached will undoubtedly result in better data and in acceptable totals. 

Salt vesidues such as MgCl2 and some complex 

chlorides and sulfate1s are hygroscopic, and the 

powdered sam'Ple is probably ev,en more hygroscopic 

now than it might ordinarily have been because of 

the high clay .content alone. The processed sample 

~showed a slight tendency to "ball" during and after 

the spHtting and bottling operations, and it is recommended tha;t determinations be made on dried 

(105° C) portions or that analyses on an "as received" sam~ple :also show hygroscopic moisture, 

separately determined. It is not anticipated that the 

"balling" of the powdered material wiU result in 

heterogeneity ,a;s the sample was well mixed during 

the ball milling and blending operations. 

The mention of "hailing" may raise doubts, and to 

determine if the homogeneity of the sample has 

been affected, a suite of 13 trace elements was determined spectrographicaHy in six bottles of MAG1. The first six bottles that fulfilled the requirement 

that two bottles should represent each third of the 

lot of samples were selected from the stock of bottles stored in !"andom order. Two subsamples were 
28 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

TABLE 34.-Conclusions from the analysis of variance and 

estimates of the spectrographic data from MAG-1 

[In parts per million. Conclusions: S, significant; NS, not significant. 

Unless otherwise indicated, the calculated ratios were compared to Fo.DS. d.f., degrees of freedom] 

Conclusions 

Element Thirds Bottles 

B -------- Ba -------

Co -------

Cr ------- Cu -------

Ga ------- Ni 

Sc 

Sr 

v 

NS 

NS 

8(0.9·9) 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS.(0.99) 

Y NS 

Yb ------- NS 

Zr ------- NS 

NS 

28 

8(0.99) 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS(0.99) 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS(0.99) 

Standard deviation 

Mean Bottles Error (ppm) (d.f.=3) (d.f.=6) 

130 

493 

17.6 

121 

48.8 

20.9 

50.7 

18.3 

158 

132 

57 

3.2 

128 

(1) 

Neg. 

1.6 

7.1 

Neg. 

1.6 

Neg. 

.91 

Neg. 

10.8 

.55 

.10 

7.6 

8.2 

70 

.64 

8.6 

2.8 

1.3 

4.5 

.57 

20.4 

10.8 

3.6 

.36 

5.0 

1 Indeterminate. The mean sums of squares for the variation attributable to error and to bottles within thirds were equal, resulting in the indeter- minate division, 0/2. 2 The variation attributable to bottles within thirds was significantly less than that for error at Fo.99~. 

taken from each bottle and individually diluted 1:1 

with a mixture of 10 percent Na2C0 3 in quartz. An 

amount of carbon equal to one-.fourth of the weight 

of this mixture was added to the previous dilution, 

and this new dilution was then mixed. The samples 

and standards prepared similarly were load·ed into 

electrodes, and the exposures were made in random 

order on the plate, yielding the data in table 33. An 

analysis of variance of the data for each element 

was made, and a summary of the conclusions and 

estimates is given in table 34. 

Several mean ~sums of squares in table 34 are significantly larger than the error mean square and 

one, the mean squa.re for bottles within thirds for 

Ba, is significantly less than the error mean square. 

Inspection of the cobalt data in table 33 shows that 

the sums of the determinations for individual bottles cluster at two points, the lower at about 32 prpm 

and the higher at slightly over 38 ppm. There are 

techniques for comparing means in the analysis of 

vari~ance but the differences among bottles sums, 

and the even smaller differences among bottle means, 

are not analytically significant. Similarly, the differences among the sums of thirds, and among the 

means, are statistically but not analytically significant, and the average of all determinations, 17.6 

pp~m m~ay be used to estimate the cobalt content of 

the sample. The mean square for thivds for vanadium and the mean squares for bottles for scandium 

and zirconi urn are also not analytically significant. 

These spectrographic data therefore indicate that 

the bottles are generally homogeneous and that the 

"balling" has had little, if any, effect. 

Conclusions about the thirds of the entire lot of 

bottles yield only gross estimates of the homogeneity of the entire lot whe·reas similar conclusions 

for the bottles randomly selected for the test are 

more valuable as the unit of standard samples with 

which all analysts deal is a bottle. In a manner similar to what wa,s done for .samples STM-1, RGM-1, 

and QL0-1, the mean sum of squares for the variation .attribut3ible to bottles may be shown to be composed of the analytical variance plus n tim.es the bottle variance, where n is the number of determinations made on the individual bottle. The bottle and 

error standard deviations are given in table 34. Four 

standard deviations in the table are negative (the 

error mean square was greater than that for the 

variation due to bottles), and one i~s indeterminate 

(the two mean squares are equal) . 

REFERENCES CITED 

Flanagan, F. J., 1967, U.S. Geological Survey silicate rock 

standards: Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta. v. 31, no. 3, p. 

289-308. 

Hathaway, J. C., ed., 1971, Data file, continental margin 

program, Atlantic Coast of the United States V. 2, 

Sample collection and analytical data: Woods Hole 

Oceanog. Inst. Ref. 71-15, 496 p. 
DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

MICA SCHIST, SDC-1, FROM ROCK CREEK PARK, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

By F. J. FLANAGAN and G. V. CARROLL 

A 200-lb sample of mica schist ex.oovated from a 

sewer tunnel in the northern part of Rock Creek 

Park, Washington, D.C., was collected during the 

summer of 1963 to be processed as part of a rock 

7r o7'30" 

39"00' ,...,.,=,.,.,~=""""'~=.,....,.~.,..,.......,....,~,..,...-

sample pro.gram of the U.S. G€ological Survey. At 

the time of eollection the working face of the tunnel was approximately 400 ft north of Rock Creek, 

as shown in figure 7, at an estimated depth below 

77 '00' 

2 MILES 

EXPLANATION 

socm~ocK} AND ALLUVIUM 

CRANITil' (;NEISS 

HORNBLENDE CNF ISS 

SERPENTINITE ANil 

TALC SCHIST 

METAMORPHOSFil 

SEDIMENTARY ROCK 

A SIX- I 

u u 

oco N N 

ozo 

~-o:z 

~ ~ 

::;;: u 

u 

0 

N 

0 

~ 

..J 

.0: 

:>. 

,:, 0 2 KI LOMEH.RS 

FIGURE 7.-Geo!ogic sketch map of the Washington West quadrangle, District of Columbia-Maryland-Virginia, showing the source of SDG-1. Modified from Coulter and Carroll (1964). 

29 
30 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

the surface of 80 ft. The sample was selected from 

the freshest material on top of the dump and was 

assumed to have been the most recent increment directly from the existing working face. The entrance 

s'Qe.ft was later covered during regrading, and the 

remaining material from the dump was used as riprap along Rock Creek. 

The geology of the region was originally described 

by Darton and Keith (1901) and subsequently by 

Fellows (1950) and Cloos and Cooke ( 1953). Recent workers, Coulter and Carroll (1964) and Hopson (1964), assign these rocks to the Sykesville 

Formation which Southwick and Fisher (1967) refer to as the boulder gneiss lithofacies of the Wissahickon Formation of the Glenarm Series. 

These rocks are probably of late Precambrian age 

and are probably no younger than Early Cambrian; 

the regional relations upon which these age assignments depend are well summariz·ed by Hopson 

(1964) and Southwick and Fisher (1967). 

The rock in hand specimen is a dark-grey pervasively foliated muscovite-quartz schist with a 

homogeneous thinly streaked texture, rather than 

one that is compositionally layered. Muscovite is 

conspicuous on foliation surfaces. Small ellipsoidal 

granules of quartz and feldspar, as much as 1-2 

mm in diameter, make up 10-15 percent of the 

rock; individual pebbles of quartz 0.5-1 em or 

larger are randomly scattered in the matrix at intervals of, several centimeters. Inconspicuous grains 

of garnet as much as 2 mm in diameter are present 

in small amounts. 

In thin section, quartz makes up about 45 percent of the matrix of the rock, plagioclase about 15, 

muscovite 20, biotite as much as 10, chlorite 2-3 and 

garnet 2-3. Very minor amounts of apatite, epidote, 

allanite, flaky ilmenite, pyrite, and magnetite ( ?) 

are present. Proportions are approximate and vary 

from one thin section to another. The percentage of 

quartz varies markedly among specimens, depending on the number and size of the quartz pebbles 

included. 

The quartz pebbles are rounded and consist internally of several grains. Grains with straight 

boundaries display only weak undulose extinction 

whereas grains with sutured boundaries are characterized by strong undulose extinctions. Outer parts 

of the pebbles may be crushed to grain sizes like, 

and merging with, the matrix. 

Plagioclase (An2o-2c.) is characteristically untwinned and has very weak zonal extinction. A minority of grains show dose-set polysynthetic twinning much of which appears to be pericline twinning. The larger plagioclase grains are poikiloblastic 

and have strong amoeboid outlines. Some of the 

larger plagioclase grains, as much as 0.5 em in 

diameter, have well-rounded cores densely crowded 

with finely divided muscovite. These cores are surrounded by inclusion-free jackets wi,th amoeboid outlines against the matrix. Such pebbles are interpreted as original detrita,J grains surrounded by 

metamorphic overgrowths. 

Mica ·and chlorite flakes are sharply outlined. The 

majority of flakes define the foliation, but many 

flakes cross foliation at higher angles. The larger 

flakes show minor kinking of cleavage, but no 

shredding. Garnet is subhedral to anhedral. In general, mineral grains have crystaUoblastic textural 

relations to one another. This crystallobla.stic texture postdates development of foliation. The few 

cataclastic features appear to be minor and incipient. 

Evidence presented elsewhere (Coulter and Carroll, 

1964) indicates that foliation in these rocks, which 

originated as massive submarine slump deposits, 

is not mimetic to bedding. 

A detailed petrologic study of correlative rocks in 

Howard and Montgomery Counties is presented by 

Hopson (1964). 

The general procedure for the processing of samples for the standard sample program has been described by Flana;gan (1967). The mica schist presented a challenge for grinding because of its mica 

content. The sieve analysis of sets of four bottles 

each, taken randomly around the midpoints of the 

three thirds of the entire lot of bottled samples, is 

shown in table 35. An average of 87 percent of the 

TABLE 35.-Sieve analyses of SDC-1, in percent 

Thirds --------------------- 2 3 Avg 

Sieve size: 

+100 1.9 .6 2.4 1.6 

-100+120 ------ 1.0 2.4 2.0 1.8 

-120+170. ------ 4.8 5.8 5.8 5.5 

-170+200 ------ 3.8 3.5 4.9 4.1 

-200 ----------- 88.5 87.7 84.9 87.0 

TQtal ---------- 100 100 100 100 

sample passes a 200-mesh screen, and this percentage exceeds the goal of at least 80 percent. At least 

75 percent of the ma.terial retained on the larger 

screens consists of mica. This situation ·should cause 

no problems for techniques like the classical methods 

of rock analysis in which 0.5-g portions are used, 

but large subsamples taken from bottles should be 

reground before use in techniques like spectrochemical analysis in which sample portions are of 

the order of 25 mg or less. 
MICA SCHIST, SDC-1, FROM ROCK CREEK PARK, WASHINGTON, D.C. 31 

Chemical analyses of the rock and X-ray fluorescence determinations of several constituents are 

given in table 36, and the norms are given in table 

37. The rapid methods of Shapiro and Brannock 

(1962) were used for the che,mic.al analysis, and a 

modification of the method of Rose, Adler, and 

Flanagan (1963) was used for the X-r:ay determinations. The modification consisted of the substitution of cerium oxide for lanthanum oxide as 

the heavy absorber to avoid interference with the 

magnesium determination by a higher order line of 

lanthanum (Leonard Shapiro, written commun., 

1969). Semiquantitative spectrographic estimates of 

TABLE 36.-Analyses of SDC-1, in weight percent, by rapid 

rock methods and by X-ray fluorescence 

[Analysts: Rapid rock: P. Elmore, S. Botts, G. Chloe, and L. Artis. X-ray 

fluorescence: L. Shapiro and H. Smtih] 

Bottle -No 

Rapid rock 

Si02 -------------------- AlzOa -------------------

F~Oa ------------------- FeO -------------------- MgO --------------------

CaO -------------------- NazO -------------------

K20 -------------------- H20+ ------------------ H20- -------------------

Ti02 -------------------- P20s -------------------- ~nO ------------------- C02 ---------------------

Total --------------

21/5 

65.9 

16.3 

2.9 

3.7 

1.6 

1.4 

2.1 

3.2 

1.4 

100 

.17 

.98 

.18 

.12 

.05 

X-ray fluorescence 

FezOl -------------------

~gO -------------------- CaO -------------------- Na202 -------------------

K20 -------------------- Ti02 -------------------- P20? -------------------- ~nO --------------------

1 Total Fe as Fe20a. 

7.1, 6.8 

2.1, 1.6 

1.4,1.4 

2.1, 2.1 

3.3, 3.1 

1.0, 1.0 

.20, .24 

.13, .11 

100/13 

65.8 

16.3 

2.7 

3.9 

1.7 

1.3 

2.1 

3.2 

1.5 

.16 

.98 

.19 

.12 

.05 

1'00 

6.9, 7.0 

1.9, 1.7 

1.3, 1.5 

1.9, 2.1 

3.4, 3.2 

1.0, 1.0 

.24, .24 

.13, .12 

2 By chemioal methods using the powder prepared for X-ray fluorescence. 

TABLE 37.-Norms (CIPW) for SDC-1, bottle 21/5 

Constituent Weight percent 

Quartz ----------- __ ---- __ -- __ _ ___ _ ___ __ _ __ 35.33 

Orthoclase ------ _ --- _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ _ 18.91 

Albite ------------------------------------- 17.77 

Anorthite --------------------------------- 5.45 

Corundum --------------------------------- 7.38 

Enstatite ---------------------------------- 3.99 

Ferrosilite -------------------------------- 3.00 ~agnetite _ -------- __ ___ __ _ __ _ _ ___ _ ___ __ _ _ _ 4.20 

Ilmenite ----------------------------- ____ __ 1.86 

Anatite ----------------------------------- .43 CaCOa _ __ __ _ _ ___ _ ___ _ ___ _ ___ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ .11 

Total -------------------------------- __ 9_8_.4_3 __ 

several detectable trace elements are shown in table 

38. The semiquantitative method of Myers, Haven, 

and Dunton (1961) was used, and the d.ata are reported in percent to the nearest number in the series 

1, 0.7, 0.5, 0.3, 0.2, 0.15, and 0.1, whioh rep·resent 

approximate midpoints of intervals on a geometric 

.scale. 

TABLE 38.-Semiquantitative spectrogra.phic estimates of the 

trace element contents of SDC-1 

Element Percent 

Ag -------------------------------------------- 0.0000.3 

B --------------------------------------------- .003 

Ba -------------------------------------------- .1 

Be -------------------------------------------- .0003 

Ce -------------------------------------------- .0.2 

c:o --------------------------------------------

Cr --------------------------------------------- Gu 

Ga 

La 

.002 

.007 

.003 

.003 

.015 

Nb -------------------------------------------- .0015 

Nd -------------------------------------------- .01 

Ni --------------------------------------------- .005 

Ph -------------------------------------------- .003 

Sc --------------------------------------------- .002 

Sn -------------------------------------------- .0003 

Sr --------------------------------------------- .02 

v --------------------------------------------- .007 

y --------------------------------------------- .007 

Yb -------------------------------------------- .0007 

Zr --------------------------------------------- .05 

The sample was originally intended for chemical 

analysis. It is inevitable, how.ever; that the sample 

will be us,ed with other ,techniques that require a 

much smaller sample size. The mica content will 

probably be the source of p~oblerns for elements 

such as Ba, K, Rb, .Sr and Zr, and claims of heterogeneity o.f the .sample, published with the data and 

test used, are anticipated. 

REFERENCES CITED 

Gloos, Ernest, and Cooke, C. W., 1953. Geologic map of Montgomery ·County and District of Columbia: Baltimore, 

~d., ~aryland Dept. Geology, Mines and W.ater Resources, scale 1 :62,500. 

Coulter, H. W., and Caroll, G. V., 1964, Selected geologic 

localities in the Washington area: Washington A cad. 

Sci. Jour., v. 54, no. 5, p. 153-159. 

Darton, N. H., and Keith, Arthur, 1901, Description of the 

Washington, D.C.-~d.-Va. quadrangles: U.S. Geol. Survey Geol. Atlas, Folio 70. 

Fellows, R. E., 1950, Notes on the geology of Rock Creek 

Park, District of Columbia: Am. Geophys. Union Trans., 

v. 31, no. 2, p. 267-277. 

Flanagan, F. J., 1967, U.S. Geological Survey silicate rock 

standards: Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 31, no. 3, 

p. 289-308. 
32 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW US·GS ROCK STANDARDS 

Hopson, C. A., 1964, The crystalline rocks of Howard and 

Montgomery Counties, in the geology of Howard and 

Montgomery Counties: Baltimore, Md.. Maryland Geol. 

Survey, p. 27-215. 

Myers, A. T., Havens, R. G., and Dunton, P. J., 1961, A 

spectrochemical method for the semiquantitative analysis of rocks, minerals, and ores: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 

1084-I, p. 207-229. 

Rose, H. J., Jr., Adler, Isidore, and Flanagan, F. J., 1963, 

X-ray fluorescence analysis of the light elements in 

rocks and minerals: Appl. Spectroscopy, v. 17, no. 4, p. 

81-85. 

Shapiro. Leonard, and Brannock, W. W., 1962, Rapid analysis of silicate, carbonate, and phosphate rocks: U.S. Geol. 

Sutvey Bull. 1144-A, 56 p. 

Southwick, D. L., and Fisher, G. W., 19·67, Revision of the 

stratigraphic nomenclature of the Glenarm Series in 

Maryland: Maryland Geol. Survey Rept. Inv. 6, 19 p. 
DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

BASALT, BHV0-1, FROM KILAUEA CRATER, HAWAII 

By F.]. FLANAGAN, T. L. WRIGHT, S. R. TAYLOR/ C. S. ANNELL, 

R. C. CHRISTIAN, and]. I. DINNIN 

A basaltic lava from Kilauea caldera, Kilauea 

volcano, Hawaii, was collected by Howard A. Powers 

and coworkers from the surface layer of the pahoehoe lava that overflowed from Halemaumau in the 

fall of 1919. The sample, BHV0-1, has been processed as one of the series of standard rock powders, 

and more than 100 lb of the powdered material has 

been shipped to the NASA Manned Spacecraft 

Center, where it is being used as simulated lunar 

material for such purposes as plant growth media, 

soil mechanics experiments, drilling experiments, 

and oxygen recovery technique development. 

The sample locality (fig. 8) is 1,000 ft due east 

of the tic at lat 19°25'00" N., long 155°17'30" W., 

on the Kilauea Crater quadrangle, Hawaii Island 

and County of Hawaii, 7%-min topographic series, 

1963. The flow is mapped on the geologic map of 

Kilauea Crater quadrangle (Peterson, 1967). 

A strong overflow occurred from the north side 

of Halemaumau from April 20 through June 1919. 

After a pe•riod of quiescence, the strong overflow 

from the north resumed on August 16 and continued 

through September, covering the lavas emplaced in 

the s•pring. T.hus, the sample collected is probably 

from the overflow that occurred in mid-September. 

This surface was later bombarded by falling blocks 

and small particles, from pebble to silt size, broken 

from the wall lavas of Halemaumau during phreatic 

explosions in May 1924. It was not buried under a 

cover ·of such dehris, ·however, and has thus been 

exposed as surface rock since September 1919. 

The surface cooling unit of the 1919 pahoehoe is 

usually from 6 in to 1 ft thick and is separated from 

the lower part of the flow by a zone of large vesicles 

or even by open flattened gas ~avities perhaps several feet in diameter. Shrinkage cracks break these 

slabs into blocks with top surface areas of 1-2 ft 2

• 

1 Department of Geophysics and Geochemistry, Australian National University, Canberra. 

Several of these blocks, from different parts of the 

flow but all within an area of about 100 yd2

, conI j I I I I I I I, 

.5 0 

CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET 

DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL 

I 

1 MILE 

I 

1 KILOMETER 

FIGURE 8.-Part of the geologic map (Peterson, 1967) of 

Kilauea Crater, Hawaii, with the source of BHV0-1 

identified. Products of different eruptions are identified 

by year. Also shown are sl, splatter and lava cones; Ilk, 

lower lavas of Kilauea; bu, basalt of Uwekahuna laccolith; and ua, Uwekahuna ash. 

33 
34 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

stituted the original bulk sample weighing nealdy 

700 lb. 

The rock has a mildly oxidized zone, a few centimeters thick, separating the glassy rind from the 

denser crystalline interior, both of which are essentially unoxidized. There is no evidence of surface 

alteration due to weathering. The variation of 

chemical composition within this sample is probably not great and is caused mostly :by the somewhat 

er.ratic distribution of olivine phenocrysts and by 

minor variations in the ratio of ferric to ferrous 

i.ron. A grab portion of the powdered and mixed 

sample was analyzed by the methods of Shapiro 

(1967), and this chemical analysis is shown in table 

39. 

TABLE 39.-Chemica.l analysis of a grab sample of BHV0-1 

Constituent Weight percent 

SiO, --------------------------------------- 49.8 Al,O, _ ---- _ ----------- _____ -------- _____ ___ 14.0 

Fe,Oa ------------------------- _ ----- __ _____ 2.5 

FeO ------------------ ------------ --------- 8.5 

MgO ------------------------------------- - 7.2 

GaO ______ ____ _______ _ ___ _ ______ _ ______ _ ___ 11.3 

Na,O -------------------------------------- 2.2 

K,O --------------------------------------- .62 

H,O-r ------------------------------------- ;25 

H,O-- ------------------------------------- .06 

TiO, ------------------------------------- -- 2.6 P.o. --------------------------------------~ .32 

MnO - ------------------ ------------------- .18 

oo. ---------------------------------------- <.05 

Total -------------------------------- - -,-, 1o'"""o--

The sample was received as ei·ght lwrge pieces 

ranging in weight from 60 to 120 lb. These pieces 

were first cleaned with a .brush and water to remove 

any possible surface dirt and were then air dried 

over a weekend at about 90° F. The pieces were 

then broken on a steel bucking board with a hammer and ohis·el. The few pieces that dropped to the 

floor were inspected for traces of asphalt tile and 

were chipped clean, if necessary, before the crushing operations. The chips from the surfaces were 

discarded. As the material was reduced by a rolls 

crusher, it was continually ·passed down a stainless 

steel chute onto a large piece of 16- by 18-mesh 

aluminum screen to separate oversized particles before final powdering in a ball mill, and this oversize 

material was returned through the rolls crusher. 

The material was inspected as it passed to this 

screen, ·and several small pieces of wood from the 

shipping box that had escaped previous notice and 

a few small ·pieces of ,paper from the cardboard box 

in which broken pieces were stored before crushing 

were removed. Because traces of asphalt tile, wood, 

or paper may have escaped detection, it is not recommended that the sample be ·anaiyzed for organic 

constituents. 

Nominal batch weights (125 lb) of the screened 

material were then processed in the ball mill until 

a sieve analysis of the pulverized product showed 

that at .least 90 percent of the .powder passed a 200-

mesh screen. The second and succeeding batches 

were formed by replacing the amount of ground material taken from the ball mill by an equal weight 

of coarse material. Half-pint samples of the powder 

were taken at intervals while the batches were being processed, and these portions were sieved to determine if the minimum requirements for particlesize distribution had been reached. These sieved 

portions were then discarded. Sieve analyses of the 

powder immediately before the four batches were 

removed from the hall mill are given in table 40, 

and the average of these may .be used to estimate 

the size distribution of the completed sample. 

TABLE 40.-Siev e analyses of batches of BHV0-1, in percent 

[Tr., trace] 

Batch ---- - ------------------- Avg 

Sieve sizes: -r 1'00 -------- 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.3 --100-r120 -------- Tr. .1 Tr. Tr. .1 

--120-r170 -------- 2.1 1.9 1.3 .6 1.5 --170-r200 -------- 4.1 5.6 3.3 .6 3.4 

--200 ------------- 93.8 92.2 94.6 98.6 94.8 

Total ----------- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.1 

The g·round .sample was .stored in eight 1-ft3 cardboard boxes until .the ball milling was completed. 

The contents of these boxes were then mixed in a Vblender (two boxes per batch) in a prearranged 

scheme to nominally ensure that one-eighth of the 

contents of any ·Completely blended hox could be attributed to each of the original eight boxes. 

After filling every .second set of bottles, the normal processing was halted to withdraw a half gal-:-

lon (·about 5 lb) of powder from the hlender. These 

5-lb portions were transferred to a large plastic 

bag, and the withdrawals continued until the bag 

contained about 50 lh. When such withdrawals during the bottling of the first, second, and last thirds 

of the estimated lot of bottled samples had been 

completed, the bags were .shipped to NASA's Lunar 

Receiving Laboratory, Manned Spacecraft Center, 

Houston, Tex. Similar hut smaller withdrawals 

were made ·simultaneously to reserve part of ·the 

powdered material for gamma ray spectrometric 

determinations of uranium, thorium, and potassium. 

In anticipation that portions of this sample might 

be requested as frequently as had been portions of 
BASALT, BHV0-1, FROM KILAUEA CRATER, HA WAil 35 

USGS BCR-1 for use as a com.pari.son standard for 

lunar analyses, several sets of six bottles were 

randomly selected from the stock of bottles. These 

sets, designed to test the homogeneity of the sample 

and to obtain error estim·31tes, were distributed 

among s·everal analysts who were to make their determinations in random order. The data by chemical, optical emission, atomic absorption, instrumental neutron activation, X-ray fluorescence and 

spark source mass specroscopic methods are givel\ 

in tables 41-47. 

TABLE 41.-Quantitative spectrographic dete'rminations, in parts per million, of trace elements in Hawaiian basalt, BHV0-1 

[Optical emission method of Annell and Helz (1970). Analyst, C. S. Annell] 

Bottle 

Spectral 

Element line 11/11 10/14 31/23 32/15 52/2 51/17 

B.a II 4554.0 170, 190 190, 170 170, 150 190, 170 190, 150 170, 150 

Co 3412.3 46, 44 50, 51 44, 44 42, 45 51, 38 44, 47 

3412.6 43, 41 48, 52 47, 44 43, 42 48, 39 44, 47 

Gr 3005.05 340, 280 340, 350 310, 260 285, 270 480, 270 295, 305 

2985.9 335, 290 340, 350 320, 275 290, 290 450, 280 315, 325 

Gs -------- 8521.1 <1, 2.0 1.1, 1.1 <1, 1.1 3.5, 1.8 <1, 1.1 <1, <1 

Cu 3247.5 150, 94 150, 150 74, 150 155, 150 150, 96 94, 150 

3273.96 170, 130 170, 130 150, 110 170, 160 150, 120 100, 61 

Ga 2943.6 21, 18 21, 20 18, 18 20, 19 21; 16 18, 20 

Li -------- 6707.8 4.4, 4.6 4.3, 4.1 3.9, 4.0 4.2, 4.0 3.7, 3.8 4.1, 3.9 

Mn 3256.1 1320,1140 .1300, 13.20 1220,1120 1370, 1290 1390, 1030 1180,1320 

Nb II 3163.4 17, 17 17, 12 15, 17 19, 15 14, 15 14, 14 

Ni 3050.82 120, 104 117, 122 112, 107 113, 112 157, 106 97, 106 

Pb 2833.0 5.9, 6.9 6~5, 3.0 6.2, 6.2 5.5, 3.2 11.2, 7.2 5.5, 7.5 

R:b 7800.2 7.4, 9.1 7.3, 7.3 8.3, 7.9 8.6, 8.8 7.2, 8.4 7.0, 8.2 

Sc -------- II 3353.7 31, 31 32, 32 31, 31 3·2, 31 32, 31 31, 30 

Sr -------- 4607.3 390, 290 390, 300 390, 230 345, 250 360, 250 420, 300 

v -------- 3198.0 325, 280 310, 335 320, 235 2.60, 260 330, 2.80 315, 305 

y -------- II 3327.8 30, 30 29, 31 31, 28 29, 31 31, 27 29, 30 

Yb II 3289.37 3.3, 2.3 2.9, 3.3 2.8, 3.3 2.1, 3.1 2.3, 2.5 2.8, 3.0 

Zn ------- 3345.02 97, 107 98, 108 105, 107 95, 108 104, 94 105, 103 

3345.6 100, 106 97, 106 106, 99 97, 109 103, 96 104, 100 

Zr -------- II 3279.26 153., 151 151, 138 147, 152 154, 158 148, 132 136, 120 

TABLE 42.-Determinations of the potassium content of TABLE 44.-Determinations af the uranium content of 

BHV0-1, in percent BHV0-1 

[Atomic absorption method; Analyst, J. I. Dinnin] [In parts per million Fluorimetric method of Grimaldi and others (1952); 

uranium content is close to limit of estimation of the method. Analyst, 

Bottle Roosevelt Moore] 

9/9 11/12 30/6 30/25 51/16 51/25 Bottle 

0.440 0.440 0.438 0.443 0.437 0.440 9/9 11/12 30/6 30/25 51/25 52/16 

.432 .433 .438 .438 .443 .436 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 .432 .438 .438 .432 .440 .434 

.438 .440 .432 .434 .434 .43·2 .3 .3 .3 .3 .5 .5 

TABLE 45.-lnstrumental neutron activation analyses of the 

TABLE 43.-Determinations of the niobium content of chromium, scandium, and thorium contents of BHV0-1 

BliV0-1 [In parts per million. Analyst, L. P. Greenland] 

[In parts per million. Isotope dilution-spectrophotometric method of Bottle -------------- 9'/9 11/12 30/6 30/25 51/16 51/25 

Greenland and Campbell (1970). Analyst, E. Y. Campbell] 

Bottle Chromium ----- 312 316 305 302 343 33.1 

295 317 338 313 300 313 

10/14 11/11 31/23 32/15 51/17 52/2 Scandium ------ 26 28 27 26 28 32 

27 30 26 28 27 25 

22.6 19.1 21.0 20.0 21.5 20.2 Thorium ------- .84 .78 .81 .57 .77 .71 

24.0 22.3 23.1 24.6 21.3 24.1 .90 .94 .73 .65 .96 .74 
36 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW US-GS ROC'K STANDARDS 

TABLE 46.-X-ray fluorescence determinations of several 

oxides in BHV0-1 

[In weight percent. Method of Rose and others (1970) ; Analyst, R. P. Christian] 

Bottle -------------- 10/16 10/26 31/20 31/32 50/30 51/22 

Si02 ---------- 50.2 49.9 49.9 49.8 49.8 49.8 

49.8 50.2 49.7 50.0 49.8 49.9 

Al20a ---------- 14.0 13.8 13.9 14.0 14.0 13.8 

13.8 13.8 14.1 

Total Fe 

13.8 13.9· 13.8 

as Fe20a ----- 11.99 11.89 11.95 11.94 11.94 11.97 

11.94 11.94 11.98 11.91 11.96 11.92 

MgO ---------- 7.45 7.35 7.30 7.40 7.35 7.20 

7.40 7.45 7.40 7.35 7.30 7.20 

CaO ---------- 11.48 11.49 11.39 11.34 11.35 11.39 

11.44 11.45 11.44 11.34 11.38 11.43 

K20 ----------- .54 .54 .54 .57 .55 .55 

.53 .55 .55 .55 .56 .56. Ti02 ---------- 2.68 2.61 2.63 2.64 2.67 2.68 

2.65 2.67 2.64 2.62 2.72 2.68 P205 ---------- .26 .30 .27 .28 .26 .27 

.26 .30 .29 .28 .26 .29 MnO ---------- .17 .16 .16 .17 .16 .16 

.16 .16 .17 .17 .17 .16 

Calculations for a one"'"'way experimental design 

with the six bottles of sample :as the variable of 

classification were then made for the data reported. 

Four determinations for some bottles were made by 

the spark source method, and two observations were 

deleted from each set of four using random numbers. This procedure simplifie1s calculations by having the same number of observations per bottle. For 

the missing cesium observation by spark source,' the 

average of the other 11 determinations was substituted to facilitate the analysis of variance, but 

the inserted value may have ~slightly changed conclusions and estimates that might have otherwise 

been obtained. 

For the instrumental neutron activation determinations of chromium, scandium, and thorium, 100-

mg samples were irradiated for 14 h in a thermal 

neutron flux of 5X1012 n/cm2 /sec at the Naval Research Laboratory reactor. After about 2 weeks decay, the samples were counted at least twice with a 

40 em:~ Ge(Li) detector coupled to a 1,024-channel 

analyzer. The gamma energies, in keV, for the 

analyses were: Sc4 G, 889; Cr:;t, 320; and Th233 ~ 

Pa233, 312. USGS .sample G-1 was used as ~ standard for the thorium and scandium determinations 

with assumed values of 45 ppm Th and 2. 73 ppm Sc. 

USGS DTS-1, with an assumed value of 4,190 ppm 

Cr, was used as a standard for the chromium determinations. 

Conclusions resulting from the analysis of variance and our estimates of means and standard deviations are given in table 48. An extra significant 

digit has been retained in all estimates so that the 

user can round the data. For simplicity and for 

'freedom of choice for future users, all conclusions 

are listed as NS (not significant) at some specified 

or unspecified level. Those conclusions for which no 

level is specified were obtained after comparing the 

calculated ratio of the bottle mean sum of squares 

(MSS bottles) to the error mean sum of squares 

(MSS error) with the table value for Fo.95 (d.f.== 

5,6) = 4.39. For those conclusions for which a fractile of the F distribution is specified, for example 

NS ( 0. 99), the calculated ratio is significant at 

both Fo.9:; and Fo.975' but is not significant at Fo.99• 

Twenty-seven of the 68 standard deviations for bottles are listed as negative, and the conclusions listed 

were reached by testing the inve.rse ratio of mean 

squares (MSS error:MSS bottles) to determine if 

the variation attributable to bottles was significantly less than the error mean square. No F test could 

be made, and therefore a conclusion was not 

reached for the chemical uranium data because the 

error mean square was identically zero. 

The standard deviations for error in table 48 are 

the square roots of the mean sums of squares for 

error. Standard deviations for bottles were calculated by 

V'MSStmttl';;_ -MSS,., _ 

where n is the number of determinations per bottle 

(four for K by atomic absorption, two for all other 

determinations). Negative values for the bottle 

standard deviation may be expected in about half 

of such calculations as the variances are distributed 

as sample values of the variances around a mean 

of zero. 

Inspection of the column of conclusions in table 

48 shows that the bottle mean square was not significantly different from the error m·ean square for 

53 of the 67 tests made against F 0 . 95 • For these we 

can conclude that the element or oxide by the method 

used is homogeneously distributed among the bottles. The decision is left to the user whether to accept a declaration of homogeneity for the five conclusions that were not significant when tested 

against Fo.f!'"' or for the eight tested against Fo.99· 

Comparisons of variances and means by the appropriate F and t tests could be made for elements and 

oxides between methods in table 48, but the general agreement of the data indicate that such tests 

would probably be arithmetic exercises to test analytical judgment. 

Ilmenite has been added to a small portion of the 

bulk material shipped to the Manned Spacecraft 

Center. The addition of the ilmenite at the center 

raised the TiO:! content of this portion to approxi-
BASALT, BHV0-1, FROM KILAUEA CRATER, HAWAII 37 

TABLE 47.-Spark source mass spectrometric determination of elements in BHV0-1 

[In parts per million. Method of Taylor (1965). Analysts, S. R. Taylor and A. L. Graham, Australian Nat. Univ.] 

Bottle 

Elementisotope 9/8 10/17 30/24 31/3 52/6 52/26 

Y-89 --------------- 21.3 29.4 24.8 29.2 28.9 26.7 

26.7 31.6 23.8 21.0 22.3 24.3 

Nb-93 -------------- 15.7 19.4 19.9 21.2 20.4 21.2' 

15.6 20.7 16.9 17.8 18.6 19.3 

Cs-133 -------------- .0776 .127 .100 .0505 .0784 

.0554 .0912 .0872 .126 .0406 .0827 

Ba-135 ------------- 121 121 144 144 134 130 

120 123 137 139 120 136 

Ba-136 ------------- 130 128 149 139 151 132 

114 134 149 145 111 139 

Ba-137 ------------- 121 115 126 124 133 126 

126 133 132 130 118 132 

La-139 -------------- 15.0 16.9 18.4 19.1 15.2 16.8 

19.0 17.3 19.5 18.4 17.2 17.2 

Ce-140 -------------- 30.0 30.5 31.8 35.2 33.5 31.3 

30.0 38.6 35.7 36.4 33.1 33.9 

Pr-141 -------------- 5.77 6.06 6.01 6.49 4.77 5.42 

5.62 5.60 6.40 5.33 5.35 5.17 

Nd-143 ------------- 23.8 24.8 26.9 22.1 18.3 21.2 

27.7 17.8 24.5 24.6 22.3 22.6 

Nd-146 ------------- 22.1 21.4 26.2 23.2 19.3 20.6 

25.6 16.5 25.3 22.3 21.6 21.8 

Sm-147 ------------- 6.12 5.47 5.09 5.18 3.96 5.45 

5.24 6.35 4.63 5.50 4.72 5.74 

Sm-149 ------------- 5.13 6.53 5.14 4.87 4.31 5.31 

5.51 4.18 5.20 5.64 4.91 5.53 

Eu-151 ------------- 1.70 1.82 1.64 1.67 1.33 1.52 

1.98 1.83 1.67 1.77 1.57 1.60 

Eu-153 ------------- 1.90 1.81 1.72 1.63 1.21 1.47 

1.62 1.49 1.67 1.76 1.63 1.58 

Gd-155 -------------- 6.84 6.00 5.45 5.82 4.10 4.95 

7.72 6.66 5.94 6.42 5.23 5.21 

Gd-158 -------------- 5.68 5.53 5.24 5.53 3.67 4.82 

4.83 4.38 5.69 5.11 5.35 5.40 

Tb-159 -------------- .685 .752 .595 .683 .562 .648 

1.00 .756 .841 .765 .743 .720 

Dy-161 ------------- 4.65 4.94 4.06 4.18 3.34 4.64 

5.32 4.46 4.35 5.04 4.21 5.12 

Dy-163 ------------- 5.14 5.33 3.90 4.23 3.87 4.80 

5.69 4.53 5.00 4.75 4.46 4.93 

Ho-165 ------------- 1.07 1.17 .892 .788 .649 .870 

.862 .875 .971 .883 .73·2 .927 

Er-166 -------------- 2.65 1.86 1.70 1.62 1.26 1.76 

1.83 1.74 1.84 1.89 1.64 1.80 

Er-167 -------------- 2.21 1.87 1.61 1.65 1.28 1.6-a 

2.21 1.73 1.77 1.83 1.68 1.75 

Tm-169 ------------- .300 .302 .251 .317 .206 .272 

.350 .222 .250 .33·5 .280 .302 

Yb-172 ------------- 1.72 1.77 1.40 1.36 1.15 1.62 

1.95 1.39 1.39 1.34 1.63 1.68 

Yb-174 ------------- 1.64 1.41 1.25 1.21 1.16 1.57 

2.28 1.86 1.30 1.33 1.57 1.61 

Hf-177 ------------- 4.27 4.28 3.71 3.34 3.39 3.60 

5.16 3.27 3.68 4.18 4.21 3.52 

Hf-178 ------------- 3.78 3.31 3.25 3.01 3.16 3.20 

3.65 4.44 3.40 3.99 4.13 3.27 

Th-232 ------------- .672 .701 .726 .726 .611 .912 

1.15 .825 .814 1.07 .725 .857 

U-238 -------------- .393 .394 .182 .328 .315 .332 

.316 .414 .186 .452 .327 .351 
38 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

TABLE 48.-Means and standard deviations of data for BHV0-1 

[In parts per million unless percent is indicated. Method: XRF, X-ray fluorescent; OS, optical emission; SSMS, spark source mass spectrometric; INA, mstrumental neutron activation ; AA, atomic absorption ; Chern, chemical. Conclusions are :llrom the analysis of variance. The calculated F ratio 

of MSS : MSSbottles :MSSerror was generally tested at Fo.o~ except where the higher fractile of the F distribution is indicated in parentheses. Where the standard deviation for bCtttles is indicated as "Neg.," the inverse ratio, MSSerror : MSSbottles, was tested to determine the significance. NS, not significant; d f., degrees of freedom. See tables 41-47] 

CoeffiStandard deviation cientof 

Spectral Conclu- variation 

line or sion (d.f.=5) (d.f.=6) for error Element or oxide Method Isotope (bottles) Mean Bottles Error (percent) 

).lbOa _______ percent __ XRF NS 13.89 0.032 0.104 0.7 

Ba ----------------- OS II 4554.0 NS 171.7 Neg. 17.3 10.1 

SSMS 135 NS(0.99) 132.8 8.33 5.09 3.8 

SSMS 136 NS 135.6 2.62 12.8 9.4 

SSMS 137 NS(0.975) 127.5 Neg. 7.54 5.9 

CaO ________ percent __ XRF NS(0.99) 11.41 .048 .026 .2 

Ce ------------------ SSMS 140 NS 33.4 .402 2.73 8.2 

Co ------------------ OS 3412.3 NS 45.5 2.76 4.00 8.8 

OS 3412.6 NS 44.8 1.89 3.16 7.0 

Cr ------------------ INAA NS 315 Neg. 17.5 5.6 

OS 2985.9 NS 321.7 Neg. 52.5 16.3 

OS 3005.05 NS 315.4 Neg. 65.0 20.6 

Cs ------------------ S.SMS 133 NS(0.975) .088 .022 .016 18.8 

Cu ----------------- OS 3273.96 NS 135.1 23.8 24.7 18.3 

OS 3247.5 NS 130.2 Neg. 35.3 27.1 

Dy ----------------- SSMS 161 NS 4.60 .323 .456 9.9 

SSMS 163 NS 4.83 .283 .482 10.0 

Er ----------------- SSMS 166 NS 1.86 .159 .278 14.9 

SSMS 167 NS(0.975) 1.80 .219 .145 8.0 

Eu ----------------- SSMS 151 NS 1.67 .130 .113 6.8 

SSMS 153 NS 1.64 Neg. .180 11.0 

Total Fe as Fe20a __ percent__ XRF NS 11.94 .004 .028 .2 

Ga ----------------- OS 2943.6 NS 19.2 Neg. 1.82 9.5 

Gd ------------------ SSMS 155 NS(0.99) 6.04 .862 .513 8.5 

SSMS 158 NS 5.18 Neg. .682 13.2 

Hf ----------------- SSM.S 177 NS 3.97 .200 .516 13.0 

SSMS 178 NS 3.99 Neg. .518 13.0 

Ho ----------------- SSMS 165 NS .90 .084 .114 12.7 

K __________ percent __ AA NS .437 Neg. 1

.004 .9 

K20 ________ percent __ XRF NS .55 .007 .009 1.6 

La ------------------ SSMS 139 NS 17.5 .534 1.35 7.7 

Li ------------------ OS 6707.8 NS(0.99) 4.08 .239 .122 3.0 

MgO -- _____ percent__ XRF NS(0.975) 7.35 .072 .048 .6 

Mn ----------------- OS 3256.1 NS 1250 Neg. 129 10.3 

MnO _______ percent__ XRF NS .16 .001 .005 3.1 

Nb ----------------- Chern• NS 22.0 Neg. 2.10 9.5 

OS II 3163.4 NS 15.5 Neg. 1.96 12.6 

SSM.S 93 NS 19.0 1.31 1.56 8.2 

Nd ----------------- SSMS 143 NS 22.7 1.1·6· 2.80 12.3 

S.SMS 146 NS 22.1 2.05 1.93 8.7 

Ni ----------------- OS 3050.82 NS 114.4 Neg. 15.8 13.8 

P205 ________ percent__ XRF NS (0.99) .28 .014 .008 .8 

Ph ----------------- OS 2833.0 NS 6.2-3 1.15 1.79 28.7 

Pr ------------------ S.SMS 141 NS 5.54 .296 .341 6.2 

Rb ----------------- OS 7800.2 NS 7.96 Neg. .705 8.8 

Sc ------------------ INAA NS 27.5 Neg. 2.24 8.1 

OS II 3-353.7 NS 31.2 .387 .500 1.6 

Si02 ________ percent__ XRF NS 49.90 Neg. .168 .3 

Sm ----------------- SSM.S 147 NS 5.28 .533 .459 8.7 

S.SM.S 149 NS 5.31 Neg. .746 14.0 

Sr ------------------ OS 4607.3 NS (0.975) 326.2 Neg. 81.2 24.9 

Tb ----------------- SSMS 159 NS .75 Neg. .130 17.3 

Th ----------------- INAA NS .783 .086 .081 10.3 

SSMS 232 NS .871 Neg. .179 20.6 

TiOa -------Percent__ XRF NS 2.66 .020 .025 .9 

Tm ----------------- S.SM.S 169 NS .289 .026 .036 12.4 
BASALT, BHV0-1, FROM KILAUEA CRATER, HA WAil 39 

TABLE 48.-Means and standard deviations of data for BHV0-1-Continued 

Spectral Concluline or sion Element or oxide Method Isotope (bottles) 

u ------------------- Fluorimetric e) SSMS 238 NS(0.99) 

v ------------------ OS 3198.0 NS 

y ------------------ OS II 3327.8 NS(0.99) 

SSMS 89 NS 

Yb ----------------- OS II 3289.37 NS 

SSMS 172 NS 

S:SMS 174 NS 

Zn ------------------ OS 3345.02 NS 

OS 3345.6 NS(0.99) 

Zr ------------------ OS II 3279.26 NS 

1 Degrees of freedom for error= 18. 2 Isotope dilution and spectrophotometric. 3 Indeterminate because the error MSS is identically zero. 

mately that of the Ti02 content of the Apollo 11 soil 

samples. Because of the widely differing Ti02 contents, there seems little chance that this portion and 

USGS BHV0-1 will be confused. 

REFERENCES CITED 

Annell, Charles, and Helz, Armin, 1970, Emission spectrographic determination of trace elements in lunar samples: S.cience, v. 167, no. 3918, p. 521-523. 

Greenland, L. P., and Camp·bell, E. Y., 1970, Determination 

of niobium in rocks by an isotope dilution-spectrophotometric method: Anal. Chim. Acta, v. 49, p. 109-114. 

Grimaldi, F. S., May, Irving, and Fletcher, M. H., 1952, U.S. 

Geological Survey fluorimetric methods of uranium analysis: U.S. Geol. Survey Circ. 199, 20 p. 

CoeffiStandard deviation cient of 

variation 

Bottles Error for error Mean (d.f.=5) (d.f.=6) (percent) 

0.36 0.103 

.34 .073 0.043 12.6 

296 3.47 32.2 10.9 

29.7 Neg. 1.68 5.6 

25.8 Neg. 3.55 13.8 

2.81 Neg. .456 16.2 

1.59 .134 .19Q 11.9· 

1.54 .196 .2.58 16.8 

102.6 Neg. 6.3Q 6.1 

101.9 Neg. 5.59 5.5 

145.0 8.40 7.78 5.4 

Peterson, D. W., 1967, Geologic map of the Kilauea Crater 

quadrangle, Hawaii: U.S. Geol. Survey Geol. Quad. Map 

GQ-667. 

Rose, H. J., Jr., Cuttitta, Frank, Dwornik, E. J., Carron, 

M. K., Christian, R. P., Lindsay, J. R., Ligon, D. T., 

and Larson, R. R., 1970, Semimicro chemical and X-ray 

fluorescenc.e analysis of lunar samples: Science, v. 167, 

no. 3918, p. 520-521. 

Shapiro, Leonard, 1967, Rapid analysis of rocks and minerals by a single-solution method, in Geological Survey 

Research 1967: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 575-B 

p. B187-B191. 

Taylor, S. R., 1965, Geochemical analysis by spark source 

mass spectrograhy: Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 29, 

p. 1243-1261. 

DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

MASS SPECTROMETRIC ISOTOPE DILUTION DETERMINATIONS OF 

BARIUM 

By J. R. DE LAETER/ R. DATE/ and I. D. ABERCROMBIE 1 

ABSTRACT 

The eight new USGS standard rocks have been analyzed 

for barium by the stable isotope dilution technique. Duplicate portions from three bottles of the rocks were analyzed 

in random order. No departures from homogeneity for these 

randomly selected bottles of samples were observed. The 

average barium contents are, in parts per million: STM-1, 

584; RGM-1, 822; QL0-1, 1,401; SDC-1, 641; MAG-1, 476; 

SCo-1, 570; SGR-1, 286; and BHV0-1, 132.5. The analytical 

error is. generally less than 1 percent whereas the absolute 

accuracy of the technique for barium is approximately 2 

percent. 

INTRODUCTION 

As part of a program to standardize a new series 

of rocks, the elemental abundance of barium in STM1, RGM-1, QL0-1, SDC-1, MAG-1, SCo-1, SGR-1, 

and BHV0-1 was determined by the stable isotope 

dilution technique using solid-source mass spectrometry. Three bottles, randomly selected from the stock 

of each rock, were analyzed in duplicate to provide 

a one-way experimental design with the three bottles 

as the variable of classification. 

The determination of barium in silicate samples is 

often imprecise and sometimes of doubtful accuracy 

by emission spectroscopy and other analytical techniques. Fleischer ( 1969) has summarized new data 

on the standard rocks G-1 and W-1 but is still unable to recommend a value for the barium content of 

these rocks with any confidence. Flanagan (1969) 

has provided a compilation of analytical data on the 

major, minor, and trace constituents of the new 

series of samples recently prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey. The barium determinations cover a 

wide range of abundances for each of the six rocks, 

and under the circumstances, the average values 

listed for barium are of questionable significance. 

The stable isotope dilution technique is for some 

elements potentially more accurate and precise than 

many other analytical methods and has been adopted 

in this project in an attempt to provide accurate 

barium data for this new series of USGS standard 

rocks. 

EXPERIMENTAL METHODS 

The elemental abundance of barium in each rock 

sample was determined by using a barium nitrate 

tracer enriched to approximately 94 percent in the 

isotope of mass 135. The isotopic composition of this 

tracer as obtained from Oak Ridge National Laboratory ( ORNL) is listed in table 49, together with the 

isotopic ratios as measured by the mass spectrometer 

used throughout the project. The isotopic composition of natural barium as measured in the Western 

Australian Institute of Technology (WAIT) laboratory is also listed. The measured ratios are uncorrected for mass spectrometer fractionation. 

We have taken the atomic weight of natural barium to be 137.327 as calculated by Eugster, Tera, and 

Wasserburg (1969). The atomic weight of the Ba135 

tracer has been calculated from the measured isotopic composition to be 135.04, using isotopic weights 

according to the C1 :! = 12 scale (Mattauch and others, 

1965). 

An accurately weighed sample of the Ban" (NO:!):! 

tracer was used to prepare a gravimetric solution in 

6 M HCI. The concentration of this solution was determined using the isotope dilution technique itself 

to calibrate the tracer against an accurate gravimetric standard made up from a spectroscopically 

pure sample of BaCO:l (obtained from Johnson, Matthey & Co.) . The measured concentration of the 

tracer solution agreed with the gravimetric value 

within experimental error. The adopted concentration was the average of a number of calibrations 

t Dep:1rtment of Phy8ics, Western Australian Institute of Technology, 

South Bentley, Western Australia. 

41 
42 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

determined on random occasions throughout the 

project. No significant variation was detected in the 

tracer concentration as a function of time. 

TABLE 49.-Isotopic composition of barium nitrate tracer and 

natural barium 

Ba 137 Ba 136 Ba 135 

Ba 138 Ba l35 Ba 138 

Ba 135 tracer (ORNL values)1 __ 0.2444 0.4522 26.2921 Ba 135 tracer (WAIT value)2 ___ 0.2456±0.0019 0.4565±0 0031 26.C720±0.078 Natural barium (WAIT value)2 ___ 0.1581±0.0003 0.1112±0.0003 0.0937 4±0.0003 

BalM Ba 132 Ba 130 

Ba 138 BaL'l8 Ba 138 

Ba 135 tracer (ORNL values)1 __ 0.1011 <0.028 <0.028 Ba L'15 tracer (WAIT value)2 ___ 0 1031 ±0.009 -------------- -------------- Natural barium (WAIT value)2 ___ 0. 03449±0. 00012 0.00147±0.00001 0.00154±0.00001 

1 Error estimated to be less than 1 percent, from known sources of systematic errors. 2 Errors represent the 95-percent confidence limits. 

An accurately weighed quantity of the Ba135 tracer 

was added to a known amount of a standard rock 

sample immediately before dissolution. Portions of 

an approximate weight of 0.2 g were taken, and 

sufficient tracer was added to ensure that the Ba 135 I 

Ba138 ratio of the mixture was approximately unity. 

Each portion was then dissolved with a HF -HC104 

mixture, and the barium was extracted as the chloride on a cation exchange column as described by de 

Laeter, Abercrombie, and Date (1969). Blank analyses of the complete extraction procedure were of the 

order of 0.1 p.g, and the measured concentrations 

were corrected for this effect. 

Portions of the bari urn as the chloride were 

mounted on a conventional triple-filament ion source 

and analyzed in a 12-in.-radius, 90° magnetic sector, 

solid-source mass spectrometer equipped with an 

electron multiplier. The resulting signals were amplified by a vibrating-reed electrometer with a 109

-

ohm input resistor whose linearity as a function of 

ion-beam intensity was carefully checked. A voltage-to-frequency converter, followed by an electronic counter, allowed digital presentation of the 

data, which was fed on-line to a small computer, 

The amplifying system was periodically calibrated 

for scale factors, linearity, and speed of response. 

The magnetic field was successively switched from 

mass 135 to mass 138 and back again, until each ·isotope was measured approximately 40 times. The computer was programmed to select a number that was 

representative of the height of each peak, and this 

information was stored in memory until the mass 

spectrometer run was completed, after which the isotopic ratios were calculated. This system of data 

analysis enabled the mean and standard deviation of 

the Ba 135 /Ba 138 ratio of the mixture of tracer and natural barium standard to be computed immediately 

after the completion of a run with a minimum of 

operator involvement, thus contributing significantly 

to the efficiency of the project as a whole. 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

The concentration of barium in each of the standard rocks is given in table 50. Two portions from 

the three bottles of each standard rock sample were 

analyzed in random order. Every result listed in 

table 50 is an independent analysis. The mean of the 

two analyses for each bottle is given, together with 

the average of the six analyses for each rock. The 

average was calculated on the assumption that each 

bottle is representative of the relevant standard rock 

sample. 

TABLE 50.-Determinations of barium in USGS standard 

rock samples, in parts per million 

Standard rock and 

bottle No. 

Nepheline syenite, STM-1: 

Analyses 

2 Mean 

9/1J. ----------------------------- 584 586 585 11/19 ----------------------------- 583 583 583 

21/15 ----------------------------___ 58_3 ___ 58_5 __ ~58::-;4_ Average ______________________________________ - ----- 584 

Preliminary USGS value ---------------------------- 1 465 

Rhyolite, RGM-1: 

5/17 ----------------------------- 821 823 822 

11/8 ----------------------------- 823 823 823 6~/1 -----------------------------___ 8_2_3 ___ 82_0 __ ----;;-;82;-;;:1_.5_ 

Average ____________________________________ -------- 822 

Preliminary USGS value --------------------------- 1 732 

Quartz latite, QL0-1: 

17/8 ------------------------------ 1,402 1,402 32/25 ------------------------------- 1,399 1,395 

49/8 ------------------------------- 1,402 1,408 

Average _____ - __ - ------------------------------------

Preliminary USGS value -----------------------------

Mica schist, SDC-1 

1,402 

1,397 

1,405 

1,401 

1 1,380 

28/31 ----------------------------- 638 641 639.5 

47/29 ----------------------------- 643 644 643.5 90/11 -----------------------------___ 64_1 ___ 63_9 __ --:-647:"0_ 

Average ______ -------------------------------------- 641 

Preliminary USGS value --------------------------- 21,000 

Marine mud, MAG-1 

20/23 ----------------------------- 478 480 479 42/7 ----------------------------- 475 474 474.5 63/19 -----------------------------___ 4_7_6 ___ 47_3 __ ---:-:47:-;;4_5_ 

Average ___ L-- ____________________ - ---------------- 476 

Pre!iminary USGS va·lue ---------------------------

Cody shale, SCo--1 

35/16 ----------------------------- 572 571 571.5 63/32 ----------------------------- 568 568 568 65/26 -----------------------------___ 57_1 ___ 56_9 __ ---:-,57=0-

Average __________________ - ------------------------- 570 

Preliminary USGS value --------------------------- 2 300 

Green River shale, SGR-1 

22/23 ----------------------------- 287 292 289.5 

23/3 ----------------------------- 285 283 284 

56/25 -----------------------------.:;:__-__ .:::__28:.::2 __ ____:_28:....:.8 __ ----=-28=-=5- Average ________________________________ ------------ 286 

Hawaiian basalt, BHV0-1 

1/7 ----------------------------- 132 134 133 8/1 ----------------------------- 132 132 132 17/4 -------------------------------~13::_::2 __ --=-13_3 ___ 13=2:--::.5:-- Average ____________________________________ -------- 132.5 

Preliminary USGS value --------------------------- 1 170 

1 Quantitative emission spectrographic data 2 Semiquantitative emission spectrographic estimate 
MASS SPE·CTROMETRIC ISOTOPE DILUTION DETERMINATIONS OF BARIUM 43 

We have also listed in table 50 some barium concentrations for the rocks obtained by emission spectrography by the USGS during preliminary work on 

the samples. The average values from the present 

work are within 25 percent of the quantitative emission spectroscopic data for STM-1, RGM-1, QL0-1, 

MAG-1, and BHV0-1, although our value of 132.5 

ppm for BHV0-1 is in excellent agreement with the 

spark-source mass-spectrometry value of about 130 

ppm by S. R. Taylor (written commun., 1970). Our 

value of 641 ppm for SDC-1 is 44 percent lower and 

our value of 570 ppm for SCo-1 is 62 percent higher 

than the semiquantitative estimates for these two 

rocks. No preliminary value for SGR-1 has yet been 

determined, though we obtained a value of 286 ppm 

for this rock. 

Table 51 summarizes the data and the conclusions 

from the analysis of variance for each standard rock. 

The standard deviations listed are the estimates for 

the "between bottles" and "within bottles" error, 

respectively. These have been calculated from the 

analysis of variance design described by Bennett and 

Franklin (1954, table 7.2) p. 323). The "within bottles" standard deviation has been equated with analytical error in this simple design, since, other than 

random error, it is the only error remaining after 

the effects of the bottle means are subtracted from 

the total variation. 

TABLE 51.-Estimates of the barium contents of standard 

rocks 

[All calculated F ratios were not significant when comp:tred to Fo.9s (d f.= 

2, 3) =9.55. d.f., degrees of freedom; Neg., negative bottle variance] 

Samp~e Average Standard deviation F ratio (ppm) Bott'es (d.f.=2) Error (d.f.=3) 

ppm percent ppm percent 

STM-1 --- 584 0.6 0.10 1.2 0.21 1.5 

RGM-1 --- 822 Neg. 1.5 .18 .5 

QL0-1 1,401 3.5 .25 2.9 .21 3.8 SDC-1 ____ 641 1.9 .30 1.5 .23 4.1 

MAG-1 --- 476 2.4 .50 1.5 .32 5.8 

SCo-1 570 1.6 .28 .9 .16 7.4 

SGR-1 ____ 286 1.8 .63 3.3 1.15 1.6 

BHV0-1 -- 132.5 Neg. .9 .68 .6 

For two F ratios of the mean sum of the squares 

for "between bottles" divided by the mean sum of the 

squares for "within bottles," we obtained values less 

than unity. The negative values that result for the 

estimate of the "between bottles" variance may be 

attributed to sample fluctuations about an average 

value of zero. This should be anticipated in half the 

tests in which our null hypothesis-that the variation 

"between bottles" is not significantly greater than 

the variation "within bottles" -is true. These negative values have been indicated in table 51 by the 

abbreviation "Neg." 

A comparison of the calculated F ratios with the 

appropriate F values listed in statistical tables 

(Hoel, 1954, table V), indicates that there is no significant departure from the null hypothesis at the 95-

percent level in any of the samples, and one can 

therefore conclude that the barium of the bottles is 

homogeneous for each of the standard rocks 

analyzed. 

In fact, all samples, except perhaps SGR-1, show 

excellent "between bottles" and "within bottles" reproducibility. In the case of SGR-1, the measured 

barium content of bottle 22/23 is 1.7 percent greater 

than the average content of bottles 23/3 and 56/25. 

The reproducibility of duplicate analyses in bottles 

22/23 and 56/25 are also considerably worse than in 

any of the other standard rocks. Some difficulty was 

experienced in the dissolution of SGR-1, and perhaps 

the relatively poorer reproducibility of the analyses 

of this rock reflects inconsistencies in the chemistry 

rather than real variations in the samples 

themselves. 

An indication of the reproducibility of the 

stable isotope dilution technique for barium in the 

WAIT laboratory is exhibited by analyses of the 

USGS standard rock BCR-1. In a previous publication, de Laeter, Abercrombie, and Date (1969) reported a value of 678 ppm as the average of two 

analyses. During the present project) BCR-1 was 

reanalysed on three separate occasions and gave 

values of 676, 677, and 675 ppm, respectively. The 

average value of 676 ppm therefore compares favorably with the earlier result and is well within the 

limits imposed by experimental error. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT 

This work was supported by the Australian Research Grants Committee. 

REFERENCES 

Bennett, C. A., and Franklin, N. L., 1954, Statistical analysis 

in chemistry and the chemical industry: New York, 

John Wiley, 724 p. 

de Laeter, J. R., Abercrombie, I. D., and Date, R., 1969, Mass 

spectrometric isotope dilution analyses of barium in 

standard rocks: Earth and Planetary Sci. Letters, v. 7, 

no. 1, p. 64-66. 

Eugster, 0., Tera F., and Wass.erburg, G. J., 1969, Isotopic 

analyses of barium in meteorites and in terrestrial samples. Jour. Geophys. Research, v. 74, p. 3897-3908. 

Flanagan, F. J., 1969, U.S. Geological Survey standards-

!!. First compilation of data for the new U.S.G.S. rocks: 

Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta., v. 33, p. 81-120. 

Fleischer, M., 1969, U.S. Geological Survey standards-!. 

Additional data on rocks G-1 and W-1, 1965-1967: 

Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 33, p. 65-80. 

Hoel, P. G., 1954, Introduction to mathematical statistics 

[2d ed.]: New York, John Wiley, Table V, 322 p. 

Mattauch, J. H. E., Thiele W., and Wapstra, A. H .. 1965, 1964 

atomic mass table: Nuclear Physics, v. 67, p. 1-31. 

DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

THE BISMUTH CONTENT OF SIX NEW USGS STANDARD ROCKS 

By L. P. GREELAND, E. Y. CAMPBELL, and F. J. FLANAGAN 

Bismuth was determined in replicate portions of three 

bottles of six new USGS s'tandard rocks by a substoi.chiometric isotope dilution technique. The average, ·as parts per 

billion bismuth, were QL0-1, 66; BHV0-1, 19; MAG-1, 380; 

RGM-1, 280; SDC-1, 280; and STM-1, 250. One-way analysis of variance of the several sets of data showed no significant differences in the bismuth content among bottles of 

any specific rock, and these samples may be accepted as 

homogeneous for their bismuth contents by this method. 

The coefficient of variation calculated from the "within 

bottles" variation for STM-1, however, was much greater 

than that expected from instrumental error alone, and this 

rock powder is not suitable as a standard for bismuth determinations. 

The use of rock powders as standards for chemical 

analysis entails the assumption that various bottles 

and portions from a given bottle all have the same 

approximate concentrations of the elements sought. 

This assumption has been challenged occasionally in 

the case of older USGS standard rocks, but never, to 

our knowledge, has heterogeneity been conclusively 

demonstrated for a reasonable sample size. Statistical designs are available for testing this assumption, and here we present data on the bismuth content of six new USGS standard rocks by one such 

simple procedure. 

Three bottles of each of the six standard rocks 

were randomly selected. These bottles and appropriate portions therefrom were numbered and randomized. The portions, about 100 mg, were analyzed in 

batches of 12. Duplicate portions from the bottles of 

QL0-1 and BHV0-1, and triplicate portions from 

the bottles of the other four samples, were analyzed 

for their bismuth content. 

Because of the lower bismuth contents of QL0-1 

and BHV0-1, it was necessary to analyze portions of 

these samples separately from those of the other four 

rocks. Nevertheless, randomization was maintained 

throughout. 

The analytical method has been described in detail 

elsewhere (Greenland and Campbell, 1972). In brief, 

samples were decomposed with HF -HC104 in the 

presence of BP07 tracer. Bismuth was separated from 

the other constituents by extraction of its iodide complex and then reacted with a known substoichiometric amount of EDT A ( ethylenediaminetetraacetic 

acid). After removal of the excess bismuth by extraction of the iodide, BF07 was counted to determine the 

specific activity of the Bi-EDTA complex, from 

which the original bismuth content could be 

calculated. 

The analytical data are given in table 52, and the 

statistical estimates are summarized in table 53. 

Most averages in table 53 are given to three significant figures even though the analytical precision (the 

square root of the mean sum of squares for within 

bottles) may indicate two figures, and the user may 

round or not at his discretion. 

The calculations of the one-way analysis of variance of these data were made to determine if the 

differences in the bismuth content attributable to 

TABLE 52.-Bismuth content of USGS standard rocks, in 

parts per billion 

Rock Bottle 

sample 2 3 

QL0-1 ------------------- 68 65 60 

73 70 62 

BHV0-1 ---------------- 24 18 16 

19 16 20 

MAG-1 ----------------- 380 380 370 

380 370 410 

410 380 380 

RGM-1 ------------------ 280 280 290 

270 300 320 

280 270 260 

SDC-1 ------------------ 280 290 260 

280 260 290 

280 270 270 

STM-1 ------------------ 330 170 220 

220 290 330 

230 240 220 

/45 
46 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

TABLE 53.-Summary of estimates for the bismuth content 

of six USGS standard rocks 

[In parts per billion. d.f., degrees of freedom. Neg., negative bottle 

variance] 

Rock 

sample Mean 

QL0-1 ---------- 66.3 

BHV0-1 -------- 18.8 MAG-1 _________ 384 

RGM-1 _________ 283 

S.DC-1 __________ 276 

STM-1 _________ 250 

1 d.f.=6. 

Standard deviation 

Bottles Error (d.£.=2) (d.f.=3) 

4.4 3.0 

1.4 2.7 

Neg. 1 16.0 

Neg. 1 19.7 

Neg. 1 12.5 

Neg. 1 62 

Coefficient of variation for error (percent) 

4.5 

14.4 

4.2 

7.0 

4.5 

24.8 

bottle means were significantly greater than the 

variation within bottles for any given standard rock. 

In no case was the mean sum of squares for bottles 

significantly greater (95-percent confidence level) 

than the variation within bottles. There is, then, no 

evidence to reject the hypothesis that the three bottles of a given standard rock contain the same concentration of bismuth, and, because of the random 

selection of the bottles for the experiment, this conclusion may be extrapolated to the entire lot of bottles for any given standard rock. 

Although homogeneity of the average bismuth contents of the bottles is a necessary, but not a sufficient, 

condition for the use of these rock samples as standards, it is also necessary that portions selected from 

a given bottle should yield a fairly constant concentration of bismuth. The analytical precision (error) 

of the determinations is presented in table 53 as the 

coefficient of variation. Five of the six standard rock 

samples have coefficients of variation in accord with 

that to be expected from the analysis of pure solutions. The coefficient of variation for the determinations of bismuth in STM-1 is much greater than 

those of the other rock samples, and we cannot recommend the use of STM-1 as a standard for the 

determination of bismuth in rocks. 

REFERENCE 

Greenland, L. P., and Campbell, E. Y., 1972, Determination 

of nanogram amounts of bismuth in rocks by substoichiometric isotope dilution analysis: Anal. Chim. Acta, 

v. 60, p. 159-165. 
DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

MOLYBDENUM IN USGS STANDARD ROCKS 

By E. G. LILLIE and L. P. GREENLAND 

Molybdenum was determined in three aliquots of three 

bottles of five standard rocks by a new isotope dilution 

spectrophotometric technique. The data were used both to 

determine the analytical errors of the method and to demonstrate that different bottles of these five rocks are homogeneous with respect to molybdenum content. Average 

molybdenum contents found, in parts per million, were: 

AGV-1, 1.6; BCR-1, 1.3; STM-1, 4.4; QL0-1, 2.3; BHV0-

1, 0.92. 

Analytical error can be subdivided into reproducible and random errors that determine the analytical 

accuracy and precision, respectively. The USGS 

standard rocks are used widely to detect reproducible 

errors, but their virtue for determining analytical 

precision generally has been overlooked. Our purpose 

here is to argue that descriptions of new analytical 

methods should include replicate analyses of several 

USGS standards with the data obtained from a statistical experimental design such that an analysis of 

the observed variance becomes possible. Data obtained from a new method for the determination of 

molybdenum in rocks are presented as an example. 

The analytical method consists of three general 

steps; dissolution, separation, and determination. 

Errors, both reproducible and random, commonly occur at each of these steps. A further source of error 

arises from sampling the bottle of powdered rock for 

analysis : although this error is not inherent in a 

specific analytical method, it is a component of anar 

lytical error in that it affects the final analysis. 

It is obvious that the frequently used measures of 

precision based on repetitive analyses of pure solutions are unduly optimistic in that they ignore variance components arising from sampling, dissolution, 

and incomplete separations from interfering elements. Replicate analyses of a single rock offers some 

improvement in estimating analytical precision but 

is still inadequate in that it represents only one specific case of problems associated with sampling, dissolution, and interfering elements. A useful measure 

of analytical precision can come only from replicate 

analyses of a number of rocks of widely differing 

composition; further, the replicate analyses must be 

performed at different times to preclude possible correlation of errors that can occur within a single analytical run. 

The one-way analysis of variance experimental design used throughout this paper to demonstrate 

homogeneity of different bottles of the USGS standard rocks is ideal for studying analytical precision. 

This design provides for randomization of bottles 

and splits of a given rock powder and then subtracts 

the variance associated with differing contents of an 

element among bottles from the observed total variance of the analytical data to leave a valid- estimate 

of the random component of the analytical error. Although any collection of rocks could be used in this 

way to estimate analytical precision, the USGS standard rocks offer several advantages: (1) Their compositions are relatively well known, permitting both 

a selection for various concentrations of interfering 

elements and an estimate of the reproducible component of analytical error ; ( 2) the precision of a 

new analytical method can be compared directly with 

that obtained previously by other analysts with other 

methods; and (3) evidence of heterogeneity among 

bottles of a given standard rock, obtained as a byproduct of the analysis of variance, is necessary information for other analysts attempting to use these 

rocks as standards. 

We have used this technique to determine the analytical precision of a recently developed method for 

the determination of molybdenum in rocks. As 

pointed out above, these data are also useful for 

47 
48 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

demonstrating homogeneity of the molybdenum contents of the standard rocks. 

Three portions (about 0.5 g) of three bottles of 

five of the USGS standard rocks were randomized 

and analyzed over a period of a week. The analytical 

method consists of decomposing the samples in the 

presence of Mo ~ tracer with HF -HN03-HCl04, 

separating Mo by sequential solvent extractions of 

the chloride and a-benzoinoxine complexes, and determining the amount of molybdenum present with 

thiocyanate. Losses of molybdenum through the procedure are corrected by counting Mo99 in the final 

fraction. 

The analytical data and statistics are given in 

table 54. ·In no case is the F ratio significant at the 

95-percent confidence level, and thus there is no evidence of differing Mo contents among the bottles. 

The random analytical error, calculated from the 

within bottles mean sum of squares with six degrees 

of freedom, ranges from 6.2 to 14.4 percent. If only 

STM-1 had been used for the determination of precision we could conclude that the method was adequate for most geochemical purposes, whereas if 

only BHV0-1 were used we would conclude that the 

method was adequate only for semiquantitative 

work. We believe ,it to be significant that the two 

basalts show the poorest precision, and we are currently attempting to improve the method for routine 

use. 

TABLE 54.-Molybdenum content, in parts per million, of USGS standard rocks 

[d. f., degrees of freedom; Neg., negative bottle variance; NS, not significant] 

Standard deviation Analytical 

relative 

Rock Bottle Error deviation F sample Bottle Mo Mean (d.f.=2) (d.f.=6) percent ratio 

AGV-1 A 1.7, 1.4, 1.7 l B 1. 7' 1.8, 1.5 f 1.6 Neg. 0.137 8.3 <1(NS) 

c 1.7, 1.7, 1.6 

BCR-1 A 1.4, 1.5, 1.1 l B 1.4, 1.5, 1.1 f 1.3 Neg. 0.183 13.7 <1(NS) 

c 1.4,1.4,1.2 

STM-1 A 4.0, 4.3, 4.1 l B 4.4, 4.8, 4.8 f 4.4 0.306 .275 6.2 3.5(NS) 

c 4.6, 4.1, 4.8 

QL0-1 -------- A 2.3, 2.4, 2.2 l B 2.3, 2. 7, 2.5 f 2.3 .108 .216 9.3 1.5(NS) 

c 2.5, 2.2, 1.9 

BHV0-1 ----- A 1.1, 0.89, 0.81 l 

B 0.93, 0.74, 0.96 f .92 Neg. .133 14.4 <1(NS) 

c 0.89, 1.1, 0.87 
DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

INTERCALIBRATION OF 17 STANDARD SILICATES FOR 14 

ELEMENTS BY INSTRUMENTAL NEUTRON ACTIVATION ANAL.YSIS 

By AMITAI KATZ 1 and LAWRENCE GRossMAN 2 

ABSTRACT 

Iron and 13 trace elements (Ba, Ce, Co, Cr, Cs, Eu, Hf, 

Rb, Sb, Sc, Ta, Tb, Th) were determined by instrumental 

neutron activation analysis in 17 standard silicate rocks. 

The silicates analyzed comprise two groups: ( 1) eight of 

the older USGS standard silicate rocks and one standard 

pottery sample for all of which previous data are available, 

and (2) eight new (1971) USGS standard silicate rocks. 

Hereafter group 1 will be referred to as primary standards, 

and group 2 as new standards. The primary standards were 

intercalibrated for each element by calculating a mean specific activity (that is, a time-corrected activity per microgram 

of element), using least square linear correlation statistics. 

From the best mean specific activity obtained for the primary standards, new self-consistent data were obtained both 

for the primary and the new standards. Primary standards 

were analyzed in duplicate, whereas duplicate portions from 

each of three bottles of each new standard were analyzed in 

random order to test homogeneity. The samples of the new 

rocks are homogeneous for the elements analyzed, with but a 

few exceptions: Tb is heterogeneous at the 1-percent confidence level in both SCo-1 and STM-1, and Ta in SCo-1, 

Rb in MAG-1, Sc in QL0-1, Eu in SDC-1 and Cr in STM-1 

are heterogeneous at the 5-percent level. These heterogeneities, except for Sc in QL0-1, occur for elements having relatively poor counting statistics. 

INTRODUCTION 

In recent years, several standard rock samples 

have been processed to serve as analytical reference 

materials in geochemical and petrological studies. 

(For a recently revised list, see Flanagan, 1970.) 

Various laboratories using many different analytical 

methods, as well as different reference materials') 

have contributed to the pool of data on these standard rocks. Despite this extensive effort, however, 

the wide range of concentrations of some trace elements between rock types has led to uncertainty 

about the accuracy, particularly for the lower concentration values. The establishment of a new (1971) 

series of standard silicate rocks by the USGS 

through the work of F. J. Flanagan, provided us 

with an opportunity to analyze the old and new standard rocks for 14 elements determinable by instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA). The 

procedure involves the estimation of the best set of 

values for each element for each standard, starting 

with a method of assessing the reliability of the 

"recommended" values on the old standards. We believe that the results reported here provide a relatively large set of internally consistent standards for 

14 elements in silicates to which future work in analytical geochemistry may be referred. 

ANALYTICAL METHOD 

INSTRUMENTATION 

A 25-cm3 coaxial Ge (Li) detector was used. Signals from the detector· were passed through a transistorized preamplifier, then to a main amplifier 

coupled to a d-e restorer. The signal from the restorer was fed to an analog-to-digital converter and 

then to a 2,048-channel analyzer. The data from the 

multichannel analyzer were read out on a high-speed 

printer and also onto a high-speed paper tape punch 

through an interface. 

The resolution of this system (full width at half 

maximum) for the coso 1,173 keV gamma-ray peak 

was typically 4.6-4.8 keV for the samples, and 4.4-

4.6 keV for a pure coso source. The system was regularly checked and recalibrated using a pure Co60 

source and the prominent Sc4 s, Fe59, and Eu152 lines 

as revealed in the spectra of most of the samples. 

The 1,173-keV coso peak never shifted by more than 

two channels and was generally within one channel 

from its value of the energy-channel calibration 

curve. 

1 Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel. 

2 Department of Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago. 

49 
50 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

SAMPLE PREPARATION AND IRRADIATION 

The eight older USGS standard rock samples ( G1, W -1, G-2, BCR-1~ AGV -1, GSP-1, DTS-1, PCC1), plus one standard pottery sample (SP-1) (Perlman and Asaro, 1969), were used to obtain the best 

mean specific activity for each nuclide analyzed by 

the method described below. For each of the old 

standards, one bottle was available. For the new 

USGS standards, three bottles of each sample were 

used. 

Duplicate 50-mg portions from each bottle of 

sample were weighed (to the nearest 0.01 mg). No 

further homogenization or grinding was attempted 

after removal of the sample powders from the original bottles. The powders were poured directly onto 

glossy weighing paper and were immediately transferred, via a small Teflon funnel, into preweighed 

quartz vials (length, 30 mm; inside diameter, 3 mm) 

that had been cleaned by boiling in concentrated 

nitric acid for 10 hours followed by washing with 

high-purity distilled water and drying at 60°C in a 

vacuum. One empty quartz vial was run at the same 

time during these and the following steps and served 

as a blank. 

The vials were heat sealed using an H2-02 torch, 

were weighed again to obtain the net quartz-glass 

weight, and were again cleaned with nitric acid and 

water. Then the vials were packed, in random order . ' Into a circular belt of a high-purity aluminum foil 

and were introduced into an irradiation cylinder 

4 in. in diameter. In its final shape this cylinder contained one layer of vials, all of which were in essentially <identical radial and vertical positions relative 

to the reactor core. During irradiation the cylinder 

was slowly rotated around its vertical axis to ensure 

a uniform neutron flux. 

The vials were irradiated in the "swimming pool" 

reactor of the Union Carbide Co. 1 Sterling Forest, 

N.Y., at a flux of 1 x 1013 neutrons cm-2s-1 for 3 days. 

COUNTING 

After irradiation, the samples in the vials were 

allowed to cool for 21 days. Thereafter, the vials 

were unpacked, boiled for 5 hours in concentrated 

nitric acid, washed in distilled water, and dried. :For 

counting, the vials were placed vertically in a Perspex holder resting on top of the Ge(Li) detector. 

The distance between the upper surface of the detector and the bottom of the vials was 25 mm. This 

distance allowed for a maximum of 14 percent dead 

time for the hottest samples. The counting time was 

5,000 seconds for all the samples except the quartzvial blank which was counted for 40,000 seconds. 

The nuclides analyzed, their half -lives, and their 

gamma-ray peaks are listed in table 55. 

TABLE 55.-Nuclides, gamma-ray peaks, and half-lives of elements determined 

·Element Target Product 'Y-ray peak Half life 

isotope nuclide (keV) (h) 

~Fe --------- Fe 58 Fe 58 1,100 1,080 

Ba --------- Ba 130 Bal.3l. 496 288 

Ce ---------- Ce ~ Celu 145 792 

Co ---------- Co 58 Co 60 1,332 45,991 

Cr ---------- Cr 50 Cr 51 320 667 

Cs ---------- Cslll3 Cs 134 796 17,958 

Eu --------- Eu 1D1 Eu 152 1,408 108,624 

Hf ---------- HflSO Hf 1!0. 482 1,020 

Rb ---------- Rb 85 Rb 86 1,077 448 

Sb ---------- Sb1.23 Sb:w 1,690 1,449 

Sc ---------- Sc 45 Sc 46 889 2,016 

Ta ---------- Tal81 Ta 182 1,222 2,762 

Tb ---------- Tb159 Tb leo 963+967 1,730 

Th ---------- Th 232 Pa 233 312 658 

COMPUTER DATA REDUCTION 

The spectra for the blank, the primary standards, 

and all the new standards were transferred from 

paper tape to the magnetic disc of an IBM 360/65 

computer. The data were edited and reduced at the 

Yale Computer Center by means of the Conversational Yale Terminal Operating System. For each 

element, the same peak and background channels for 

every spectrum were selected by visual inspection. 

Since our data-reduction program calculates the 

slope of the background from any two sets of background counts in the vicinity of each peak, the "upper" and "lower" background regions need not be 

symmetrically placed about the peak or even on opposite sides of the peak. This flexibility circumvents 

small interfering peaks near the desired peak. For 

each blank, primary standard, and new standard, the 

program corrects for background and decay during 

counting for every element. All peak areas are corrected to the same point in time, and the blank correction is calculated from the relative masses of 

quartz in the blank and in the primary or new standards. The specific activity of each desired element in 

every standard is calculated, and the concentration 

of each element in every sample is computed relative 

to its specific activity in each standard. The 1-sigma 

counting statistics are propagated throughout the 

calculations. 

INTERCALIBRATION OF THE PRIMARY STANDARDS 

The data fed into the computer program for each 

element analyzed are shown in table 56. The values 

were selected from recent literature (Fleischer, 

1969; Flanagan, 1969; Gordon and others, 1968; 

Schmitt and others, 1970; Perlman and Asaro, 

1969). Whenever available, existing "mean" or 

"best" values were preferred. In other cases, the 
INTERCALIBRATION OF 17 STANDARD SILICATES 51 

TABLE 56.-Best values, in parts per million selected from literature for the "primary" standards 

Element W-1 G-1 BCR-1 G-2 AGV-1 SP-1 PCG---1 DTS-1 GSP-1 

Fe --------------- 73,500 17,200 94,350 18,850 44,670 10,170 54,100 56,500 28,870 

Ba --------------- 146 1,200 709 1,900 1,270 712 33.0 23.0 1,190 

Ce --------------- 22.0 170 49.7 155 66.5 80.3 0.34 -------- 472 

Co --------------- 46.0 2.40 36.4 4.40 15.4 14.1 111 132 6.83 

Cr --------------- 110 22.0 17.1 7.20 10.2 115 2,870 4,055 14.1 

Cs --------------- .91 1.50 1.20 1.45 1.25 8.31 .08 .05 1.25 

Eu --------------- 1.08 1.36 1.95 1.37 1.58 1.45 -------- -------- 3.10 

Hf --------------- 2.50 5.75 4.78 7.65 5.25 6.23 .06 .03 13.8 

Rb --------------- 20.5 220 55.3 178 78.6 70.0 .50 2.80 298 

Sb --------------- 1.05 .40 .84 .05 4.64 1.71 .97 .48 3.43 

Sc --------------- 33.9 3.00 33.5 3.63 12.3 20.6 8.30 3.55 7.13 

Ta --------------- .68 1.80 .89 .95 .83 1.55 -------- -------- 1.25 

Tb --------------- .68 .60 1.05 .52 .77 -------- -------- -------- 1.30 

Th --------------- 2.50 52.0 6.76 25.6 6.98 14.0 .01 .01 118 

final choice of data for a particular element was 

based on judgment of the most suitable analytical 

method by which it had been determined. When no 

clear-cut decision could be made, data from either 

neutron activation analysis or instrumental neutron 

activation analysis were selected. For each element 

in the nine primary (or old) standards, the computer calculated the time-corrected gamma activity 

and its amount in the sample analyzed. These data 

were fed into a least-square linear correlation progr·am which calculated ao, al and SyoX, where ao is the 

intercept of the activity-weight line, a 1 is the mean 

specific activity or the slope of the activity-weight 

line, and Syox is the standard error estimate. 

The following sources of error were then considered to account for points deviating from the regression lines: 

1. Errors in sample preparation, 

2. Error due to sample geometry, and 

3. Error due to radiation interference. 

Errors of type 1 could be attributed to the loss of 

small amounts of material during the weighing of 

the samples and (or) during the sealing of the 

quartz vials. These cases were easily discerned by 

(1) irreproducible data for the same element between two duplicates, and (2) a similar difference 

between the two duplicates for all elements analyzed. When such an error was established, an 

appropriate correction factor, /com was calculated 

from the activities of Co60, Fe59, and Sc ~ in the 

duplicates: 

fcorr 

3 

where Ai denotes the specific activity of nuclide i 

in the duplicate having the higher H or lower L 

activity. Co60, Fe59, and Sc46 were selected for this 

purpose because of their excellent counting statistics. 

Errors due to sample (packing) geometry were 

distinguished from those of type 1 by counting the 

samples at a greater distance (80 mm) from the 

detector where such errors due to packing geometry 

become very small and a correction factor could be 

calculated. Except for one sample (GSP-1) in which 

a geometry effect was found, all others showed a 

variation within 1-sigma of the counting statistics. 

For most elements, the gamma-ray peaks and 

the spectrum areas selected for background counting were reasonably free of interfering peaks. The 

computer program allowed for the subtraction of 

the Fe59 peak at 143 keV from the Ce141 gamma-ray 

line at 145 keV and of the interfering 964 keV line 

of Eu152 from the 963-967 keV Tb160 double peak. 

Some of the regression lines thus obtained did not 

pass through the origin. In order to make them do 

so, they were offset by adding a constant increment 

to each data point. This phenomenon could have been 

brought about by any of the following reasons: 

1. A systematic bias in the selection of the data 

from the literature, 

2. A systematic radiation interference (postive or 

negative) that affected our data, 

3. A similar interference that affected the data in 

the literature. 

These offsets were very small for most elements, 

but for one element, Th, it was large enough to 

cause all our data to be higher than the literature 

values. This offset could have resulted from a positive interference, due to another nuclide, with the 

Th gamma-ray peak. The most likely interfering 

nuclide in this region is Cr51 at 320 ke V. That this 

is not interference can be seen by the lack of correlation between the Cr concentrations and the size of 

the Th deviation in our samples. We have no explanation for this observation. 

Finally, after correction of the aforementioned 
52 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

errors, data points that still deviated from the regression lines were attributed to poor initial data 

selection and were corrected accordingly. By this 

process, new estimates of the concentration of some 

elements in some standards were obtained to replace 

the commonly used published values. 

The new intercalibrated "best" values for the 

suite of primary standards are listed in table 57. 

TABLE 57.-New data for the "primary" standards, in parts per million 

Sample 

W-1: 

1 -----------------

2 -----------------

Mean -------------

G-1: 

1 -----------------

2 -----------------

Mean -------------

BCR-1: 

1 -----------------

2 -----------------

Mean ------------

G-2: 

1 -----------------

2 ----------------

Mean -------------

AGV-1: 

1 ----------------- 2 -----------------

Mean -------------

SP-1: 

1 -----------------

2 -----------------

Mean -------------

PCC-1: 

1 -----------------

2 -----------------

Mean -------------

DTS-1: 

1 -----------------

2 ----------------- Mean -------------

GSP-1: 

1 -----------------

2 ----------------- Mean -------------

Sample 

W-1: 

1 -----------------

2 -----------------

Mean -------------

G-1: 

1 -----------------

2 -----------------

Mean -------------

BCR-1: 

1 -----------------

2 -----------------

Mean -------------

G-2: 

1 -----------------

2 Mean ----------------- _____ .. ______ _ 

AGV-1: 

1 -----------------

2 -----------------

Mean -------------

SP-1: 

1 -----------------

2 -----------------

Mean -------------

PCC-1: 

Fe 

74,500±317 

74,700±316 

74,600±316 

15,300±156 

14,900±151 

15,100±154 

92,700±346 

93,210±343 

92,955±343 

18,900±157 

18,700±152 

18,800±155 

45,900±235 

46,300±250 

46,100±243 

10,700±162 

10,500±162 

10,600±162 

56,200±286 

55,700±290 

55,950±288 

58,000±285 

58,100±293 

58,050±289 

31,000±199 

29,400±241 

30,200±221 

Hf 

2.13±0.31 

2.35±0.31 

2.24±0.31 

7.65±0.15 

7.37±0.16 

7.51±0.16 

4.60±0.31 

4.14±0.31 

4.37±0.31 

8.14±0.14 

8.31±0.14 

8.22±0.14 

5.23±0.20 

4.42±0.22 

4.82±0.21 

6.13±0.24 

6.07±\l.24 

6.10±0.24 

1 --------------------------------

2 --------------------------------

Mean ----------------------------

DTS-1: 

1 --------------------------------

Mean 2 -------------------------------- ___________________________ _ 

GSP-1: 

1 -----------------

2 --------·--------- Mean -------------

15.0±0.18 

15.4±0.23 

15.2±0.21 

Ba 

1,470±52 

1,310±50 

1,390±51 

544±109 

513±108 

528±109 

1,950±49 

1,890±47 

1,920±48 

1,140±72 

1,040±79 

1,090±76 

650±87 

692±87 

671±87 

1,140±66 

1,210±87 

1,175±77 

Rb 

360±8.5 

~69±7.4 

364±7.9 

240±7.8 

214±7.5 

227±7.7 

!l5.4±22 

62.7±19 

59.0±21 

72.9±9.3 

76.7±9.5 

74.8±9.4 

299±10.1 

274±12.1 

286±11.2 

Ce 

188±1. 7 221±1.3 

204±1.5 

51.1±3.6 

48.4±3.9 

49.8±3.8 

191±1.1 

187±1.0 

189±1.1 

72.7±1.4 

75.0±1.7 

73.8±1.5 

67.8±1.4 

68. 7±1.4 68.2±1.4 

520±1.3 

496±2.0 

508±1.7 

Sb 

1.15±0.33 

1.06±0.33 

1.10±0.33 

0.53±0.16 

0.36±0.15 

0.44±0.16 

0.48±0.33 

0.43±0.32 

0.46±0.33 

4.67±0.24 

4.41±0.25 

4.54±0.25 

1.40±0.23 

1.53±0.23 

1.46±0.23 

0.80±0.23 

0.85±0.23 

0.82±0.23 

4.05±0.22 

3.35±0.27 

3.70±0.24 

Co 

40.9±0.29 

41.0±0.29 

41.0±0.29 

2.48±0.12 

2.52±0.11 

2.50±0.11 

35.2±0.28 

34.8±0.28 

35.0±0.28 

4.14±0.11 

4.12±0.10 

4.13±0.10 

14.3±0.17 

14.3±0.18 

14.3±0.18 

12.9±0.18 

13.2±0.18 

13.0±0.18 

102±0.4 

102±0.4 

102±0.4 

121±0.41 

124±0.43 

122±0.42 

6.58±0.13 

7.48±0.18 

7.03±0.16 

Sc 

35.4±0.06 

35.3±0.06 

35.4±0.06 

3.64±0.02 

3.69±0.02 

3.66±0.02 

33.1±0.00 

32.9±0.06 

33.0±0.06 

3.70±0.02 

3.67±0.02 

3.68±0.02 

12.1±0.04 

12.3±0.04 

12.2±0.04 

19.9±0.05 

19.8±0.05 

19.8±0.05 

8.17±0.03 

8.22±0.04 

8.20±0.04 

3.54±0.03 

3.47±0.00 

3.51±0.03 

6.66±0.03 

6.75±0.04 

6.70±0.03 

Cr 

105±3.1 

100±3.1 

102±3.1 

11.2±3.1 

10.9±3.0 

11.0±3.0 

18.4±2.0 

16.8±2.0 

17.6±2.0 

112±2.3 

116±2.4 

114±2.4 

2,670±3.9 

2,830±4.0 

2,750±4.0 

4,120±4.4 

4,090±4.5 

4,105±4.4 

Ta 

1.80±0.07 

1.74±0.07 

1. 77±0.07 

0.52±0.12 

0.58±0.12 

0.55±0.12 

0.89±0.06 

0.73±0.05 

0.81±0.06 

0.73±0.08 

0.63±0.09 

0.68±0.08 

1.51±0.08 

1.54±0.08 

1.52±0.08 

0.75±0.07 

0.76±0.06 

0.76±0.07 

Cs 

0.29±0.46 

0.97±0.46 

0.63±0.46 

2.00±0.21 

1.72±0.21 

1.86±0.21 

0.92±0.47 

1.52±0.46 

1.22±0.46 

1.43±0.20 

1.06±0.19 

1.24±0.19 

1.34±0.29 

1.20±0.39 

1.27±0.35 

8.5(}±0.34 

8.95±0.34 

8.72±0.34 

0.81±0.24 

0.96±0.31 

0.88±0.28 

Tb 

0.82±0.13 

1.01±0.13 

0.92±0.13 

0.91±0.05 

0.86±0.05 

0.88±0.05 

0.94±0.11 

1.03±0.11 

0.98±0.11 

0.63±0.04 

0.70±0.05 

0.66±0.04 

0.88±0.07 

0.96±0.08 

0.92±0.08 

1.33±0.13 

1.20±0.12 

1.26±0.13 

1.67±0.07 

1.40±0.07 

1.54±0.07 

Eu 

1.08±0.08 

1.2&±0.08 

1.18±0.08 

1. 79±0.06 

1.6(}±0.05 

1.70±0.05 

2.26±0.09 

2.14±0.08 

2.20±0.08 

1.68±0.05 

1.53±0.04 

1.60±0.05 

1.88±0.06 

1.81±0.06 

1.85±0.06 

1.49±0.59 

1.35±(}.58 

1.42±0.59 

2.82±0.06 

2.77±0.07 

2.80±0.07 

Th 

2.77±0.27 

2.56±0.26 

2.67±0.27 

55.1±0.09 

!l7.3±0.19 

56.2±0.15 

6.97±0.28 

7.09±0.27 

7.03±0.28 

30.3±0.16 

31.0±0.16 

30.6±0.16 

7.63±0.19 

8.00±0.22 

7.81±0.20 

16.6±0.23 

16.8±0.23 

16.7±0.23 

131±0.27 

124±0.34 

128±0.31 
Rock Sample 

Duplcate No 

Bottle 1 

2 

3 

Mean -------------- Mean sum of squares between bottles __ _ 

Mean sum of squares within bottles ___ _ 

Analytical standard 

deviation --------- Bottle standard deviation F ratio 

Bottle 1 

2 

3 

Mean -------------- Mean sum of squares between bottles __ _ 

Mean sum of squares within bottles ___ _ 

Analytical standard 

deviation --------- Bottle standard deviation F ratio 

Bottle 1 

2 

3 

Mean -------------- Mean sum of squares between bottles __ _ 

Mean sum of squares within bottles ___ _ 

Analytical standard 

deviation --------- Bottle standard 

deviation --------- F ratio ------------

Bottle 1 

2 

3 

Mean -------------- Mean sum of squares between bottles __ _ 

Mean sum of squares within bottles ___ _ 

Analytical standard 

deviation --------- Bottle standard 

deviation --------- F ratio ------------

Bottle 1 

2 

3 

Mean -------------- Mean sum of squares 

between bottles --- Mean sum of squares 

within bottles ----

TABLE 58.-Data fo": the new (1971 series) USGS silicate standards, in parts per million 

[NS, not significant at Fo.95; S, significant at Fo.95 or the fractile indicated; N.d., not determined; Neg., negative] 

SGR-1 

2 

3.60 3.12 

2.54 3.21 2.77 3.08 

3.05 

.142 

.129 

.359 

.0809 

1.10 (NS) 

397 107 199 202 202 242 

225 

1,338 

14,285 

120 

Neg. 

0.094 (NS) 

32.0 31.2 

32.2 30.3 28.4 33.3 

31.2 

.282 

4.710 

2.17 

Neg. 

.060 (NS) 

4.55 4.30 

4.30 5.00 4.51 5.00 

4.61 

.057 

.132 

.363 

Neg. 

.430 (NS) 

35.7 29.0 

31.6 33.6 30.7 34.2 

32.5 

.0318 

10.2 

SCo-1 

2 

2.05 2.06 

2.62 2.24 

2.90 2.52 2.40 

.216 

.0482 

.219 

.290 

4.49 (NS) 

479 439 

379 519 446 585 474 

2,571 

6,754 

82.2 

Neg. 

0.381 (NS) 

55.3 66.3 60.2 62.3 

65.6 !!2.8 €2.1 

6.82 

22.2 

4.71 

Neg. 

o.:lO (NS) 

6.21 7.21 6.67 7.51 7.18 6.15 

6.82 

.109 

.461 

.679 

Neg. 

.236 (NS) 

69.2 76.6 

81.4 80.0 76.2 68.6 

75.3 

43.3 

19.1 

MAG-1 

2 

0.93 0.52 

1.18 .72 .98 .63 

0.83 

.0260 

.0837 

.289 

Neg. 

.311 (NS) 

427 314 

320 228 351 228 

311 

5,371 

6,060 

77.8 

Neg. 

0.886 (NS) 

94.9 

104.0 

91.3 

7.20 

7.85 

7.61 

99.9 

103 

102 

95.3 

41.1 

22.5 

4.74 

3.05 

88.0 

96.6 

97.0 

1.83 (NS) 

7.53 

.0855 

.0323 

.180 

. 163 

7.50 

7.66 

7.35 

2.65 (NS) 

10a 

106 

105 

103 

4.84 

4.60 

SDC-1 

1" 2 

Antimony 

0.5\:1 0.32 .20 .45 .23 .36 

0.36 

.0145 

.0254 

.159 

Neg. 

.570 (NS) 

Barium 

639 445 

440 469 633 554 

530 

9,877 

7,453 

86.3 

34.8 

1.~~ (NS) 

Cerium 

115 106 

100 105 

106 106 106 

32.2 

17.7 

4.20 

2.69 

I.R2 (NS) 

Cesium 

3.98 3.98 

3.27 3.77 3.90 4.02 

3.85 

.166 

.0567 

.238 

.234 

2.93 (NS) 

Chromium 

81.0 '17.1 

74.2 75.5 

75.5 80.8 

77.4 

9.78 

7.50 

BHV0-1 

0.38 

.60 

.16 

N.d. 

N.d. 

N.d. 

36.2 

41.7 

40.9 

N.d. 

N.d. 

N.d. 

2 

0.43 

.0889 

.00818 

.0905 

. 201 

0.59 

.61 

.23 

10.9 (S) 

N.d. 

N.d. 

N.d. 

39.0 

15.4 

14.9 

3.86 

0.481 

40.3 

42.4 

32.4 

1.0 (NS) 

N.d. 

N.d. 

N.d. 

26\:1 z75 259 259 253 270 

264 

95.2 

54.2 

QL0-1 

2 

1.90 4.51 

2.48 2.11 3.66 2.36 2.84 

.459 

1.440 

1.200 

Neg . .319 (NS) 

1,290 1,550 

1,410 1,250 

1,380 1,280 

1,360 

5,399 

17,200 

131 

Neg. 

0.314 (NS) 

60.1 63.5 55.4 63.9 56.9 59.0 

59.8 

7.44 

14.70 

3.83 

Neg. 

0.506 (NS) 

1.91 1.47 1.74 1.67 1. 73 2.04 

11.3 

12.4 

9.12 

1.76 

.0235 

.0491 

.222 

Neg . .480 (NS) 

9.98 

4.91 

1.90 

9.00 

10.5 

7.54 

STM-1 

1.82 

I.9:t 

1.8~ 

1.88 

.0112 

.00235 

.0485 

.0667 

2 

1.78 

1.96 

1.93 

4.79 (NS) 

500 583 561 639 

556 466 

551 

4,091 

3,512 

59.3 

17.0 

1.16 (NS) 

88.8 

76.2 

75.5 

1.37 

1.36 

1.77 

67.2 

83.0 

75.8 

7~1 

1H 

1W 

1~2 

3~5 

75.4 

58.5 

6~1 

1.20 (NS) 

1.47 

.0455 

.0117 

.108 

.130 

1.42 

1.37 

1.51 

3.89 (NS) 

74.1 

191 

12.8 

63.6 

86.3 

68.5 

RGM-1 

2 

1. 76 1.39 1.38 1.52 

1.52 1.55 

1.52 

.00747 

.0267 

.163 

Neg. 

.279 (NS) 

761 882 789 812 

800 797 

807 

324.8 

2,530 

50.3 

Neg. 

0.128 (NS) 

44.4 45.1 47.5 43.0 49.6 48.1 46.3 

10.0 

3.83 

1.96 

1.76 

2.61 (NS) 

10.2 10.3 10.5 10.5 

10.2 10.3 

10.3 

.0417 

.00334 

.0578 

.138 

12.5 (S) 

36.7 39.5 

47.8 41.1 36.9 35.1 

39.5 

38.7 

9.33 

~ 

z 

t-3 

t_2:j 

~ 

0 

> t"l 

~ 

td 

~ 

> t-3 

~ 

0 

z 

0 

l:j 

1-' 

...;J 

00 

t-3 

> z 

t;j 

> 

~ 

t;j 

00 

~ 

t: 

0 

> t-3 

t_2:j 

00 

01 

~ 
Rock Samp·le -------

Duplicate No ------

Analytical standard 

deviation --------- Bottle standard 

deviation ---------

F ratio ------------

Bottle 1 

2 

3 

Mean -------------- Mean sum of squares between bottles __ _ 

Mean sum of squares 

within bottles ---- Analytical standard 

deviation --------- Bottle standard deviation F ratio 

Bottle 1 

2 

3 

Mean -------------- Mean sum of squares 

between bottles --- Mean sum of squares within bottles ___ _ 

Analytical standard 

deviation --------- Bottle standard deviation F ratio 

Bottle 1 

2 

3 

Mean -------------- Mean sum of squares between bottles __ _ 

Mean sum of squares within bottles ___ _ 

Analytical standard 

deviation --------- Bottle standard deviation F ratio 

Bottle 1 

2 

3 

Mean -----------··-- Mean sum of squares 

between bottles --- Mean sum of squares 

within bottles ---- Analytical standard 

deviation --------- Bottle standard deviation F ratio 

TABLE 58.-Data for the new (1971 series) USGS silicate standards, in parts per million-(Continued) 

SGR-1 

2 

3.19 

Neg. 

.003 (NS) 

10.6 10.1 9.90 10.9 9.67 10.4 10.3 

.078 

.297 

.545 

Neg. 

.510 (NS) 

0.510 0.310 .430 .610 .540 .520 0.520 

.0002 

.0055 

.0739 

Neg. 

SCo--1 

4.37 

3.48 

2 

2.27 (NS) 

9.30 9.18 10.0 9.96 10.0 9.54 9.66 

.291 

.038 

.195 

.356 

7.67 (NS) 

1.15 1.28 

1.31 1.24 1.22 1.25 1.24 

.0019 

.0038 

.0615 

Neg. .0366 (NS) .493 (NS) 

1.32 1.63 

.97 1.41 1.10 1.42 1.31 

.0441 

.0654 

.256 

Neg. 

.675 (NS) 

19,300 18,400 

17,900 19,500 

18,300 19,400 

18,800 

15,064 

763,339 

874 

Neg. 

0.02 (NS) 

4.50 5.00 4.14 4.66 

4.00 3.99 4.38 

.286 

.0868 

.295 

.315 

3.29 (NS) 

31,700 33,700 

34,900 34,700 

34,300 32,400 

33,617 

2,312,128 

1,275,029 

1,129 

720 

1.81 (NS) 

MAG-1 SDC-1 

2 2 

Chromium-Continued 

2.14 

.343 

1.05 (NS) 

18.7 18.5 

19.0 18.8 18.8 18.9 18.8 

.052 

.015 

.122 

.135 

3.44 (NS) 

1.67 1.65 1. 73 1.68 1.63 1.51 1.64 

.0094 

.0029 

.0537 

.0573 

3.28 (NS) 

3.26 3.00 3.52 3.34 2.86 2.93 3.15 

.144 

.0175 

.132 

.251 

8.23 (NS) 

45,000 44,400 

45,900 45,200 

45,500 45,000 

45,167 

371,712 

183,338 

428 

307 

2.03 (NS) 

2.74 

1.07 

UlO (NS) 

Cobalt 

18.4 16.4 15.5 15.6 

17.0 16.4 16.6 

1.745 

.728 

.853 

. 713 

2.40 (NS) 

Europium 

2.00 1.!16 1.81 1.75 1.86 1.80 1.86 

.0217 

.00147 

.0383 

.101 

14.8 (S) 

Hafnium 

8.15 7.36 7.87 8.17 9.08 8.18 8.14 

.403 

.254 

.504 

. 273 

1.58 (NS) 

Iron 

50,900 48,100 

46,100 45,500 

49,100 48,000 

47,950 

7,384,832 

1,568,427 

1,252 

1,705 

4.71 (NS) 

BHV0-1 

7.36 

4.53 

2 

1.76 (NS) 

41.9 42.5 41.8 43.2 4~.4 41.6 42.1 

.626 

.393 

.627 

.258 

1.34 (NS) 

2.32 2.42 

2.40 2.56 2.27 2.21 2.36 

.0289 

.0065 

.0808 

.106 

4.42 (NS) 

3.80 4.33 3.90 3.76 2.66 4.17 3.77 

.217 

.430 

.656 

Neg. 

.504 (NS) 

85,300 85,900 

84,100 85,400 

83,100 84,900 

84,783 

1,280,000 

882,347 

939 

446 

1.45 (NS) 

QL0-1 

2 

1.38 

1.23 

2.59 (NS) 

6.82 7.08 6.94 6.99 6.76 6.93 6.92 

.009 

.016 

.128 

Neg . .519 (NS) 

1.51 1.62 1.51 1.57 1.49 1.50 1.53 

.00252 

.00263 

.0513 

Neg. 

.956 (NS) 

4.53 4.81 4.69 4.27 

4.53 3.99 4.47 

.0842 

.0911 

.302 

Neg . .925 (NS) 

30,800 31,300 

30,200 30,200 

29,400 30,300 

30,367 

761,216 

176,683 

420 

541 

4.31 (NS) 

STM-1 

2 

3.59 

9.43 

14.8 (S) 

0.260 0.310 .370 .290 .310 .410 0.325 

.003 

.003 

.056 

Neg. 

RGM-1 

3.05 

3.83 

2 

4.15 (NS) 

1.63 2.04 1.89 2.04 1.78 1.89 

1.88 

.011 

.034 

.18~ 

Neg. .905 (NS) .333 (NS) 

3.90 4.01 4.14 4.05 4.09 4.01 4.03 

.0102 

.0044 

.0666 

.0538 

2.30 (NS) 

25.4 26.4 27.0 26.7 26.6 26.1 

33,100 

35,000 

34,800 

33,850 

1,144,544 

535,061 

731 

552 

26.4 

.452 

.223 

.473 

. 388 

2.02 (NS) 

32,900 

33,900 

33,400 

2.14 (NS) 

0.770 0.710 .700 .720 .760 .690 0.725 

.00045 

.00148 

.0385 

Neg. 

.303 (NS) 

5.73 6.29 5.71 6.05 6.11 5.93 5.97 

.0122 

.0769 

.277 

Neg . .159 (NS) 

12,800 13,400 

13,300 13,300 

13,300 12,900 

13,167 

26,728 

86,648 

294 

Neg. 

0.308 (NS) 

01 

~ 

t:1 

t;z:j 

UJ. 

0 

~ 1-4 

'"d 

1-3 

1-4 

0 

z 

UJ. 

> z 

t:1 

> z 

> t"" 

t-< 

~ UJ. 

0 

l'%j 

tE.l 

1-4 

c:"l 

1:1:: 

1-3 

z 

tE.l 

~ 

c:: 

rtl 

c:"l 

UJ. 

~ 

0 

0 

~ 

UJ. 

1-3 

> z 

t:1 

> 

~ 

t:1 

UJ. 
Rock Sampile 

Duplcate No 

Bottle 1 

2 

3 

Mean -------------- Mean sum of squares 

between bottles --- Mean sum of squares within bottles ___ _ 

Analytical standard 

deviati()n --------- Bottle standard 

deviation --------- F ratio ------------

Bottle 1 

2 

3 

Mean -------------- Mean sum of squares 

between bottles --- Mean sum of squines within bottles ___ _ 

Analytical standard 

deviati()n --------- Bottle standard 

deviation --------- F ratio ------------

Bottle 1 

2 

3 

Mean -------------- Mean sum of squares 

between bottles --- Mean sum of squares 

within bottles ---- Analytical standard 

deviati()n --------- Bottle standard 

deviation ---------

F ratio ------------

Bottle 1 

2 

3 

Mean -------------- Mean sum of squares between bottles __ _ 

Mean sum of squares 

within bottles ---- Analytical standard 

deviati()n --------- Bottle standard 

deviation ---------

F ratio ------------

Bottle 1 

2 

3 

Mean -------------- Mean sum of squares between bottles __ _ 

Mean sum of squares 

within bottles ---- Analytical standard 

deviation --------- Bottle standard 

deviation ---------

F ratio ------------

1 At Fo.975. 

2 At Fo.oo. 

TABLE 58.-Data for the new {1971 series) USGS silicate standards, in parts per million-(Continued) 

SGR-1 

2 

75.3 66.4 

53.5 72.2 70.0 61.5 66.5 

32.81 

83.52 

9.14 

Neg. 

.393 (NS) 

4.91 4.74 4.60 4.94 4.59 4.87 4.78 

,00455 

0.15 

.29 

.26 

.0372 

.193 

Neg. 

.122 (NS) 

0.22 

.00285 

.00255 

.0505 

.0122 

0.23 

.24 

.18 

1.12 (NS) 

0.35 0.40 .43 .20 .20 .45 0.34 

.00207 

0.196 

.140 

Neg. 

.105 (NS) 

5.18 4.80 4.74 5.03 4.54 4.85 4.86 

.0447 

.0541 

.232 

Neg. 

.827 (NS) 

SCo-1 

61.8 

78.0 

73.9 68.9 

73.2 

252 

15.9 

Neg. 

2 

lS!l.O 

59.8 

51.7 

.291 (NS) 

10.8 11.4 11.8 1!.8 11.8 11.0 

0.56 

.61 

.53 

11.4 

.247 

.167 

.408 

.200 

1.48 (NS) 

0.56 

.64 

.47 0.56 

.00782 

.00075 

.0274 

.0594 

10.4 (S) 

0.83 0.85 .80 .85 .65 .67 0.78 

.0200 

.00055 

.0235 

.0985 

2 36.3 (8) 

10.1 10.5 10.8 11.0 10.6 9.8 10.5 

.287 

.140 

.374 

.271 

2.05 (NS) 

MAG-I 

2 

8:-~.U lSI:I.O 

94.0 105 66.1 62.7 84.3 

649 

22.1 

4.70 

17.7 1 29.4 (S) 

16.1 16.0 16.6 16.4 16.4 16.1 16.3 

.102 

.0233 

.153 

.198 

4.::16 (NS) 

0.74 

.77 

.66 0.74 

.0145 

.00490 

.0700 

. 0693 

0.64 

.90 

.71 

2.96 (NS) 

0.96 0.94 .74 .92 1.00 1.14 0.95 

.0288 

.00873 

.0934 

• 100 

3.30 (NS) 

12.8 13.0 13.3 12.9 13.2 12.8 13.0 

.0200 

.0600 

.245 

Neg. 

0.333 (NS) 

SDC-1 

2 

Rubidium 

72.2 

65.7 

71.2 67.9 

98.9 

26.6 

5.16 

6.01 

77.3 

55.7 

65.4 

~.72 (NS) 

Scandium 

16.8 15.6 

15.3 1"5.1 16.1 15.8 15.8 

.542 

.262 

.512 

.374 

? n7 fNS) 

Tantalum 

0.97 

1.00 

.92 0.90 

.0120 

.0160 

.127 

Neg . 

0.67 

.95 

.86 

7<:.? (NS) 

Terbium 

1.35 1.23 1.24 1.38 1.57 1.33 1.35 

.0152 

.0153 

.124 

Neg . .996 (NS) 

Thorium 

14.8 l.t.l 13.9 13.8 14.1 14.4 14.2 

.187 

.0983 

.314 

.210 

1.90 (NS) 

BHV0-1 

0.16 

.14 

.13 

2 

0.147 

.00047 

.00007 

.0082 

.0141 

0.16 

.16 

.13 

7.00 (NS) 

32.2 32.5 31.8 32.6 31.2 31.9 

0.92 

.60 

.84 

32.0 

.362 

.203 

.451 

.282 

1.78 (NS) 

0.86 

.00612 

.0286 

.169 

Neg. 

0.91 

1.01 

.90 

.214 (NS) 

1.23 1.53 1.21 1.63 1.35 1.50 1.41 

.0012 

.0482 

.219 

Neg. 

.0253 (NS) 

2.90 3.21 3.16 3.08 3.13 3.64 3.19 

.0611 

.0604 

.246 

.0185 

1.01 (NS) 

QL0-1 

49.3 

20.0 

40.7 34.7 

265 

32.9 

5.74 

10.8 

2 

35.6 

23.0 

39.8 

8.05 (NS) 

9.13 9.28 8.90 8.96 8.70 8.80 8.96 

.105 

.00602 

.0776 

.222 

lt7.4 (S) 

0.68 

.71 

.67 0.70 

.00062 

.00210 

.0458 

Neg. 

0.71 

.65 

.76 

.294 (NS) 

0.74 0.97 .97 .94 .95 .97 0.92 

.00702 

.00903 

.0950 

Neg. 

.777 (NS) 

6.24 6.39 6.13 6.11 6.19 6.11 6.20 

.022 

.00488 

.0699 

.0926 

4.52 (NS) 

STM-1 

54.6 

60.1 

57.0 56.0 

51.9 

11.3 

3.37 

4.50 

2 

49.7 

63.5 

51.3 

4.57 (NS) 

0.66 0.67 .67 .72 

.66 .67 

17.3 

18.7 

17.9 

0.675 

.00060 

.00045 

.0212 

. 0087 

1.33 (NS) 

18.0 

.187 

.213 

.462 

Neg. 

18.1 

17.9 

17.9 

.875 (NS) 

2.22 2.10 2.04 2.10 1.99 2.00 2.10 

.0288 

.00068 

.0261 

.119 

2 42.2 (S) 

37.6 38.3 

40.2 39.3 39.3 38.3 38.8 

1.622 

0.383 

0.619 

0.787 

4.23 (NS) 

RGM-1 

197 

184 

209 193 

22.2 

171 

13.1 

Neg. 

2 

195 

195 

179 

.130 (NS) 

4.54 4.81 4.81 4.84 4.78 4.74 4.75 

.0113 

.0126 

.112 

Neg . .900 (NS) 

0.90 

.90 

.84 0.87 

.00747 

.00240 

.0490 

.0503 

0.98 

.82 

.80 

3.11 (NS) 

N.d. 

N.d. 

N.d. 

N.d. 

N.d. 

N.d. 

18.0 19.2 19.3 18.9 

18.1 18.2 18.6 

.452 

.268 

.518 

.303 

1.68 (NS) 

f-.4 

z 

1-3 

l:J:.j 

~ 

0 

> t"'4 

~ 

tlj 

~ 

> 1-3 

~ 

0 

z 

0 

l'%j 

1-' 

-:] 

00 

1-3 

> z 

tj 

> 

~ 

tj 

00 

~ 

t"'4 

~ 

0 

> 1-3 

tz:j 

00 

01 

01 
56 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

TABLE 59.-Deviations, in percent, between the new and the selected data of the''primary''standards 

[The entries were calculated using the formula: 100· [selected dat:1 (table 56) minus new data (table 57) ]/selected data] 

Element W-1 G-1 BCR-1 G-2 

Fe ----------- -1.49 +12.2 +1.48 +0.27 

Ba ----------- -15.8 +25.5 -1.05 

Ce ----------- -20.3 -.10 -21.9 

Co ----------- +11.0 -4.17 +3.85 +6.14 

Cr ----------- +6.82 +35.4 

Cs ----------- +30.8 -24.0 -1.67 +14.1 

Eu ----------- -9.26 -24.6 -12.8 -17.2 

Hf ----------- +10.4 -30.6 +8.58 -7.52 

Rb ----------- -65.7 -27.5 

Sb ----------- -5.24 -11.2 +45.8 

Sc ----------- -4.28 -22.2 +1.49 -1.52 

Ta ----------- +1.67 +38.2 -14.7 

Tb ----------- -34.6 -47.5 +6.19 -27.9 

Th ----------- -'-6.8 --8.08 -3.99 -19.7 

REDUCTION OF DATA FOR THE NEW STANDARDS 

The concentration of each element in the new 

standards was defined as : 

Ai; 

x~,=--, 

S1·Wj 

where Xij is the concentration (in parts per million), and Aij is the time-corrected activity of the 

ith element in the jth new standard. si denotes 

the mean specific activity of the ith element as 

calculated from the primary standards, and wj is 

the weight (in grams) of the jth new standard. 

The data for the new standards, plus statistical estimates when available, are given in table 58. 

DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY 

The new data for the primary and new silicate 

standards are presented in tables 57 and 58, respectively, Since all the data were obtained by recalibration of the primary standards, it is of interest to compare the data obtained by our recalibration method to the literature data which we have 

selected for these standards. Table 59 lists the differences between the selected and the new values. 

Iron, cobalt, and scandium show the smallest differences between the two data sets. Co and Schave 

very good counting statistics because of their high 

neutron capture cross sections, and for most samples the data selected were obtained by techniques 

similar to those of the present study. Iron, although 

less favorable for INAA, is a major element in all 

of the standards, and its determination by either 

chemical or physical means should yield similar results. Relatively large differences were found for 

the two oldest standards, G-1 and W-1, and these 

include the highest deviation for Co in W-1, for Sc 

in G-1 and for Fe in G-:1. We do not think. that 

these differences are the result of heterogeneities in 

Sample 

AGV-1 SP-1 PCC-1 DT&-1 GSP-1 

-3.20 -5.21 -3.42 -2.74 -4.61 

+14.2 +5.76 +1.26 

-11.0 +15.0 -7.63 

+7.14 +7.45 +8.11 +7.2·0 -2.93 

-72.5 +.87 +4.18 -1.23 

-1.60 -4.93 +29.2 

-17.1 +2.07 +9.84 

+8.19 +2.09 -10.14 

+24.9 -6.86 +3.86 

+2.15 +14.6 +14.9 -7.87 

+.81 +3.64 +1.27 +1.12 +5.96 

+18.1 -1.94 +39.6 

-19.5 -18.1 

--11.9 -19.3 -8.05 

the samples. These two samples have been used for 

a long time in our laboratory, and during this time 

the samples may have been contaminated by frequent reopening and sampling. The standard pottery sample (SP-1), for which only one set of data 

entirely based on INAA ·was available from the 

originator of the artificially made standard (Perlman and Asaro, 1969), appears to show the least 

difference except for Ce, Sb and Th. 

The statistical analysis of the new USGS standards (table 58) demonstrates that all samples may be 

considered homogeneous for most elements. The 

mean sum of squares for portions taken from different bottles of the same sample is not significantly larger than that for portions sampled from 

the same bottle at the 95-percent confidence level. 

There are a few exceptions to this rule : Tb is heterogeneously distributed at the 1-percent level in bottles of both SCo-1 and STM-1; a similar heterogeneity was found for Ta in SCo-1 at the 5-percent 

level; Rb is heterogeneous in MAG-1, Sc in QL0-1, 

Eu in SDC-1, and Cr in STM-1, all at the 5-percent 

level. In all but one analysis (Sc in QL0-1), these 

heterogeneities occurred for elements having relatively poor counting statistics, whereas statistically 

"better" elements in the same standards did not 

show the same deviations, and it is hard to decide 

whether these heterogeneities are real. In any case, 

even if they are real, they may have resulted from 

minor contamination of selected elements during the 

processing of the standards rather than by largescale sampling errors. Had the latter occurred, its 

effects might have been more evident by a larger 

proportion of conclusions of heterogeneity. Our 

variance analysis, which is based solely on the new 

USGS standards, is independent of the values 

adopted for the primary standards and thus is valid 

for the new standards in any case. 
INTERCALIBRATION OF 17 STANDARD SILICATES 

The new values given for both the primary and 

the new standards are self-consistent, and we believe they can be reproduced in other laboratories, 

provided the counting geometry is identical for 

both standards and unknowns. The wide chemical 

and mineralogical composition spectrum covered by 

the standards used in our study enables one to 

choose suitable reference samples for future work 

that match more closely both the matrix of the unknown samples and the concentrations of the elements to be determined. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The many helpful suggestions of Karl T. Turekian of Yale University, in whose laboratory this 

work was performed, are greatly appreciated. The 

authors wish to thank L. Chan, J. Corliss, and D. 

P. Kharkar for their valuable advice. The technical 

assistance of T. Eisensmith, J. Hasbrouck, and M. 

Applequist is gratefully acknowledged. This work 

was supported by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission grant, No. AT(ll-1)3573. 

REFERENCES 

Flanagan, F. J., 1969, U.S. Geological Survey standards-H. 

First compilation of data for the new U.S.G.S. rocks: 

Geoehim. et Cosmochim. Acta~ v. 33, p. 81-120. 

Flanagan, F. J~, 1970, Sources of geochemical standards-II: 

Geochim. et Gosmochim. Acta, v. 341 p. 121-125. 

Fleischer, M., 1969, U.S. Geological Survey standards-!. 

Additional data on rocks G-1 and W-1, 1965-1967: Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta. v. 33, p. 65-80. 

Gordon, G. E., Randle, Keith, Goles, G. G., Corliss, J. B., 

Beeson, M. H., and Oxley, S. S., 1968; Instrumental activation analysis of standard rocks with high-resolution 

)'-ray detectors: Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 32, p. 

369-396. 

Perlman, I. and Asaro, F., 1969, Pottery analysis by neutron 

activation: Archaeome,try, v. 11, p. 21-52. 

Schmitt, R. A., Linn, T. A. and Wakita, H., 1970, The determination of fourteen common ·elements in rocks via sequential instrumental activation analysis: Radiochim. 

Acta, v. 13, p. 200-212. 

DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

BISMUTH CONTENTS OF USGS ROCK SAMPLES RGM-1 AND BHV0-1 

By P. 1\tl. SANTOLIQUIDO 1 and W. D. EHMANN 1 

ABSTRACT 

The bismuth contents of three bottles of two new USGS 

standard rocks have been determined by thermal neutron activation analysis and radiochemical separation and counting of 

the Po210 daughter activity of Bi210• Mean values of 217 ppb Bi 

and 11.2 pp.b Bi were obtained for RGM-1 and BHV0-1, respectively. Analyses of the variance show that the bottles of 

each sample are homogeneous for their bismuth contents. No 

estimates can be made for the standard deviations among 

bottles of either sample because the bottle variances are negative, but the coefficient of variation for the analyses of both 

samples averages approximately 12 percent. 

As part of a program to acquire analytical data 

for the eventual standardization of a new series of 

USGS standard rock samples described in this 

volume, we have determined the bismuth contents of 

samples RGM-1 and BHV0-1. Three bottles of each 

sample were received, and two portions from each 

bottle were analyzed for bismuth by thermal neutron 

activation analysis. The six portions from the two 

samples were analyzed in random order. Bismuth 

was determined by alpha-particle counting of. the 

Po210 daughter activity of the Bi210 produced by thermal neutron irradiation of the samples for 100 to 

200 hours at fluxes ranging from 1 to 5 X 1013 neutrons cm- 2 sec - 1 • The University of Missouri Research Reactor, Columbia, Mo., was used for these 

irradiations. 

Rock powder portions of 500-800 mg were 

weighed into clean quartz vials that were then heat 

sealed for irradiation. High-purity bismuth metal 

w~as dissolved in concentrated HN03 , and a standard 

flux-monitor solution was prepared on a weight basis 

by successive dilution with 4 M HN03 • Aliquots of 

this standard solution were evaporated onto 200 mg 

of Specpure SiOz in quartz vials for irradiation and 

chemical processing identical to that used for the 

rock samples. At least 20 days were allowed to elapse 

between the end of irradiation and the beginning of 

the poloni urn separation to permit essentially complete decay of Bi 210 to Po210• The irradiated sample 

was then transferred to a Teflon dish, and an aliquot 

of a standard solution of Po208 was added to permit 

the determination of the chemical yield of the separation pro·cedures. The sample was then dissolved 

with H2S04-HF followed by aqua regia. The aqueous 

solution obtained was treated with hydroxylamine, 

sodium citrate, and sulfur dioxide gas and was adjusted to pH 4 with dilute NH40H. 

Polonium was plated out of the solution onto a 

silver metal disk, without the use of applied potential, for a period of 4 hours at a temperature of 

65 o C. After it was cleaned, the silver disk was 

counted with a surface-barrier silicon detector 

coupled to a multichannel pulse-height analyzer. A 

more detailed description of the chemical procedures 

may be found in Santoliquido (1971). These procedures have also been used to analyze six older 

USGS standard rocks (AGV-1, BCR-1, DTS-1, 

G-2, GSP-1, PCC-1) and a large collection of 

chondri tic meteorites ( Santoliquido anct Ehmann, 

1972). The data for the r·ocks analyzed in this study 

are given in table 60. 

TABLE 60.-Neutron activation determinations and estimates 

of bismuth in USGS standard rocks RGM-1 and BHV0-1 

[d.f., degrees of freedom; Neg., negative bottle variance. Conclusions from the analysis of variance. The calculated F ratio was tested against Fo.o-~(d.f. 2,3)=9.55. NS, not significant] 

Rock Sample ------------- RGM-1 BHV0-1 

Bottle No ----------------- 57/26 51/1 57/21 19/10 22/5 62/2 

Bismuth ___________ ppb____ 201 208 226 

211 262 196 

Mean ------------------- 217.3 Standard deviation: Bottles ( d.f.=2) ____ -- Neg. 

Error (d.f.=3) ------- 25.5 Coefficient of variation for error ________ percent____ 11.8 

Conclusions _________ ------ NS 

11.0 13.2 11.4 11.4 10.2 9.9 11.18 

Neg. 

1.38. 

12.3 

NS 

The data obtained were treated by the analysis of 

variance with the bottles of either sample as the 

1 Department of Chemistry, University of Kentucky, Lexington, lty. 40506. 

59 
60 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

single variable of C'lassification, and a summary of 

the estimates is given in table 60. For both samples, 

the mean sum of squares for bottles was less than 

the "within" mean sum of squares that we equate 

with the analytical error. Hence, we could not calculate a standard deviation for the bottles of either 

sample, since the subtraction involved in the separation of average mean squares (as shown, for example, by Koch and Link, 1970, table 5.8) results in 

a negative variance for bottles. Since the variation 

attributable to bottles was not greater than the analytical variation, these analyses suggest that bismuth 

in the bottles of either sample is distributed homogeneously among the bottles. The coefficients of variation (analytical error) for RGM-1 and BHV0-1 

are 11.8 percent and 12.3 percent) respectively. 

In comparison with our analyses (Santoliquido 

and Ehmann, 1972) of the old set of USGS standard 

rocks, it may be noted that the bismuth content of 

basalt BHV0-1 is only approximately one-third of 

that for basalt BCR-1. The rhyolite RGM-1 contains approximately four times as much bismuth as 

the standard granite G-2 that previously represented the highest bismuth content among the USGS 

standard rocks. The factor of 20 range in bismuth 

content of these two new standard rocks and the apparent homogeneity of the samples should make 

them valuable reference standards for analysts determining bismuth in geologic materials. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

This work was supported in part by U.S. Atomic 

Energy Commission Contract AT-(40-1)-2670. The 

authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of F. J. 

Flanagan for the statistical treatment of the data. 

REFERENCES 

Koch, G. S., Jr., and Link, R. F., 1970, Statistical analysis of 

geological data: New York, John Wiley and Sons, 375 p. 

Santoliquido, P. M., 1971, The determination of bismuth in 

meteorirtes and rocks by neutron activation analysis: Lexington, Kentucky Univ. Dept. of Chemistry, Ph. D. dissert. 

Santoliquido, P. M., and Ehmann W. D., 1972, Bismuth in 

stony meteorites and standard rocks: Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 36, no. 8, p. 897-902. 
DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

DETERMINATION OF URANIUM AND THORIUM IN USGS 

STANDARD ROCKS BY THE DELAYED NEUTRON TECHNIQUE 

By H. T. MILLARD) JR. 

ABSTRACT 

Uranium and thorium were determined in 12 USGS standard rocks by the delayed neutron technique. Duplicates from 

three bottles of each standard rock were analyzed in random 

order. The averages are: 

Parts per million 

Uranium 

AGV-1 -------·------------ 2.05 

BCR-1 -------·------------ 1.81 

BHV0-1 -----·------------ .48 

G-2 ---------------------- 2.15 

GSP-1 --------·------------ 2.56 

MAG-1 -------·------------ 2.82 

QL0-1 ------------------- 2.01 

RGM-1 -------·------------ 5.85 

SCo-1 -------------------- 3.15 

SDC-1 --------- ----------- 3.12 

SGR-1 ------------------- 5.60 

STM-1 -------·------------ 9.10 

Thorium 

5.37 

5.26 

.90 

24.0 

106.9 

12.2 

3.24 

13.1 

9.52 

11.4 

7.66 

26.6 

The thorium and uranium contents of the bottles of samples, 

except SCo--1, may be accepted as homogeneous at Fo.'ii5· The 

uranium content of SCo-1 may be decLared heterogeneous at 

Fo.os or accepted as homogeneous at Fo.o<5· 

INTRODUCTION 

The concentrations of uranium and thorium were 

determined in the new USGS standard rocks 

(BHV0-1, MAG-1, QL0-1, RGM-1, SCo-1, SDC1, SGR-1, and ST.M-1) as well as in four of the 

older USGS standard rocks (AGV -1, BCR-1, G-2, 

and GSP-1). The analytical technique used was 

that of neutron activation-delayed neutron counting 

(Amiel, 1962; Dyer and others, 1962; Gale, 1967), 

which relies upon the property of the fission daughters of uranium and thorium of continuing to emit 

"delayed" neutrons for a short time after their formation. The fact that these neutrons c·an be detected 

and counted with good discrimination and efficiency 

makes the technique both specific and sensitive. It 

allows rapid, precise, and nondestructive determinations of uranium to about 0.1 ppm and thorium to 

about 1 ppm in a 10-g sample of rock. Lower detection limits for uranium can be realized by recycling 

the same sample several times and thus improving 

the counting statistics. 

EXPERIMENTAL METHODS 

STANDARD SOLUTIONS 

A uranium standard solution was prepared from 

National Bureau of Standards Standard Reference 

Material 950a Uranium Oxide (99.94 percent UaOs). 

The isotopic ratio of this oxide, as determined by 

mass spectrometry, is U23"/U235 = 137.8 (J. N. 

Rosholt, oral commun., 1972) and the solution contained 0.987 mg U/g solution if a stoichiometric 

composition is assumed for the oxide. The uranium 

concentration of the solution was also measured on 

two separate occasions by isotope dilution-mass 

spectrometry and found to be 0.982 and 0.998 mg 

U/g solution (Prijana and J. N. Rosholt, written 

commun., 1972). The value 0.982 was used. 

A thorium standard solution was prepared using 

reagent grade Th (N03) 1 ·4H20. Assuming a stoichiometric composition for the nitrate, the solution contained 1.003 mg Th/g solution. This value was 

checked by isotope dilution-mass spectrometry, 

which gave 1.013 mg Th/g solution (Prijana, oral 

commun., 1972). 

PREPARATION AND CALIBRATION OF MONITORS 

The uranium monitor (500 f-tg U) was prepared 

from dunite powder (DTS-1), which contains 3 ppb 

U and 10 ppb Th, by alternately adding powder and 

weighed aliquot portions of the uranium standard 

solution. This procedure resulted in a uniform distribution of the uranium throughout the powder. A 

low-level thorium monitor (500 f-tg Th) was prepared by the same procedure as the uranium monitor. A high-level thorium monitor (10,000 f-tg Th) 

61 
62 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

was prepared by mixing dunite powder with a 

weighed portion of thorium oxide powder (99.9 percent pure, -100+325 mesh, Code 116, American 

Potash and Chemical Corp., Lindsay Chemical Division) . Rather than relying entirely on the concentration values for the standard solutions, we then calibrated these monitors against a set of laboratory 

standard rocks using the delayed neutron technique. 

For most of these rocks, the uranium and thorium 

concentrations had been determined by isotope 

dilution-mass spectrometry, and their homogeneity 

had been established by delayed neutron analysis of 

carefully prepared splits. 

The results of this calibration are given in table 

61. It was found necessary to increase the value of 

uranium in the uranium monitor by 3.8 percent from 

the value based on the concentration of the uranium 

standard solution in order to obtain better agreement between the delayed neutron values and the 

literature values for the standard rocks, that is, to 

make the average of the ratios of the delayed neutron values and the literature values closer to 1. The 

delayed neutron values shown in tables 61 and 64 

were computed using this calibrated value_ for the 

uranium monitor. No adjustment was made in the 

value of the thorium monitor. This method of calibration results in the values used for the uranium 

and thorium monitors being dependent on determinations obtained by isotope dilution-mass spectrometry. 

PREPARATION OF SAMPLES 

Tared 2-dram polyethylene snap-cap vials were 

filled with the sample powders (6 to 10 g of sample), 

were weighed, and were heat sealed. Two portions 

from each of three bottles were analyzed for each 

USGS standard rock. 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY TRIGA FACTOR 

The neutron fluxes available in the pneumatic tube 

facility of the Geological Survey TRIGA reactor 

(GST:R) are given in table 62. The vertical flux 

TABLE 62.~-Neutron fluxes in the Geological Survey TRIGA 

reactor for pneumatic tube irradiations in the "G" ring, in 

neutrons per square centimeter per second 

[Values are nominal fluxes 0.5 em above the bottom of the rabbit. Data from W. M. Quam and T. M. Devore, E. G. and G., Inc. written com- mun, 1969] 

Flux 

Thermal -------------- Fast ( >0.6 MeV) ------

Reactor power level 

100 kW 1 MW 

5.9X10u 

2.7X 1011 

5.9X1012 

2.7X1012 

gradients at this position in the reactor are: thermal, 1.9 percent/em, and fast, <0.7 percent/em. 

Transit times for the polyethylene rabbits range 

from 6 seconds for an empty rabbit to 7 seconds for 

a rabbit containing a 10-g sample. The temperature 

coefficient for the uranium determination in this 

reactor was determined to be - 0.43 percent/ degree 

at 25°C and -0.30 percent/degree at 42°C, where 

the temperature is that of the water at the top of 

the reactor tank. This relatively large te.mperature 

coefficient requires that the temperature of the rea~tor be held as constant as possible throughout a 

run. 

BF3 NEUTRON COUNTER 

The assembly used to count the delayed neutrons 

is similar to those described by Arnie! (1962) and 

TARLE 61.-Calibration of uranium and thorium monitors against a set of laboratory standard rocks by the delayed neutron 

technique 

[In parts per million. Delayed neutron value: Mean (ppm)±coeflicient of variation (percent). The value for the U monitor has been, changed by 

3.8 percent from that calculated from the concentration of U in the U standard solution to achieve better agreement between the delll.yed neutron and litrature values] 

Laboratory standard rock Delayed 

neutron 

u 

Liter~tture 

value 

Hinsdale basalt (Ds 29-B) --------- 0.84±6.0 1 0.88 

BCR-1 --------------------------- 1.75±2.9 2 1.73 

GSP-1 --------------------------- 2.50±1.0 3 2.4 

FF-4 ----------------------------- 3.11±1.2 4 3.07 

JNR-6379 ------------------------ 7.73±3.0 "7.59 

RM-1 ---------------------------- 15.7±1.0 615.3 

3633 ----------------------------- 23.5±0.8 7 23.4 

GD-5-4-1 ------------------------ 31.5±1.7 8 30.6 

AEC-NBL-80 -------------------- 39.9±1.0 9 40 

AEC-NBL-76 -------------------- 100.4±0.5 9101 

Delayed 

neutton 

Literature 

0.954 

1.012 

1.042 

1.013 

1.018 

1.026 

1.004 

1.029 

.997 

.994 

Th 

Delayed Literature Delayed 

neutron value neutron 

Literature 

3.4±8.7 1 3.5 0.971 

5.5±9.4 2 5.99 .918 

107.4±1.1 3 106 1.013 

10.4±3.2 '10.4 1.000 

3.2±65 5 3.01 1.063 

37.5±5.5 6 37.7 .995 

84.1±4.1 7 82.0 1.026 

21±15 8 22 .954 

996±1.3 11 1,000 .966 

--------- 1.017 --------- 1.010 .990 AEC-NB~ ----------------------~~~2=2=9~+~0~.7~~-~2=2=5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Average ---------------------------------------------------

1 ID-MS (isotope dilution-mass spectrometric), Doe and others ( 1969). 2 ID-MS, M. Tatsumoto (oral commun., 1968). a ID-MS, Peterman and others (1967). 4 ID-MS, Rosholt and others (1966). 5 ID-MS, J. N. Rosholt (oral commun., 1969) 

6 ID-MS, Rosholt and Noble (1969). 7 ID-MS, Rosholt and others, (1970). s Gamma-counting, C. Bunker (oral commun., 1970). 9 Synthetic standard, prepared value. 
DETERMINATION OF URANIUM AND THORIUM 63 

Gale (1967). \Vhen returned from the reactor, the 

rabbit containing the sample is allowed to drop into 

the center of an array of six 10BF 3 detectors (each 

2 in. in diameter by 28 in. long, sensitive length= 26 

in. fill pressure=70 em Hg). The array, which has a 

radius of 12.7 em, is completely embedded in paraffin 

except for the volume around the rabbit, which contains a 6.4-cm-thick lead shield to reduce the biological hazard from ga.mma radiation. A 0.08-cm-thick 

cadmium sheet and 7.6 em of borated paraffin (25 

percent H3B03 by weight) are used to shield the 

detectors from external neutrons. The efficiency of 

the counter for neutrons is estimated to be 15 percent, and the background, which is probably due to 

cosmic ray interactions within the array, averages 

4.0 cps. The effect of the gamma flux from 2.3-min 

Al28 in the sample was found to be negligible; the 

AI in a 12-g sample containing 15 percent Al203 is 

equivalent to less than 0.017 ppm U (3-sigma limit). 

IRRADIATION AND COUNTING PROCEDURE 

The samples and monitors are first irradiated for 

1 minute at a power level of 100 kW using a bare 

pneumatic tube terminus in the GSTR. The activity 

is allowed to decay for 20 seconds, and the sample is 

counted for 1 minute in the BF 3 counter. After all 

samples have been run, a cadmium-lined pneumatic 

tube terminus is installed in the GSTR, and the 

samples and monitors are reirradiated at a power 

level of 1 MW and are counted as in the first irradiation. The cadmium reduces the flux of slow neutrons and thus increases the count rate due to thorium relative to the rate due to uranium. A boronlined counter is used to detect the passage of the 

rabbit into and out of the reactor (Helfer, 1971). 

This timing signal and the counting signals are 

trans-mitted to a minicomputer that stores the data 

on magnetic tape and paces the operation of the 

system so a sample can be run every 90 seconds. 

The analytical parameters for a single cycle of 

two irradiations and countings are listed in table 63. 

CORRECTIONS TO THE DATA 

The dead time of the counting system at high 

count rates is dominated by the recovery time of the 

BF3 detectors. The correction was found (Stevenson, 1966, p. 112) to follow the relation: 

CPSt = CPSo 

CPSo 1 - ( t X CPSo) 

where t is 7.8 f1-S, cps is counts per second, and the 

subscripts t and o indicate the true and observed 

counting rates, respectively. 

TABLE 63.-Analytical parameters for the determination of 

uranium and thorium using one cycle of two irradiations 

and countings with the delayed neutron system 

Reactor power level 

1 MW 

Parameters 100 kW (Cd-lined 

terminus) 

U Th U Th 

Sensitivity ________ cps/p.g__ 1.24 0.0173 

Counter background __ cps __ 4.0±0.25 4.0±0.25 

Weight of element equivaJent to counter background _________ p.g __ 3.2±0.20 

3-sigma detection limits equivalent to counter background: 

Weight of elemenLp.g__ 0.60 

Concentration in 1-g sample _______ ppm__ 0.60 

Concentration in 10-g sample _______ ppm__ 0.060 

1.00 0.142 4.0±0.25 4.0±0.25 

28±1.8 

5.4 

6.4 

0.54 

The reaction 17 0 (n,p) 17N causes an interference 

during the second irradiation due to emission of 

delayed neutrons by 17N. This interference results in 

erroneously high values for the thorium concentration. The magnitude of this interference is equal to 

0.30 cps/ g oxygen, which, in turn, is equivalent to 

0.89 ppm Th for a 10-g sample containing 44 percent 

oxygen. 

CALCULATIONS 

The calculations are performed off-line by the 

minicomputer using the data for the two irradiations stored on magnetic tape. After the counter 

background has been subtracted and the dead time 

and oxygen corrections applied, the following simultaneous equations are solved for the weights of 

uranium (wt U) and thorium (wt Th) : 

(cpsh= (wt U) (cps/,ug- U)t+ (wt Th) (cps/,ug Thh, 

and 

(cps)2= (wt U) (cps/,ug Uh + (wt Th) (cps/,ug Th)2. 

The subscripts 1 and 2 denote the irradiation, and 

cps/ ,u.g U and cps/ J.tg Th are computed from the 

counting data for the U and Th monitors, respectively. In addition, the standard deviations for wt U 

and wt Th are computed from the counting statistics, and the results are then reduced to (ppm U) ± 

C.V.cs and (ppm Th) ± C.V.cs, where C.V.c~ is the coefficient of variation based on the counting statistics~ 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

The concentrations of uranium and thorium determined in the USGS standard rocks are listed in 

table 64. The values for both portions from each of 

the three bottles for each standard are shown. The 

coefficient of variation for a single determination, 

based on counting statistics, is indicated along with 

the mean of the six determinations for each standard rock. The coefficients of variation based on the 

scatter about the means are not shown in the table, 
64 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

TABLE 64.-Concentrations of uranium and thorium in USGS standard rocks 

[ C.V.cs is the coefficient of variation based on counting statistics for a single determination] 

Standard Bottle rock (split/position) Ppm 

G-2 --------------------- 50/19 2.13, 2.21 

85/29 2.25, 2.07 

23/19 2.12, 2.10 

GSP-1 ------------------- 66/26 2.67, 2.55 

36/31 2.48, 2.68 

71/03 2.45, 2.54 

AGV-1 ------------------- 99/03 2.07, 1.94 

86/20 2.10, 2.18 

38/07 2.05, 1.96 

BCR-1 ------------------- 68/05 1.83, 1.80 

39/28 1.78, 1.76 

68/16 1.93, 1.81 

ST~-1 ------------------- 42/09 9.18, 9.08 

38/19 9.02, 9.15 

35/29 9.27, 8.87 

RG~-1 ------------------ 27/11 5.70, 5.81 

01/20 5.90, 5.99 

10/06 5.86, 5.82 

QL0-1 ------------------- 02/24 2.14, 2.04 

61/20 1.96, 1.84 

28/20 2.02, 2.08 

SCo-1 ------------------- 29/02 3.08, 3.12 

63/12 3.29, 3.24 

45/15 3.12, 3.05 

~AG-1 ------------------ 29/06 2.85, 2.74 

20/12 2.86, 2.71 

2/22 2.98, 2.78 

SDC-1 ------------------- 49/19 3.21, 2.97 

116/32 3.14, 3.15 

44/20 3.16, 3.12 

BHV0-1 ----------------- 8/04 0.45, 0.43 

7/32 .62, .42 

24/09 .49, .44 

SGR-1 ------------------- 18/04 5.58, 5.84 

24/23 5.34, 5.55 

40/24 5.90, 5.41 

but in all cases they agree quite well with those 

based on counting statistics. The values for BCR-1 

and GSP-1, which appear in both tables 61 and 64, 

are for different bottles but do agree within counting statistics. 

Table 65 summarizes the results of one-way analyses of variance applied to the urani urn and thori urn 

data in table 64. According to the model used, the 

"within bottle" mean square is an estimate of the 

analytical variance and the "between bottle" mean 

square is an estimate of the analytical variance plus 

n times the bottle variance, where n ( = 2) is the 

number of determinations per bottle. The F ratios 

calculated for both elements in all rocks, except 

u Th 

C.V.cs C.V.cs 

(percent) Mean Ppm (percent) Mean 

ppm ppm 

5- 2.15 23.4, 25.6 5 24.0 

24.3, 23.9 

23.6, 23.2 

5 2.56 105.6, 103.9 2 106.9 

105.7, 108.4 

108.9, 109.1 

4 2.05 4.03, 5.98 20 5.37 

5.49, 4.74 

5.47, 6.51 

5 1.81 5.15, 5.36 17 5.26 

5.76, 6.40 

3.87, 5.05 

3 9.10 25.8, 2.67 4 26.6 

27.5, 26.5 

25.0, 28.4 

3 5.85 11.1, 15.3 13 13.1 

12.3, 12.4 

13.4, 14.2 

5 2.01 2.56, 3.60 37 3.24 

4.08, 4.08 

2.72, 2.38 

4 3.15 10.15, 9.68 10 9.52 

9.11, 9.12 

8.82, 10.24 

4 2.82 12.4, 13.0 10 12.2 

11.7, 12.6 

10.9, 12.7 

4 3.12 10.7, 12.9 10 11.4 

11.0, 11.3 

11.6, 10.8 

11 .48 0.92, 1.82 60 .90 

.17, 1.55 .90 

.45, .52 

3 5.60 6.37, 6.91 22 7.66 

9.18, 9.83 

4.91, 8.76 

uranium in SCo-1, do not exceed Fo.95 in the tables. 

Therefore, the bottles for these samples are homogenous for uranium and thorium at Fo.95· Similarly, 

the uranium in bottles of SCo-1 is heterogeneous at 

Fo.95 or homogeneous at Fo.975• 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

Colleagues who helped in this work include the 

reactor staff of the GSTR; A. J. Bartel, who prepared the samples for irradiation; P. J. Aruscavage, 

who helped run the samples; and F. J. Flanagan, 

who calculated the analysis of variance. I am indebted to V. J. Janzer and J. G. Haffty for their 

many suggestions for improving the manuscript. 
DETERMINATION OF URANIUM AND THORIUM 65 

TABLE 65.-Estimates for uranium and thorium in USGS 

standard rocks 

[d.f., degrees of freedom. Neg., negative bottle variance. F ratio tested 

against Fo.95 or Fo.975. NS, not significant] 

Sample 

G-2 ---------- GSP-1 

AGV-1 ------- BCR-1 ------- STM-1 -------

RGM-1 ------ QL0-1 ------- SCo-1 -------- MAG-1 ------ SDC-1 -------

BHV0-1 ____ _ 

SGR-1 

G-2 ---------- GSP-1 

AGV-1 

BCR-1 

ST)\1:-1 

RGM-1 

QL0-1 ------- SCo-1 -------- MAG-1 ------- SDC-1 -------

BHV0-1 ----- SGR-1 ______ _ 

Mean 

(ppm) 

2.15 

2.56 

2.05 

1.81 

9.10 

5.85 

2.01 

3.15 

2.82 

3.12 

.48 

5.60 

24.0 

106.9 

5.37 

5.26 

26.6 

13.1 

3.24 

9.52 

12.2 

11.4 

. 90 

7.66 

StandaTd deviation 

Between Within 

bottles bottles 

(d.f.=2) (d.f.=3) 

Uranium 

Neg. 

Neg. 

0.059 

.035 

Neg. 

.085 

.088 

.096 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Thorium 

Neg. 

1.92 

Neg. 

.709 

Neg. 

Neg. 

.710 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg . 1.126 

0.081 

.102 

.072 

.051 

.176 

.060 

.068 

.039 

.112 

.099 

.085 

.242 

0.927 

1.30 

.953 

.554 

1.49 

1.75 

.447 

.611 

.86 

.973 

.673 

1.609 

REFERENCES 

F ratio 

0.32 (NS) 

.68 (NS) 

2.32 (NS) 

1.92 (NS) 

.06 (NS) 

4.99 (NS) 

4.30 (NS) 

13.3 

.44 (NS) 

.19 (NS) 

.47 (NS) 

.67 (NS) 

0.72 (NS) 

5.3 (NS) . 64 (NS) 

4.26 (NS) . 13 (NS) 

.35 (NS) 

6.05 (NS) 

.85 (NS) 

.56 (NS) 

.27 (NS) 

.87 (NS) 

1.98 (NS) 

Amiel, S., 1962, Analytical applications of delayed neutron 

emission in fissionable elements: Anal. Chemistry, v. 34, 

p. 1,683-1692. 

Doe, B. R., Lipman, P. W., Hedge, C. E., and KuMsawa, 

Hajime, 1969, Primitive and contaminated basalts from 

the southern Rocky Mountains, U.S.A.: Contr. Mineralogy 

and Petrology, v. 21, p. 142-156. 

Dyer, F. F., Emery, J. F., and Leddicote, G. W., 1962, A 

comprehensive study of the neutron activation analysis 

of uranium by delayed-neutron counting: U.S. Atomic 

Energy Comm. Rept. ORNL-3342, 71 p. 

Gale, N. H., 1967, Development of delayed neutron technique 

as rapid and precise method for determination of uranium and thorium at trace levels in rocks and minerals, 

with applications to isotope geochronology, in Radioactive dating and methods of low-level counting-IAEAICSU Symposium, Monaco, 1967, Proceedings: Vienna, 

Austria, Internat. Atomic Energy Agency, p. 431-452. 

Helfer, P. G., 1971, A precise timing system for pneumatically transferred samples, in American Nuclear Society Reactor Operations Division Conference on reactor operating experience, Denver, Colo.~ Aug. 8-11, 1971: Am. 

Nuclear Soc. Trans., v. 14, supp. no. 2, p. 22-23. 

Peterman, Z. E., Doe, B. R., and Bartel, A. J., 1967, Data on 

the rock GSP-1 (granodio·rite) and the isotope-dilution 

method of analysis for Rb and Sr, in Geological Survey 

research 1967: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 575-B, p . 

B181-B186 . 

Rosholt, J. N., Doe, B. R., and Tatsumoto M., 1966, Evolution of the isotopic composition of uranium and thorium 

in ·soil profiles: Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 77, p. 987-

1004. 

Rosholt, J. N., and Noble, D. C., 1969, Loss of uranium from 

crystallized silicic volcanic rocks: Earth and Planetary 

Sci. Letters, v. 6, p. 268-270. 

Rosholt, J. N., Peterman, Z. E., and Bartel, A. J., 1970, UTh-Pb and Rh-Sr ages in granite reference sample from 

southwestern Saskatchewan: Canadian Jour. Earth Sci., 

v. 7, p. 184-187. 

Stevenson, P. C., 1966, Processing of counting data: Natl. 

Acad. Sci.-Natl. Research Council Nuclear Sci. Ser. 

Rept. NAS-NS 3109, 167 p. 

DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

THE DETERl\1INATION OF ANTIMONY, HAFNIUM, AND TANTALUM 

IN THE NEW USGS STANDARD ROCKS 

By L. J. ScHWARZ and J. J. RowE 

ABSTRACT 

The new USGS standard rocks, SGR-1, SDC-1, MAG-1, 

BHV0-1, QL0-1, RGM-1, STM-1, SCo-1, and the older 

standard rocks, G-2, GSP-1, AGV-1 and BCR-1, were analyzed for antimony, hafnium, and tantalum by instrumental 

neutron .activation anabns.is. The analysis of variance shows 

that the three elements in the standard rock samples may be 

considered homogeneous at Fo.os except for sample MAG-1 

for which antimony and hafnium may be declared homogenous at Fo.9;r.. 

The new USGS standard rocks, SGR-1, SDC-1, 

MAG-1, BHV0-1, QL0-1, RGM-1, STM-1, and 

SCo-1, and the older standard rocks, G-2, GSP-1, 

AGV-1, and BCR-1, were analyzed for antimony, 

hafnium, and tantalum by instrumental neutron activation analysis. These analyses were made as part 

of the program to establish values for the composition of the standard rocks and to estimate the homogeneity of the bottles, the variation between 

bottles, and the analytical error. 

The development of high-resolution Ge(Li) detectors has made the instrumental neutron activation analysis a practical method for the determination of many elements without chemical separations. 

Although our procedure is not unique, the data herein are valuable for the evaluation of comparability 

between laboratories. Variations between laboratories using instrumental neutron activation analysis may be due to differences in instrumentation, 

preparation of standards, irradiation conditions, 

and data-handling techniques. 

Standard solutions were prepared from tantalum 

metal, hafni urn dioxide, and potassi urn antimonyl 

tartrate hemihydrate. Monitors to be used as standards for the irradiations were prepared by pipetting each standard solution onto about 0.1 g of Specpure Si02 in a 2;1,-dram polyethylene vial. Each 

monitor contained 10 p.g of antimony and tantalum 

and 5 p.g of hafnium. After being dried at 50°C, the 

polyvials were heat. sealed. 

Two 0.3-g samples from each of three randomly 

selected bottles of each standard were weighed into 

2;5-dram polyethylene vials and were then heat 

sealed. A random sequence was used for the weighing of samples and the packing of irradiation rabbits. Each rabbit contained six samples plus three 

monitors and was irradiated for 8 hours at the N ationa! Bureau of Standards reactor which has a flux 

of 5 x 1013 neutrons cm-2s-1. 

Samples and monitors were allowed to cool for 4 

weeks to permit short-lived isotopes to decay. Each 

sample was counted for 2.2 hours at a distance of 

12.5 em above a 10-percent efficient Ge(Li) detector (resolution=2.4 keV for the 1.33 MeV peak 

of Go60 ). Spectra were collected on a 4,096-channel 

multichannel analyzer and were transferred automatically to magnetic tape. Samples were changed 

automatically using a device designed and constructed by us. The magnetic ta.pe was read back 

into the analyzer, and selected portions of each 

spectrum were printed out on a line printer. The 

areas of pertinent peaks were calculated using 

Covell's (1959) method. 

The area under the 1,690 keV peak for Sb124 was 

used for the calculation of antimony content. The 

604 ke V peak is subject to interference from Gs134 

and lr192, whereas the 1,690 keV peak is virtually 

interference .free. The 482 ke V peak for Hf181 was 

used for the determination of hafnium. The only 

interference encountered that might affect the results is the 484 ke V peak of lr192. However, concentrations of iridium are very low, and rthis interference may be disregarded. 

Although Gordon and others ( 1968) reported that 

the 67.7 keV peak for Ta182 is more sensitive than 

67 
68 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

the 1,221.3 keV peak, Hertogen and Gijbels (1971) 

found that the hafnium and gold X-rays interfered. 

The use of a low-energy photon detector for the 

measurement of the 67.7 keV peak was also subject 

to geometric and absorption problems for the sample size (0.3 g) used for this study. The interferences to the 1,221.3 ke V peak of Ta 182 from 17.4-

hour lr194 and 26.5-hour As76 are eliminated by the 

cooling time used. 

The entire suite of samples and standards were 

counted three times. Each result shown in table 66 

is the average of the three counts. The results carry 

one additional significant figure for calculation purposes. They could be rounded at the discretion of the 

reader. 

The analysis of variance for a single variable of 

classification was made on the data to yield the estimates and conclusions that are also given in table 

66 for antimony, hafnium, and tantalum. The square 

root of the mean sum of squares for within bottles 

has been equated to analytical error. Dixon and 

Massey (1951, p 154) show the population values 

estimated by each mean sum of squares, and we 

have calculated, wherever possible, the bottle variances from which are derived the standard deviations. If the mean sum of squares for within bottles 

is larger than the mean sum of squares for between 

bottles, a negative bottle variance will result, which 

is meaningless. This occurrence is noted 'bY "Neg." 

in the table. 

TABLE 66.-Determinations of antimony, hafnium, and tantalum in USGS standard rocks 

[In parts per million. d.f., degrees of freedom. "Neg.," a negative bottle variance. Conclusions from analysis of variance (Fo.ro); NS, not significant] 

Standard 

rock 

AGV-1 -----

BCR-1 ------

G-2 --------

GSP-1 ------

BHV0-1 ----

MAG-1 

QL0-1 

RGM-1 

SCo-1 ------

SDC-1 ------

SGR-1 

STM-1 

AGV-1 

BCR-1 

G-2 --------

GSP-1 ------

BHV0-1 ----

MAG-1 

QL0-1 

RGM-1 

3.94 

4.22 

.56 

.39 

.087 

.073 

3.48 

3.23 

.14 

.20 

.91 

.80 

1.69 

2.79 

1.31 

1.43 

2.75 

2.51 

.63 

.42 

3.80 

1.68 

1.68 

4.96 

5.50 

4.62 

5.07 

8.33 

8.23 

15.77 

15.35 

4.23 

4.59 

3.42 

3.40 

4.77 

4.63 

5.89 

5.65 

Bottles 

2 

4.28 

4.11 

.69 

.43 

.090 

.086 

2.82 

3.57 

.14 

.15 

.98 

1.01 

1.92 

1.84 

1.28 

1.33 

2.51 

2.60 

.51 

.39 

3.61 

3.78 

1.70 

1.56 

5.27 

5.06 

4.77 

4.67 

8.10 

8.23 

14.66 

15.68 

4.25 

4.58 

3.58 

3.69 

4.64 

4.55 

5.98 

6.18 

3 

4.12l 4.33 

.40 

.47 

.093} 

.029 

2.94 l 

3.27 

. 11 } .21 

.79 } .76 

1.67 

2.28 

1.32 

1.13 

2.67 

2.50 

.58 

.62 

3.60 

1.66 

1.73 

5.06 

5.15 

4.89 

4.77 

8.14 

7.87 

} 

} 

} 

l 

1 

14.98 1 

16.00 } 4.55 

4.36 

3.53 1 

3.47 

4.64 

4.83 

5.96 

5.89 l 

Mean 

(ppm) 

Antimony 

4.17 

.49 

. 08 

3.22 

.16 

.88 

2.03 

1.30 

2.51 

.53 

3.70 

1.67 

Hafnium 

5.17 

4.80 

8.15 

15.41 

4.43 

3.52 

4.68 

5.93 

Standard deviation 

Bottles 

(d.f.=2) 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg . 

Neg. 

Neg . 

0.107 

Neg. 

0.033 

.062 

.022 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

.104 

Neg. 

Neg. 

.107 

Neg. 

.124 

Error 

(d.f.=3) 

0.159 

.130 

.027 

.349 

.048 

.048 

.515 

.094 

.132 

.100 

.064 

0.239 

.195 

.129 

.613 

.214 

.052 

.103 

.131 

Coefficient 

of variation Conclusions 

(percent) 

3.8 

26.5 

35.1 

10.9 

30.2 

5.5 

27.1 

7.2 

5.3 

19.1 

3.8 

4.6 

4.1 

1.6 

4.0 

4.8 

1.5 

2.2 

2.2 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS (.975) 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS(.975) 

NS 

NS 
DETERMINATION OF ANTIMONY, HAFNIUM, AND TANTALUM 69 

TABLE 66.-Determinations of antimony, hafnium, and tantalum in USGS standard rocks-Continued 

Bottles Standard deviation Coefficient 

Standard Mean of variation Conclusions 

rock 2 (ppm) Bottles Error (percent) (d.f.=2) (d.f.=3) 

SCo-1 ------ 4.55 4.73 4.78 4.73 Neg. .167 3.5 NS 

4.88 4.85 4.57 

SDC-1 8.72 7.92 8.63 8.30 Neg. .042 5.1 NS 

7.96 8.43 8.10 

SGR-1 1.43 1.34 1.41 -------- 1.43 1.44 

STM-1 28.73 28.77 26.97 28.87 Neg. 1.620 5.6 NS 

30.92 27.70 30.10 

Tantalum 

AGV-1 0.84 0.74 0.81 0.79 

.78 .66 .91 

BCR-1 .74 .70 .62 .69 

.63 .73 .69 

G-2 -------- .75 .74 .81 .74 

.74 .69 .73 

GSP-1 ----- .77 1.27 .78 } .89 

.84 .84 .84 

BHV0-1 --- 1.09 1.07 1.04 l 1.10 

1.18 1.10 1.11 

MAG-1 .92 1.01 1.08 1.00 

1.00 1.05 .92 

QL0-1 .91 .74 .82 .81 

.77 .80 .84 

RGM-1 .87 .87 .90 .90 

.93 .93 .91 

SCo-1 ------ 1.00 .82 .86 .82 

.81 .66 .76 

SDC-1 ------ 1.14 1.13 1.12 l 1.15 

1.07 1.24 1.17 

SGR-1 .93 .42 .57 

.47 .45 

STM-1 17.56 17.83 16.59 } 17.26 

17.38 16.92 17.29 

The F ratio of the mean sum of squares for bottles to the mean sum of squares for within bottles is, 

in almost all cases, not significant when tested 

against F o. 9 s. For the combinations of elements and 

bottles for which such nonsignificant ratios were 

obtained, we may conclude that the bottles of a 

specified standard rock sample are homogeneous for 

the element determined. Because of the random selection of bottles, this conclusion may be extrapolated to the entire lot of bottles of the specific 

standard rock. 

The F ratios for antimony and hafnium in MAGI were found to be significant at Fo.9s with the ratio 

for hafnium just barely significant, but it may be 

concluded that bottles of MAG-I are homogeneous 

for antimony and hafnium at Fo.975• Two portions of 

0.070 0.055 7.0 NS 

Neg. .055 8.0 NS 

.003 .039 5.21 NS 

.066 .179 20.2 NS 

Neg. .048 4.4 NS 

Neg. .075 7.5 NS 

Neg. .063 7.7 NS 

Neg. .035 3.9 NS 

.030 .109 13.4 NS 

Neg. .057 5.0 NS 

--------

Neg. .474 2.8 NS 

SGR-I were spoiled during processing, hence only 

the raw data and the average for this sample are 

shown in the tables. 

REFERENCES CITED 

Covell, D. F., 1959, Determination of gamma-ray abundance 

directly from total absorption peak : Anal. Chemistry v. 

31, p. 1785-1790. 

Gordon, G. E., Randle, Keith, Goles, G. G., Corliss, J. B., 

Beeson, M. H., and Oxley, S. S., 1968, Instrumental activation analysis of standard rocks with high-resolution 

gamma-ray detectors: Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 

32,' p. 369-396. 

Dixon, W. J., and Massey, F. J., Jr., 1951, Introduction to statistical analysis: New York, McGraw Hill, 370 p. 

Hertogen, J ., and Gijbels, R., 1971, Instrumental neutron activation analysis of rocks with a low energy photon detector: Anal. Ohim. Acrta, v. 56, p. 61-82. 

DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

GOLD CONTENT OF USGS STANDARD ROCKS 

By L. 1. ScHWARZ and 1. L. BARKER 

ABSTRACT 

Gold was detennined in eight new USGS standard rocks, 

SGR-1, MAG-1, SCo-1, SDC-1, BHV0-1, QL0-1, STM-1, 

and RGM-1, and in the four older rocks, GSP-1, G-2, AGV1, and BCR-1, by neutron activation, using fire assay for 

the radiochemical separation. The gold content of these standard rocks ranges from 0.4 to 10 ppb. Analyses of variance 

indicate that, except for BCR-1 and SDC-1, gold is distributed homogeneously among the bottles of any one of the 

rocks. 

As part of a program to evaluate powdered 

rocks as analytical standards for the determination 

of elements, the gold contents of 12 USGS standard 

rocks were measured. The major objectives of the 

study were: (1) to determine the gold contents of 

the new standard rocks; (2) to test for the homogeneity of the gold among randomly selected bottles; 

a.nd (3) to estimate analytical precision. 

Gold was determined by the neutron activation 

method of Rowe and Simon (1968), using fire assay 

for the radiochemical separation. This method is 

adequately sensitive to determine less than 1 ng of 

gold in a 1-g rock sample and is currently used in 

this laboratory for the routine determination of gold 

in igneous rocks (Gottfried and others, 1972). 

Three bottles from the stock of any specific rock 

standard were randomly selected for the determinations, and these three bottles were used as the single 

variable of classification in the one-way analysis 

of variance (Dixon and Massey, 1951). Determinations were made in random order on replicate portions taken from each of the three bottles of any 

standard. Duplicate portions were taken from bottles of those standards for which previous estimates 

were available, whereas triplicate or quadruplicate 

portions were taken of those standards for which 

preliminary data had been inconclusive or for which 

the gold contents could only be inferred from data 

on similar samples previously analyzed. 

The determinations of gold, the estimates derived 

therefrom, and the conclusions from the analysis of 

variance are given in table 67. The partitioning of 

the mean sum of squares for between bottles for 

several samples resulted in a negative bottle variance, thus precluding the calculation of a bottle 

standard deviation, and such occurrences are indicated by "Neg." 

The F ratios calculated in the analysis of variance 

for 9 of the 12 samples are not equal to or greater 

than the tabled value of the 0.95 fractile of the F 

distribution with the appropriate degrees of freedom, and the bottles of these standards may be considered to have a homogeneous gold content. For the 

determinations of gold in G-2, the computed F ratio 

is greater than the value for Fo.9s but does not equ~l 

or exceed that for F 0 .975 ; the user may decide whether the gold content of th.e bottles is heterogeneous at 

F 0 .95 or homogenous at Fo.975• For the gold determinations in SDC-1 and BCR-1, the computed F 

ratios exceed the allowable values at Fo.99' and the 

gold contents of the bottles of these sa·mples should 

be considered heterogeneous. 

The coefficients of variation for analytical error 

calculated from the standard deviations for within 

bottles agree generally with the estimates by Gottfried and others (1972). The coefficients for the two 

basalts, 6.5 percent for BCR-1 and 4.6 percent for 

BHV0-1, are much lower than one would predict on 

the basis of their average gold contents, but we 

presently have no explanation for this excellent 

analytical precision. 

The data in table 67 show that the igneous rocks, 

except for the Hawaiian basalt BHV0-1, have 

average gold contents between 0.4 and 1.2 ppb, and 

the single metamorphic rock SDC-1 has an average 

of 1.9 ppb. The average gold contents are higher for 

the two shales and the marine mud; the Green 

River Shale SGR-1 has the highest average, 8.9 ppb. 

71 
72 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

TABLE 67.-Gold in standard rocks 

[Gold and standard deviations in parts per billion. F ratios were tested against Fo.!l:"> or the fractile of the F distribution indicated. The degrees 

of freedom for within bottles are 3, 6, or 9 for the 2, 3, or 4 determinations per bottle, respectively. S, significant; NS, not significant; Neg, 

negative bottle variance] 

SGR-1 

Standard 

rock 

MAG-1 ----------------

SCo-1 ------------------

SDC-1 -----------------

BHV0-1 ---------------

GSP-1 ------------------

G-2 --------------------

QL0-1 

BCR-1 

AGV-1 

STM-1 

RGM-1 

8.4 

8.9 

1.54 

1.86 

2.34 

3.01 

1.83 

2.32 

2.38 

2.24 

2.51 

3.55 

3.75 

1.54 

1.70 

.82 

1.36 

1.40 

.76 

.81 

.96 

.61 

.90 

.61 

.66 

.402 

.630 

.362 

.431 

.354 

.391 

Gold in bottle2 

9.2 

9.3 

2.76 

2.97 

3.04 

3.04 

1.73 

2.01 

2.15 

0.93 

1.00 

1.31 

1.61 

1.62 

1.69 

1.09 

1.11 

1.11 

1.21 

1.13 

1.50 

.96 

1.00 

.363 

.414 

.345 

.453 

.353 

.422 

.288 

.365 

8.9 

8.7 

1.95 

2.62 

2.64 

3.14 

2.06 

2.23 

2.30 

0.99 

1.33 

1.58 

1.91 

1.43 

1.47 

1.15 

1.17 

1.40 

.81 

.87 

1.15 

1.07 

1.19 

.425 

.457 

.397 

.424 

.340 

.67 

.380 

.54 

Jones (1969) listed determinations of gold in 

rocks made -since the beginning of this century and 

has estimated the average gold content of rocks to 

be: igneous, 3.0 ppb; metamorphic, 4.3 ppb; and 

sedimentary, 5.0 ppb. The averages of the data in 

this study for igneous rocks ( 0.8 ppb) and for the 

single metamorphic rock ( 1.9 ppb) are lower than 

the estimates of Jones, but the average for the two 

shales agrees with his estimate of 5.0 ppb for sedimentary rocks. In his discussion of the accuracy of 

the data he listed, Jones pointed out that the determinations of gold before 1955 were generally made 

by less -sensitive methods, that there may have been 

high reagent blanks that influenced some determinations, and that the data obtained before 1955 seem 

higher than those determined by more recent 

methods. 

Mean 

8.9 

2.58 

2.11 

1.89 

1.57 

1.18 

1.02 

.95 

.490 

.442 

.430 

.386 

Standard deviation 

Within Among 

bottles bottles 

0.2 

.47 

.22 

.52 

.07 

.20 

.16 

.13 

.032 

. 103 

.141 

.074 

0.3 

.33 

Neg. 

.94 

.10 

Neg. 

.21 

.16 

.130 

Neg . 

Neg. 

.04 

F ratio 

NS 

NS 

NS 

S. (Fo.oo) 

NS 

NS 

NS (Fo.e75) 

NS 

S. (Fo.oo) 

NS 

NS 

NS 

The averages of the gold contents of the four 

older USGS standard rocks ( G-2, GSP-1, AGV -1, 

and BCR-1) do not differ markedly from averages 

previously reported; the average gold contents of 

the 12 samples may serve as a baseline for future 

determinations of gold in rocks. 

REFERENCES 

Dixon, W. J., and Massey, F. J., Jr., 1951, Introduction to 

statistical analysis: New York, McGraw Hill, 370 p. 

Gottfried, David, Rowe, J. J., and Tilling, R. 1., 197,2, Distribution of gold in igneous rocks: U.S. Geol. Survey 

Prof. Paper 727, 42 p. 

Jones, Robert S., 1969, Gold in igneous, sedimentary, and 

metamorphic rocks; U.S. Gool. Survey Circ. 610, 28 p. 

Rowe, J. J., and Simon, F. 0., 1968, The determination of gold 

in geologic materials by neutron-activation analysis using fire assay for the radiochemical separations: U.S. 

Geol. Survey Circ. 599, 4 p. 
DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

THE BERYLLIUM, FLUORINE, LITHIUM, COPPER, ZINC, AND 

STRONTIUM CONTENTS OF USGS STANDARD ROCK SAMPLES 

STM-1, RGM-1, QL0-1, SCo-1, MAG-I, SDC-1, AN!) SGR-1 

IV V V By V. MACHACEK/ I. RuBESKA/ V. SIXTA/ and Z. SuLCEK 1 

ABSTRACT 

Six trace elements •are reported for seven new USGS standard rock samples. Beryllium was determined fluorimetrically, 

fluorine by pyrohydroly.sis and indirect spectrophotometry, 

lithium by atomic absorption spectrometry, and copper, zinc, 

and strontium by both X-ray fluorescence and atomic absorption spectrometry. The analysis of variance for a single variable of classification was used to determine whether the samples were homogeneous for the sevel'lal elements. Estimates of 

the average trace element contents, of standard deviations 

for bottles of sample, where possible, and of the standard 

deviations for analytical error are tabulated. 

Standard rock samples are important for testing 

and calibrating newly developed chemical or instrumental methods as well as those in current use. The 

variety of available standard materials is rather 

limited, and the 1971 series of USGS standard rock 

samples is a valuable contribution. 

The Chemical Laboratory of the Czechoslovakia 

Geological Survey is assisting in the standardization of these samples by providing analyses for 

several trace elements. To ensure reliable data, we 

have selected methods that have been proven to be 

correct in previous analyses of international rock 

samples issued by the U.S. Geological Survey, the 

Zentrales Geologisches Institut, and other institutions. These methods include fluorimetry for beryllium, spectrophotometry for fluorine, atomic absorption spectrometry for lithium, copper, zinc, and 

strontium, and X-ray fluorescence for copper, zinc, 

and strontium. The methods are briefly described 

here. 

The main purposes of the program of analyses 

were to determine if the samples could be considered 

homogeneous from bottle to bottle for the several 

elements and techniques and to obtain estimates of 

the average trace-element contents and of bottle 

error and analytical error where possible. Three 

bottles of each of the seven samples, STM-1, RGM1, QL0-1, SCo-1, MAG-1, SDC-1, and SGR-1, were 

received, and determinations of the several elements 

were made on two portions from each bottle to fit 

a one-way experimental design with the three bottles of each sample as the variable of classification. 

Before the determinations, the two portions from 

each bottle of all samples were arranged in a random order that was used for .the determinations of 

all elements. For convenienc·e in handling, the 42 

portions, 6 from each of the 7 samples, were divided 

into 3 groups of 14, and each group was analyzed 

for an element on a different day within a period of 

2 weeks. 

Beryllium was determined fluorimetrically with 

morin after chromatographic separation on a silica- v v gel column as described by Sulcek, Dolezal, and 

Michal (1961). A 1-g sample is decomposed by fusion with NazC03 in a platinum crucible. The melt is 

dissolved in dilute HCl, and silica is removed by filtration. The filtrate is evaporated to about 50 mi. 

Before sorption, this solution is adjusted to concentrations of 0.1 M EDTA (sodium salt of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid), 0.03 M tartaric acid, and 0.2 

M sodium acetate at a pH of 5.5 in a final volume of 

about 200 mi. The solution is then passed at a flow 

rate of 2-3 ml/min through a column of silica gel 

(10 ml of silica, +50-100 mesh) previously washed 

with sodium acetate buffer at pH 5.5. After the 

column is washed with 150 ml of distilled water, the 

sorbed beryllium is eluted with 5 ml 1 M HCI and 

80 ml of distilled water into a 100-ml volumetric 

flask. The eluate is neutralized with sodium hydroxide using pentamethoxyl red indicator. Then 4 

1 Geological Survey, Kostelpi 26, Prague, Czechoslovakia. 

73 
74 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

ml of 10-percent NaOH, 2 ml of 2.5-percent sodium 

stannite, and 2 ml of 0.02-percent morin in acetone 

are added, and the flask is made up to the mark and 

is thoroughly mixed. The fluorescence of the solution 

is measured on a Hilger and Watts H 960 Fluorimeter, and the beryllium content is estimated from a 

calibration line. 

Fluorine was determined by indirect spectrophotometry of the attenuation of the absorption of the 

Zr-xylenol orange complex at 540 nm (Valach, 

1961). The samples were decomposed by pyrohydrolysis (Herman and Weiss, 1971). A sample of 

0.1-1 g is mixed in a 1:2 ratio with U30 8 • The mixture is transferred to a platinum boat that is placed 

in the platinum tube of a combustion furnac·e. The 

horizontal inlet side of this tube has an electric heating tape to prevent steam condensation. The outlet 

of the tube is led to a water-cooled condensor whose 

lower end dips under the surface of the absorbing 

solution. 

The sample is ignited at 1,150°C for 17 min in a 

stream of oxygen at a flow rate of 3 1/min. The oxygen is saturated with water vapor by bubbling it 

through a 15-cm water layer. The reaction is com-

·pleted by passing a mixture of oxygen and steam 

through the tube for 3 more min. During the reaction period, the solution in the absorption vessel is 

kept alkaline to phenolphthalein by titrating, when 

necessary, with 0.1 M NaOH. The volume of the 

NaOH consumed gives a rough estimate of the 

fluorine content. 

An aliquot of the absorbing solution containing 

5-20 p.g of fluorine is pipetted into a solution of 10 

ml of 1X10- 3-percent Zr0Cl2·8H20 in 7 M HC104 in 

a 50-ml volumetric flask. After 30 min, 2 ml of 0.1-

percent xylenol orange are added, and the flask is 

filled to the mark. The absorbance at 540 nm is 

measured within 30-90 min after mixing, and the 

fluorine content is estimated from a calibration line. 

The procedure is not applicable to samples high in 

organic matter, such as MAG-1 and SGR-1. 

Lithium, copper, zinc, and strontium were determined by atomic absorption from one stock solution 

after the samples were decomposed. A 1-g sample in 

a platinum dish is treated with nitric acid and then 

with hydrofluoric and perchloric acids. The residue 

is dissolved in 5 ml of concentrated HCl and transferred to a 100-ml volumetric flask. Aliquots for the 

individual determinations are taken from this stock 

solution. 

For lithium, an aliquot of the stock solution is 

pipetted into a 25-ml volumetric flask containing 2.5 

ml of a buffer (0.2 M Al(N03)3 in 1M HCl), and 

the flask is filled to the mark with distilled water. 

Reference samples contain the same amount of buffer d3uicek and Rubeska, 1969). The response at 

670.7 nm is read, and the Li content is estimated 

from calibration lines. 

Copper and zinc are measured at 324.7 nm and 

213.8 nm, respectively, on aliquots directly from the 

stock solution or after appropriate dilution (Miksovsky and Mouldan, 1971). The concentration of 

HCl is maintained at 0.6 M for all solutions including reference samples. 

For the determination of strontium, an aliquot of 

up to 10 ml of the sample stock solution is pipetted 

into a 25-ml flask, 2.5 ml of a buffer solution containing 1 percent La and 10 percent oxine in 6 M 

HCl are added, and the flask is filled to the mark. 

The reference samples contain .the same amount of 

buffer (Moldan and Miksovsky, 1971). 

All measurements were made on a Perkin-Elmer 

303 atomic absorption spectrometer using an airacetylene flame. Instrumental conditions recommended by the manufacturer were used. A recorder 

and scale expansion are used when samples read 

less than about 3-percent absorption. 

The X-ray fluorescence procedure for copper, zinc, 

and strontium routinely used in this laboratory for 

the determination of 14 trace elements in silicate 

samples (Machacek, 1971) is a variation of procedures described by Wedepohl (1958). A 1-g sample is thoroughly mixed with 0.5 g of polyvinyl alcohol containing 0.1 percent molybdenum or 0.71 percent cobalt. The latter are used as internal reference 

elements. The mixture is pressed at 1,500 kp/cm2 

(21,000 psi) into tablets of 31 mm dia·meter. The 

measurement is carried out on a Phillips PW 1540 

X-ray spectrometer with a topaz crystal and a 

scintillation counter with a discriminator. G-1, 

W-1, and T-1 were used as standards, and the concentration range was extended using synthetic standards prepared from a mixture of sodium silicate 

and oxides of the major elements. Instrumental conditions are as follows : 

Instrumental conditions for X-ray fluorescence 

Lines measured Anode V(lltage Ourrent Medium (kV) (rnA) 

Cu-Kat,2/Co-Kth -------- Au 50 20 Vacuum. Zn-Kat,2/Co-K/3t ------- Au 50 20 Do. Sr-Kat, 2/Mo-Kat, 2 ------ w 50 20 Air. 

The data obtained by these methods are given in 

table 68. Hygroscopic water (H20-) was also determined on one portion of the sample from each 

bottle of all rocks and, our estimates--the average 

of three determinations-are: 
BERYLLIUM, FLUORINE, LITHIUM, COPPER, ZINC, AND STRONTIUM 75 

TABLE 68.-Analytical data for seven USGS standard rock samples 

[In parts per million. AAS, atomic absorption spectrometry; XRF, X-ray fluorescence. N.d., not determinedl 

Rock Bottle No. Be F Li sample 

STM-1 ------ 2/22 9.0 888 34 

9.0 918 31 

13/17 9.2 880 33 

8.9 888 30 

28/20 9.0 922 33 

9.0 908 33 

RGM-1 ------ 5/20 2.2 323 58 

2.1 342 55 

13/02 2.1 367 55 

2.2 337 59 

16/01 2.2 339 53 

2.2 346 58 

QL0-1 ------ 20/23 1.6 239 23 

1.7 260 24 

42/07 1.7 233 23 

1.6 282 23 

47/13 1.6 265 22 

1.7 256 23 

SCo-1 ------- 5/24 1.6 754 41.5 

1.6 790 41.5 

55/05 1.6 780 41.5 

1.6 790 43 

55/24 1.6 786 39 

1.5 774 43 

MAG-1 ------ 3/07 2.6 N.d. 77 

2.7 N.d. 69 

10/16 2.8 N.d. 71 

2.8 N.d. 69 

29/02 2.6 N.d. 74 

2.8 N.d. 72 

SDC-1 ------ 21/18 2.5 612 32 

2.4 612 32 

50/22 2.7 622 33 

2.6 626 30 

115/24 2.6 626 33 

2.6 628 34 

SGR-1 ------- 36/26 0.90 N.d. 123 

.90 N.d. 123 

38/30 .88 N.d. 123 

.88 N.d. 123 

39/26 .94 N.d. 125 

.95 N.d. 120 

Percent 

STM-1 ------------------------------- 0.13 

RGM-1 ------------------------------- .30 

QL0-1 ------------------------------- .27 

SCo-1 -------------------------------- 2.90 

MAG-1 ------------------------------ 3.41 

SDC-1 ------------------------------- .11 

SGR-1 ------------------------------- .57 

Each set of six observations (table 68) for all 

combinations of elements and methods was treated 

by the analysis of variance for a single variable of 

classification as described in introductory texts on 

statistics. A standard deviation for bottles was calculated after separating the components of the 

mean sum of squares for bottles as shown by Davies 

Cu Cu Zn Zn Sr Sr 

(AAS) (XRF) (AAS) (XRF) (AAS) (XRF) 

3.7 <10 248 242 735 673 

5.2 <10 245 243 710 675 

4.5 <10 243 242 720 678 

5.2 <10 240 243 710 674 

4.0 <10 247 241 710 668 

5.5 <10 246 243 715 670 

12.5 11 39 37 108 95 

12.0 12 39 39 108 98 

11.2 11 39 39 110 94 

10.5 11 37 40 120 99 

10.7 10 40.5 40 110 95 

12.5 11 39 38 115 97 

26.0 27 66.5 68 350 320 

27.0 28 63.5 66 330 323 

28.0 29 64.5 69 330 332 

26.2 30 64 67 385 328 

26.0 30 64 68 360 327 

26.2 30 65 67 370 325 

28.7 35 108 120 172 158 

27.7 33 118 118 180 155 

27.7 33 102 125 177 158 

28.2 32 106 122 180 159 

27.5 34 102 123 190 155 

28.2 35 103 121 177 152 

29.5 32 133 151 145 129 

27.5 33 124 152 138 132 

27.7 32 116 153 157 126 

27.5 33 120 154 155 128 

27.5 30 122 153 155 125 

27.7 32 117 155 148 128 

28.2 27 106 107 192 172 

28.2 29 106 109 172 169 

28.5 30 100 107 185 169 

31.0 29 108 110 184 166 

29.5 26 104 105 184 174 

28.5 27 104 106 182 173 

65.0 58 81 84 430 415 

65.5 59 80 86 420 419 

63.0 60 83 86 450 416 

63.0 61 82 87 425 415 

65.2 58 80 84 420 419 

63.5 59 83.5 85 450 417 

(1949, p. 78). Conclusions from the analysis of variance, averages, and standard deviations are given in 

table 69. An estimate of the "bottle variance" is 

relevant only if the F ratio is greater than 1; that is, 

if the bottle standard deviation is positive. Samples 

SGR-1 for Be and SDC-1 for F are heterogeneous 

for those elements by the methods used. One conclusion, QL0-1 for Cu, is listed as NSo.975• This may be 

declared heterogeneous when tested against F o.95, or 

accepted as homogeneous when tested against Fo.975, 

depending on the risk that the reader will accept. 

For all other combinations that are listed as "NS" 

(against Fo.95 ), or with negative bottle standard 

deviation, the samples are declared homogeneous. 
76 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

TABLE 69.-Conclusions from the analysis of variance, averages, and standard deviations for USGS standard rock samples 

[Method: Fluor, fluorimetric.; Pyr-sptr, pyrohydrolysis-indirect spectrophotometry; AAS, atomic absorp- tion spectrometry; XRF, X-ray fluorescence. Conclusions from the analysis of vari•ance: NS, not significant at the fractile of the F distribution shown or at Fo.&s where none is indicated; d.f., de- grees of freedom; Neg., negative bottle variance] 

Element 

Be 

F ------- Li ------

Cu ------ Cu ------

Zn 

Zn 

Sr 

Sr 

Be 

F -------

Li ------

Cu ------ Cu ------

Zn ------ Zn 

Sr 

Sr 

Be 

F ------- Li ------

Cu ------ Cu ------

Zn ------ Zn 

Sr 

Sr 

Be 

F ------- Li ------

Cu ------

Cu ------

Zn 

Zn 

Sr 

Sr 

Be 

F -------

Li ------

Cu ------ Cu ------

Zn 

Zn 

Sr 

Sr 

Method 

Fluor -------- Pyr-sptr ------

AAS ---------

AAS 

XRF 

AAS 

XRF 

AAS 

XRF 

Fluor -------- Pyr...,sptr ------

AAS ---------

AAS 

XRF 

AAS 

XRF 

AAS 

XRF 

Fluor -------- Pyr-sptr ------

AAS ---------

AAS 

XRF 

AAS 

XRF 

AAS 

XRF 

Fluor -------- Pyr-sptr ------

AAS ---------

AAS 

XRF 

AAS 

XRF 

AAS 

XRF 

Fluor --------

AAS 

AAS 

XRF 

AAS 

XRF 

AAS 

XRF 

Conclusion 

N.S 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

STM-1 

RGM-1 

qL0-1 

NS, 0.075 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

SCo-1 

MAG-1 

Standard deviation 

Bottles, Error, 

d.f.=2 d.f.=3 

Neg. 

12.2 

Neg. 

Neg. 

2.6 

Neg. 

Neg. 

3.3 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

0.4 

.3 

.5 

Neg. 

1.5 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

0.3 

Neg. 

1.3 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

4.0 

Zero 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

0.8 

4.7 

2.0 

Neg. 

2.2 

0.04 

Neg. 

Neg. 

.5 

4.7 

1.1 

6.8 

1.7 

0.12 

13.9 

1.7 

.91 

1.8 

1.0 

11.2 

2.0 

0.06 

14.8 

2.9 

.8 

.6 

1.0 

1.2 

4.6 

2.5 

0.07 

22.1 

.6 

.8 

.6 

1.3 

1.2 

24.2 

2.2 

0.04 

16.0 

1.7 

.5 

1.0 

4.4 

1.7 

6.4 

1.8 

0.09 

3.5 

.8 

1.0 

4.5 

1.0 

4.1 

1.9 

Average 

content 

(ppm) 

9.02 

900 

32.3 

4.78 

<10 

245 

242 

717 

673 

2.16 

342 

56.3 

11.6 

11.0 

38.9 

38.8 

112 

96.3 

1.65 

256 

23.0 

26.6 

29.0 

64.6 

67.5 

354 

3·26 

1.58 

779 

41.6 

28.0 

33.7 

107 

122 

179 

156 

2.72 

72.0 

27.9 

32.0 

122 

153 

150 

128 
BERYLLIUM, FLUORINE, LITHIUM, COPPER, ZINC, AND STRONTIUM 77 

TABLE 69.-Conclusions from the a.nalysis of variance, averages, and standard deviations for USGS standard rock samples-Continued 

Element Method 

Standard deviation Average Con- Bottles, Error, content elusion d.f.=2 d.f.=3 (ppm) 

SDC-1 

Be ------ F ------- Li ------

Cu ------ Cu ------

Zn 

Zn 

Sr 

Sr 

Fluor -------- Pyr-sptr ------ AAS ---------

AAS 

XRF 

AAS 

XRF 

AAS 

XRF 

NS 

S, 0.99 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

0.10 0.06 2.67 

7.8 1.8 621 

.6 1.3 32.3 

Neg. 1.1 29.0 

1.3 1.0 28.0 

Neg. 3.3 106 

1.2 1.6 107 

Neg. 8.2 183 

2.7 1.8 171 

SGR-1 

Be ------ Fluor -------- S, 0.99 

F ------- Li ------ AAS --------- NS 

Cu ------ AAS --------- NS 

Cu ------ XRF --------- NS 

Zn AAS --------- NS 

Zn XRF --------- NS 

Sr AAS --------- NS 

Sr XRF --------- NS 

REFERENCES CITED 

Davies, 0. L., 1949, Statistical methods in research and production: London, Oliver and Boyd, 292 p. 

Hefman, M., and Weiss, D., 1971, Pyrohydrolytische Zersetzung der Mineralrohstoffe und Fluorbestimmung mittels 

der Fluoridelektrode, in Proceedings of the symposium on 

the methods for determination of low concentrations of 

elements in raw materials, Smolenice, 1969: Bratislava, 

Comenium Univ., p. 554>6. 

Machacek, V., 1971, Rontgenspektrometrische Bestimmung 

von Spurenelementen in Silikatgesteinen, in Proceedings 

of the symposium on the methods for determination of 

low concentrations of elements in raw materials, Smolenice, 1969: Bratislava, Comenium Univ., p. 253-272. 

Miksovsky, M., and Moldan, B., 1971, Determination of copper, 

zinc, manganese, and iron in silicate samples by atomic 

absorption spectroscopy: Chern. Zvesti v. 24, p. 128-133. 

Moldan, B., and Miksovsky, M., 1971, On the determination 

of strontium in silicates, carbonates, and sulphates by 

0.03 0.004 0.91 

Neg. 2.0 123 

1.0 .7 64.2 

1.0 .7 59.2 

Neg. 1.5 81.6 

.8 1.0 85.3 

Neg. 16.4 433 

Neg. 1.9 417 

atomic absorption spectroscopy: Colin. Czechoslov. Chern. 

Commun., v. 36, p. 1673-1677. 

sulcek, Z., Dolezal, J ., and Michal, J ., 1961, Analytische 

Schnellmethoden zur Untersuchung von Metallen und 

anorganischen Rohstoffen, XII. Bestimmung der Spurenmengen von Beryllium in Mineralwassern und mineralischen Rohstoffen: Colin. Czechoslov. Chern. CCJmmun., v. 

26, p. 246-254. 

sulcek Z., and RubeSka 1., 1969. Bestimmung des Lithiumspurengehaltes in Gesteinen: Colin. Czechoslov. Chern. 

Commun. v. 34, p. 2048-2056. 

Valach R., 1961, Die Bestimmung von Fluor in Mineralwassern mittels Zr-Xylenolorange: Talanta v. 8, p. 443-

444. 

W edepohl K. H., 1958, Rontgen-spektral-analyse von geochemischen Proben, in Anwendung der Rontgenbeugungsmethoden und der Rontgenspektroskopie. Vortrage der 

III: Informationstagung der C.H.F. Muller GMBH Hamburg in Darmstadt, p. 68-75. 

DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

INSTRUMENTAL ANALYSES OF MAJOR AND MINOR OXIDES IN 

USGS S1"'ANDARD ROCKS BHV0-1, QL0-1, SDC-1, AND RGM-1 

P. W. WEIGAND/ K. THORESEN ,Z W. L. GRIFFIN ,Z and K. S. HEIER 2 

ABSTRACT 

The contents of nine major and minor oxides in four new 

USGS standard rocks were estimated by X-ray fluorescence, 

atomic absorption, and flame photometry. Analysis of variance with three bottles of any standard as the variable of 

classification indicates that the bottles are homogeneous at 

Fo.ss for all nine oxides, except for Na20, by ei,ther flame 

photometry or atomic absorption, in the mica schist, SDC-1. 

Estimates of the averages, and the standard deviations for 

error and for bottles, are tabled. 

We have analyzed new USGS standard rocks 

basalt BHV0-1, quartz latite QL0-1, mica schist 

SDC-1, and rhyolite RGM-1 for nine major and 

minor oxides by instrumental methods, following 

analytical procedures that are routinely used at the 

Geologisk Museum. For each method two portions 

were prepared from three bottles of each rock, 

yielding six determinations per rock. 

Three analytical methods were used in this work 

-X-ray fluorescence (XRF), atomic absorption 

(AA), and flame photometry (FP). Silica, Ti02 , 

Al203, Fe203 (T) (total Fe as Fez03), CaO, and KzO 

were analyzed on a Philips model 1410 manual 

vacuum X-ray spectrometer and the operating conditions are given in table 70. A pulse height analyzer was used for all oxides except Fe203. Samples 

and standards were fused with sodium tetraborate 

(NazB40,) in a 1 :9 ratio. Calibration curves were 

prepared from USGS, CRPG, ZGI, and SSC standard rocks (see Flanagan, 1970). The technique of 

counting a reference sample after each sample and 

using an intensity ratio of standard or unknown to 

the reference sample was used to correct instrumental drift. 

Magnesia and N a 2 0 were analyzed on a PerkinElmer model 303 atomic absorption spectrometer. 

The spectral lines used were 2,850 A and 5,890 A, 

respectively, the lamps used were hollow cathode 

and Osram spectral, and an acetylene-air flame was 

used for both oxides. Samples and standards were 

dissolved in HF + HN0:1, evaporated to dryness, redissolved in HCl + HNO~, and diluted to yield rock 

solutions of 0.001 percent by weight. Calibration 

curves were prepared from USGS and CRPG standard rocks. A reference solution was determined 

periodically, and intensity ratios, assuming linear 

drift, were used to correct instrumental drift. All 

samples were run twice. 

Alkalis were analyzed with a Beckman model B 

flame photometer with an atomizer-burner. Samples 

were dissolved in HF+ H2S04, evaporated to dryness, and redissolved in diluted H2S04. Calibration 

curves were prepared from mi~tures of N a20, K20, 

and Li 2S0.1 solutions. Again, a reference standard 

determined after every second sample was used to 

correct instrumental drift. 

In spite of pleas to the contrary, we failed to pre1 Dept. of Geological and Geophysical Sciences, Princeton University, 

Princeton, N.J. 08540. 2 Mineralogisk-Geologisk Museum, Sarsgate 1, Oslo 5, Norway. 

TABLE 70.-0perating conditions for X-ray analyses 

Si02 Ti02 

T~arget ---------- Cr Cr 

Crystal ---------- KAP LiF 

Detector --------- Flow Flow 

Medium --------- Vacuum Vacuum 

Collimator ------- Coarse Fine 

Peak 29 31.23 85.32 Backgrou~"d-26-=== 84.00 

AbO a Fe20a 

Cr w 

PE LiF 

Flow ScintiUation 

Vacuum Air 

Coarse Fine 

144.85 57.48 

147.50 

MnO 

w 

LiF 

Flow 

Air 

Fine 

62.95 

62.20 

CaO 

Cr 

LiF 

Flow 

Vacuum 

Fine 

113.01 

CrKAP 

Flow 

Vacuum 

Fine 

16.16 

17.00 

79 
80 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

pare random number tables as a guide for .the sequence of analyzing the samples. For the XRF (Xray fluorence) and AA (atomic absorption) analyses, a person other than the analyst prepared and 

coded the samples in a nonsystematic sequence. The 

XRF pellets were run in the coding sequence, while 

the AA solutions were run nonsystematically with 

respect to the coding sequence. The FP (flame photometry) solutions· were not coded, but were run in 

a completely nonsystematic order. In all methods, 

standards were run as a group at the beginning of 

the run or periodically through the run ; they were 

not run in a random sequence intermixed with the 

unknowns. It was sometimes necessary to group 

samples according to elemental concentrations for 

analytical reasons, that is, all six portions of the 

same standard rock were run together. In such 

cases, the six portions were run in a nonsystematic 

sequence. Despite these limitations, we feel that the 

chance of systematic errors in the data arising from 

operator bias or from departures from randomness 

in the analytical sequence is small. 

The six determinations for each standard rock are 

given in table 71. Also included are single determinations of total H20 for a random bottle of each 

rock. For Si02 and Al203 in all samples and for MgO 

and CaO in BHV0-1, the second decimal place is not 

significant. 

Summaries of the estimates and conclusions from 

the analysis of varianee of the data for the four 

rocks are also given in table 71. The calculated F 

ratios of the mean sum of squares for the bottles to 

that for error were generally tested at Fo.9s (d.f.= 

2,3) =9.55. If the conclusion is nonsignificant (NS), 

the three bottles of sample are declared homogeneous for the oxide. Because of the random selection 

of the bottles, this conclusion of homogeneity may 

then be extrapolated to the entire lot of bottles of a 

sample. 

We conclude from this study that the bottles of 

the four standards that we analyzed are homogeneous at Fo.n.s for most of the nine oxides. The bottles 

of the mica schist SDC-1 are heterogeneous at Fo.9s 

for the determination of N a20 by either flame photometry or by atomic absorption. This heterogeneity 

for N a20 may be due to bottle 39/20 because the 

extreme values seem to have been determined on 

this bottle. On the other hand, these seemingly 

extreme values agree well with preliminary data 

reported by Shapiro and others (this volum·e, table 

36), and we are unable to assign a cause for the 

heterogeneity. For those who might wish to accept 

TABLE 71.-Determination of oxides, in percent, and summary of estimates for USGS standard rock samples BHV0-1, QL0-

1, SDC-1, and RGM-1 

[Method: XRF, X-ray fluorescence; AA, atomic absorption; FP, flame photometry. Conclusions from the analysis of variance: NS, not signicant at the fractile of the F distjribution shown or at Fo.D5 where none is indicated; d.f., degrees of freedom; Neg., negative bottle variance] 

Oxide Method 19/26 

Si02 ------------------- XRF Ti02 ------------------- XRF AhOa ------------------ XRF 

50.57 51.12 2.83 2.72 

13.72 13.71 

Fe20a(T) -------------- XRF 

MnO ----------------- XRF MgO ------------ _ ----- AA 

12.48 12.33 .17 .17 7.00 7.14 

CaO ------------------- XRF Na20 ------------------ AA Na20 --------- __ ____ __ _ FP 

11.50 11.46 2.18 2.10 2.10 2.03 

K20 --------- ____ ----- _ XRF 

K20 ------------------- FP 

.48 .47 .44 .45 H20 ( T) ______________ _ .17 

Oxide Method 45/4 

Si02 ------------------- XRF Ti02 ------------------ XRF Al20a ----------------- XRF 65.79 64.91 .63 .67 16.48 16.67 

Fe20a(T) -------------- XRF 

MnO ------------------ XRF 4.34 4.66 

.10 .10 

MgO ------------------ AA 1.05 1.08 

CaO ------------------- XRF 3.26 3.22 

Na20 ----------------- AA 4.12 3.98 Na20 ____ ----- ___ ----- FP 4.28 4.32 

K20 ------------------- XRF 3.58 3.66 K20 --- ____ -- ___ --- ____ FP 3.67 3.58 

H20(T) --------------- .60 

See footnote at end of table. 

50.81 

2.79 

13.75 

12.41 .17 

6.93 

11.80 

2.16 

2.22 

.46 

.49 

65.39 .64 16.66 

4.56 

.10 

1.10 

3.26 

4.18 

4.28 

3.60 

3.67 

BHV0-1 

Bottle 

5/26 

Bottle 

50.64 

2.77 

13.80 

12.48 .17 

7.03 

11.75 

2.36 

2.09 

.49 

.42 

QL0-1 

46/18 

65.09 .68 16.28 

4.63 

.10 

1.11 

3.21 

4.19 

3.97 

3.70 

3.50 

50.73 

2.79 

13.59 

12.50 .16 

6.83 

ll.90 

2.22 

2.08 

.46 

.43 

19/4 

51/28 

64.98 .63 16.19 

4.31 

.10 

1.07 

3.25 

4.16 

4.25 

3.60 

3.83 

51.41 

2.76 

13.71 

12.49 .17 

7.05 

11.62 

2.25 

2.16 

.49 

.50 

65.16 .67 16.36 

4.40 

.10 

1.06 

3.23 

4.13 

4.34 

3.60 

3.59 

Conclusion 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

Conclusion 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

(I) 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

Standard deviation 

Mean Bottles Error (d.f.=2) (d.f.=3) 

50.88 Neg. 2.78 Neg. 13.71 0.050 

12.42 Neg. .17 Neg. 7.00 Neg. 

11.67 0.144 2.21 0.008 2.11 Neg. 

.475 0 .455 Neg. 

0.364 

.047 

.053 

.068 

.004 

.114 

.117 

.089 

.069 

.018 

.041 

Standard Deviation 

Mean Bottles Error (d.f.=2) (d.f.=3) 

65.22 Neg. .653 Neg. 16.44 0.076 

4.48 0.071 .100 

1.08 0.021 

3.24 Neg. 4.13 0.056 4.24 0.033 

3.62 Neg. 3.64 Neg. 

0.387 

.028 

.187 

.139 

.014 

.027 

.059 

.133 

.052 

.126 
INSTRUMENTAL ANALYSES OF MAJOR AND MINOR OXIDES 81 

TABLE 71.-Determination of oxides, in percent, and summary of estimates for USGS standard rock samples BHV0-1, QL0-

1, SDC-1, and RGM-1-Continued 

SDC-1 

Oxide 

Si02 ------------------ Ti02 ------------------- AhOa ------------------

Fe20a(T) -------------- MnO ------------------ MgO ------------------

CaO ------------------- Na20 ------------------ Na20 ------------------

K20 -------------------

K20 ------------------- H20 (T) ---------------

Method 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

AA 

XRF 

AA 

FP 

XRF 

FP 

66.25 

1.03 

16.15 

7.33 

.13 

1.72 

1.46 

1.94 

2.08 

3.28 

3.33 

1.68 

14/7 

66.39 

1.09 

16.12 

7.42 

.12 

1.75 

1.44 

1.94 

2.02 

3.26 

3.23 

66.00 

1.01 

16.06 

7.52 

.12 

1.62 

1.46 

2.01 

2.03 

3.25 

3.24 

Bottle 

67/13 

65.56 

1.07 

15.85 

7.3(1 

.12 

1.69 

1.42 

1.98 

1.97 

3.31 

3.15 

66.19 

1.05 

15.86 

7.33 

.12 

1.70 

1.45 

1.90 

2.16 

3.26 

3.33 

39/20 

66.29 

1.06 

16.00 

7.19 

.12 

1.70 

1.46 

1.86 

2.16 

3.30 

3.37 

Conclusion 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 0.975 NS 0.975 

NS 

NS 

Standard deviation 

Mean Bottles EITOr 

(d.f.=2) (d.f.=3) 

66.11 0.258 1.0~ Neg. 16.01 0.084 

7.35 Neg. .122 -o 1.70 0.034 

1.45 Neg. 1.94 0.056 2.07 0.078 

3.28 Neg 3.28 0.066 

0.193 

.035 

.104 

.113 

.004 

.031 

.019 

.020 

.035 

.031 

.057 

RGM-1 

Oxide Method 20/3 

Si02 ------------------ XRF 71.48 72.49 

Ti02 ------------------- XRF .29 .29 

AhOa ------------------ XRF 13.82 14.27 

Fe20a(T) -------------- XRF 1.81 1.83 

MnO ------------------ XRF .04 .04 

MgO ------------------ AA .29 .27 

CaO ------------------- XRF 1.19 1.20 

Na20 ------------------ AA 3.99 3.97 

Na20 ------------------ FP 3.91 3.90 

K20 ------------------- XRF 4.25 4.38 

K20 ------------------- FP 4.22 4.09 

H20(T) --------------- 0.71 

1 The six values are identical, and thus there is no variation. 

72.22 . 29 

13.87 

1.80 

.04 

.26 

1.23 

4.03 

3.99 

4.34 

4.33 

Bottle 

2/21 

71.82 .34 

13.83 

1.97 

.04 

.28 

1.18 

4.08 

4.07 

4.33 

4.30 

the .slightly greater risk, N a20 by both .methods 

may be declared homogeneous when tested against 

Fo.975· The mean sums of squares for bottles for both 

Si02 in RGM-1 and Ti02 in BHV0-1 were significantly smaller than the appropriate mean sum of 

squares for error when .tested at Fo.99' but the bottles 

of these samples are declared homogeneous for the 

elements specified. The mean sum of squares for 

bottles is significantly smaller than that for error 

for CaO in QL0-1, but as above, we still declare the 

bottles of QL0-1 homogeneous for CaO as the mean 

sum of squares for bottles is not significantly larger 

than that for error. 

The variances of the N a20 data by flame photometry and atomic absorption, and of the K20 data by 

X-ray fluorescence and atomic absorption, were 

tested at Fo.95 by the ratio of the larger variance 

over the smaller; it was concluded that the eight 

71.51 .28 13.54 

1.92 

.04 

.27 

1.20 

3.99 

4.11 

4.42 

4.32 

18/4 

72.56 .33 14.19 

1.94 

.04 

.29 

1.18 

4.18 

4.00 

4.36 

4.55 

Conclusion 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

(1) 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

Standard de"iation 

Mean Bottles Error ( d.f.=2) ( d.f.=3) 

72.01 Neg. .303 Neg . 13.92 Neg. 

1.88 0.024 .040 

.276 N;g. 

1.20 Neg. 4.04 Neg. 4.00 0.070 

4.35 Neg. 

4.40 0.118 

0.617 

.029 

.319 

.070 

.014 

.022 

.081 

.056 

.059 

.109 

respective pairs of variances did not differ significantly. The differences between the respective pairs 

of means were not tested in view of the generally 

good agreement, and becaus·e of this good agreement, we feel that these data are accurate. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

We thank F. J. Langmyhr for the use of the 

atomic absorption unit at the Kjemisk Institutt at 

Blindern. B. El-Bouseilly and Y. Thomasson assisted with the determinations by flame photometry, 

and B. Bruum kindly made single determinations of 

total H20 for us. 

REFERENCE 

Flanagan, F. J., 1970 Sources of geochemical standards-II: 

Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 34, p. 121-125. 

DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

THE DETERMINATION OF SELECTED ELEMENTS IN THE USGS 

STANDARD ROCKS STM-1 AND RGM-1 

By A. C. S. SMITH 1 and J. N. WALSH 2 

ABSTRACT 

Selected minor oxides and trace elements have been determined in USGS standard rocks STM-1 and RGM-1 by atomic 

absorption and flame emission spectroscopy. One-way analysis 

of variance has shown the rocks to be homogeneous by both 

analysts for all elements, with the possible exception of sodium 

in STM-1 and calcium in RGM-1. Two-way analysis of variance has shown the variation between analysts to be significant 

for sodium and calcium as minor oxides and for copper, zinc, 

lithium, and manganese as trace elements. 

This study was designed not only to estimate concentrations of some minor oxides and trace elements 

in the nepheline syenite STM-1 and the rhyolite 

RGM-1 but also to assess the degree of homogeneity 

within each set of sample bottles and to obtain standard deviations both for bottles and analytical methods. These same data were then used to compare the 

error for the two analysts whose determinations 

were made on identical samples with similar methods and equipment in different laboratories. 

All minor oxides and trace elements were determined by atomic absorption spectrophotometry, 

except sodium and potassium oxides which were determined by flame emission spectroscopy. Both analysts used similar Pye-Unicam spec.trophotometers. 

Two portions from each of three sample bottles per 

rock were analyzed in both laboratories in random 

order; that is, six determinations per element per 

rock for each analyst. Samples were decomposed by 

double evaporation with hydrofluoric and perchloric 

acids, sample-solution ratios being 1:1,000 and 1:50 

for minor oxides and trace elements, respectively. 

Replicate data are given in tables 72 and 73 for 

minor oxides and trace elements, respectively, in 

RGM-1 and STM-1. Minor oxides are expressed as 

percent of the oxide and "total" iron as percent 

Fe20:~. Trace elements are expressed in parts per 

million. Manganese in RGM-1 was determined as a 

trace element as well as a minor oxide because of its 

relatively low concentration. 

Calculations for the one-way analysis of variance 

with the bottles as the variable of classification were 

made on each set of data. The homogeneity of either 

sample for any element or oxide was determined by 

comparing the ratio of the mean sum of squares for 

bottles to the mean sum of squares for analytical 

error with the upper 5 percent of the F distribution 

for the appropriate degrees of freedom. If the calculated F ratio was not significantly greater than 

the value in the table, the bottles of sample were 

declared to be homogeneous for the element or oxide. 

TABLE 72.-Replicate data for minor oxides in RGM-1 and 

STM-1, in percent 

RGM-1 

King's College 

Bottle 13/32 15/21 21/16 

CaO ------------ 1.04 1.02 1.05 .99 1.03 1.05 MgO ------------ .24 .27 .25 

.26 .27 .26 Fe20a ------------ 1.84 1.86 1.84 1.86 1.83 1.83 

MnO ------------ .037 .036 .033 .034 .035 .036 Na20 ----------- 4.07 4.08 4.06 4.10 4.07 4.08 K20 ------------- 4.37 4.39 4.36 

4.34 4.34 4.38 

STM-1 

King's College 

Bottle 15/7 20/12 29/6 

CaO ------------ 0.99 0.96 1.01 1.00 .98 .98 MgO ------------ .06 .07 .09 

.06 .08 .08 Fe203 ----------- 5.08 5.17 5.09 

5.26 5.02 5.13 

MnO ------------ .22 .23 .22 

.22 .22 .23 Na20 ------------ 8.92 8.95 9.01 

8.95 8.85 9.03 

K20 ------------- 4.28 4.33 4.29 

4.29 4.31 4.29 

1 University College, London, England. 2 King's College, London, England. 

University College 

13/32 15/21 21/16 

1.09 0.95 0.98 

.99 1.09 1.09 .27 .25 .23 

.26 .27 .27 

1.81 1.72 1.82 1.90 1.72 1.79 

.031 .041 .036 

.031 .031 .036 4.04 4.10 4.10 4.04 4.16 4.04 4.42 4.33 4.40 4.40 4.33 4.33 

University College 

15/7 20/12 29/6 

1.02 1.04 1.02 1.04 1.05 1.02 .08 .08 .07 .08 .08 .07 5.08 5.14 5.20 5.14 5.14 5.14 

.23 .23 .22 

.23 .22 .20 8.90 8.46 8.64 8.78 8.40 8.50 4.41 4.26 4.33 4.35 4.33 4.35 

83 
84 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

TABLE 73.-Replicate data for trace elements in RGM-1 and 

STM-1, in parts per millio11! 

RGM-1 

King's College University College 

Bottle-------- 13/32 15/21 21/16 13/32 15/21 21/16 

Li ----------------- 46 46 47 40 43 40 47 45 44 40 43 40 Zn ----------------- 32 30 33 38 38 38 33 31 32 38 38 37 Cu ----------------- 13 9 10 16 17 15 11 11 11 17 17 17 

Co ---------------- 5 5 5 8 7 7 5 5 5 9 4 8 Ni ---------------- 5 5 5 15 5 4 5 5 5 6 5 2 Mn ---------------- 283 282 278 248 260 260 323 273 272 260 245 265 

STM-1 

King's College University College 

Bottle -------- 15/7 20/12 29/6 15/7 20/12 29/6 

Li ----------------- 28 27 26 20 20 20 27 27 28 19 20 21 Zn ----------------- 214 211 214 290 277 260 209 212 214 271 281 285 

Cu ---------------- 3 3 3 6 5 6 4 3 4 6 6 6 Co ---------------- 9 4 9 14 10 9 6 6 11 11 15 g 

Ni ----------------- 5 7 5 2 2 2 5 5 5 5 3 2 

Our estimates and conclusions for the data from 

each laboratory are given in tables 74 and 75. 

Standard deviations for analytical error given in 

tables 74 and 75 are the square roots of the mean 

sum of squares for error. Partitioning of the mean 

sum of squares of the variation attributable to the 

variable of classification in the one-way analysis of 

variance has been discussed by Davies (1949), who 

showed that this mean sum of squares, in our case 

for bottles, is composed of analytical (within) variance plus n times the "bottle" variance, where n is 

the number of determinations per bottle. The "bottle" standard deviations in the tables are the square 

roots of the variances obtained after rearranging 

the above relation and solving for the "bottle" 

variance. 

Calculations for a two-way analysis of variance 

were made on the combined data from both laboratories, using the bottles as one variable of classification and the two laboratories as the other, after 

Bennett and Franklin (1954). These calculations 

showed that the between-laboratory variances for 

the trace elements in both samples and for CaO and 

Na20 in STM-1 were significant when tested 

against F o.95• The remaining between-laboratory 

variances were not significant. 

STM-1 was found to be homogeneous for calcium 

oxide at F 0 _9 ,., but the data for RGM-1 for University College indicates it to be heterogeneous at Fo.95' 

but homogeneous at F o.975· The mean of the estimates 

of the calci urn oxide content of the rocks are in good 

agreement between laboratories, but analysis of variance shows that variation attributable to the laboratories is significant for STM-1 and therefore the 

laboratories should estimate calcium oxide inde--

pendently. 

The good agreement between the two laboratories 

for the determination of magnesium oxide in the 

two rocks may well be a reflection of the extreme sensitivity and reliability of the determination of magnesium by atomic absorption spectrophotometry. It was impossible to determine the F 

ratio for the magnesium oxide data of STM-1 deterTABLE 74.-Results of analysis of variance of minor-oxide data for RGM-1 and STM-1 

[Conclusions from analysis of variance; NS, not significant at Fo.95 or fractile shown; d.f., degrees of freedom; Neg., negative variance] 

King's College University College 

Standard deviation Standard deviation 

Oxide Conclu- Mean Bottles Error Conolu- Mean Bottles Error sion (percent) (d.f.=2) (d.f.=3") sion (percent) (d.f.=2) (d.f.=3) 

RGM-1 

CaO ------------- NS 1.03 0.010 0.021 NS 0.975 1.03 Neg. 0.083 

MgO ------------ NS .26 .008 .009 NS . 26 Neg . .019 

FezOa ------------ NS 1.84 Neg. .015 NS 1.78 0.063 .039 

MnO ------------ NS . 04 Neg . .002 NS .04 .004 .004 

NR20 ------------ NS 4.08 Neg. .015 NS 4.08 .039 .035 K~o ------------- NS 4.36 Neg. .025 NS 4.37 .034 .030 

STM-1 

CaO ------------- NS 0.99 0.010 0.015 NS 1.03 0.011 0.009 

Mg() ------------ NS .07 .012 .006 (I) .08 .006 .000 

FezOa ------------ NS 5.13 Neg. .097 NS 5.14 .017 .035 

MnO ------------ NS • 22 Neg . .006 NS .22 .008 .009 

NR20 ------------ NS 8.95 .054 .043 NS 0.975 8.61 .201 .079 

KzO ------------- NS 4.30 .018 .009 NS 4.34 .033 .039 

1 No test; replicate pairs of data identical. 
THE DETERMINATION OF SELECTED ELEMENTS 85 

TABLE 75.-Results of analysis of variance of trace-element data for RGM-1 and STM-1 

[Conclusions from analysis of variance: NS, not significant at Fo.95 or fractile shown; d. f., degrees of freedom; Neg., negative bottle variance] 

King's College University College 

stand.:rd deviation Standard deviation 

Element Conclu- Mean Bottles Error Conclu- Mean Bottles Error sion (ppm) (d.f.=2) (d.f.=3) sion (ppm) (d.f.=2) (d.f.=3) 

RGM-1 

Li --------------- NS 45.8 Neg. 1.35 C> 41.0 

Zn -------------- NS 31.8 1.04 .71 NS 37.8 0.0001 0.41 

Cu -------------- NS 10.8 .58 1.23 NS 16.5 Ne~. .91 

Co -------------- (2) NS 0.995 7.2 1.19 1.35 

Ni -------------- f') NS 6.0 3.04 3.87 

Mn -------------- NS 285.2 9.85 16.92 NS 256.3 Neg. 8.10 

STM-1 

Li --------------- NS 27.2 Ne~. 

Zn -------------- NS 212.3 Neg. 

cu -------------- NS 3.3 Neg. 

Co -------------- NS 7.5 2.20 

Ni -------------- (I) 

1 No test; replicate pairs of data identical. 2 No test; Some replicate data at the limit of estimation of the method. 

mined at University College because each duplicate 

pair of determinations was exactly the same, resulting in a mean sum of squares for error of zero. The 

remaining F ratios indicate that the rocks are homogeneous for magnesium oxide at the upper 5 percent of the F distribution. 

The estimates for the iron contents of both rocks 

for the two analysts agree well. Analytical standard 

deviations are small, as are the standard deviations 

for bottles, and the F ratios for both rocks indicate 

that they are homogeneous at Fo.95• 

Agreement between laboratories is good for estimates of the concentrations of manganese when 

determined as a minor oxide, but variation attributable to laboratories is significant, even at Fo.99' when 

determined as a trace element. However, standard 

deviations within the sample bottles are small, except 

when manganese is determined as a trace element in 

one laboratory (King's College) where it was found 

to be 21 ppm at the 285 ppm level. The samples can 

be considered homogeneous for manganese both as a 

trace element and as a minor oxide. 

Replicate data for sodium, determined by flame 

emission spectroscopy, showed some variability b~ 

tween laboratories for STM-1, with two replicate 

values ranging from 8.40 percent 'to 9.03 percent 

N a20 between laboratories. Even though the mean 

value~"' between laboratories are not grossly different, analysis of variance shows the between-laboratory variation to be significant for Na20 in STM-1 

even at Fo.99• STM-1 was found to be heterogeneous 

for N a20 at the upper 5 percent of the F distribution for the data from University College, but in 

0.91 NS 20.0 0.29 0.58 

2.08 NS 277.3 Ne~. 12.92 

.58 NS 5.8 .00 .41 

1.68 NS 11.2 1.56 2.42 

(2) 

contrast RGM-1 wa;:; found by both laboratories to 

be homogeneous at Fo.95 for this oxide. 

Potassium data, determined by the flame emission 

method, are in good agreement between laboratories 

for both rocks and the samples are found to be 

homogeneous for potassium at Fo.95• 

Trace element data for copper, nickel, and cobalt 

were close to their limits of estimation by the method used. Data for cobalt and nickel for RGM-1 by 

one laboratory (King's College) are reported as a 

single value, 5 ppm, whereas the nickel data for 

STM-1 by both laboratories show scatter that might 

be expected when the concentration is at the limit of 

estimation. No estimates for these elements are 

given in table 75. 

The laboratories should estimate lithium independently because the between-laboratory variation 

is significant at F o.99· One-way analysis of variance 

shows both rocks to be homogeneous at F o.95 for 

lithium by King's College and for lithium in STM-1 

only by University College. The data obtained for 

RGM-1 by University College could not be used 

because replicate pairs of data were identical and 

give a zero mean sum of squares for error and thus 

preclude a test of significance. 

The between-laboratory variation is significant 

for zinc, although there is fair agreement in mean 

values. Analytical standard deviations are 13 ppm at 

the 213-ppm level. The rocks by both analysts are 

homogeneous for zinc at F o.95· 

The data obtained for copper give significant between-laboratory variation even at Fo.99' but because 

the determinations are so near the limit of detection 
86 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

of the method it is considered inadvisable to draw 

any conclusions from this limited amount of data. 

Considerable discrepancies between the laboratories 

exist for the averages of cobalt and nickel. 

Overall, 9 of the 20 elements show significant 

variation between laboratories at F 0 . 95, and it may 

be concluded that laboratories should estimate these 

elements independently. 

REFERENCES CITED 

Bennett, C. A., and Franklin, N. L., 1954, Statistical analysis 

in chemistry and the chemical industry: London, John 

Wiley and Sons, 724 p. 

Davies,. 0. L., 1949, Statistical methods in production and 

research: London, Oliver and Boyd, 292 p. 
DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

HOMOGENEITY OF NIOBIUM CONTENT OF EIGHT USGS 

STANDARD ROCKS 

By E. Y. CAMPBELL and L. P. GREENLAND 

ABSTRACT 

Niobium was determined in two portions of three bottles of 

eight USGS standard rocks by a spectrophotometric technique. 

A one-way analysis of variance of the data showed that the 

niobium contents of RGM-1, AGV-1, QL0-1, GSP-1, SDC-1, 

BCR-1 BHV0-1, and G-2 are homogeneous within the limits 

set by the analytical precision. 

The continuing niobium-tantalum resources program of the U.S. Geological Survey entails a ve14

y 

large number of niobium determinations in igneous 

rocks. The quality of the analyses is controlled by 

inclusion of several standard rocks in each batch of 

samples. It is neces·sary, therefore, to be certain 

that different bottles of the standard rocks all have 

the same niobium content. This section presents data 

from an analysis of variance experiment to determine ·if the niobium contents of eight standard rocks 

that are in routine . use in this laboratory are homogeneous among bottles. 

Three bottles of each of eight standa!'d rocks were 

selected at random. Two portions were taken from 

each bottle, numbered, and randomized. The portions, about 250 mg (milligrams), were then analyzed for their niobium content. 

The analytical method has been described by 

Greenland and Campbell (1974). In brief, samples 

were decomposed with HF-HN03, evaporated to 

dryness, and fused with ·K2S207. The fusion cake 

was dissolved in HCl, the iron was reduced with 

thioglycollic acid, and the CNS complex of niobi urn 

was extracted into amyl alcohol. Niobium was stripped from the organic phase with dilute HF, the 

residual iron was extracted as the CNS complex, and 

the niobium color with PAR was developed in the 

presence of EDTA and tartrate masking agents. The 

absorbance of the sample solutions was compared 

with that of pure niobium standard solutions taken 

through the entire procedure. 

The analytical data and statistical estimates are 

given in table 76. A one-way analysis of variance of 

TABLE 76.-Niobium content, in parts per million, of 

USGS standard rocks 

[Neg., negative bottle variance; NS,not significant at Fo.o-;, (2, 3) =9.55] 

St!lndard Deviation 

Sample Bottle Nb Mean Bottles Error F (d.f-=2) (d.f.=3) 

QLO-I ________ A I1.2, 11.8 I1.7 0.526 0.476 3.4 NS 

B 11.2, 11.2 

c 11.9, I2.9 

GSP-I ---------A 27.8, 29.0 28.7 Neg. .853 <I llrS B 27.9, 29.6 

c 29.I, 28.9 

SDC-I _________ A 20.9, 21.6 2I.I Neg. 1.268 <INS 

B 21.4, 21.0 

c 22.4, 19.4 

BCR-I ---- ____ A I6.0, 14.7 I5.6 .231 .727 1.2 NS 

B 15.7, 16.9 

c 15.2, 15.4 

BHVO-I ______ A 22.5, 21.0 21.0 Neg. 1.067 <I NS 

B 21.5, 19.8 

c 21.2, I9.9 

G--2 -----------A I2.8, 13.7 I3.4 .338 .389 2.5 NS 

B I3.9, 14.0 

c 13.0, 13.7 

RGM-I ________ A 9.5, 9.5 9.4 .07~ .289 1.1 NS 

B 8.8, 9.5 

c 9.6, 9.5 

AGV-I ________ A I5.3, 15.5 15.7 Neg. 1.004 <1 NS 

B 16.0, 15.5 

c 14.8, 17.2 

these data was made to determine if the variance in 

the niobium content among bottles was significantly 

greater than the variance within bottles for any 

given standard rock. In no case was the mean sum 

of squares for bottles significantly greater (95-percent confidence level) than the variation within 

bottles. 

It may be concluded, then, that the niobium contents of these standard rocks are homogeneous within the limits set by the analytical precision. The 

original randomization of the experimental design 

ensures that this conclusion may be extrapolated to 

the entire lot of bottles of a given standard rock. 

REFERENCES CITED 

Greenland, L. P., and Campbell, E. Y., 1974, Spectrophotometric 

determination of niobium in rocks; U.S. Geol. Survey 

Jour. Research, v. 2, no. 3, p. 353-355. 

87 

DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

X-RAY FLUORESCENCE ANALYSIS OF 21 SELECTED l\1AJOR, MINOR, 

AND TRACE ELEMENTS IN EIGHT NE"\V USGS STANDARD ROCKS 

By B. P. FABBI and L. F. EsPos 

ABSTRACT 

X-ray fluorescence techniques were used to determine the 

Si02, Al20a, total iron as Fe20a, MgO, CaO, Na20, K20, Ti02, 

P20s, MnO, total sulfur as S, Cl, As, Ba, Ni, Rb, Sc, Sr, V, Zn, 

and Zr contents of the USGS standard rocks STM-1, RGM-1, 

QL0-1, MAG-1, SDC-1, BHV0-1, SCo-1, and SGR-1. Duplicate splits from each of three bottles of each rock were analyzed 

in random order. Analysis of variance suggests that the bottles 

are homogeneous at Fo.lls for all oxides and elements except for 

K20 and Rb in STM-1, Na20 in MAG-1, and Zn in BHV0-1. 

As part of a continuing program to provide reference standards for geochemical investigations, eight 

new USGS standard rocks-nepheline syenite STM1, rhyolitic obsidian RGM-1, quartz latite QL0-1, 

marine mud MAG-1, mica schist SDC-1, Hawaiian 

basalt BHV0-1, Cody Shale SCo-1, and shale of the 

Green River Formation, SGR-1-have been analyzed for 21 selected major and minor oxides and for 

trace elements by X-ray fluorescence methods of 

Fabbi and Moore (1970), Fabbi (1971, 1972), and 

Fabbi and Espos (1972a, b). Two portions from 

three randomly selected bottles of each rock were 

analyzed for each element. Calculations for a oneway experimental design with the three bottles of 

samples as the variable of classification were made 

for the data reported. 

Silica, Al20a, total iron as Fe20a, MgO, CaO, K20, 

Ti02, and P205 were determined simultaneously on 

a multichannel Quantometer (Applied Research 

Laboratories VXQ-25000). Sodium oxide, MnO, 

total sulfur as S, Cl, As, Ba, Ni, Rb, Sc, Sr, V, Zn, 

and Zr were determined on a single-channel vacuum 

spectrograph (General Electric XRD-6) with a dual 

target ( Cr and W) tube and a pulse-height analyzer. Operating conditions for the Quantometer 

and spectrograph are given in tables 77 and 78, 

respectively. Matrix effects were avoided in the 

major and minor oxide determinations by fusing 

the standards and samples with LiB02 in a sampleflux ratio of 1:14. After the button resulting from 

the fusion has been powdered, three parts of 

binder for each part of sample were added to assist 

in forming the pellet. Other minor and trace elements were determined on pellets prepared by direct 

dilution using one part of sample to one part of 

binder. Sodium oxide was determined using the 

direct dilution technique because matrix effects were 

found to be nearly negligible and the detection limit 

and counting rates were more favorable. Calibration 

curves were prepared using 17 USGS, SSC, MRT, 

CRPG and Len-X standard rocks (Flanagan, 1970). ' . The determinations in table 79 for the maJor, 

minor, and trace constituents of the six portions of 

each rock standard were made in random order for 

any specific oxide or element. Antimony is one of 

seven trace elements that we can determine routinely but the antimony content of all these samples 

was found to be less than 70 ppm. Arsenic was found 

to be greater than 5 ppm only in the two shales, 

SCo-1 and SGR-1. 

Estimates of means, conclusions resulting from 

the analysis of variance, and standard deviations 

are also given in table 79. The calculated F ratios of 

MSS (bottles) /MSS (error) were tested at Fo.!l:o 

( d.f. = 2, 3) = 9.55. For those conclusions for which 

a fractile of the F distribution is specified, for example, NS ( 0. 99) , the calculated ratio is not significant (NS) at Fo.99' but is significant at both Fo.9s 

and F 0 .975. A comparison of the calculated F ratios 

with appropriate F values in table 79 indicates that 

TABLE 77.-X-ray Quantometer operating conditions 

[X-ray tube operated at 30 kV and 50 ma) 

Oounter 

Element Crystal and voltage 

Si ---------- EDDT ----- Ne Minitron, fixed ------ AI ---------- EDDT ----- ____ do ------------------ Fe ______ ____ LiF ------- Ar Multitron, fixed ------

Mg --------- ADP ------ Ne Minitron, fixed ------ Ca ---------- LiF ------- Ne Multitron, fixed ------ K ----------- LiF ------- ----do ------------------ Ti ---------- LiF ------- ----dO ------------------ p ----------- EDDT ----- Ne Minitron, fixed ------

Path 

Vacuum. 

Do. 

Air. 

Vacuum. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

89 
90 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

TABLE 78.-X-ray spectrograph operating conditions 

[Pulse height analyzer was used for all elements] 

BackEfement Target Crystal 

Peak, 

28 

ground, 

28 Line Detector Path 

Na ----- Cr RAP -------- 54.23 K .. Flow Vacuum. 

Mn ----- w LiF-4.08A --- 62.97 K .. ____ do ---- Air. 

s Cr PE 75.76 - K .. ____ do---- Vacuuni. ------- ---------- Cl Cr PE ---------- 65.42 K .. ____ do ____ Do. 

As w LiF-2.85A ---- 48.83 47.8 K .. Flow ----- Air. 

+ 

49.8 Xenon 

Ba w LiF-4.08A ---- 87.13 88.4 L .. Flow ----- Do. 

Ni w LiF-2.85A ---- 71.26 70.2 K .. Flow ----- Do. 

+ 

Xenon 

Rb w LiF-2.85A ---- 37.99 37.0 K .. Flow ----- Do. 

+ 

39.0 Xenon 

Sb Cr LiF-4.08A ____ 106.46 108.0 L, Flow Do. 

Sc w LiF-4.08A ____ 97.71 97.0 K .. ____ do ____ Vacuum. 

Sr w LiF~2.85A ---- 35.85 34.8 K .. Flow ----- Air. 

+ 

37.0 Xenon 

v ------- w LiF-2.85A ____ 123.16 120.6 K .. Flow ----- Do. 

Zn Cr LiF-2.85A ---- 60.58 59.3 K .. Flow ----- Do. 

+ 

61.5 Xenon 

Zr w LiF -2.85A ____ 32.10 31.2 K .. Xenon Do. 

33.0 

TABLE 79.-X-ray fluorescence determinations and estimates for standard samples 

[T, total. Conclusions from the analysis of variance: S or NS, significant or not significant at Fo.95 or at the fractile of the F distribution shown; d.f., degrees of freedom; Neg., negative bottle variance] 

Oxide or element 

SiOz ------------------- AhOa ------------------ Fe20a(T) --------------

MgO ------------------

CaO ------------------- Naill ------------------ K20 ------------------- TiOz -------------------

PzOs ------------------- MnO ------------------ S(T) ------------------ C1 ------------~-------

As --------------------- Ba -------------------- Ni -------------------- Rb --------------------

Sc --------------------- Sr --------------------- V --------------------- Zn --------------------

Zr ---------------------

Oxide or element 

Si02 -------------------

AhOa ------------------ FeOa(T) -------------- MgO ------------------

CaO ------------------- Na20 ------------------ K20 ------------------- TiOz -------------------

PzOs ------------------- MnO ------------------ S(T) ------------------ Cl ---------------------

60.37 

18.94 

5.40 

.48 

1.17 

8.69 

4.28 

.16 

.17 

.255 <.005 

.0415 

<5 

610 

<4 

113 

<5 

714 

<10 

262 

1,246 

73.03 

14.11 

1.94 

. 44 

1.22 

3.92 

4.12 

.29 

.06 

.038 

<.005 

.0445 

16/16 

60.24 

18.82 

5.40 

.25 

1.14 

8.73 

4.26 

.17 

.16 

.252 <.005 

.0415 

<5 

620 <4 

114 

<5 

706 

<10 

264 

1,238 

1/27 

73.24 

13.90 

1.98 

.41 

1.27 

3.94 

4.25 

.30 

.04 

.035 

<.005 

.0410 

STM-1, NEPHELINE SYENITE 

60.14 

18.16 

5.33 

.31 

1.16 

8.83 

4.22 

.17 

.15 

.253 <.005 

.0425 

<5 

620 6 110 

<5 

714 

<10 

267 

1,240 

Bottle 

27/27 

In percent 

60.00 

18.89 

5.36 

.29 

1.16 

9.19 

4.20 

.15 

.15 

.253 <.005 

.0415 

60.26 

18.79 

5.38 

.37 

1.15 

9.02 

4.31 

.16 

.18 

.254 

<.005 

.0425 

In parts per million 

<5 

610 

-4 

109 

<5 

699 

<10 

250 

1,219 

<5 

610 

8 115 

<5 

718 

<10 

264 

1,220 

RGM-1, RHYOLITE 

73.15 

13.81 

1.93 

.36 

1.22 

3.82 

4.13 

.30 

.05 

.038 

<.005 

.0460 

Bottle 

62/13 

In percent 

73.63 

13.88 

1.94 

.48 

1.26 

4.01 

4.36 

.29 

.no 

. 038 

<.005 

.0415 

72.90 

13.83 

1.96 

.27 

1.22 

3.90 

4.12 

.29 

.05 

.038 

<.005 

. 0470 

40/60 Conclusions 

59.93 NS 18.81 NS 5.36 NS .37 NS 

1.16 NS 9.0'1 NS 4.31 s 0.99 .17 NS 

. 15 NS . 255 NS <.005 

.0425 NS 

Mean 

60.157 

18.735 

5.372 

• 345 

1.157 

8.922 

4-.263 

. 16a 

.16o 

.254 

.0420o 

<5 

600 NS 611.7 

6 

116 s 0.99 112.8 

<5 

717 NS 711.3 

<10 

253 

1,224 

NS 260.0 

16/15 

NS 1,231 

Conclusions 

72.99 NS 13.80 NS 1.95 NS .42 NS 

1.25 NS 3.95 NS 4.31 NS .29 NS 

. 04 NS .037 NS <.005 

.0440 NS 

Mean 

73.156 

13.88s 

1.95o 

.397 

1.24o 

3.92a 

4.215 

.29a 

.04s 

.037 

.0440 

Standard deviation 

Bottles Error 

(d.f.=2) (d.f.=3) 

0.067 

Neg. 

0.02s 

Neg . 

Neg. .15o 

.05o Neg . 

Neg . Neg . 

.0004t 

2.9 

3·.01 

2.7 

Neg. 

7.7 

0.15e 

.302 

.01& 

.09, 

.13o 

.149 

.Oh 

.01o 

.Ob 

.001a 

.0004t 

7.1 

.71 

7.0 

8.3 

9.3 

Standard deviation 

Bottles Error 

(d.f.=2) (d.f.=3) 

0.162 

.079 

.005 Neg . 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg . Neg . 

Neg . 

0.217 

.09t 

.017 

.079 

.029 

.OSt 

.13a 

.006 

.009 

.OOla 

.00263 
X-RAY FLUORESCENCE ANALYSIS OF 21 SELECTED MAJOR, MINOR, AND TRACE ELEMENTS 91 

TABLE 79.-X-ray fluorescence determinations and estimates for standard samples-Continued 

As 

Ba 

Ni 

Rb 

Oxide or element 

Sc --------------------- Sr -------------------- V ---------------------

Zn -------------------- Zr ---------------------

Oxide or element 

SiQ2 ------------------- AbOa ------------------ Fe20a(T) --------------

MgO ------------------ -• 

CaO -------------------

Na20 ------------------ K20 ------------------- Ti02 -------------------

P20s ------------------- MnO ------------------ S (T) ------------------

Cl ---------------------

As 

Ba 

Ni 

Rb 

Sc --------------------- Sr --------------------- V -------------------- Zn --------------------- Zr --------------------

Oxide or element 

Si02 ------------------- AbOa ------------------ Fe20a(T) --------------

MgO ------------------

CaO ------------------- Na20 ------------------

K20 ------------------- Ti02 -------------------

P20s ------------------- MnO ------------------ 8 (T) -------------------

Cl ---------------------

As --------------------- Ba --------------------

Ni -------------------- Rb --------------------

Sc --------------------- Sr --------------------- V ----------------------

Zn -------------------- Zr ---------------------

<5 

800 

14 

157 

6 115 

-10 

24 

221 

64.96 

15.82 

4.39 

.94 

3.16 

4.13 

3.52 

.64 

.21 

. 098 

<.005 

.0182 

<5 

1,400 11 

67 

9 

332 

55 

52 

182 

50.89 

16.54 

7.06 

2.93 

1.40 

3.50 

3.56 

.76 

.17 

.113 

. 47 

3.19 

<5 

500 

56 

191 

19 

174 

147 

166 

131 

1/27 

<5 

820 

-4 

137 

6 103 

21 

10 

196 

63/6 

65.41 

16.41 

4.43 

.83 

3.18 

4.19 

3.49 

.64 

.27 

.098 

<.005 

.0187 

<5 

1,400 10 

67 

12 

339 

50 

52 

169 

60/26 

52.09 

16.67 

7.13 

2.75 

1.39 

3.46 

3.59 

.75 

.18 

.112 

.45 

3.12 

8 520 

54 

181 

19 

169 

145 

149" 

128 

RGM-1, RHYOLITE-Continued 

Bottle 

62/13 16/15 

In parts per million 

Conclusons Mean 

Standard deviation 

Bottles Error (d.f.=2) (d.f.=3) 

--------------------------------------------------- <5 

820 

12 

156 

8 117 

14 

29 

215 

<5 

840 

15 

158 

6 120 

16 

23 

203 

<5 

840 

27 

158 

7 

122 

13 

22 

217 

QL0-1, QUARTZ LATITE 

65.15 

16.22 

4.42 

.97 

3.18 

4.10 

3.55 

.64 

.23 

.095 

<.005 

.0191 

<5 

1,350 13 

61 

9 296 

57 

22 

163 

Bottle 

3/7 

In percent 

64.50 

15.99 

4.41 

.92 

3.17 

3.93 

3.44 

.63 

.20 

.098 

<.005 

.0196 

65.39 

16.02 

4.32 

.97 

3.18 

4.00 

3.56 

.63 

.22 

.097 

<.005 

.0195 

In parts per million 

<5 1,400 

-4 

72 

11 

339 

49 

48 

180 

<5 1,400 6 

74 

13 

334 

55 

50 

178 

MAG-I, MARINE MUD 

50.18 

16.72 

7.09 

2.76 

1.42 

3.33 

3.55 

.76 

.16 

.114 

.46 

3.07 

<5 

530 

54 

187 

19 

164 

141 

148 

132 

Bottle 

13/17 

In percent 

50.87 

16.63 

7.12 

2.72 

1.43 

3.22 

3.53 

.76 

.17 

.114 

.46 

2.98 

50.71 

17.33 

7.07 

3.01 

1.39 

3.55 

3.62 

.75 

.15 

.113 

.47 

3.24 

In parts per million 

<5 

530 

53 

187 

22 

169 

138 

144 

125 

9 

500 

53 

186 

22 

165 

141 

146 

132 

<5 

840 

12 

159 

-5 

121 

14 

23 

218 

17/3 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

Conclusions 

65.52 NS 16.29 NS 4.60 NS 1.03 NS 

3.19 NS 4.18 NS 3.43 NS .63 NS 

.25 NS .100 NS 

<.005 

.0202 NS 

<5 

1,400 11 

66 

14 

336 

49 

43 

180 

66/14 

50.49 

16.75 

7.09 

2.85 

1.47 

3.53 

3.58 

.75 

.21 

.113 

.46 

3.16 

-5 

500 

54 

186 

20 

164 

138 

144 

135 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

Conclusions 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 0.99 NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

826.7 

14.0 

154.2 

6.3 116.5 

14.7 

21.8 

211.7 

Mean 

65.15s 

16.125 

4.42s 

.94a 

3.177 

4.077 

3.49s 

.635 

.23o 

.0977 

.01922 

1,391.7 9.2 

67.8 

11.3 

329.3 

52.5 

44.5 

175.3 

Mean 

50.872 

16.77a 

7.09a 

2.837 

1.417 

3.432 

3.572 

.75a 

. 173 

.1132 

.462 

3.127 

513.3 

53.8 

186.3 

20.2 

167.5 

141.7 

147.8 

130.5 

12.9 

Neg. 

2.3 

Neg. 

5.6 

Neg. 

1.1 

Neg. 

11.5 

7.5 

8.2 

1.2 

5.0 

4.6 

6.2 

11.3 

Standard deviation 

Bottles Error (d.f.=2) (d.f.=3) 

0.21s 

Neg. 

Neg. .042 

.OOa Neg. 

Neg. 

.oo, 

Neg. 

Neg . 

0.0006s 

0 

Neg. 

Neg. 

1.6 

Neg. 

Neg. 

3.8 

Neg. 

0.327 

.28t 

.11e 

.05s 

.010 

.lOt 

.07t 

.oo, 

.03o 

.0017 

.0004t 

20.4 

4.2 

5.6 

1.5 

17.8 

4.6 

11.0 

8.8 

Standard deviation 

Bottles Error (d.f.=2) (d.f.=3) 

0.35a 

.156 Neg. 

.064 

Neg. .135 

.026 

Neg . .0007t Neg . 

.08t 

14.1 .29 Neg. 

0 

2.96 

3.50 

3.29 

1.19 

0.572 

.24s 

.032 

.01o 

0 

.03a 

.04s 

.022 

.02s 

.00041 

.009 

.057 

8.2 

.71 

4.1 

1.47 

2.92 

1.91 

3.89 

3.84 
92 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

TABLE 79.-X-ray fluorescence determinations and estimates for standard samples-Continued 

Oxide or element 

Si02 -------------------

AbOa ------------------ Fe20a(T) --------------

MgO ------------------

CaO ------------------- Na20 ------------------

K20 ------------------- TiOz -------------------

P20s ------------------- MnO ------------------ S{T) ------------------ Cl --------------------

As --------------------- Ba -------------------- Ni --------------------

Rb --------------------

Sc --------------------- Sr --------------------- V ----------------------

Zn -------------------- Zr ---------------------

Oxide or element 

Si02 -------------------

AhOa ------------------ Fe20a(T) --------------

MgO -------------------

CaO ------------------- Na20 ------------------ K20 ------------------- Ti02 -------------------

l?zOs ------------------- MnO ------------------ 8 (T) ___ --------- _ -----

Cl ---------------------

As --------------------- Ba --------------------

Ni -------------------- Rb --------------------

Sc --------------------- Sr ---------------------

V --------------------- Zn -------------------- Zr ---------------------

Oxide or element 

Si02 ------------------- AhOa ------------------ Fe20a(T) -------------- MgO ---------------- __ 

CaO ------------------- Na20 ------------------ K20 ------------------- Ti02 -------------------

P205 -------------------

MnO ------------------ S (T) --------------- __ _ 

Cl ---------------------

As 

Ba 

Ni 

Rb 

Sc --------------------- Sr --------------------- V ----------------------

Zn -------------------- Zr ---------------------

64.72 

16.37 

7.20 

1.67 

1.45 

1.98 

3.18 

1.04 

<5 

690 

41 

128 

20 

199 

108 

106 

301 

.15 

.121 

.05 

.0053 

51.63 

13.93 

11.89 

6.84 

11.44 

2.37 

.51 

2.74 

.23 

.162 

<.005 

.0091 

<5 

131 

128 

10 

28 

376 

330 

83 

158 

63.30 

13.84 

5.22 

2.38 

2.58 

.83' 

2.62 

.61 

.16 

.060 

.06 

.0077. 

9 620 

28 

124 

23 

194 

138 

112 

176 

106/8 

64.97 

16.79 

7.09 

1.54 

1.40 

1.98 

3.35 

1.02 

<5 

680 

41 

128 

20 

201 

102 

108 

301 

28/19 

.17 

.119 

.05 

.0041 

50.67 

14.09 

11.97 

6.98 

11.54 

2.47 

.49 

2.73 

.23 

.162 

<.005 

.0102 

<5 

105 

122 7 

29 

371 

310 

84 

155 

10/16 

63.14 

14.00 

5.24 

2.48 

2.59 

.73 

2.69 

.61 

12 

630 

30 

122 

.21 

.060 

.06 

.0072 

19 

194 

140 

115 

178 

SDC-1, MICA SCHIST 

65.11 

16.61 

7.20 

1.57 

1.52 

1.94 

3.16 

1.04 

<5 

700 

41 

127 

21 

207 

105 

110 

288 

.16 

.120 

.05 

.0038 

Bottle 

76/9 

In percent 

65.48 

16.41 

7.12 

1.52 

1.46 

2.00 

3.26 

1.03 

.14 

.118 

.05 

.0035 

65.75 

16.77 

7.20 

1.59 

1.50 

1.97 

3.21 

1.05 

.15 

.120 

.05 

.0030 

In parts per million 

<5 

670 

40 

133 

17 

201 

99 

106 

300 

<5 

670 

40 

126 

18 

192 

108 

93 

294 

BHV0-1, BASALT 

51.50 

13.30 

11.92 

6.84 

11.55 

2.32 

.50 

2.69 

.19 

.160 

<.005 

.0089 

<5 

133 

118 7 

27 

370 

320 

89 

152 

Bottle 

19/12 

In percent 

50.30 

14.11 

11.86 

6.87 

11.46 

2.39 

.52 

2.73 

.27 

.161 

<.005 

.0085 

50.37 

13.93 

11.91 

7.04 

11.45 

2.39 

.58 

2.74 

.22 

.161 

<.005 

.0106 

In parts per million 

<5 

111 

120 

10 

27 

381 

315 

86 

158 

<5 

144 

118 8 

29 

381 

315 

89 

152 

SCo-1, CODY SHALE 

62.88 

13.86 

5.19 

2.31 

2.55 

.82 

2.65 

.60 

10 

600 

28 

121 

19 

190 

136 

115 

172 

.18 

.060 

.06 

.0068 

Bottle 

19/18 

In percent 

62.63 

13.81 

5.27 

2.22 

2.54 

.76 

2.65 

.61 

.21 

.061 

.06 

0063 

61.48 

13.53 

5.29 

2.29 

2.59 

.79 

2.62 

.62 

.21 

.060 

.06 

.0053 

In parts per million 

14 

620 

26 

120 

16 

193 

138 

117 

179 

8 610 

29 

122 

19 

196 

135 

119 

175 

65/5 

Conclusions 

66.35 NS 17.14 NS 7.42 NS 1.59 NS 

1.53 NS 2.02 NS 3.45 NS 1.08 NS 

.13 NS .120 NS .04 NS .0034 NS 

<5 

640 

41 

132 

NS 

NS 

N~ 

18 

202 

113 

104 

310 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

11/31 

Conclusions 

50.55 NS 14.40 NS 11.95 NS 7.12 NS 

11.43 NS 2.16 NS .54 NS 2.72 NS 

.27 NS .164 NS 

<.005 

<5 

135 

123 

10 

28 

369 

305 

90 

161 

21/15 

.0084 NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 0.975 NS 

Conclusions 

63.42 NS 13.80 NS 5.21 NS 2.27 NS 

2.55 NS . 76 NS 2.70 NS 

12 

650 

so 

124 

20 

193 

140 

115 

185 

.59 NS 

.22 NS .061 NS .06 NS .0073 NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

Mean 

65.396 

16.682 

7.20s 

1.58o 

1.477 

1.982 

3.26s 

1.04a 

.15o 

. 1197 

.048 

.0038s 

675.0 

40.7 

129.0 

19.0 

200.3 

105.8 

11)4.5 

299.0 

Mean 

50.837 

13.96o 

11.917 

6.94s 

11.47s 

2.35o 

.52 a 2.72a 

. 235 

.1616 

. 0092s 

126.5 

121.5 8.7 

28.0 

374.7 

315.8 86.8 15"6.0 

Mean 

62.80s 

13.807 

5.237 

2.32s 

2.567 

.782 

2.65~ 

. 607 

. 19s 

. 060 

.06 

. 00677 

10.8 

621.7 

28.5 

122.2 

19.3 

193.3 

137.8 

115.5 

177.5 

Standard deviation 

Bottle Error (d.f.=2) (d.f.=3) 

0.569 

.167 

.05z Neg. 

.04o Neg. 

Neg. .Ole 

0 

Neg . 

0 

.00067 

11.9 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

.82 

3.2 

3.9 

Neg. 

0.30s 

.24a 

.106 

.057 

.034 

.03z 

.12T 

.015 

.014 

.0012 

.004 

.0005:1 

17.8 .58 

3.46 

1.6 

4.83 

4.0 

4.8 

8.2 

Standard deviation 

Bottle Error (d.f.=2) (d.f.=3) 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

.107 

Neg. 

Neg. 

.02o 

0 

Ne~ . 

.0005 

Neg . 

5.2 

2.1 

Neg. 

.76 Neg. 

Neg. 

2.90 

Neg. 

0.632 

.388 

.044 

.067 

.056 

.106 

.020 

.019 

.038 

.0013 

.00102 

14.4 

3.3 

1.9 

.58 

6.95 

9.35 

1.35 

4.58 

Standard deviation 

Bottle Error (d.f.=2) (d.f.=3) 

Neg. 

0.922 

Neg. 

.082 

.016 Neg . Neg. 

Neg . 

Neg . Neg . 0 

Neg . 

Neg. 

Neg. 

1.0 

1.15 

.96 

1.04 

Net. .91 Neg. 

0.80t 

.13o 

.047 

.056 

.Oh 

.049 

.04a 

.Ola 

.024 

.00058 

0 

.00087 

2.61 

18.7 

1.22 

1.22 

2.08 

1.73 

2.34 

2.20 

5.05 
X-RAY FLUORESCENCE ANALYSIS OF 21 SELECTED MAJOR, MINOR, AND TRACE ELEMENTS 93 

TABLE 79.-X-ray fluorescence determinations and estimates for standard samples-Continued 

S.GR-1, SHALE OF THE GREEN RIVER FORMATION 

Oxide or element 54/17 

Bottle 

57/28 34/15 

Conclusions Mean 

Standard deviation 

Bottle Error (d.f.=2) (d.f.=3) 

In percent 

Si02 ------------------- AhOa ------------------ Fe20a(T) --------------

28.15 

7.11 

3.18 

4.28 

8.88 

2.67 

1.69 

28.48 

7.69 

3.23 

4.81 

8.91 

2.69 

28.89 

7.17 

3.11 

4.59 

8.99 

2.69 

1.71 

27.90 

7.47 

3.25 

4.38 

8.75 

2.55 

1.71 

28.82 

7.03 

3.19 

4.83 

8.88 

2.67 

1.64 

27.50 

7.01 

3.25 

4.16 

8.83 

2.72 

1.73 

28.29o 

7.247 

3.202 

4.50A 

8.87a 

2.66r. 

1.7lo 

Neg. 0:~~~ 

MgO ------------------- CaO ------------------- Na20 ------------------

Kl!O ------------------- Ti02 ------------------- P205 ------------------- MnO ------------------

.36 

.33 

.042 

1. 78 

.36 

.30 

.043 

.36 

.29 

.043 

.35 

.28 

.042 

.35 

.28 

.043 

.36 

.31 

.043 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

.357 

.29s 

. 0427 

1.89~ 

.00447 

0.06s 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. .009 Neg . Neg. .00032 

.065 

.359 

.lOt 

.06t 

.052 

.OOe 

.Ols 

.OOOe 

.Oh 

.00036 S(T) ------------------- Cl ---------------------

1.90 

.0039 1.89 

.0041 1.90 

.0"045 1.90 .0050 1.87 

.0043 1.91 

.005 

In parts per million 

As --------------------- Ba -------------------- Ni -------------------- Rb -------------------- Sc --------------------- Sr --------------------- V --------------------- Zn -------------------- Zr ---------------------

75 

320 

43 

92 

10 

442 

134 

99 

60 

74 

330 

40 

90 

-5 

441 

139 

100 

62 

75 

325 

36 

94 

11 

440 

134 

105 

65 

75 

340 

39 

93 <5 

454 

133 

94 

54 

there are only a few departures from the null hypothesis at Fo.'il5 in any of-the samples. When the F 

ratio is not significant, one can conclude that the content of the bottles is homogeneous for each of the 

standard rocks. The K20 and Rb contents of STM-1 

are heterogeneous at Fo.99• Users of the samples may 

decide if they wish to accept the N a20 content of 

MAG-1 as homogeneous at Fo.99 and the Zn content 

of BHV0-1 as homogeneous at F o.975 • The conclusions reached from these analyses of variance may 

also be extended to the entire lot of bottles of any 

sample because of the original random selection of 

the bottles. Analyses of variance were not calculated 

for those determinations where an observation <X 

occurred more than onee. For Sc in SGR-1 where 

<X occurred only once and all other values were 

quantitative, the <X was discarded, and the average 

of the five remaining data inserted in its place so that 

the analysis of variance could be completed. Where 

such substitutions were made, the conclusions and 

estimates from the analysis of variance may differ 

slightly from those that might have been obtained 

had all the data been quantitative. All values given 

in the tables as --X were assumed to be a definite 

value, and the analyses of variance were made under that assumption. 

Seventy-nine of the 151 variances for bottles are 

listed as negative and these have been noted "Neg." 

73 

330 

39 

92 

11 

450 

134 

77 

56 

75 

325 

38 

92 

9 443 

130 

98 

58 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

74.5 

328.3 

39.2 

92.2 

445.0 

134.0 

95.5 

59.2 

Neg. 

Neg. 

1.7 

1.08 

Neg. 

1.3 

1.04 

Neg. 

0.91 

7.64 

1.8 

.91 

6.4 

2.6 

9.7 

4.6 

in the columns for bottle standard deviation in table 

79. No F test could be made and therefore a conclusion not reached for the Ti02 data in MAG-1 

because the error mean square was zero. The negative values for the bottle variance may be attributed 

to sample fluctuations of the variance about an 

average value of zero. This may be anticipated in 

about half the tests. 

REFERENCES CITED 

Fabbi, B. P., 1971, X-ray fluorescence determination of barium 

and strontium in geologic samples: Appl. Spectroscopy, v. 

25, p. 316-318. 

---1972, A refined fusion X-ray flourescence technique, and 

determination of major and minor elements in silicate 

standards: Am. Mineralogist, v. 57, p. 237-245. 

Fabbi, B. P., and Espos, L. F .. , 1972a, X-ray fluorescence determination of arsenic, antimony, nickel, rubidium, scandium, vanadium, and zinc in rock standards and other rock 

samples: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 800-B, p. B147-

B150. 

---1972b, X-ray fluorescence determination of chlorine in 

standard silicate rocks: Appl. Spectroscopy, v. 26, p. 29,3-

295., 

Fabbi, B. P., and Moore, W. J., 1970, Rapid X-ray flourescence 

determination of sulfur in mineralized rocks from the 

Bingham mining district, Utah: Appl. Spectroscopy, v. 24, 

p. 426-428. 

Flanagan, F. J., 1970, Sources of geochemical standards-II: 

Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 34, p. 121-125. 

DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

TITANIUM AND TRACE ELEMENT DATA IN USGS STANDARD 

ROCKS SCo-1 AND SGR-1 

By IsAAC B. BRENNER 1 and A. HAREL 2 

ABSTRACT 

Titanium and 12 trace elements ( B, Ba, Co, Cr, Cu, Ga, 

Mn, Ni, Ph, Sr, V and Zr) were determined in shales SGR1 and SCo-1 by direct-current emission spectroscopy. Standardization was achieved by use of Si02 matrices containing 8 

percent Na+K as carbonates spiked with known amounts of 

Specpure compounds. For SGR-1 and SCo-1, analyses were 

usually made on three portions of each of four bottles to 

evaluate sample homogeneity. Variance analysis confirms that 

both samples are homogeneous for most elements but that 

,SGR-1 is heterogeneous for B and Co. 

INTRODUCTION 

Three portions of four different bottles of two 

new USGS standards-the shale of the Green River 

Formation, SGR-1, and the Cody Shale, SCo-1-

were analyzed by direct-current emission spectroscopy as part of a program to furnish data for 

standardization of these samples. Titanium and 12 

trace elements (B, Ba, Co, Cr, Cu, Ga, Mn, Ni, Pb; 

Sr, V, and Zr) were determined. The detailed description of the procedure used is given by Avni, 

Harel, and Brenner (1972), and only the highlights 

are described herein. 

The methods of trace-element analysis of silicate 

rocks and minerals, described by Avni, Harel, and 

Brenner (1972), are calibrated by synthetic silicabased standards. This new approach was established 

after studying volatilization rates and several 

plasma parameters (temperature, electric field, electron density, and line intensity) of the direct-current-arc plasmas of silica and silicates containing 

impurities. Addition of graphite to the silica and 

silicates (1 part sample plus 5 parts graphite) resulted in equal volatilization rates of material from 

the electrode into the arc plasma and equal values 

1 Geological Survey of Israel. 2 Israel Atomic Energy Commission. 

of temperature, electric field, electron density, and 

line intensity of the impurities in the central part 

of the plasma ( --2 mm). The values are independent 

of the concentration of the major components (Alf 

Mg, Ca, Fe, Na, and K). This method, evaluated by 

analyzing several international geochemical standards, was shown to be reliable (A vni and others, 

1972). 

ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE 

Synthetic standards were prepared by adding the 

desired amounts of Johnson Matthey Specpure compounds to Specpure Si02; 4 percent Na and 4 percent K (both as carbonates) were added, and the 

bulk was mixed with graphite in a ratio of 1:5 (100 

mg of standard and 500 mg of graphite) . 

The silicate samples having a particle size less 

than 200 mesh were mixed with graphite in a ratio 

of 1:5 (100 mg sample and 500 mg graphite). 

The spectrographic conditions previously published (Avni and others, 1972) were used except 

for the substitution of a slit width of 0.025 mm and 

of a vertical aperture of 2 mm in the central portion of the 6-mm gap. The several analytical lines 

used and their working ranges and the statistics 

for the standard working curves are also given in 

Avni, Harel, and Brenner (1972, table 2). 

RESULTS 

Three nortions from each of the four bottles of 

SG R-1 a~d of SCo-1 were arced in random order 

onto several plates that were processed under stringent darkroom conditions. Line densities were measured on a Jarrell-Ash nonrecording microphotometer. Seidel conversion of percentage transmission, 

intensities, working curves, and contents of samples 

95 
96 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

TABLE SQ.-Quantitative spectrographic determinations of trace and minor elements in Cody Shale, SCo-1 

[In parts per million. Conclusions from the analysis of variance: NS, not significant when tested against Fo.fN. d.f., degrees of freedom. d.f. for 

boron= 3 for bottles and 4 for error] 

Element or 

oxide 

Spectral 

line 

______ B_o_tt_le ______ c~f:,~~-

40/20 16/16 8/18 14/19 

Standard deviation 

Mean Bottles Error 

B -------------------------- 2497.73 

Ba ------------------------- 4554.04 

co -------------------------- 3453.50 

Cr -------------------------- 4254.35 

Cu -------------------------- 3273.96 

Ga ------------------------- 2943.64 

]In ------------------------- 2933 

Ni -------------------------- 3413.94 

Pb -------------------------- 2833.07 

Sr -------------------------- 4077.71 

TiOa ------------------------ 2956.13 

v --------------------------- 3183.41 

Zr -------------------------- 3438 

60 

70 

730 

760 

640 

13 

13 

9 

73 

61 

50 

35 

31 

26 

12 

15 

15 

360 

400 

430 

34 

30 

32 

27 

23 

30 

220 

214 

212 

7,100 

7,100 

7,500 

105 

120 

100 

130 

140 

150 

50 

70 

665 

780 

700 

10 

15 

8 

64 

57 

71 

35 

30 

31 

17 

12 

13 

425 

405 

390 

26 

29 

32 

28 

26 

28 

226 

220 

195 

7,000 

7,100 

8,000 

105 

115 

110 

120 

125 

155 

were obtained with the aid of a Control Data Corp. 

6400 computer using a program (SPECS) written 

in Fortran IV. The data are given in tables 80 and 

81. Computations of variance analysis for a single 

variable of classification were made for each element, under the usual assumptions that underlie 

the technique, and the conclusions and estimates 

are also given in tables 80 and 81. Blank spaces in 

these tables result from the omission of data that 

exhibit abnormal discrepancies probably because of 

laboratory contamination. As there are only two 

determinations of Cr for bottle 14/19 of SCo-1, the 

65 

70 

70 

700 

780 

750 

15 

9 

10 

66 

64 

56 

36 

30 

24 

11 

17 

12 

380 

460 

455 

29 

29 

32 

27 

30 

29 

239 

232 

224 

7,700 

7,800 

8,200 

105 

115 

105 

120 

140 

120 

70 

60 

820 

855 

745 

15 

11 

8 

78 

77 

65 

32 

28 

29 

15 

16 

12 

380 

380 

470 

31 

29 

24 

27 

27 

29 

192 

250 

259 

7,200 

8,100 

7,500 

120 

100 

105 

120 

120 

150 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

(d.f.=3) (d.f.=S) 

64.4 Neg. 8.8 

743.8 31.0 55.2 

11.3 Neg. 3.2 

65.2 3.0 8.1 

30.6 Neg. 4.1 

13.9 Neg. 2.5 

411.2 Neg. 39.5 

29.8 .71 2.7 

27.6 Neg. 2.1 

223.6 Neg. 20.4 

7,520 180 399 

108.8 Neg. 8.3 

132.5 Neg. 14.9 

mean (in italics) of the other Cr determinations was 

inserted in place of the missing value so that the 

variance analysis could be completed without undue 

difficulty. Thus, the conclusion and estimates obtained may differ from those that might be obtained 

had the inserted value been an actual determination, and some caution should be exercised in the 

use of the statistical data. Again, the three values 

for Zr in bottle 34/9 of SGR-1 were anomalous and 

hence not reported, and the two data in italics for 

bottles 52/10 and 3/3 were randomly discarded to 

preserve the symmetry of the simple design. 
TITANIUM AND TRACE ELEMENT DATA IN USGS STANDARD ROCKS SCo-1 AND SGR-1 97 

TABLE 81.-Quantitative spectrographic determinations of trace and minor elements in shale of the Green River Formation, 

SGR-1 

[In parts per million. Conclusions from the analysis of variance: s. significant; NS not significant. when tested at Fo.95 or the fractile of the F 

distribution indicated; d.f., degrees of freedom; d.f. for zirconium are 2 for bottles and 3 for ei~ror] 

Element or 

oxide 

Spectral 

line ______ B_ot_ti_e ------ C~i~~:- 34/9 52/10 3/3 42/7 

Standard deviation 

Mean Bottles Error 

B -------------------------- 2497.73 

Ba ------------------------- 4554.04 

Co -------------------------- 3453.50 

Cr -------------------------- 4254.35 

Cu -------------------------- 3273.94 

Ga ------------------------- 2943.64 

Mn 2933 

32 

32 

28 

300 

334 

308 

15 

14 

15 

41 

34 

42 

60 

60 

75 

10 

11 

14 

300 

300 

320 

Ni -------------------------- 3413.94 31 

33 

30 

Ph -------------------------- 2833.07 40 40 

45 

Sr -------------------------- 4077.71 290 

340 

320 

Ti02 ------------------------ 2956.13 2,400 

3,300 

2,600 

v --------------------------- 3183.41 120 

125 

120 

Zr -------------------------- n.d. 

DISCUSSION 

33 

30 

34 

335 

340 

339 

12 

13 

13 

29 

30 

42 

70 

72 

74 

10 

15 

12 

280 

280 

290 

32 

30 

35 

38 

43 

45 

300 

310 

325 

2,900 

2,800 

3,000 

110 

110 

125 

45 

46 

43 

To provide an evaluation of the reliability and 

accuracy of this method, a series of international 

silicate standards having considerable variation of 

composition and containing different amounts of the 

trace elements in question were analyzed. The results are given in Avni, Harel, and Brenner (1972). 

A study of these data indicates that the overall 

accuracy of this method is good. Coefficients of 

variation based on 5 to 15 determinations vary from 

26 

26 

24 

315 

315 

340 

12 

10 

12 

31 

30 

32 

65 

70 

73 

10 

18 

13 

290 

300 

300 

30 

33 

32 

39 

45 

40 

310 

310 

325 

2,800 

3,000 

3,100 

105 

110 

122 

58 

58 

54 

32 

31 

30 

315 

314 

308 

13 

14 

15 

26 

31 

34 

69 

70 

75 

10 

11 

13 

300 

300 

305 

29 

30 

32 

34 

42 

44 

280 

330 

350 

3,000 

3,100 

2,800 

110 

125 

125 

67 

47 

s (0.99) 

NS 

s (0.99) 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS(0.99) 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

(d.f.=3) (d.f.=8) 

29.8 2.9 1.73 

321.9 9.6 11.7 

13.2 1.39 .87 

33.5 2.8 4.7 

69.4 1.1 5.1 

12.2 Neg. 2.7 

297.1 9.1 7.2 

31.4 Neg. 1.8 

41.2 Neg. 3.9 

315.8 Neg. 23.3 

2,900 Neg. 260 

117.2 Neg. 7.7 

52.3 4.2 8.4 

5 to 20 percent, depending on the level of concentration. 

The level of homogeneity of the new standards 

can be assessed from the data given in tables 80 

and 81. The mean sum of squares for the variation 

attributable to portions sampled from different bottles is not significantly larger than the mean sum of 

squares for within bottles for all 13 elements determined in SCo-i. For 9 of the 13 elements, the 

mean sum of squares for within bottles was larger 

than that for between bottles, resulting in a nega-
98 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

tive bottle variance that has no meaning. We may 

therefore conclude that these elements are distributed homogeneously among the four bottles of 

SCo-1, and, because of random selection of bottles, 

this standard as a whole may be considered homogeneous. 

For SGR-1, however, the variation attributable 

to the bottle means for both boron and cobalt is 

significantly larger than the within bottle variation 

when compared to Fo.99' and the bottles of SGR-1 

must be declared heterogeneous for these two elements. Manganese in SGR-1 is distributed heterogeneously at Fo.975 or homogeneously at Fo.99• The 

remaining elements may be considered as distributed 

homogeneously among the bottles of this sample. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

Much of the work was done in the laboratory o'f 

Dr. R. Avni at the Nuclear Research Center, Negev. 

We are grateful for the help given by Mrs. H. Eldad 

and Miss L. Argov of the Geological Survey of Israel 

and Mr. M. Assous of the Nuclear Research Center, 

Negev. 

REFERENCE 

Avni, R., Harel. A., and Brenner, I. B., 1972, A new approach to the spectrochemical analysis of silicate rocks 

and minerals: Appl. Spectroscopy, v. 26, p. 641-645. 
DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

COMPUTERIZED SPECTROGRAPHIC DATA FOR 

USGS STANDARDS 

By F. G. WALTHALL, A. F. DoRRZAPF, JR., and F. J. FLANAGAN 

ABSTRACT 

Fifteen USGS standard rocks, including those described in 

this volume, have been analyzed by a semiquantitative spectrographic procedure in which a computer is programmed to 

select the best data. Analyses of variance show that 346 of 

367 F ratios were not significant at Fo.95 and the bottles of any 

standard for the 346 ratios may be accepted as homogeneous 

by this method. Estimates o.f the averages and of the stand-

• ard deviations for bottles and for error are included in the 

tables along with the data obtained with the computer. 

The computerized analysis of spectrographic data 

from photographed optical emission spectra is now 

routine. Fifteen samples from the U.S. Geological 

Survey's standards program were analyzed by this 

technique, and the information obtained on precision and accuracy, as well as on spectral-line interferences, is being used to refine the computer program. 

The basic recorder system and computer program 

have been described by Helz, Walthall, and Berman 

( 1969), but a 4- by 20-in photographic plate is now 

used in place of the two 4- by 10-in plates. The 

analytical method is the semiquantitative procedure 

of Myers, Havens, and Dunton (1961), modified to 

use an argon-oxygen atmosphere. As a result of this 

change, the cyanogen bands have been eliminated, 

permitting the use of the full length of the spectrum 

and thus providing more analytical lines. 

Duplicate 15-mg portions from each of three 

randomly selected bottles of each standard were 

mixed with 30 mg of graphite. The bottles of most 

USGS standards are individually numbered, but, 

because there was no method of distinguishing 

among the three available bottles of W-1, they were 

arbitrarily designated X, Y, and Z. After the electrodes were loaded, the 90 samples were analyzed 

in random order. The samples were arced in an 

atmosphere of 70 percent argon and 30 percent 

oxygen using a Helz jet (Helz, 1964) and were exposed on 20-in Kodak III-0 plates. After the plates 

were developed, the spectra were recorded and 

analyzed as previously described ( Helz and others, 

1969). 

The computer. is programmed to search the transmittance data for the analytical lines, to perform 

the necessary calculations, and to determine the final 

value for each element in a predetermined order of 

priority. This priority is based on both the detectability of a line and its freedom from interference. 

Combinations of elements affect detectabilities and 

even prevent the determination of some elements. 

Interferences are often found for the most persistent lines of an element, and corrections for interferences will be made. 

Copper estimates reported as < 46.4 ppm for some 

samples are not satisfactory. The computer is programmed to consider first the two most sensitive 

copper lines (3247.54 and 3273.96 A). For concentrations greater than 10 ppm, these lines are normally too dark to provide reliable data, and the 

computer then considers a third line at 2824.37 A. 

When the two, more sensitive, lines are too dark 

and when no line is found at 2824.37 A, the lower 

limit, < 46.4 ppm, of this last line is reported as 

the best available estimate. The copper content of 

the sample is then interpreted to be between 10 and 

46.4 ppm. A thorough search for copper lines detectable in this concentration range is being undertaken, and the data obtained from these 15 samples 

will aid in the selection of the best lines. 

Analyses of major elements by this method are 

presently neither as accurate nor as precise as 

analyses by wet chemical or X-ray fluorescence 

methods, but the method represents a significant improvement over the visual determinations that are 

restricted to about 10 percent of an element. Data 

99 
100 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

for the major elements are generally within the ordinary accuracy and precision of a semiquantitative 

method in which the true value is expected to be 

not more than 50 percent, or less than 33 percent, 

of the reported value. Further refinements of this 

computer method are expected to reduce the analytical differences between this and other methods. 

Tables 82 through 96 contain the data for elements found in the 15 USGS standard rocks. Concentrations greater than 1 ppm are printed with 

three significant figures, and for less than 1 ppm, 

with two significant figures. The third digit is not 

analytically significant but is printed only for programming convenience. We believe, however, that 

the data gotten by this computer technique are both 

more accurate and more precise than those obtained 

by visual methods. The following elements, included 

in the computer programs, were below the limit of 

detection in the samples reported in tables 82-96. 

Element 

As ---------------- Au ---------------- Cd ---------------- Ge ---------------- Hf ---------------- In ---------------- Ir ---------------- Lu ---------------- Os ---------------- Pd ---------------- Pt ----------------

Limit 

of detection 

(ppm) 

<100 

<6.81 

<14.7 

<1.00 

<10.0 

<4.64 

<6.81 

<3.16 

<21.5 

<.22 

<6.81 

Element 

Limit 

of detection 

(ppm) 

Re ------------ <10.0 

Rh ------------ <1.00 

Ru ------------ <.46 

Sb ------------ <68.1 

Ta ------------ <316 

Tb ------------ <46.4 

Te ------------ <316 

Tl ------------ <3.16 

Tm ----------- <3.16 

u ------------- <215 

w ------------ <10.0 

The computations for the analysis of variance 

with a single variable of classification were made 

for the data, except where one or more observations were missing or were reported as an upper or 

a lower limit. The estimates (the mean and the 

standard deviations for bottles and for error) and 

the conclusions from the F tests resulting from the 

calculations are included in the tables. 

Most users of the samples will accept a conclusion of homogeneity of bottles for which the calculated ratio is not significantly larger than Fo.95, and 

most will declare the bottles heterogeneous for an 

element when the ratio is significantly larger than 

Fo.99• For conclusions other than these two, we have 

adopted the convention of listing the significance of 

the F ratio either as NS (0.975) where the user 

may wish to declare the ratio significant at F 0 .95, or 

as NS (0.99) with the alternate conclusion of significant at Fo.975• 

Of the combinations of elements and samples for 

which 367 F ratios were calculated, 346 ratios (94.3 

percent) were not significant at Fo.95• Those samples 

for which no conclusion other than homogeneous at 

Fo. 9 :. was obtained were W-1, AGV-1, PCC-1, 

BCR-1, MAG-1, and BHV0-1. There appears to be 

no single element primarily responsible for judgements other than that of homogeneity at Fo.9s· Those 

elements with more than one conclusion at some 

fractile of the F distribution higher than 95 percent 

are: (1) Calcium-homogeneous at Fo.975 in SCo-1 

and SDC-1, (2) chromium-homogeneous at Fo.975 

in GSP-1 and STM-1, (3) nickel-homogeneous at 

Fo.!J9 in SGR-1 but heterogeneous in GSP-1 at Fo.99' 

(4) praseodymium-homogeneous at Fo.975 in G-2 

and SGR-1 and at Fo.99 in STM-1, and (5) strontium-homogeneous at Fo.975 in GSP-1 and SGR-1 

and heterogeneous at Fo.99 in G-2. 

The precision of the method is generally the same 

as one might expect in quantitative spectrographic 

methods. Some 125 coefficients of variation calculated for several samples ranged from 1.3 to 29.1 

percent, with one outlier of 37 percent and with an 

average coefficient estimated to be slightly less than 

10 percent. Those coefficients greater than 20 percent generally occurred where the concentration of 

an element was 5 ppm or less. 

The question of the accurancy of these data is 

more difficult to resolve. For the present we will 

restrict ourselves to the following qualitative comparisons of these data with estimates for the elements given elsewhere in this volume: (1) elements 

for which these data are generally lower than recent 

best estimates-Ba, Cr, Nb, Ni, and Zr-and (2) 

those elements for which these data are higherCe, Co, La, Pb, Sr, V, and Zn. Many of the data 

reported here are well within the general limits of 

acceptability for semiquantitative methods. 

The data on the seven older rocks, W-1 through 

BCR-1, are presently being used in a study to extend detection limits, to include more analytical 

lines, and to program corrections for interferences 

for many lines. These improvements should result 

in more reliable data for our spectrographic 

analyses. 

REFERENCES 

Helz, A. W., 1964, A gas jet for d-e arc spectroscopy: U.S. 

Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 475-D, p. D176-D178. 

Helz, A. W., Walthall, F. G., and Berman, Sol, 1969, Computer analysis of photographed optical emission spectra: 

Appl. Spectroscopy, v. 23, p. 508-518. 

Myers, A. T., Havens, R. G., and Dunton, P. J., 1961, A 

spectrochemical method for the semiquantitative analysis 

of rocks, minerals, and ores: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 

1084-I,p. 207-229. 
TABLE 82.-Comput;erized spectrographic data for diabase, W-1 

[Elements Si through Mn in percent. all others in parts per million. Asterisk indicates interference] 

Bottle --------------------------- X 

Determination ------------------- 1 2 

Er 

Eu 

Ga 

Gd 

Ho 

La 

Mo 

Nb 

Nd 

Ni 

Element 

Pb ------------------------------ Pr ------------------------------- Sc ------------------------------- Sm ----------------------------- Sn ------------------------------

Sr ___ ---------------------------- Th ------------------------------ V -----------------------·------- y ------------------------------- Yb ------------------------------

Zn _ ------------------------- ___ _ 

Zr -------------------------------

27.3 

10.7 

9.01 

6.03 

8.46 

>.316 

.687 

.790 

<.0464 

.187 

.12 

<10.0 

161 

<LOO 

<LOO 

<20.0 

51.2 

154 

• 

<3.16 

<2.11) 

<LOO 

21.0 

9.50 

<LOO 

14.7 

<2.15 

8.51 

<14.7 

88.3 

7.77 <14.7 

>68.1 

<U4 

<3.16 

270 

<21.5 

>215 

28.0 

4.12 

144 

150 

27.4 

9.61 

9.36 

6.29 

9.43 

>.316 

.524 

.814 

<.0464 

.180 

.12 

11.1 

139 

<LOO 

<1.00 

<20.0 

47.9 

160 

• 

<3.16 

<2.15 

<LOO 

20.1 

8.10 

<LOO 

16.0 

<2.15 

4.24 

<14.7 

78.0 

7.55 

<14.7 

>68.1 

<4.64 

<3.16 

240 

<21.5 

>215 

25.9 

4.46 

135 

149 

26.0 

8.61 

9.08 

5.86 

8.39 

>.316 

.719 

.706 

<.0464. 

.186 

<.10 

<10.0 

134 

<LOO 

<I.OO 

<20.0 

56.4 

168 

• 

<3.16 

<2.15 

1.38 

22.3 

7.50 

<I.OO 

19.4 

<2.15 

8.62 

<14.7 

96.1 

6.13 

<14.7 

>68.1 

<4.64 

<3.16 

242 

<21.5 

>215 

27.2 

4.69 

150 

131 

y 

2 

30.4 

11.3 

8.80 

6.12 

8.92 

>.316 

.788 

.807 

<.0464 

.186 

.15 

<10.0 

126 

<LOO 

<I.OO 

59.6 

154 

• 

<3.16 

<2.15 

<I.OO 

25.1 

7.50 

<LOO 

23.9 

<2.15 

9.44 

<14.7 

81.0 

7.31 

<14.7 

>68.1 

<4.64 

<3.16 

236 

<21.5 

>215 31.1 

4.39 

157 

163 

29.3 

9.29 

9.84 

6.29 

7.98 

>.316 

.673 

.649 

<.0464 

.196 

<.10 

<10.0 

146 

<1.00 

<1.00 

<20.0 

49.4 

156 

• 

<3.16 

<2.15 

1.35 

19.8 

9.20 

<LOO 

15.5 

<2.15 

3.59 

<14.7 

82.0 

8.06 

<14.7 

>68.1 

<4.64 

<3.16 

261 

<21.5 

>215 

21.4 

4.04 

146 

117 

z 2 

25.7 

9.11 

9.66 

6.21 

7.84 

>.316 

.519 

.596 

<.0464 

.182 

<.10 

<10.0 

142 1.00 

<LOO 

<20.0 

54.2 

150 

• 

<3.16 

<2.15 

<LOO 

19.0 

10.3 

<LOO 

17.2 

<2.15 

7.94 

<14.7 

93.0 

6.73 

<14.7 

>68.1 

<4.64 

<3.16 

238 

<21.5 

>215 

24.9 

3.68 

150 

141 

Mean 

27.7 

9.77 

9.29 

6.13 

8.67 

141 

.652 

.727 

.186 

53.1 

157 

21.2 

8.68 

17.8 

7.1 

86.4 

7.26 

248 

26.4 

4.23 

147 

142 

Conclusions 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

N"s ____ _ 

NS 

N"s·----

N"s··---

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

N"s 

N"s··---

Ns 

NS 

N"s ____ _ 

NS 

NS 

NS 

Standard deviation 

Bottles Error 

(d.f.=2) (d.f.=3) 

Neg. 

Neg. 

0.39 

.07 

.42 

.057 

.087 

--N~g: 

-7~6---

3.9 

Neg. 

2.0 

1.0 

3.1 

--N-;g~ 

--N-;g~ 

Neg. 

Neg. 

2~6--­

.30 

6.1 

Neg, 

2.3 

1.2 

.20 

.15 

.45 

.096 

.048 

.006 

9.7 

2.7 

6.7 

1.2 

.73 

2.1 

2.5 

8.7 

.73 

15.6 

2.3 

.24 

4.9 

16.3 

c 

0 

~ 

"t1 

c:: 

1-3 

t;Ej 

pj 

..... 

t:"' 

t;Ej 

t:1 

00 

"t1 

t;Ej 

c 

1-3 

pj 

0 

~ 

pj 

> "t1 

t:r: 

..... 

c 

t:1 

> 1-3 

> 

~ 

0 

pj 

c:: 

00 

~ 

00 

00 

1-3 

> z 

t:1 

> pj 

t:1 

00 

"""' 0 

....... 
TABLE 83.-Computerized spectrographic data for granite, G-2 

[Elements Si through Mn in percent, all others in parts per million] 

Bottle --------------------------- 21/11 101/13 37/15 

Determination - _,:. ---------------- 1 2 1 2 1 2 

Element 

Si ------------------------------- >34.3 >34.3 >34.3 30.4 33.5 >34.3 

AI ------------------------------- 9.41 8.39 7.76 7.03 8.73 9.28 

I<'e ------------------------------- 2.53 2.20 2.38 2.26 2.50 2.78 

Mg ------------------------------ .799 .676 .589 .630 .645 .751 

Ca ___ ---------------------------- 2.40 2.26 1.85 2.19 1.92 2.75 

Na ------------------------------ >.316 >.316 >.316 >.316 >3.16 >3.16 

K ------------------------------- 5.37 4.74 4.52 4.78 4.76 5.13 

Ti ------------------------------- .308 .258 .213 .217 .259 .289 

p -------------------------------- .0597 .0528 .0549 .0533 .0611 .0656 

Mn ------------------------------ .0481 .0412 .0350 .0449 .0368 .1}417 

Ag <.10 <.10 <.10 <.10 <.10 <.10 ------------------------------ B -------------------------------- <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 Ba ------------------------------ 1,880 1,490 1,270 1,440 1,430 1,680 

Be ---- _ ---------- ___ ---------- ___ 3.20 2.52 1.85 2.34 2.45 2.75 

Bi ------------------------------- <1.00 <LOO <LOO <1.00 <LOO <LOO 

Ce -------- ____________ ------ ___ -- 190 213 165 175 191 210 

Co ----- _______ --- _ --------------- 4.77 4.02 3.57 3.99 4.10 4.42 

Cr ------ ___ ---------------------- 8.44 8.03 7.22 7.71 7.59 9.03 Cu ------------------------------- <46.4 9121 <46.4 <46:4 <46.4 <46.4 Dy ------------------------------ <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 

Er ------------------------------ <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 Eu --·· --------------------------- 1.46 1.89 1.25 1.59 1.24 1.52 Ga ------------------------------ 32.3 24.3 24.3 28.0 25.1 2ti.3 Gd ------------------------------ <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 3.95 Ho ------------------------------ <1.00 <1.00 <LOO <LOO <1.00 <LOO 

La ------------------------------ 109 123 91.7 108 112 127 Mo 2.55 1.15 2.04 1.76 1.19 2.02 

Nb ============================== 7.99 7.73 4.83 5.55 6.38 9.44 Nd ------------------------------ 53.0 51.0 40.0 42.0 44.0 57.0 Ni ------------------------------ 2.41 2.12 2.58 2.48 2.57 2.17 

Pb 36.0 33.4 29.4 26.6 27.7 34.5 Pr -=== ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 14.4 14.0 12.2 11.3 14.0 15.1 

Sc _ ----------------------------- _ 4.17 3.41 3.14 3.57 3.87 4.35 

Sm ----- ___ ---------------------- 10.2 10.1 8.21 9.15 9.53 11.1 Sn ------------------------------ <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 

Sr --------- ___ ------------------- 721 681 450 443 645 692 Th ------------------------------ 21.9 21.5 <21.5 24.6 <21.5 <21.5 v ------------------------------- 47.8 47.1 40.1 46.2 40.9 45.7 y ------------------------------- 8.96 9.44 7.34 8.42 9.81 10.3 Yb ------------------------------ 1.17 1.01 <.68 .82 .83 1.10 

Zn 75.7 68.3 65.7 66.1 62.9 70.3 Zr _:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 245 258 209 234 270 285 

Mean Conclusions 

---------- 8.43 NS 2.44 NS .682 NS 2.23 NS 

---------- 4.88 NS .257 NS .0579 NS .0413 NS 

---------- -------- ----------

1,532 NS 2.52 NS 

---------- -------- 191 NS 4.14 NS 8.00 NS 

---------- -------- ---------- --------

---------- 1.49 NS 

26.7 NS 

-------- -------- ---------- --------

112 NS 

1.78 NS 

6.99 NS 47.8 NS 2.39 NS 

31.3 NS 13.5 NS(.975) 

3.75 NS 9.72 NS 

---------- --------

605 8(.99) 

---------- :Ns ______ 44.6 

9.04 NS 

---------- -------- 68.2 NS 250 NS 

Standard deviation 

Bottles Error (d.£.=2) (d.£.=3) 

0.81 0.56 .11 .18 .044 .068 Neg. .37 

Neg. .32 .033 .024 .004 .003 Neg. .005 

------ ------ 85.7 20_l ____ 

.29 .36 

------ ------

15.4 12.8 .18 .37 .11 .64 

------ ------

------ ------

--:N~-g~ .25 Neg. 3.6 

------ ------

------ ------

7.25 10.7 Neg. .67 1.26 1.29 4.6 5.4 Neg. .21 

2.48 3.18 1.46 .60 .25 .41 .73 .75 

------ ------

137 25.4 

.95 3~18--

1.03 .52 

------ ------

1.42 4.28 26.5 13.0 

.......,. 

0 

~ 

t:1 

t;rj 

00 

0 

~ 

"""' '"0 

t-3 

0 """' 

z 

00 

> z 

t:1 

> z 

> 

toot 

t-< 

00 

t;rj 

00 

0 

l'%j 

t;rj 

~ 

C) 

::r: 

t-3 

z 

t;rj 

~ 

~ 

00 

C) 

00 

~ 

0 

0 

1':: 

00 

t-3 

> z 

0 

> 

~ 

t:1 

00 
TABLE 84.-Computerized spectrographic du,ta for granodiorite, GSP-1 

[Elements Si through Mn in percent, all others in parts per million] 

Bottle No ----------------------- 42/10 13/20 21/3 

Determination -------------------- 1 2 1 2 1 2 Element 

Si ------------------------------- >34.3 >34.3 30.4 33.6 32.3 >34.3 

AI --------------- ___ ------------- 9.63 9.48 7.95 8.97 9.00 8.28 

Fe __ ----------------------------- 4.23 4.01 3.06 4.76 4.37 4.64 

Mg ------------------------------ .925 .940 .913 .925 .933 .784 Ca ______ ------------------------- 2.26 2.80 2.91 2.48 2.01 2.15 

Na ------------------------------ >.316 >.316 >.316 >.316 >.316 >.316 K ------------------------------- 5.80 6.03 6.05 6.69 6.76 6.87 Ti ------------ _____ ------------- _ .430 .373 .361 . 403 .329 .404 

p -------------------------------- .162 .168 .114 .142 .160 .146 

Mn ------------------------------ .0686 .0370 .0453 .0476 .0484 .0426 

Ag ------------------------------ <.10 <.10 <.10 <.10 <.10 <.10 

B -------------------------------- <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 Ba ------------------------------ 1,200 1,160 1,240 1,230 1,040 1,120 Be _________ --- __________ --- ______ 1.24 1.45 1.17 1.37 1.27 <1.00 Bi --- ___ ------------------ _______ <LOO <1.00 <I.OO <LOO <LOO <1.00 

Ce _________ -- _ ----- ___ --- ________ 744 794 706 757 518 684 Co _______ -- _ ----- ________________ 7.18 5.98 6.79 6.49 5.83 6.37 Cr __________ -- _ ----- _____________ 12.2 12.6 14.2 11.9 8.98 8.94 Cu ------------------------------ <46.4 <46.4 <46.4 <46.4 <46.4 <46.4 Dy ------------------------------ <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 

Er ------------------------------ 4.42 <2.15 4.22 <2.16 3.27 <2.15 Eu ------------------------------ 2.53 2.75 2.55 2.46 1.98 1.98 Ga ----------------------------.-- 26.0 26.5 26.7 26.9 23.6 22.6 Gd 19.1 16.6 16.1 16.0 17.1 13.6 Ho ::::::::: === :::::::::::::::::: <LOO 2.27 1.69 <I.OO <LOO 1.48 

La ------------------------------ 352 276 297 283 2S5 235 Mo ___ --------------- ____ ----- ___ 1.95 1.18 1.34 1.81 1.30 1.00 Nb ____________ ------------ ______ 22.2 20.8 21.2 22.0 22.7 13.9 

Nd ------------------------------ 230 190 220 240 145 145 Ni ------------------------------ 8.41 8.14 7.17 7.17 7.03 6.93 

Pb 71.9 68.4 63.4 65.5 68.3 70.9 Pr -====:::::::::::::=:::::::::::: 51.0 36.2 41.9 41.6 34.2 35.4 Sc _______________________________ Sm ______________________________ 6.13 7.18 7.89 7.26 6.76 6.90 33.6 28.5 30.1 29.7 23.7 21.7 Sn ------------------------------ 10.0 10.3 8.68 9.67 9.97 8.62 

Sr ___ --------- ___________________ 356 359 286 317 294 296 Th ------------------------------ 164 153 137 136 119 <tOO v ------------------------------- 72.6 72.1 74.1 83.4 65.8 69.4 

y ------------------------------- 38.3 31.2 30.2 33.7 25.9 29.3 Yb ------------------------------ 1.99 2.51 2.37 2.38 2.02 2.29 

Zn 99.0 97.3 82.0 80.9 93.3 83.3 Zr _ ::::::::: === ::::: == ::::::::::: 443 322 370 369 283 323 

Mean Conclusions 

---------- 8.88 NS 4.18 NS .903 NS 2.44 NS 

---------- 6.87 NS .383 NS .148 NS • 0466 NS 

---------- -------- ---------- :Ns ______ 1,163 

---------- -------- ---------- -------- 684 NS(.99) 6.61 NS 11.5 NS(.976) 

---------- -------- ---------- -------- ---------- 2.38 :Ns-(.9!i>- 25.4 8(.99) 16.4 NS 

---------- -------- 286 NS 1.43 NS 20.5 NS(.975) 

195 NS 7.48 8(.99) 

68.1 NS 40.0 NS 6.86 NS 27.9 NS 9.51 NS 

318 NS(.975) 

---------- :Ns ______ 72.9 

31.4 NS 2.26 NS 

89.3 NS 352 NS 

Standard deviation 

Bottles Error (d.f.=2) (d.f.=3) 

0.46 0.51 Neg. .71 

Neg. • 061 .24 .29 

--:N""e-g~ .18 Neg • .042 .016 .013 Neg • .0092 

------ ------ 71.6 37.4 

------ ------ ------ ------ 113 39.7 .46 .26 2.09 • 96 

------ ------ ------ ------

.34 .10 2.0 .43 .35 1.76 

------ ------ 21.7 33.8 Neg. .39 

Neg. 18.2 

42.5 3.65 .69 .18 

2.82 1.98 1.75 6.06 .48 .69 4.24 2.24 .22 .66 

38.2 13.1 

4.82 4.09 2.65 3.60 Neg. .24 

7.86 4.16 21.6 52.0 

0 

0 

a= 

""d 

c:::: 

1-3 

t%J 

~ ...... 

~ 

t%J 

I:' 

00 

""d 

t%J 

0 

1-3 

~ 

0 

c:1 

~ 

> ""d 

II: 

...... 

0 

I:' 

> 1-3 

> 

l'%j 

0 

~ 

c:::: 

00 

c:1 

00 

00 

1-3 

> z 

I:' 

> 

~ 

I:' 

00 

""'"' 0 

co 
Bottle --------------------------- 19/1 

TABLE 85.-Computerized spectrographic data for andesite, AGV-1 

[Elements Si through Mn in percent, all others in parts per million] 

93/6 75/30 

Determination -------------------- 1 2 1 2 2 Element 

Ce ------------------------------- Co 

Cr 

Cu 

Dy 

E~ 

Eu 

Ga 

Gd 

Ho 

La 

Mo 

Nb 

Nd 

Ni 

Pb ------------------------------ Pr ------------------------------- Sc ------------------------------- Sm ------------------------------ Sn ------------------------------

Sr ----------------------------- __ 

Th ------------------------------ v ------------------------------- y ------------------------------- Yb __ --------- _ ------------------

~~ _:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 

30.5 

12.8 

5.61 

1.63 

4.32 

>.316 

>LOO .821 

.284 

.113 

.20 <10.0 

978 2.36 

<1.00 

122 

21.0 

8.63 <46.4 

<3.16 

<2.15 

1.66 

22.5 

6.4 

<1.00 

55.8 

4.90 

9.05 

51.0 

21.5 

50.3 

6.40 

20.5 

4.76 

<3.16 

912 

<21.5 

>211) 25.0 

2.37 

114 

287 

30.6 

11.7 

5.99 

1.55 

4.33 

>.316 

>l.OO .744 

.303 

.121 

.13 

<10.0 

937 2.75 

<LOO 

119 

19.8 

8.92 <46.4 

<3.16 

<2.15 

1.75 

21.1 

4.1 

<t.OO 

56.9 

!4.26 

10.6 

48.0 

20.2 

54.8 

7.94 

22.0 

5.09 <3.16 

921 

<21.5 

>215 22.5 

2.42 

108 

292 

28.0 

10.9 

5.88 

1.60 

4.36 

>.316 

>1.00 .630 

.291 

.108 

. 16 <10.0 

896 2.52 

<1.00 

111 

18.5 

7.69 <46.4 

<3.16 

<2.15 

1.42 

25.4 

6.2 

<1.00 

47.6 

3.26 

9.27 

49.0 

18.3 

49.2 

8.24 

15.3 

4.99 

<3.16 

833 

<21.5 

148 

20.7 

2.23 

112 

257 

32.1 

12.5 

6.27 

1.74 

4.29 

>.316 

>t.OO .755 

.305 

.113 

.19 <10.0 

964 2.71 

<LOO 

130 

19.2 

9.93 <46.4 

<3.16 

<2.15 

1.75 

23.2 

7.2 

<1.00 

61.0 

3.66 

11.1 

62.0 

19.2 

45.0 

8.70 

22.0 

4.90 

<3.16 

988 

<21.5 

>215 22.9 

2.78 

112 

387 

32.2 

11.8 

5.64 

1.59 

3.85 

>.316 

>1.00 .662 

.286 

.114 

.14 <10.0 

916 

2.29 

<t.OO 

102 

15.9 

9.01 <46.4 

<3.16 

<2.15 1.34 

19.4 

<3.16 

<t.OO 

44.9 

3.12 

5.99 

49.0 

17.2 

35.7 

8.97 

15.9 

<4.64 

<3.16 

864 

<21.5 

200 

18.2 

2.44 

94.8 

198 

31.9 

13.2 

5.77 

1.74 

4.55 

>.316 

>1.00 .768 

.317 

.116 

.18 

<10.0 

1,020 2.48 

<1.00 

113 

17.7 

7.59 <46.4 

<3.16 

<l.U5 

1.55 

24.0 

<3.16 

<LOO 

48.8 

4.81 

10.4 

44.0 

20.2 

53.3 

7.99 

17.6 

<4.64 

<3.16 

944 

<21.5 

>215 20.6 

2.38 

124 

232 

Mean 

30.9 

12.2 

5.86 

1.64 

4.28 

---------- .730 

.298 

.114 

952 .167 

2.52' 

116 

18.7 

8.63 

1.58 

22.6 

52.5 

3.84 

9.40 

50.5 

19.4 

48.0 

8.04 

18.9 

910 

21.6 

2.44 

111 

276 

Conclusions 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS Ns _____ _ 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

Ns _____ _ 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

Standa.rd deviation 

Bottles Error (d.f.=2) (d.f.=3) 

Neg. 

Neg. 

0.10 

Neg. 

Neg. 

--:N~ir: 

Neg. 

.002 

Neg . 

-N'~: 

Neg. 

3.9 

1.68 

Neg. 

.06 

Neg. 

2.94 

Neg. 

Neg. 

2.02 

.74 

Neg. 

.52 

.97 

Neg. 

-1~83--

Neg. 

Neg. 38.8 

1.68 

.98 

.23 

.09 

.29 

.074 

.fl16 

.004 

.035 

53.3 .19 

9.0 

.93 

1.09 

.16 

2.2 

5.72 

.98 

2.05 

5.8 

1.38 

7.6 

7.7 

2.89 

71.3 

1.68 

.23 

12.2 

54.9 

...... 

0 

~ 

t:l 

t_%j 

00 

a 

~ 

-loti 

t-3 

0 

-

z 

00 

> z 

t:l 

> z 

> t"" 

~ 

00 

t?j 

00 

0 

~ 

t?j 

-

G) 

~ 

t-3 

z 

t?j 

~ 

~ 

00 

G) 

00 

~ 

0 

a 

~ 

00 

t-3 

> z 

t:l 

> 

~ 

t:l 

00 
TABLE 86.-Computerized spectrographic data for peridotite, PCC-1 

[Elements Si through Mn in percent, all others in parts per million] 

Bottle --------------------------- 70/13 15/11 42/21 Standard deviation 8 

Determination ------------------- l 2 1 2 1 2 Mean c~::,~~- Bottles Error a= 

Element (d.f.=2) (d.f.=3) '"d 

c:: 

Si ------------------------------- 22.3 20.0 22.2 21.8 19.4 18.6 20.7 NS 1.37 1.01 J-3 

AI ------------------------------- .440 .44.0 .380 .460 .480 .320 .42 NS Neg. .07 t.:rJ Fe ------------------------------- 6.38 5.79 6.60 6.25 6.24 6.54 6.30 NS Neg. .30 ~ 

Mg ------------------------------ 22.0 26.9 23.2 29.7 21.9 21.9 24.3 NS Neg. 3.3 1-oo4 

Ca ------------------------------- .340 .376 .322 .358 .339 .273 .33 NS .01 .03 ~ 

Na ------------------------------ <.00464 <.00464 <.00464 <.00464 <.00464 <.00464 ---------- -------- ------ ------ 1::1 K ------------------------------- <.0681 <.0681 <.0681 <.0681 <.0681 <.0681 ---------- -------- Ti ------------------------------- .00199 .00232 .00174 .00245 .00219 .00175 .0021 NS Neg. .0004 rJJ 

p -------------------------------- <.0464 <.0464 <.0464 <.0464. <.0464 <.0464 ---------- -------- ------ '"d Mn ------------------------------ .124 .143 .127 .148 .136 .131 .135 NS Neg. .012 t.:rJ 

(") 

~g--============================== <~:~o <~:~o <~:~o <~:~o <~:~o <to:~ :::::::::: :::::::: :::::: :::::: ~ 

!f :::::::::::========:::::=:===== ~tgg ~tgg ~i:gg ~tE ~t&i ~tii :::::::::: :::::::: :::::: :::::: ~ > g~ =============================== <f!~·o >i~g.o ~g.2 <i~~.o 1~~.o i~~.o :::::::::: :::::::: ______ ------ ~ Cr ------------------------------- 2.990 2.110 2,330 2,880 1.890 1,910 2,352 NS 253 424 l-oo4 

Cu ------------------------------ 8.11 5.80 5.87 5.61 5.60 4.53 5.92 NS .61 1.04 0 

Dy ------------------------------ <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 ---------- -------- ------ ------

1::' 

~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~m ~i:u ~:n ~:u ~~:ii ~i:u ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~ Ho ------------------------------ <LOO <I.OO <I.OO <I.OO <I.OO <1.00 ---------- -------- ------ ------ ~ 

La ------------------------------ <14.7 <14.7 <14.7 <14.7 <14.7 <14.7 ---------- -------- ------ ------ ~ Mo ------------------------------ <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 ---------- -------- ------ ------

~~ =================::::::::::::: <i!:~~ <i!:~5 <i!:~5 <1!:~5 <1!:~5 <1!:~5 :::::::::: :::::::: :::::: :::::: c:: 

Ni ------------------------------ >1,000 >I.OOO >I.OOO >I.OOO >1,000 >1,000 ---------- -------- ·----- ------ ~ 

Pb ------------------------------ 8.11 8.71 9.33 7.75 8.36 8.06 8.39 NS Neg. .70 rJ.l 

Pr ------------------------------- <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 4.26 ---------- -------- ------ rJ.l Sc ------------------------------- 7.00 7.37 7.02 10.4 6.68 5.61 7.35 NS .78 1.46 J-3 

~~ ============================== <t~4 <:::4 <::g4 <::~4 :2t~: :2::~: ========== ======== :::::: ====== ~ 

Sr ------------------------------- .51 .54 .47 .64 0.48 <0.46 ---------- -------- ------ ------ 1::' 

Th ------------------------------ <21.5 <21.5 <21.5 <21.5 <21.5 <21.5 ---------- -------- ------ > 

V ------------------------------- 36.1 46.6 40.1 41.6 50.1 33.8 41.4 NS Neg. 7.94 ~ 

y ------------------------------- <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 ---------- -------- 1::' 

Yb ------------------------------ 1.57 1.74 1.72 1.64 1.53 1.27 1.58 NS .12 .13 00 

Zn -----------------·------------ 57.3 54.8 55.9 54.2 53.4 48.9 54.1 NS 2.06 2.21 

Zr ------------------------------- <3.16 <3.16 <3.1& <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 ----------

~ 

0 

at 
TABLE 87.-Computerized spectrographic data for dunite, DTS-1 

[Elements Si through M:n in percent, all others in parts per million] 

Bottle --------------------------- 10/13 32/25 54/15 

Determination ------------------- 1 2 1 2 1 2 

Element 

Si ------------------------------- 19.1 17.6 17.5 18.0 18.6 19.6 

Al ------------------------------- . 220 .200 .170 .220 .220 .220 

Fe ------------------------------ 6.55 6.87 7.15 6.06 6.33 6.57 

M:g ------------------------------ 25.8 25.9 21.0 29.5 23.6 26.5 

Ca ------------------------------- .115 .115 .108 .133 .105 .101 

Na ------------------------------ <.00464 <.00464 <.00464 <.00464 <.00464 <.00464 

K -------------------------------- <.0681 <.0681 <.0681 <.0681 <.0681 <.0681 

Ti -----------------·------------ .00183 .00159 .00115 .00185 .00139 .00119 

p ------------------------------- <.0464 <.0464 <.0464 <.0464 <.0464 <.0464 

M:n ------------------------------ .141 .131 .121 .140 . 127 .135 

Ag ------------------------------ <.10 <.10 <.10 <.10 <.10 <.10 

B ------------------------------- <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 

Ba ------------------------------ <LOO <1.00 <1.00 <LOO <1.00 <1.00 

Be ------------------------------- <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <LOO <LOO 

Bi ------------------------------- <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <LOO <LOO 

Ce <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 ------------------------------ Co ------------------------------ >215 >215 >215 >215 >215 >215 

Cr ------------------------------- 5,800 4,020 3,930 4,480 4,520 3,750 

Cu ------------------------------ 2.88 2.10 <46.4 <46.4 2.61 1.92 

Dy ~~---------------------------- <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 

Er ------------------------------ <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 

Eu ------------------------------ <1.00 <1.00 <LOO <LOO <LOO <LOO 

Ga ------------------------------ <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 ~2.15 <2.15 

Gd ------------------------------ <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 3.6 

Ho ------------------------------ <LOO <1.00 <1.00 <LOO <1.00 <LOO 

La ------------------------------ <14.7 <14.7 <14.7 <14.7 <14.7 <14.7 

Mo -----------------------------~ <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 

Nb ------------------------------ <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 

Nd ------------------------------ <14.7 <14.7 <14.7 <14.7 <14.7 <14.7 

Ni ------------------------------ >1,000 >1,000 >1,000 >1,000 >1,000 <1.000 

Pb ------------------------------ 9.49 12.4 7.05 :-\.05 <LOO 7.12 

Pr <2.15 2.84 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 

Sc _:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 5.58 5.39 3.71 5.00 4.49 4.90 

Sm ------------------------------ <4.64 <4.64 <4.64 <4.64 <4.64 <4.64 

Sn ------------------------------ 4.2 <3.16 9.0 6.8 <3.16 <3.16 

Sr ____ ------------ -~------------- .61 .49 <.46 .49 <.46 <.46 

Th ------------------------------ <21.5 <21.5 <21.5 <21.5 <21.5 <21.5 

v ------------------------------- 10.9 21.2 13.7 20.1 11.8 16.6 

y ------------------------------- <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 

Yb ------------------------------ 1.64 1.60 1.53 1.64 1.79 1.78 

Zn 57.8 59.9 62.6 56.9 58.8 56.7 Zr _:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 

Mean Conclusions 

18.4 NS 

.21 NS 

6.59 NS 

25.4 NS 

.113 NS 

---------- -------- ---------- .00150 NS 

---------- .132 NS 

---------- -------- ---------- -------- ---------- -------- ---------- -------- ---------- --------

---------- -------- ---------- :Ns ______ 4,417 

---------- -------- ---------- --------

---------- -------- ---------- -------- ---------- -------- ---------- -------- ---------- -------- ---------- -------- ---------- -------- ---------- -------- ---------- -------- ---------- -------- ---------- -------- ---------- 4.84 

:Ns ______ 

---------- -------- ---------- --------

---------- -------- ---------- 15.7 

:Ns ______ 

---------- 1.66 :NsT975> 

58.8 NS 

---------- --------

Standard deviation 

Bottles Error (d.f.=2) (d.f.=3) 

0.41 0.76 

Neg . .02 

Neg. .47 

Neg. 3.67 

.005 .010 

------ ------ --N""eg~ .0003 

Neg . .009 

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------

------ ------

Neg. 823 

------ ------ ------ ------

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------

------ ------ ------ ------

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------

------ ------

.42 .56 

------ ------ ------ ------

------ ------ --N""eg~ 5.3 

.10 .05 

Neg. 2.62 

------ ------

1-L 

0 

0':1 

t:' 

t.%J 

00 

0 

~ ....... 

'i:l 

~ ....... 

0 

z 

00 

> z 

tj 

> z 

> t"'f 

~ 

00 

~ 

00 

0 

~ 

~ ....... 

C1 

::r: 

~ 

z 

~ 

~ 

c:: 

00 

C1 

00 

~ 

0 

0 

~ 

00 

~ 

> z 

tj 

> 

~ 

tj 

00 
TABLE 88.-Computerized spectrographic data for basalt, BCR-1 

[Elements Si through Mn in percent, all others in parts per million. Asterisk indicates interference] 

Bottle --------------------------- 39/22 23/25 68/7 

Determination -------------------- 1 2 1 2 1 2 Mean Element 

Si ------------------------------- 27.0 22.8 23.6 28.0 25.2 25.5 25.4 

AI ------------------------------- 9.43 6.87 6.33 9.25 8.60 7.03 7.9 Fe ------------------------------ 10.4 10.7 10.3 11.3 10.6 10.9 10.7 

Mg ------------------------------ 4.23 3.83 3.77 4.82 4.60 3.84 4.18 

Ca ----------------------·--------- 5.37 4.69 4.72 6.11> 6.05 4.47 5.24 

Na ------------------------------ >.316 >.316 >.316 >.316 >.316 >.316 ---------- K ------------------------------- >LOO >LOO >LOO >LOO >1'.00 >1.00 ---------- Ti ------------------------------- 1.31 1.33 1.20 1.70 1.51 1.24 1.38 

p ------------------------------- .260 .214 .217 .250 .267 .256 .244 

Mn ------------------------------ .191) .198 .203 .213 .205 .189 .200 

Ag .22 .16 .11 .22 .24 <.10 -----------·------------------- ---------- B ------------------------------- <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 ---------- Ba ------------------------------ 603 519 613 603 557 532 571 

Be ------------------------------- 1.55 1.91 1.66 1.72 1.69 1.43 1.66 

Bi ------------------------------- <LOO <LOO <LOO <LOO <LOO <LOO ---------- Ce ------------------------------ 127 126 * 139 * 119 ---------- Co ------------------------------ 39.9 40.6 40.6 44.9 44.6 39.2 41.6 

Cr ------------------------------- 13.1 9.66 13.2 15.5 12.4 10.6 12.4 

Cu ------------------------------ <46.4 <46.4 <46.4 <46.4 <46.4 <46.4 ---------- Dy ------------------------------ <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 ----------

Er ------------------------------ <2.15 <2.11) <2.11> <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 ---------- Eu ------------------------------ 2.15 2.00 2.25 2.43 2.14 1.99 2.16 

Ga ------------------------------ 23.8 23.5 23.9 23.0 25.1 18.1 22.9 

Gd ------------------------------ 9.5 12.7 9.30 11.0 7.10 8.60 9.70 Ho ------------------------------ <LOO <I.OO <LOO <LOO <LOO <LOO ----------

La ------------------------------ 46.6 46.8 42.5 43.9 49.2 31.4. 43.4 Mo ------------------------------ <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 ---------- Nb ------------------------------ 13.8 9.31 8.64 20.3 14.1 7.39 12.2 

Nd ------------------------------ 60.0 26.5 30.0 47.0 40.0 13.5 36.2 

Ni ------------------------------ 10.8 10.8 10.3 13.4 12.9 12.1 11.7 

Ph ------------------------------ 17.0 17.2 18.5 19.4 20.6 13.6 17.7 Pr <14.7 <14.7 <14.7 <14.7 <14.7 <14.7 ---------- Sc _:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: >68.1 >68.1 >68.1 >68.1 >68.1 53.8 ---------- Sm ------------------------------ <4.64 <4.64 <4.64 <4.64 <4.64 <4.64 ---------- Sn ------------------------------ <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 4.1 <2.16 ---------- Sr _________ ------ ________________ 409 395 454 454 405 432 425 

Th ------------------------------ <21.5 <21.5 <21.5 <21.5 <21.5 <21.5 ---------- v ------------------------------- >215 >215 >215 >215 >215 >215 ---------- y ------------------------------- 44.0 40.8 35.9 43.0 40.1 35.1 39.8 

Yb ------------------------------ 5.30 5.17 6.20 7.21 5.52 4.79 5.70 

Zn 163 142 170 165 175 147 208 Zr _::=::::=::::::::=::=::::=::=:= 241 228 176 249 224 132 160 

Conclusions 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

--------

NS 

NS 

NS 

--------

NS 

NS 

--------

NS 

NS 

--------

--------

NS 

NS 

NS 

--------

NS :Ns ______ 

NS 

NS 

NS 

--------

--------

--------

--------

NS 

-------- :Ns ______ 

NS 

NS 

NS 

Standard deviation 

Bottles Error (d.f.=2) (d.f.=3) 

Neg. 2.5 

Neg. 1.7 

Neg. .44 

Neg. .55 

Neg. .91 

------ ------ --N~g: .23 

Neg. .024 

0.003 .008 

------ ------

20.9 36.0 

Neg. .18 

------ ------

--N~g: 2.8 

1.06 1.84 

------ ------ ------ ------

.13 .11 

Neg. 2.9 

1.23 1.60 

------ ------

iNeg. 7.3 

Neg. 5.8 

Neg. 18.8 

Neg. 1.3 

Neg. 2.9 

------ ------

------ ------

------ ------

------ ------ 25.1 12.4 

------ ------ --N~g: 3.8 

.79 .51 

Neg. 14.4 

Neg. 48 

(") 

0 

a= 

1-0 

c:: 

t-3 

f:?:j 

~ ...... 

N 

f:?:j 

t::1 

r:n 

~ 

f:?:j 

(") 

t-3 

~ 

0 

C':l 

~ 

> 

~ 

~ ...... 

(") 

t::1 

> 

t-3 

> 

~ 

0 

~ 

c:: 

Ul 

C':l 

Ul 

Ul 

t-3 

> z 

t::1 

> 

~ 

t::1 

Ul 

.....,. 

0 

-:J 
1-' 

0 

00 

TABLE 89.-Computerized spectrographic data for nepheline syenite, STM-1 t:l 

[Elements Si through Mn in percent, all others in parts per million] t_:l:j 

00 

Bottle --------------------------- 50/11 29/22 10/13 Standard deviation @ Determination -------------------- 1 2 1 2 1 2 Mean Co_nclu- Bottles Errotr 1-1 

Elemnt Sions (d.f.=2) (d.f.=3) ~ 

t-3 

Si ------------------------------- 24.5 29.2 26.6 28.2 26.1 29.4 27.3 NS Neg. 2.4 0 AI ------------------------------- 8.54 9.83 9.68 10.5 9.51 9.91 9.67 ~s Neg. .64 z Fe ------------------------------ 4.28 5.20 3.47 3.63 3.34 3.37 3.88 NS 0. 70 .38 00 Mg ------------------------------ .112 .103 .0976 .107 .102 .0987 .103 NS Neg. .005 Ca ------------------------------- 1.82 1.84 1.46 1.84 1.96 1. 74 1. 78 NS Neg. .179 > 

z Na ------------------------------ >.316 >.316 >.316 >.316 >.316 >.316 ---------- ------ t:l K ------------------------------- 5.11 5.03 4.77 5.39 5.63 5.23 5.19 NS Neg. .30 Ti ------------------------------- .0835 .0864 .0871 .0940 .0988 .0902 .090 NS .003 .005 > 

p ------------------------------ .0517 .0704 .0720 .0787 .0901 .0724 073 NS .007 .011 z 

Mn ------------------------------ .255 .250 .234 .241 .249 .244 .246 NS .007 .004 > 

Ag ------------------------------ .35 .35 .39 .43 .. 40 .45 .395 NS .035 .026 s; B ------------------------------- <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 ---------- UJ. Ba ------------------------------ 774. 750 616 844 890 752 771 NS Neg. 109 t?::l B~ ------------------------------- 11.2 11.7 12.6 11.8 11.5 12.3 11.85 NS .12 .50 00 B1 ------------------------------- <LOO <1.00 <LOO <LOO <LOO <LOO ---------- -------- ------ ------

0 Ce ------------------------------ 328 351 346 358 381 359 354 NS 11.6 13.6 "%j 

Co ------------------------------ <LOO <I.OO <LOO <LOO <LOO <LOO ---------- -------- Cr ------------------------------- 2.19 2. 79 3.05 3.61 1.80 1.82 2.54 NS ( .975) . 72 .34 t_:1:j 

Cu ------------------------------ <1.00 1.91 2.17 2.27 2.12 3.01 ---------- -------- ------ ------ 1-1 

Dy ------------------------------ <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 ---------- -------- ------ ------ C) t:I: Er ------------------------------ <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 ---------- t-3 Eu ------------------------------ 3.77 3.89 3.74 3.83 4.11 3.85 3.86 NS .054 .122 Ga ------------------------------ 58.3 62.8 65.6 72.6 66.5 60.1 64.3 NS 3.16 4.30 Z 

Gd ------------------------------ <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 ---------- -------- ------ ------ t_:1:j 

Ho ------------------------------ 2.27 2.34 <LOO 2.45 2.88 <LOO ---------- -------- ------ ------ :a La ------------------------------ 179 176 197 205 216 209 197 s ( .99) 17.6 1 

4.51 C::: Mo ------------------------------ 11.7 6.97 7.71 6.09 8.59 6.25 7.9 NS Neg. 2.2 Nb ------------------------------ 171 189 194 218 160 204 189 NS Neg. 21.7 UJ. Nd ------------------------------ 46.0 54.0 46.0 60.0 68.0 60.0 55.7 NS 5.2 7.3 C) 

Ni ------------------------------ 1.71 1.74 1.73 1.96 1.62 1.15 1.65 NS .18 .21 00 

~ Pb ------------------------------ 18.0 19.5 15.4 16.8 17.7 18.7 17.7 NS 1.23 .93 O Pr ------------------------------ 18.6 18.3 20.1 19.4 20.2 20.1 19.4 NS(.99) 1.24 .31 O Sc ------------------------------- 1.09 1.04 <LOO 1.09 1.17 <1.00 ---------- -------- ~ Sm ------------------------------ 15.0 15.6 15.2 15.8 17.3 15.7 15.8 NS .37 .74 1""'1 

Sn ------------------------------ 10.4 10.8 10.2 11.8 12.2 11.9 11.2 NS .57 .68 oo 

t-3 Sr ------------------------------- 836 793 860 804 918 847 843 NS 20.3 40.9 > Th ------------------------------ <21.5 <21.5 <21.5 <21.5 <21.5 <21.5 ---------- -------- ------ ------ z 

v ------------------------------- <1.47 1.63 <1.47 <1.47 <1.47 <1.47 - ---------- -------- y ------------------------------- 46.5 43.2 49.3 52.2 54.3 44.9 48.4 NS .90 4.24 t:l Yb ------------------------------ 6.75 7.39 6.22 6.61 6.73 6.33 6.67 NS .25 .35 > 

Zn ------------------------------ 173 183 181 175 170 177 177 NS Neg. 5.4 El Zr ------------------------------- >681 >681 >681 >681 >681 >681 ---------- -------- ------ ------ 00 
TABLE 90.-Computerized spectrographic data for rhyolite, RGM-1 

[Elements Si through Mn in percent, all others in parts per million] 

Bottle --------------------------.. 31/5 52/26 10/28 

Determination El;~;~t------------- 1 2 1 2 1 2 

Si ------------------------------- 32.4 >34.3 >34.3 >34.3 33.4 >34.3 

Al ------------------------------- 6.35 6.30 7.19 7.37 6.75 7.71 

Fe ------------------------------ 1.50 1.31 1.37 1.47 1.35 1.62 

Mg ------------------------------ .178 .211 .172 .195 .187 .195 

Ca ------------------------------- 1.37 1.12 1.06 1.59 1.25 1.32 

Na ------------------------------ >.316 >.316 >.316 >.316 >.316 >.316 

K ---· --------------------------- 4.69 4.77 4.51 5.04 4.71 5.19 

Ti ------------------------------- .143 .105 .118 . 158 .128 .152 p ------------------------------- <.0464 <.0464 <.0464 <JI464 <.0464 <.0464 

Mn ------------------------------ .0405 .0339 .0438 .0421 .0378 .0408 

Ag -----------·------------------- <0.10 <0.10 <.10 <.10 <.10 <.10 

B ------------------------------- 26.2 23.4 31.4 35.7 29.4 33.7 

Ba ------------------------------ 812 691 623 847 701 837 

Be ------------------------------- 2.79 2.23 2.46 2.82 2.51 2.53 

Bi ------------------------------- 1.56 <LOO <LOO <LOO <LOO <LOO 

Ce ------------------------------ 59.0 57.1 52.6 69.4 57.5 66.6 

Co ------------------------------ 1.72 1.59 1.70 1.99 1.69 1.87 Cr ________ ----------------------- 1.70 1.56 2.46 4.64 2.04 2.89 

Cu ------------------------------ <46.4 <46.4 <46.4 <46.4 <46.4 <46.4 Dy ------------------------------ 4.62 4.37 4.02 4.23 3.67 5.13 

Er ------------------------------ <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.16 <2.16 <2.15 Eu ------------------------------ <LOO <LOO <LOO <LOO <LOO <LOO Ga ----------------------------· .- 12.8 10.5 12.4 17.7 13.0 14.5 Gd ------------------------------ <3.16 4.42 <3.16 3.80 <3.16 <3.16 Ho ------------------------------ <LOO <LOO <LOO <LOO <LOO 1.17 

La ------------------------------ 23.4 24.0 25.4 31.5 26.2 31.4 

Mo ------------------------------ 3.00 2.13 2.99 2.54 3.30 3.28 

Nb ___ ----------- __ ------------- _ 4.17 4.32 6.92 6.78 5.12 5.36 Nd ... ----------------------------- 19.0 15.5 15.5 23.5 16.5 22.6 Ni ------------------------------ 1.79 1.49 2.10 2.46 1.99 2.11 

Pb ------------------------------ 19.4 16.0 20.9 23.5 21.3 24.1 Pr 4.58 4.11 4.54 3.76 3.90 3.48 Sc _:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 4.82 4.16 3.66 5.37 4.23 5.39 

Sm --------··--------------------- <4.64 <4.64 <4.64 <4.64 <4.64 <4.64 Sn ------------------------------ 3.44 3.22 3.51 4.35 3.71 4.14 

Sr _______________________________ 123 123 135 149 128 136 

Th ------------------------------ <21.5 <21.5 <21.5 22.5 <21.5 <21.5 v ------------------------------- 15.3 12.9 15.1 15.9 14.9 15.1 y ------------------------------- 23.2 21.2 21.8 26.8 23.8 26.3 Yb ------------------------------ 2.93 2.42 2.24 3.47 2.65 3.27 

Zn 20.9 20.1 21.1 24.4 20.8 22.0 

Zr -===============::::=:::::::::: 309 267 297 345 269 336 

Mean Conclusions 

---------- :Ns ______ 6.94 

1.44 NS .190 NS 1.28 NS 

---------- :Ns _____ 4.82 

.134 NS 

---------- :Ns·----- .040 

---------- 30.0 NS 752 NS 2.56 NS 

---------- -------- 60.4 NS 1.76 NS 2.56 NS 

---------- :Ns ______ 4.34 

---------- -------- ---------- :Ns ______ 13.5 

---------- -------- ---------- -------- 27.0 NS 2.87 NS 5.44 8(.99) 18.8 NS 1.99 NS 

20.9 NS 4.06 NS 4.60 NS 

---------- 3.73 

:Ns ______ 

132 NS 

---------- :Ns ______ 14.9 

23.8 NS 2.83 NS 

21.5 NS 304 NS 

Standard deviation 

Bottles Error (d.f.=2) (d.f.=3) 

0.46 0.40 Neg. .14 Neg. .017 Neg. .24 

--:N-;,g: .29 

Neg • .025 

.002 .003 

4.2 2.7 Neg. 118 Neg. .27 

------ ------ Neg. 7.8 Neg. .16 .68 .96 

Neg. .61 

------ ------

Neg. 2.4 

------ ------ ------ ------ 1.66 3.28 .24 .40 1.3 .18 

Neg . 4.3 .29 .20 

2.3 2.1 .17 .41 Neg. .89 

.20 .40 

8.3 6.6 

Neg. 1.04 Neg. 2.4 Neg. .60 

.43 1.48 Neg. 37.8 

0 

0 

is: 

'"d 

q 

t-3 

l%j 

~ 1-1 

~ 

l%j 

t::l 

00 

'"d 

l%j 

0 

t-3 

~ 

0 

C') 

~ 

> '"d 

= 1-1 

0 

t:1 

> t-3 

> 

1-:j 

0 

~ 

q 

rJ:l 

C') 

00 

00 

t-3 

> z 

t::l 

> 

~ 

t::l 

00 

1-' 

0 

co 
J-ot 

J-ot 

0 

TABLE 91.-Computerized spectrographic data for quartz latite, QL0-1 I:' 

[Elements Si through Mn in percent, all others in parts per million] l:tj 

rn 

Bottle --------------------------- 51/30 10/23 31/22 Standard deviation ~ Determination ------------------- 1 2 1 2 1 2 Mean Co!lclu- Bottles E:irror 1-1 

Element Sions (d.f.=2) (d.f.=3) '"0 

1-:3 

Si ------------------------------ 33.9 29.1 >34.3 29.1 >34.3 33.0 ---------- 0 Al ------------------------------- 9.73 9.52 11.2 8.49 11.8 10.7 10.2 NS 0.25 1.20 z Fe -~---------------------------- 4.21 3.88 3.51 4.11 3.81 4.87 4.08 NS Neg. .50 rn Mg ------------------------------ 1.03 .994 1.04 .834 .969 .874 .957 NS Neg. .094 Ca ------------------------------- 3.48 2.78 3.26 2.62 2.83 3.03 3.00 NS Neg. .40 > 

z Na ------------------------------ >.316 >.316 >.316 >.316 >.316 >.316 ---------- I:' 

K ------------------------------- 3.98 3.96 3.81 3.81 3.54 3.67 3.80 NS(.99) .18 .05 Ti ------------------------------- .405 .375 .401 .313 .399 .374 .378 NS Neg. .039 > P ------------------------------- .137 .139 .142 .126 .173 .144 .144 NS .009 .014 z Mn ------------------------------ .107 .100 .119 .109 .101 .110 .108 NS .003 .0(16 > 

Ag ------------------------------ .15 .17 .15 <.10 .16 <.10 ---------- ;.:; B ------------------------------- 37.0 42.5 45.7 37.4 41.4 42.1 41.0 NS Neg. 4.1 rn Ba ------------------------------ 1,280 1,260 1,200 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,173 NS 82.2 41.6 l?'j 

Be ------------------------------- 2.02 2.09 2.43 2.16 2.10 2.01 2.14 NS .11 .12 rn Bi ------------------------------- <LOO <LOO <LOO <LOO <LOO <LOO ---------- -------- ------ ------

0 Ce ------------------------------ 76.6 79.5 85.9 66.2 76.3 68.6 75.5 NS Neg. 8.72 ~ 

Co ------------------------------ 7.63 7.57 7.55 6.82 7.41 6.86 7.31 NS Neg. .37 

8~ -::::::::::::::::::::==:::::::: <16.~3 <4~:~ 1 i~:~ 0 <1~:~ 0 <4~:!7 <4~:: 6 :::::::::: :::::::: :::::: ::::=: ~ Dy ------------------------------ <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 ---------- -------- ------ ------ C":l . ~ 

Er •----------------------------- <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 ---------- 1-:3 Eu ------------------------------ 1.08 1.29 1.38 1.00 1.11 1.02 1.15 NS Neg. .18 Ga ------------------------------ 19.4 18.9 20.0 16.4 20.0 18.0 18.8 NS Neg. 1.7 Z 

*~ ============================== :2t~~ ~u~ <t:~~ ~t~g :2t~~ ~t~~ ========== ======== ====== ====== ~ J~a ------------------------------ 37.1 37.4 36.0 38.6 35.3 30.8 35.9 NS 1.92 2.12 C:: Mo ------------------------------ 4.70 3.55 3.37 2.91 3.30 2.54 3.40 NS .49 .59 

Nb ------------------------------ 6.67 5.80 7.45 7.48 5.89 3.30 6.10 NS 1.20 1.12 ~ Nd ------------------------------ 40.0 33.0 38.0 32.0 34.0 35.0 35.3 NS Neg. 3.8 Ni ------------------------------ 2.34 2.38 1.96 1.59 2.04 1.65 1.99 NS .28 .22 rn 

~ Ph ------------------------------ 19.7 24.3 25.9 17.5 22.0 20.3 21.6 NS Neg. 4.0 O Pr ------------------------------ 6.18 7.63 6.90 5.73 4.88 5.07 6.06 NS .83 .76 O Sc ------------------------------- 11.4 12.5 11.9 10.5 10.9 11.1 11.4 NS Neg. .73 ~ 

Sm ------------------------------ <4.64 <4.64 <4.64 <4.64 <4.64 <4.64 ---------- -------- ------ ------ Sn ------------------------------ 4.41 4.38 4.36 4.01 4.02 <3.16 ---------- -------- ------ ------ rn 

Sr ------------------------------- 437 439 510 395 446 391 436 NS Neg. 52.0 ~ Th ------------------------------ <21.5 <21.5 <21.5 <21.5 <21.5 <21.5 ---------- -------- z V ------------------------------- 59.3 60.3 68.1 57.3 70.6 55.8 61.9 NS Neg. 7.5 Y ------------------------------- 26.6 25.8 26.2 23.9 28.1 21.5 25.4 NS Neg. 2.9 I:' Yb _ ----------------------------- 3.45 3.27 3.57 3.08 2.77 3.61 3.29 NS Neg. .40 > 

Zn ------------------------------ 60.3 63.2 62.4 53.8 67.3 60.3 61.2 NS Neg. 4.7 § Zr ------------------------------- 229 192 240 233 224 198 219 NS 6.8 18.6 rn 
TABLE 92.-Computerized spectrographic data for mica schist, SDC-1 

[Elements Si through Mn in percent, all others in parts per million] 

Bottle --------------------------- 49/10 19/3 33/17 

Determination ------------------- 1 2 1 2 1 2 Element 

Si ------------------------------- >34.3 33.6 >34.3 30.0 32.3 32.9 

AI ------------------------------- 10.7 9.30 9.96 8.50 10.2 10.6 Fe ------------------------------ 6.04 5.87 6.08 5.64 6.2~ 5.97 

Mg ------------------------------ 1.95 1.88 1.72 1.54 1.71 1.62 Ca ----------------------------- 1.53 1.54 1.25 1.29 1.30 1.16 

Na ------------------------------ >.316 >.316 >.316 >.316 >.316 >.316 K ------------------------------- >LOO >LOO >LOO >LOO >L<OO >LOO 

Ti ------------------------------- .580 .567 .430 .399 .448 .483 p ------------------------------- .120 . 110 .120 .0826 .0973 .104 

Mn ------------------------------ .128 .135 .138 .125 .125 .115 

Ag ------------------------------ .15 .16 .17 .16 .15 .14 B ------------------------------- 10.8 <10.0 12.8 10.6 10.1 10.0 Ba --------·---------------------- 593 562 456 530 491 521 Be ~--- -------------------------- 3.95 3.74 3.68 3.52 3.60 3.82 

Bi ------------------------------- <LOO <1.00 <LOO <LOO <LOO <LOO 

Ce ------------------------------- 134 136 118 113 128 113 Co ------------------------------ 22.1 21.4 17.3 17.9 23.6 19.6 

Cr ------------------------------- 75.4 72.5 63.6 63.7 67.7 61.3 

Cu ----------- _ ----------------- __ <46.4 <46.4 <46.4 <46.4 <46.4 <46.4 Dy ------------------------------ <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 

Er ------------------------------ <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 Eu ------------------------------ 1.66 1.52 1. 77 1.57 1. 77 1.80 Ga ------------------------------ 24.2 19.8 19.6 19.1 20.3 18.7 Gd ------------------------------ 6.50 <3.16 3.78 3.89 5.90 <3.16 Ho ------------------------------ <LOO <1.09 <LOO <LOO <LOO <LOO 

La 59.4 57.3 59.1 46.2 53.7 52.6 Mo :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 1.51 1.98 2.09 1.33 2.77 1.74 

Nb ------------------------------ 18.6 14.0 15.3 11.4 14.4 12.6 Nd ------------------------------ 33.0 40.0 34.0 32.0 36.0 28.0 Ni ------------------------------ 67.5 61.6 40.7 50.2 57.6 60.2 

Pb ------------------------------ 25.9 23.8 24.2 24.3 22.8 25.8 Pr 11.6 8.73 8.12 8.39 7.71 7.81 Sc _:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 26.3 20.3 16.3 18.5 15.4 21.6 

Sm ------------------------------ 6.32 6.24 4.78 5.09 5.72 4.96 Sn ------------------------------ <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 

Sr ------------------------------ 239 241 232 229 240 254 Th ------------------------------ <21.5 <21.5 <21.5 <21.5 <21.5 <21.5 v ------------------------------ 148 148 117 121 112 121 y ------------------------------- 48.6 42.8 51.0 35.9 43.8 41.6 Yb ------------------------------ 5.34 6.23 5.58 4.53 4.68 4.41 

Zn ------------------------------ 115 97.5 101 102 111 120 Zr ------------------------------ 308 269 231 181 225 254 

Mean Conclusions 

---------- 9.88 NS 5.97 NS 1.74 NS 1.34 NS(.975) 

---------- -------- ---------- .484 8(.99) .106 NS .128 NS 

.155 NS 

---------- 526 NS 3.78 NS 

---------- --------

124 NS 20.3 NS 67.4 NS 

---------- -------- ---------- --------

---------- 1.68 NS 20.3 NS 

---------- -------- ---------- --------

54.7 NS 1.90 NS 14.4 NS 33.8 NS 56.3 NS 

24.5 NS 8.73 NS 19.7 NS 5.18 NS 

---------- ---------

239 NS 

---------- 128 8(.99) 44.0 NS 5.13 NS 

108 NS 245 NS 

Standard deviation 

Bottles Erro1r (d.f.=2) (d.f.=3) 

--N~g~ 0.84 Neg. .22 

0.14 .09 .16 .06 

------ ------ .080 .020 

Neg . .016 

.004 .007 

.009 .007 

38.1 34.8 

.07 .14 

------ ------ 9.0 6.5 

2.03 1.68 

5.34 2.87 

------ ------ ------ ------

.07 .10 

.61 1.9 

------ ------ ------ ------

Neg. 5.35 Neg. .56 Neg. 2.57 Neg. 4.4 9.23 4.69 

.96 1.50 1.80 1,18 

Neg. '3.64 .65 .34 

------ ------

7.2 5.9 

17.3 4.0 Neg. 6.7 .47 .57 

4.3 8.0 36.3 28.3 

C':) 

0 

a= 

'"0 

~ 

t-3 

t_:l:j 

~ ~ 

~ 

t_:l:j 

t::l 

00. 

'"0 

t_:l:j 

C':) 

t-3 

~ 

0 

c;') 

~ 

> '"0 

::r::: 

~ 

C':) 

t::l 

> t-3 

> 

l%j 

0 

~ 

~ 

00. 

c;') 

00. 

00. 

t-3 

> z 

t::l 

> 

~ 

t::l 

00. 

1-' 

1-' 

-
TABLE 93.-Computerized spectrographic data for Cody Shale, SCo-1 

[Elements Si through Mn in percent, all others in parts per million] 

Bottle --------------------------- 39/30 38/19 68/12 

Determination -------------------- 1 2 1 2 1 2 Element 

Si ------------------------------- 33.0 >34.3 33.8 32.0 >34.3 30.7 

AI ------------------------------- 7.19 7.64 8.33 7.12 7.11 6.39 

Fe ------------------------------ 3.86 5.52 4.01 4.64 4.33 4.38 

Mg ------------------------------ 2.27 2.30 2.53 2.53 1.93 1.84 

Ca ------------------------------ 1.65 1.85 2.53 2.27 2.00 1.81 

Na ------------------------------ >.316 >.316 >.316 >.316 >.316 >.316 K ------------------------------- >LOO >LOO >LOO >LOO >LOO >LOO 

Ti ------------------------------- .133 .148 .206 .168 .193 .161 p ------------------------------- • 128 .125 .128 .141 .0990 .150 

Mn ------------------------------ .0508 .0490 .0678 .0585 .0505 .0560 

Ag ------------------------------ <.10 <.10 .13 <.10 <.10 <.10 B ------------------------------- 95.7 102 89.1 93.4 90.1 88.9 Ba ------------------------------ 338 377 516 418 438 410 Be ------------------------------ 1.51 1.77 2.12 2.33 1.79 1.96 

Bi ------------------------------- <LOO <1.00 <1.00 <LOO <LOO <1.00 

Ce ------------------------------- 59.8 67.8 81.9 69.5 76.0 70.9 Co ------------------------------ 9.39 8.99 10.7 9.50 9.91 8.30 

Cr ------------------------------- 48.9 51.5 72.0 61.4. 59.8 60.7 

Cu ------------------------------- <46.4 <46.4 <46.4 <46.4 <46.4 <46.4 Dy --------------------------- ~- ... <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 

Er ------------------------------ <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 Eu ------------------------------ <LOO <LOO 1.02 1.10 <LOO <LOO Ga ------------------------------ 10.6 10.3 14.6 11.3 9.20 9.30 

Gd ------------------------------ <3.16 <3.16 4.20 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 Ho ------------------------------ <LOO <LOO <LOO <LOO <LOO <LOO 

La --------·---------------------- 23.9 29.8 36.3 40.4 33.4 41.5 Mo 2.64 2.91 3.51 2.99 2.40 2.31 Nb :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 3.77 5.90 10.6 7.35 6.86 9.05 

Nd ------------------------------ 20.0 21.8 27.5 24.5 26.5 22.5 Ni ------------------------------ 26.0 26.2 33.9 28.2 29.8 24.6 

Pb ------------------------------ 30.5 27.4 36.0 31.1 24.8 27.7 Pr 5.92 5.78 5.28 5.98 5.06 4.57 Se .:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 6.59 7.ao 12.3 10.3 10.7 6.79 

Sm ------------------------------ <4.64 <4.64 <4.64 <4.64 <4.64 <4.64 Sn ------------------------------ 4.33 4.08 5.44 5.30 4.84 5.59 

Sr ------------------------------ 195 205 236 224 219 209 Th ------------------------------ <21.5 <21.5 <21.5 <21.5 <21.5 <21.5 v ------------------------------- 113 109 120 115 128 119 

y 16.5 19.6 24.5 21.0 22.2 22.6 Yb ·:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 2.11 2.20 2.68 2.20 2.30 1.76 

Zn ------------------------------ 96.4 99.6 112 101 89.2 94.4 Zr ---------------... -------------- 162 181 237 158 198 184 

Mean Conclusions 

---------- 7.30 NS 4.46 NS 2.23 8(.99) 2.02 NS(.975) 

---------- -------- ---------- .168 NS .128 NS .0554 NS 

---------- 93.2 NS 416 NS 1.90 NS 

---------- --------

71.0 NS 9.30 NS 59.0 NS 

---------- -------- ---------- --------

---------- -------- ---------- :Ns ______ 10.9 

---------- -------- ---------- --------

34.2 NS 2.79 NS 7.26 NS 23.8 NS 28.1 N$ 

29.6 NS 5.43 NS 9.00 NS 

---------- 4.93 

:Ns ______ 

215 NS 

---------- 117 

:Ns ______ 

21.1 NS 2.21 NS 

98.8 NS 187 NS 

Standard deviation 

Bottles Error (d.f.=2) (d.f.=3) 

0.26 0.60 Neg. .73 

.32 .04 .32 .15 

------ ------ .019 .021 Neg . .022 .0061 .0045 

4.4 3.2 45.3 44.6 .25 .13 

------ ------

4.43 6.37 .40 .86 7.7 4.5 

------ ------ ------ ------

------ ------

1.6 1.4 

------ ------ ------ ------

5.56 4.42 .41 .24 1.73 1.82 2.1 2.2 1.34 3.15 

3.18 2.65 .48 .35 1.77 1.82 

.59 .33 

14.0 7.57 

5.a8 4.51 2.24 1.92 

Neg. .30 

6.42 5.14 Neg. 33.'i' 

.....,. 

.....,. 

~ 

t::l 

tz:j 

00 

0 

~ ~ 

'"d 

t-3 

~ 

0 

z 

00 

> z 

t::l 

> 

z 

> t"" 

1-<l 

00 

tz:j 

00 

0 

lo::l:j 

tz:j 

~ 

0 

:X: 

t-3 

z 

t:_%j 

~ 

~ 

00 

0 

'C/l 

~ 

0 

0 

~ 

'C/l 

t-3 

> 

z 

t::l 

> 

~ 

t::l 

00 
/ 

TABLE 94.-Computerized spectrographic data' for Green River Shale, SGR-1 

[Elements Si through Mn in percent, all others in parts per million] 

Bottle -·-------------------------- 26/29 57/9 52/20 

Determination -------------------- 1 2 1 2 1 2 Mean Element 

Si _ ------------------------------ 15.2 13.6 14.3 14.2 14.4 14.9 14.4 

AI ------------------------------- 3.45 3.16 3.55 3.81 3.57 3.86 3.57 F'e ------------------------------ 2.51 1.82 2.09 2.24 2.14 2.69 2.25 

Mg ------------------------------ 3.76 3.66 3.83 3.58 3.70 4.07 3.77 Ca ------------------------------ 4.69 5.07 5.51 5.14 5.11 5.39 5.15 

Na ------------------------------ >.316 >.316 >.316 >.316 >.316 >.316 ---------- K ------------------------------- >LOO >LOO >LOO >LOO >LOO >LOO ---------- Ti ------------------------------- .0677 .0726 .0622 .0697 .0668 .0773 :069 p ------------------------------- .195 .162 .179 .181 .185 .168 . 178 

Mn ------------------------------ .0322 .0264 .0304 . 0289 .0340 .0292 .0302 

Ag ------------------------------ <.10 <.10 <.10 <.10 <.10 .10 ---------- B ------------------------------- 65.0 57.2 53.6 67.0 53.7 56.2 58.8 Ba ------------------------------ 325 413 362 293 379 396 361 Be ------------------------------ <LOO <1.00 <LOO <LOO <LOO <LOO ---------- Bi ------------------------------- <LOO <1.00 <LOO <1.00 <1.00 <LOO ----------

Ce ------------------------------- 58.6 50.8 57.0 58.4 59.2 70.0 58.9 Co ------------------------------ 9.51 9.38 10.3 9.91 9.83 10.8 9.96 

Cr ---- _ -------------------------- 21.0 22.9 22.6 14.9 21.7 22.1 20.9 

Cu ------------------------------- <46.4 <46.4 <46.4 <46.4 <46.4 <46.4 ---------- Dy ------------------------------ <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 ----------

Er ------------------------------ <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 ---------- Eu ------------------------------ <LOO <LOO <LOO <LOO <LOO <LOO ---------- Ga ------------------------------ 6.01 5.98 5.55 4.78 5.53 5.26 5.52 Gd ------------------------------ 5.66 <3.16 4.78 4.85 4.53 6.10 ---------- Ho ------------------------------ <LOO <LOO <LOO <LOO <LOO <LOO ----------

La ------------------------------ 31.9 29.3 28.4 28.8 30.2 41.7 31.7 Mo _____ ---------------- _____ ---- 35.6 38.8 33.0 40.0 33.1 35.9 36.1 Nb _ ---- _______________ ---------- 5.28 6.89 4.53 4.78 4.42 5.94 5.31 Nd ------------------------------ 40.0 37.0 36.0 34.0 36.0 39.0 37.0 Ni ------------------------------ 27.9 29.5 32.8 31.3 37.1 35.1 32.3 

Pb ------------------------------ 34.1 33.0 34.6 32.3 30.8 27.0 32.0 Pr 8.04 8.75 6.13 5.66 5.78 6.83 6.86 Sc _:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 3.64 4.00 4.01 3.59 3.62 4.31 3.86 

Sm ------------------------------ <4.64 <4.64 <4.64 <4.64 <4.64 <4.64 ---------- Sn ------------------------------ <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 ----------

Sr ------------------------------ 461 443 595 565 600 687 558 Th ------------------------------ <21.5 <21.5 <21.5 <21.5 <21.5 <21.5 ---------- v ------------------------------- 125 109 100 132 129 139 122 y ------------------------------- 12.9 12.1 11.6 12.5 13.0 14.3 12.7 Yb ------------------------------ 1.04 1.32 1.35 1.01 1.05 1.27 1.17 

Zn ------------------------------ 71.2 64.0 69.4 63.1 66.6 64.2 66.4 Zr ------------------------------ 116 85.2 102 100 115 113 105 

Conclusions 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

--------

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

--------

--------

NS 

NS 

NS 

--------

--------

--------

NS 

--------

--------

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS(.99) 

NS 

NS(.975) 

NS 

--------

--------

NS(.975) Ns ______ 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

Standard deviation 

Bottles Error (d.f.=2) (d.f.=3) 

Neg. 0.69 0.18 .20 Neg. .36 Neg. .19 .16 .24 

------ ------ --N~~ .006 Neg . .015 Neg . .0031 

--N~-g: 6.4 Neg. 46.2 

------ ------ ------ ------ 3.23 5.34 .34 .43 Neg. 3.24 

------ ------ ------ ------

------ ------

.36 .33 

------ ------ ------ ------ 1.69 4.82 Neg. 3.34 .33 .91 

1.2 1.9 

3.60 1.21 

2.30 1.87 1.28 .55 Neg. .36 

------ ------ ------ ------

94 38 

--:N~~~ 15.2 .65 .72 Neg. .20 

Neg. 4.03 Neg. 12.6 

n 

0 

== '"C 

c:: 

1-3 

tzj 

~ 1-1 

~ 

tzj 

t::::j 

rl.l 

'"C 

tzj 

n 

1-3 

~ 

0 

~ 

~ 

> '"C 

= 1-1 

n 

t::::j 

> 1-3 

> 

fo:cj 

0 

~ 

c:: 

rl.l 

~ 

rl.l 

rl.l 

1-3 

> z 

t::::j 

> 

~ 

t::::j 

00 

1-' 

1-' 

~ 
TABLE 95.-Computerized spectrographic data for marine mud, MAG-1 

[Elements Si through Mn in percent, all others in parts per million] 

Bottle --------------------------- 59/22 60/10 4/21 

Determination ------------------- 1 2 1 2 1 2 Element 

Si ------------------------------- 23.9 24.6 23.3 19.9 23.5 22.9 

AI ------------------------------- 9.86 8.70 8.07 7.54 8.86 7.81 lt'e ------------------------------ 5.21 5.81 4.91 4.87 5.11 5.53 

Mg ------------------------------ '3.07 2.62 2.44 2.51 2.65 2.70 Ca ------------------------------ 1.59 1.06 1.26 1.37 1.28 1.33 

Na ------------------------------ >.316 >.316 >.316 >.316 >.316 >.316 K ------------------------------- >LOO >LOO >LOO >LOO> >LOO >LOO 

Ti ------------------------------- .368 .204 .241 .213 .234 .239 p .102 .100 .113 .0787 <.0464 .0895 Mn -:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .110 .::.04 .0998 .0979 .104 .0972 

Ag ------------------------------ .16 .11 .11 .10 .10 .10 B ------------------------------- 159 163 147 131 156 177 Ba --------·---------------------- 511 408 445 420 367 413 Be ------------------------------ '3.15 3.05 3.18 2.47 3.12 2.83 

Bi ------------------------------- <LOO <LOO <LOO <1.00 <LOO <LOO 

Ce ------------------------------- 128 107 98.3 98.9 103 91.9 Co ------------------------------ 28.3 20.3 23.3 18.5 19.3 20.2 

Cr ------------------------------- 125 87.5 106 98.4 108 102 

Cu ------------------------------- <46.4 <46.4 <46.4 <46.4 <46.4 <46.4 Dy ------------------------------ <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 

Er ------------------------------ <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 Eu ------------------------------ 1.50 1.18 1.38 1.16 1.35 1.20 Ga ------------------------------ 24.3 25.9 21.7 18.3 20.2 20.6 Gd ------------------------------ 5.6 5.0 <3.16 <3.16 3.4 4.2 Ho ------------------------------ <LOO <LOO <LOO <LOO <LOO <LOO 

La 66.6 51.0 46.0 47.1 60.1 38.6 Mo :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 3.62. 2.91 2.56 2.39 3.01 2.36 

Nb ------------------------------ 10.4 8.70 8.42 5.78 6.81 6.83 Nd ------------------------------ 34.0 26.5 24.5 26.5 24.5 24.5 Ni ------------------------------ 70.8 79.7 79.2 66.3 64.6 60.3 

Os ------------------------------ <21.5 <21.5 <21.6 <21.5 <21.5 <21.5 Pb ------------------------------ 22.7 22.4 21.0 18.1 18.5 19.6 Pr 7.57 8.02 8.07 6.68 8.45 7.57 Se _::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 27.4 14.6 13.3 14.8 16.3 15.8 

Sm ------------------------------ 6.97 5.12 <4.64 <4.64 4.92 <4.64 

Sn ------------------------------ 7.33 6.23 6.34 6.77 6.18 5.77 Sr ------------------------------ 190 181 182 183 187 189 Th ------------------------------ <21.5 <21.5 <21.5 <21.5 <21.5 <21.5 v ------------------------------- 149 143 146 140 149 133 y ------------------------------- 33.2 24.2 23.4 23.1 25.2 20.9 

Yb ------------------------------ 3.11 2.45 2.46 2.75 2.75 2.58 

Zn ------------------------------ 104 110 105 95.4 94.4 103 

Zr ------------------------------ 181 154 131 125 138 120 

... 

Mean Conelusions 

23.0 NS 8.47 NS 5.24 NS 2.66 NS 1.32 NS 

---------- -------- ---------- .248 NS 

---------- .102 NS 

.112 NS 156 NS 426 NS 2.97 NS 

---------- --------

104 NS 21.6 NS 104 NS 

---------- -------- ---------- --------

---------- 1.30 NS 21.8 NS 

---------- -------- ---------- --------

49.7 NS 2.80 NS 7.66 NS 26.8 NS 70.2 NS 

---------- 20.4 

:Ns ______ 

7.72 NS 17.0 NS 

---------- --------

6.43 NS 185 NS 

---------- :Ns ______ 143 

25.0 NS 

2.68 NS 102 NS 142 NS 

Standard deviation 

Bottles Error (d.f.=2) (d.f.=3) 

0.86 1.44 

.58 .67 

.24 .30 

.13 .19 Neg. .22 

------ ------ Neg. .064 

.003 .004 

.014 .021 

12.3 10.9 

15.0 48.9 

Neg. .32 

------ ------ 8.9 9.7 Neg. 3.8 Neg. 16.8 

------ ------ ------ ------

--:N~~ -~i7--

2.6 1.5 

------ ------ ------ ------ 5.2 7.6 

.30 .40 

1.39 1.34 

2.1 3.2 4.9 6.6 

1.7 1.3 Neg. .70 Neg. 5.3 

------ ------

.21 .51 

.64 3.8 

Neg. 7.4 

1.4 4.1 

Neg. .30 1.65 5.8 20.4 13.5 

I-A 

I-A 

~ 

t:l 

t:=J 

Ul 

a 

~ ...... 

~ 

~ ...... 

0 

z 

Ul 

> z 

t:! 

> z 

> 

t-t 

~ 

Ul 

t:=J 

Ul 

0 

l'%_j 

t:=J. 

...... 

Q 

:I: 

~ 

z 

t:=J 

:a 

c:::: 

Ul 

Q 

Ul 

~ 

0 

a 

~ 

Ul 

~ 

> z 

t:l 

> 

~ 

t:! 

Ul 
TABLE 96.-Computerized spectrographic data for Hawaiian basalt, BHV0-1 

[Elements Si through Mn in percent, all others in parts per million. Asterisk indicates interference] 

Bottle --------------------------- 11/22 10/14 32/15 

Determination ------------------- 1 2 1 2 1 2 Mean Element 

Si ------------------------------- 22.8 22.3 26.7 20.8 22.8 23.8 23.2 

AI ------------------------------- 7.71 7.85 7.74 7.43 7.57 7.76 7.68 

Fe ------------------------------ 9.50 9.66 10.0 9.48 9.62 9.13 9.56 

Mg ------------------------------ 7.45 6.92 7.50 6.68 7.41 7.56 7.25 

Ca ------------------------------ 7.64 6.69 8.13 7.02 7.27 7.94 7.45 

Na ------------------------------ >.316 >.316 >.316 >.316 >.316 >.316 ---------- K ------------------------------- .670 .390 .673 .672 .411 .503 .553 

Ti ------------------------------- 2.03 1.56 1.73 1.41 1.74 2.30 1.80 

p ------------------------------- .193 <.0464 .190 .165 .187 <.0464. ---------- Mn ------------------------------ .190 .172 .192 .175 .175 .181 .181 

Ag ------------------------------ .39 .25 .32 .30 .36 .37 . 332 

B ------------------------------- <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 ---------- Ba ------------------------------ 114 116 118 130 123 102 117 

Be ------------------------------ <LOO <LOO 1.20 <LOO 1.08 1.03 ---------- Bi ------------------------------- <LOO <LOO <LOO <LOO <LOO <LOO ----------

Ce ------------------------------- 118 97.3 124 • • • ---------- Co 51.5 42.7 51.8 48.4 42.4 48.0 47.4 

Cr _:::::==:=========:=========::: 292 254 389 356 296 345 322 

Cu ------------------------------- • • • • • • ---------- Dy ------------------------------ <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 ---------- Er ------------------------------ <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 <2.15 ---------- Eu ------------------------------ 1.70 1.46 1.76 1.54 1.40 1.69 1.59 

Ga ------------------------------ 26.4 23.4 211.8 28.0 24.4 27.4 25.9 

Gd ------------------------------ 5.00 7.30 9.60 6.70 4.60 9.60 7.1 

Ho ------------------------------ <LOO <LOO <LOO <LOO <LOO <LOO ---------- La ------------------------------ 31.2 26.0 34.8 33.5 21.1 33.8 30.1 

Mo ------------------------------ 5.52 5.80 5.26 4.95 4.70 7.23 5.58 

Nb ------------------------------ 17.4 16.3 18.8 11.7 13.4 13.9 15.2 

Nd ------------------------------ <14.7 <14.7 <14.7 <14.7 <14.7 <14.7 ---------- Ni ------------------------------ 143 119 151 138 133 157 140 

Pb ----------------------------·-- 3.0 2.92 3.53 3.42 3.53 3.90 3.38 

Pr <14.7 <14.7 <14.7 <14.7 <14.7 <14.7 ---------- Sc -======::=:=:::=:::=::::::::::: >68.1 >68.1 >68.1 >68.1 63.7 >68.1 ---------- Sm ----------------------------'-- <4.64 <4.64 <4.64 <4.64 <4.64 <4.64 ---------- Sn ------------------------------ <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 <3.16 ---------- Sr ------------------------------ 486 415 506 465 462 505 473 

Th ----------------------------·-- <21.5 <21.5 <21.5 <21.5 <21.5 <21.5 ---------- v ------------------------------- >215 >215 >215 >215 >215 >215 ---------- y -------------·------------------ 30.6 23.5 28.4 25.5 28.9 26.4 27.2 

Yb ------------------------------ 4.68 3.26 4.77 4.94 3.60 4.22 4.24 

Zn ------------------------------ 190 154 189 182 164 192 178 Zr ------------------------------ 218 181 207 204 223 184 203 

Conclusions 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

:Ns ______ 

NS :Ns ______ 

NS :Ns ______ 

--------

--------

NS 

NS 

--------

--------

:Ns ______ 

NS 

NS 

--------

NS 

NS 

NS :Ns ______ 

NS 

--------

--------

--------

--------

NS 

-------- :Ns ______ 

NS 

NS 

NS 

Standard deviation 

Bottles Error (d.f.=2) (d.f.=3) 

Neg. 2.45 

Neg. .16 

Neg. .30 

Neg. .40 

Neg. .66 

0.069 -~i2oNeg. .33 

--N--;;~ .010 

Neg . .058 

--N~g~ 9.7 

------ ------ ------ ------

--N--;;g~ 4.5 

45.4 28.7 

------ ------ ------ ------

--N~g~ -~is--

Neg. 1.95 

Neg. 2.5 

------ ------ INeg. 5.6 

Neg. 1.05 

Neg. 2.94 

Neg. 14.8 

.37 .16 

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------

------ ------ Neg. 37.8 

------ ------

--N~g~ 3.29 

.28 .64 

Neg. 18.8 

Neg. 22.0 

Q 

0 

Is: 

"tt 

c:: 

~ 

t:.1 

~ ...... 

N 

t:.1 

t=' 

00 

"tt 

t:.1 

Q 

~ 

~ 

0 

~ 

~ 

> "tt 

= ...... 

Q 

t=' 

> 

~ 

> 

~ 

0 

~ 

c:: 

00 

~ 

00 

00 

~ 

> z 

t=' 

> 

~ 

t=' 

00 

J-1. 

J-1. 

Ql 

DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

DETERMINATIONS OF RARE ALKAI:JS AND ALKALINE 

EARTHS IN USGS STANDARD ROCKS 

By SYDNEY ABBEY 1 

The determinations in the table 97 were made in 

the chemical laboratories of the Geological Survey of 

Canada, Ottawa. Portions of the samples were 

randomly inserted into batches of samples for routine 

analysis over a period of several months. Barium and 

strontium were determined by atomic absorption 

spectrophotometry, and cesium, lithium, and 

rubidium, by flame emission spectrophotometry. The 

methods have heed described by Abbey (1972). An 

extra digit has usually been retained in the estimates 

of the means and the standard deviations, and the 

1 Geological Survey of Canada. 

user may round at his discretion. Data were obtained 

under the same conditions and assumptions, and with 

the same experimental design with a single variable of 

classification, used elsewhere in this volume. The 

analyses of variance and conclusions were calculated 

by F. J. Flanagan. 

REFERENCE 

Abbey, Sydney, 1972, Analysis of rocks and minerals by 

atomic absorption and flame emission spectrometry. Part 

IV. A composite scheme for the less common alkalies and 

alkaline earths. Geol. Survey Canada Paper 71-50, 18 p. 

TABLE 97.-Estimates of the less common alkali and alkaline-earth contents of USGS samples 

[In parts per million. Conclusions from the analysis of variance: NS, not significant at Fo.ro or the fractile of the F distribution indicated. d.f., de- grees of freedom; d.f. for all elements in W-1 are 1 for bottles and 2 for error. Neg., negative bottle variance] 

Bottles Standard Deviation 

Sample Element Mean Conclu- Bottles Error 2 3 sions (d.f.=2) (d.f.=3) 

G-2 ------------------- Ba 1780 1920 1880 1830 NS Neg. 58.6 

1800 1810 1790 

Cs 1.8 .9 1.4 1.32 NS .27 .19 

1.4 1.1 1.3 

Li 32 30 32 31.5 NS Neg. .9 

32 32 31 

Rb 200 165 165 174.2 NS 11.3 10.6 

175 170 170 

Sr 500 510 510 495 NS 0 17.8 

490 480 480 

GSP-1 ----------------- Ba 1310 1350 1340 1345 NS Neg. 38 

1400 1350 1320 

Cs 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.08 NS Neg. .18 

.8 1.2 1.0 

Li 29 27 30 28.7 NS .96 .58 

29 28 29 

Rb 275 235 270 264.2 NS (.975) 18.3 6.8 

280 250 275 

Sr 260 260 250 245 NS 0 17.8 

230 230 240 

AGV-1 ---------------- Ba 1360 1260 1220 1267 NS(.975) 90 33 

1370 1250 1140 

Cs 1.5 1.2 1.3 1.16 NS .08 .27 

1.3 1.0 .7 

Li 10 10 9 10 NS 0 .8 

10 10 11 

Rb 66 65 63 6'7.5 NS Neg. 4.5 

72 74 65 

Sr 660 670 630 652 NS 5.8 12.2 

650 650 650 

117 
118 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

TABLE 97.-Estimates of the less common alkali and alkaline-earth contents of USGS samples-Continued 

Bottles Standard Deviation 

Sample Element Mean Conclu- Bottles Error 2 3 sions (d.f.=2) (d.£.=3) 

BCR-1 ---------------- Ba 790 710 730 732 NS 2.9 29 

720 720 720 

Cs 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.1 NS Neg. ,2'5 

.7 1.0 1.3 

Li 13 17 12 13.7 NS 1.3 1.3 

13 14 13 

Rb 48 46 49 47.8 NS Neg. 3.2 

48 52 44 

Sr 320 330 330 318.3 NS Neg. 12.2 

310 310 310 

W-1 ------------------- Ba 150 250 208 NS(.975) 59 15 

180 250 

Cs 1.2 1.5 1.2 NS .29 .21 

.8 1.4 

Li 13 13 12.5 NS .9 1.6 

10 14 

Rb 22 22 21.2 NS 0 1.5 

19 22 

Sr 175 200 183.8 NS 11.2 7.5 

175 185 
DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

COPPER, LITHIUM, MANGANESE, STRONTIUM, ZINC, SODIUM, 

POTASSIUM, AND MAGNESIUM CONTENTS OF 

EIGHT NEW USGS STANDARD 

ROCK SAMPLES 

By J. A. THOMAS, \VAYNE MouNTJOY, and CLAUDE HuFFMAN, JR. 

Atomic absorption spectrometry and flame emission spectrometry techniques were used to determine the Cu, Li, Mn, 

Sr, Zn, N8.:.!0, K20, and MgO contents of USGS standard 

rock samples STM-1, RGM-1, QL0-1, SDC-1, BHV0-1, 

MAG-1, SC~1, and SGR-1. Eight portions, two from each 

of four bottles of each reference sample, were analyzed in 

random order for the elements. The analyses of variance show 

the samples to be homogeneous for these elements by the 

methods used. 

I 

Mg were determined by atomic absorption spectrometry ; N a and K were determined by flame emission spectrometry. 

Eight new reference samples have recently been 

added to the USGS standard rock sample program. 

The new reference samples include: a nepheline 

syenite from Table Mountain, Ore. (STM-1); a 

rhyolite obsidian from Glass Mountain, Calif. 

(RGM-1) ; a quartz latite from Lake County, Ore. 

(QL0-1); a mica schist from Rock Creek Park, 

Washington, D.C. (SDC-1) ; a basalt from Hawaii 

(BHV0-1) ; a marine mud from the Wilkerson 

Basin, Gulf of Maine (MAG-1) ; a sample of the 

Cody Shale from Natrona County, Wyo. (SCo-1) ; 

and a shale from the Green River Formation (SGR1). 

This paper presents data on five trace elementscopper, lithium, manganese, strontium, and zincand for the minor oxides of sodium, potassium, and 

magnesium in the new reference samples. Eight 

portions, two from each of four bottles of each reference sample, were analyzed in random order to 

obtain the analytical data. Cu, Li, Mn, Sr, Zn, and 

ANALYTICAL METHODS 

The atomic absorption procedure for determining 

Cu, Li, Mn, Sr, Zn, and Mg consists of decomposing 

1 g of rock sample with nitric, hydrofluoric, and 

perchloric acids, fuming it to dryness, and finally 

taking the salts into solution in 100 ml of 5 percent 

v /v hydrochloric acid. This single sample solution 

was used to make both the atomic absorption and 

the flame photometer determinations for all el~­

ments .looked for. Portions of the sample solution 

were aspirated into the air-acetylene flame of an 

atomic absorption spectrophotometer to determine 

Cu, Li, Mn, Sr, Zn, and Mg using the appropriate 

hollow cathode lamp. The aliquots taken for the 

determination of Sr and Mg were diluted with a 

lanthanum chloride solution so that the final volume 

of solution contained 1 percent w /v lanthanum, 

which acts as a releasing agent for these elements. 

Standard solutions containing known concentrations 

of the element to be determined were used for calibration. 

The Cu, Li, Mn, Sr, Zn, and Mg data were obtained with a Perkin-Elmer model 303 atomic absorption spectrophotometer using the instrumental 

parameters recommended by the manufacturer: 

Instrument parameters 

Parameter Cu Li Mn Sr Zn Mg 

Grating ------- UV Vis uv Vis uv uv 

Wavelength_ A_ 3247 6708 2794 4607 2138 2852 

Slit _______ nm_ 4 5 4 4 4 5 

Lamp 

current _rnA- ':15 15 15 10 15 6 

Flame (airacetylene) 

condition ---- Oxidizing Oxidizing Oxidizing Reducing Oxidizing Reducing 

Filter --------- Out In Out Out Out Out 

119 
120 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

The sodium and potassium data were obtained 

with an Instrumentation Laboratories model 143 

flame photometer using an air-propane flame and 

the instrumental parameters recommended by the 

manufacturer. Lithium solution was added as an 

internal standard to an aliquot of the sample solution prior to aspiration into the flame of the instrument. Standard solutions containing known amounts 

of sodium, potassium, and lithium were used for 

calibration. 

The values obtained for each element, their arithmetic mean, and the conclusions from the analysis 

of variance are given in table 98. The analysis of 

variance for the several sets of data show the mean 

sum of squares for the variation attributable to bottles is not significantly greater (Fo.9s) than that for 

within bottles, and therefore we may consider the 

bottles of samples to be homogeneous for Cu, Li, Mn, 

Sr, Zn, N a, K, and Mg by the analytical methods 

used. The averages in table 98 are shown with an extra significant digit, and thE:: user may round or not 

at his discretion. 

TABLE 98.-Determinations and estimates of se1Jeral elements and oxides in eight USGS samples 

[Conclusions from the analysis of variance: NS, not significant at Fo.95; d:.f., degrees of freedom; Neg., negative bottle variance] 

Sample 

~AG--1 -------------------

BHV0-1 

QL0-1 

STM-1 

SDC-1 -------------------

RGM-1 -------------------

SGR-1 -------------------

SCo-1 --------------------

]dAG--1 -------------------

BHV0-1 

QL0-1 

STM-1 

SDC-1 --.-----------------

RGM-1 -------------------

SGR-1 

SCo-1 --------------------

1 

35 

35 

143 

143 

34 

,33 

6 

6 

35 

33 

12 

13 

67 

71 

30 

30 

78 

78 

5 

5 

24 

25 

36 

36 

36 

36 

61 

61 

131 

131 

44 

45 

Bottles 

2 3 4 

34 

35 

143 

143 

35 

33 

6 

6 

32 

33 

14 

13 

69 

68 

31 

30 

78 

78 

5 

5 

24 

25 

36 

37 

36 

36 

61 

61 

131 

130 

45 

44 

Copper, in parta per mlllion 

34 

34 

143 

143 

33 

33 

6 

6 

32 

32 

14 

14 

68 

67 

30 

30 

34 

34 

143 

143 

33 

34 

6 

6 

32 

32 

13 

14 

68 

69 

30 

30 

Lithium, in parts per million 

77 

77 

5 

5 

24 

25 

36 

36 

36 

36 

61 

61 

131 

132 

44 

44 

77 

78 

5 

5 

25 

25 

36 

36 

36 

36 

61 

61 

131 

131 

44 

44 

Mean 

34.4 

143 

33.5 

6 

32.6 

13.4 

68.4 

30.1 

77.6 

5 

24.6 

36.1 

36 

61 

131 

44.2 

Standard Deviation 

Battles Error 

(d.f.=3) (d.f.=4) 

0.41 0.35 

Neg. .87 

.76 .79 

.46 .61 

Neg. 1.5 

.0 .35 

0.41 0.35 

Neg. .61 

.0 .35 

.20 .50 

Neg. .50 

Conclusions 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 
COPPER, LITHIUM, MANGANESE, STRONTIUM, ZINC, SODIUM, POTASSIUM, AND MAGNESIUM 121 

TABLE 98.-Determinations and esti1'1UI,tes of several elements and oxides in eight USGS samples-Continued 

Bottles Standard Deviation 

Sample Mean Bottles Error Conelu- 2 3 4 (d.f.=3) (d.f.=4) sions 

Manganese, in parts per million 

MAG-1 ------------------- 723 720 714 714 713.0 Neg. 6.9 NS 

710 713 705 705 

BHV0-1 ----------------- 1,290 1,290 1,280 1,290 1,286 Neg. 6.1 NS 

1,280 1,280 1,290 1,290 

QL0-1 ------------------- 670 670 670 670 672.5 Neg. 4.3 NS 

675 675 680 670 

STM-1 ------------------- 1,570 1,570 1,555 1,574 1,568.9 2.4 5.4 NS 

1,570 1,570 1,570 1,572 

SDC-1 ------------------- 825 825 825 825 825.5 .46 1.8 NS 

825 825 824 830 

RGM-1 ------------------- 264 260 260 260 264.5 1.2 11.8 NS 

264 260 293 255 

SGR-1 ------------------- 250 250 250 250 250.5 Neg. .7 NS 

251 251 251 251 

SCo--1 -------------------- 406 400 400 398 397.8 Neg. 4.6 NS 

399 393 393 393 

Strontium, in parts per million 

MAG-1 ------------------- 175 173 173 173 173.4 1.1 0.35 NS 

175 173 173 172 

BHV0-1 ----------------- 444 437 440 433 438.5 Neg. 4.5 NS 

437 440 435 442 

QL0-1 ------------------- 383 380 380 382 381.8 1.1 1.1 NS 

383 380 383 383 

STM-1 ------------------- 595 595 600 625 609.4 Neg. 16 NS 

610 610 635 605 

SDC-1 ------------------- 182 187 190 182 187.5 Neg. 6.0 NS 

198 187 187 187 

RGM-1 ------------------- 102 100 99 100 100.1 .29 .79 NS 

100 100 100 100 

SGR-1 ------------------- 325 333 330 350 332.2 6.0 9.8 NS 

325 315 345 335 

SCo--1 -------------------- 161 154 159 151 152.9 Neg. 5.1 NS 

151 148 151 148 

Zinc, in parts per million 

MAG-1 ------------------- 124 124 123 124 123.9 0.0 0.35 NS 

124 124 124 124 

BHV0-1 ----------------- 100 100 100 100 100 

100 100 100 100 

QL0-1 ------------------- 57 57 57 57 57 

57 57 57 57 

STM-1 ------------------- 245 245 245 245 243.8 Neg. 2.5 NS 

245 240 245 240 

SDC-1 --·----------------- 100 100 100 100 99.9 .0 .35 NS 

100 99 1()0 100 

RGM-1 ------------------- 33 33 33 33 33 

33 33 33 33 

SGR-1 ------------------- 73 72 72 72 72.1 .0 .35 NS 

72 72 72 72 

SCo--1 -------------------- 96 96 96 95 95.4 Neg. .79 NS 

94 95 96 95 
122 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYS.ES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

TABLE 98.-Determinations and estimates of several ele'T~Wnts and ozides in eight USGS samples-Continued 

Bottles Standard Deviation 

Sample Mean Bottles Error Conclu- 1 2 3 ' (d.f.=3) (d.f.=4) sions 

Sodium oxide, in percent 

MAG-1 ------------------- 3.79 3.84 3.79 3.78 3.792 Neg. 0.026 NS 

3.78 3.77 3.80 3.79 

BHV0-1 -------------~-- 2.29 2.28 2.29 2.28 2.291 Neg. .011 NS 

2.29 2.29 2.31 2.30 

QL0-1 ------------------- 4.17 4.17 4.20 4.17 4.185 .012 .016 NS 

4.21 4.19 4.21 4.16 

STM-1 ------------------- 8.76 8.74 8.73 8.74 8.730 Neg. .018 NS 

8.73 8.71 8.71 8.72 

SDC-1 ------------------- 2.08 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.069 .006 .006 NS 

2.07 2.06 2.06 2.07 

RGM-1 ------------------- 4.01 4.03 4.01 4.02 4.002 Neg. .023 NS 

4.00 4.00 3.96 3.99 

SGR-1 ------------------- 3.03 3.04 3.01 3.04 3.025 Neg. .012 NS 

3.02 3.01 3.02 3.03 

SCo-1 -------------------- 0.90 .92 .92 .94 0.918 .012 .008 NS 

.90 .92 .93 .92 

Potassium oxide, in percent 

MAG-1 ------------------- 3.52 3.55 3.53 3.53 3.528 Neg. 0.011 NS 

3.52 3.52 3.53 3.52 

.BHV0-1 ----------------- .516 .512 • 514 .514 .5168 Neg . .0049 NS 

.517 .520 .525 .517 

QL0-1 ------------------- 3.57 3.57 3.58 3.57 3.565 Neg. .011 NS 

3.56 3.55 3.56 3.56 

STM-1 ------------------- 4.24 4.23 4.23 4.23 4.229 Neg. .0093 NS 

4.22 4.22 4.22 4.24 

SDC-1 ------------------- 3.21 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.206 Neg. .0061 NS 

3.21 3.21 3.21 3.21 

RGM-1 ------------------- 4.27 4.28 4.28 4.28 4.263 Neg. .025 NS 

4.27 4.26 4.22 4.25 

SGR-1 ------------------- 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.598 0.0 .0071 NS 

1.60 1.58 1.60 1.60 

SCo-1 -------------------- 2.68 2.68 2.65 2.67 2.675 Neg. .017 NS 

2.70 2.67 2.69 2.66 

Magnesium oxide, in percent 

MAG-1 ------------------- 3.05 3.00 3.00 2.95 3.00 0.010 0.025 NS 

3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 

BHV0-1 ----------------- 7.00 7.00 6.94 7.00 6.98 Neg. .038 NS 

6.92 6.96 7.00 7.00 

QL0-1 ------------------- .98 .96 .97 .97 .964 .o .011 NS 

.96 .95 .9'; .95 

STM-1 ------------------- .099 . 097 .096 .099 .0986 Neg . .0019 NS 

.099 .102 .098 .099 

SDC-1 ------------------- 1.67 1.64 1.65 1.64 1.649 .004 .011 NS 

1.65 1.64 1.64 1.66 

RGM-1 ------------------- .268 .264 .265 .267 .2662 Neg. .0015 NS 

.267 .267 .267 .265 

SGR-1 ------------------- 4.31 4.30 4.34 4.31 4.319 .019 .025 NS 

4.35 4.26 4.33 4.35 

SCo-1 -------------------- 2.54 2.59 2.60 2.64 2.601 .028 .020 NS 

2.58 2.63 2.60 2.63 
DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

THE CARBON CONTENTS OF USGS VOLCANIC ROCK STANDARDS 

F. J. FLANAGAN, J. C. CHANDLER, I. A. BREGER, C. B. MooRE, 1 

and C. F. LEWIS 1 

The carbon contents of USGS volcanic rock standards have 

been determined in two laboratories by slightly different combustion methods. The carbon contents of the bottles of USGS 

sample BCR-1 used by Arizona State University are heterogeneous. If one accepts the risk of testing F ratios against 

Fo.99, the carbon contents of bottles of BHV0-1 and QL0-1 

at Arizona State may be con:sidered homogeneous. The carbon 

contents of bottles of USGS sample RGM-1 used by both 

laboratories may be accepted as homogeneous, and data obtained by the USGS laboratory mdicate that the carbon contents of bottles of the two basalts, BCR-1 and BHV0-1, 

may also be considered homogeneous. The means of the carbon contents of RGM-1 determined in the two laboratories 

differ statistically but not analytically, whereas the laboratories should use their own averages for the basalts, BCR-1 

and BHV0-1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Information on the concentration of carbon in the 

parts-per-million range in lunar and terrestrial 

rocks has been required for various geochemical 

studies. During the course of lunar studies, two of 

us (see Moore and others, 1970) reported five determinations of carbon in USGS sample BCR-1, a 

basalt, for an estimated average of 330 ppm C. 

When subsequent analyses of other basalts indicated that this value might be too great, additional 

determinations were made on USGS sample BCR-1 

and on the following USGS samples: BHV0-1, a 

basalt from the 1919 Kilauea (Hawaii) flow; QL0-

1, a quartz latite from Oregon; and RGM-1, a rhyolite from Glass Mountain, Calif. The last three samples are described elsewhere in this Professional 

Paper. Data obtained for these four samples at the 

Arizona State University are shown in table 99. 

USGS samples BCR-1, BHV0-1, and RGM-1 

were also analyzed in the laboratories of the U.S. 

1 Center for Meteorite Studies, Arizona State University, Tempe, Ariz. 

85281. 

Geological Survey by a different technique; these 

values are listed in table 100. 

ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES 

ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY 

Refractory crucibles (LECO 528-35 heavy duty) 

were heated for two hours at 1,100°C in a vented 

furnace. After the crucibles had cooled, 0.5 g of lowcarbon iron chips and 1.25 g of copper metal were 

added to each crucible as accelerators. These crucibles were then reheated to 450°-500°C for 1 hour 

and allowed to cool. A sufficient amount of an openhearth iron standard, NBS 55e, was weighed into a 

series of these crucibles to contain 11, 22, and 45 p.g 

of carbon. This series was prepared in duplicate 

along with a series of blanks containing no iron 

standard. 

The blanks were used first, and combustion was 

carried out in a LECO 521-000 1.5-kW induction 

furnace for 60 sec at 1,500°C, with a flow rate of 1 I 

of oxygen per minute. Combustion products were 

passed through a dust trap, a trap filled with MnOz 

to remove S02 , and a rare-earth-copper oxide mixture heated in a furnace to oxidize CO to COz. 

Carbon dioxide was then determined in a LECO 

ELC-12 low-carbon analyzer in which C02 and oxygen are swept into a gas-chromatographic unit and 

through a thermal-conductivity detector by a stream 

of helium. The area of the absorption peak corresponding to C02 was integrated electronically. It was 

generally necessary to run four blanks to be certain 

of instrumental stability. 

Sample weights of unknowns, 250-350 mg, were 

chosen so as to contain carbon contents falling in the 

center of the linear calibration curve that was estab123 
124 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

TABLE 99.-Determinations of carbon and summary of estimates for USGS samples by Arizona State University 

[In parts per million. Conclusions from the analysis of variance: S, significant, or NS, not significant, at the fractile of the F distribution shown or at Fo.&s where none is indicated. d.f., deg-rees of freedom] 

Average ---------

Average ---------

Average ---------

Average ---------

Average ---------

Average ---------

Determinations 

Bottle 

63/9 

66 

65 

62 

72 

75 

68.0 

69 

72 

68 

70 

74 

70.6 

Bottle 

57/9 

105 

111 

105 

114 

108 

108.6 

Bottle 

20/12 

73 

73 

67 

64 

79 

71.2 

Bottle· 

4/15 

43 

44 

86 

47 

64 

56.8 

45 

43 

46 

84 

51 

53.8 

Bottle 

56/5 

78 

74 

74 

80 

81 

77.4 

76 

82 

75 

81 

66 

76.0 

Bottle 

47/1 

110 

105 

108 

102 

94 

103.8 

Bottle 

2/22 

72 

80 

71 

67 

69 

71.8 

Bottle 

10/25 

41 

49 

51 

50 

41 

46.4 

41 

45 

50 

56 

46 

47.6 

Basalt BCR-1 

Bottle 

3/10 

92 

85 

92 

90 

88 

89.4 

88 

86 

87 

86 

100 

89.4 

Basalt BHV0-1 

Bottle 

17/11 

101 

101 

100 

98 

98 

99.6 

Quartz Latite QL0-1 

Bottle 

21/10 

62 

64 

66 

65 

56 

62.6 

Rhyolite RGM-1 

Bottle 

37/3 

60 

58 

61 

60 

58 

59.4 

58 

60 

61 

54 

57 

58.0 

Mean 

78.3 

78.7 

104.0 

68.5 

54.2 

53.1 

Conclusions 

S,0.99 

S,0.99 

NS,0.99 

NS, 0.99 

NS 

NS 

Standard deviation 

Bottles 

(d.f.=2) 

10.6 

9.4 

4.1 

4.6 

4.8 

2.3 

Error 

(d.f.=12) 

4.0 

5.2 

4.4 

5.0 

11.0 

10.5 

lished from multiple analyses of standards and U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

blanks by the method of least squares. 

An analytical sequence consisted of 26 combustions of standards, blanks, and unknowns in a predetermined order so that blank values could be recorded against time to correct for instrumental drift, 

if necessary. Unknown samples were analyzed in 

random order. 

A Model 185 F and M Carbon-Hydrogen-Nitrogen 

Analyzer was used in which the sample was mixed 

with a mixture of manganese and tungsten oxides 

and then subjected to combustion in a closed chamber at 1,050°C. Combustion products were passed 

through a purifying train, and the effluent carbon 

dioxide, entrained in a stream of helium, was passed 
THE CARBON CONTENTS OF USGS VOLCANIC ROCK STANDARDS 125 

TABLE 100.-Determinations of carbon and summary of estimates for USGS samples by USGS laboratory 

[In parts per million. Conclusions from the analysis of variance: NS, not significant at Fo.ll5. d.f., degrees of freedom) 

Standard deviation 

Determinations Mean Conclu- Bottles Error sions (d.f.=2) (d.f.=3) 

Basalt BCR-1 

Bottle Bottle Bottle 

32/27 74/28 80/30 

35 52 68 

51 56 57 

Average --------- 43 54 62 53.2 NS 7.9 8.1 

Basalt BHV0-1 

Bottle Bottle Bottle 

52/11 53/14 60/11 

84 69 64 

79 82 70 

Average --------- 82 76 67 74.7 NS 5.8 6.2 

Rhyolite RGM-1 

Bottle Bottle Bottle 

4/21 29/31 57/8 

25 40 49 

42 48 54 

Average --------- 34 44 52 

through a chromatographic column and detector to 

isolate and measure the quantity of carbon dioxide 

produced. 

Standards were prepared for calibration by mixing a sample of analyzed coal with fired quartz sand 

and then making dilutions with additional quartz 

sand to yield samples containing from 38.3 percent 

to 50.0 ppm of carbon. Values of carbon in these 

standards down to and including 275 ppm were confirmed by analysis in a non-USGS laboratory, using 

other instrumentation. Equipment in the non-USGS 

laboratory was, however, unable to accommodate 

samples large enough to obtain acceptable accuracy 

where the samples submitted contained less than 

275 ppm carbon. 

The F and M Analyzer was designed to accept 

samples of about 1 mg. When minor modifications 

were made in the sampling procedure, samples of 

about 80 mg of each coal standard or USGS rock 

were, however, used to achieve maximum accuracy 

for carbon contents in the parts-per-million range. 

On the basis of analyses of the coal standards, it 

is known that less than 2.5 pg of carbon can readily 

be detected by this analytical procedure. To ensure 

complete combustion of carbon in samples containing carbon in the p'lrt.s-per-million range, the combustion period was increased from the normal 10 

seconds to 60 seconds. A series of analyses using the 

coal standards did not show any "tailing" of carbon 

dioxide when combustion periods were increased to 

more than 60 seconds, thus showing complete combustion of all the carbon in a sample within the 60-

43.0 NS 7.1 7.9 

second interval Calibration of the technique was 

based on analyses of these coal standards. 

DISCUSSION 

The data obtained independently by both laboratories were assembled, and the calculations of the 

analysis of variance for a single variable of classification were made. Estimates and conclusions resulting from these calculations are given in the tables 

with the raw data. 

The duplicate sets_ of data for both BCR-1 and 

RGM-1 by Arizona State agree with each other. By 

inspection, the two estimates of both the bottle and 

the analytical (error) standard deviations for BCR1 would not be significantly different if an F test 

were made, and a t test would confirm a conclusion 

reached by inspection, that the means of the two 

sets of data would not differ significantly. For both 

sets of data for BCR-1, however, we must conclude 

that the ratios of the mean sum of squares between 

bottles over the mean sum of squares within bottles 

are significantly larger than Fo.99 (degrees of freedom ( d.f.) 2, 12) = 6.93; we must also conclude that 

the bottles of BCR-1 are heterogeneous for their 

carbon content. Arizona State should use the average of each bottle calculated from the 10 

determinations. 

Similarly, by inspection, the estimates obtained 

for RGM-1 from the duplicate sets of data by Arizona State will not differ significantly. The F test, 

against Fo.95 (d.f. 2, 12) =3.89, in the analysis of 
126 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

variance for both sets of data results in a conclusion 

of nonsignificance, and we may accept the carbon 

contents for either set of data to be homogeneous 

among bottles. As the difference between the two 

means is less than half of the smaller of the estimated bottle standard deviations, the duplicate sets 

of data may be considered as sets from the same 

population of values to yield the following estimates: 

ppm 

Ddean -------------------------------- 53.7 

Bottle standard deviation --------------- 5.1 

Error standard deviation --------------- 10.2 

The sets of data from Arizona State for both 

BHV0-1 and QL0-1 must be declared heterogeneous 

if the F test were to be made against F 0 . 9 ,5 (d.f. 2, 

12) =5.10. If we are willing to accept the additional 

risk of testing against Fo.99 (d.f. 2, 12) =6.93, the 

carbon contents of the bottles of these two samples 

may be accepted as homogeneous. 

The data by the USGS laboratory for the three 

rocks yield F ratios that are not significantly larger 

than the tabled value at Fo.95 • We may accept the 

carbon contents for bottles of each sample as 

homogeneous. 

This study, like others, raises another problemdifferences in the data between laboratories. When 

pooled variances are used for the duplicate sets of 

data for BCR-1 and RGM-1 by Arizona State, both 

the error and the bottle variances for BCR-1, 

BHV0-1, and RGM-1 are not significantly different 

from similar estimates obtained by the USGS. The 

means of the duplicate sets of data for BCR-1 and 

RGM-L by Arizona State were pooled, and together 

with the single mean for BHV0-1, were used to test 

for differences between means with estimates for the 

same samples by the USGS. The differences between 

means by the two laboratories were significant, and 

the laboratories should use their own estimates for 

the three samples. 

Although the average carbon contents of RGM-1 

determined by the two laboratories differ statistically, we do not believe that the differences are analytically significant. Future studies may determine 

which of the two laboratories obtains the more correct estimates for the two basalts, BCR-1 and 

BHV0-1. 

REFERENCE CITED 

Moore, C. B., Gibson, E. K., Larimer, J. W., Lewis, C. F. and 

Nichiporuk, W., 1970, Total carbon and nitrogen abundances in Apollo 11 lunar samples and selected achondrites 

and basalts, in Apollo 11 Lunar Sci. Conf., Proc., v. 2: 

Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta Suppl. No. 1, p. 1375-1382. 
DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

FINAL COMPILATION OF K-Ar AND Rb-Sr MEASUREMENTS ON P-207, 

THE USGS IN ... fERLABORATORY STANDARD MUSCOVITE 

By M. A. LANPHERE and G. B. DALRYMPLE 

K-Ar analyses of P-207 in 33 laboratories and Rb-Sr 

analyses in 17 laboratories indicate that for this muscovite 

the average interlaboratory standard deviation is 1.2 percent 

for K-Ar age)s and 2.8 percent for Rb-Sr ages and that the 

average intralaboratory standard deviation is 1.9 percent for 

K-Ar ages and 3.0 percent for Rb-Sr ages. The mean K-Ar 

age of P-207 is 80.6±0.2 m.y. (s:r) and the mean Rb-Sr age 

is 87.5±0.7 m.y. (sM). The difference between these ages may 

be due to common Sr of anomalous composition. 

In 1964 approximately 1,100 g of muscovite were 

separated from an 81-m.-y.-old granite and distributed to 21 K-Ar and Rb-Sr dating laboratories in six 

countries. The purpose of this standard mineral, 

known as P-207, was to provide a source of badly 

needed data on intralaboratory and interlaboratory 

precision. Although prepared primarily as a K-Ar 

standard, some laboratories also have found it useful as a Rb-Sr standard. The initial description and 

analyses of P-207 were published in 1965 (Lanphere 

and Dalrymple, 1965) and were followed 2 yr later 

by a compilation of results from 25 laboratories 

(Lanphere and Dalrymple, 1967). 

P-207 has now been distributed to 55 laboratories 

in 15 countries, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, 

England, France, Holland, Italy, Japan, Rumania, 

the Union of South Africa, the Union of Soviet 

Socialist Republics, Switzerland, the United States, 

West Germany, and Yugoslavia, making P-207 the 

most extensive and successful K-Ar and Rb-Sr 

standard-mineral program to date. Unfortunately, 

however, the supply of this valuable standard is now 

depleted, and this will be the final compilation. 

As of November 1971, 37 laboratories had reported 

data, which are presented in tables 101 and 102 

along with the appropriate measures of central tendency and dispersion. For uniformity, all statistics 

presented in these tables were calculated by us using 

standard techniques (Crow and others, 1960) from 

the raw data reported by the individual laboratories. 

The symbols used in the statistical summaries are 

n =total number of measurements, 

x =arithmetic mean of laboratory means, 

m =median of laboratory means, 

s = standard deviation of the mean of laboratory means, 

s:c =standard error of the mean of laboratory 

means, and 

S 0 =pooled estimate of intralaboratory precisiom. 

Three laboratories had used P-207 for calibration 

of their Ar38 tracers and these data, indicated by 

parentheses in ·table 101, were not used in calculating the interlaboratory statistics. We calculated 

K-Ar and Rb-Sr ages for each laboratory from the 

individual laboratory means using the constants 

shown in the tables. 

For the K-Ar results, K measurements were made 

by five different techniques, and Ar measurements 

by two. In addition, two K-Ar ages were measured 

by us using the new Ar40 I Ar39 technique, and the 

mean of these are within 0.6 percent of the international mean. ForK, Ar, and the calculated age, the 

results do not appear to vary significantly with analytical technique, and the interlaboratory and intralaboratory precision appears to be good. F tests indicate that the difference between the interlaboratory 

and intralaboratory precision is significant at the 

5-percent level for calculated ages but not for the K 

and Ar measurements. Interlaboratory precision for 

calculated ages is significantly better than the intralaboratory precision. This precision is better probably because the interlaboratory statistics are calculated from laboratory means rather than on the 

basis of a single random date from each laboratory, 

127 
128 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

TABLE 101.-Potassium and argon analyses of P-207 

[Method, FP, flame photometry; ID, isotope dilution; XR, X-ray fluorescence; GR, gravimetric; AA, atomic absorption; AC. activation analysis; FT, Ar40/ Ar39 technique. Tracer type: B, bulb system; M, manifold or "batch" system. Calibration: A, Ar from atmosphere; C, purified commercial air 

Ar; I, interlaboratory standard mineral ; S, intralaboratory standard mineral. Data in parentheses were not included in interlaboratory statistics be- cause P-207 was used for tracer calibration. C.V., coefficient of variation] 

Potassium analyses Argon analyses 

Number 

Laboratory Method of 

Australian National 

University. FP Bundesanstalt fur Bodenforschung (West Germany) . FP California Institute of 

Technology. 

Carleton University 

(Canada) . FP Cambridge University 

(England). FP Eidgenossiche Technische 

Hochschule (Switzerland). ID 

Geochron Labs (United 

States). FP Geological Survey of Canada_ XR 

ID 

Geological Survey of Japan__ GR 

FP 

AA Georgia Institute of Technology (United States). AA Institute for Atomic Physics 

(Rumania). 

Isotopes, Inc. (United 

Statps). ID 

Lamont-Doherty Geological 

Observatory (United 

States). ID 

AA Max Planck Institute (W. 

Germany). FP 

ID 

Mineralogische Institut 

Universitit (Switzerland). FP Mobile Research and Devlop- ment Corp. (United 

States). GR New Zealand Institute of 

Nuclear Science. FP 

Oxford (England) ---------- FP Pennsylvania State University 

(United States). GR 

Shell Development Co. 

(United States). 

Tohoku University (Japan)__ FP 

AA U.S. Geological Sl.ll'vey FP 

ID 

University of Alberta 

(Canada). FP 

GR 

University of Amsterdam 

(Holland). FP University of Arizona 

(United States). FP University of British 

Columbia (Canada). FP University of California, 

Berkeley (United States). FP University of California, La Jolla (United States). AA University of Cape Town (South Africa) . XR University of Hawaii 

(United States). FP Universit~ of Rome (Italy) __ Universitv of Sao Paulo 

(Brazil). 

University of Tokyo (Japan)_ GR 

Universitv of Toronto (Canada). 

Yale University (United 

States). FP 

AA 

Statistical Summary: 

n ---------------- x ---------------- « ---------------- 8 ----------------

BiZ----------------

8o ----------------

analyses 

3 

6 

6 

7 

4 

1 

5 

3 

2 

2 

4 

5 

3 

6 

2 

2 

4 

12 

12 

8 

4 

12 

1 

2 

5 

6 

7 

25 

8 

7 

3 

2 

4 

193 

Kl!O 

(weight 

percent) 

Mean 

K20 

(weight 

percent) 

and 

standard 

deviation 

10.41 ±0.07 

10.38±0.04 

10.33±0.06 

10.31 ±0.07 

10.42±0.07 

10.04±0.17 

10.43 1 10.35±0.155 10.36±0.14 

10.48±0.101 

10.22±0.09~ 10.37±0.14 

10.36 ± 0.04j 

10.38 ± 0.081 

10.48 ± 0.09 i 

10.32 

10.23±0.17 

10.42±0.09 

10.40 ± 0.041 10.39 ± 0.05 

10.35 ± 0.07 J 

10.36±0.04 

10.42 ± 0.02 

10.39±0.04 

10.44±0.21 

10.22 

t-O.i8±0~09l ---------- 10.28±0.095 10.22±0.10 

10.20 ± 0.091 10.21 ± 0.10 

10.39 5 

10.34+0.021 

10.34±.0llf 10.34±0.09 

10.30 ± 0.::18) 

10.20±0.055 

10.24±0.16 

10.40±0.10 

10.33±0.06 

10.29±0.02 

10.16 

10.41 

9.92±0.16 

10.40±0.04 

10.23±0.18 

10.31 

10.34 

Tracer 

type 

Method and 

calibration 

ID MAS 

ID BIS 

ID BC 

ID MS 

ID BC 

ID BACIS 

ID MC 

ID MC 

ID BA 

AC 

ID MA 

ID MA 

ID MA 

ID BA 

ID MC 

ID MA ID BA 

ID BC 

ID MA 

IDl BCIS 

FTJ 

ID BACIS 

1D BAC 

ID MA 

ID BA 

1D MIS 

ID BA 

ID Ml 

ID BI 

ID MIS 

ID BC 

ID MCIS 

1D BACI 

0.12 (C.V.=1.2 

percent) 

0.02 (C.V.=0.2 

percent) 

1.1 percent of value 

1 Ae=0.585 X lQ-10 yrl; All=4.72 Xl0-10 yr-1 ; K40/K= 1.19 X 104 mol/mol. 

Number 

of 

analyses 

Mean 

Arrad40 

(1()9moljg) 

and 

standard 

deviation 

14 1.244 ± 0.013 

(24) (1.259±0.013) 

2 1.259 ± 0.003 

2 1.263±0.000 

13 1.268±0.013 

3 1.251±0.005 

1.283 

3 1.258 ± 0.005 

4 1.253 ± 0.024 

1 1.297 

2 1.244 ± 0.006 

7 1.275 ± 0.032 

3 1.258 ± 0. 008 

2 1.246 ± 0.009 

3 1.245 ± 0.006 

3 1.241 ± 0.013 ~ 1.264 ± 0.009 

3 1.245 ± 0.016 

11 1.271 ± 0.048 

f15 1.252±0.010 

1 2 

3 1.263 ± 0.003 

8 1.273 ± 0.023 

3 1.270±0.007 

11 1.245±0.015 

1 1.265 

4 1.245 ± 0.009 

(13) (1.260±0.018) 

3 1.281 ± 0.011 

(14) (1.256±0.027) 

5 1.241 ± 0.029 

5 1.273 ± 0.007 

5 1.234 ± 0.011 

146 

1.259 

1.258 

81.21 

80.2f 

• 

0.016 (C.V.=1.2 percent) 

0. 003 (C. V. = 0.2 percent) 

1.6 percent of value 

Calculated 

agel 

(m.y.) 

79.2 

(80.3) 

81.0 

80.6 

82.5 

82.0 

80..4 

80.4 

80.6 

81.0 

80.2 

79.7 

79.2 

79.1 

80.2 

82.3 

81.1 

80.9 

82.3 

80.9 

79.9 

81.4 

81.2 

(84.0) 

79.1 

79.9 

80.6 

80.6 

1.0 (C.V.= 

1.2 percent) 

0.2 (C.V.= 

0.3 percent) 

1.9 percent of 

value 
TABLE 102.-Rubidium and strontium measurements of P-207 

[Measurements are by isotope dilution unless otherwise indicated. C.V., coefficient of variation] 

Laboratory 

Australian National University -------------------- Bundesantalt fiir Bodenforschung (West Germany) __ 

Geological Survey of Canada ----------------------- Institute for Nucle&ll" Raw Materials (Yugoslavia) 

Institute of Precambrian Geology and 

Geochronology (U.S.S.R.). 

Mineralogische Institut Universitit (Switzerland) 

Mobil Research and Development Corp. 

(United States). 

Pennsylvania State University (United States) ----

U.S. Geological Survey ---------------------------- University of Amsterdam (Holland) --------------- University of Arizona (United States) ------------- University of Cape Town (South Africa) ----------

University of Kyoto (Japan) ---------------------- University of Pisa (Italy) ------------------------- University of Sio Paulo (Brazil) ------------------ University of Tokyo (Japan) -------------------- Yale University (United States) -------------------

Statistical Summary: 

n ------------------------------------------- a: 

M 

. -------------------------------------------

Sli ------------------------------------------

So ------------------------------------··-- ___ _ 

Rubidium measurements 

Number Mean Rb 

of (1 o-6 mol/g) 

measure- and standard ments deviation 

37 9.309 ± 0.165 7 9.485 ± 0.078 2 9.102 ± 0.035 1 9.569 

5 9.490 ± 0.050 1 9.57 

2 9.331 ± 0.040 

51 9.051 

3 9.594 ± 0.131 2 9.03 ±0.13 2 9.703±0.137 

61 9.28 

3 9.314 ± 0.107 1 9.40 2 9.66 ±0.23 

3 10.58 ±0.07 1 

44 

9.373 

9.461 

9.40 

0.352 (C.V.= 

3.7percent) 

0.085 (C.V.= 

0.9 percent) 

1.2 percent of value 

Number 

of measurements 

4 

6 

8 

5 

2 

1 

2 

3 

2 

2 

3 

2 

2 

2 

1 

45 

Strontium measurements 

Mean Srrads7 

(lo-9 mol/g) 

and standard 

deviation 

3.151±0.066 

3.226±0.117 

3.15 ±0.04 

3.219 ± 0.133 

3.209 ± 0.021 

3.15 

3.221 ± 0.017 

3:4_8_9_ ± o.-o7-2 

3.09 ±0.08 

3.249 ± 0.038 

-----------

3.190±0.059 

3.11 ±0.13 

3.11 ±0.14 

-----------

3.12 

3.192 

3.17 

0.100 (C.V.=3.1 percent) 

0.027 (C.V. =0.8 percent) 

2.8 percent of value 

Mean common Sr 

(10-6 mol/g) 

and standard 

deviation 

4 0.0958 ± o. 0048 

.1036 ± 0.0094 

.1210 ± 0.0247 

.1005 ± 0.0041 

.0988 ± 0.0009 

.0805 

.1009 ± 0.0052 

-------------- .1338 ± 0.0313 

.1077 ± 0.0069 

.0974±0.0018 

--.-o9_9_6_ ± o.-ooi6 

.096 ±0.010 . 0932 ± 0.0026 

.1140±0.005{) 

.1247 

0.1045 

0.100 

0.0137 (C.V.=13.1 percent) 

0.0035 (C.V.=3.4 percent) 

12.4 percent of value 

1 Sr&7jSrBo 1 RbS7jSr1361 Sr~ri~~b87 

1.037 272 1.216 

1.022 258 1.221 

0.9698 212 1.243 

1.001 269 1.208 

1.035 271 1.215 

1.103 336 1.182 

1.030 261 1.239 

0.9704 202 1.306 

0.9770 237 1.229 

1.044 281 1.202 

1.031 264 1.231 

1.034 276 1.189 

1.044 293 1.156 

262 

.9440 198 1.20 

1 Calculated from mean values using Rb85/RbB1 = 2.593; Sr87 = Srrad87 + Srcom87; 2 >. Rb87 = 1.?9 X 1o-11 yr-1. 

{Sr86/Sr88) com= 0.1194; (Sr87j86) com= 0. 706; and (Sr84/Sr88 ) com= 0.00675. 

3 Includes one measurement of 9.372 X 10-6 moles/g by X-ray fluorescence. 4 Includes one measurement of 0.0927 X 10-6 moles/g by X-ray fluorescence. II Measurement by flame photometry. e Measurement by X-ray fluorescence. 

2 Age 

(m.y.) 

87.5 

87.8 

89.4 

86.9 

87.4 

85.0 

89.0 

93.9 

88.3 

86.4 

88.6 

85.5 

83.2 

86.3 

87.5 

87.4 

2.5 

(C.V.= 

2.8 percent) 

0.7 

(C.V.= 

0.8 percent) 

3.0 percent) 

"%j 

z """" 

> t-c 

l.) 

0 

is: 

"'d 

"""" t-c 

> 1-3 

0 """" 

z 

0 

"%j 

~ 

> ., 

> z 

tj 

~ 

0" 

00 

., 

t== 

l:,'1j 

> 00 

q 

~ 

l:,'1j 

is: 

l:,'1j 

z 

1-3 

00 

0 

z 

! 

0 

~ 

1-' 

~ 

co 
130 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

and slight mineral inhomogeneities that would increase the intralaboratory dispersion would tend to 

average out in the laboratory means. Taken at face 

value, the statistics indicate that a difference in the 

K-Ar age of two samples similar to P-207 can be 

detected at the 95-percent level of confidence on the 

basis of single measurements from the average laboratory if the calculated ages differ by 5.8 percent, or 

4.2 m.y. If duplicate measurements are made, then 

this critical value is only 3.7 percent, or 3.0 m.y. The 

critical values for measurements done in different 

laboratories should be similar. 

Nearly all the Rb and Sr measurements were made 

using isotope dilution. The few measurements made 

by X-ray fluorescence and flame photometry agree 

with the isotope dilution data. F tests indicate that 

the difference between interlaboratory and intralaboratory precision is significant at the 5-percent 

level for Rb measurements but not for radiogenic 

Sr87, common Sr, or calculated age. The interlaboratory precision for calculated ages is better than the 

intralaboratory precision as was observed for the 

K-Ar ages. The statistics indicate that a difference 

in the Rb-Sr age of two samples similar to P-207 

~an be detected at the 95-percent level of confidence 

on the basis of single measurem~nts from the average laboratory if the calculated ages differ by 8.4 

percent, or 7.4 m.y. If duplicate measurements are 

made then this critical value is only 5.9 percent, or 

5.2m.y. 

At test indicates that the mean K-Ar age is significantly different from the mean Rb-Sr age at the 

5-percent level if the "geologically determined" half-. 

life of 50 x 109 years (Aldrich and others, 1956) is 

used for Rb87 • The mean K-Ar and Rb-Sr ages ( 80.6 

and 82.7 m.y., respectively) are in good agreement if 

the 47 X 109 -year half-life (Flynn and Glendenin, 

1959) of Rb87 determined by liquid scintillation 

counting is used, but comparative geological studies 

suggest that a value of the half-life close to 50 x 109 

years is more likely. The calculated Rb-Sr ages are 

affected significantly by the isotopic composition of 

the common Sr in P-207 even though the Sr is quite 

radiogenic. A Sr87/Sr86 value of 0.706 for the common Sr was used to calculate the ages in table 87. 

The composition of the common Sr has not been 

measured directly in another mineral in the rock. If 

the common Sr in P-207 has a Sr87 /Sr86 value of 

0.732, the mean calculated Rb-Sr age would be 80.6 

m.y. This Sr87 /Sr86 value is much higher than in normal common Sr. However, anomalous Sr having 

much higher Sr87 /Sr86 was redistributed during Cretaceous metamorphism in an area approximately 

10-15 mi south of the small pluton from which P207 was collected (Lanphere and others, 1964). It 

seems possible, therefore, that the muscovite may 

contain common Sr of anomalous isotopic composition and this could produce the observed difference 

between the K-Ar and Rb-Sr ages. 

REFERENCES CITED 

Aldrich, L. T., Wetherill, G. W., Tilton, G. R., and Davis, 

G. L., 1956, Half life of Rb87 : Phys. Rev., v. 103, p. 

1045-1047. 

Crow, E. L., Davis, F. A., and Maxfield, M. W., 1960, Statistics manual: New York, Dover Pubs., 288 p. 

Flynn, K. F., and Glendenin, L. E., 1959, Half life and beta 

spectrum of Rb87 : Phys. Rev., v. 116, p. 744-748. 

Lanphere, M. A., and Dalrymple, G. B., 1965, P-207-An 

interlaboratory standard muscovite for argon and potassium analyses: Jour. Geophys. Research, v. 70, p. 3497-

3503. 

-- 1967, K-Ar and Rb-Sr measurements on P-207, the 

U.S.G.S. interlaboratory standard muscovite: Goochim. et 

Cosmochim. Acta, v. 31, p. 1091-1094. 

Lanphere, M. A., Wasserburg, G. J., Albee, A. L, and Tilton, 

G. R., 1964, Redistribution of strontium and rubidium 

isotopes during metamorphism, World Beater Complex, 

Panamint Range, California, Chap. 20, in Craig, Harmon, 

Miller, S. L., and Wasserburg, G. J., eds., Isotopic and 

cosmic chemistry: Amsterdam, North-Holland Publishing 

Co., p. 269-320. 
DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

1972 COMPILATION OF DATA ON USGS STANDARDS 

By F. J. FLANAGAN 

This is the sixth of a series of papers by U.S. Geological Survey personnel (Fairbairn and others, 

1951; Stevens and others, 1960; Fleischer and Stevens, 1962; Fleischer, 1965, 1969) dealing with data 

on G-1 and W-1 and the third (Flanagan, 1967, 

1969) on the series of samples, G-2 through BCR-1, 

first issued in 1964. There has been no G-1 available 

for distribution since 1965 and the supply of W-1 

for distribution is now exhausted. The supplies of 

several of the 1964 series of samples are being depleted at an alarming rate. 

The present format is similar to that of previous 

compilations in which the data are listed by rock 

analyses (table 103), major and minor oxides (table 

104), and trace elements (table 105). For tables 104 

and 105, the data for an element or oxide are first 

listed by methods, these data are then classified by 

the year of publication or of the receipt of a written 

communication, and finally the authors are listed 

alphabetically within the years. 

Violations of this nested structure for the data reported have occurred despite attempts to maintain 

the chronological and alphabetical order when entering data received after the final manuscript tables 

had been typed. Some data obtained by methods less 

frequently used have been entered in convenient, 

rather than logical, places in the tables. Some data 

not entered in earlier compilations are listed here, 

as are references to data previously included from 

private communications. 

A scan of the tables for major and minor oxides 

and for trace elements reveals that the samples on 

which the most data have been reported are W -1 and 

BCR-1 and that this seeming popularity is due to the 

frequency with which they were used in conjunction 

with the analysis of samples of Moon rocks. A large 

amount of the available data appeared in the issue 

of Science devoted to the Moon (v. 167, no. 3918, 

Jan. 30, 1970) as well as in the supplements to Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta reporting the proceedings of Apollo Lunar Science Conferences. 

Other sources of data were U.S. National Bureau 

Standards special Publication 312 (DeVoe and La 

Fleur, 1969) on modern trends in activation analysis, 

the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique 

publication 923 reporting the colloquium, "Dosage 

des elements a l'etat de traces dans les roches et les 

autres substances minerales naturelles," held at 

Nancy, France, in December 1968 (Roubault and 

others, 1970), and the proceedings of the NATO 

Advanced Study Institute on activation analysis in 

geochemistry and cosmochemistry (Brunfelt and 

Steinnes, 1971a). 

The general procedure for arriving at values was 

to compare the averages and the ranges of the data. 

reported here with previous data and recommendations. Notable exceptions to this process may be seen 

in the data for Rb and Sr, tabulated below, in which 

the averages by different methods are in such good 

agreement that the final choices, influenced greatly 

by data obtained by some form of the isotope-dilution technique, were easily made. 

There is nothing authoritative in the summary 

values listed in tables 106 and 107. They are what I 

consider the most reasonable values at this time but 

many analysts may wish to use preferred values of 

their choice. An example of such preferred values 

was published by Abbey (1970). The agreement or 

disagreement of the data could be discussed ad infinitum, but no real purpose would be served by belaboring the obvious. An extra digit has been included in many estimates, and the user may round 

at his discretion. 

For the environmentalists among us, however, the 

mercury, lead, thallium, and perhaps the zinc contents of the rocks seem sufficiently well characterized 

131 
132 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

so that they could be used as base levels for contamination by these elements. More data are necessary for good estimates of the arsenic and cadmium 

contents. Further data on the mercury content of 

miscellaneous natural inorganic materials, including 

rocks, are given in "Mercury in the Environment" 

(U.S. Geological Survey, 1970). 

This compilation of data may be comprehensive, 

but there is an extremely high probability that it is 

not complete. I am grateful to all who have sent me 

published or unpublished data, and I am especially 

indebted to Michael Fleischer who continually calls 

to my attention data published in the less readily 

available foreign journals. 

Averages of rubidium and strontium tabulated by method 

W-1 G-1 G-2 GSP-1 AGV-1 PCC-1 DTS-1 BCR-1 

Rubidium in parts per million 

Method: 

Optical spectrographic __ 22 214 188 305 69 47 

Atomic absorption 23 213 179 279 73 45.2 

X-ray fluorescence ----- 22 215 166 246 69 45.2 

Neutron activation ----- 22 224 167 239 71 46.5 

Isotope dilution -------- 21 168 254 67 0.063 0.053 46.6 

Preferred value ----------- 21 220 168 254 67 .063 .053 46.6 

Strontium in parts per million 

Method: 

Optical spectrographic __ 164 284 506 255 698 329 

Atomic absorption 208 270 466 249 653 355 

X-ray fluorescence _____ 190 254 484 239 680 336 

Neutron activation _____ 180 251 427 226 631 327 

Isotope dilution -------- 188 479 233 657 0.41 0.35 330 

Preferred value ----------- 190 250 479 233 657 .41 .35 330 

TABLE 103.-New rock analyses, in percent 

Analysts and methods : 27. !wan Roelandts and Guy Bologne (written com- mun., 1970); method of Roelandts and 

Duchesne (1968) ; average of 2 analyses for 

DTS-1 and BCR-1 and of 3 for other samples. 

Cheng-hong Chen; W-1, Annie An-nie Liu 

(Youh, 1970). 

31. S. E. Hill and R. B. Reid; rapid methods; 

average of 2 analyses (J. C. van Moort, Univ. 

Tasmania, Wlritten commun.. 1968) . 28. R. Pouget, M. Carrier, M. Lautelin, and A. 

Vasseur; various methods (H. Agrinier, writ- ten commun., 1969). 

29. Huber-Schausberger and others (1970); vari- ous methods. 

30. Youh (1968); methods modified from Hillebrand * and others (19>53). 

30. G-2, Tien-fung Tsui; GSP-1, Show-yuan 

32. R. Cioni, F. Innocenti. and R. Mazzuoli ( 1971); 

various methods. 

33. D. C. Guido Friese; average of three analyses 

(K. Schmidt, Zentrales Geologisches Institut, 

Berlin, written commun., 1969). 

34. E. L. Conwell and Co .. Philadelphia (Lapham 

and Saylor, 1970). 

Chow; AGV-1, Bruce Huai-tzu Chai; BCR-1, 

G-2, granite 

27 28 29 30 30* 32 

Si02 ------------------- 68.82 69.22 69.04 68.93 68.84 69.22 

Al20a ------------------ 15.70 15.50 15.21 15.89 15.56 15.27 

F~Oa ------------------ 1.09 1.03 1.01 1.17 1.10 1.23 

FeO ------------------- 1.44 1.42 1.52 1.55 1.56 1.39 

MgO ------------------ .88 .73 .86 .74 .88 .77 

CaO ------------------- 1.96 1.93 1.99 1.90 2.15 1.98 

Na20 ------------------ 4.23 4.15 4.03 3.87 4.48 4.13 

K20 ---------------·--- 4.53 4.42 4.51 4.40 3.73 4.37 

H20+ ------------------ 35 .57 .46 .44 

H2o- ------------------ .25 .30 .15 .12 .17 .10 

Ti02 ------------------- .50 .48 .55 .48 .41 .54 

P205 ------------------- .15 .15 .13 .14 .16 .16 

MnO ------------------ .03 .04 .06 .04 .06 .04 

C02 ------------------- .10 .07 .07 

Loss on ignition -------- .52 .74 

Total ------------------ 99.89 1 100.04 2 99.81 99.94 

Fe as Fe20a ------------ 2.69 2.61 2.70 2.89 2.82 2.77 

See footnotes at end of table. 
1972 COMPILATION OF DATA ON USGS STANDARDS 133 

TABLE 103.-New rock analyses~ in percent-Continued 

GSP-1, granodiorite 

27 28 29 so* 31 32 

Si02 ------------------- 66.85 67.21 66.96 66.44 66.6 67.30 

Al20a ------------------ 15.01 15.27 15.25 15.37 15.6 14.98 

Fe:aOa ------------------ 1.84 1.70 1.65 1.78 1.2 1.84 

FeO ------------------- 2.23 2.35 2.35 2.48 2.8 2.24 

MgO ------------------ 1.09 .97 .99 1.05 .9 .93 

CaO ------------------- 2.00 2.01 2.07 2.04 2.0 2.03 

Na20 ------------------ 3.12 2.75 2.79 3.92 2.8 2.71 

K20 ------------------- 5.53 5.45 5.50 5.30 5.4 5.65 

H:~O+ ------------------ .39 .61 .35 .40 H~~o- ------------------ .28 .53 .12 .10 .10 .08 

TiO:~ ------------------- .64 .65 .58 .74 .66 .72 

P206 ------------------- .29 .27 .28 .26 .30 .32 

MnO ------------------ .03 .05 .06 .06 tr .04 

CO:~ ------------------- .14 .03 

Loss on ignition -------- .68 .74 

Total ------------------ 99.89 99.92 98.7 99.58 

Fe as Fe20a ------------ 4.32 4.31 4.26 4.41 4.3 4.33 

AGV-1, andesite 

27 28 29 so* 31 32 

Si02 ------------------- 58.82 58.97 58.76 58.80 59.0 59.11 

Al20a ------------------ 16.94 17.17 17.86 17.36 17.2 16.81 

Fe:aOa ------------------ 4.67 4.36 4.79 4.49 4.3 4.51 

FeO ------------------- 1.90 2.02 2.30 2.28 2.0 1.97 

MgO ------------------ 1.65 1.51 1.16 1.50 1.6 1.51 

CaO ----------~-------- 4.75 4.90 4.95 5.52 4.6 4.98 

NaaO ------------------ 4.51 4.23 4.24 4.24 4.2 4.35 

K20 ------------------- 2.94 2.90 2.85 2.43 2.8 2.91 

H20+ ------------------ .96 .85 1.10 .98 

H2o- ------------------ .83 1.55 1.08 .80 .90 .85 

Ti02 ------------------- 1.02 1.04 1.07 1.09 1.1 1.08 

P205 ------------------- .53 .51 .53 .60 .52 .51 

MnO ------------------ .10 .10 .12 .08 .10 .10 

co, ------------------- 07 .03 

Loss on ignition -------- .67 1.33 

Total ------------------ 99.9 3 100.18 99.4 100.02 

Fe as FesOa ------------ 6.78 6.60 7.35 7.00 6.5 6.70 

PCC-1, peridotite 

27 28 29 30* 31 32 33 

Si02 --·---------- 41.43 40.97 41.66 41.50 42.1 41.80 42.11 

Al20a ----------- .29 .80 .68 1.62 .70 .98 .63 

F~Oa ----------- 2.74 2.68 3.09 2.21 2.6 2.91 2.49 

FeO ------------ 5.37 4.93 4.85 5.27 6.2 4.81 5.11 

MgO ------------ 48.69 43.34 43.40 43.44 42.6 43.10 43.50 

CaO ------------ .56 .44 .46 nil .6 .63 .54 

NaaO ----------- .08 .03 <.1 .12 .3 .05 <.01 

~0 ------------- .03 .01 <.1 nil .4 •. 02 <.01 

H:~O+ ------------ 4.57 4.80 5.04 4.69 4.68 

H.o- ------------ .35 .81 .49 .46 .46 .27 (I) 

TiO:~ ------------ .02 .01 .01 nil .00 <.02 <.01 

Pt06 ------------ .01 (') <.1 .02 .02 <.01 

MnO ------------ .10 .12 .10 .14 .12 .12 .11 

co. ·------------- .13 .11 .20 

Loss on ignition __ 4.78 5.10 

Total ----------- (") 98.9 8 100.00 99.7 99.71 99.37 

Fe as Fe.Oa ------ 8.11 8.16 8.48 8.01 8.5 8.25 8.17 

See footnotes at end of table. 
134 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

TABLE 103.-New rock analyses, in percent-Continued 

DTS-1, dunite 

27 28 29 30* 31 32 33 

Si02 ------------ 39.96 40.08 40.46 40.07 41.9 40.40 40.64 

Al20a ----------- .07 .29 .43 1.38 .45 .68 .17 

Fe20a ----------- 2.23 .31 .83 .37 .36 1.16 .88 

FeO ------------ 5.60 7.62 6.97 7.32 7.43 6.83 6.94 

MgO ------------ 49.89 49.69 50.06 49.91 49.2 49.99 49.65 

CaO ------------ .22 .11 <.1 nil .00 .17 .14 

N&O ----------- .12 .05 <.1 .07 .2 .02 <.01 

K20 ------------- .04 .01 <.1 nil .3 9 .01 <.01 

H20+ ------------ .25 .46 .25 .85 .38 

H2o- ------------ .18 .58 .08 .08 .04 .01 (5) 

Ti02 ------------ .03 .01 .02 nil .00 <.02 <.01 

P205 ------------ .02 (10) <.1 .03 .02 <.01 

MnO ------------ .09 .11 .13 .17 .13 .12 .12 

C02 ------------- .07 .07 .07 

Loss on ignition __ .19 .65 

To tail. ----------- (ll) 99.0 12 99.87 100.9 100.06 98.99 

Fe as F~Oa ------ 8.45 8.77 8.57 8.42 8.61 8.75 8.59 

BCR-1, basalt 

27 28 29 30 30* 31 32 34 

Si02 ------------- 53.80 54.07 54.24 54.00 54.60 53.1 54.46 54.62 

Al20a ------------- 13.47 13.65 13.50 14.14 13.54 14.4 13.57 13.99 

Fe20a ------------- 4.03 3.18 3.56 3.20 3.49 1.06 3.51 3.57 

FeO· -------------- 8.38 9.02 9.12 9.02 9.17 10.44 8.59 8.78 

MgO ------------- 3.52 3.50 3.33 3.48 

3.58 3.2 3.49 3.48 

CaO ---·----------- 6.66 6.89 7.10 6.94 6.94 7.0 6.94 6.95 

Na20 ------------- 3.42 3.30 3.32 3.44 3.10 4.6 3.32. 2.78 

K20 -------------- 1.69 1.70 1.75 1.42 1.70 1.8 1.69 1.45 

H20+ ------------- .55 .80 .90 .86 .13 .54 

H2o- ------------- .73 1.37 .78 .80 

,63 .97 .62 1.22 

Ti02 ------------- 2.00 2.25 2.20 2.27 2.04 2.2 2.20 2.25 

P205 ------------- .36 .34 .35 .43 .43 .40 .39 .35 

MnO ------------- .17 .19 .20 .18 .21 .20 .19 .20 

C02 -------------- .01 .07 .06 .01 

Loss on ignition --- .43 1.17 

Total ------------- 99.8 100.29 100.39 99.44 100.14 100.19 

Fe as Fe20a ------- 13.39 13.20 13.69 13.12 13.59 12.66 13.05 13.32 

W -1, diabase 

30 30* 30 30* 

Si02 ------------ 52.52 52.07 H20+ ------------ 0.39 0.34 

Al20a ----------- 15.10 14.86 H2o- ------------ .16 .10 

Fe20J ------------ 1.37 1.75 Ti02 ------------ 1.08 1.17 

FeO ------------- 8.80 8.94 P205 ------------ .14 .21 

MgO ------------ 6.60 6.63 MnO ------------ .15 .15 

CaO ------------- 10.97 11.18 C02 ------------- .05 .03 

Na20 ------------ 2.24 2.10 Loss on ignition -- K20 ------------- .55 .49 Total ------------ 100.12 100.02 

Fe as F~Oa ------ 11.15 11.59 

1. Includes F. 0.15; S, 0.01; BaO, 0.18. 7. Insoluble residue, 0.49, also reported. 2. Includes BaO, 0.27. 8. Includes Cr20a, 0.10. 

3. Inculdes BaO, 0.13. 9. K20 as a trace, 0.0063. 

4. K20 as a trace, 0.0157. 10. P2o~. 124 ppm. 5. Sample dried at llO"C. 11. Insoluble .residue, 0.58, also reported. 6. P205, 128 ppm. 12. Includes Cr20a, 0.18. 
TABLE 104.-Determinations of major and minor constituents in eight USGS standard rock samples (percent) 

[Number of determinations is given in parentheses following the value. Method: AA, atomic absorption; Fl phot, flame photometry; FNAA, fast neutron activation analysis; ID, isotope 

dilution; INAA, instrumental neutron activation analysis; NAA, neutron activation analysis; OS, optical spectrographic; SSMS, spark source mass spectrometric; XRF, X-ray fluorescence] 

W-1 

54.0 

52.6(2) 

52.6(2) 

52.43 

62.75(14) 

53.0 

52.69(8) 

52.65(5) 

52.7(3) 

52.2 

48.2 

62.80(3) 

62.7 

52.7 

53.08 

52.8(2) 

62.09 

62.90 

62.3(10) 

15.5 

14.80 

15.01 (4) 

14.78(2) 

15.01 (.i) 

15.01 

15.03(9) 

14.9 

15.03(3) 

G-1 

74.0 

71.9(2) 

72.4(2) 

72.85 

73.35(18) 

72.3 

72.66(8) 

72.3 

72.90 

72.8(2) 

72.85 

73.16(2) 

14.1 

14.49(2) 

14.21 (2) 

14.34 

13.81 (9) 14.2 

14.24(3) 

G-2 

69.2 

69.22(10) 

69.2(4) 

69.1 

69.10(6) 

69.4 (3) 

68.80 

65.9 

68.5 

69.86 

68.5 

69.40 

67.85(2) 

66.80 

69.7(2) 

68.70 

69.0 

69.36 

69.04 

69.88(8) 

69.00(4) 

69.0(10) 

67.70 

15.4. 

15.23(7) 

15.4 

14.9(2) 

15.41(3) 

GSP-1 

67.2 

67.2(4) 

67.7 

67.07 (5) 

67.2(3) 

67.20 

64.2 

66.6 

67.78 

67.4 

67.70 

66.10(2) 

66.10 

67.8(2) 

67.10 

66.4 

67.44 

67.34 

68.09(8) 

68.58 

15.4 

15.4 

15.5(2) 

14.85(3) 

AGV-1 

69.09 

59.0 

59.75 

59.5(4) 

59.6(8) 

59.0 

59.65(5) 

59.1(3) 

59.20 

59.9 

59.5 

60.34 

59.3 

59.801 

57.84(2) 

59.25 

59.7(2) 

68.64 

59.5 

60.06(9) 

59.05 

59.14 

59.48(18) 

59.12(8) 

60.8(10) 

60.04(2) 

16.90 

17.1 

17.07(4) 

17.07(4) 

17.2 

16.0(4) 

17.04(3) 

PCC-1 

41.9 

41.6(4) 

41.6 

41.9 (3) 

42.40 

42.1 

42.3 

43.91 

42.1 

42.70 

38.80(2) 

42.45 

41.55 

41.68 

43.02(8) 

42.70 

.74 

.711(4) 

-~7ii(4)--

.81(18) 

.72 

.73 

DTS-1 

Si02 

40.7 

40.2(4) 

40.4(8) 

40.4 

40.47(6) 

40.4(3) 

40.80 

41.6 

40.79 

39.1 

38.12(2) 

40.80 

40.35 

40.44 

41.07(8) 

40.64 

AhOa 

.25 

.211 (4) 

-~2ii(4)"-

.30 

.21 

BCR-1 

61.8 

54.2 

54.48 

53.8(4) 

54.2 

54.36(5) 

54.5(3) 

53.60 

49.6 

54.11 (3) 54.6 

53.9 

55.33 

53.9 

54.10 

51.46(2) 

54.30 

54.3 

55.56 

54.0 

54.44 

53.91 

54.6 

54.85(18) 

53.57(8) 

55.65(4) 

54.90(2) 

11.9 

13.6 

13.62 

13.94(18) 

13.6 

13.2(2) 

13.42(3) 

Method 

OS 

OS ------------------- SSMS ---------------- Chemical ------------- Gravimetric 

Ch~ical ------------- Gravimetric ---------- Chemical -------------

Colorimetric 

____ do 

Spectrophotometric 

____ do ____ do 

___ .do 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA ------------------- XRF 

XRF 

XRF ----------------- XRF uncorrected ------ XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

FNAA 

FNAA 

FNAA 

INAA ---------------- Microprobe ----------- ____ do 

OS 

OS ------------------- SSMS ----------------- Chemical -------------- ____ do 

____ do ----------------

Titration -------------- Volumetric ------------ Ion exchange ---------- Colorimetric -----------

____ do 

____ do ---------------- Spectrophotometric ___ _ 

____ do ----------------

____ do ----------------

Reference 

Diimecke, 1968. 

Ondrick and others, 1969. Morrison and Kashuba 1969. 

Bernas, 1968. 

Borgen, 1967. 

Rayburn, 1968. Roelandts and Duchesne, 1968. 

Maxwell and Abbey, in Maxwell and others, 1970. Brown and others, 1969. 

Biagi, 1970. 

Langer, 1969, 25-mg samples. 

Langer, 1969, 5-mg samples. Casanova and others, 1968. 

Karkare, 1965. 

Langmyhr and Paus, 1968. 

Langmyhr and Paus, 1969. Van Loon and Parissis, 1969. Boar and Ingram, 1970. Foscolos and Barefoot, 1970. 

Buckley and Cranston, 1971. 

Brimhall and Embree, 1971. 

Schnetzler and Nava, 1971. 

Randall, 1972. 

Schnetzler and others, 1972. De Vecchi and others. 1968. 

Rayburn, 1968. 

Sahores, 1968. 

Wright, 1968. 

Hooper and Atkins, 1969. 

Schneider, 1969. 

Ragland, 1970. Aubert and Desjardins, 1971. 

Murad, 1971. 

Fabbi, 1972a. 

Kay and Chappell, 1972. 

Ehmann and Morgan, 1970. 

Morgan and Ehmann, 1970. 

Gijbels, 1972. 

Kuykendall and others, 1971. 

Rucklidge and others, 1970. Mori and others, 1971. 

Diimecke, 1968. 

Ondrick and others, 1969. Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. Bernas. 1968. 

Rayburn, 1968. 

Maxwell and Abbey, in Maxwell and others, 1970. 

Strelow and others, 1969. 

Borgen, 1967. 

Toerien, 1969. Roelandts and Duchesne, 1968. 

Brown and others, 1969. 

Biagi, 1970. Casanova and others, 1968. 

Chalmers and Basit. 1968. 

Meyrowitz, 1970. · 

...... 

tO 

-.::J 

1:>:) 

0 

0 

~ 

1;:1 

~ 

tot 

> 1-3 

~ 

0 

z 

~ 

t:t 

> 1-3 

> 

0 

z 

c::: 

00 

C':l 

00 

00 

1-3 

> z 

t:t 

> " t:t 

00 

~ 

co 

Ol 
W-1 

14.78(8) 

15.04 

15.27(5) 

15.01 (4) 

14.9(3) 

15.1 

15.0 

14.68(3) 

15.49 

14.95 

15.08 

15.31 

15.0(2) 

14.91 

14.50 

14.96(4) 

14.49 

14.3 

14.96(2Q) 

15.0(10) 

8.63(8) 

8.55 

8.77(3) 

TABLE 104.-Determinations of major and minor constituents in eight USGS standard rock samples (percent)-Continued 

G-1 

13.95(8) 

14.18 

14.15(4) 

13.9 

14.53 

14.4(2) 

14.35 

14.66(2) 

1.00(8) 

.90(3) 

G-2 

15.3(4) 

15.60(5) 

15.1 (3) 

15.48 

16.2 

15.96 

16.27 

16.4 

15.54 

15.20 

16.7 

16.40(2) 

15.6(2) 

15.59 

14.96 

15.11 

16.1 

16.53(2) 

16.40 

16.1 

16.66(4) 

15.47 

15.31 (10) 

15.7(10) 

15.19 

1.42 (2) 

1.46(4) 

1.64(10) 

1.44 

1.31 

1.66 

1.46(7) 

1.49 

GSP-1 

14.9(4) 

16.27(4) 

16.27(4) 

16.49(5) 

14.9(3) 

15.12 

14.8 

16.62 

16.00 

16.4 

15.09(2) 

16.41 

16.20 

16.6 

16.04(2) 

15.50 

16.3(2) 

15.29 

15.02 

14.98 

16.1 

16.34 

16.06 

15.35 (10) 

16.16 

2.24(2) 

2.39(4) 

2.70(10) 

2.29 

2.12 

2.44 

2.32(6) 

2.10 

AGV-1 

17.3(4) 

17.60(5) 

16.9(3) 

17.38 

17.4 

16.83 

17.60 

16.96 

17.2 

16.89(2) 

17.44 

17.70 

17.4 

16.99(2) 

17.57 

17.4(2) 

17.42 

17.17(9) 

17.06 

16.99 

17.4 

17.74 

16.44 

17.38 

16.94(10) 

17.6(10) 

17.17(2) 

2.04.(2) 

2.14(4) 

2.10(10) 

2.04 

1.98 

2.19 

2.03(7) 

1.96 

2.12 

PCC-1 DTS-1 

Ah03 -Continued 

-1~oo<4> __ _ .533(4) 

. 70 ' 

.633(4) 

.94 

.42 

.8 

.82 

.52 

1.17 

.60(2) 

1.10 

.58 

.62 

.74 

. 70 

.67 

.666(4) 

.74 

. 72 

.631 (10) 

.93 

6.69(24) 

6.49(28) 

5.00(2) 

6.46(4) 

6.49(10) 

4.92 

4.94 

6.04 

6.07(7) 

6.10 

.36(4) 

.133(2) 

.133(2) 

.38 

.19 <.2 

.30 

1.01 

.26(2) 

.40 

.16 

.16 

.30 

.26 

.168(2) 

.30 

.16 

.187(10) 

.55 

FeO 

-8~i5(8) __ _ 7.36(12) 

7.08(2) 

7.37(4) 

7.36(10) 

7.02 

6.87 

6.92 

6.72(6) 

6.29 

BCR-1 

13.4(4) 

14.46(4) 

13.72 

14.46(4) 

13.66(6) 

13.4 (3) 

13.98 

13.4 

13.34(3) 

14.04 

13.72 

13.60 

13.8 

13.66 

13.18 (2) 

13.90 

13.60 

13.6 

13.26(2) 

14.23 

13.6(2) 

13.20 

13.32 

13.61 

13.6 

14.6 

13.75(2) 

13.17 (2) 

13.46(4) 

14.66 

13.1 

13.94(4) 

13.71 (10) 

13.92(6) 

13.98 

13.61 (2) 

9.01 (17) 

8.86(20) 

8.65(2) 

8.96(4) 

8.91 (10) 

8.93 

8.88 

9.02 

8.66 

8.37(3) 

8.82 

Method 

Photometric ----------- ____ do ----------------

AA ------------------- AA ------------------- AA -------------------

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA ------------------- XRF 

XRF 

XRF ------------------ XRF uncorrected ------ XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF ------------------ FNAA 

INAA 

INAA 

INAA 

INAA 

INAA 

INAA 

INAA 

INAA 

INAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

Microprobe ------------ ____ do 

Dichromate 

Vanadate 

Volumetric ------------ Dichromate -----------

Acid dissolution -------

Titration ------------- ____ do ----------------

Volumetric ------------ Chemical 

____ do ----------------

Spectrophotometric ___ _ 

____ do ---------------- ____ do ----------------

Reference 

Karkare, 1966. 

Langer, 1971. 

Butler, 1968. 

Galle, 1968 . Langmyhr and Paus, 1968. 

Butler and Kokot, 1969. 

Langmyhr and Paus, 1969. Van Loon and Parissis, 1969. Boar and Ingram, 1970. Foscolos and Barefoot, 1970. 

Ragland, 1970. 

Brenner, 1971. 

Brimhall, and Embree, 1971. 

Buckley and Cranston, 1971. 

Schnetzler and Nava, 1971. 

Terashima, 1971c. 

Randall, 1972. 

Schnetzler and others, 1972. 

Vidal, 1972. De Vecchi and others, 1968. 

Sahores, 1968. 

Rayburn, 1968. 

Wright, 1968. 

Hooper and Atkins, 1969. 

Schneider, 1969. 

Aubert and Desjardins, 1971. 

Murad. 1971. 

Fabbi, · 1972a. 

Kaye and Chappell, 1972. Ehmann and Morgan, 1970. 

Filby and Haller, 1969. 

Gordon and others, 1969 . Loveland and others, 1969. Morrison and oth~s. 1969; Morrison and Kashuba, 1969; Morrison, 1971. 

Wyttenbach, 1969. 

Filby and others, 1970. 

Goles and others, 1971. 

Kuykendall and others, 1971. Oosterom B.ll.d Das, 1971 . Das and others, 1969, 1970. 

Steinnes, 1969b. Brunfelt and Steinnes, 1971b. 

&unfelt and others, 1971. 

Rucklidge and others, 1970. Mori and others, 1971. 

Karkare, 1966. 

Peters, 1968. Do. Roelandts and Duchesne, 1968. 

Wright, 1968. 

Donaldson, 1969. 

Peters, 1969. 

Foscolos, 1971. 

Sighinolfi, 1969. 

Stoch, 1969. 

Maxwell and Abbey, in Maxwell and others, 1970. 

Girardin and Thiel. 1970. 

Brenner, 1971. 

Randall, 1972. 

1-' 

~ 

(j) 

t:l 

tr-.1 

00 

l.l 

~ ~ 

'i:l 

1-3 

~ 

0 

z 

00 

> z 

t:l 

> z 

> t"" 

~ 

00 

tr-.1 

00 

0 

~ 

tr-.1 

~ 

~ 

= 1-3 

z 

tr-.1 

~ 

q 

00 

~ 

00 

~ 

0 

l.l 

1':: 

00 

1-3 

> z 

t:l 

> 

~ 

t:l 

00 
W-1 

1.87(8) 

1.99 

11.2 

10.75(2) 

11.02 (4) 

1-1~02(4) __ _ 

11.49 

10.95(2) 

11.30 

11.20(5) 

10.72(2) 

11.15(8) 

11.13 

11.12 (3) 

11.3 

10.38 

11.2(9) 

11.04(3) 

10.95 

10.97 

10.95 

11.0(2) 

11.45 

11.09 

13.98(10) 

10.87 

TABLE 104.-Determinations of major and minor constituents in eight USGS standard rock samples (percent) -Continued 

G-1 

0.82(8) 

2.0 

1.89(3) 

1.94 

1.94(2) 

1.88 

2.01 

1.86(5) 

1.99 

1.90 

1.77(2) 

1~65 _____ _ 

1.92(2) 

1.88 

2~o4<2> __ _ 

G-2 

"0~92(8) __ _ 

.88 

1.09 

.78 

2.7(10) 

2.71 

2.58(2) 

2.69 

2.66 

2.62(8) 

2.60 

2.65 

2.72(4) 

2~7o<5> __ _ 2.54 

2.72(4) 

2.75 

2.90(3) 

2.63 

2.74 

2. 7 (6) 

2.59 

2.63 

2.57 

2.86 

2.75 

2.66 

2.58 

2.79(4) 

2.76(2) 

2.82 

2.66 

2.76 

2.62 

2.77 

2.85(10) 

2.74 

2.64(5) 

2.36 

2.39 

GSP-1 

1.25(8) 

1.60 

1.72 

1.93 

-4~5(io> __ _ 

4.31 

4.22(2) 

4.36 

4.30 

4.25(8) 

4.16 

4.24 

4.23(4) 

4.33 

4.23(4) 

4.29(5) 

4.35 

4.16(3) 

4.29 

4.27 

4.4(4) 

4.18 4.29 

4~26 _____ _ 

4.53 

4.20 

4.46 

4.34 

4.44(4) 

4.32(2) 

4.68 

4.32 

4.37 

4.23 

4.33 

4.39 

4.40 

AGV-1 

-4~22(8) __ _ 4.25 

4.80 

4.15 

6~5(io> __ _ 6.75 

6.71 

6.70(4) 

8.10(3) 

6.70(4) 

7.09 

6.96 

6.55(8) 

6.53 

6.64 

6.71(4) 

6.76 

6.71(4) 

6.73(5) 

6.77 

6.69(3) 

---------- 6.80 

6.76 

7.1(2) 

6.55 

6.80 

6.93 

6.81 

6.70 

6.47 

6.77 

6.82 (2) 

7.32 

6.93 

6.98(9) 

6.98 

6.66 

6.83 

6.34(1-0) 

6.96(2) 

---------- 6.61 

PCC-1 

---------- 1.96(13) 

2.55 

3.12 

2.61 

DT8-1 

Fe20a 

-o.ao(is>--

.8o 

1.07 

1.63 

Total Fe as Fe20a 

8.29 

8.31(4) 

8.56(3) 

7.74(4) 

8.60 

8.23 

8.07(13) 

8.20 

8.39 

8.27 

8.11 

8.56 

8.23(3) 

8.52 

7.93 

7.9(4) 

8.52 

9.04 

8.53 

8.10 

8.42 

8.56 

8.23 

8.54 

8.25 

7.68 

8.81 

8.31(4) 

13.29(3) 

8.31(4) 

8.90 

8.72 

8.51 (13) 

8.20 

8.64 

8.54(2) 

8.64 

8.54(2) 

8.43(5) 

8.71 

8.74(3) 

8.98 

8.74 

8.98 

8.99 

8.71 

9.10 

9.13 

8.72 

8.85 p 

8.57 

---------- 8.14 

BCR-1 

-3~22(8) __ _ 

3.32 

3.77 

3.76 

3.37 

12.0(10) 

10.7 

13.50 

6.85(3) 

1,3.70 

13.4 

13.29(8) 

13.3 

13.32 

12.74(4) 

13.63 

13.28 

12.74(4) 

13.58(5) 

13.65 

13.41 (3) 

13.67 

13.12 

14.1 (2) 

13.24 (3) 

12.84 

13.67 

13.21 

13.28 

13.52 

13.70 

13.60 

13.28 

13.2(2) 

14.02 

13.30 

13.50 

13.32 

13.51 

i3~44(2) __ _ 

Method 

Spectrophotometric ---- ____ do ----------------

Chemical ------------- ____ do ----------------

Difference -------------

____ do ---------------- ____ do ----------------

OS ------------------- OS -------------------

OS ------------------- SSMS ----------------- Chemical ------------- ____ do ----------------

Ion exchange ---------- Potentiometric -------- Titration -------------- ____ do ----------------

Volumetric ------------ Spectrophotometric ----

____ do ---------------- ____ do ---------------- Photometric 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA ------------------- XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

:XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF ------------------ Mossbauer ------------ Microprobe ------------ ____ do ----------------

INAA ----------------

INAA 

INAA 

Reference 

Karkare, 1965. 

Peters, 1969. 

Stoch, 1969. 

Maxwell and Abbey in Maxwell 

and others, 1970. 

Roelandts and Duchesne, 1968. 

Foscolos, 1971. 

Randall, 1972. 

Diimecke, 1968. 

Fabbri and V espignani-Balzani, 1969. 

Ondrick and others. 1969. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Bernas, 1968. 

Rayburn, 1968. 

Toerien, 1969. 

Hetman, 1968. 

Strelow and others, 1969. 

Foscolos, 1971. 

Roelandts and Duchesne, 1968. 

Borgen, 1967. 

Casanova and others, 1968. 

Peters, 1969. 

Langer, 1971. 

Abbey, 1968. 

Butler, 1968. 

Galle, 1968. 

Langmhyr and Paur, 1968. 

Luhn, 1968. 

Bender and Scliultz, 1969. 

Butler and Kokot, 1969. 

Langmyhr and Paus, 1969. 

Sighinolfi, 1969. Van Loon and Parissis, 1969. 

Boar and Ingram, 1970. 

Foscolos and Barefoot, 1970. 

!ida and Yamasaki, 1970. 

A. C. S. Smith, 1970. 

Brimhall and Embree, 1971. 

Buckley and Cranston, 1971. 

Foscolos, 1971. 

Schnetzler and Nava. 1971. 

Sehnetzler and others, 1972. De Vecchi and others, 1968. 

Rayburn, 1968. 

Sahores, 1968. 

Franzini and Leoni. 1969. 

Hooper and Atkins, 1969. 

Murad, 1969. 

Schneider, 1969. 

Ragland, 1970. 

Aubert and Desjardin, 1971. 

Murad, Hl71. 

Fabbi, 1972a. 

Kaye and Chappell, 1972. 

Herzenberg, 1970. Ruckled~re and others, 1970. 

Mmi and others. 1971. 

Aruscavage, 1969. 

Filby and Haller. 1969. 

Dale and others, 1970. 

1-" 

tO 

-.;J 

to:) 

0 

0 

~ 

"tt 

1-4 

t'"l 

> t-3 

1-4 

0 

z 

0 

1-:j 

t:::l 

> t-3 

> 

0 

z 

c::: 

00 

~ 

00 

00 

t-3 

> z 

t:::l 

> 

~ 

t:::l 

00 

~ 

eo 

-1 
W-1 

10.87 

12.20 

11.44(2) 

10.7 

11.12 (5) 

11.18 (6) 

10.87 

6.84 

6.37(2) 

6.79 

6.71(8) 

6.57(4) 

6.63 

6.59 (5) 

6.50(4) 

6.56(3) 

6.59 

6.51 

6.60(7) 

6.62(3) 

6.81 

6.77 

6.63 

6.78 

6.66(5) 

6.46(2) 

6.57(4) 

6.93 

TABLE 104.-Determinations of major and minor constituents in eight USGS standard rock samples (percent)-Continued 

G-1 

2.22 

1.86(2) 

0.37 

. 40 

.50 

. 46(8) 

.40 

.40(4) 

.38 

;34(2) 

.40 

.38(5) 

• 41(2) 

G-2 

2.36 

2~72(4) __ _ 

---------- 2.54 

2.50 

2.65(5) 

2.35 

2.73(6) 

2.69 

0.74(10) 

.72(5) 

.79 

.78(3) 

-~748(5)--

.76 

.78(3) 

.80 

.74(3) 

.80 

.77(2) 

.78 

.69(5) 

.70 

.75 

.78 

. 75 

.83 

.70 

.64 

GSP-1 

4.18 

4.31(5) 

4.29(6) 

4.33 

-1~o2(io>--

.97(5) 

.98 

.95(2) 

.97(5) 

.96 

.95(2) 

1.01 

.96(3) 

.93 

1.04 (2) 

.98 

.91(4) 

.91 

.97 

.96 

.95(2) 

.95(3) 

. 99 

---------- .94 

AGV-1 

6.58 

6.76 

6.75(5) 

6.78(6) 

6.78 

6.87 

6.89 

1.43(10) 

1.46 

-1~5i(5) __ _ 1.50(4) 

1.47 

1.46(2) 

1.50(5) 

1.50 

1.46(2) 

1.54 

1.43(3) 

1.48 

1.92(2) 

1.56 

1.38(2) 

1.51 (3) 

1.59 

1.56 

1.54 

1.53(2) 

1.42 (3) 

1.64 

1.50(4) 

1,76 

1.62 

PCC-1 DT8-1 BCR-1 

Total Fe u Fe20a--Coatinu$1 

8.31 

8.34 

8.58(2) 

8.60 

8.3 

---------- 43.3(10) 

43.09(4) 

43.18 

---------- 43.20 

44.13 

42.9(3) 

42.78 

43~5=(2) ___ _ 

43.83 

42.4 

43.2(3) 

42.5 

43.09(4) 

45.78 

43.6 

8.46 

8.76 

9.08(2) 

8.92 

MgO 

49.7(10) 

49.89(4) 

49.SO 

49.82(5) 

51.84 . 

49.8(8) 

49.41 

49.80 

49.1 

50.1(3) 

49.5 

49.89(4) 

49.97 

13.16 

13.38 

13.77(4) 

13.81 (2) 

12.9 

13.3(2) 

13.40(5) 

12.9 

13.38 

13.41(5) 

13.35(6) 

13.58 

13.2 

13.18 

12.6 

3.5(10) 

2.3 

3.46 

3.49(5) 

3.52 

3.30(2) 

3.52 

3.57(5) 

3.49 

3.80(2) 

3.45 

8.40(3) 

3.17 

3.81(2) 

3.38 

3.46(2) 

8.51(3) 

3.48 

3.40 

3.43 

3.57 

3.41(2) 

3.33(2) 

3.46 

3.61 

3.24 

INAA 

INAA 

INAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

Method 

Substoic RID ---------- Photon activation ------ ____ do ---------------- ____ do ---------------- Proton activation ------

OS 

OS 

OS ------------------- SSMS ---------------- Chemical --------------

____ do 

EDTA 

Titration 

EDTA - Titration 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA ------------------- FI phot --------------- Complexometric ------- Spectrophotometric ----

Photometric -----------

Ion exchange ----------

XRF ------------------ XRF ------------------

Reference 

Filby and others, 1970. 

Goles and others, 1971. 

Kuykendall and others, 1971. 

Norman and Haskin, 1968. 

Morrison and others, 1969; Morrrison 

and Kashuba, 1969; Morrison, 1971. 

Landstrom and others, 1969. Peterson and others, 1969. 

Allen and others, 1970; Haskin and 

others, 1970. 

Johansen and Steinnes, 1970. 

Osawa and Goles. 1970. 

Brunfelt and others, 1971. 

Brunfelt and Steinnes, 1971b. 

Das, Zonderhuis, and van der Marel, 

1971. 

Gundersen and Steinnes, 1972. 

Kunzendorf, 1971. Van Zelst, 1971a. Van Zelst, 1971 b. Van Zelst, 1971a, b. 

Dumecke, 1968. 

Fabbri and Vespignani-Balzani, 1969. 

Ondrick and others, 1969. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Maxwell and Abbey in ·Maxwell and 

others, 1970. 

Bernas, 1968 . Roelandts and Duchesne, 1968. 

Karkare, 1965 . Peters, 1969. 

Strelow and others, 1969. 

Abbey, 1968. 

Butler, 1968. 

Galle, 1968. 

Langmyhr and Paus, 1968, 1969. 

Luhn, 1968. 

Butler and Kokot, 1969. 

Sighinolfi, 1969. Van· Loon and P&ll'issis, 1969. Boar and Ingram. 1970. 

Foscolos and Barefoot, 1970. 

Govindaraju, 1970a. 

Ragland, 1970. 

A. C. S. Smith, 1970. 

Brenner, 1971. 

Brimhall and Embree, 1971. 

Buckley and Cranston. 1971. 

Schnetzler and Nava, 1971. 

Terashima, 1971c. 

Randall, 1972. 

Schnetzler and others, 1972. 

Vidal, 1972. 

Langer, 1969 . Casanova and others, 1968 . Evans, 1968. 

Borgen, 1967 . 

Toerien, 1969. De Vecchi and others, 1968. 

Sahores, 1968. 

~ 

~ 

00 

t::1 

t.%J 

00 

0 

~ 1-4 

'"C 

1-3 

1-4 

0 

z 

00 

> z 

t::1 

> z 

> t"'l 

~ 

00 

t.%J 

00 

0 

l%j 

t.%J 

1-4 

Cl 

1-3 = 

z 

t.%J 

~ 

c::: 

00 

Cl 

00 

~ 

0 

0 

~ 

00 

1-3 

> z 

t::1 

> 

~ 

t::1 

00 
W-1 

6.72 

6.4 6:6i _____ _ 

6.66(10) 

6.17(4) 

11.3 

10.63 

10.72(8) 

10.41 

10.87(4) 

10.87(4) 

11.19 

10.82(2) 

10.81 

10.93 

10.83 (5) 

10.86(4) 

10.90 

10.8(3) 

11.0 

1-0.8(9) ___ _ 

10.77(3) 

11.25 

10.69 

10.90 

10.99 

TABLE 104.-Determinations of major and minor constituents in eight USGS standard rock samples (percent)-Continued 

G-1 

.34 

.37 

. 24(2) 

1.51 

1.35 

1.37(3) 

1.48(8) 

1.28 

1.32 

1.41 (2) 1.37 

1.36 

1.32(4) 

1.38 

1.42(2) 

G-2 

.74(2) 

.73 

.75 

.78 

• 81 

.92(10) 

.90 

. 77 

1.01(4) 

1.98 

1.91 

1.91 

1.73(8) 

1.97 

2.03 

1.91 (3) 

1.85 (5) 

2.09 

1.91 (2) 

1.91 (3) 2.03 

2.02(3) 

1.92 

1.87(5) 

1.97 

1.91 

1.91 

2.02 

1.92 

1.81 

2.00(2) 

GSP-1 

.97(2) 

.95 

.95 

U)5 

.98 

1.14 

.95 

2.07 

1.97 

2.09 

1.84(8) 

2.06 

2.07 

1.97(2) 

2.11 

2.16(2) 

1.94(5) 

1.97(2) 

1.95 

2.10(3) 

1.93 

1.96 (4) 

2.11 

2.00 

1.92 

2.13 

2.08 

1.89 

2.04(2) 

AGV-1 

1.56(2) 

1.50 

1.58 

1.59 

1.57 

1.49 (10) 

1.59(2) 

1.46 

1.54 

4.92 

4.89 

4.97(4) 

4.97(4) 

4.67 

5.03 

4.81(8) 

4.63 

4.92 

4.68 

5.12 (2) 

4.94(5) 

4.90 

4.87(3) 

4.93 

4..84(3) 

4.94(3) 

5'.61 

5.09 

4.90 

5.12 

4.92 

4.95 

5.02(2) 

PCC-1 DT8-1 

MeO-Continued 

42.42 (2) 50.50(2) 43.17 49.65 

43.15 50.03 

45.08 

43.24 

42.6 

42.3 

44.1(4) 

53.9 

.44 

.528(4) 

.528(4) 

.55 

.55(10) 

.61 

.56 

.39(2) 

.49 

.52 

--:39(2)--

.54(3) 

.52 

.55 

.56 

.41 

.22 

.45 

.59(2) 

50.94 

49.73 

46.9 

50.7 

CaO 

0 

.158(4) 

.121 (4) 

.09 

.10 

.15(10) 

.16 

.14 

.026(2) 

.12 

0.053(5) 

.026(2) 

.18(3) 

.11 

.14 

.19 

0 

.16(2) 

BCR-1 

3.65(2) 

3.53 

3.45 

3.46 

3.48 

3.40(2) 

3.40 

3.66 

3.28(4) 

3.48(4) 

3.18(2) 

6.8 

6.92 

6.91 

6.64 

6.96 

6.89(8) 

6.97 

6.89 

6.88 

6.65 

7.00 

6.73(5) 

6.78 

6.95(3) 

6.86 

6.90(2) 

6.91(3) 

7.12 

7.12 

7.00 

6.84 

6.76 

7.56 

6.90 

'7.06(2) 

Method 

XRF uncorrected ------

XRF ------------------

XRF ------------------ XRF ------------------ XRF ------------------ XRF ------------------ Microprobe ------------

____ do ----------------

XRF ------------------ INAA ----------------

INAA 

INAA 

INAA ---------------- INAA ---------------- Photoactivation 

ID 

OS 

OS 

OS ------------------- SSMS ----------------- Chemical -------------

====~~ :::::::::::::::: Titration -------------- EDTA ---------------- Titration --------------

Ion exchang6' ---------- Coloo-imetric ---------- Photometric ----------- Complexometric 

Fl phot 

____ do 

AA 

AA 

AA ------------------- AA -------------------

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA ------------------- XRF ------------------ XRF ------------------ XRF ------------------ XRF uncorrected _____ _ 

Reference 

Wright, 1968. 

Hooper and Atkins, 1969. 

Schneider, 1969. 

Parker, 1970. Aubert and Desjardins, 1971. 

Fabbi, 1972a . Ruckledge and others, 1970. 

Mori and others, 1971 . Kaye and Chappell, 1972 . Filby and Haller, 1969; Filby and others, 1970. 

Gordon and others, 1969. Morrison and others, 1969; Morrison and Kashuba, 1969 (NAA); Mor- rison, 1971. 

Wyttenbach, 1969. 

Kuykendall and others, 1971. Van Zelst, 1971a. Krahenbuhl and others, 1972. 

Kowalski, 1967. 

Diimecke, 1968. 

Ondrick and others, 1969. Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Bernas, 1968. 

Rayburn, 1968. 

Maxwell and Abbey in Maxwell and others, 1970. 

Karkare, 1965. Roelandts and Duchesne, 1968. 

Strelow and others, 1969. 

Toerien. 1969. 

King and Pruden, 1969. 

Borgen. 1967. Casanova and others. 1968. 

Peters, 1969. · 

Langer, 1971. 

Abbey, 1968. 

Butler, 1968. 

Galle, 1968. 

Langmhyr and Paus, 1968. 

Luhn. 1968. 

Govh:idaraju 1970a. 

Langmyhr and Paus. 1969. Butler and Kokot, 1969. 

Sighinolfi, 1969. 

Van Loon and Parissis, 1969. Boar and Ingram, 1970. Foscolos and Barefoot, 1970. 

A. C. S. Smith, 1970. 

Brenner, 1971. 

Brimhall and Embree, 1971. 

Buckley and Cranston, 1971. 

Schnetzler and Nava, 1971. 

Terashima, 1971c. 

Schnetzler and others, 1972. 

Randall, 1972. De Vecchi and others, 1968 . Ravburn, 1968. 

Sahores, 1968. 

W.right, 1968. 

~ 

f.O 

-.::J 

1:¢ 

0 

0 

is: 

1-d 

~ 

t"' 

> 

~ ~ 

0 

z 

0 

l'%j 

t:j 

> 

~ 

> 

0 

z 

~ 

rJ). 

C) 

rJ). 

rJ). 

~ 

> z 

t:j 

> 

~ 

t:j 

rJ). 

1-' 

eo 

co 
W-1 

10.8(2) 

10.98 

10 .. 72 10.98 

10.94 

10.5(10) 

11.08 

10.68(4) 

10.8 

10.5(2) 

2.16 

2.10(3) 

2.19(6) 

2.17(4) 

2.13(8) 

2.16 

2.33(7) 

2.22(6) 

2.09 

2.14 

2.11 (5) 

2.19 

2.17(4) 

2.10(3) 

2.17 

2.19 

2.14(3) 

2.03 

2.16 

TABLE 104.-Determinations of major and minor constituents in eight USGS standard rock samples (percent)-Continued 

G-1 

1.31 (2) 1.37 

1.33 

1.41 (2) 

1.32(2) 

3.10 

-3.38(2) __ _ 

3.26(8) 

3.26(2) 

3.59 

3.26(2) 

3.21 

3.29 

3.67 

G-2 

1.91 

1.96(2) 

1.89 

1.96 

1.89 

1.97 

1.91 

2.18(10) 

2.00 

1.82 

1.54 

4.38 

4.07(8) 

4.11(5) 

4.23(4) 

3.98 

3.56 

4.00 

4.04 

4.04 

4.00(5) 

4.11 

3.89 

4.10(3) 

4.16 

4.26 

4.08 

4.11 

GSP-1 

2.01 

2.04(2) 

2.04 

1.99 

1.95 

2.01 

2.00 

2.16 

1.68 

2.77 

2.81(8) 

2.78(4) 

2.77(4) 

2.80 

2.53 

2.53 

2.76 

2.76 

2.91 

2.86(5) 

2.90 

2.80(3) 

2.86 

2.70 

2.61 

2.81 

AGV-1 

4.83 

4.96(2) 

4.98 

4.66 

4.88(9) 

4.94 

5.01 

4.92 

4.93(10) 

4.94(2) 

4.74 

5.42 

4.80 

4.92 

4.29(4) 

4.36 

4.24.(8) 

4.50(3) 

4.22 

4.27 

4.03 

4.03 

4.21 

4.20 

4.20 

4.25(5) 

4.11 

4.29(4.) 

4.28(3) 

4.37 

4.33 

4.30(2) 

4.18 

4:23 _____ _ 

PCC-1 DTS-1 

CaO--Continued 

.51 

.68 

.53 

.54 

0.55 

.60 

.46 

0.0022 (4) 

.0070(5) 

.00 

.008(10) 

.11(4) 

.0091 (3) 

.oo 

.27 1:34 _____ _ 

.0100 

<o:o2 _____ _ 

.03 

.0022(4) 

.014. 

.11 

.20 

.16 

.12 

0.15 

.21 

.15 

Na20 

0.0051 

.0076(5) 

.03 

.010 (10) 

-:o7<4> __ _ .0079(3) 

•103 

.27 

1.34 

.0067 

.068(5) <O:o2 _____ _ 

.01 

. 0050(4) 

---------- .008 

BCR-1 

6.97(2) 

6.88 

6.74 

6.84 

6.98 

7.01 

7.08(2) 

6.98 

7.12(4) 

6.6 

6.98(5) 

6.60(2) 

7.0 

6.87 

6.87 

7.21 

5.9 

2'.2; 

'3.36 

3.23 

3.35(8) 

'3.56(2) 

3.2(4) 

3.31 

3.06 3:38 _____ _ 

3.38 

3.35 

3.12(5) 

3.04 

3.26(3) 

3.29 

3.27 

3.44 

3.25(3) 

2.91 

3.33 

3.28 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

Method 

XRF ----------------- XRF ----------------- XRF ----------------- XRF ----------------- Microprobe ------------

____ do 

INAA 

INAA ---------------- !NAA 

NAA ------------------

NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------

Photon activation ____ do 

Proton activation 

ID 

OS -------------------- SSMS ---------------- Chemical 

____ do ----------------

Ion exchange ----------

____ do ----------------

Fl phot --------------- ____ do ---------------- ____ do ---------------- ____ do 

____ do ____ do ____ do ____ do ____ do 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

Reference 

Hooper and Atkins, 1969. 

Schneider, 1969. 

Schroll'and Stepan, 1969. 

Parker, 1970. 

Ragland, 1970. 

Murad, 1971. Aubert and Desjardins, 1971. 

Fabbi, 1972a. 

Kaye and Chappell, 1972. 

Ruckledge and others, 1970. 

Mori and others, 1971. 

Filby and Haller, 1969; Filby and others, 1970. 

Wyttenbach, 1969. 

Goles and others, 1971. Brunfelt and Steinnes, 1969c. 

Landstrom and others. 1969. Morrison and others, 1969. Morrison and Kashuba, 1969; Mor- rison, 1971. Van Zelst, 1971 b. Van Zelst, 1971a. 

Van Zelst, 1971 b. Krahenbuhl and others, 1972. 

Diimecke, 1968. Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Bernas, 1968. 

Maxwell and Abbey in Maxwell and others, 1970. 

Strelow and others, 1968. 

Toerien, 1969. 

Karkare, 1965. 

Borgen, 1967. Roelandts and Duchesne, 1968. 

Schlocker, 1968. 

Wright, 1968. 

Peters, 1969. A. C. S. Smith, 1970. 

Langer, 1971. 

McCabe and others, 1972. 

Abbey, 1968. 

Butler, 1968 ( 5890 Na). Butler and Kokot, 1969 (5890 Na). 

Butler, 1968 (3303 Na). Butler and Kokot, 1969 ( 3303 Na). 

Langmyhr and Paus, 1968. 

Luhn, 1968. 

Langmyhr and Pau~. 1969. 

Sighinolfi, 1969. 

Strelow and others, 1969. 

Van Loon and Parissis, 1969. Boar and Ingram, 1970. Foscolos and Barefoot, 1970. 

Ragland, 1970. 

Strelow and others, 1970 . 

Brenner, 1971. Brimhall and Embree, 1971. 

Buckley and Cranston, 1971. 

Schnetzler and Nava, 1971. 

Randall, 1972. 

1-l 

~ 

0 

0 

t_1j 

00 

Q 

~ 1-4 

'"tl 

t-3 

1-4 

0 

z 

00 

> z 

0 

> z 

> 

~ 00 

t_1j 

00 

0 

l'%j 

t_1j 

1-4 

~ 

P=t 

t-3 

z 

t_1j 

~ 

C! 

00 

~ 

00 

~ 

0 

Q 

p::: 

00 

t-3 

> z 

0 

> 

~ 

0 

00 
W-1 

2.11 

---------- 2.17 

2.0 

---------- 2.37(10) 

---------- 2.17 

2.20(4) 

2.13 

2.05(2) 

2.26 

2.11 

0.57 

.67(11) 

-:634(2)--

. 64(6) 

.66(4) 

.60 

.61(8) 

-:64(7) __ _ 

-:649(6)--

o~ss _____ _ 

---------- .61 

.598(5) 

---------- .72 

.66(4) 

.64(3) 

• 63 

-:63(8) __ _ 

• 64 

. 71 

TABLE 104.-Determinations of major and minor constituents in eight USGS standard rock samples (percent)-Continued 

G-1 

3:28 _____ _ 

3~36(2) __ _ 

3.15(2) 

5.18 

6.3(6) 

-5~83(4) __ _ 

5:6o _____ _ 

5.52(8) 

5.54(2) 

5.51 

5:55(2) __ _ 

5:47 _____ _ 

---------- 5.48 

5.55 

G-2 

4.01 

4.15 

4.58(10) 

3.96 

4.15(5) 

4.06 

3.81 

3.77 

4:8(8) ___ _ 

4.46 

4:44(8) __ _ 4.49(5) 

4.48(2) 

4.87(4) 

4~53(12)--

4.57 

4.23 

4.13 4.45 

4.34 

4.45(5) 

4.44. 

-4~42 _____ _ 

4:56(8) __ _ 

4:28 _____ _ 

4.4,7 

GSP-1 

2:77(2) __ _ 3.18 

2.84 

2.88 

2.79 

2.61 

6:6(4) ___ _ 

5.50 

&:48(8) __ _ 5.47(4) 

5.60(2) 

5.61 (4) 

-5:58(12)--

5.49 

5.48 

5.34 

5.68 

5.54 

5.51 

5.56(5) 

5.30 

5:48(3) __ _ 

&:6o _____ _ 

5.65 

AGV-1 

-4~2o<2> __ _ 4.68 

4.26 

4.33 

4.45(10) 

4.15(2) 

---------- 4.15 

4.10 

2:6(4) ___ _ 

2:87 _____ _ 

2:64(4) __ _ 

2.82(8) 

2.98(3) 

2.90(2) 

2.96 

2.96(2) 

2.96(12) 

2.88 

2.93 

2.85 

2.87 

2.79 

2.93 

2.72(5) 

2.92 

2.84(4) 

2.85(3) 

2:88 _____ _ 

2:87(2) __ _ 

2.82 

PCC-1 DTS-1 

N a20-Continued 

.00 

.02 

---------- 0.030 

-~oii7<6>-

-~oo88 ___ _ 

0 

.05 

.0055 

-~oos8<4>-

-~ooi1c5>-

<.005 

<.05 

<.01 

.10(4) 

-~oois(io> 

0.00 

.37 -:25 _____ _ 

.0020 

<::oo5 ____ _ 

-:oo _____ _ 

• 0087(4) 

.6() 

-:o8 _____ _ 

-o:o36 ____ _ 

-:o134csr 

---------- .0058 

K20 

0 

-:ooi7<4>-

-:ooiic5>-

<.005 

<.01 

.08(4) 

<::ooia<9>-

o.oo 

. 37 -:25 _____ _ 

.0014 

<:~oo5 ____ _ 

-:o6 _____ _ .0017(4) 

BCR-1 

3.34 

3.29(2) 

4.05 

3.21 

3.30 

-3:24(2) __ _ 

2.84 

3.32 

3.21 

3.18 

2.29 

3.26 

'3.17 (2) 

-1:8oc5> __ _ 1.3 -1:69 _____ _ 

1.76 

1.69(8) 

1.78 (2) 

1.70(2) 

1.68(4) 

1.77(2) 

1.72(12) 

1.70 

1.80 

1.76 

1.74. 

1.70 

1.71 

1.72(5) 

1.66 

1:73(3) __ _ 

1.61 

1:73(3) __ _ 

1.54 

1.73 

Method 

AA ------------------- AA ------------------- XRF ------------------ XRF ------------------ XRF ------------------

XRF ------------------ Microprobe ------------ ____ do ----------------

INAA ----------------- INAA -----------------

INAA -----------------

INAA ----------------- INAA ----------------- INAA ----------------- INAA -----------------

NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------

OS --------------------

OS -------------------- SSMS ---------------- Chemical -------------- ____ do ----------------

____ do ----------------

Ion exchange ---------- ____ do ----------------

Fl phot --------------- ____ do ----------------

____ do ____ do ____ do ____ do ____ do 

____ do ---------------- ____ do ---------------- ____ do ---------------- ____ do ----------------

AA -------------------

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

Reference 

Schnetzler and others, 1972. 

Vidal, 1972. 

Hooper and Atkins, 1969. 

Schneider, 1969. 

Parker, 1970. 

Aubert and Desjardins, 1971. 

Ruckledge and others, 1970. 

Mori and others, 1971. 

Aruscavage, 1969. 

Filby and Haller, 1969; Filby and 

others, 1970. 

Morrison and others, 1969; Morrison 

and Kashuba, 1969; Morrison, 1971. 

Wyttenbach, 1969. 

Das, de Koning, and Oosterom, 1971. 

Goles and others, 1971. 

Oosterman and Das, 1971. 

Landstrom and others, 1969. Peterson and others, 1969. 

Miiller, 1970. 

Brunfelt and others, 1971. 

Krahenbuhl and others, 1972. 

Diimecke, 1968. 

Brenner, 1971. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Bernas, 1968. 

Rayburn, 1968. 

Maxwell and Abbey in Maxwell and 

others, 1970 . Strelow and others, 1968. 

Toerien, 1969. 

Roelandts and Duchesne, 1968. 

Schlocker, 1968. 

Karkare, 1965. 

Borgen, 1967. Jones and others, 1969. 

Peters, 1969. 

A. C. S. Smith, 1970. 

Bell and Doyle, 1971. 

Langer, 1971. 

Ozima and Zashu, 1971. 

McCabe and others, 1972. 

Abbey, 1968. 

Butler, 1968 (7665K) . Butler and Kokot, 1969 (7665 K). 

Butler, 1968 (4044K). 

Butler and Kokot, 1969 (4044K). 

Langmyhr and Paus, 1968. 

Luhn, 1968. 

Langmyhr and Paus, 1969. 

Sighinolfi, 1969. 

Strelow and others, 1969. Van Loon and Parissis, 1969 . 

Boar and Ingram, 1970. 

Foscolos and Barefoot, 1970 . Strelow and others, 1970. 

Brenner, 1971. 

Brimhall and Embree, 1971 • 

Buckley and Cranston, 1971 • Schnetzler and Nava, 1971. 

...... 

co 

-::J 

1,\:) 

0 

0 

:== 

'"0 

1-1 

~ 1-3 

1-1 

0 

z 

0 

l%j 

t:l 

> 1-3 

> 

0 

z 

c:: 

00. 

C) 

00. 

00 

1-3 

> z 

t:l 

> 

~ 

t:l 

00 

I-' 

~ 

I-' 
W-1 

0.60 

.68(2) 

.64 

.65 

.63 

.61 

-~67(io>--

.65(2) 

.63 

0.55 

.55 

.54 

.M 

.63 

0.46 

TABLE 104.-Determinations of major and minor constituents in eight USGS standard rock samples (percent)-Continued 

G-1 

5.38(2) 

5.48 

5.46 

5.65(2) 

5.52 

G-2 

4.34 

4.62 

4.46 

4.69 

4.50(2) 

4.'71 

4.40(2) 

4.46 

4.58 

4.53 

4.38 

4.48 

4.95(10) 

4.38 

4.51(4) 

4.58 

4.58(5) 

4.6 

3.'76(2) 

4.53 

6.5 

4.66 

GSP-1 

5.57 

6~49(4) __ _ 5.58 

5.55 

5.75 

5.4.7(2) 

5.46(2) 

5.60 

5.35 

5.38 

5.46 

5.53 

5.59(4) 

5.64 

5.40 

4.76 

5.60 

AGV-1 

2.91 

2.93(2) 

3.17 

2.80 

2.99 

2.97(2) 

2.97 

2.90(2) 

2.71 

2.93 

3.00 

3.04(9) 

2.93 

2.92 

3.04(10) 

3.02(2) 

-i.92( 4)---

2.84 

2.8 

2.71 

2.71 

0.80 

PCC-1 DTS-1 

K20-Continued 

.008 

.02 

0.04 

.002(2) 

.02 

.0035 

.00 

<.003 

---------- .04 

0.014 

<.0012 

.014 

.14 

.0013 

.0073(2) 

4.7 

.007 

o~oo3(2,)--

.o3 

.0017 

.00 

<.003 

.09 

0.022 

<.oois ___ _ 

.022 

.0009 

.0008 

.0012 

H20+ 

BCR-1 

1.70 

-1~69(2.) __ _ 

1.71 

1.71 

1.77 

1. 76 (2) 

1.72 

1.70(2) 

1.72 

1.82 

1.61 

1.70 

1.71 

-1~82(2) __ _ 

1.75(4) 

1.67 

1~63(2) __ _ 

1.44 

1.60 

1.57 (2,) 

1.44 

1.7 

1.2 

1.10(3) 

1.60(5) 

1.710 

1. 70 (2) 

L72(2) 

i68------. 

1.70(2) 

Method 

AA ------------------- AA ------------------- AA ------------------- XRF ------------------ XRF 

XRF ------------------ XRF uncorrected ------ XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF ------------------ XRF ------------------ Microprobe ----------- ____ do ----------------

'}'-counting ------------ ____ do 

____ do ---------------- INAA 

INAA 

INAA 

NAA 

INAA 

INAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

ID 

ID 

ID 

ID 

ID 

ID 

Reference 

Randal, 1972. 

Schnetzler and others, 1972;. 

Vidal, 1972. De Vecchi and others, 1968. 

Rayburn, 1968. 

Sahores, 1968. 

Wright, 1968. 

Hooper and Atkins, 1969. 

Schneider, 1969. 

Schroll and Stepan, 1969. 

Parker, 1970. 

Ragland, 1970. 

Aubert and Desjardins, 1971. 

Murad, 1971. 

Fabbi, 1972a. 

Kaye and Chappell, 1972. 

Ruckledge and others, 1970. 

Mori and others, 1971. 

de Ruyter, 1968. 

Gasparini, 1969. 

Cherry and others, 1970. 

Aruscavage, 1969. 

Morrison and others, 1969. 

Filby and others, 1970. 

Brunfelt and others, 1971. 

Kuykendall and others, 1971. 

Oosterman and Das, 1971. Das and others, 1969, 1970. 

Filby and Haller, 1969. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969; Morrison, 

1971. Peterson and others, 1969. 

Allen and others, 1970·; Haskin and 

others, 1970. 

Muller, 1970. 

Rey and others, 1970. 

Brunfelt and Steinnes, 1971b. 

Hart, 1968. 

Gast and others, 1970. 

Philpotts and Schnetzler, 1970. 

Ozima and Zashu, 1971. 

Schnetzler and Nava, 1971. 

Krahenbuhl and others, 1972. 

Infrared -------------- Breger and Chandler, 1969. 

0.61 Chemical -------------- Cattermole and Fuge, 1969. .66 ____ do ---------------- Maxwell and Abbey in Maxwell and 

others, 1970. 

0.54 0.49 .46 4.81 0.23 1.11 ____ do ---------------- Randall, 1972 . . 58(5) .72(5) .98(5) 4.75(8) .35(5) .93(5) Modified Penfield ------ Peters, 1969. 

---------- ---------- .61 .56 .94 5.00 .53 1.59 ____ do ---------------- Foscolos, 1971. 

0.15 

.17 

1.12 0.28 

0.16 

.11(5) 

.06 

--.o5 _____ _ 

o~45(io>--

---------- .47 

0.04(5) 

.02(5) 

.12 

<.05 

o:ss<io>_ .. ---------- .63 

0.05(5) 

1.03(5) 

.94 

. 77 

1.22 

-1:o7cio>--

1.04 

1.14 

·o:56(6) __ _ .22 

.09 

H20-

0.03(5) 

.10(5) 

.02 

<.o5 _____ _ 

TiOs 

0.64 (5) 

.74(5) 

.68 

.<86 

.86 

.27 

2:4cior--

---------- 2.51 

OS -------------------- OS --------------------

OS -------------------- OS --------------------

Langmyhr and Paus, 1968, 1969. 

Peters, 1969. 

Foscolos and Barefoot, 1970. 

Maxwell and Abbey, in Maxwell and 

others, 1970 . Murad, 1971. 

Schnetzler and Nava, 1971. 

Randall, 1972. 

Dumecke, "1968. 

Fabbri and Vespignani-Balzani, 1969. 

Ondrick and others, 1969. 

Avni, Harel, and Brenner, 1972. 

1--'-

~ 

1:\:) 

t:::l 

t?;j 

00 

C".l 

~ 

""d """' 

~ 

0 """' 

z 

00 

> z 

t:::l 

> z 

> t"' 

to< 

00 

l:_:l:j 

00 

0 

"%j 

l:_:l:j 

C) """' 

= 

~ 

z 

t?;j 

~ 

0 

00 

C) 

00 

~ 

0 

C".l 

~ 

00 

1-3 

> z 

t:::l 

> 

~ 

t:::l 

00 
W-1 

1.09(12) 

1.03 

1.09(4) 

. 89 

-1~06(8) __ _ 1.07 (2) 

1.12 

1.09(4) 

1.12 

1.08 (5) 

1.07(3) 

1.08 

1.13 

.94 

1.07 

i~o6
 __ _ 1.05 

1.05 

1.06 

1.01 (1()) 

1.08 

0.12 

. 15 

.12 

. 20(8) -~i5 _____ _ 

. 13 

. 14 

. 14 

TABLE 104.-Determinations of major and minor constituents in eight USGS standard rock samples (percent)-Continued 

G-1 

.25 

.23 

-~25(8) __ _ 

.27(2) 

.25 

0.27 

.24 

.28 

.28(3) 

.27 

.25 

.26(2) 

0.08 

.09(8) 

. 09(2) 

.07 

.09 

.09 

G-2 

.60(14) 

-~·8------

-:47 _____ _ 

.46 

.46(6) 

.52(3) 

.60 

o~46<5> __ _ .46(3) 

.50 

.50 

.51 

.48 

.48 

.46(2) 

.51(3) 

.50 

.48 

.53 

.57 

.50 

.52 (10) .47 

.48 

0.52, 

-o:i3(8) __ _ 

.15 

.14 

.13 

.14 

.12 

GSP-1 

.69(8) 

-~60 _____ ., 

. 66 

.68 

.62(5) 

-~66(3) __ _ 

.58 

0.64(5) 

.63(3) 

.67 

.70 

.68 

.62(2) 

.66 

.65 

.62(2) 

.68{3) 

.67 

.66 

.70 

.75 

.67 

.64 

.66 

0~27(8) __ _ 

.28 

.30 

.26 

.28 

.29 

AGV-1 

1.10(8) 

.99 

1.05 

1.03(4) 

1.06 

.98(5) 

1.03(4) 

1.19 

1.03 (3) 

1.20 

1.01(5) 

1.02 (3) 

1.17 

1.08 

1.03 

1.05 (2) 

1.03 

1.03 

1.02 (2) 1.05 (3) 1.08 

1.05 

1.06 

1.13 

1.07 (9) 1.08 

1.13 (10) 1.06 (2) 1.05 

i~23 _____ _ 

0.49(8) 

. 48 

.48 

.51 

.50 

.45 

.49 

PCC-1 DTS-1 

TiO-<Jontinued 

0.009(4) 

.02 

.01 

.007(4) 

. 02 

.010(8) 

J007(4) 

.014(3) 

<.02 

0.03 

.00 

<.01 

.03 

.02 

.01 (2) 

.0083 

.01 

.02 

.02 

.006 <0.02 

<o~o2 _____ _ <.005 

.003(2) 

.03 

.03 

0.01 

.01 

.018 (4) 

.006(8) 

. 018(4) 

-~os4
--

<.o2 

0.00 

<.01 

. 02 

.004(2) 

.0073 

.00 

.02 

.02 

.002 

P20s 

<o~oz _____ _ <.005 

.006 

.02 

.02 

BCR-1 

2.10(14) 

1.82 

2.23 

2.26 

2,26 

2.19 

\2.31 

2.13(5) 

2.23(3) 

2.40 

2.25 

2.19(5) 

2/.!3(3) 

2.34 

2.17 

2.19 

2.21 

2.24(2) 

2.31 

2.16 

2.27(2) 

2..26(3) 

2.20 

2.30 

2.29 

2.25 

2.18(2) 

2.25 

2.fR 

2~22 

2.26(2) 

2.3 

2.15 

0.396 

. 347 

.37 

.38 

.35(8) 

.36 

.40 

.36 

.36 

.3G 

Method 

OS --------------------

SSMS ---------------- Chemical 

____ do ____ do ____ do 

Ion exchange ---------- Colorimetric 

____ do ---------------- Spectrophotometric 

____ do 

____ do ____ do ____ do ____ do ____ do 

____ do 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

XRF 

XRF ____ -------------- XRF uncorrected ------ XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF ------------ ___ --- Microprobe 

____ do 

XRF ------------------ Proton activation ----- INAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

SSMS ---------------- Chemical 

Colorimetric ----------- ____ do 

____ do ----------------

Spectrophotometric ___ _ 

____ do ---------------- ____ do ---------------- ____ do ---------------- ____ do ----------------

____ do ----------------

XRF ------------------ XRF ------------------ XRF ------------------ XRF ------------------

Reference 

Brenner, 1971. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Das, 1969. 

Bernas, 1968. 

Rayburn, 1968 . Maxwell and Abbey in Maxwell and others, 1970. 

Toerien, 1969. Roelandts and Duchesne, 1968 . Schnetzler and others, 1972 . Karkare, 1965. 

Borgen, "1967. 

Casanova and others, 1968. 

Peters, 1969. 

Strelow and others, 1969 . Brenner, 1971. 

Langer, 1971. 

Randall, 1972. 

Galle, 1968. 

Langmyhr and Paus, 1968, 1969. Van Loon and Parissis, 1969. Boar and Ingram, 1970. 

Foscolos and Barefoot, 1970. 

Buckley and Cranston, 1971. 

Schnetzler and Nava, 1971. 

Terashima, 1971c. 

Vidal, 1972. 

De Vecchi and others, 1968. 

Rayburn, 1968 . Wright, 1968. 

Schneider, 1969. 

Schroll and Stepan, 1969. 

Hooper and Atkins, 1969. 

Ragland, 1970. Aubert and Desjardins, 1971. 

Murad, 1971. 

Fabbi, 1972a. 

Ruckledge and others, 1970. Mori and others, 1971. 

Kaye and Chappell, 1972. Van Zelst, 1971a, b. 

Goles and others, 1971. Morrison and others, 1969. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969; Morrison, 

1971. Brunfelt and others, 1971. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969 • Maxwell and Abbey in Maxwell and others, 1970. Roelandts and Duchesne, 1968 . Schnetzler and Nava, 1971. 

Schnetzler and others, 1972 . 

Karkare, 1965 . Borgen, 1967. 

Cattermole and Fuge, 1969. 

Peters, 1969 . Brenner, 1971. 

Langer, 1971. 

Hooper and Atkans, 1969 . Schneider, 1969 . Fabbi, 1971a . Fabbi, 1972a. 

~ """' 

-:J 

~ 

0 

0 

~ 

"t1 

~ 

1:-1 

> 

~ ~ 

0 

z 

0 

~ 

tj 

> 

~ 

> 

0 

z 

c::: 

Ul 

~ 

Ul 

Ul 

~ 

> z 

tj 

> 

~ 

tj 

Ul 

1-' 

~ 

c.o 
W-1 

.14(10) 

.132(7) 

.130(3) 

.130(2) 

0.16 

.19(8) 

.17 

-~i2a<4r-

.17 

.167(5) 

.173 

.123(4) 

.16(3) 

.15 (10) 

.17 

.16 

.18(2) 

.17 

.18 

.167 

.18(10) 

0.044(4) 

44.77(10) 

TABLE 104.-Determinations of major and m~nor constituents in eight USGS standard rock samples (percent)-Continued 

G-1 

0.02 

.04(8) 

.03(2) 

.025 

.02 

.03(2) 

0.03 

.02(2) 

.026 

.026 

0.1 (2) 

0.063(4) 

.12 

.12 

G-2 

.17(10) 

.132(7) 

.133(3) 

.140(2) 

.13 

0.033(10) 

.034 

.036 

.044(5) 

.03 

.033(5) 

.035 

.03(3) 

.02 

.045(4) 

.052 

.038 

0J04 

.04(2) 

.05 

.04(2) 

.03 

.037 

.034 

.00(10) 

.05 

.03 

0.062(4) 

.04(3) 

.12(2) 

.08 

. 09 

48.58 

48.10(1·0•) 

48.11(26) 

GSP-1 

.295(4) 

.273(3) 

.280(2) 

.28 

0.034(10) 

.043 

.039 

.042(5) 

.04 

-:o:&o<5>-- .o39 

.03(3) 

.03 

.05(3) 

.051 

.043 

.04(2) 

0.04 

.04(2) 

.05 

.04(2) 

.04 

.044 

.040 

.04 

.04 

0.098(4) 

.07(3) 

.21(2) 

.12 

.13 

47.91 

47.66(10) 

47.46(24) 

AGV-1 

.52(10) 

.&01(4) 

.481 (3) 

.470(2) 

.50 

0.078(10) 

.100 

.10 

.10 

.09(5) 

.09 

.1-01(4) 

.096(5) 

.100 

.101(4) 

.08(3) 

.08 

.09(2) 

.091 

.10 

.10(2) 

0.10 

.10(2) 

.10 

.10(2) 

.10 

.098 

.094 

.11(10) 

.06(2) 

.10 

0.0038(2) 

.02(3) 

.10(2) 

.04 

.04 

47.23 

47.7(18) 

46.80(10) 

47.71(23) 

PCC-1 DTS-1 

P20~ -continued 

-~ooio<.4>-

-~ooi9(2)-

<.003 

.11 

.12(89) 

.12 

.121 (4) 

.12 

.116 

.121(4) 

.12(3) 

.12 

.12(4) 

.082 

.15 

0.13 

.13(2) 

.12 

.135 

.09 

.13 

.16(4) 

.09(3) 

.20(2) 

.18 

.17 

42.00 

46.54(10) 

46.42(22) 

-:oois<:&>-

.0022(2) 

<.003 

MnO 

.12 

.12(8) 

.12 

.122(4) 

.110(5) 

.114 

.122(4) 

.11 (3) 

.13 

.093 

-.17 

0.12 

.14(2) 

.12 

.145 

.11 

.14 

co~ 

0.065(4) 

.04(3) 

.11(2) 

.08 

.07 

0 

42.87 

44.14(10) 

48.81(22) 

BCR-1 

-:361(4)--

.347(3) 

.377(2) 

.37 

0.169(10) 

.18 

.165 

.18 

.18 

.19(5) 

.18 

.19 

.181 (5) 

.182 

-~19(3) __ _ 

.17 

.18(2) 

.18 

.16 

.19 

.19(2) 

0.18 

. 19(2) 

.19 

.18(2) 

.18 

.176 

.185 -:isc2> __ _ .19 

0.0041(2) 

.02(3) 

. 10(2) 

. 02 

45.72 

45.8(18) 

44.91(10) 

44.69(28) 

4J. 

Method 

Microprobe ----------- NAA, fJ counting ------ NAA 

NAA 

XRF ------------------

OS -------------------- OS -------------------- Chemical 

____ do 

Colorimetric 

____ do ---------------- Spectrophotometric ___ _ ____ do 

____ do ---------------- ____ do 

____ do ----------------- Ion exchange ---------- AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

XRF ----------------- XRF uncorrected ------

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF ----------------- Microprobe 

____ do _______________ _ 

XRF 

Gas chromatographic __ 

Chemical 

Titrimetric, 

acetone medium. 

Titrimetric, 

pyridine medium. 

XRF ------------------ FNAA ----------------

FNAA 

FNAA 

SSMS 

Reference 

Ruck~edge and others, 1970. 

Steinnes, 197lb. 

Steinnes, 197lb. 

Steinnes, 1972b. 

Kaye and Chappell, 1972. 

Fabbri and Vespignani-Balzani, 1969. 

Ondrick and others, 1969. 

Stoch, 1969. 

Maxwell and Abbey in Maxwell and 

others, 1970. 

Roelandts and Duchesne, 1968. 

Schnetzler and others, 1972. 

Karkare, 1965. 

Borgen, 1967. 

Casanova and others, 1968. 

Peters, 1969. 

Langer, 1971. 

Toerien, 1969. 

Galle, 1968. 

Langmyhr and Paus, 1968, 1969. 

Sighinolfi, 1969. 

Strelow and others, 1969. Van Loon and Parissis, 1969. 

Foscolos and Barefoot, 1970. 

A. C. S. Smith, 1970. Warr and Dinnin, 1970. 

Schnetzler and Nava, 1971. 

Randall, 1972. 

Vidal, 1972. De Vecchi and others, 1968. 

Wright, 1968 . 

Hooper and Atkins, 1969. 

Schneider, 1969. 

Ragland, 1970. 

Wolfe and Zeitlin, 1970. 

Aubert and Desjardins, 1971. 

Fabbi, 1972a. 

Ruckledge and others, 1970. 

Mori and others, 1971. 

Kaye and Chappell, 1972. 

Marinenko and May, 1970. 

Shapiro, 1971. 

Stoch, 1969 . Sen Gupta, 1970 . 

Do . 

Fabbi and Volborth, 1968. 

Morgan and Ehmann, 1970; Ehmann 

and Morgan, 1970. 

Bibby, 1972. 

Gijbels, 1972. 

Mor.rison and Kashuba, 1969. 

1-1 

~ 

~ 

t::l 

l'.'lj 

00 

C') 

~ 1-4 

"tt 

t-3 

1-4 

0 

z 

00 

> z 

t::l 

> z 

> t"4 

~ 

00 

l'.'lj 

00 

0 

l'!l:j 

l'.'lj 

1-4 

~ 

= t-3 

z 

l'.'lj 

~ 

~ 

00 

~ 

00 

~ 

0 

C') 

~ 

00 

t-3 

> z 

t::l 

> 

~ 

t::l 

00 
TABLE 105.-Determinations of trace elements in eight USGS standard samples 

[In parts per million, unless otherwise indicated. Number of determinations is given in parentheses following the value. Method: AA, atomic absorption; Chromat, chromatographic; EpiNAA. 

epithermal instrumental neutron activation analysis; FA, fire assay; Fl phot, flame photometrY; ID isotope dilution; IDMS, isotope dilution mass spectrographic; INAA instrumental neutron activation analysis; MS, mass spectrographic; NAA, neutron activation analysis; OS, optical spectrographic; RID, radioisotope dilution; SIE, selective ion electrode; SQ, semiquantitative; 

SSMS, spark source mass spectrometric; XRF, X-ray fluorescence] 

W-t 

<tO 

<::2·------

<i ________ _ 

·:o7 _____ _ 

. 068(4) 

. 08I(3) 

2.4I (12) 

1.3I (3) 

2.8 

1.7(2) 

i:31(3) __ _ 

2:22(2) __ _ 

1.6(3) 

5.8(I2) 

3.6(4) 

3.4(6) 

4.4 

4(2) 

4.6(8) 

-4:2(2) ___ _ 

3.62(2) 

2.0 

4:3(5) ___ _ 

14:5(4) ___ _ 

15(3) 

G-t 

<IO 

----------

<.2 <_i _______ _ 

;052(3) 

0.74(2) 

.52(2) 

. 43(3) 

3.3(IO) 

2.2 

4.0(8) 

7.8(2) 

2.43(3) 

2.8(4) 

2.2(6) 

G-2 

<t 

<.2 

<t 

<I 

<.05 

.OI2(4.) 

.040(2) 

.049(3) 

0.33 

.2(2) 

.26(2) 

1.2(4) 

.75 

1.1(3) 

-1:o9c2> __ _ 

-1:2(2) ___ _ 

.86 

-:96(8) __ _ 

. 67 

<20 

2.t(') 

GSP-t 

<I 

<.2 

<I 

<I 

.11 (I5) 

·:oi5c4>--

.os4<2> 

.I0(3) 

0.092(2) 

. 093(2) 

1.0(4) 

1.56 

1.3(3) 

1.14(2) 

21.6(2) 

1.1 

<20 

<3 

AGV-t 

<I 

<.2 

<I 

<I 

.IO(I5) 

.OI2(4) 

.094(2) 

.11(3) 

1.0 

.68(2) 

1.07(2) 

0.66(4) 

.66 

.6(3) 

.5I(2) 

.7(2) 

.I9 

<20 

13(3) 

6(3) 

PCC-t 

<I 

<.2 

<I 

<t 

<.05 

.OI4 (4) 

.009I(2) 

.005(2) 

0.05(2) 

.057(2) 

0.89(4) 

. 76 

-:8(3) ___ _ 

2:28(2) __ _ 

-3:2(2) ___ _ 

.8 

I.02(2) 

<20 

<10 

DTS-t 

Ag 

<I 

<.2 

<I 

<I 

<.05 

.03 

.OI0(4) 

.OI04 (2) 

.008(I5) 

As 

0.03 

.040(2) 

Au (ppb) 

0.70(4) 

.85 

.8(3) 

.91(2) 

-:8(2) ___ _ 

B 

<20 

<tO 

.60 

BCR-1 

<I 

<.2 

<I 

<I 

<.05 

-:,o2------

.011(4) 

.036(2) 

.OIS 

.0266(2) 

. OI8(3) 

.028(4) 

.03I 

.028(5) 

.036 (3) 

.022(2) 

1.0(2) 

. 840 

.840(3) 

.58 

.60 

1.0 

.67(2) 

0.75(4) 

.92 

.9 

.9(3) 

. 88(2) 

1.22(2) 

. 9(3) 

2.1(2) 

.72(2) 

. 61(4) 

. 76 

.66(6) 

. 57 

.88.(2<) 

<20 

9.6(4) 

2(8) 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

Method 

OS ------------------- AA ------------------- SSMS ----------------- NAA ----------------- NAA -----------------

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA ----------------- NAA-FA ------------- NAA 

Photometric ----------- NAA --------""-------- NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

Fluorimetric -----------

NAA ---------·-------- FA-NAA -------------- NAA ----------------- NAA -----------------

N AA Substoichiometric_ 

NAA -----------------

NAA ----------------- NAA ----------------- NAA -----------------

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

N AA Substoichiometric_ 

NAA ----------------- NAA -----------------

OS 

OS 

OS 

Reference 

Miksovsky, I968. 

Ropert, Lecable, and Monjaux, 1968. 

Huber-Schausberger and others, 1970. 

Moal and others, I970. 

Thompson and others, t970. 

Blackburn and others, 1971. 

Bratzel and others, I972. 

Morrison and Kashuba, I969. 

Anoshin and Perezhogin, I969. 

Brunfelt and Steinnes, 1969d • 

Allen and others, 1970. 

Ganapathy and others, I970. 

Haskin and others, 1970 . Anders and others, 1971. 

Brunfelt and others, 1971. 

Brunfelt and Steinnes, 197Ia. 

Greenland and Fones, 1971 . Laul and others, 1972. 

Bostrom and Valdes, 1969. 

Case and others, 1969. 

Hamaguchi and others, I969. 

Landstrom and others, I969. 

Morrison and others, 1969. 

Allen and others, 1970 . Haskin and others, 1970. 

Laul, Case, Wechter, and others, 1970 • Brunfelt and others, I971. 

Morrison, I971. 

Steinnes, I972a . 

Ma.rinenko and May, I968. 

Crocket and others, 1968. 

Simon and Millard, 1968. 

Simon and Millard, 1968. 

Anoshin and Perezhogin, 1969. 

Bartel, 1969 . Case and others, 1969. 

Fritze and Robertson, 1969. 

Allen and others, 19710. 

Ehmann and others, 1970. 

Ganapathy and others, I970 . Green, Law, and Campbell, 1970. 

Haskin and others, 1970 . Laul, Case, Wechter, and others, 1970. Nomura and others, 1970. 

Wasson and Baedecker, I970 • Anders and others, 1971. 

Anoshin and Perezhogin, 1971. 

B.runfelt and others, 1971 . Brunfelt and Steinnes, 1971b • 

Gillum and Ehmann, 1971 . Millard and Bartel, 1971. 

Laul and others, 1972. 

Moal and others, 1970. 

Huber-Schausberger and others, 1970. 

Sub,r and Smith, 197'0. 

.... 

(0 

~ 

~ 

C".) 

0 

Is: 

::s 

~ 1-:3 

1-1 

0 

z 

0 

I:I:J 

tj 

> 1-:3 

> 

0 

z 

q 

00 

C) 

00 

00 

1-:3 

> z 

tj 

> 

~ 

tj 

00 

1-l 

~ 

C11 
TABLE 105.-Determinations of trace elements in eight USGS standard samples-Continued 

W-1 

10(10) 

9.0 

8.9(6) 

172(2) 

120(10) 

G-1 

<5 1.7 

1.7(4) 

1,300 

1,190(4) 

G-2 GSP-1 

<5 <5 

---------- ---------- 3,000 2,100 

1,600(1()) 1,180(10) 

2,062(3) 1,477(3) 

1,500(2) 1,255(2) 

1,860(2) 1,282(2) 

AGV-1 

6(10) 

1,400 

1,000(10) 

1,217(3) 

1,075(2) 

1,230 

1,250(2) 

1,250 

167-(3)______ ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- 1,715 1,220 

118(10) >1,000 >1,000 >1,000 >1,000 

150 1,140 ---------- ---------- ----------

184(4) 

140(6) 

170(3) 

170(2) 

190 

228(2) 

150 

181 

170 

187(2) 

161 

1,184(4) 

1,140(4) 

1,205(2) 

1,180 

1,130 

1,075 

1,060 

1,260(2) 

1,750 

2,289 (5) 

2,100(5) 

1,900 

1,820 

2,035 (2) 

1,700 

1,300 

1,365(5) 

1,380 

1,220 

1,480(2) 

1,200 

2,00_0_(2_) ______ 1,377(2) _____ _ 

2,350 (2) 2,060 (2) 

2,000 

1,920 

1,360 

1,335 

---------- 1,250 1,723 1,236 

1,825 

1,950(5) 

1,703(2) 

1,254 

1,193(2) 

1,780 1,010 

---------- ---------- ---------- 960 167 (2) 1,015 (2) 1,627 (2) 1,137 (2) 

---------- 160.5(3) 

157(4) 

0.6(4) 

1.0(4) 

.5(3) 

.7 

.63 

3.7(4) 

-3~4(5) ___ _ 

3.0 

1,310 

1,86_9_<2_>______ 1,3oi<2Y ____ _ 

3.0(15) 

2(2) 

2.8(4) 

3 

2.6 

2.07 

2.1(15) 

<2 .5(5) 

<3 

1.5 

1,300 

1,377(5) 

1,680 

1,250 

1,190 

1,210(2) 

1,000 

1,272(2) 

1,340(2) 

1,250 

1,242 

1,240 

1,182 

1,161 

1,071(2) 

1,100 

1,240 

1,060(2) 

1,040 

1,208(2) 

3.5 (15) 

<2 

1.9(3) 

5 

2.1(3) 

2.3 

PCC-1 DTS-1 

B-Continued 

6(10) <5 

<10 

<o 

ifio> ____ _ 

5 

4(5) 

<4 

100 

<20 

<10 

100 

-1~2(2) ___ _ 

<1 

<2 

<1 

<3 

<.5 

Ba 

<10 

<5 

3(10) 

6 

3(5) 

<4 

1:00 

<20, 

<10 

---------- 100 

2.4(2) 

Be 

<1 

<2 

<1 

<3 

<.5 

BCR-1 

6(10) 

~4 

700 ________ _ 

675(10) 

680 

830(5) 

700 

685 

720 

>50-0--------~ 

710 

821(5) 

800(2) 

820 

680 

650 

660(4) 

500 

742(2) 

560(2) 

670 

725 

700 

718 

654 

730 

575 (2) 

655 

625-<2) _____ _ 

855(2) 

840 

656 

656 (3) 

580(5) 

840 

678(2) 

700(2) 

646(2) 

685 

670(3) 

<1 

<1 

2.2(4) 

<3 

1.7 (3) 

---------- 1.53 

Method 

OS -------------------- Fluorimetric ----------- ____ do ----------------

SSMS -----------------

OS -------------------- 08-SQ ---------------- OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS -------------------- OS 

OS 

OS -------------------- OS 

AA ------------------- AA -------------------

AA ------------------- XRF ------------------ XRF ------------------ XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF ------------------ SSMS ----------------- INAA ----------------- EpiNAA -------------- INAA -----------------

INAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA ------------------ IDMS 

IDMS ----------------- IDMS ----------------- ID -------------------- ID --------------------

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS -------------------- Gas ehromotographic __ 

Reference 

Thompson and others, 1970. 

Quijano-Rico and Wanke, 1969. 

Quijano-Rico, 1970. Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Kowalski, 1967. 

Clark, 1968. Fabbri and Vespignani-Balzani, 1969. 

Floyd and others, 1968. 

Murad, 1968. 

Dutra, 1969. 

Ondrick and others, 1969. 

Champ, in Maxwell and others, 1970. 

Govindaraju, 1970b. Martin and Quintin, 1970. 

Moal and others, 1970. 

Suhr and Smith, 1970. 

Thompson and others, 1970. de Albuquerque, 1971. 

Avni, Hare!, and Brenner, 1972. 

Blackburn and others, 1971. 

Brenner, 1971. 

Murad, 1971. 

Abbey, 1971. 

Terashima, 1971c. 

Luecke, 1971. 

Guillemaut, 1968. 

Fabbi, 1969. 

Gunn, 1969. 

Parker, 1969. 

Schneider, 1969. 

Willis and others, 1969. 

Fabbi, 1971c. Heier and Thoresen, 1971. Hirst and Kaye, 1971. 

Sceal and Weaver, 1971. Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Aruscavage, 1969. Brunfelt and Steinnes, 1969c. 

Goles and others, 1971. 

Whitley and others, 1971. 

Filby and Haller, 1969. 

Higuchi, Tomura, Takahashi, and others, 1969a, b. Morrison and others, 1969. Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Allen and others, 1970. Haskin and others, 1970. Brunfelt and others, 1971. 

Morrison, 1971. deLaeter and others, 1969. 

Gast and others, 1970. 

Philpotts and Schnetzler, 1970. 

Schnetzler and Nava, 1971. Krahenbiihl and others, 1972. 

Blackburn and others, 1971. 

Dutra, 1969. 

Huber-Schausberger and others, 1970. Moal and others, 1970. 

Suhr and Smith, 1970. 

Hofmeyr, 1972. Eisentraut and others, 1971. 

~ 

~ 

en 

~ 

t?;j 

00 

0 

~ 1-4 

'"tl 

8 

1-4 

0 

z 

00 

> z 

~ 

> z 

> 

~ 00 

t?;j 

00 

0 

l'1j 

t?;j 

1-4 

C) 

= 8 

z 

t?;j 

:.a 

c::: 

00 

C) 

00 

~ 

0 

0 

~ 

00 

8 

> z 

~ 

> 

~ 

~ 

00 
W-1 

.63 -1 

<0.3 

<2 

.044(2) 

.0435(2) 

. 048 

.060(2) 

.0516(8) 

1.1 

.42(2) 

.15 

0.164 

---------- .155 

.151 

.153 

20 

---------- 22 

19 

27.4 

23 

26.3(5) 

24(2) 

G-1 

---------- 2.7 

<0.3 

<2_£ _______ _ 

.046(2) 

.083 

.0519(8) 

1.2 

. 17(2) 

0.047 

.022 

200 

192(5) 

130(2) 

TABLE 105.-Determinations of trace elements in eight USGS standard samples-Continued 

G-2 GSP-1 

2.3 -1 3.20(2) 1. 76 (2) 

<1()..3 

<3 

<2 

.03'76(2) 

. 100 

. 0410(16) 

----------

0 • .18 

0.030 

-~o5ii<2>--

-~o27 ____ _ 

165.0(3) 

161 

137 

141 

130 

157 

139 

180(2) 

110 

<():3 

<3 

<2 

.0368(2) 

.018 

.0367(16) 

0.068 

.064, 

• OQO 

396.0(2) 

351 

356 

400 

399 

494(2) 

AGV-1 

1.6 

1.23(2) 

<0.3 

5 

<2 

.0564(2) 

.053 

. 053(2) 

.0555(16) 

0.31 

0.089 

.075 

.115 

58~5(3) ___ _ 

76 

56 

59 

55 

109 

56 

82.2(2) 

58 

PCC-1 

.03(2) 

<().3 

<3 

<2 

DTS-1 

Be-Continued 

.07(2) 

Bi 

<0.3 

<3 

<2 

.0008 (2) .0048 (2) 

<.001 .029 

.0057(8) .0051 (8) 

Br 

Total C 

Cd 

0.029 0.154 

---------- ---------- .017 .010 

.195 .110 

Ce 

.094 .039 

BCR-1 

1.53 

2.3 

1.59(2) 

<0.3 

6 

<2 

.0423(2) 

.0467(2) 

.047(4) 

.050 

.046(2) 

.0496(16) 

0~24.(2) __ _ .187 

• 124(2) 

.187(3) 

.046(2) 

<.2t 

.25 

.093(2) 

330(5) 

78.5(30) 

53.2(6) 

0.037 

.099 

.160 

.129(5) 

.082 

.3 

51.9 (3) 67 

56 

43 

49 

74 

52 

62.2(2) 

43 

43(2) 

.Method 

____ do ----------------

AA ------------------- Fluorimetric -----------

OS -------------------- OS --------------------

OS -------------------- NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

ID 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

Combustion-gas 

chromatographic. 

____ do ---------------- ____ do ----------------

AA -------------------- NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------ NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

SSMS 

OS -------------------- Ion exchange-XRF -----

XRF ------------------- XRF ------------------- INAA 

INAA 

INAA 

INAA 

INAA 

INAA 

INAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

Reference 

Sievers and others, 1971. 

Luecke, 1971. 

Meehan, 1969. 

Huber-Schausberger and others, 1970. 

Moal and others, 1970. 

Thompson and others, 1970. 

Case and others, 1969. 

Ganapathy and others, 1970. 

Laul, Case. Schmidt-Bleek, and 

Lipschutz, 1970. 

Anders and others, 1971. 

Marowsky, 1971a, c . Marowsky and Wedepohl, 1971 • Laul and others, 1972. 

Greenland and Campbell, 1972 • 

Walters, 1967. 

Landstmm and others, 1969 . Reed and Jovanovic, 1969. 

Morrison and others, 1969. 

Allen and others, 1970. 

Ganapathy and others, 1970 . Haskin and others, 1970. 

Anders and others, 1971. 

Brunfelt and Steinnes, 1971b. 

Morrison, 1971. 

Laul and others, 1972. 

Moore and others, 1970. 

Moore and Lewis, this volume, p. 124. 

Chandler and Breger, this volume, p. 125. 

!ida and Yamasaki, 1970. 

Ganapathy and others, 197'0. 

Rey and others, 1970. 

Anders and others, 1971. 

Baedecker and others, 1971. 

Marowsky, 1971a, c . Marowsky and Wedepohl, 1971. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Cohen and others, 1968. 

Eby, 1972. 

Sceal and Weaver, 1971. 

Kaye, 1972. 

Green and others, 1969. 

Scott, 1969. 

Filby and others, 1970. 

Meloon, 1970. B. C. Smith, 1970. 

Goles and others, 1971. 

Whitley and others, 1971. 

Higuchi, Tomura, Onuma, and 

Hamaguchi, 1969. 

Landstrom and others, 1969. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Morrison and others, 1969. 

...... 

co 

-:J 

t-:) 

("') 

0 

a= 

"'t! 

~ 

~ 

> 

~ ~ 

0 

z 

0 

l'%j 

t:l 

> 

~ 

> 

0 

z 

d 

00 

CtJ 

00 

00 

~ 

> z 

t1 

> 

~ 

t:l 

00 

1-' 

~ 

-:r 
21 

27 

W-1 

£i9 ______ _ 

23.5 

---------- 22.1 

19 

23.4(4) 

188 

188 

219 

212 

93 

16.3 

156(4) 

39 

38(10) 

48(10) 

39 

43(9) 

45(4) 

60.0 

53(17) 

51 

4.4 

48 

65(2) 

46 

47.3 

48 

44.(2) 

45(4) 

G-1 

208---------

184 

170 

75 

30 

54.8(4) 

<1_0 _______ _ 

2(10) 

2.6(4) 

2.0(9) 

<6 

<20 

2.1 

2.1 

-7-(4) _____ _ 

TABLE 105.-Determinations of trace elements in eight USGS standard samples-Continued 

G-2 

140 

170(2) 

---------- 150 

165 

175 

99 

54 

49 

84(4) 

75(4) 

8 

4.(3) 

---------- 6 

4.4(5) 

25(2) 

<5 

8(10) 

4 

7(12) 

9.7(15) 

-4:i{i) __ _ 

<6 <20 

4.()2 (3) 

5.0 

5 

21.6 (6) 

4.1 

11 

lt0.4 

4.1 

5.0(2) 

7(4) 

GSP-1 

---------- 364 

305 

305 

347(2) 

3511(2) 

8 

5(3) 

5 

7(3) 

<2lO 

7 

2(10) 

7 

8(6) 

8.8(15) 

8.4 

5.7(7) 

6.0 

<20 

6.40(6) 

7.8 

8 

22.5(6) 

8.3 

14 

9.2 

8.3 

6.9(2) 

10(4) 

69 

108 

120 

110 

AGV-1. 

16 

17(3) 

9 

17(4) 

22(2) 

17 

23(10) 

20 

22(9) 

9.7(15) 

l5~7(9) ___ _ 

13 

<20 

14.2(6) 

15.0 

12 

25(6) 

16 

23 

22.5 

16 

16.0(2) 

22(4) 

PCC-1 

85 

59 

100 

195(3) 

96 

120(2) 

112 

95(10) 

126 

127(6) 

120(15) 

123(10) 

126 

110 

105.0 

120 

110(6) 

104 

97 

104 

115(2) 

DT8-1 

C~ontinued 

-o~.o76 ____ _ 

Cl 

10 

11 

Co 

150 

221(3) 

100 

145(2) 

133 

110(10) 

149 

150(9) 

164(15) 

13·7-{ioY ___ _ 

150 

113.0 

130 

144(6) 

123 

106 

123 

138(2) 

BCR-1 

35 

54 

54.22(3) 

54..2(3) 

5-{{2._,------

53 

43 

52 

46-{2) _____ _ 

45 

64.9(2) 

63.9(2) 

62.9 

62 

64 

43 

72 

99(2) 

30.5 

30.5(3) 

99 

28 

45(3) 

20 

42.5(6) 

65(2) 

41 

4.2 (10) 

36 

40(11) 

36(16) 

34 

36.2(9) 

35 

46 

34.5(6) 

7.0 

40 

88.8(6) 

36 

40 

40.9 

86 

86(2) 

89(4) 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

Method 

NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------ SSMS .. ----------------

SSMS ----------------- IDMS ------------------ IDMS ------------------ ID --------------------

Spectrophotometric -----

____ do -----------------

XRF ------------------ SQ-XRF --------------- SSMS -----------------

INAA ----------------- NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------ NAA ----------·--------

NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------ Spectrophotometric -----

SIE -------------------

OS-SQ ----------------- OS -------------------- OS -------------------- OS -------------------- OS --------------------

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS -------------------- OS -------------------- Colorimetric ----------- Photometric ----------- SQ-paper ch.romat -----

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

Reference 

Peterson and others, 1969. 

Schilling and Winchester, 1969. 

A'llen and others, 1970. 

Denechaud and others, 1970. 

Graber and others, 1970. 

Haskin and others, 1970. 

Higuchi and others, 1970. 

Rey and others, 1971(). 

Brunfelt and others, 1971. Das and Zonderhuis, 1971. 

Morrison, 1971. 

Ragland and others, 1971. 

Whitley and others, 1971. 

Kriihenbflhl and others, 1972. 

Graham and Nicholls, 1969. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Gast and others, 1970. 

Philpotts and Schnetzler, 1970. 

Schnetzler and Nava, 1971. 

Cattermole and Fuge, 1969. 

Fuge and Power, 1969. 

Fabbi, 1971b; Fabbi and Espos, 1972b. B. C. Smith, 1970. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Morrison and others, 1969. 

Walters, 1967. 

Reed and Jovarovic, 1969. 

Allen and others, 1970. 

Haskin and others, 1970. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 196!l 

Quijano-Rico, 1970. 

Haynes and Clark, 1972. Do. 

Cla.rk, 1968. 

Floyd and others, 1968. 

Miksovsky, 1968. 

Ropert and others, 1968. 

Dutra, 1969. 

Govindaraju, 1970b. 

Martin and Quintin, 1970. 

Moal and others, 1970. 

Thompson and others, 19710. 

de Albuquerque, 1971. 

Avni, Hare}, and Brenner, 1972. 

Brenner, 1971. 

Blackburn and others, 1971. 

Gerasimovskiy and Laktionova, 1971. 

Huber-Schausberger and others, 1970. 

HofmeyJr, 1972. 

Murad, 1971. 

Bodart, 1970. 

Stahle, 1970. 

Agrinier, 1968. 

Balous and Thiel, 1968. 

Nagura and Iida, 1968. 

Bender and Schultz, 1969. 

Price, 1969. 

Fletcher, 1970. 

Iida and Yamasaki, 1970. 

Mountjoy, 1970. 

Rose, 1970. 

~ 

~ 

00 

~ 

t:I:J 

rn 

C'l 

~ "a 

~ ~ 

0 

z 

00 

> z 

t:l 

> 

~ 

~ 00 

t:EJ 

00 

0 

~ 

t:I:J 

~ 

~ 

= 

~ 

z 

t:I:J 

~ 

~ 

00 

~ 

00 

~ 

0 

C'l 

~ 

00 

~ z 

t:l 

> 

~ 

t:l 

rn 
W-1 

48.5(8) 

55 

ii _______ _ 

47 

48 

4.5 

---------- 48 

I)() 

49.4 

43.5 

43(2) 

---------- 50 

44~6(6) ___ _ 

43.5 

G-1 

<5 

2~7(2) ___ _ 

2.5 

TABLE 105.-Determinations of trace elements in eight USGS standard samples-Continued 

G-2 

---------- 20 

6(3) 

9.2(5) 

---------- <5 

8(2) 

7 

5 

6.0 

5.5 

6~8-------

4.7 

4.9 

5.7 

.4.35(5) 

4.2 

GSP-1 

24 

8(3) 

14(5) 

<5 

19(2) 

12 

8 

5.0 

7.6 

-5:8-------

7 

s:4o
--.. 

AGV-1 

22(2) 

32 

16(3) 

24(5) 

20 

25(2) 

20 

17.1(3) 

17.0 

15.3 

20.2 

14 

17 

14.8(5) 

12.0 

PCC-1 

88(3) 

109(5) 

116 

119(2) 

140 

107.1 (3) 

131 

100 

121 

105 

116 

111 

DTS-1 

C~ontinued 

120(3) 

131 (5) 

133 

148(2) 

149 

186.6 (3) 

90 

145 

126 

162 

BCR-1 

43(2) 

46 

38(3) 

39(5) 

45 

30(2) 

35 

4.7.1 (3) 

39 

45 

30 

41.2 

37.9 

38 

43 

43(2) 

36.5 

35.8 

36.0(2) 

35.8(3) 

36.2(5) 

41.3 

36.3 

37(4) 

36.2. 

43 

36.0(2) 

AA 

AA 

Method 

AA -------------------- AA -------------------- AA --------------------

AA -------------------- XRF ------------------

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF ------------------ SSMS 

INAA 

INAA 

INAA 

INAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

120 

126-<'i7) ____ _ 

112(10) 105 _______ _ 

13_0_(4y-----

117(11) 

108.8 

116(10) 

112 

128 

117(2) 

122.5(8) 

174 

128---------

132---------

136(2) 

42 

17 

---------- 20 

1-3-(4) _____ _ 

7(10) 

-30(2) 

15 

8(3) 

---------- 20 

8.2>(2) 

<210 

10 

9 

26 

10(5) 

-5-fioY ___ _ 

----------

7 

10 

10(4) 

20 

---------- 8.6(5) 

11 

<10 

15 

12(2) 

20 

17(2) 

<20 

13.1 (7) 

11 

14 

14(15) 

---------- 15.8 

6(10) 

11 

14 

12(4) 

5-..---------

ia-<6;------

17 

-10 

15 

9(3) 20 ________ _ 

45(4) 

<20 

13.8(9) 

10 

15 

16.5(15) 

2,000 

3,350(3) 

2,370(2) 

2,840(10) 

2,870 

3,000 

2,440(15) 

3,300(10) 

Cr 

3,000 

3,400(3) 

3,900-(2) _____ _ 

4,230(10) 

3,870 

4,700 

3,715(15) 

4,750(13) 

20 

11(3) 

50 

10.8(3) 

52(2) 

15.1 (9) 

15 

10 

23(15) 

-s-{1-o>_____ 2,85-0{1-o>_____ 8,9io{{o> ____ _ 18.5 

28(10) 

9 

12 

10(4) 

8-<2) _____ _ 

20 

2,700 

2,860(20) 

2,800(4) 

2,868(20) 

i2:6(5)____ 2,69o-<6Y ____ _ 

14 2,760 

26 ----------

3,530 

4,100 

4,298(20) 

5,300(4) 

15 

15 

12(2.) 

56 

4.,253(21)) ---------- <3,--------- 4,160(5) 17(6) 

3,960 16 

---------- 30 

OS-SQ ----------------

OS -------------------- OS -------------------- OS --------------------

OS --------------------

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

Colorimetric ----------- ____ do ---------------- ____ do ---------------- Photometric -----------

AA -------------------

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

Reference 

Smith and Rose, 1970. 

Buckley and Cranston, 1971. 

Cioni and others, 1971. 

Terashima, 1971a, b. 

Beecaluva and Venturelli, 1972. 

Walsh, 1972. 

Parker, 1969. 

Feather, 1971. 

Goodman, 1971. 

Blount and others, 1972. 

Kaye, 1972. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Filby and Haller, 1969; Filby and 

others, 1970. 

Dale and others, 1970. 

Goles and others, 1971. 

Whitley and others, 1971. 

Schiltz, 1968. 

Case and others, 1969. 

Landstrom and others, 1969. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Morrison and others, 1969. Peterson and others, 1969. 

Allen and others, 1970. 

Ganapathy and others, 1970. 

Haskin and others, 1970. 

Johansen and Steinnes, 1970. 

Laul, Case, Wechter, and others, 1970. 

Osawa and Goles, 1970. 

Anders and others, 1971. 

Brunfelt and others, 1971. 

Morrison, 1971. 

Laul and others, 1972. 

Clark, 1968. 

Floyd and others, 1968. 

Mikiiovsky, 1968. 1 

Ropert and others, 1968. 

Dutra, 1969. 

Govindaraju, 1970b. 

Huber-Schausberger and others, 1970. 

Martin and Quintin, 1970. 

Moal and others, 1971(). 

de Albuquerque, 1971. 

Avni, Harel and Brenner, 1972. 

Blackburn and others, 1971. 

Brenner, 1971. 

Gerasimovskiy and Lakionova, 1971. 

Thompson and others, 1970. 

Fuge, 1967. 

Pouget and others, 1968. 

Huffman and others, 1971. 

Langer, 1971. 

Price, 1969. 

Sighinolfi, 1969. 

Rose, 1970. 

A. C. S. Smith, 1970. 

Smith and Rose, 1970. 

Buckley and Cranston, 1971. 

Huffman and others, 1971. 

Schnetzler and Nava, 1971. 

Terashima, 1971b. 

Beccaluva and Venturelli, 1971. 

Luecke, 1971. 

.... 

co 

-.J 

~ 

Q 

0 

a: 

'i:f 

~ 

~ ~ ~ 

0 

z 

0 

":j 

t:l 

> 

~ 

> 

0 

z 

~ 

00 

G1 

00 

00 

~ 

> z 

t:l 

> 

~ 

t:l 

00 

"""" ~ 

~ 
W-t 

120 

---------- t25(2) 

95 

99 

89 

95 

t05(2) 

119 

117(4) 

2.2(6) 

100 

. 95(3) 

.90 

.8(2) 

.98(3) 

.99(10) 

G-t 

t6 

22(2) 

t4(2) 

1.2(2) 

10 

TABLE 105.-Determinaticms of trace elements in eight USGS standard samples-Continued 

G-2 

t8 

6(2) 

<tO 7 

9 

---------- 7.2 

t5 

7.2 

4..0 

7.t 

---------- 8.4 

7.8(2) 

1.4 

7 

i:5(5) ___ _ 

1.33 (3) 1.5 

1.4 

---------- 1.4 

1.1 

i:4(3) ___ _ 

1.33(10) 

10 

1()(3) 

---------- 8 

11(5) 

2-{{2) _____ _ 

GSP-t 

t8 

10(2) 

-10(2) 

tO 

5.3 

t2 

t0.9(2) 

1.0 

9 

.95(3) 

.7 

-:9-------

1.5 

i:i(3) ___ _ 

1.00(10) 

. 978 

so 

26(3) 

10 ________ _ 

88(13) 

3-8(2;------

AGV-1 

25 

21 (2) 

14(2) 

to 

9.5(2) 

10 

tO 

---------- 7.0 

10 

PCC-t DTS-1 

Cr-Continued 

2, 700_________ 4,000 ________ _ 

2,550 (2) 3,665 (2) 

2,730 _________ 3,94_0 _______ _ 

2,660 4,0t0 

2,400 3,600 

2,150 ----------

2,660 

2,400 

3,062 

2,550 

4,2t0 

3,600 

---------- 2,700 3,700 

9.3 (2) 2,670 (4) 4,100(4) 

1.2 

2 

1.27(3) 

1.7 

2.2 

.8 

1.3 

1.7 

-1:4(2) ___ _ 

1.25 (10) 

40 

68(3) 

15 

56(4) 

65-(2) _____ _ 

5 

<.1 

.0058(2) 

<.03 

8 

17(3) 

---------- 10 

12(2) 

Cs 

9 

<.1 

. 0060(2) 

<.03 

Cu 

4 

11(3) 

---------- 5 

5.9(2) 

BCR-1 

t6 

t9(2) 

34 

20 

36(2) 

10.5 

24 

23 

t0.7 

t6 

14(2) 

t9 

t9(3) 

<t9 

10.6(5) 

t6 

<tOO 

1-3~4(2) ___ _ 

1.0 

3 

1.1 

.99(3) 

.9 

1.4 

Ul 

1.0(2) 

.925(2) 

.91(3) 

1.6 

-:sio<5>--

.97(4> 

.9(3) 

1.0 

.95(10) 

.935 

.925 (2) 

15 

25(3) 

---------- 8 

24.6(5) 

10 

15(2) 

Method 

AA ------------------- XRF ------------------ XRF ------------------ XRF ------------------ XRF ------------------

SSMS ----------------- Gas chromatographic --

MS, volatile chelate ----

INAA ----------------- INAA -----------------

INAA 

INAA 

INAA 

INAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA ------------------

NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------ Photon activation ------

Photon activation ------

NAA ------------------

Fl phot ----------------

Fl phot ---------------- (Ion Exch) ----------- SSMS -----------------

INAA -----------------

EpiN AA -------------- INAA ----------------- INAA ----------------- INAA ----------------- NAA ------------------

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA ·------------------ ID -------------------- NAA ------------------

Reference 

Walsh, 1972. 

Parker, 1969. 

Schneider, 1969. 

Goodman, 1971. 

Webber and Newbury, 1971. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Sievers and others, 1971. Frew and others, 1972. 

Filby and Haller, 1969. Peterson and others, 1969. 

Dale and others, 1970. 

Filby and others, 1970. 

Goles and others, 1971. 

Whitley and others, 1971. Das and others, 1969, 1970. 

Landstrom and others, 1969. Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. Morrison and others, 1969. Allen and others, 1970. Haskin and others, 1970. 

Osawa and Goles, 1970. Brunfelt and Steinnes, 1971h. 

Momison, 1971. 

Nadkarni and Haldar, 1971a. Van Zelst, 1971a, b. 

Van Zelst, 1971a, b. 

Steinnes, 1972. 

Abbey, 1971. 

Pouget and others, 1968. 

Strelow and others, 1968. Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Aruscavage, 1969. 

Brunfelt and Steinnes, 1969c . Filby and others, 1~70. 

B. C. Smith, 1970. 

Whitley and others, 1971. Landstrom and others, 1969. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. Morrison and others, 1969. 

Ganapathy and others, 1970; Keays and others, 1970. Allen and others, 1970; Haskin and others, 1970. 

Laul, Case, Wechter, and others, 1970. 

Muller, 1970 . Anders and others, 1971. Brunfelt and others, 1971. Pant and Parekh, 1971. 

Morrison, 1971. 

Steinnes, 1972b. 

Hart, 1968 . Laul and others, 1972. 

OS-SQ ---------------- Clark, 1968. OS -------------------- Floyd and others, 1968. 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

Miklovsky, 1968. 

Ropert and others, 1968. 

Dutra, 1969. 

Champ, in Maxwell and others, 1970. 

Govindaraju, 1970b. 

....... 

Ol 

0 

'=' t.:J 

1:'/.l 

c 

~ 1-t 

'"d 

1-3 

1-t 

0 

z 

1:'/.l 

> z 

'=' 

> 

~ ;:; 

1:'/.l 

L':2 

1:'/.l 

0 

'"%j 

L':2 

1-t 

c;"::l 

I:Il 

1-3 

z 

t:J 

~ 

0 

1:'/.l 

c;"::l 

1:'/.l 

~ 

0 

c 

~ 

1:'/.l 

1-3 

> z 

tj 

> 

~ 

tj 

1:'/.l 
W-1 

116.5(17) 

135(10) 

11-4-<""i-o> ____ _ 

100 

100-(4) _____ _ 

162(9) 

115.0 

115 

1£o-<2Y-----

117 

108 

113.7 

117.1(8) 

107(4) 

117.1(8) 

120 

116 

180 

115 

110(2) 

106 

72.5 

110 

72.5 

113.6(5) 

1o-:{{2) _____ _ 

115 

2 

4.7 

3~67(8) __ _ 

3.67(3) 

3:8-------

G-1 

11(9) 

i2-ftoY ___ _ 

9 

13-<4) _____ _ 

13 

9 

13 

12(4) 

12 

16(2) 

i2~8(2) ___ _ 

2 

2~63(3) __ _ 

2.63(3) 

2~9-------

TABLE 105.-Determinations of trace elements in eight USGS standard samples-Continued 

G-2 

9.8(7) 10 ________ _ 

10 (10) 

12 

13(15) 

15(12) 13 ________ _ 

10.2(3) 

16 

10.1(6) 

13(4) 

10 

12 

14 

5 

11.4 

10 

8(4) 

16 

12(3) 

11(5) 

10 

12(2) 

5 

17.7(2) 

9.8 

14 

17 

9.14(5) 

2~6(8) ___ _ 

2.28(5) 

5.2 

2.8 

2:o5<2> __ _ 

4.04 

GSP-1 

49(7) 

33 

29(10) 

38 

41 (15) 

33(8) 

34.8 

34 

32.7(6) 

40 

31.7(6) 

83.5(8) 

31 

40 

38 

35.5 

31.6 

31 

35(4) 

19 

31(3) 

34(5) 

30 

33(2) 

31 

48.7(2) 

28.8 

28.8 

32.7(5) 

5~o<2> ___ _ 

5.6 

-5~66(2) __ _ 

5.66 

AGV-1 

57(9) 

67 

58(10) 

65 

65(15) 

74(9) 

55 

60.7(6) 

60 

62(6) 

54(4) 

59 

60 

67 

59 

61.0 

59 

60(4) 

58(2) 

43 

56(3) 

61(5) 

56 

57(2) 

59 

86.2(2) 

53 

49.0 

62 

49.0 

57.9(5) 

3.2(3) 

4.5 

3.9 

3.46(2) 

3.45 

PCC-1 DTS-1 

Co-Continued 

4.9(10) 

8 

14(10) 

11 

12(15) 

14(5) 

11 

10 

13.7(6) 

10(4) 

3 

15 

16 

10 

3 

12(3) 

11(5) 

---------- 9(2) 

7 

25.1(2) 

5 

14.0 

11 

u.o 

9.23(2) 

1.85(10) 

5 

9(10) 

5 

6.7(15) 

12(8) 

8 

5 

9.5(6) 

8(4) 

2 

10 

14 

5 

2 

5(3) 

8.4(5) 

---------- <5 

6 

17.2(2) 

5 

5.0 

Dy 

BCR-1 

15.3(9) 

24 

12(10) 

18 

23(15) 

28(11) 

24.0 

24 

16.8(6) 

25 

15.2 (6) 

15(4) 

16 

25 

22 

u 

19.3 

16 

17(4) 

16(2) 

16 

21 (3) 

20(5) 

17 

16(2) 

28.4(2) 

13 

17.0 

16(2) 

16 

17 

14.6 (3) 

17.0 

18.0 

15.7(5) 

15..7 

16 

Z4 

18.0(2) 

6.0(3) 

6 

8.1 

9.1 

6.25(7) 

6.25 

6 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

Method 

OS -------------------- OS -------------------- Colorimetric -----------

____ do ---------------- SQ-paper chromat ---··- AA 

AA 

AA 

AA -------------------- AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA --------------------

XRF ------------------ XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------

NAA ------------------ NAA .--;--------------- 'Y'Y comc1dence ---------

SSMS 

NAA 

OS -------------------- XRF ------------------ INAA ----------------- INAA ----------------- INAA -------··---------

INAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

Reference 

Huber-Schausberger and others, 1970. Martin and Quintin, 1970. Moal and others, 1970. Thompson and others, 1970; Thompson and Bankston, 1970. de Albuquerque, 1971. 

Avni, Harel, and Brenner, 1972. Blackburn and others, 1971. Brenner, 1971. Gerasimovskiy and Laktionova, 1971. Pouget and others, 1968. 

Bodart,· 1970. Agrinier, 1968. Balous and Thiel, 1968. Butler, 1968. Nagura and !ida, 1968. 

Ropert and Broudic, 1968. Bender and Schultz, 1969. Price, 1969. Sighinolfi, 1969. Fletcher, 1970. 

!ida and Yamasaki, 1970. Rose, 1970. Smith and Rose, 1970. Buckley and Oranston, 1971. Cioni and others, 1971. 

Terashima, 197la, b. Walsh, 1972. Parker, 1969. Quintin, 1970. Feather, 1971. 

Hirst and Kaye, 1971. Webber and Newbury, 1971. Kaye, 1972. Filby and Haller, 1969. Morrison and others, 1969. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. Peterson and others, 1969. Allen and others, 1970; Haskin and others, 1970. Filby and others, 1970. Ganapathy and others, 1970; Keays and others, 1970. 

.Johansen and Steinnes, 1970. Brunfelt and others, 1971. Morrison, 1971. Nadkarni and Haldar, 1972a. Michelson and Steinnes, 1968. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. Laul and others, 1972. 

Cohen and others, 1968. Eby, 1972. A1ruscavage, 1969. Morrison and others, 1969. Filby and others, 1970. 

B. C. Smith, 1970. Tomura, Higuchi, Onuma, and Hamaguchi, 1968. Higuchi, Tomura, Onuma, and Hamaguchi, 1969. Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. Schilling and Winchester, 1969. 

...... 

co 

-:J 

~ 

0 

0 

~ 

'"d 

~ 1-3 

~ 

0 

z 

0 

"%j 

t:l 

> 1-3 

> 

0 

z 

c: 

U'J 

0 

U'J 

U'J 

1-3 

> z 

t:l 

> 

~ 

t:l 

U'J 

....... 

C11 

....... 
W-1 

3.60 

4.4 

-3~95(4) __ _ 

7.70 

3.0 

2.6 

2.8 

2.3 

2.24 

2.21 

2.30(4) 

1.6 

3.10 

1.0(6) 

1.07 

1.11 

1.0 

1.26(6) 

1.2(2) 

1.1 

1.03 

1.08 

1.18 

. 99 

1.112(4) 

G-1 

1.80 

2.6 

1.4 

.73 

1.23 

1.26 

0.9 

1.4 

1.34(6) 

1.6(2.) 

1.20 

1.06 

1.23 

TABLE 105.-Determinations of trace, elements in eight UpGS standard samples-Continued 

G-2 

2.9 

2.6 

1.8 

i~7(3) ___ _ 

.96(2) 

2~3(3) ___ _ 

---------- 1.05 

1.3 

1.46 

1.6 

1.66(2) 

1.3 

1.16 

1.62 (2) 

---------- 2.4 

1.38 

GSP-1 

3.0(2) 

2~4(2) ___ _ 

2:i ______ _ 

2.48 

2.68(2) 

AGV-1 

1.2(3) 

2.2(3) 

1.17 

1.6 

1.36 

1.92 

1.98(2) 

1.6 

PCC-1 

0.0019 

DTS-1 

Dy-Continued 

0.0026 

Er 

<0.003 

Ea 

o~oo012 __ _ 

.0011 

BCR-1 

6.32 

6~66(3) __ _ 

6~2(2) ___ _ 

6.66(6) 

6.36 

6.20 

7 

3.2(3) 

6 

3.6(3) 

3.87 

3.61 (3) 

3.6(2) 

4.6(6) 

3.68(2) 

3.71(2) 

3.48 

2.2(3) 

1.5 

1.96 

1.8 

2.16 

2.23 

2.38(2) 

2.01(2) 

.80 

1.93 

1.97(3) 

2.0(2) 

1.94(6) 

1.76 

1.97(3) 

1.942 (2) 

1.96(2) 

1.943 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

IDMS 

IDMS 

SSMS 

SSMS 

SSMS 

Method 

OS -------------------- XRF ------------------ SSMS ----------------- SSMS ----------------- SSMS -----------------

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

IDMS 

IDMS 

IDMS 

OS -------------------- XRF ------------------ SSMS ----------------- SSMS ----------------- SSMS -----------------

INAA 

INAA 

INAA 

INAA 

INAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

IDMS 

IDMS 

IDMS 

Reference 

Allen and others, 1970. 

Graber and others, 1970. 

Denechaud and others, 1970; Haskin 

and others, 1970. 

Melson, 1970. 

Rey and others, 1970. 

Brunfelt and others, 1971. 

Das and Zonderhuis, 1971. 

Philpotts and Schnetzler, 1970; 

Schnetzler and Nava, 1971. 

Gast and others, 1970. 

Carver and Johnson, 1968. 

Graham and Nicholls, 1969. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Cohen and others, 1968. 

Eby, 1972. 

Carver and Johnson, 1968. 

Graham and Nicholls, 1969. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Higuchi, Tomlllr&, Onuma, and 

Hamaguchi, 1969; Higuchi and 

others, 1970. 

Denechaud and others, 1970. 

Graber and others, 1970. 

Allen and others, 1970. 

Haskin and others, 1970. 

Rey and others, 1970. 

Brunfelt and others, 1971. 

Philpotts and Schnetzler, 1970. 

Gast and others, 1970. 

Schnetzler and Nava, 1971. 

Cohen and others, 1968. 

Eby, 1972. 

Carver and Johnson, 1968. 

Graham and Nicholls, 1969. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Goles and others, 1971. 

Green and others, 1969. 

Scott, 1969. 

Melson, 1970. 

B. C. Smith, 1970. 

Filby and Haller, 1969. 

Higuchi, Tomura, Onuma, and 

Hamaguchi, 1969. 

Landstrom and others, 1969. 

Morrison al'ld others, 1969; Morrison 

and Kashuba, 1969; Morrison, 1971. 

Peterson and others, 1969. 

Schilling and Winchester, 1969. 

Allen and others, 1970. 

Deneehaud and others, 197G; Haskin 

and others, 1970. 

Graber and others, 1970. 

Higuchi and others, 1970. 

Rey and others, 1970. 

Brunfelt and others, 1971. 

Das and Zonderhuis, 1971. 

Ragland and others, 1971 • Kriihenbiihl and others, 1972. 

Philpott& and Schnetzler, 1970. 

Gast and others, 1970. 

Sehnetzler and Nava, 1971. 

...... 

01 

~:.,:) 

1::1 

t.2:j 

00 

c 

!PO 

~ 

"tt 

~ ~ 

0 

z 

00 

> z 

t::l 

> z 

> 

~ 00 

t.2:j 

00 

0 

l'%j 

t.2:j 

~ 

c;') 

= 

~ 

z 

t.2:j 

~ 

c:: 

00 

c;') 

00 

!PO 

0 

c 

~ 

00 

~ 

> z 

t::l 

> !PO 

t::l 

00 
W-1 

17-1-(4_) _____ _ 

2t6 

260 

---------- 230 

230 

230 

180 

240 

285(4) 

263 

262(4) 

316 

22t (5) 

11 

14(17) 

t6(t0) 

t9(3) 

20(t0) 

18 

t8(4) 

22 

17 

t7 

t6.5(2) 

t6.2(2) 

t2.8 

t6(2) 

t6 

t8.4(6) 

t6.2(2) 

t7.3 

t-7~9-------

t5.9 

4 

8.20 

4.0 

TABLE 105.-Determinations of trace elements in eight USGS standard samples-Continued 

G-1 G-2 

7£3-(6>______ 2,o9o<3> 

650 680 ----------

640 

600 

724 

800 

---------- 723 

638(5) 

t3 

20(9) 

24(t0) 

t7 

2t(4) 

t8(2) 

20(2) 

19.6 

7 

11.8 

980 ________ _ 

1,220(4) 

1,2t5 

t,t20 

t,480 

t,400 

28 

2t (3) 

20-(2) _____ _ 

23(7) 

27 

23(10) 

2t (15) 

32(2) 

21 

28 

20 

27 

22.0(2) 

22.6(5) 

24.6(2) 

22.0 

23.3 

22.9 

s~o<a> ___ _ 

GSP-1 

6,633(3) 

3, 700 ________ _ 

3,600 

2,330(2) 

3,800(4) 

·3,300 

2,400 

3,863(2) 

26 

20(3) 

20(2) 

23(7) 

26 ________ _ 

26 (10) 

20(16) 

is-(£> _____ _ 

22 

16.4 

£t~7(5) ___ _ 

24.8(2) 

24.3 

22.3 

15.0(2) 

AGV-1 

<tOO 

460 

350(4) 

600 

26 

30(3) 

16(2) 

17(9) 

24 

22(3) 

24(t0) 

19(15) 

28-<2_> _____ _ 

20 

20 

t6.6 

t8 

21.0(6) 

23.6 (2) 

---------- 21.7 

20.6 

5.3(3) 

PCC-1 

<tOO 

t7 

<40 

<5 

<tO ==:to 

<2 

10(10) 

4.7(16) 

<1-0---------

1.2 

.63(2) 

.32(2) 

.66 

.42 

DT8-1 

F 

<tOO 

t7 

<40 

Ga 

<6 

---------- <1.0 ==to 

<2 

11 (10) 

4.3(15) 

<tO 

.89 

.11(2) 

---------- .45 

---------- .15 

Gd 

BCR-1 

1,170(3) 

670 

450(4) 

455 

5t0 

460 

800(2) 

2() 

26(3) 

20(6) 

18(9) 

28 

28(3) 

23(t0) 

23(16) 

24 

34(2) 

22 

20 

19.7(2) 

t6.2 

20(2) 

21 

26.3(3) 

19.8 (2) 

22.2(5) 

21.3 

2.0.7(2) 

20.6 

22(4) 

21.7 

211.3(2) 

19.8 

7.8(3) 

~;---------

Method 

OS -------------------- OS -------------------- OS -------------------- OS -------------------- Colorimetric ----------

Chemical --------------- Spectrophotometric 

____ do 

____ do ----------------- Pyrohydrolysis ---------

SIE 

SIE ------------------- SSMS ----------------- Prompt 'Y 

INAA 

NAA 

NAA 

'Y. n ------------------ 'Y activation 

OS-SQ 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS -------------------- SSMS ----------------- XRF ------------------ XRF ------------------ XRF ------------------

XRF 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA ------------------ IDMS -----------------

OS -------------------- XRF ------------------ SSMS ----------------- SSMS ----------------- SSMS -----------------

Reference 

Floyd and others, t968. Martini and Tonani, t968. 

Gerasimovskiy and Savinova, t969. Schoenfeld, t970. Hall and Walsh, t969. 

Murad, t971. Sen Gupta, t968. 

Cattermole and Fuge, 1969. 

Fuge and Power, t969. Clements and others, 1971. 

Ficklin, t970. 

Ingram, t970. Morrison and Kashuba, t969. Bewers and Flack, t969. Kuykendall and others, t971. 

Reed and Jovanovic, t969. Quijano-Rico, 1970. 

Carpenter, 1969. 

Hislop and others, 1971. 

Clark, t968. 

Floyd and others, t968. 

Miksovsky, 1968. 

Dutra, t969. Huber-Schausberger and others, 1970. 

Martin and Quintin, t970. Moal and others, t970. 

Suhr and Smith, t970. 

Thompson and others, 1970. de Albuquerque, t971. 

Blackburn and others, t971. Mom-ison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Parker, 1969. 

Quintin, t970. 

Goodman, t971. 

Kaye, t972. Tandon and Wasson, 1968. Case and others, t969. Filby and Haller, 1969; Filby and others, 1970. Landstrom and others, 1969. 

Morrison and others, t969; Morrison and Kashuba, 1969; Morrison, 1971. Peterson and others, 1969. Allen and others, 1970; Haskin and others, t970. Baedecker and Wasson, 1970. Johansen and Steinnes, 1970; Brunfelt and others, 1971. 

Ganapathy and others, 1970; Keays and others, t970. 

LauJ, Case, Wechter, and others, 1970. Wasson and Baedeeker, 1970. Anders and others, 1971. Baedeeker and others, 1971. 

Laul and others, 1972. de Laeter, 1972. 

Cohen and others, 1968. 

Eby, 1972. Carver and Johnson, 1968. 

Graham and Nicholls, 1969. Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

1-' 

co 

-::J 

1;1:1 

0 

0 

is: 

'"0 

...... 

t"'l 

> 1-3 

...... 

0 

z 

0 

"%.1 

t:! 

> 1-3 

> 

0 

z 

~ 

00 

C) 

00 

00 

1-3 

> z 

t:! 

> 

~ 

t:! 

00 

...... 

t11 

~ 
W-1 

3.8-i(5) 

3.7 

3.71 

4.3 

4.03(4) 

~2 

1.6 (3) 

1.0 

1.4 

1.62 (2) 

1.9 

1.74 

2.45(3) 

2.3 

2.2(2) 

3.4(2) 

3.0(3) 

180(2) 

290 

175(4) 

180 

260 

280(10) 

240(2) 

94(2) 

330(2) 

94(2) 

250 

225 

225(2) 

103 

G-1 

5.39(5) 

3.6 

<5.5 

5.30 

1.1 (5) 

1.1 

1.2 

5.8(2) 

5.3(2) 

5.6(2) 

4.2(2) 

95(2) 

80 

87.3(4) 

97-c!i) _____ _ 

30(2) 

120(2) 

70(2) 

59 

TABLE 105.-Determinations of trace elements in eight USGS starulard samples-Continued 

G-2 

4.25 

6.38(2) 

3 

4.8 

3.7(2) 

5 

1.0(4) 

<6 

.90 

1.0 

1.2(2) 

1.3(2) 

1.36 

8.6(5) 

7.64(3) 

7.7(2) 

7 

5.8(2) 

50 

39(9) 

39.8(4) 

40(10) 

68(2) 

64(2) 

120(3) 

29(2) 

38 

GSP-1 

14~8(2) ___ _ 

0.7(5) 

<6 

.99 

1.3 

1.74 

13~9(3) ___ _ 

16.8(2) 

17(2) 

17 

16(4) 

14.5(4) 

i5c9> _____ _ 

19(2) 

41(2) 

106 

AGV-1 

7.2 

5. 76(2) 

5 

<2 

2.5(3) 

1.4 

1.1 

1.36 

4.75(3) 

5.6 

6.5(2) 

5 

4.1 

26 

6(5) 

9.4(4) 

15 

27 

25(9) 

22(2) 

24(2) 

16(2) 

6 

5(2) 

PCC-1 DTS-1 

Gel-Continued 

<1 

<6 

.88 

.79 

1.0(2) 

1.07 

.08(2t) 

.03(2) 

11' 

4(4) 

19.7(4) 

5(9) 6-(2_> _____ _ 

3.6(2) 

3 

4.2(2) 

<.01 

Ge 

<2 

<6 

. 77 

. 85 

1.0(2) 

.97 

Bf 

.010(2) 

.01(2) 

Hg (ppb) 

10 

9(6) 

6.6(4) 

12-c9) _____ _ 

1o-c2Y ____ _ 

6 

55 

BCR-1 

7~62(2) __ _ 

5'(2) 

6~68 _____ _ 

8.02(3) 

6.5(2) 

6.4.7 

6.80 

<2 

<6 

3.9(3) 

2.2 

1.2 

1.7 

1.67(2) 

1.5(2) 

1.6(3) 

1.55 

3.4 

4.72(3) 

4.1 

4.57 

5.4(2) 

4.8(2) 

2.8 

5.23(3) 

4.72 

5.33 

10 

7(6) 

17.5(4) 

18-ci.-:o>-----

11 

5(2) 

4 

8 

<50 ________ _ 

Method 

INAA ----------------- NAA ------------------

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA ------------------ IDMS ----------------- IDMS -----------------

OS -------------------- OS -------------------- OS -------------------- SSMS -----------------

NAA tJ-counting ------- NAA 'Y-counting -------

NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------

SSMS ----------------- INAA ----------------- EpiNAA -------------- INAA ----------------- INAA -----------------

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA ------------------ IDMS -----------------

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA -------------------- AA -------------------- AA -------------------- AA -------------------- NAA ------------------

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

Reference 

Green and others, 1969. 

Higuchi, Tomura, Onuma, and Hamaguchi, 1969. 

MoNison and others, 1969; Morrison and Kashuba, 1969; Morrison, 1970. 

Schilling and Winchester, 1969. Allen and others, 1970. 

Denechaud and others, 1970; Haskin and others, 1970·. 

Graber and others, 1970. 

Higuchi and others, 1970. 

Melson, 1970. 

Rey and others, 1970. 

Das and Zonderhuis, 1971. 

Philpotts and Schnetzler, 1970. 

Schnetzler and Nava, 1971. 

Huber-Schausberger and others, 1970. Moal and others, 1970. 

Suhr and Smith, 1970. Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Greenland and McLane, 1969 . Do . Tandon and Wasson, 1968. Baedecker and Wasson, 1970. Wasson and Baedecker, 1970. Baedecker and others, 1971. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Aruscavage, 1969. Brunfelt and Steinnes, 1969c. B. C. Smith, 1970. 

Goles and others, 1971. 

Brooks, 1968. Esson and others, 1968. Landstrom and others, 1969. Morrison and others, 1969; Morrison and Kashuba, 1969; Morrison, 1971. 

Rebagay, 1969; Rebagay and Ehmann, 

1970. 

Allen and others, 1970; Haskin and others, 1970. Brunfelt and others, 1971. 

Schnetzler and Nava, 1971. 

Hatch and Ott, 1968. 

Learned, 1970. 

Ando, 1971. Marinenko and others, 1972. Muscat and others, 1972. 

Omang and Paus, 1971. 

Weissberg, 1971. Aston and Riley, 1972. Cranston and Buckley, 1972. Case and others, 1969. 

Landstrom and others, 1969. Ishida and others, 1970. 

Laul, Case, Wechter, and others, 1970. 

Kennedy and others, 1971. 

Marowsky, 1971a, c. 

Marowsky and Wedepohl, 1971. 

Morrison, 1971. 

Nadkanli and Haldar, 1972b. 

...... 

c:1l 

IJ,::I. 

t:1 

I:EJ 

en 

~ 

~ ..... 

"tt 

~ ..... 

0 

z 

en 

> z 

t:1 

> z 

> 

~ en 

l1j 

en 

0 

~ 

l1j 

..... 

a') 

= 

~ 

z 

l1j 

~ 

C! 

en 

a') 

en 

~ 

0 

~ 

~ 

en 

~ 

> z 

t:1 

> 

~ 

t:1 

en 
W-1 

3 

---------- 3.50 

. 67 

.801 

.69 

.61 r1:o> _____ _ 

0.038 

0.050 

.025 

.064(2) 

.066(2) 

.064 

-o:26(8) __ _ 

.32 

.32 

.24(4.) 

10 

<5o ________ _ 

12 

G-1 

0.4 

.28 

.417 

.49 

.16 

0.035 

0.022 

.02 

-o.o44
--

.008(4) 

Hi)--------

ll-1-{9y-----

TABLE 105.-Determinations of trace elements in eight USGS standard samples-Continued 

G-2 

<o:s ______ _ 

.7 

-:36(2) __ _ (.7) 

.08 

0.04 

.032(2) 

.033(2)-

.030 

o:i2<2> __ _ 

.07 

-.ciii2o-<4>--

.005 

150 

108 (3) 

95(2) 

97(7) 

121(2) 

81.5(3) 

89 

GSP-1 

<5>:6-------

0.055 

(1.1) 

~.16 

4(4) 

-.o12-<"ar--

300 

24z-<"3Y ____ _ 200(2) 

238(7) 

214(2) 

176.7(2) 

144 

AGV-1 

0.5(3) 

.8 

0.03 

<.1 

.045 

(0.7) 

==.20 

6(4) 

-:oii<4>-- -:oo5 ____ _ 

<100 

60-(3) _____ _ 

80(2) 

51 (9) 

<25 ________ _ 

29.9(3) 

37 

PCC-1 

0J0034 

(6.6) 

5.7 

5(4) 

6.6(2) 

3.0(4) 

6.5(2) 

<5 ________ _ 

<5o 

<100 

<25 ________ _ 

DTS-1 

Bo 

.0026 

In 

10.0026(2) 

.0025 

lr (ppb) 

{o:5) _____ _ 

.56 

-:6(4) ___ _ 

1.0(2) 

1.12(14) 

La 

<5 

<50 

<100 

<25 

BCR-1 

1.·0(3) 

1.15 

1(2) 

1.22 

1.34.(3) 

1.32(2) 

1~20(5) 

-<~8) _____ _ 

0..08(2) 

==.1 

.095(2) 

.113(3) 

.1012(2) 

. 079(2) 

• 095(3) 

.092(4) 

.094 

.103 

. 102(2) 

<0•1 

(1.1) 

~:os<5> __ _ ==.12 

<.1 

2(2) 

-:oo4<4>--

. 14 

<5 

31.6 (3) 

<5o 

23 

<25 

25·.9(3) 

28 

Method 

OS -------------------- XRF ------------------ SSMS ----------------- SSMS -----------------

SSMS -----------------

INAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

SSMS 

OS -------------------- Colorimetric -----------

INAA 

INAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

SSMS ----------------- NAA ------------------ NAA 

NAA ------------------

NAA ------------------

NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------ FA-NAA -------------- NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------

OS-SQ ---------------- OS -------------------- OS -------------------- OS -------------------- OS --------------------

SSMS ----------------- SSMS ----------------- XRF ------------------ XRF ------------------ XRF ------------------

Reference 

Cohen and others, 1968. 

Eby, 1972. 

Carver and Johnson, 1968 . Graham and Nicholls, 1969. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Goles and others, 1971. 

Higuchi, Tomura, Onuma, and Hama- guchi, 1969; Higuchi, Tomura, and 

Hamaguchi, 1970. 

Monrison and others, 1969; Morrison 

and Kashuda, 1969; Morrison, 1971. 

Schilling and Winchester, 1969. 

Allen and others, 1970. 

Denechaud and others, 1970; Haskine 

and others, 1970. 

Graber and others, 1970. 

Rey and others, 1970. 

Melson, 1970. 

Brunfelt and others, 1971. Das and Zonderhuis, 1971. 

Walters, 1967. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Rosier and others, 1968. V. V. Ivanov and V. N. Cholodov, 

quoted in Rosier and others, 1968. 

Mor:rison and others, 1969. B. C. Smith, 1970. 

Tandon and Wasson, 1968. 

Allen and others, 1970; Haskin and 

others, 1970. 

Ganapathy and others, 1970; Keays and 

others, 1970. 

Rey and others, 1970 • Wasson and Baedeeker, 1970 . Anders and others, 1971. 

Baedecker and others, 1971. 

Brunfelt and others, 1971. 

Laul, Case, Wechter, and others, 1972 • 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Crocket and others, 1968. 

Ehmann and others, 1970. Wasson and Baedecker, 1970. 

Anders and others, 1971. 

Baedecker and others, 1971. 

Brunfelt and others, 1971. 

Das, Janssen, and Zonderhuis, 1971. 

Gijbels and others, 1971. 

Greenland and others, 1971. 

Millard and Bartel, 1971. 

Gijbels, 1972 . 

Clark, 1968. 

Cohen and others, 1968. 

Floyd and others, 1968. 

Dutra, 1969. 

Huber-Schausberger and others, 1970. 

Graham and Nicholls, 1969. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Parker, 1969. 

Eby, 1972. 

Sceal and Weaver, 1971. 

..... 

co 

-::1 

~ 

C':l 

0 

~ 

""d 

1-1 

t"" 

> 1-j 

1-1 

0 

z 

0 

l'%j 

t:J 

> 1-j 

> 

0 

z 

q 

00 

c;':) 

rn 

00 

1-j 

> z 

t:J 

> 

~ 

t:J 

00 

jo-1. 

01 

01 
W-1 

10 

10.9 

10.8 

6.7 

12.2(5) 

10.5(2) 

12 

8.5 

12.7 

11.6 

10.2 

15(10) 

1-2-(8_)_ -----

12(4) 

11 (16) 

12.5 

13.3(6) 

15.2(6) 

12.9 

12 

20 

25 

17 

13 

12.7(6) 

0.3 

.21 

G-1 

108(5) 

82(2) 

----------

89 

115 

103 

28(10) 

16 

27(17) 

23(4) 

30(6) 

20 

15 

24 

24 

£o~4(4) ___ _ 

0.1 

---------- .20 

TABLE 105.-Determinations of trace elements in eight USGS standard samples-Continued ' .. 

G-2 

94-{5) _____ _ 

75 

102 

85 

---------- 78 

91(2) 

78 

---------- 84 

93(2) 

8-0---------

78 

38(3) 

45(10) 

44-(ii) ____ _ 

48(5) 

46(9) 

32 

---------- 31 

28:2(6) ___ _ 

36.5(6) 

40 

32.5 

35(4) 

41 

30 

36(3) 

35 

41 (5) 

33 

<0.5 

GSP-1 

20_1 ________ _ 

181 

105 

212(2) 

39(3) 

40(10) 

53(7) 

37(5) 

35(4) 

35 

28 

27.9(6) 

32.0(6) 

45 

29.9 

33(4) 

36 

26 

29 

29(3) 

30 

36(5) 

30 

<o:s·------

AGV-1 

---------- 32 

44 

32 

36 

23.9 

43.6(2) 

37 

32(3) 

15(10) 

9(7) 

11(5) 

15(4) 

14 

11 

7.5(6) 

12.4 (6) 

30 

12.1 

13(2) 

9 

14 

11 

12(3) 

15 

12(5) 

11 

<0.4 

PCG-1 DTS-1 

La--Continued 

.17 

.072 

.2 

<1 

1(10) 

<.3 

.07(5) 

10 

<1 

2(6) 

13 

5 

<.5 

<3 

i~i(5) ___ _ 

.05 

.036 

.026 

Li 

<1 

2(10) 

<.3 

.05(5) 

14 

L79(3) 

i:73(4) __ _ 1.2(6) 

11 

.5 

2 

<3 

-2~3(5) ___ _ 

Lu 

BCR-1 

26 

---------- ZB 

20 

15.4 

23.8(2) 

23(2) 

24 

24.() 

26.18(3) 

25.2(3) 

23.7 

26(2) 

23.7(5) 

23.7 

20.7(2) 

26.1 (2) 

32(3) 

15(10) 

11(8) 

18(5) 

13(7) 

15 

14 

12.2(6) 

14.4(6) 

35 

15 

16(2) 

13 

15 

13 

14 

14(3) 

12 

13(5) 

12 

13 

12.8 

<0 . .4 

Method 

XRF ------------------ INAA ----------------- INAA ----------------- INAA ----------------- INAA -----------------

INAA 

INAA 

INAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA ------------------ NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

IDMS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS -------------------- Fl phot ---------------- Fl phot ---------------- Fl phot ---------------- Fl phot ----------------

Ion exchange ---------- _ ___ do -----------------

AA -------------------- AA -------------------- AA --------------------

AA -------------------- AA -------------------- AA -------------------- AA -------------------- AA --------------------

AA --------------------

AA -------------------- AA -------------------- AA -------------------- AA --------------------

AA -------------------- SSMS ----------------- NAA ------------------

IDMS -----------------

OS -------------------- XRF ------------------ SSMS -----------------

Reference 

Kaye, 1972. 

.Airuscavage, 1969. 

Green and others, 1969. 

Scott, 1969. 

Melson, 1970. 

B. C. Smith, 1970. 

Goles And others, 1971. 

Whitley and others, 1971. 

Filby and Haller, 1969; Filby and 

others, 1970. 

Higuehi, Tomura, Onuma, and 

Hamaguchi, 1969. 

Morrison and others, 1969; Morrison 

and Kashuba, 1969; Morrison, 1971. 

Landstrom and others, 1969. Peterson and others, 1969. 

Schilling and Winchester, 1969. 

Allen and others, 1970. 

Denechaud and others, 1970. 

Graber and others, 1970. 

Haskin and others, 1970. 

Higuchi and others, 1970. 

Osawa and Goles, 1970. 

Rey and others, 1970. 

Brunfelt and others, 1971. Das and Zonderhuis, 1971. 

Ragland and others, 1971. 

Krii.henbiihl and others, 1972. 

Gast and others, 1970. 

Floyd and others, 1968. 

Thompson and others, 1970. 

de Albuquerque, 1971. 

Bircz, 1971. 

Blackburn and others, 1971. 

Brenner, 1971. 

l'ouget and others, 1968. 

Sulcek and Rubelika, 1968. 

Abbey, 1971. 

McCabe and others, 1972. 

Strelow and others, 1968. 

Toerien, 1969. 

Balous and Thiel, 1968. 

Butler, 1968. 

Ropert and Broudic, 1968. 

Sighinolfi, 1969. 

Stone and Chesher, 1969. 

Price, 1969. 

Abbey, in Maxwell and others, 1970. 

Govindaraju, 1970b. 

Langmyhr, 1970. 

Buckley and Cranston, 1971. 

Cioni and others, 1971. 

O'Gorman and Suhr, 1971. 

Terashima, 1971a, b. 

Walsh, 1972. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Quijano-Rico and Wii.nke, 1969; 

Quijano-Rioo, 1970. 

Schnetzler and Nava, 1971. 

Cohen and others, 1968. 

Eby, 1972. 

Carver and Johnson, 1968. 

...... 

C11 

0) 

t=' 

t:r:1 

00 

a 

~ ~ 

1-C 

t-3 

~ 

0 

z 

00 

> z 

t=' 

> z 

> 

~ 00 

l.;j 

00 

0 

l'%j 

l.;j 

~ 

c;') 

= t-3 

z 

l.;j 

=a 

~ 

00 

c;') 

00 

~ 

0 

c 

~ 

00 

t-3 

> z 

t=' 

> 

~ 

t=' 

00 
W-1 

.39 

.30 

.42 

. 360 

.35(5) 

.353(5) 

.51 (2) 

.44 

.32 

.28 

.322 

.26 

.03·1 

1,300(1-i) ____ _ 

1,347(8f ____ _ 

1,330 

1,320(4) 

1,640 ________ _ 

1,345-{4) _____ _ 

1,350(2) 

1,175(2) 

1,130 

1,368 

1,300 

1,368 

G-1 

-:i46(5)--

• 16 (2) 

-:i65 ____ _ 

.22 

.144 

22-o-c"iif-----

---------- 241(5) 

238(3) 

17-0-{2) _____ _ 

---------- 5.5 

TABLE 105.-Determinations of trace elements in eight USGS standard samples-Continued 

G-2 

• 14(5) 

• 07 

~08 

.32 

.08 

-:o92i,,.--

.131 

-~is _____ _ 

.16 

-~12(2) __ _ 

.05 

350 

247(7) 

235 

260 

260(16) 

259(6) 

250(4) 

1280 

260(4) 

250 

279(4) 

332 

274(2) 

280 

245(2) 

---------- 246 

253 

248 

---------- 248 

GSP-1 

.14 

.31 

-:26(5) __ _ 

.22(2) 

350 

350(7) 

262 

83() 

360(8) 

312(6) 

300(2) 

350 

300(2) 

310 

365(4) 

395 

345(2) 

330 

285(2) 

807 

294 

1 

AGV-1 

.18 

---------- .30 

-:27(5) __ _ 

.256(2) 

-:36 _____ _ 

650 

PCC-1 

<0.03 

.0057 

700 

DTS-1 

La-Continued 

<O:oa _____ _ .0014. 

-~ooai ___ _ 

Mn 

750 

BCR-1 

. o 

. 5 

1.0 

.535 

. 54(5) 

.545(2) 

-:54(2) __ _ 

.70 

-:527 ____ _ 

1,250 

.526(3) 

• 60 

.58(2) 

. 535 (5) 

.38 

. 586(2) 

. 536 (2) 

.548 

78-;-0-------- 1,020 ________ _ 990 _______ _ 

1,870 

1,370 

1,600(14) 

785 860 1,010 

745 (8) 1,070(10) 900(13) 

772(6) 

750(2) 

750 

750(2) 

730 

742(2) 

745 

878 (2) 

830 

770(2) 

67-_.---------

773 

735 735 ________ _ 

2 

859(6) 

850 

969(6) 

800(4) 

900 

800(4) 

1,544(6) 

1,200(4) 

1,600 

1,200(4) 

1,380 

---------- 1,360(4) 

---------- ---------- 1,350 1,229 (2) 1,145 (2) 1, 771 (2) 

1,030 1,150 1,410 

958 968(2) 1,393(2) 

893-<4) _____ _ 

895 

921 92i ________ _ 

988 

904 

---------- 904 

Mo 

1,.420 

1,465(4) 

t,s8-5-(2y-----

t,33o 

1,365 

1,380 

1,365 

1,380 

1,343(8) 

1,420 

1,419 

1,400 

rz 

SSMS 

SSMS 

INAA 

INAA 

INAA 

INAA 

INAA 

INAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

Method 

NAA ------------------ IDMS ----------------- IDMS ----------------- IDMS -----------------

08-SQ ---------------- OS -------------------- OS -------------------- OS -------------------- OS --------------------

AA -------------------- AA -------------------- AA -------------------- AA -------------------- AA --------------------

AA -------------------- XRF ------------------ XRF ------------------

XRF ------------------ XRF ------------------

SSMS 

INAA 

INAA 

INAA 

INAA 

INAA 

INAA 

INAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

08-SQ ---------------- 08 --------------------

Reference 

Graham and Nicholls, 1969 . Morrison and Kashuba, 1969 • 

Aruscavage, 1969 . Green and others, 1969. 

Scott, 1969 . Filby and others, 1970. 

Melson, 1970 . 

Goles and others, 1971. 

Brunfelt and Steinnes, 1969b . Higuchi, Tomura, Onuma, and 

Hamaguchi, 1969 . Landstrom and others, 1969. 

Morrison and others, 1969; Morrison 

and Kashuba, 1969; Morrison, 1971. 

Peterson and others, 1969. 

Schilling and Winchester, 1969. 

Allen and others, 1970. 

Denechaud and others, 1970; Haskin 

and others, 1970. 

Graber and others, 1970. 

Higuchi and others, 1970. 

Osawa and Goles, 1970 • Rey and others, 1970. 

Brunfelt and others, 1971 . Das and Zonderhuis, 1971. 

Ragland and others, 1971. 

Gast and others, 1970 . Philpotts and Schnetzler, 1970 . Schnetzler and Nava, 1971. 

Cla.rk, 1968. 

Huber-Schausberger and others, 1970. 

Moal and others, 1970. 

Avni, Harel, and Brenner, 1972. 

Brenner, 1971. 

Balous and Thiel, .1968. 

Butler, 1968. 

Ropert and Broudic, 1968. 

Butler and Kokot, 1969. 

Buckley and Cranston, 1971. 

Luecke, 1971. 

Franzini, and Leoni, 1969. 

Parker, 1969. 

Goodman, 1971. 

Webber and Newbury, 1971. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Wyttenbach, 1969. 

Bender and Schultz, 1969. 

Landstrom and others, 1969. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Dale and others, 1970. 

Filby and others, 1970. 

Goles and others, 1971. 

·Filby and Haller, 1969. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Allen and others, 1970; Haskin and 

others, 1970. 

Brunfelt and Steinnes, 1971b. 

Brunfelt and others, 1971. 

Morrison, 1971. 

Clark, 1968. 

lvanova, 1966. 

.... 

co 

-::J 

~ 

0 

0 

:s: 

"'tt 

1-1 

&: 

t-3 

1-1 

0 

z 

0 

l:l:j 

tj 

> t-3 

> 

0 

z 

~ 

00 

c;') 

00 

00 

t-3 

> z 

tj 

> 

~ 

tj 

00 

1-L 

C11 

~ 
W-t 

<to 

<5 ________ _ 

<2 

.7(4) 

.52 

.6 

. 55(2) 

1.5(2) 

.57 

52(3) 

---------- 11.2 

5 

6 

---------- 10 

9.4(3) 

9.5(3) 

16 

33.0 

1:/J 

11 

t7 

18 

t8.2(5) 

12.t 

<t6 

11.0 

t2 

16.1 (4) 

G-t 

<tO 

-7~4(5) ___ _ 

<1 

6.7(4) 

5.44(2) 

13.5(2) 

59(3) 

2-3:3(4) ___ _ 

23.7(3) 

60 

80 

56(5) 

58 

62.5 

55.7 

TABLE 105.-Determinations of trace elements in eight USGS standard samples-Continued 

4 

<1 <3 

<2 

G-2 

3.6(15) 

2.0(2) 

.9 

.15(2) 

---------- 1.2 

.7 

6:2(2) ___ _ 

.13 

56(3) 

14(3) 

8(2) 

9 

tO 

---------- 8 

---------- 16.1 

t3.7(3) 

t3.3(3) 

65.5(3) 

70 

51 

69 

4.6.5(2) 

67 

5(1{2) _____ _ 

15 

7 

5(3) 

<1 <3 

GSP-1 

<2 

3.9(15) 

.6(2) 

1.4. 

.30(2) 

1.6 

8.3(2) 

.27 

48(3) 

24(3) 

t9(2) 

---------- 20 

19 

20 

28.3 

z9~4(3) ___ _ 

2i3~B(2) ___ _ 

177 

174(2) 

15 

10(3) 

AGV-t 

4 

3(2) 

<5 

<2 

4.5(15) 

2.1(3) 

3.4 

1.66 (2) 

---------- 3.7 

1 

13.0(2) 

1.71 

44(3) 

18(2) 

t0(2) 

10.5 

11 

13 

13 

8 

21.7 

15.0(2) 

a~.5(3) 

42 

30.5 

43(2) 

49 

25 

t6(3) 

PCC-1 DTS-t 

Mo-Continu~ 

<{ _______ _ 

<5 

<2 

5.3(15) 

~8(2) 

.4 

. 03(2) 

5.5 

.2 

.02 

43(3) 

<1:0 <5 

1 

1.1 

<2 

2,500 

1,525(3) 

1.5(2) 

<5 

<2 

5.1 (15) 

.2(2) 

3.2 

.04(2) 

---------- 6.6 

N 

.2 

.04 

27(3) 

Nb 

<10 <5 

¢---------

4 

<B 

Nd 

<o:024 ____ _ 

Ni 

2,700 

1,443(3) 

BCR-t 

4 

3.1 (2) <5 

6(10) 

7.1 (15) 

2.0(2) 

i:2o<2> __ _ 

.9 

3.9 

1 

5.3(2) 

1.15 

30(3) 

29(5) 

t8.4(5) 

t0(2) 

ao.4 

9 

t3 

11 

10 

19 

34.1 

i3:6(3)' ___ _ 

21 

32.3(3) 

t7 

25 

30.1 

28.2(2) 

32(2) 

31~3-------

30.60(3) 

30(2) 

---------- 26 

32.t(2) 

28.8(2) 

27.1). 

u;: 

15(3) 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

Method 

OS -------------------- OS -------------------- AA ------------------- Colorimetric ----------- Spectrophotometric ___ _ 

SSMS ----------------- X-Il'ay activation -------

NAA ------------------

NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------ EpNAA ---------------

Combustion- gas ehromotog!raphie. 

____ do -----------------

OS -------------------- XRF ------------------ XRF ------------------ XRF ------------------ XRF ------------------

XRF ------------------ Paper ehromat-SQ -----

SSMS ----------------- X-ray activation -------

Chemical -------------- ID-speetrophotometric __ 

OS -------------------- SSMS ----------------- SSMS ----------------- SSMS ----------------- Ion exehange-XRF ----

XRF ------------------- XRF ------------------- INAA ----------------- INAA ----------------- INAA -----------------

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

IDMS 

IDMS 

IDMS 

Reference 

Miksovsky, t968. 

Ropert, Leeable, and Monjanx, 1968. 

Dutra, 1969. 

Huber-Sehausberger and others, t970. 

Thompson and others, t970. 

Blackburn and others, 1971. 

Butler, 1968. 

Fuge, 1970. 

Kawabuchi and Kuroda, 1970 . 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Kunzendorf, 1971. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969; Morrison 

and others, 1969; Morrison, 1971. 

Case and others, 1969 . Laul, Case, Wechter, and others, 1970. 

Steinnes, 1971a, e. 

Gibson and Moore, 1970. 

Moore and others, 1970. 

Dutra, t969. 

Parker, 1969. B. C. Smith, 1970. 

Goodman, 1971. 

Sceal and Weaver, 1971. 

Kaye, t972. 

Agrinier, 1968. 

:Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Kunzendorf, 1971. 

Campbell, 1969. 

G'l'eenland and Campbell, t970. 

Cohen and others, t968. 

Carver and Johnson, t968. 

Graham and Nicholls, t969. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Eby, 1972. 

Seeal and Weaver, t97t. 

Kaye, 1972. 

Green and others, t969. 

Melson, 1970. 

Goles and others, t971. 

Higuchi, Tomura, Onuma, and 

Hamaguehi, t969. 

Morrison and others, t969; Morrison 

and Kashuba, 1969; Morrison, 1971. 

Schilling and Winchester, 1969. 

Allen and others, 1970. 

Deneehaud and others, 1970; l!askin 

and others, 1970. 

Graber and others, 1970. 

Higuchi and others, 1970. 

Rey and others, 1970. Das and Zonderhuis, 1971. 

Ragland and others, 1971. 

Phllpotts and Schnetzler, 1970. 

Gast and others, 1970. 

Sehnetzler and Nava, t971. 

08-SQ ---------------- Clark, 1968. 

OS -------------------- Floyd and others, t968. 

1-l 

01 

(X) 

t::l 

tzJ 

tl.l 

n 

~ 1-4 

'"d 

~ 1-4 

0 

z 

tl.l 

> z 

t:::l 

> z 

> 

~ tl.l 

tzJ 

tl.l 

0 

"%J 

tzJ 

1-4 

C'.l 

= 

~ 

z 

tzJ 

=a 

~ 

tl.l 

C'.l 

tl.l 

~ 

0 

n 

~ 

tl.l 

~ 

> z 

t::l 

> 

~ 

t::l 

tl.l 
TABLE 105.-Determinations of trace elements in eight USGS standard samples-Continued 

W-1 

77 

76-{1-7y----

ssuo> 

79-cioY ___ _ 

---------- 70 

91 (4) 

70(9) 

62.0 

79 

80 

91(2) 

56 

73.4 

80 

83 

77(4) 

78.6(8) 

84 

63 

72 

76-{'£> _____ _ 

88 

76 

77 

66(2) 

---------- 83 

---------- 70 

G-1 

11 

-1~2<9r·--

-i{ioY ___ _ 

6.4(4) 

1.0 

---------- 1 (4) 

<5 <_5 ________ _ 

(22·)-{2y-----

<3 

G-2 

---------- 9 

'3,3(4) 

16(2) 

2.75(7) 

<5 

6(10) 

7.5 

7:6(15) __ _ 8(12) 

2.61 (3) 1.5 

4 

13.7(6) 

2 

5 

8.1 

2.9 

3.6 

3(4) 

2 

20 

4(3) 

4.4(5) 

<5 

4(2) 

-5(2) 

7 

2.5 

7:3(2) ___ _ 7 

7.6 

<IS 

GSP-1 

10 

7(3) 

<'10 

8.7(7) 

7 

8(10) 

1.3 

9.3(15) 

17(8) 

9.J> 

7.72,(6) 

4.5 

8 

21.3(6) 

7.6 

5 

10.1 

11.9 

6 

7(4) 

8 

31 

9(3) 

9.6(5) 

5 

8.5(2) 

11 (2) 

16 

8 

i6~o<2> ___ _ 101 

o:25<2>___ -o.o74<2>-- :::::::::: :::::::::: 

<98 <26 <100 <32, 

<10---------

49 

25.4. 

4.1 

so 60 

24(3) 38(3) 

AGV-1 

11 

36 (4.) 

32(2) 

15.3(9) 

19 

17(10) 

21 

i---------- 16 (15) 

24(9) 

16.1 (6) 

12JO 

15 

26.3 (6) 

15.7 

15 

16.2 

12.8 

13 

16(4) 

15(2) 

16 

63 

16(3) 

18(5) 

20 

14(2) 

19(2) 

22 

13 

PCC-1 DTS-1 

Ni-Continued 

2,8S:Oc2Y_____ 2,55-o-<2_> _____ _ 

2,650(10) 2,475 (10) 

2,370 2,360 

2,440(10) 2,160(110) 

2,750 

2,210 (15) 

2,100(7) 

2,260 

2,400 

2,000 

2,697(6) 

2,3!00 

2,390 

2,330 

2,410 

1,975(3) 

2,320(5) 

2,690 

2,366(16) 

2,200(9) 

2,210 

2,360 

2,000 

2,263(6) 

2,300 

2,310 

2,250 

2,220 

1,903 (3) 

2,34.0(5) 

2,400 _________ 2,470 ________ _ 

2~70 ~45~ 

19:i(2)____ 2,5i8-<2Y·---- 2,44-7-(2y-----

18 2,480 2,360 

23.8 (3) 2,451 (3) 2,306 (3) 

14 2,400 ----------

34 ---------- ----------

BCR-1 

13 

13.2(6) 

35(2) 

9.9(9) 

13 

12(10) 

13 

14(16) 

19(10) 

16.4 

10.1(6) 

7.0 

8 

30.2(6) 

9.6 1_6 ________ _ 

21.6 

13.2 

14 

15(4) 

7(2) 

10 

27 

10(3) 

10(6) 

15 

13(2) 

11(2) 

27 

12 

1-4~6(2) ___ _ 

15 

19.2(3) 

7 

38(2) 

12 .. 4(3) 

<IB 

2,670 

2,320 

2,280 

2,280 _________ <200 

2,450 ----------

---------- Os (ppb) 

<34 ---------- ----------<1,000 ________ _ <5B·-------- <Go·--------<1,000--------

8.8 (2) • 98 (2.) 

.46 ----------

~:ii _____ _ 

12.3 ----------

Pb 

30 

34(3)______ <io_________ <io _______ _ i6-(3y-----

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

Method 

Colorimetric 

Photometric 

____ do ----------------- Paper Chromat-SQ ----- AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA --------------------

AA -------------------- AA 

AA -------------------- AA 

AA 

AA -------------------- AA 

AA 

AA -------------------- XRF ------------------ XRF ------------------

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF ------------------ XRF ------------------ INAA -----------------

NAA 

NAA 

Photon activation ------ Photon activation ------

____ do ----------------

SSMS ----------------- NAA ------------------

NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------ NAA -----------------· NAA ------------------

OS-SQ ---------------· OS -------------------- OS -------------------- OS -------------------- OS --------------------

Reference 

Miksovsky, 1968. 

Ropert, Lecable, and Monjaux, 1968. 

Dutra, 1969. 

Govindaraju, 1970b. 

Huber-Schaasberger and others, 1970. Martin and Quintin, 1970. Moal and others, 1970. 

Thompson and others, 1970. 

Avni, }fare! and Brenner, 1972. de Albuquerque, 1971. Blackburn and others, 1971. 

Brenner, 1971. 

Gerasimovskiy and Laktionova, 1971. 

Bodart, 1970. 

Stahle, 1970. 

Langer, 1971. 

Agrinier, 1968. Balous and Thiel, 1968. 

lida and Nagura, 1968. 

Nagura and lida,l968. Bender and Schultz, 1969. 

Sighinolfi, 1969. 

Fletcher, 1970. 

lida and Yamasaki, 1970. 

Langmyhr, 1970. 

Rose, 1970. 

Smith and Rose, 1970. 

Beccaluva and Venturelli, 1971. 

Buckley and Cranston, 1971. 

Cioni and others, 1971. 

Terashima, 197la, b. 

Walsh, 1972. 

Parker, 1969. 

Schneider, 1969. 

Quintin, 1970. 

Feather, 1971. 

Goodman, 1971. Hirst and Kaye, 1971. 

Webber and Newbury, 1971. Fabbi and Espos, 1972a. 

Blount and others, 1972. 

Kaye, 1972. Morrison and others, 1969; Morrison, 

1971. Allen and others, 1970; Haskin and others, 1970. KTiihenbiihl and others, 1972. 

Van Zelst, 1971a, b. Van Zelst, 1971b. Van Zelst, 1971a. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Crocket and others, 1968. 

Laul, Case, Wechter, and others, 1970. 

Gijbels and others, 1971. 

Lovering and Hughes, 1971. Millard and Bartel, 1971. 

Chwk, 1968. 

Ivanova, 1966. 

Kowalski, 1967. 

Floyd and others, 1968. 

Mikiiovsky, 1968. 

""" (0 

...;J 

1:1:) 

Cl 

0 

is: 

""d 

""'"' t"4 

> t-3 

""'"' 0 

z 

0 

"%j 

t:1 

> t-3 

> 

0 

z 

c::: 

rn 

c;':l 

rn 

rn 

t-3 

> z 

t:1 

> 

~ 

t:1 

rn 

1-' 

at 

c.o 
W-1 

---------- 9(8) 

8.5(10) 

-6~i(3) ___ _ 

8(17) 

7(10) 

10 

---------- 6(4) 

8.6(26) 

10 

8.4 

16 

8.8 

10 

5 

6(12) 

8 

9 

.-8(2) 

7 

8.4 

15.4(10) 

11.5(17) 

41 (13) 

39(4) 

12.2(12) 

2.4 

4.0 

5 

3 

2.9 

2.6 

14.9(11) 

9.8(6) 

G-1 

47(8) 

47.5(9) 

58(10) 

54 

4ifc4) _____ _ 

50.1(48) 

45 

47.9 

50 

45 

48 

47(2) 

44 

1.6(6) 

15 

19 

---------- 20.0 

21.8 

TABLE 105.-Determinations of trace elements in eight USGS standard samples-Continued 

G-2 

30(3) 

31(3) 

30 

33(3) 

32 

28(7) 

37(10) 

32 

28(15) 

29~8(39) ___ _ 

40 

36 

35 

36.6 

44 

®.6 

26(5) 

28 

28.5(3) 

28.4(26) 

31(2) 

28 

32.9 

32~3(2) ___ _ 

<0.5 

18.7(3) 

t8:7(2) ___ _ 

<0.5 

GSP-1 

61(3) 

58(3) 

65 

51(3) 

51) 

5-5-(7y-----

65(10) 

60 

32(15) 

60 

41 

53.1 

44 

50.5 

50(5) _____ _ 

55 

44 

44(7) 

48(2) 

55 

60.7 

47 

50.8(2) 

<0:5 ______ _ 

49.9(2) 

<o:,-------

AGV-1 

34(3) 

35(4.) 

50 

88(2) 

42 2o-c9) _____ _ 

46(10) 

38 

31 (15) 

60 

43 

26 

32.4 

30 

35.5 

32(5) 

35 

32 

33(6) 

42(2) 

36 

----------

36.~ 

36(2) 

38 

<o~5-------

7.6(3) 

1.1 

PCC-1 DTS-1 

Ph-Continued 

11(2) 

15(3) 

23 <210 

17 

14-cio> ____ _ 

13(10) 

8 

14(15) 

---------- 30 

---------- 13 

9.2 

22 

7.8(5) 10 ________ _ 

10(6) 

<10 

1i8(2) ___ _ 

ff.5(4) ___ _ 

5.5 

2-8-{f3y----

29(5) 

6..0(2) 

4.7(3) 

11(4) 

10.5 

3.5 

5.8(4) 

12(2) 

16(3) 

27 

20(2) 

20 

{3-{i-oy----

14(10) 

8 

13(15) 

25 

---------- 13 

11.1 

29 

8.4(5) 

---------- 7 

8(6) 

<1rO 

8~8(2) ___ _ 

Pd (ppb) 

2-c4Y ____ _ 

.7 

<.5 

Pr 

0~0058 ___ _ 

Pt (ppb) 

4(4) 

3.7(3) 

---------- 1.7 

BCR-1 

14(3) 

13(3) 

30 

<110 

22 

22(3) 

17(9) 

11(10) 

20 

26(15) 

13 

40 

13 

20.7 

14 

13(5) 

15 

12 

13(6) 

14(2) 

15 

15.5 

14~9(2) ___ _ 

15 

13.53(4) 

30 

1-2~(2) ___ _ 

<:~5-------

---------- 8 

7---------

7.1(8) 

7~3(2) ___ _ 

2~3-------

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

Method 

OS -------------------- OS -------------------- SSMS ----------------- Chern. ----------------- Paper chromat-SQ -----

Anodic stripping ------

AA -------------------- AA -------------------- AA -------------------- AA --------------------

AA -------------------- AA -------------------- AA --------------------

XRF ------------------ XRF ------------------

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF ------------------ XRF ------------------ XRF ------------------ IDMS -----------------

SSMS ----------------- FA-OS ---------------- FA-OS ---------------- NAA ------------------ 10 substoichiometric __ _ 

N AA substoichiometric _ 

NAA ------------------

NAA ------------------ FA-NAA --------------

SSMS ----------------- SSMS ----------------- SSMS -----------------

OS -------------------- XRF ------------------

Ion exchange-XRF ----

NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------

FA-OS ---------------- FA-OS ---------------- NAA ------------------ FA-NAA --------------

Murad, 1968. 

Murad, 1969. 

Reference 

Ropert, Lecable, and Monjaux, 1968. 

Dutra, 1969. 

Martin and Quintin, 1970. 

Moal and others, 1970. 

Suhr and Smith, 1970. 

Huber-Schausberger and others, 1970. 

Thompson and others, 1970. 

de Albuquerque, 1971. 

Avni, Harel, and Brenner, 1972. 

Blackburn and others, 1971. 

Mol'll'ison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Jenkins and Moore, 1970~ 

Agrinier, 1968. 

Khasgiwale and others, 1972. 

Nagura and Iida, 1968. 

Tanaka and Iida, 1969. 

Price, 1969. 

Fletcher, 1970. 

Moldan and others, 1970. 

Terashima, 1971a, b. 

Walsh, 1972. 

Murad, 1968. 

Murad, 1969. 

Parker, 1969. 

Cherry and others, 1970. 

Quintin, 1970. 

Heier and Thoresen, 1971. 

Hirst and Kaye, 1971. 

Murad, 1971. 

Webber and Newbury, 1971. 

Kaye, 1972. 

Gale, 1972. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Heady, 1969. 

Dorrzapf and Brown, 1970. 

Crocket and others, 1968. 

Briscoe and Humphries, 1971. 

Briscoe and Humphries, 1970. 

Ganapathy and others, 1970; Keays and 

others, 1970. 

Millard and Bartel, 1971. Rowe and Simon, 1971. 

Carver and Johnson, 1968. 

Graham and Nicholls, 1969. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Cohen and others, 1968. 

Kaye, 1972. 

Eby, 1972. 

Schilling and Winchester, 1969. 

Graber and others, 1970. 

Rey and others, 1970. 

Heady, 1969. 

Dorrzapf and Brown, 1970. 

Millard and Bartel, 1971. Rowe and Simon, 1971. 

........ 

0) 

0 

~ 

t.:J 

00 

0 

~ ..... 

'"d 

t-3 

..... 

0 

z 

1';/l 

> z 

~ 

> z 

> 

~ 00 

t.:J 

00 

0 

l'%j 

t.:J 

..... 

~ 

= t-3 

z 

t.:J 

~ 

Cl 

00 

~ 

00 

~ 

0 

0 

~ 

00 

t-3 

> z 

~ 

> 

~ 

~ 

00 
W-1 

2s-cJ.o)·----

t4(6) _____ _ 

22(4) 

23(12) 

22.0(6) 

19 

22 

26 

---------- 68 

22~0-------

20 

2-i(i) ____ _ 

19(2) 

2'1 

22 

22.3 

26 

30 

---------- 21 

22 

22 

22 ________ _ 

21.44 

22.2(8) 

22(2) 

21.8(10) 

G-1 

400 

22"frtio"> ____ _ 

226 

200(7) 

211(4) 

210(5) 

209 ________ _ 

228---------

208 

21-i(i) ____ _ 

240 

220 

200 _______ _ 

---------- 220 

213.0 

224.-c2r·----

TABLE 105.-Determinations of trace elements in eight USGS standard samples-Continued 

G-2 

0.71 

192-csr·----

195(-lo> 

163(9) _____ _ 

220(5) 

170(8) 

190 

170 

19'ii(6) _____ _ 

160 

167 

151 

185(3) 

170(4) 

167(7) 

167(2) 

182 

120 

159 

169 

156-csr·----

172(2> 

1~0 

175 

174 

171 

170 

173 

178---------

---------- 174 

170.0 

161(8) 

140 

16.0 

1io---------

184(2) 

17c)<2) _____ _ 

170(10) 

GSP-1 

0.66 

4oa-<sr·----

2eocul> 

30Cl(sr·----

283(5) 

280(4) 

220 

250 

3o'fic6) _____ _ 

245 

256 

308 

245(8) 

251 (3) 

267 

274(2) 

237 

150 

248 

248 

22ac2r-----

270<2> 

250 

261 

262 

253 

260 

259 

235 

262 

257(2) 

245 

253.0 

227(8) 

237 

241 

254-<2) _____ _ 

251(10) 

255:7·------

AGV-1 PCC-1 

0.69 0.0018 

53(3) _____ _ <i ________ _ 

100(1.0) <tO 40(8) _____ _ ---------- <1 

109(5) .6(5) 

44(4) 

170 

66 

7Tcsr·---- <io ________ _ 

61 <10 

67 ---------- 43 10 

73(3) 

---------- 55 

63(2) 

68(2) 

70 

<5 

1 <5_0_________ <5_0 ________ _ 

65 

67.5 

---------- 51 

74(2) 

72 

74 

70 

---------- 89 

67.7 

70 

70 

64 

69 

68.2(2) 

67 

67.09 

65(3) 

70 

76 

---------- 78 

6-1car·----

66(1o> 

·:o77csr-

<s·--------

<5 

<is ________ _ 

.5 

<.2: 

1.4(2) 

<to 

.077 

<0.2 

-o:os4i2>--

DTS-1 

Ra(p.p.g/g) 

0.0013 

Rb 

<i ________ _ 

<tO <i ________ _ 

<.5 

2 

<io·--------

<to 10 ________ _ 

<5 

3.5 

<50 

·:os2
--

<3 ________ _ 

<5 

<5 

3 

<.2 

1.8 (2) 

<tO 

.062 

0.040 

<.2 o:o55 ____ _ .053(2) 

BCR-1 

0.56 

34(3) _____ _ 

55(10) 

28(8) 

69(5) 

47(7) 

36 

47 

ii{i) ____ _ 

43 

(50) 

32 

78(3) 

---------- 37 

41 (2) 

50(2) 

47 

37 

<50 

43 

47 

----------

~ 

4~(2) 

~ 

M 

50 

56·--------

42 

~ 

51 

48·--------

5~5~> 

49 

4U 

46(3) 

44-<2) _____ _ 

44.9(3) 

46(2:) 

46(5) 

50 

46.5(2) 

49(1.0) 

46(2) 

46.9 

Method Reference 

Radon counting -------- Nishimura, 1970b. 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

Fl phot --------------- Fl phot ---------------

Ion exchange ----------

AA -------------------- AA -------------------- AA -------------------- AA --------------------

AA -------------------- AA -------------------- AA -------------------- AA -------------------- AA --------------------

AA -------------------- SSMS ----------------- XRF ------------------ XRF ------------------ XRF ------------------

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF ------------------ XRF ------------------ XRF ------------------ EpiNAA -------------- INAA -----------------

INAA ----------------- NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------ ID -------------------- ID --------------------

Kowalski, 1967. 

Floyd and others, 1968. 

Thompson and others, 1970. 

de Albuquerque, 1971. 

Bircz, 1971. 

Blackburn and others, 1971. 

Brenner, 1971. 

Pouget and others, 1968. 

Abbey, 1971. 

Strelow and others, 1968. 

Balous and Thiel, 1968. 

Butler and Kokot, 1969. 

Price, 1969. 

Sighinolfi, 1969. 

Cioni and others, 1971. 

Gamot and others, 1970. 

Govindaraju, 1970a. 

Govindaraju and others, 1971. Do. 

Roelandts, 1972. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Guillemaut, 1968. 

Bell and Powell, 1969. 

Chappell and others, 1969. 

Hattori and Shibata, 1969. 

Heier and Thoresen, 1971. 

Hirst and Kaye, 1971. 

Murad, 1969. 

Parker, 1969. 

Schneider, 1969. 

Schroll and Stepan, 1969. 

Cherry and others, 1970. 

Quintin, 1970. B. C. Smith, 1970. 

Fairbairn and Hurley, 1971. 

Feather, 1971. 

Goodman, 1971. 

Murad, 1971. 

Sceal and Weaver, 1971. 

Webber and Newbury, 1971. 

Fabbi and Espos, 1972a. 

Chappell, 1972. 

Brunfelt and Steinnes, 1969c. 

Filby and others, 1970. 

Whitley and others, 1971. 

Landstrom and others, 1969. 

Morrison and others, 1969; Morrison 

and Kashuba, 1969; Morrison, 1971. 

Allen and others, 1970; Haskin and 

others, 1970. 

Ganapathy and others, 1970; Keays and 

others, 1970. 

Rey and others, 1970. 

Anders and others, 1971. 

Brunfelt and others, 1971. Pant and Parekh, 1971. 

Steinnes, 1972b. 

Laul, Case, Wechter, and others, 1972. 

Hart, 1968. 

Chappell and others, 1969. 

1-£ 

(0 

a.::J 

1:>:) 

0 

0 

Is: 

""t1 

1-4 

&: 

1-3 

1-4 

0 

z 

0 

"%.1 

t::1 

> 1-3 

> 

0 

z 

q 

00 

~:;') 

00 

00 

1-3 

> z 

t::1 

> 

~ 

t::1 

00 

~ 

0':1 

~ 
W-I 

2i:5(2) ___ _ 

---------- 21.0 

<i:s·------

<I 

I23 

220 

0.89(6) 

.8 

.98(2) 

-:s·------

1.12(3> 

1.15(4) 

I.2 

1.2(2) 

I.1(2) 

-~94(2) __ _ 

44.4(17) 

40{3_) _____ _ 

39 

33 

33(4) 

34 

G-I 

<is ______ _ 

58 

-:2o<2> __ _ 

.37(3) 

---------- .26(2) 

.35(2) 

.39(2) 

3.6(9) 

2.8 

2.8 

-4 

TABLE 105.-Determinations of trace elements in eight USGS standard samples-Continued 

G-2 

I70(6) 

I67.6(2) 

I64(2) 

I74~5(2) ___ _ 

I6·s:4(4;----

<i _______ _ 

24 

21)0 

<:!0.07 

.2 

---------- .2 

.040(3) 

---------- .055 

.06 

.12(2) 

.10(2) 

-:os4<2>--

6-cs> _____ _ 

5.3(3) 

4.3(7) 

4 

3:4-------

3.7(3) 

7 

GSP-I 

256(6) 

254.5(2) 

250(2) 

255:6(8) ___ _ 

---------- 255.0 

<2.5 

162 

520 

3.0I(6) 

3.0 

-3:o ______ _ 

3.35(3) 

3.0(2) 

3.0(2) 

a:2o<2> __ _ 

IO 

I2(3) 

7.2(7) 

5 

---------- 6.8 

6.4. 

6 .. 0(3) 

9 

AGV-I 

66.9(2) 

66.6(2) 

67.4 (3) 

<6 ________ _ 

<IO 

130 

4.18(6) 

4.81) 

4.9 

4.6(3) 

4.3 

4.12(2) 

4.2(2) 

4.07(2) 

IO 

20(3) 

I0(4) 

13.2(9) 

I5 

I6(3) 

1i:a ______ _ 

11(3) 

I6 

PCC-I DTS-I 

Rb-Continued 

·:os2<2r-

.063(3) 

<I .070(2) 

I.O 

11.2 

I(l.0(3) 

7.4(2) 

<10 

140 

I.O 

1.37(3) 

1.3 

I.56(2) 

1.53(2) 

1:40(2) __ _ 

10 

19(3) 

5.1(2) 

~10 

I2 

9.8 

5.7(3) 

13 

.050(2) 

Re (ppb) . 

<0.4 

Rh (ppb) 

0.87(3) 

Ru (ppb) 

-2:6(3) ___ _ 

s 

<IO 

50 

Sb 

I.2 

.50(3) 

.44(2) 

.44(2) -:47(2) __ _ 

Sc 

---------- 3(3) 

4.6(2) 

~10 

7 

---------- 4.2 

2.6(3) 

7 

BCR-I 

47.4(2) 

46.9(2) 

46.6(2) 

46.6(2) 

47:4(3) ___ _ 

46.3 

45.I (2,) 

<O.I 

<5 

.83(2) 

(0.2) 

(L) 

392 

570 

0.52,(6) 

.60 

.8 

.67(3) 

-:68(2) __ _ 

.76 

.620(3) 

• 93(2) 

.77(2) 

.60 

.63(2) 

.9 

10 

55(3) 

30.5(4) 

23 

38.8(9) 

40 

30(3) 

---------- 30.0 

3I 

32(3) 

32 

Method 

ID -------------------- ID 

ID 

ID -------------------- ID 

ID 

ID 

ID 

ID 

ID 

SSMS ----------------- NAA 

NAA ------------------

SSMS ----------------- FA-OS ----------------

SSMS ----------------- NAA ------------------ NAA 

NAA 

SQ-XRF -------------- XRF ------------------

EpiNAA -------------- INAA ----------------- NAA ------------------ INAA ----------------- INAA -----------------

INAA ----------------- NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------

NAA 

NAA 

NAA-extraction ------- NAA-distillation ------

NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------ SMSS -----------------

OS-SQ ---------------- OS -------------------- OS -------------------- OS --------------------

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

Spectrophotometric ----

XRF ------------------

Reference 

Loveridge and Wanless, I969. 

deLaeter and Abercrombie, I970. 

Gamot and others, I970. 

Gast and others, I970. 

Philpotts and Schnetzler, 1970. 

Welin, I970. 

Ozima and Zashu, I971. 

Schnetzler and Nava, I971. 

Krihenbfihl and others, I972. 

Vidal, I972. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Laul, Case, Wechter, and others, 1970. 

Lovering and Hughes, I971. 

Morrison and Kashuba, I969. 

Dorrzapf and Brown, I970. 

Morrison and Kashuba, I969. 

Gijbels, I971. 

Gijbels and others, I971. 

Millard and Bartel, I971. 

B. C. Smith, I970. 

Richter, I972. 

Brunfelt and Steinnes, 1969a, c. Filby and Haller, 1969. 

Landstrom and others, I969. B. C. Smith, I970. 

Filby and others, I970. 

Lombard and others, 1971. 

Case and others, I969. 

Hamaguchi and others, 1969. 

Morrison and others, 1969; Morrison 

and Kashuba, I969; Morrison, 1971. Peterson and others, I969. 

Allen and others, I970; Haskin and 

others, 1970. 

Laul, Case, Wechter, and others, I970 • Do. Brunfelt and others, 1971. 

Steinnes, I972a. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Clark, 1968. 

Floyd and others, 1968. 

Dutra, 1969. 

Champ and others, in Maxwell and 

others, 1970. 

Huber-Schausberger and others, 1970. 

Moal and others, I970. 

Suhr and Smith, 1970. 

de Albuquerque, 1971. · Gerasimovskiy and others, 1971. 

Hofmeyr, 1972. 

Shimizu, 1969; Shimizu and Kuroda, 

1969. 

Fabbi and Espos, 1972a. 

....... 

0) 

~ 

t:1 

t.zJ 

r:n 

(") 

~ 1-4 

""d 

~ 1-4 

0 

z 

r:n 

> z 

t:1 

> 

~ 

~ r:n 

t.zJ 

r:n 

0 

lzJ 

t.zJ 

1-4 

!:;') 

I:Q 

~ 

z 

t.zJ 

~ 

~ 

r:n 

Cj) 

r:n 

~ 

0 

(") 

~ 

r:n 

~ z 

~ ~ 

t:1 

r:n 
W-1 

---------- 38 

88.7 

88.4 

---------- 86 

---------- 82.1 

nc2> 

84 

82.1 

82.1(9) 

.48 

-~i7(2) __ _ 

< .18 

-~ii5(3)--

.10 

5.00 

3.9(5) 

8.16(3) 

a:aici2>--

a.55 

---------- 3.5 

3.77(5) 

4.1 (2) 

3.2 

3.0 

---------- 4.18 

3.62 

---------- 3.40 

G-1 

---------- 2.4 

2.9(2) 

8.0 

2.75(9) 

<0.1 

< .86 

-~Go75<2r 

6.8 

s:oic&;---

7.4 (2) 

6.8 

11.2 

7.87 

TABLE 105.-Determinations of trace elements in eight USGS standard samples-Continued 

G-2 

3.29(6) 

LO 

'3.6 

8.56 

---------- 4.8 

---------- 8.0 

45 

5.0 

a:i ______ _ 

<0.7 

io:oca> ___ _ 8.3(5) 

6.87(3) 

6.4 

6.3 

7.66(12) 

6.9 

7:ioc2) __ _ 

---------- 7.0 

---------- 10.0 

7:2(2) ___ _ 

5.8 -6:65 _____ _ 

GSP-1 

5:8·------

---------- 6.8 

7.9 

<0.04 

8-1:2(2) ___ _ 

24.7(2) 

20.6 

25.8(12) 

28:2(2) ___ _ 

---------- 82.2 

AGV-1 

12 

12.2 

12 

11 

16.7 

<0.14 

6~o
 ___ _ 

6.68(3) 

4.96 

6.2 

6.08(12) 

5.9 

6:69(2) __ _ 

---------- 6.6 

5.9 

PCC-1 DTS-1 

Sc-Continued 

1 

9.2 

7.9 

1.8 

9.9 

<o.I8 

<o:oa·-----

·:oo76 ___ _ 

1.0 

3.8 

8.2 

3.7 

Se 

<0.3 

Sm 

<0.03 

·:oo2s ___ _ 

. 005 

BCR-1 

36 

34.9 

30.8 

37 

81(2) 

32 

31.9(3) 

301.1 

32.5 

30.7 

10.2 

.105(3) 

< .3 

. 092(5) 

.116 

. 121 (5) 

.094(2) 

6 

7.3(3) 

6.14(3) 

5.7 

6.61 (12) 

6.4 

7.30(2) 

6-ci) _____ _ 

6.9 

7.23(3) 

7.46 

6'.9 

6.9(2) 

6.52 

6.60(5) 

-6:42(3) __ _ 

INAA 

INAA 

INAA 

INAA 

INAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

SSMS 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

Method 

SSMS ----------------- SSMS ----------------- SSMS ----------------- Ion exehange-XRF -----

INAA -----------------

EplNAA -------------- INAA ----------------- INAA ----------------- EpiNAA -------------- INAA 

INAA 

INAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

Reference 

Aruscavage, 1969. 

Filby and Haller, 1969. 

Dale and others, 1970. 

Melson, 1970. 

Goles and others, 1971. 

Norman and Haskin, 1968. 

Schiltz, 1968. 

Case and others, 1969. 

Landstrom and others, 1969. 

Morrison and others, 1969; Morrison, 

1971. Peterson and others, 1969. 

Allen and others, 1970; Haskin and 

others, 1970. 

Laul, Case, Wechter, and others, 1970. 

Nomura and others, 1970. 

Osawa and Goles, 1970. 

Brunfelt and others, 1971. 

Das, Zonderhuis, and Marel, 1971. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Case and others, 1969. 

Landstrom and others, 1969. 

Allen and others, 1970; Haskin and 

others, 1970. 

Laul, Case, Wechter, and others, 1970. 

Anders and others, 1971 . Brunfelt and others, 1971. 

Brunfelt and Steinnes, 1971b . Gregory and LaVII'akas, 1971. 

Nadkarni and Haldar, 1971b. 

Laul and others, 1972. 

Carver and Johnson, 1968. 

Graham and Nicholls, 1969. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Eby, 1972. 

.Airuscavage, 1969. 

Brunfelt and Steinnes, 1969e. 

Green and others, 1969. 

Seott, 1969. 

Steinnes, 1969a. 

Melson, 1970. 

B. C. Smith, 1970. 

Goles and others, 1971. 

Higuchi, Tomura, Onuma, and 

Hamaguchi, 1969. 

Landstrom and others, 1969. 

Morrison and others, 1969; MOOTison 

and Kashuba, 1969; Morrison, 1971. 

Schilling and Wincheskr, 1969. 

Filby and others, 1970. 

Denechaud and others, 1970; Haskin 

and others, 1970. 

Allen and others, 1970. 

Graber and others, 1970. 

Higuchi and others, 1970. 

Osawa and Goles, 1970. 

Rey and others, 1970 . Brunfelt and others, 1971. 

Brunfelt and Steinnes, 1971b. 

Das and Zonderhuis, 1971. 

Ragland and others, 1971. 

Krahenbuhl and others, 1972. 

.... 

cc 

...;J 

t.;l 

0 

0 

ts: 

""d 

~ 

t"'4 

> 1-3 

~ 

0 

z 

0 

l'%j 

t:;j 

> 1-3 

> 

0 

z 

~ 

00 

~ 

00 

00 

1-3 

> z 

t:;j 

> 

~ 

t:;j 

00 

~ 

0) 

~ 
W-1 

3.76(3) 

---------- <10 

2.9(4) 

<-5---------

3.2(3) 

6.1(4) 

---------- 2.4 

3.8(2) 

3.13(5) 

3.4(2) 

3.3(2) 

125-{io_> ____ _ 

15·6-{ior·---

170 

182(4) 

186(5) 

---------- 235 

178 

---------- 215 

202 ________ _ 

205 

19_5_(4) _____ _ 

---------- 189 

18_0 ________ _ 

192(3) 

190 

183 

190 

209 

G-1 

3.4 <io _______ _ 

-5-(-5) _____ _ 

---------- <5 

5:6(4) ___ _ 

---------- 3.1 

3.8(2) 

---------- 364(10) 

240 

248-{4) _____ _ 

---------- 270 

239-<2) _____ _ 

256---------

260 

250 

TABLE 105.-Determinations of trace elements in eight USGS standard samples-Continued 

G-2 

3-<a)·-----

<4---------

1.1(4) 

3 

<5 

·a:o(i5) __ _ 

1.32 

---------- 1.2 

2.0(2) 

800 

590(10) 

413 (3) 

435(2) 

490(2) 

---------- 545 

570(10) 

---------- 519 

465(5) 

530(6) 

493(6) 

447 

396 

508-(2y-----

479 

430 

397 

473 

464(3) 

602(6) 

440(2) 

680 

498(2) 

450 

472 

492(5) 

698(2) 

490 

431 

471 

GSP-1 

-,.-<3) _____ _ 

6:7(2) ___ _ 

6.1(5) 

8 

<5 

5:9(i5) __ _ 

4.35 

4.5 

8:6(2) ___ _ 

400 

295(10) 

255(3) 

250(2) 

218(2) 250 ________ _ 

295(10) 

---------- 270 

210(5) 

236(6) 

302 

253 

245(3) 

208 

251 

220 

230 

2'74 

248(3) 

250(5) 

231(4) 

280 

---------- 360 

230 

24!0(2) 

266(2) 

220 

218 

229 

AGV-1 

<_{ _______ _ 

6-<2) _____ _ 

3.6(3) 

9 

<5 

4.7(3) 

3.5 (15) 

3.03 

3 

5.65(2) 

900 

690(10) 

756(3) 

750(2) 

670 

760(2) 

---------- 700 

680 (10) 

---------- 645 

632(5) 

666(6) 

668 

720 

---------- 718 

651 

700 

625 

631 

653(3) 

670(5) 

655(4) 

780 

71-8---------

658 

682(2) 

751(2) 

700 

649 

666 

PCC-1 DTS-1 

Sm-Continued 

<-..---------

1.4.5(2) 

3 

<5 

---------- 3.6(15) 

.88 

.5 

i:68(2) __ _ 

---------- <5 

<10 

<5 ________ _ 

2(10) 

---------- <5 

.3(5) 

<8 

<1 

20 

<5 ________ _ 

Sn 

4-<2Y ____ _ 

1.7(2) 

2 

<5 

s:&<i&;---

.74 

---------- .5 

.68(2) 

Sr 

<5 

<10 

---------- <5 

8(10) 

---------- <5 

1.5(5) 

<8 

<1 

<o 

<5o·-------- <io ________ _ 

.88(8) 

<2 ________ _ 

<5 

<5 ________ _ 

.31(8) 

<2 <& 

<5 

BCR-1 

7.44(2) 

6.74(2) 

6.57 

<i ________ _ 

---------- <5 

2.5(4) 

9 

8(10) 

2.8(3) 

4.2(15) 

1.81 

3 

1.5 

2:7i
 __ _ 

4.00 

385(10) 

260(3) 

481 (6) 

22.0 

340(2) 

---------- 330 

265(10) 

---------- 332 

336(5') 

340(4) 

270 

84.2(6) 

412 

307 325 ________ _ 

841 

310 

368 

319 

342(3) 

817 (5) 

837(4) 

280 

---------- 350 

303 

322 

400(2) 

340 

343 

333 

ass·--------

Reference 

m -------------------- ID 

ID 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS -------------------- OS -------------------- OS -------------------- OS -------------------- Spectrophotometric ----

SSMS ----------------- NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------

OS-SQ ---------------- OS -------------------- OS -------------------- OS -------------------- OS --------------------

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS -------------------- OS -------------------- OS -------------------- OS -------------------- SSMS -----------------

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA ------------------- XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF ------------------ XRF ------------------ XRF ------------------ XRF ------------------ XRF-8Q ---------------

Method 

Philpott& and Schnetzler, 1970. 

Gast and others, 1970. 

Schnetzler and Nava, 1971. 

Ivanova, 1966. 

Floyd and others, 1968. Mikiovsk~, 1968. 

Dutra: 1969. 

Huber-Schausberger and others, 197i0. 

Moal and others, 1970. 

Thompson and others, 1970. 

Suhr and Smith, 1970. 

Blackburn and others. 1971. 

Smith, J.D., 1971; Smith and Burton, 

1972. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Das and others, 1969. 

Hamaguchi and others, 1969. 

Johansen and Steinnes, 1969. 

Schmidt and Sta.Tke, 1969. 

Schmidt, 1970. 

Clark, 1968. 

Fabbri and Vespignani-Balzani, 1969. 

Floyd and others, 1968. 

Dutra, 1969. 

Ondrick and others, 1969. 

Champ and others, in Maxwell, and 

others, 1970. 

Govindaraju, 1970b. 

Martin and Quintin, 1970. 

Moal and others, 1970. 

Thompson and others, 1970. 

de Albuquerqu~ 1971. 

Avni, Harel and Brenner, 1972. 

Blackburn and others, 1971. 

Brenner, 1971. 

Mororison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Balous and Thiel, 1968. 

Price, 1969. 

Sighinolft, 1969. 

Gamot and others, 1970. 

Govindaraju, 1970a. 

Roelandts and Bologne, 1970. 

Abbey, 1971. 

Beccaluva and Venturelli, 1971. 

Buckley and Cranston, 1971. 

Cioni and others, 1971. 

Terashima 1971a, b. 

Luecke, 1971. 

Guillemaut, 1968. 

Murad, 1968. 

Bell and Powell, 1969. 

Chappell and others, 1969. 

Franzini and Leoni, 1969. 

Hattori and Shibata, 1969. 

Murad, 1969. 

Parker, 1969. 

Schneider, 1969. 

Schroll and Stepan, 1969. 

Cherry and others, 1970. 

Quintin, 1970. 

B. C. Smith, 1970. 

1-l 

~ 

~ 

t,:J 

00 

n 

~ looo4 

'"d 

1-3 

looo4 

0 

z 

00 

> z 

~ 

> 

~ 

~ rn 

t.zj 

rn 

0 

lozJ 

t,:J 

looo4 

~ 

1-3 = 

z 

t.zj 

~ 

d 

rn 

~ 

rn 

~ 

0 

n 

~ 

rn 

1-3 

> z 

~ 

> 

~ 

~ 

rn 
200 

180 

196 

W-1 

184(2) 

188:5-------

162<2> 

193(2) 

186(2) 

180 

18-9~3(2) ___ _ 

186 

-o:42(io)--

.5 

. 4(2) 

.49(4) 

.54(3) 

<2 • 7 

• 64 

.57(2) 

-:.:;-------

.72 

G-1 

230 

262(2) 

268 

---------- 251.6 

256-<2) _____ _ 

246(2) 

-1:5(2) ___ _ 

.88(4) 

1.5(3) 

<2 .4 

TABLE 105.-Determinations of trace elements in eight USGS standard samples-Continued 

G-2 

48_0 ________ _ 

494 ________ _ 

472 

487 ________ _ 

462(2) 

482.5 

410(2) 

445 (2) 

400 ________ _ 

420 

463 

481 (2) 

474.8(2) 

480(2) 

47-8:9(4) ___ _ 

0.83(5) 

. 73(10) 

.8 

1.5 

.7 

.86 (4) 

.96(3) 

.51 (5) 

o:s<a> ___ _ 

.48(2) 

.43 

.5 

.6 

.75 

GSP-1 

250 

235 

240 

246 

230 

239 

224(2) 

234.5 

193(2) 

224(2) 

240 

247 

236(2) 

233.2(2) 

228(2) 

232.9(8) 

235.8 

-o:si(io)--

1.2 

2.2 

.98(4) 

.96(3) 

.63(5) 

1.4(2) 

1.41 (2) 

---------- 1.6 

1.0 

AGV-1 

690 

663 

660 

641 

650 

66_5_--------

640(2) 

659.8 

606(2) 

612(2) 

400 

650 

657 

666(2) 

656.8(2) 

646 

0.80(10) 

1.7 

1.06 

2.3 

.8 

1.0(4) 

.99(3) 

.55(5) 

i:2(3) ___ _ 

.56(2) 

.62 

.6 

.8 

PCC-1 DTS-1 

Sr-Continued 

<10 

<5 

< .3 

.8 

1.1(2) 

.37 

.3 

.38(2) 

.42(2) 

.44 

.2 

<.05 

<.1 

.0056(4) 

<10 

<5 

< .3 

.7 

1.3(2) 

.34 

.36 

.31(5) 

.39(2) 

Ta 

1.0 

.2 

<.05 

<.1 

.0086(5) 

Tb 

BCR-1 

400 

331 

320 

348 

320 

'322 

320(2) 

329.4 

318(2) 

327(2) 

290(2) 

350(3) 

3i2 ________ _ 

330 

336(2) 

331.4(2) 

328(2) 

325(2) 

326 

336(3) 

0.75(10) 

1.2 

.79 

.99 

1.1 

1 (2) 

.90(3) 

.74(5) 

1 

.80(4) 

.85(3) 

• 50(5) 

. 9(3) 

. 96 (2) 

-:9-------

1 .. 1 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

Reference 

EpiNAA -------------- NAA ------------------

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------ X-ray activation -------

ID -------------------- ID --------------------

ID -------------------- ID 

ID 

ID 

ID 

ID 

ID 

ID -------------------- ID 

INAA ----------------- EpiNAA -------------- INAA -----------------

INAA 

INAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

OS -------------------- SSMS ----------------- SSMS ----------------- SSMS ----------------- Ion exehange-XRF ----

EpiNAA -------------- INAA ----------------- INAA -----------------

INAA ----------------- INAA -----------------

Meth()d 

Fabbi, 1971c. Fairbairn and Hurley, 1971. 

Feather, 1971. 

Goodman, 1971. Heier and Thoresen, 1971. 

Hirst and Kaye, 1971. 

Murad, 1971. 

Sceal and Weaver, 1971. 

Webber and Newbury, 1971. 

Chappell, 1972. 

Brunfelt and Steinnes, 1969c. 

Higuchi, Tomura, Takahashi, and others, 1969a, b. Landstrom and others, 1969. Morrison and others, 1969; Morrison and Kashuba, 1969; Morrison, 1971. Allen and others, 1970; Haskin and others, 1970. 

Filby and others, 1970. Brunfelt and others, 1971. 

Kunzendorf, 1971. 

Hart, 1968. 

Chappell and others, 1969. 

Loveridge and Wanless, 1969. de Laeter and Abercrombie, 1970. Gamot and others, 197'0. Gast and others, 1970. 

Philpotts and Schnetzler, 1970. 

Welin, 1970. 

Ozima and Zashu, 1971. Krahenbuhl and others, 1972. 

Vidal, 1972. 

Aruscavage, 1969. Brunfelt and Steinnes, 1969c . Filby and Haller, 1969; Filby and others, 1970. B. C. Smith, 1970. 

Goles and others, 1971. 

Schiltz, 1968. Landstrom and others, 1969 . Morrison and others, 1969; Morrison, 

1971. Allen and others, 1970; Haskin and others, 1970. Brunfelt and others, 1971. 

Greenland and Campbell, 1971. Acid decomposition. 

Greenland and Campbell, 1971. Na202 decomposition . Anoshin, Perezhogin, and Melnikova, 

1970. 

Cohen and others, 1968. Carver and Johnson, 1968 . Graham and Nicholls, 1969 . Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Eby, 1972 . 

Brunfelt and Steinnes, 1969c • Green and others, 1969. 

Scott, 1969. 

Filby and others, 1970. 

Melson, 1970. 

..... 

co 

~ 

C'! 

c 

a= 

"'C 

~ 

t:-4 

> 

~ ~ 

0 

z 

0 

l'2j 

t:l 

> 

~ 

> 

0 

z 

c:: 

00 

c;') 

00 

00 

~ 

> z 

t:l 

> 

~ 

t:l 

00 

1-l 

0') 

01 
W-1 

0.61 

.71(6) 

.665(5) 

.82(2) 

.57 

.&0 

.61 

.58 

0.48 

<1 

<5 

2.0 

3.7(2) 

2.0 

2.11(3) 

3.0 

2.0(2) 

2.35 

1.9(2) 

2.53 

2.28(2) 

2.38(2) 

6,710(2) 

6,900 

<1 

.102 (2) 

G-1 

0.538(5) 

.43(2) 

<1 

30 

52 

.57 

.88 

. 30 

48(2) 

49.7 

56(2) 

33(2) 

47.30 

52.4(4) 

46.1(6) 

1.4(5) 

1.060(2) 

TABLE 105.-Determinations of trace elements in eight USGS standard samples-Continued 

G-Z 

0,51(8) 

.50(2) 

<1 

23 

26 

.5 

. 40 

• 7 

24.3(4) 

26.6 

24.3 

25.7 

23.3(3) 

26.5 

24(2) 

23.6 

21.2 

19 

26 

25.0(4) 

25.4(2) 

4,000 

2,550 

2,890(4) 

3,080(2) 

2,600 

1.8(4) 

---------- 1.02 

. 890(2) 

GSP-1 

1.31 (7) 

1.31(2) 

<1 

108 

1~3.1(4) 

107.6 

103.1 

106 

101(3) 

144 

104(2) 

103 

102 

103.2 

104(2) 

102(2) 

4J)OO 

3,830 

4,060(2) 

4,060(2) 

4,000 

2.1 (5) 1:87 _____ _ 

1.300(2) 

AGV-1 

0.75(8) 

.72(2) 

.8 

<1 

7 

5 

5.7 

7.0(4) 

6.3 

7.0 

6.4 

5.88(3) 

6.2 

6.2(2) 

6.1 

6.43 

7 

7.1 

s~2o<2> __ _ 6.42(2) 

8,000 

5,740 

6,240(2) 

6,470(2) 

6,300 

<1 

.39 

. 342(2) 

PCc-1 D'f8-1 BCR-1 

Tb-Continued 

<0.04 

.0014 

<1 

<5 

.014 

1 

.0108(2) 

20 

70(2) 

<1 -:35 _____ _ 

.00076(2) 

<0.04 

.00030 

<.0003 

Te 

<1 

Th 

<5 

.013 

1 

.0100(2) 

Ti 

1.22 (8) 

1.17 

1(2) 

.93 

1.19 

1.154 (3) 

1.15(3) 

.87(2) 

• 96 

.96 

(0.4) 

<1 

8 

<6 

5.4 

5 

6.8(4) 

6.1 

6.8 

6.1 

5.60(3) 

9.0 

5.0(2) 

6.02 

5.85 

6 

4:6(2) ___ _ 

6.7 

s:zo<2> __ _ 6.14(2) 

18 15,000 

---------- 12,800 ---------- 13,600(2) 68(2) 13,600(2) 

---------- 11,®0 

Tl 

<1 

• 13 

.00051(2) 

<1 . 3 

.59 

.278(2) 

.330(2) 

Reference 

INAA ----------------- NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

SSMS ----------------- N AA ------------------ N AA ------------------

OS -------------------- XRF ------------------ XRF ------------------ XRF ------------------ SSMS -----------------

"' counting ------------ ____ do ----------------- ____ do ----------------- ____ do ----------------- ____ do -----------------

EpiNAA -------------- IN AA ----------------- INAA ----------------- INAA ----------------- INAA -----------------

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

08-SQ ----------------

XRF ------------------ XRF ------------------ XRF ------------------ INAA -----------------

OS -------------------- SSMS ----------------- Fluorescence 

NAA ------------------

NAA ------------------

Method 

Goles and others, 1971. 

Brunfelt and Steinnes, 1969b. 

Higuchi, Tomura, Onuma, and 

Hamaguchi, 1969. 

Landstrom and others, 1969. 

Morrison and others, 1969; Morrison 

and Kashuba, 1969; Morrison, 1971. 

Petersen and others, 1969 . Schilling and Winchester, 1969. 

Allen and others, 1970. 

Denechaud and others, 1970. 

Graber and others, 1970. 

Haskin and others, 1970. 

Rey and others, 1970 . Brunfelt and others, 1971 • Das and Zonderhuis, 1971 . Ragland and others, 1971. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Reed and Jovanovi~. 1969. 

Laul, Case, Wechter, and others, 1970. 

Cohen and others, 1968. 

Cherry and others, 1970. 

Feather, 1971. 

Kaye, 1972. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

de Ruyter, 1968. 

Gasparini, 1969. 

Cherry and others, 1970. 

Capaldi and others, 1971. 

Heier and Thoresen, 1971. 

Brunfelt and Steinnes, 1969c. 

Filby and others, 1970. 

Simon, 1970. 

Goles and others, 1971. 

Whitley and others, 1971. 

Gangadharam and Parekh, 1968. 

Schlitz, 1968. 

Landstrom and others, 1969. 

Morrison and others, 1969; Morrison 

and Kashuba, 1969; Morrison, 1971. 

Osawa and Goles, 1970. 

Meyer, 1971. 

Norton and Stoenner, 1971. 

Norton and Stoenner, 1971. 

Clark, 1968. 

Franzini and Leoni, 1969. 

Murad, 1969. 

Parker, 1969. 

Filby and Haller, 1969; Filby and 

others, 1970. 

Huber-Schausberger and others, 1970. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969 . Matthews and Riley, 1969 • Ganapathy and others, 1970; Keays 

and others, 1ll70 . Laul, Pelly, and Lipschutz, 1970 . 

~ 

en 

en 

'=' t%J 

00 

0 

~ 1-t 

'"d 

1-3 

1-t 

0 

z 

00 

> z 

'=' 

> z 

> 

~ 00 

t%J 

00 

0 

"%j 

t%J 

1-t 

C) 

I:Il 

1-3 

z 

t%J 

~ 

~ 

00 

C) 

00 

~ 

0 

0 

~ 

00 

1-3 

> z 

'=' > 

~ 

'=' 00 
W-1 

0.108 

. 121 

.116 

. 115(2) 

0.46 

.44. 

-:336 ____ _ 

-(:7;------

• 26 

1.5 

.44 

.66(2) 

. 63 

-:59(3) __ _ 

.61(3) 

.53(2) 

1.04. 

.58 

250 

27-o{1i"o) ____ _ 

300(3) 

250(17) 

256(10) 

240 

24if<4r-----

G-1 

1.415 

1.415 

1.080 

0.20 

.155 

.153 

2.6 

3.14 

4.5(2) 3.2 ______ _ 

2:7(2) ___ _ 

3.36 

16 

15.9(9) 

15(10) 

15 

---------- 19(4) 

TABLE 105.-Determinations of trace elements in eight USGS standard samples-Continued 

G-2 

1.200 

1.200 

1.200 

<-o:4·------

.3 

. lZ 

(.4) 

.3 

-1:0-------

2.2 

2.01 

2~5(4) ___ _ 

2.2 

2.5 

2.1 

1.93 (3) 

2.06(3) 

1.8 

40 

40(3) 

40 

40(5) 

33· 

49(2) 

35(7) 

26(10) 

28 

28(15) 

GSP-1 

1.215 

1.288 

<0..8 

1~8-------

1.9(4) 

2.1 

1.9 

1.7 

2.05(2) 

2.15 (6) 

1.91 

AGV-1 

1.630 

1.630 

1.630(2) 

<0.4o 

.4 

-1:9oc4> __ _ 2.1 

2:o<4> ___ _ 1.4 

2.0 

1.9 

1.90(3) 

1.93(3) 

1.9 

2.0 

60 140 

48(3) 118(3) 

45 120 58 (3) 145 ( 4) 

44 

5!)(2) 

60(7) 

40(10) 

45 

50(15) 

130 

117(2) 

150(3) 

131 (9) 

145(10) 

105 

119(15) 

PCC-1 DTB-1 BCR-1 

TI-Continued 

0.0008 

.00075(2) 

0.0047(4) 

.006 

.005 

.0039(5) 

30 

29(3) 

25 

30(2) 

36 

26.3(10) 

23(10) 

---------- 40 

35(15) 

0.010 

Tm 

<o-.0015 

u 

·o:ooa2<a>-

.oo4 

. 0041(5) 

.004 

. 0030(5) 

v 

0.280(4) 

.350 

.350 

-~269(2)--

0.3 <.4 

.6 

.56(2) 

1.1 

-1~79(5) __ _ 

1.7 

1.64 

-1:9(4) ___ _ 

1.5 

1.9 

1.6 

1.80(3) 

1.94(3) 

1.8(2) 

1.6 

1.73 

1.68(5) 

1.70(4) 

10 350 14 (3) 355 (3) 

15 430 9.5 (2) 351 (8) 

10 

<25 

<10 

---------- 5 

27(15) 

420 

4.18 

377(2) 

42ocar·----

337(9) 

495(10) 

380 

423(15) 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

SSMS 

SSMS 

Reference 

SSMS ----------------- Ion exchange-XRF ----

NAA ------------------

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

OS -------------------- SSMS ----------------- Fission track ---------- ____ do ---------------- ____ do ----------------

____ do ---------------- ____ do ---------------- ')1-oounting 

____ do ____ do 

____ do 

____ do _ --------------- EpiNAA 

EpiNAA 

NAA ------------------

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

IDMS 

OS-SQ ---------------- OS 

OS 

OS -------------------- __ _: ________________ _ 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

Method 

Anders and others, 1971. 

Marowsky, 197la. 

Marowsky, 197lc . Marowsky, 197lb. 

Marowsky and Wedepohl, 1971 . Laul and others, 1972. 

Carver and Johnson, 1968. 

Graham and Nicholls, 1969. Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Eby, 1972. 

Higuchi, Tomura, Takahashi, and others, 1969a; Higuchi and others, 

1970. 

Morrison and others, 1969; Morrison and Kashuba, 1969; Morrison, 1971. 

Rey and others, 1970 . Melson, 1970. 

Schilling and Winchester, 1969 . Das and Zonderhuis, 1971. 

Cohen and others, 1968. Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. Bertine and others, 1970. 

Fisher, 1970. 

Nishimura, 1970a. 

Murali and others, 1970. 

Aruscavage, 1972 . de Ruyter, 1968. 

Gaspirini, 1969. 

Cherry and others, 1970 . 

Capaldi and others, 1971. Heier and Thoresen, 1971. Brunfelt and Steinnes, 1969c. 

Steinnes and Brune, 1969. Landstrom and others, 1969. 

Morrison and others, 1969; Morrison and Kashuba, 1969; Morrison, 1971. Reed and Jovanovic, 1969. 

Nishimura, 1970b. Osawa and others, 1971. Brunfelt and others, 1971. 

Steinnes, 1972c . 

Meyer, 1971. 

Gale, 19-72. 

Clark, 1968. 

Floyd and others, 1968. 

Miksovsky, 1968. 

Ropert and others, 1968. 

Dutra, 1969. 

Champ and others, in Maxwell and others, 1970. Moal and others, 1970. 

Govindaraju, 1970b. Martin and Quintin, 1970. 

Suhr and Smith, 1970. 

Huber-Schausberger and others, 1970. 

Thompson and others, 1970. de Albuquerque, 1971. 

Avni, Hare!, and Brenner, 1972. Blackburn and others, 1971. 

..... 

(.0 

...;r 

1:-.:l 

(."") 

0 

~ 

'"0 

~ 

t"'l 

> 

~ ~ 

0 

z 

0 

l%j 

l:' 

> 

~ 

> 

0 

z 

~ 

l:/.l 

C') 

l:/.l 

l:/.l 

~ 

> z 

l:' 

> 

~ 

l:' 

l:/.l 

1-l 

0':1 

-:t 
W-1 

250(9) 

260.0 

252 

300(2) 

230 

276(4) 

---------- 274(4) 

273(2) 

253 

209 

245(2) 

246 

240 

304 

256(4) 

285 

zio--------

0.45 

.5(2) 

.38(3) 

11 

20(3) 

30(10) 

29 

27 

11 

28 

25 

---------- 20 

22.4 

25 

G-1 

---------- 16 

16.0 

-20 

13 

1.30(2) 

.4(2) 

<.8 

12 

<20 

12 

is ________ _ 

13.1 

TABLE 105.-Determ.inations of trace elements in eight USGS standard samples-Continued 

G-2 

41 (12) 

37 

32(3) 

40 

38 

35.5(2) 

36 

100 

34(2) 

22(2) 

31 

41 

52 

26 

0.00 

-.46 ______ _ 

.04(3) 

10 

15(6) 

<1·0 

---------- <20 

12 

13(2) 

14.4(3) 

10 

8 <8 

11 

9.4(2) 

12.2 

GSP-1 

55(8) 

56.3 

54 

60(2) 

58(3) 

50 

48 

75(2) 

52.5(2) 

57 

101 

61(2) 

36(2) 

55 

56 

65 

0.30(2) 

.12(2) 

---------- 10 

35(3) 

26 

3-4-(1-0y----

---------- 29 

34(2) 

25.5(2) 

41 

17 

34. 

26 

---------- 36.6 

AGV-1 

130(8) 

118 

142(2) 

147-{3) _____ _ 

113(4) 

110 

122 

125(2) 

123(4) 

122(2) 

120 

101 

115(2) 

105(2) 

110 

121 

160 

140 

95 

0.63(2) 

.58 

.45(3) 

25 

25(4) 

30 

19(3) 

30(10) 

25 

10(2) 

i7:4(3) ___ _ 

22 

12 

25 

19 

18 

24.3 

PCC-1 DTS-1 

' V -Continued 

27(4) 

33 

2-9~1(4) ___ _ 

25 

23 

46(7) 

28.2(4) 

22.5(2) 

26 

35-<2) _____ _ 

36 

32 

35 

37 

32(4) 

---------- 12 

27 

0.06(2) 

9.2 

---------- 6.8(4) 

10 

14 

37.5(2) 

6.8(4) 

6.2(2) 

<5 

<£o ________ _ 

15 

20 

10 

6 

1.7 

w 

0.04(2) 

y 

<tio_________ <1o ________ _ 

25 

6-<i-or----

---------- <4 

<5 

<5 ________ _ 

<2 <B 

20 

5(10) <4 ________ _ 

<5 

<5 ________ _ 

<2 <8 

-~o&O ____ _ 

BCR-1 

430(11) 

350.0 

315 

440 

3HI 

46_o_{3y-----

400 ________ _ 

426 

368(7) 

4z2-<2y-----

34s 

476 

402(2) 

404(2) 

430 

403 

340 

375(2) 

400 

4.58 

380 

476 

320 

374 

0.54(2) 

• 7 

-~44(2) __ _ 

.24(3) 

.38 

.381(5) 

28 

45.4(7) 

34 

48 

29(3) 

41(10) 

48---------

16(2> 

32:7(3) ___ _ 44 

23 44 

---------- 33 

39 

36(2) 

46.2 

Reference 

OS -------------------- OS -------------------- OS -------------------- OS --------------------

SSMS -----------------

Chemical --------------- Coulometric ------------ Ion Exchange ---------- Paper chromat-SQ ------ Colorimetric 

____ do ----------------- Spectrophotometric -----

____ do -----------------

AA -------------------- AA --------------------

AA -------------------- XRF -------------------

XRF ------------------- XRF ------------------- INAA 

INAA 

INAA 

INAA 

INAA 

INAA 

NAA 

NAA 

XRF -------------------

Spectrophotometric -----

SSMS ------------------

NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

OS --------------------

OS -------------------- 08-SQ -----------------

OS -------------------- OS --------------------

OS 

OS -------------------- OS -------------------- OS -------------------- OS -------------------- XRF ------------------

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF 

XRF ------------------ XRF ------------------ SSMS ------------------ NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------ X-ray activation -------

Method 

Brenner, 1971.. 

Gerasimovskiy and Laktionova, 1971. 

Hofmeyr, 1972. 

Murad, 1971. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Bernas, 1968. Hetman and Puyo, 1968. 

Toerien, 1969. 

Agrinier, 1968. 

Pouget and others, 1968. 

Roberts, 1971. 

Strelow and others, 1969. 

Donaldson, 1970. 

Price, 1969. 

Buckley and Cranston, 1971. 

Luecke, 1971. 

Parker, 1969. 

Goodman, 1971. 

Fabbi and Espos, 1972a. 

Filby and Haller, 1969; Filby and others, 

1970. 

Gordon and others, 1969. 

Morrison and others, 1969. 

Wyttenbach, 1969. 

Goles and others, 1971. 

Morrison, 1971; Morrison and Kashuba, 

1969. 

Brunfelt and others, 1971. Das and Zonderhuis, 1971. 

Kaye, 1972. 

Kawabuchi and Kuroda, 1970. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969 . Landstrom and others, 1969. 

Morrison and others, 1969; Morrison and 

Kashuba, 1969; Morrison, 1971. 

Johanson and Steinnes, 1970. 

Brunfelt and others, 1971. 

Brunfelt and Steinnes, 1971b. 

lvanova, 1966. 

Cohen and others, 1968. 

Clark, 1968. 

Dutra, 1969. 

Champ and others, in Maxwell and 

others, 1970. 

Moal and others, 197·0. 

Suhr and Smith, 1970. 

Thompson and others, 1970. 

de Albuquerque, 1971. 

Hofmeyr, 1972. 

Parker, 1969. 

Quintin, 1970. 

Eby, 1972. 

Feather, 1971. 

Goodman, 1971. 

Fabbi, 1972b. 

Sceal and Weaver, 1971. 

Kaye, 1972. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Schilling and Winchester, 1969. 

Rey and others, 1970. 

Kunzendorf, 1971. 

1-' 

0) 

00 

t:1 

tzj 

00 

(j 

~ 1-4 

"1::1 

~ 1-4 

0 

z 

00 

> z 

t:1 

> z 

> 

~ 00 

tzj 

00 

0 

l'%j 

tzj 

1-4 

0 

= 

~ 

z 

tzj 

~ 

c:: 

00 

0 

00 

~ 

0 

a 

l':t 

00 

~ 

> z 

t:1 

> 

~ 

t:1 

00 
W-1 

2~8(i7) __ _ -i.i(il) ___ _ 2.3 

2.30 

1.7 

i:s
 ___ _ 

2.5 

2.4 

2.1 

2·.08(4) 

2:os<5> __ _ 

2.29(5) 

1.5(2) 

2.2 

2.18 

2.3 

1.71 

---------- 2.14. 

82(24) socio_> ____ _ 99-{£> _____ _ 

95 

88 9o:s ______ _ 83 

90(4) 

84.2(8) 

80 

85(8) 

87 

69(3) 

70(8) 

85-c2r-----

110 

79 

82(2) 

G-1 

-1~o<9> ___ _ 

---------- .7 

.37 

-:93(5) __ _ 

---------- 1.04 

1.84 

.778 

-:72(2) __ _ 

46(5) 

5-i{io) ____ _ 

---------- 88 

5·rc4r-----

47 ________ _ 

si-c2r-----

44-{2-,------

TABLE 105.-Determinations of trace elements in eight USGS standard samples-Continued 

G-2 

1.2(2) 

. 8(7) 

1 <:& ______ _ 

-:9(3) ___ _ 

.86 

---------- 1.8 

.9 

-:68(2) __ _ 

.86(4) 

.90 

.85 

.7 

76(4) 

90 

87(10) 

100 

158 

101 8-i.o ______ _ 

89-c4r-----

{8---------

118(8) 

81(2) 

80 

83(6) 

1.00 

76(4) 

86(15) 

84(10) 

89(2) 

90(2) 

GSP-1 

2(2) 

2.3(7) 

2 i:4 ______ _ 

i:o
 ___ _ 

i:s ______ _ 2.5 

1.74(2) 

1.93(5) 

155(6) 

7~ 

95(Ul) 

185 

77 

120 

1os:ii-------

111 

112(4) 

ss---------

128<8> 

104.(8) 

1'()1 

108(5) 

140 

114(4) 

95(4) 

98(15) 

108(2) 

110(2) 

84 104 

AGV-1 

1.8(2) 

1.9(9) 

4 

1.6(3) 

1.6 

-1~4(3) ___ _ 

1.45 

---------- 3.0 

-1:68(2) __ _ 

1.91 (5) 

1.9 

90(3) 

90 

105 (10) 

120 

77 

95 

95:8-------

110 

86(4) 

85(2) 

78 

120(8) 

86 

90 

89(5) 

120 

98(4) 

75(8) 

78(4) 

93(2) 

96(2) 

82 

<1 <2 

2 

PCc-1 

---------- .9 

.023 

<.05 

57(2) 

50 

26(10) 

70 

40 

42 

7o-c8) _____ _ 

37(2) 

2sc&r-----

6o 

48(4) 

41(2) 

41(4) 

50(2) 

42 

DT8-t. 

Yb 

1 (2) <1 

2 

---------- .7 

.0057 

<.02 

.018 

Zn 

66(2) 

58 

27(10) 

80 

46 

40 

72( 

6-·i{8) _____ _ 

89(2) 

29-<&r-----

90 

55(4) 

42(2) 

4.3(4) 

50(2) 

BCR-1 

4.1(6) 

5.8(9) 

7 

3.2(3) 

8.2 

---------- 8.3 

2.8(2) 

'8.5(8) 

8.9 

3.38(2) 

3.68(2) 

3M 

8.58(2) 

3.69(5) 

3.1(2) 

3.1 

3.51 

8.48(3) 

---------- 3.2 

3.4(2) 

8.21(5) 

a:s·------

140(4) 

174 

110(10) 

100 

135 

145 

120 

141.7 

139 

131 (4) 

128(2) 

112 

153(3) 

128(2) 

130 

125(5) 

180 

128(4.) 

102(2) 

102(4) 

138(2) 

1lU)(2) 

48 120 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

Reference 

SSMS ------------------ SSMS ------------------ SSMS ------------------ XRF ------------------ EpiNAA ---------------

INAA 

INAA 

INAA 

INAA 

INAA 

ID --------------------- ID --------------------- ID --------------------- NAA ------------------

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

OS 

OS 

OS 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA 

AA -------------------- AA -------------------- AA -------------------- Paper chromat-SQ -----

XRF -------------------

XRF ------------------- XRF ------------------- XRF ------------------- XRF ------------------- XRF -------------------

Method 

Dutra, 1969. 

Huber-Schausberger and others, 1970 • Moal and others, 1970. 

Suhr and Smith, 1970. 

Hofmeyr, 1972. 

Carver and Johnson, 1968. 

Graham and Nicholls, 1969. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Eby, 1972. 

Brunfelt and Steinnea, 1969c. 

Green and others, 1969. 

Scott, 1969. 

Filby and others, 1970. 

Melson, 1970. 

Goles and others, 1971. 

Philpott& and Schnetzler, 1970. 

Gast and others, 1970. 

Schnetzler and Nava, 1971. 

Higuchi, Tomura, Onuma, and 

Hamaguchi, 1969. 

Brunfelt and Steinnea, 1969b. 

Landstrom and others, 1969. 

Morrison and others, 1969; Morrison and 

Kashuba, 1969; Morrison, 1971. 

Peterson and others, 1969. 

Schilling and Winchester, 1969. 

Allen and others, 1970. 

Denechaud and others, 1970; Haskin 

and others, 1970. 

Graber and others, 1970. 

Higuchi and others, 1970. 

Osawa and Goles, 1970. 

Rey and others, 1970. 

Brunfelt and others, 1971. 

Das and Zonderhuis, 1971. 

Ragland and others, 1971. 

Huber-Schausberger and others, 1970. 

Moal and others, 1970. 

Thompson and others, 1970. 

Ropert and Broudic, 1968. 

Bender and Schultz, 1969. 

Price, 1969. 

Sighinolfi, 1969. 

Abbey, in Maxwell and others, 1970. 

Fletcher, 1970. 

Govindaraju, 1970b. 

Langmyhr, 1970. 

Rose. 1970. 

Smith and Rose, 1970. 

Buckley and Cranston, 1971. 

Cioni and others, 1971. 

Rosman and Jeffrey, 1971. 

Walsh, 1972. 

Terashima, 1971a, b. 

Agrinier, 1968. 

Butler, 1968. 

Murad, 1968. 

Murad, 1969. 

Parker, 1969. 

Schneider, 1969. 

Quintin, 1970. 

XRF ------------------- Feather, 1971. 

XRF ------------------- Hirst and Kaye, 1971. 

..... 

co 

..::I 

~ 

c 

0 

~ 

~ 

"""" 

~ t-3 

0 """" 

z 

0 

":j 

t:! 

> t-3 

> 

0 

z 

~ 

00 

~ 

00 

00 

~ z 

t:! 

> 

~ 

t:! 

00 

~ 

~ 
W-1 

82-<"if> _____ _ 

90 

80 

89 

92(2) 

82 

92 

89 

84.9(5) 

80 

---------- 80.1 

89.3(6) 

12-0-{9) _____ _ 

1o3Ti7) ____ _ 

94(3) 

95 

113(10) 

109(4) 

138(9) 

11-f(4y-----

111(4) 

98-{2) _____ _ 

134 

99 

101 

ii(i> _____ _ 

---------- 91 

105-(i> _____ _ 

11-o-(3y-----

---------- 100 

G-1 

47(2) 

43(2) 

44 

---------- 206(9) 

---------- 195 

197 (10) 

218(4) 

184 

210-(2) _____ _ 

2ii(i> _____ _ 

202-(i> _____ _ 

21-9-(3y-----

TABLE 105.-Determinations of trace elements in eight USGS stanclard samples-Continued 

G-2 

84.6(2) 

88(2) 

83 

92 

93 

84 

80.6(5) 

79 

83.9(3) 

300 

295(8) ai7<"4) _____ _ 

856 (7) 

22o-<10> ____ _ 

27"7 (15) 

256 (12) 

300 

---------- 250 

394(2) 

305(2) 

28_£ _______ _ 

307 

---------- 321 

345(2) 

252 2a6 ________ _ 

a93-{3y-----

ai6 ________ _ 

GSP-1 

101.5(2) 

105(2) 

64 

107 

96.7(5) 

116 

105.1 (5) 

500 

487(8) 

643-<ar-----

885<7> 

4.orr<ior----

525(15) 

525 (7) 

500 

220 _______ _ 

681(2) 

540(2) 650 ________ _ 

525 

502 

54'if _______ _ 

574(2) 

255 

64-5{2_> _____ _ 

544 ________ _ 

AGV-1 

89.6(2) 

88(2) 

88 

---------- 85 

96 

64 

81.1(5) 

88 

8i7(2) ___ _ 

PCC-1 

48.4(2) 

44(2) 

46 

30 

17 

45 

20 

44 

54.9 

38.6(4) 

DT8-1 

Zn-Continued 

50(2) 

4.2(2) 

53 

30 

61 

si.i<sr---

Zr 

200 ---------- ---------- 180(3) 37(3) 30(3) 

250(4)______ <10--------- <10---------

205 (9) <20 <20 

215(3) 

22o-<io) ____ _ 246(15) 

250(9) 

230 

185(4) 

188(4) 

100 

280(2) 

230(2) 

240 ________ _ 

280 

228 206 ________ _ 

230(2) 

229 

213 244 ________ _ 

218---------

227 ________ _ 

<5 ________ _ 

<10 

5.9(4) 

5.9(4) 

<50 

<5 

<5 ________ _ 

<2 

s:i<2> ___ _ 

<5 ________ _ 

<10 

-a:2(4) ___ _ 4.3(4) 

<50 

<5 

<5 ________ _ 

<2 

-1~4(2) ___ _ 

BCR-1 

123(2) 

122(2) 

123 

145 

13"i-<"2Y ____ _ 

118 

100(3) 

133 

96 

126 (2) 

127.4 (5) 

117 

116(5) 

127.4 

124(2) 

129.4(2) 

2i00 

162(3) 

199-<7) _____ _ 

2:0::8(9) 

94(3) 

200(1_0_) ____ _ 

186 (15) 

240(11) 

140 

180 

60 ________ _ 

198(2) 

185(2) 189 ________ _ 

182 

182 

---------- 172 

198(2) 

184 

27-i(2y-----

274 

184(8) 

290 

196(8) 

185 

194 

Reference 

XRF ------------------- XRF ------------------- XRF -------------------

SSMS ------------------ NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA 

NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------ ID ---------------------

OS-SQ ----------------- OS -------------------- OS -------------------- OS -------------------- OS --------------------

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS -------------------- SSMS ------------------ Spectrophotometric -----

Ion exchange ----------

XRF -------------------

XRF ------------------- XRF ------------------- XRF ------------------- XRF ------------------- XRF -------------------

XRF ------------------- XRF ------------------- XRF ------------------- XRF ------------------- XRF -------------------

INAA ----------------- N.AA ------------------ NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------

NAA ------------------ NAA ------------------ X-ray activation -------

ID ---------------------

Method 

Webber and Newbury, 1971. 

Fabbi and Espos, 1972a. 

Kaye, 1972. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Case and others, 1969. 

Filby and Haller, 1969. 

Landstrom and others, 1969. 

Mor.rison and others, 1969; Morrison and 

Kashuba, 1969; Morrison, 1971. 

Peterson and others, 1969. 

Allen and others, 1970; Haskin and 

others, 1970. 

Baedeeker and others, 1971. 

Filby and others, 1970. 

Ganapathy and others, 1970. 

Johansen and Steinnes, 1970. 

Laul, Case, Wechter, and others, 1970. 

Anders and others, 1971. 

Brunfelt and others, 1971. 

Nadkarni and Haldar, 1971a. 

Laul and others, 1972. Rosman and Jeffrey, 1971. 

Clark, 19b8. 

Floyd and others, 1968. 

Sighinolft, 1968 

Dutra, 1969. 

Huber-Schausberger and others, 1970. 

Suhr and Smith, 1970. 

de Albuquerque, 1971. 

Thompson and others, 1970. 

Blackburn and others, 1971. 

Brenner, 1971. 

Murad, 1971. 

Morrison and Ka~huba, 1969. 

Strelow and others, 1969. 

Toerein, 1969. 

Guillemaut, 1968. 

Parker, 1969. Schn~ider, 1969. 

Quintin, 1970. 

Feather, 1971. 

Goodman, 1971. 

Heier and Thoresen, 1971. 

Hirst and Kaye, 1971. 

Sceal and Weaver, 1971. 

Webber and Newbury, 1971. 

Kaye, 1972. 

Whitley and others, 1971. 

Landstrom and others, 1969. 

Morrison and others, 1969. 

Morrison and Kashuba, 1969. 

Rebagay, 1969. 

Morrison, 1971. 

KrahenbUhl and others, 1972. 

Kunzendorf, 1971. 

Schnetzler and Nava, 1971. 

.....,. 

..;:) 

0 

t=' 

t:rJ 

00 

n 

~ 1-4 

'"d 

~ 1-4 

0 

z 

00 

> z 

t=' 

> z 

> 

~ 00 

t:rJ 

00 

0 

l'%j 

t:rJ 

1-4 

C:l 

= 

~ 

z 

t:rJ 

~ 

c::: 

00 

C:l 

00 

~ 

0 

~ 

~ 

00 

~ 

> z 

t=' 

> 

~ 

t=' 

00 
1972 COMPILATION OF DATA ON USGS STANDARDS 

TABLE 106.-Estimates of components normally determined in a rock analysis, in percent 

[Data are listed as recommended, averages, or magnitudea] 

SiO. ------------------------ AlzOs ----------------------- F~Os -----------------------

FeO ------------------------ Mg{) ------------------------

CaO ------------------------ NazO ----------------------- ~0 ------------------------- H.o+ ------------------------ H.o- ------------------------

~0. ------------------------ PzO&-------------------------

lfnO ------------------------ co. ------------------------- Total ------------------------

Total Fe as Fe:zOs -----------

0 --------------------------

W-1 

52.64 

15.00 

1.40 

8.72 

6.62 

10.96 

2.15 .,4 

.53 

.16 

1.07 

.14 

.17 

.06 

100.26 

11.09 

44.77 

G-1 

72.64 

14.04 

.87 

.96 

.38 

1.39 

3.32 

5.48 

.34 

.06 

.26 

.09 

.03 

.07 

99.93 

1.94 

G-2 

69.11 

15.40 

1.08 

1.45 

.76 

1.94 

4.07 

4.51 

.55 

.11 

.50 

.14 

.034 

.08 

99.73 

2.65 

48.34 

GSP-1 

67.38 

15.25 

1.77 

2.31 

.96 

2.02 

2.80 

5.53 

.57 

.12 

.66 

.28 

.042 

.15 

99.84 

4.33 

47.78 

AGV-1 

59.00 

17.25 

4.51 

2.05 

1.53 

4.90 

4.26 

2.89 

.81 

1.03 

1.04 

.49 

.097 

.05 

99.91 

6.76 

47.24 

TABLE 107.-Estimates for trace elements in USGS samples 

PCC-1 

41.90 

.74 

2.85 

5.24 

43.18 

.51 

.006 

.004 

4.70 

.50 

.015 

.002 

.12 

.12 

99.89 

8.35 

DTS-1 

40.50 

.24 

1.21 

7.23 

49.80 

.15 

.007 

.0012 

.46 

.06 

.013 

.002 

.11 

.08 

99.86 

8.64 

171 

BCR-1 

54.50 

13.61 

3.69 

8.80 

3.46 

6.92 

3.27 

1.70 

.77 

.80 

2.20 

.36 

.18 

.03 

100.2S 

13.40 

45.48 

[Data are listed as recommended, averages, or magnitudea; in all parts per million, except for Au, Hg, Ir, Os, Pd, Pt, Re, Rh, and Ru, in parts 

per billion and for Ra in p,p,gfg] 

Element 

Ag ------------

As ------------ Au -------------

B ------------- Ba -------------

Be -------------

Bi ------------- Br -------------

C -------------- Cd ------------

ce ------------- CI ------------- Co ------------- Cr ------------- Cs -------------

Cu ------------ Dy ------------

Er ------------ Eu ------------

F -------------

Ga ------------ Gd .------------

Ge ------------- Hf ------------ Hg ------------

Ho ------------

I --------------

In ------------- Ir ------------- La -------------

Li ------------- Lu ------------ Mn ------------ Mo ------------ N -------------

Nb ------------ Nd ------------

W-1 

0.081 

1.9 

3.7 

15 

160 

.8 

.046 

.4 

.15 

23 

200 

47 

114 

.9 

110 

4 

2.4 

1.11 

250 

16 

4 

1.1,. 

2.67 

225 

.69 

<.03 

.065 

.28 

9.8 

14.5 

.35 

1,278 

.57 

52 

9.5 

15 

G-1 

0.05 

.5 

4.0 

1.7 

1,200 

3 

.065 

.4 

170 

70 

.03 

2.4 

20 

. 1.5 

13 

2.4 

1.15 

1.3 

690 

19.6 

5 

1.1 

5.2 

97 

.35 

<.03 

.02 

:oo8 

101 

22 

.19 

195 

6.5 

59 

23.5 

56 

G-2 

0.049 

.25 

1.0 

2.0 

1,870 

2.6 

.043 

.3 

.039 

150 

60 

5.5 

7 

1.4 

11.7 

2.6 

1.3 

1.5 

1,290 

22.9 

5 

1.15 

7.35 

39 

.034 

.002 

96 

34.8 

.11 

260 

.86 

56 

13.5 

60 

GSP-1 

0.10 

.09 

1.6 

<3 

1,300 

1.5 

.037 

.06 

394 

300 

6.4 

12.5 

1.0 

33.3 

5.4 

3.0 

2.4 

3,200 

22 

15 

1.8 

15.9 

15.5 

<.5 

.05 

.012 

191 

32.1 

.23 

331 

.90 

48 

29 

188 

AGV-1 

0.11 

.8 

5 

1,208 

.6 

3 

.057 

.5 

.09 

63 

1.10 

14.1 

12.2 

1.4 

59.7 

3.5 

1.2 

1.7 

435 

20.5 

5.5 

1.3 

5.2 

15 

.6 

.04 

.011 

85 

1.2 

.28 

763 

2.8 

43 

15 

39 

PCC-1 

0.005 

.05 

1.6 

6 

1.2 

.013 

.6 

.1 

.09 

60 

112 

2,730 

.006 

11.3 

.002 

15 

.93 

.06 

7.2 

.008 

5.2 

.15 

2 

.006 

959 

.2 

43 

<2 

DTS-1 

0.008 

.03 

.8 

<5 

2.4 

.010 

.2 

.12 

.06 

11 

133 

4,000 

.006 

7.0 

.003 

<.003 

.0009 

15 

.2 

<.01 

.90 

.01 

8.7 

.008 

.0025 

1.0 

.04 

2 

.002 

969 

.2 

27 

<3 <.02 

BCR-1 

0.036 

.70 

.95 

5 

675 

1.7 

.050 

.15 

65 

.12 

53.9 

50 

88 

17.6 

.95 

18.4 

6.3 

3.59 

1.94 

470 

20 

6.6 

1.54 

4.7 

10.7 

1.! 

<1 

.095 

.001, 

26 

12.8 

.55 

1,406 

11.1 

30 

13.5 

29 
172 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

TABLE 107.-Estimates /0'1' trace elements in USGS samples-Continued 

Element W-1 G-1 G-2 

Ni ------------ 76 1 5.1 

Os ------------ .25 .07 -------- Pb ------------ 7.8 48 31.2 

Pd ------------ 25 2 <-5 

Pr ------------ 8.,4 19 19 

Pt ------------- 12 19 <.5 

Ra ----------- -------- -------- .71 

Rb ------------ 21 220 168 

Re ------------ <2 <2 <7 

Rh ------------ <1 -------- -------- Ru ------------ -------- -------- s -------------- 123 58 24 

Sb ------------ 1.0 .31 .1 

Se ------------ 35.1 2.9 3.7 

Se ------------- .13 .007 <.7 

Sm ------------ 3.6 8.3 7.3 

Sn ------------ 3.2 3.5 1.5 

Sr ------------ 190 250 479 

Ta ------------ .50 1.5 .91 

Tb ------------ .65 .54 .54 

Te ------------ <1 <1 <1 

Th ------------ 2.42 50 24.2 

Ti ------------- -------- -------- 2,780 

Tl ------------- .11 1.24 1.0 

Tm ------------ .30 .15 .3 

u ------------- .58 3.4 2.0 

v ------------- 264 17 35.4 

w ------------- .5 

'"" 

.1 

y --.----------- 25 13 12 

Yb ------------ 2.1 1.06 .88 

Zn 86 45 85 

Zr -============ 

105 210 300 

REFERENCES 

Abbey, Sydney, 1968, Analysis of rocks and minerals by 

atomic absorption spectroscopy. Pt 2. Det-ermination of 

total !iron, magnesium, calcium, sodium, and potassium: 

Canada Geol. Survey Paper 68-20, 21 p. 

--- 1970, U.S. Geological SUil"Vey Standards-a critical 

study of published analytical data: Canadian Speetros~ 

copy,v. 15,p. 10-16. 

--- 1971, Written communication, Geol. Survey of Canada, 

Ottawa. 

Agrinier, H., 1968, Written communication, Commisariat a 

L'Energie Atomique, Chatillon-sous-Bagneux, France. 

Allen, R. 0., Haskin, L. A., Anderson, M. R., and Miiller, 0., 

1970, Neutron activation analysis for 39 elements in small 

or precious geologie samples: Jour. Radioanal. Chemistry, 

v. 6, p. 115-137. 

Anders, Edward, Ganapathy, R., Keays, R. R., Laul, J. C., and 

Morgan, J. W., 1971, Volatile and siderophile elements 

in lunar rocks; comparison with terrestrial and meteoritic 

basalts, in Lunar Sei. Conf., 2d, Houston, Tex., 1971, 

Proc., V. 2: Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press ( Geochim. et 

Cosmoehim. Acta Supp. 2), p. 1021-1036. 

Ando, Atsushi, 1971, Written communication, Geol. Survey of 

Japan, Kawasaki. 

Anoshin, G. N., and Perezhogin, G. A., 1969, 1971, Written 

communication, Inst. Geol. and Geophysics, Si·berian 

Branch, U ..S.S.R. Acad. Sci., Novosibirsk. 

GSP-1 AGV-1 PCG-1 DT8-1 BCR-1 

12.5 18.5 2,339 2,269 15.8 

<32 <34 11 1 .1 

51.3 35.1 13.3 14.2 17.6 

<.5 <.5 18 1 12 

50 7 -------- .006 7 

<.5 1 8 8 2 

.66 .69 .0018 .0013 .56 

254 67 .063 .053 46.6 

<2 <5 .07 <.4 .8 

-------- -------- 1.0 .9 .2 

-------- -------- 9.5 2.5 1 

162 <10 <10 <10 892 

3.1 4.5 1.4 .,46 .69 

7.1 13.4 6.9 8.6 83 

<.04 <.14 <.18 <.3 .10 

27.1 5.9 .008 .004 6.6 

6.3 4.2 1 1 1.$.6 

233 657 .41 .35 330 

1.0 .9 <.1 <.1 .91 

1.3 .70 .001 .0008 1.0 

<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 

104 6.41 .01 .01 6.0 

3,990 6,190 70 ·71 12,750 

1.8 1 .0008 .0005 .3() 

-------- '"" -------- .001 .6 

1.96 1.88 .005 .004 1.74 

52.9 125 30 10.3 399 

.1 .55 .06 .04 .40 

30.4 21.3 <5 .05 37.1 

1.8 1.7 .02 .01 3.36 

98 84 36 45 120 

500 225 7 8 .190 

Anoshin, G .N., Perezhoglin, G. A., and Melnikova, R. D., 1970, 

Written communication, Inst. Geol. and Geophysics, Siberian Branch, U.S.S.R. Aead. Sci., Novosibirsk. 

Aruscavage, P. J., 1969, 1972, Written communication, U.S. 

Geol. Survey, Denver, Colo. 

Aston, S. R., and Rdiey, J. P., 1972, The detennination of 

mercury in rocks 8illd sediments: Anal. Chim. Acta, v. 59, 

p. 349-355. 

Aubert, Ch., and Desjardins, M., 1971, Written communication, Societe Nationale des Petroles d'Aquitaline, Paris, 

France. 

Avni, R., Barel A., and Brenner, I. B., 1972, A new approach 

to the spectrochemical analy!Sis of silicate II'OCks and minerals: Appl. Spectroscopy, v. Z6, p. 641-645. 

Baedecker, P. A., Sehaudy, Rudolph, Elzie, J. L., Kimberlin, 

J., and Esson, J. T., 1971, Trace element studies of rocks 

and soils from Oceanus Proeellarum and Mare Tranquillitatis, in Lunar Sci. Conf., 2d, Houston, Tex., 1971, 

Proe., V. 2: Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press (Geochim et 

Cosmoehim. Acta, Supp. 2), p. 1037-1061. 

Baedecker, P. A., and Wasson, J. T., 1970, Gallium, germanium, indium, and tiridium in lunar samples: Science, 

v. 167,no. 3918,p. 503-505. 

Balous, M., and Thiel, R., 1968, Dosage de sept elementstraces par spectrophotometrie d'ahs'Orption atomique dans 

six stand:ardiS U.S.G.S.: Cellltre Researohes Pa.u Bull. v. 

2, p. 179-182. 
1972 COMPILATION OF DATA ON USGS STANDARDS 173 

Bartel, Ardith, J., 1969, Written communication, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colo. 

Beccaluva, L., and VenturelLi, G., 1971, Nickel, chromium, and 

strontium determination in some silicate rock standards 

by atomic absorption spectrophotometry: Atomic Absorption Newsletter, v. 10, no. 2, p. 50-52. 

--- 1972, Written communication, Istituto di Mineralogia, 

Univ. di Parma, Italy. 

Bell, Keith, and Doyle, R. J ., 1971, K-Rb relationships in 

some continental alkalic rocks associated with the East 

African Rift Valley system: Geochim. et Cosmochim. 

Acta, v. 35, p. 903-915. 

Bell, Keith, and Powell, J. L., 1969, Strontium isotopic studies 

of alkalic rocks; the potassium-rich lavas of the Birunga 

and Toto--Ankole regions, East and Central Equatorial 

Africa: Jour. Petrology, v. 10, p. 536-572. 

Bender, M. L., and Schultz, Oynrthia, 1969, The distribution of 

·trace metals in cores from a traverse across the Indian 

Ocean: Geochim et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 33, p. 292-297. 

Bernas, Bedrich, 1968, A ne.w method for decompo•sition and 

comprehensive analysis of silicates by atomic absorption 

spectrometry: Anal. Chemistry, v. 40, p. 1682-1686. 

Bertine, K. K., Chan, L. H., and Turek.ian, K. K., 1970, 

Uranium determinations in deep-sea sediments and natural 

waters using fission tracks: Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, 

v. 34, p. 641-648. 

Bewers, J. M., and Flack, F. C;, 1969, Determination of 

fluorine by prompt y-radiation from proton bombardment. 

II. Results: Analyst, v. 94, p. 7-14. 

Biagi, Laura, 1970, I limiti dei metodi rapidi in fotometria di 

assorbimento per il dosaggo di Si02 e Al20a: Mineralog. 

et Petrog. Acta, v. 16, p. 33-44. 

Bibby, D. M., 1972, written communication, Univ. of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. 

Bircz, R., 1971, Spectrochemical determination of lithium, 

rubidium, and cesium in geological standards: Israel 

Atomic Energy Comm. Rept. IA-1244, 13 p. 

Blackburn, W. H., Griswold, T. B., and Dennen, W. H., 1971, 

Spectrochemical determinations of trace elements in the 

U.S.G.S. silicate rock stand&~rds: Chern. Geology, v. 7, p. 

143-147. 

Blount, C. W., Leyden, D. E., Thomas, T. L., and Guill, S. M., 

1972, Written communication, Dept. Geol., Univ. of 

Georgia, Athens. 

Boar, P. L., and Ingram, L. K., 1970, The comprehensive 

analysis of coal ash and silicate rocks by atomic absorption spectrophotometry by a fusion technique: Analyst, 

v. 95, p. 124-130. 

Bodart, D. E., 1970, Rapid colorimetric determinations of 

cobalt, nickel, and copper in silicate rocks: Chern. Geology, v. 6, p. 133-142. 

Borgen, B. L., 1967, Analytical procedures used in the geochemical laboratory of the Survey: Grfl,lnlands Geol. Undersfl,lgelse Rap. 10, 44 p. 

Bostrom, Kurt, and Valdes, Sylvia, 1969, Arsenic in ocean 

floors: Li~os, v. 2, p. 351-360. 

Bratzel, M. P., Jr., Chakrabarti, C. L., Sturgeon, R. E., 

Mcintyre, M. W., and Agemain, Haig, 1972, Determination of gold and silver in parts-per-billion or lower levels 

in geological and metallurgical samples by atomic absorption spectrometry with a carbon rod atomizer: Anal. 

Chemistry, v. 44, p. 372-374. 

Breger, I. A., and Chandler, J. C., 1969, Determination of 

fixed water in rocks by infrared absorption: Anal. Chemistry, v. 41, p. 506-510. 

Brenner, I. B., 1971, Written communication, Geol. Survey 

of Israel, Jerusalem. 

Brimhall, Willis H., and Embree, Glenn F., 1971, Rapid 

analySiis ~f basalts by atomic absorption spectrophotometry: Brigham Young Univ. Geology Studies, v. 18, 

pt. 3 (Dec.), p. 123-130. 

Briscoe, G .. B., and Humphries, S., 1970, Substoichiometric 

determination of traces of palladium by neutron activation analysis: Talanta, v. 17, p. 371-380. 

--- 1971, Substoichiometric determination of traces of 

palladium by radioactive isotope-dilution analysis: Talanta, v. 18, p. 39-49. 

Brooks, C. K., 1968, A radiochemical separation for the determination of zirconium or hafnium in rocks and minerals by neutron activation analysis: Radiochim. Acta, v. 

9, p. 157-160. 

Brown, D. F. G., MacKay, A. M., and Turek, A., 1969, Preparation of stable silica standard solutions in rock analysis 

using lithium tetraborate: Anal. Chemistry, v. 41, p. 2091. 

Brunfelt, A. 0., Heier, K. S., and Steinnes, Eiliv, 1971, Determination of 40 elements in Apollo 12 materials by 

neutron 1lctivation analysis, in Lunar Sci. Conf., 2d, 

Houston, Tex., 1971, Proc., V. 2: Cambridge, Mass., MIT 

Press ( Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, Supp. 2), p. 1281-

1290. 

Brunfelt, A. 0., and Steinnes, Eiliv, 1969a Antimony content 

of some standard rocks: Earth and Planetary Sci. Letters, v. 5, p. 282-284. 

--- 1969b, Determination of lutetium, ytterbium, and terbium in rocks by neutron activation and mixed solvent 

anion-exchange chromatography: Analyst, v. 94, p. 979-

984. 

--- 1969c, Instrumental activation analysis of silicate rocks 

with epithermal neutrons: Anal. Chim. Acta, v. 48, p. 13-

24. 

--- 1969d, A simple neutron activation method for silver 

in rocks: Radioehem. and Radioanal. Letters, v. 1, p. 

219-224. 

--- eds., 1971a, Activation analysis in geochemistry and 

cosmochemistry; Proceedings of the NATO Advanced 

Study IIliStitute, Kjeller, Norway, 7-21 September 1970: 

Oslo, Universitetsforlaget, 468 p. 

--- 1971b, A neutron activation scheme developed fC1r the 

determination of 42 elements in lunar material: Talanta, 

v. 18,p. 1197-1208. 

Buckley, D. E., and Cranston, R. E., 1971, Atomic absorption 

analysis of 18 elements from a single decomposition of 

aluminosilicate: Chern. Geology, v. 7, p. 273-284. 

Butle:-, L. R. P., 1968, Written communication, Natl. Phys. 

Research Lab., Pretoria, South Africa. 

Butler, L. R. P., and Kokot, M. L., 1969, The application of 

atomic absorption to the analysis of upper mantle and 

other rocks: Geol. Soc. South Africa Spec. Pub. 2, p. 

449-462. 

Campbell, E. Y., 1969, Written communication, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 

Capaldi, G., Civetta, L., and Gasparini, P., 1971, Fractionation of the 1138U decay series in the zeolitization of volcanic 

ashes: Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 35, p. 1067-

1072. 
174 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

Carpenter, Roy, 1969, Factors controlling the marine geochemistry of fluorine; Geoch!im. et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 

33, p. 1153-1167. 

Carver, R. D., and Johnson, P. G., 1968, Use of a spark 

source ma~SS spectrograph for the general analysis of 

geological samples: Appl. Spectroscopy, v. 2J2, p. 431-

433. 

Casanova, L., Emiliani, F., Fanti, E., and Venturelli, G., 1968, 

Contributo alia conoscenza di nuovi standards silicatici 

naturali. Dosaggi di Si02, Al20a, Fe tot. (come F~Oa), 

CaO, MgO, Ti02, MnO e relativi controlLi di accuratezza: 

Atemeo Parmense, Segione 2, Acta Naturalia, v. 4, fasc. 

3, p. 3-23. 

Case, D. R., Laul, J. C., Lipschutz, M. E., and SchmidtBleek, F., 1969, Trace activation analysis of element 

groups with computer :reduction of Ge(Li) spectra: 

Radiochem. and Radioanal. Letters, v. 1, p. 143-147. 

Catte!rmole, P. J., and Fuge, R., 1969, The abundances and 

distribution of fluorine and chlorine in a layered intrusion at Rhiw, North Wales; Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, 

v.33,no. lO,p. 1295-1298. 

Chalmers, R. A., and Basit, M. A., 1968, Micro-analysis of 

silicate rocks; Part V, Spectrophotometric determination 

of alumina: Analyst, v. 93, p. 629-632. 

Chappell, B. W., 1972, Written communication, Dept. Geol., 

Australian National Univ., Canberra. 

Chappell, B. W., Compston, W., Arriens, P. A., and Vernon, 

M. J ., 1969, Rubidium and ·strontium determinations by 

X-ray fluore:::cence spectrometry and isotope dilution below the part per million level: Geooh.im. et Cosmochim. 

Acta, v. 33, no. 8, p. 1002-1006. 

Cherry, R. D., Hobbs, J. B. M., Erlank, A. J., and Willis, J. 

P., 1970, Thorium, uranium, potassium, lead, strontium, 

and rubidium in silicate rocks by gamma-spectroscopy 

and/or X-ray fluorescence: Canadian Spectroscopy, v. 15, 

p. 3--9. 

Cioni, R., Innocenti, F., and Mazzuoli, R., 1971, Chemical 

analysis and some trace element data on standard silicate 

rocks. Chern. Geology, v. 7, p. 19-23. 

Clark, Marie C., 1968, Investigation Report 237R, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, 

Division of Mineral Chemistry, North Ryde, New South 

Wales, Australia. 

Clements, R. J., Sergeant, G. A., and Webb, P. J., 1971, The 

determination of fluorine in rocks and minerals by a pyrohydrolitic method: Analyst, v. 96, p. 51-54. 

Cohen, N. E., Reeves, R. D., and Brooks, R. R., 1968, Use of 

a large quartz :s;pectrograph for the determination of 

thorium, yttrium, and the rare earths in silicates: Talanta, 

v. 15, p. 1449-1456. 

Cranston, R. E., and Buckley, D. E., 1972, Mercury pathways 

in a river and estuary: Environmental Sci. and Technology, v. 6, p. 272-278. 

Crocket, J. H., Keays, R. R., and Hsieh, S., 1968, Determination of some precious metals by neutron activation analysis: Jour. Radioanal. Chemistry, v. 1, p. 487-507. 

Dale, I. M., Henderson, P., and Walton, A., 1970, Non-destructive neutron activation analysis for some transition ele'" 

ments in rocks: Radiochem. and Radionannal. Letters, v. 

5, p. 91-101. 

Das, H. A., 1969, Written communication, Reactor Centrum 

Nederland, Petten, North Holland, Netherlands. 

--- 1970, Routine determinations of Al, K, Cr, and Sn in 

geochemistry by neutron activation analysis: Jour. Radioanal. Chemistry, v. 4, p. 21-33. 

Das, H. A., de Koning J. and Oosterom M. G., 1971, Determination of sodium in ultra basic rocks: Radiochem. 

and Radioanal. Letters, v. 6, p. 203-209. 

Das, H. A-., Janssen, R., and Zonderhuis, J., 1971, Determination of iridium in rocks; Radiochem. and Radioanal. Letters, v. 8, p. 257-265. 

Das, H. A., van Raaphorst, J. G., and Umans, H. J. L. M., 

1969, Routine determinations of AI, K, Cr, and Sn in 

geochemistry by neutron activation analysis: U.S. Natl. 

Bur. Standards Spec. Pub. 312, v. 1, p. 291-301. 

Das, H. A., and Zonderhuis, J., 1971, Routine determinations 

on rocks and sediments by activation analysis, im Brunfelt, 

A. 0., and Steinnes, Eiliv, eds., Activation analysis in 

geochemistry and cosmochemistry ... : Oslo, U niversitetsforlaget, p. 65-71. 

Das, H. A., .Zonderhuis, J., and van der Marel, H. W., 1971, 

Scandium in rocks, minerals, and sediments, and its relation to iiron and aluminum: Contr. Mineralogy and 

Petrology, v. 38, p. 231-244. 

de Albuquerque, C. A. R., 1971, Petrochemistry of a series 

of granitic rocks from northern Portugal: Geol. Soc. 

America Bull., v. 82, p. 2783 .... 2798. 

de Laeter, J. R., 1972, The isotopic composition and elemental 

abundance of gallium in meteorites and ~n terrestrial 

samples: Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 36, p. 735-743. 

de Laetetr, J. R., and Abercrombie, I. D., 1970, Mass spectrometric isotope dilution analyses of rubidium and strontium 

tin standard rocks: Earth and Planetary Sci. Letters., v. 

9, p. 327-330. 

de Laeter, J. R., Abercrombie, I. D., and Date, R., 1969, 

Mass spectrometric isotope dilution analyses of barium 

in standard rocks, Earth and Planetalry Sci. Letters, v. 

7, no. 1, p. 64-66. 

Denechaud, E. B., Helmke, P. A., and Haskin, L. A., 1970, 

Analysis for the rare-earth elements by neutron activation and Ge(Li) spectrometry: Jour. Radioanal. Chemistry, v. 6, p; 97-113. 

de Ruyter, A. W., 1968, Low level gamma counting by means 

of a 3 X 3 inch N ai ( Tl) well-type crystal : Thesis, U niv. 

of Amsterdam, 63 p. 

De V ecchi, Giampaolo, Piccirillo, Enzo, and Quareni, Sergio, 

1968, ·Contributo all'analisi rapida di rocce mediante 

fluorescenza ai ragg~i X: Soc. Italiana Mineralogia e 

Petrologia Rend., v. 24, p. 3-14. 

DeVoe, James R., and LaFleur, Philip D., eds., 1969, Modern 

trends in activation analysis: U.S. Natl. Bur. Standards 

Spec. Pub. 312, 2 v, 1334 p. 

Donaldson, E. M., 1969, Study of Groves' method for the determination of ferrous oxide in ref·ractory silicates: Anal. 

Chemistry, v. 41, p. 501-505. 

Donaldson, E. M., 1970, Determination of vanadium in refractory metals, steel, cast iron, alloys, and silicates by 

extraction of an NBPHA complex from a sulfuric-hydrofluoric acid medium: Talanta, v. 17, p. 583-591. 

Dorrzapf, A. F., Jr., and Brown, F. W., 1970, Direct spectrographic analysis for platinum, palladium, and rhodium in 

gold beads from fire assay: Appl. Spectroscopy, v. 24, 

No. 4, p. 415-418. 

Diimecke, G., 1968, Anwendung der Losungsspektralanalyse 

fiir die Untersuchung von Silikaten: Acta Geol. Geogr. 

Univ. Comenianae, Geol. no. 15, p. 211-218. 
1972 COMPILATION OF DATA ON USGS STANDARDS 175 

Dutra, C. V., 1969, T.race el-ement determinations on six new 

U.S.G.S. rock standards: Rio de Janeiro Univ. Federal 

Inst. Geosciencies, Geologia Bol., No. 3, p. 9-13. 

Eby, G. N., 1972, Determination of rare-earth, yttrium, and 

scandium abundances in rocks and minerals by an ionexchange-X-ray fluorescence procedure: Anal. Chemistry, 

v.44,p. 2137-2143. 

Ehmann, W. D., Baedecker, P. A., and McKown, D. M., 1970, 

Gold and iridium in meteorites and some selected rocks: 

Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 34, no. 4, p. 493-507. 

Ehmann, W. D., and Morgan, J. W., 1970, Oxygen, silicon, 

and aluminum in Apollo 11 rocks and fines by 14 MeV 

neutron activation, in Apollo 11 Lunar Sci. Conf., Houston, 

Tex., 1970, Proc., V. 2: New York, Pergamon Press 

(Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta Supp. 1), p. 1071-1079. 

Eisentraut, K. J., Griest, D. J., and Sievers, R. E., 1971, 

Ultratrace analysis for beryllium in terrestrial, meteoritic, 

and Apollo 11 and 12 lunar samples using electron capture gas chromatography: Anal. Chemistry, v. 43, p. 

203-207. 

Esson, J., Hahn-W'einheimer, P., and Johanning, H., 1968, 

Determination of hafnium by neutron activation and 

variation in the Zr I Hf ratio of some granite masses: 

Talanta, v. 15, p. 1111-1118. 

Evans, W. H., 1968, The determination of magnEsium in silicate and crurbonate rocks by the titan yellow spectrophotometric method: Analyst, v. 93, p. 306-310. 

Fabbi, B. P., 1969, Written communication, U.S. Geological 

Survey, Menlo Park, Calif. 

--- 197la, Rapid X-ray fluorescence determination of 

phosphorus in geologic samples: Appl. Spectroscopy, v. 

25, p. 41-43. 

--- 1971b, Written communication, U.S. Geol. Survey, 

Menlo Park, Calif. 

--- 1971c, X-ray fluorescence determination of barium and 

strontium ~n geologic samples: Appl. Spectroscopy, v. 

25, p. 316-318. 

--- 1972a, A :refined fusion X-ray fluorescence technique, 

and determination of major and minor elements in silicate standards: Am. Mineralogist, v. 57, p. 237-245. 

--- 1972b, Written communication, U.S. Geol. Survey, 

• Menlo Park, Calif. 

Fabbi, B. P., and E•spos, L. F., 1972a, X-ray fluorescence 

determination of arsenic, antimony, nickel, rubidium, 

scandium, vanadium, and zinc in rock standards and 

other rock samples: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 

800-B, p. B147-B150. 

--- 1972b, X-ray fluorescence determination of chlorine 

in standard silicate rocks: Appl. Spectroscopy, v. 26, p. 

293-295. 

Fabbi, B. P., and Volborth, A., 1968, Ultra-soft X-ray 

fluorescence analysis for oxygen in fifteen igneous rocks : 

Norelco Reporter, v. 15, nos. 3-4 (July-Dec. 1968), p. 

93-95. 

Fabbri, Bruno, and Vespignani-Balzani, G. C., 1969, Spectrochemical data on some rock standards: Minerolog. et 

Petrogr. Acta, v. 14. (1968), p. 105-110. 

Fairbairn, H. W., and others, 1951, A cooperative investigation of precision and accuracy in chemical, spectrochemical, and modal analysis of silicate rocks: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 980,71 p. 

Fairbairn, H. W., and Hurley, P. M., 1971, Evaluation of Xray fluorescence and mass spectrometric analyses of Rb 

and Sr in some silicate standards: Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 35, p. 149-156. 

Feather, C. E., 1971, Written communication, Anglo American 

Research Laboratories, Johannesburg, South Africa. 

Ficklin, W. H., 1970, A rapid method for the determination 

of fluoride in rocks and soils, using an ion-selective electrode: U.S. Geol. Surrey Prof. Pape.r 700-C, p. C186-

C188. 

Filby, R. H., and Haller, W. A., 1969, Activation analysis of 

geochemical materials using Ge(Li) detectors: U.S. 

Natl. Bur. Standards Spec. Pub. 312, v. 1, p. 339-346. 

Filby, R. H., Haller, W. A., and Shah, K. R., 1970, Determination of 32 elements in rocks by neutron activation 

analysis and high resolution gamma-ray spectroscopy; 

Jour. Radioanal. Chemistry, v. 5, no. 2, p. 277-290. 

Fisher, D. E., 1970, Homogenized fission track determination 

of uranium in whole rock geologic samples: Anal. Chemistry, v. 42, p. 414-416. 

Flanagan, F. J., 1967, U.S. Geological Survey silicate rock 

standards: Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 31, p. 289-

308. 

--- 1969, U.S. Geological Survey standards-H. First 

compilation of data for th'e new USGS rocks: Geochim. 

et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 33, p. 81-120. 

Fletcher, K., 1970, Some applications of background correction to trace metal analysis of geochemical samples by 

atomic absorption spectrophotometry: Econ. Geology, v. 

65,no. 5,p.588-589. 

Fleischer, Michael, 1965, Summary of new data on rock 

samples G-1 and W-1, 1962-1965: Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 29, p. 1263-1283. 

--- 1969, U.S. Geological Survey standards-!. Additional 

data on rocks G-1 and W-1, 1965-1967: Geochim. et 

Cosmochim. Acta, v. 33, p. 65-79. 

Fleischer, Michael, and Stevens, R. E., 1962, Summary of 

new data on rock samples G-1 and W-1: Geochim. et 

Cosmochim. Acta, v. 26, p. 525-543. 

Floyd, P., Humphreys, A., and Aiken, M., 1968, Written communication, Univ. of Keele, Staffordshire. 

Foscolos, A. E., 1971, Written communication, Dept. of 

Energy, Mines, and Resources, Calgary 44, Alberta, 

Canada. 

FOISColos, A. E., and Barefoot, R. R., 1970, A buffering and 

standard addition technique as an aid in the comprehensive analysis of silicates by atomic absorption spectrometry: Canada Geol. Survey Paper 70-16; 15 p. 

Franzini, M., and Leoni, L., 1969, X-ray fluorescence analysis 

of small samples; Soc. Toscana Sci. Nat. Atti, v. 76, p. 

263-279. 

Frew, N. M., Leary, J. J., and Isenhour, T. L., 197~, l·sotopic 

analysis of chTomium in lunar materials by mass spectrometry of the trifluoroacetylacetonate: Anal. Chemistry, 

v. 44, p. 665-671. 

Fritze, K., and Robertson, R., 1969, PreciSion in the neutron 

activation analysis for gold in standard rocks G-1 and 

W-1: US. Natl. Bur. Standards Spec. Pub. 312, v. 2, p. 

1279-1283. 

Fuge, R., 1967, The determination of chromium in rocks and 

minerals: Chern. Geology, v. 2, p. 289-296. 

--- 1970, An automated method for the determination of 

molybdenum in geological and biological samples: Analyst, 

v. 95, p. 171-176. 
176 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

Fuge, R., and Power, G. M., 1969, Chlorine and fluorine in 

granitic rocks from S. W. England; Geochem. et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 33, p. 888-893. 

Gale, N. H., 1972, Written communication, Oxford Univ., 

Oxford, England. 

Galle, 0. K., 1968, Routine determination of major constituents 

in geologic samples by atomic absorption: Appl. Spectroscopy, v. 22, p. 404-408. 

Gamot, E., Philibert, J. and Vialette Y., 1970, Dosage par 

absorption ·atomique du potassium, du rubidium et du 

strontium en vue de mesureSI geochronologiques: France, 

Centre Natl. Recherche Sci. Colloques Nationaux, no. 923, 

p. 287-299. 

Ganapathy, R., Keays, R. R., Laul, J. C., and Anders, Edward, 

1970 Trace elements in Apollo 11 lunar rocks-implications for meteorite influx and origin of moon, in Apollo 

11 Lunar Sci. Conf., Houston, Tex., 1970, Proc., V. 2: 

New Yo,rk, Pergamon Press (Geochim .. et CoSJmochim. 

Acta, Supp.1) p. 1117-1142. 

Gangadharam, E. V., and Parekh, P. P., 1968, Neutron activation analysis of microgram and submicrogram quantities of thorium ~n ultramafic rocks: Radiochim. Acta, 

v. 10, p. 65--68. 

Gasparini, Paolo, 1969, Written communication, Univ. di 

Napoli, Italy. 

Gast, P. W., Hubbard, N. J., and Wiesmann, H., 1970, Chemical composition and petrogenesils of basalts from Tranquility Base, in Apollo 11 Lunar Sci. Conf., Houston, 

Tex., 1970, Proc., V. 2: New York, Pergamon Press 

( Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, Supp. 1), p. 1143-1163. 

Gerasimovskiy, V. I., and Laktionova, N. V., 1971, Vanadium, 

chromium, cobalt, nickel, and copper in the volcanic rocks 

of the rift zones of East Africa: Geochemistry Internat., 

v. 8, p. 680-696. 

Gerasimovskiy, V. I., Laktionova, N. V., and Ageyeva, L. V., 

1971, Scandium in the. effusives of the East African rift 

zones: Geochemistry lnternat., v. 8, p. 248-258. 

Gerasimovskiy, V. I., and Savinova, Ye. N., 1969, Fluorine 

contents of volcanic rocks in the rift zone of East Africa; 

Geochemistry Internat., v. 6, p. 1124-1128. 

Gibson, E. K., Jr., and Moore, C. B., 1970, Inert carrier-gas 

fusion determination of total nitrogen in rocks and meteorites: Anal. Chemistry, v. 42 ,p. 461-464. 

Gijbels, R., 1971, Determination of noble metals by neutron 

activation analysis: Talanta, v. 18, p. 587-601. 

Gijbels, R., 1972, Written communication, Inst. voor Nucleaire 

Wetenschappen, Ruksuniversiteit-Gent, Belgium. 

Gijbels, R., Millard, H. T., Jr., Desborough, G. A., and BaJrtel, 

J., 1971, Neutron activation analysis for osmium, ruthenium, and iridium in s·ome silicate rocks and rockforming minerals, in Brunfelt, A. 0., and Steinnes, Eiliv, 

eds., Activation analysis in geochemistry and cosmochemistry ... : Oslo, Univers.itetsforlaget, p. 359-370. 

Gillum, David E., and Ehmann, William D., 1971, Noble metal 

determination in meteorites: Radiochim. Acta, v. 16, p. 

123-128. 

Girardin, J. L. and Thiel, R., 1970,. Micro-analyse spectrophotometrique du fer fe.rreux dans les roches: Centre 

Recherches Pau Bull., v. 4, p. 513-516. 

Goles, G. G., Duncan, A. R., Lindstrom, D. J., Martin, M. R., 

Beyer, R. L., Osawa, M., Randle, K., Meek, L. T., Steinborn, T. L., and McKay, S. M., 1971, Analyses of Apollo 

12 specimens; compositional variations, di~rentiation 

processes, and lunar soil mixing mod'els, in Lunar Sci. 

Conf., 2d, Proc. v. 2: Cambridge Mass., MIT Press 

( Geochim. et Cosmoohim. Acta Supp. 2), p. 1063-1081. 

Goodman, R .J., 1971, Analytical data on the U.S.G.S. standard rocks by X-ray fluorescence spectrometry: Canadian 

Spectroscopy, v. 16, p. 97-99. 

Gordon, G. E., Dran, J. C., Baedecker, P. A., and Anderson, 

C. F. L., 1969, Extensions of the use of Ge(Li) detectors 

in instrumental neutron activation analysis of geological 

·samples: U.S. Natl. Bur. Standards Spec. Pub. 312, v. 

1, p. 399-403. 

Govindaraju, K., 1970a, Emploi de complexants pour la mise 

en solution des silicates et separations par resines 

echangeuses d'ions: France, centre N atl. Recherche Sci. 

Colloques Nationaux, no. 923, p. 269-285. 

--- 1970b, Emploi de fondants et de resines echangeuses 

d'ions pour !'elimination de l'effect de matrice et dosage 

quantometrique des elements en traces dans les silicates: 

France, Centre Natl. Recherche Sci. Colloques Nationaux, 

no. 923,p. 133-142. 

Govindaraju, K., Mevelle, G., and Chouard, C., 1971, Direct 

atomic absorption determination of Tubidium on pulverized silicate rock samples: Chern. Geology, v. 8, no. 

2, p. 131-137. 

Graber, F. M., LukelllS, H. R., and MacKenzie, J. K., 1970, 

Neutron activation analysis determination of all 14 stable 

rare-earth elements with group separation and Ge(Li) 

spectrometry: Jour. Radioanal. Chemistry, v. 4, p. 229-

239. 

Graham, A. L., and Nicholls, G. D., 1969, Mass spectrographic 

determinations of lanthanide element contents in basalts : 

Geochim. et Cosmochlm. Acta, v. 33, no. 5, p. 555-568. 

Green, T. E., Law, S. L., and Campbell, W. J, 1970, Use of 

selective ion exchange paper in X-ray spectrography and 

neutron activation: application to the determination of 

gold: Anal. Chemistry, v. 42, p. 1749-1753. 

Green, T. H., Brunfelt, A. 0., and Heier, K. S., 1969, Rare 

earth element distribution in anorthosites and associated 

high grade metamorphic rocks, Lofoten-V esteraal)n, 

Norway: Earth and Planetary Sci. Letters, v. 7, no. 2, 

p. 93-98. 

Greenland, L. P., 1968a, AppLication of coincidence counting 

to neutron activation analysis: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. 

Paper 600-B, p. B76-B78. 

--- 1968b, Simultaneous determination of tantalum and 

hafnium in silicates by neutron activation analysis: Anal. 

Chim. Acta, v. 42, p. 365-370. 

Greenland, L. P. and Campbell, E. Y., 1970, Hetermination of 

niobium in rocks by an 'isotope dilution-spectrophotometric 

method: Anal. Chim. Acta, v. 49, p. 109-114. 

--- 1971. Substoichiometric determination of tantalum by 

neutron activation: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 750-B, 

p. B191-B193. 

--- 1972, DeteLrmination of nanogram amounts of bismuth 

in rocks by substoichiometric isotope dilution analysis: 

Anal. Chim. Acta, v. 60, p. 159-165. 

Greenland, L. P., and Fones, R., 1971, Geochemical behavior of 

silver in a differentiated tholeiitic dolorite sheet; Neues 

Jahrb. Mineralogie Monatsh., hefte 9, p. 393-398. 
1972 COMPILATION OF DATA ON USGS STANDARDS 177 

Greenland, L. P., and McLane, J. E., 1969, Determination of 

germanium in silicates by neutron activat,ion analysis: 

U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 650-C, p. C152-C154. 

Greenland, L. P., and Rowe, J. J. and Dinnin J. I., 1971, 

Application of triple coincidence counting and of fire-assay 

separation to the neutron-activation determination of 

iridium; U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 750-B, p. B175-

179. 

Gregory, J. E., and Lavrakes, V., 1971, Written communication, Lowell Technological Inst., Lowell, Mass. 

Guillemaut, A., 1968, Written communication, Commissariat 

a L'Energie Atomique, Chatillon-sous-Bagneux, France. 

Gundersen, E., and Steinnes, Eiliv, 1972, Written communication, Institutt for Atomenergi, Kjeller, Norway. 

Gunn, B. M., 1969, The determination of barium in silicate 

samples by X-ray :fluorescence analysis: Canadian Spectroscopy, v. 14, p. 164-170. 

Hall, A., and Walsh, J. N., 1969, A rapid method for the 

determination of :fluorine in silicate rocks and minerals : 

Anal. Chim. Acta, v. 45, p. 341-342. 

Hamaguchi, H., Onuma, N., Hirao, Y., Yokoyama, H., Bando, 

S., and Furukawa, M., 1969, The abundances of arsenic, 

tin, and antimony in chondritic meteorites: Geochim. et 

Cosmochim. Acta, v. 33, no. 4, p. 507-518. 

Hart, S. R., 1968, Written communication, Dept. Terrestrial 

Magnetism, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, D.C. 

Haskin, L. A., Allen, R. 0., Helmke, P. A., Paster, T. P., 

Anderson, M. R., Korotev, R. L., and Zweifel, K. A., 

1970, Rare earths and other trace elements in Apollo 11 

lunar samples, in Apollo 11 Lunar Sci. Conf., 1970, Proc. 

v. 2: New York, Pergamon Press, (Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, Supp. 1) p. 1213-1231. 

Hatch, W. R., and Ott, W. L., 1968, Determination of submicrogram quantities of mercury by atomic absorption 

spectrophotometry: Anal. Chemistry, v. 40, p. 2085-2087. 

Hattori, Hitoshi, and Shibata, Ken, 1969, Quantitative analysis of Rb and Sr in rocks by X-ray fluorescence spectrometry; Japan Geol. Survey Bull., v. 20, p. 51-76. 

Haynes, S. J. and Clark, A. H., 1972, A rapid method for 

the determination of chlorine in silicate rocks using ionselective electrodes: Econ. Geology, v. 67, p. 378-382. 

Heady, H. H., 1969, Written communication, U.S. Bureau of 

Mines, Reno, NeVIada. 

Heier, K. S., and Thoresen, K., 1971, Geochemistry of high 

grade metamorphic rocks, Lofoten-Vest·eralen, North 

Norway; Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 33, p. 89-99. 

Herzenberg, C. L., 1970, Mossbauer spectrometry as an instrumental technique for determinative mineralogy, in 

Symposium on Mossbauer effect methodology, 5th, New 

York, New York, Feb. 2, 1969: New York, Plenum Press, 

p. 209~230. 

Hetman, J. S., 1968, Potentiometric determination of iron in 

silicate rocks: Centre Recherches Pau Bull., v. 2, p. 471-

475. 

Hetman, J. S., and Puyo, M., 1968, Dosage coulometrique du 

vanadium dans les roches et les mineraux: Centre Recllerehes Pau Bull., v. 2, p. 171-177. 

Higuchi, H., Tomura, K., and Hamaguchi, H., 1970, Determination of rare-earth elements in rock samples by 

neutron activation analysis; use af Ge(Li) detector in 

conjunction with light-heavy lanthanides separation by 

cation exchange: Jour. Radioanal. Chemistry, v. 5, no. 

2, p. 207-222. 

Higuchi, H., Tomura, K., Onuma, N., and Hamaguchi, H., 

1969, Rare earth abundances in several geochemical 

standard rocks: Geochem. Jour. (Japan), v. 3, p. 171-

180. 

Higuchi, H., Tomura, K., Takahashi, H., Onuma, N., and 

Hamaguchi, H., 1969a, Simultaneous determination of 

strontium and barium by neutron activation analysis with 

a Ge (Li) detector: Anal. Chim. Acta, v. 44, p. 431-436. 

--- 1969b, Use of a Ge(Li) detector after simple chemical 

group separation in the activation analysis of rock samples. IV, Simultaneous determination of strontium and 

barium, in U.S. Natl. Bur. Standards Spec. Pub. 312, v. 

1, p. 334-338. 

Hillebrand, W. F., Lundell, G. E. F., Bright, H. A., and 

Hoffman, J. 1., 1953, Applied inorganic analysis: 2d ed., 

New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1034 p 

Hirst, D. M., and Kaye, M. J ., 1971, Factors controlling the 

mineralogy and chemistry of an upper Visean sedimentary sequence from Rookhope, County Dwrham: Chern. 

Geology, v. 8, p. 37-59. 

Hislop, J. S., Pratchett, A. G., and Williams, D. R., 1971, 

The determination of :fluorine in rock materials by yactivation and radiochemical separation: Analyst, v. 96, 

p. 117-122. 

Hofmeyr, P. K., 1972, Some emission spectrographic trace 

element data for reference silicate materials: Chern. 

Geology, v. 9, p. 23-28. 

Hooper, P. R., and Atkins, Lynne, 1969, The preparation of 

fused samples in X-ray :fluorescence analysis: Mineralog. 

Mag.,v. 37, no. 287, p. 409-413. 

Huber-Schausberger, I., Janda, 1., Dolezel, P., and Schroll, 

E., 1970, Chemische und spektrochemische Analyze internationaler Referenzgesteinsproben: Tschermaks Mineralog. u. petrog. Mitt., v. 14, p. 195-211. 

Huffman, Claude, Jr., Shaw, V. E., and Thomas, J. A., 1971, 

Chromium content of U.S. Geological Survey standard 

rocks PCC-1 (peridotite) and DTS-1 (dunite): U.S. 

Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 750-B, p. B185-B187. 

lida, C., and Nagura, M., 1968, Determination of nickel in 

silicates by atomic absorption spectrophotometry: Japan 

Analyst, v. 17, p. 17-22. 

Iida, C., and Yamasaki K., 1970, Atomic absorption spectrometric analysis of silicates by the absorption tube technique: Anal. Lettem, v. 3, p. 251-257. 

Ingram, B. L., 1970, Determination of fluoride in silicate 

rocks without separation of aluminum using a specific 

ion electrode: Anal. Chemistry, v. 42, p. 1825-1827. 

Ishida, K., Kawamara, S., and Izawa, M., 1970, Neutron activation analysis for mercury: Anal. Chim. Acta, v. 50, 

p. 351-353. 

Ivanova, 'G. F., 1966, Spectrochemical determination of moly~ 

denum, tin, lead, and tungsten on the international standard G-1: Geochemistry lnternat., v. 3, no. 6, p. 1198-

1199; translated from Geokhimiya, 1966, no. 12, p. 1502-

1505. 

Jenkins, L. B., and Moore, R., 1970, Determination of lead 

in rocks and minerals after extraction with diethylammonium diethyldithio-carbamate: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. 

Paper 700-D, p. D222-D224. 

Johansen, 0., and Steinnes, Eiliv, 1969, Determination of 

tin in geological material by neutron-activation analysis: 

Analyst, v. 94, p. 976-978. 
178 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

--- 1970, Determination of Co, Cu, Fe, Ga, W, and Zn in 

rocks by neutron activation and anion-exchange separation: Talanta, v. 17, p. 407-414. 

Jones, J. B., Nesbitt, R. W., and Slade, P. G., 1969, The detennination of the orthoclase content of homogenized 

alkali feldspars using the 201 X-ray method: Mineralog. 

Mag., v. 37, p. 489-496. 

Karkare, S. G., 1965, Geochemical studies of the Deccan 

traps: Varanasi, Banaras Hindu U niv. Press, 128 p. 

Kawabuchi, K., and Kuroda, R., 1970, Anion-exchange separation and spectrophotometric detennination of molybdenum 

and tungsten in silicate rocks: Talanta, v. 17, p. 67-73. 

Kaye, Maureen, 1972, Written communication, Dept. Geol., 

Australian Natl. Univ., Canberra. 

Kaye, Maureen, and Chappell, B. W., 1972, Written communication, Dept. Geol., Australian Natl. Univ., Canberra. 

Keays, R .. R., Ganapathy, R., Laul, J. C., Anders, E., Herzog, 

G. F., and Jeffrey, P. M., 1970, Trace elements and 

radioactivity in Lunar rocks; implications for meteorite 

infall, solar-wind flux, and formation conditions of moon: 

Science, v. 167, no. 3918, p. 490-493. 

Kennedy, E. J., Ruch, R. R., and Shimp, N. F., 1971, Distribution of mercury in unconsolidated sediments from southern Lake Michigan: Illinois Geol. Survey Environmental 

Geology Notes, no. 44, p. 1-18. 

Khasgiwale, K. A., Parthasarathy, R., and Das, M. Sankat.:, 

1972, Determination of lead in geological samples by 

anodic stripping analysis: Anal. Chim. Acta, v. 59, p. 

485-489. 

King, H. G. C., and Pruden, G., 1969, The colorimetric determination of calcium in silicate minerals: Analyst, v. 94, 

p. 39-42. 

Kowalski, Wlodzimierz, 1967, Geochemistry of K, N a, Ca, Rb, 

Pb, Ba, and Sr in Sudeten granitoids and their pegmatites: Arch. Mineralog., v. 27, p. 53-244 [Polish with English summary]. 

Krahenbuhl, U., Rolli, H. P., and von Gunten, H. R., 1972, 

Aktivierungsanalytische Bestimmung von selten Erden in 

Gesteinsstandards, und in Mondproben: Helvetica Chim. 

Acta, v. 55, p. 697--701. 

Kunzendorf, H., 1971, An instrumental procedure to determine Fe, Rb, Sr, Y, Zr, Nb, and Mo in rock powders by 

Si(Li) X-ray spectrometry: Jour. Radioanal. Chemistry, 

v. 9, p. 311-324. 

Kuydendall, W. E., Jr., Hoffman, B. W., and Wainerdi, R. E., 

1971, Analysis of oceanographic samples from the 

Glomar Challernger voyage, in Brunfelt, A. 0., and 

Steinnes, Eiliv., eds., Activation analysis in geochemistry 

and cosmochemistry ... : Oslo, Universitetsforlaget, p. 

321-332. 

Landstrom, 0., Samsahl, K., and Wenner, C. G., 1969, An 

investigation of trace elements in marine and lacustrine 

deposits by means of a neutron activation method: U.S. 

Natl. Bur. Standards Spec. Pub. 312, v. 1, p. 353-366. 

Langer, K., 1969, On the semimicro determination of silica 

in natural silicates by photometry of ,8-molybdosilicic 

acid: Zeitsehr. Anal. Chemie, v. 245, p. 139-148. 

--- 1971, Some major and minor constituents of geochemical reference samples as determined by photometric 

methods: Zeitschr. Anal. Chemie, v. 255, p. 26-29. 

Langmyhr, F. J., 1970, Written communication, Univ. of 

Oslo, Blindern. 

Langmyh:;:, F. J., and Paus, P. E., 1968, The analysis of 

inorganic siliceous materials by atomic absorption spectrophotometry and the hydrofluoric acid decomposition 

technique, part 1, the analysis of silicate rocks: Anal. 

Chim. Acta, v. 43, p. 397-408. 

--- 1969, Hydrofluoric acid decomposition-atomic absorption analysis of nine silicate mineral and rock reference 

samples: Anal. Chim. Acta, v. 47, p. 371-373. 

Lapham, D. M., and Saylor, T. E., 1970, Chemical analyses 

of three Triassic diaba:se dikes in Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Topographic and Geol. Survey Inf. Circ. 68, 16 p. 

Laul, J. C., Case, D. R., Schmidt-Bleek, F., and Lipschultz, M. 

E., 1970, Bismuth contents of chondrites: Geochim. et 

Cosmochim. Acta, v. 34, no. 1, p. 89-103. 

Laul, J. C., Case, D. R., Wechter, M., Schmidt-Bleek, F., and 

Lipschutz, M. E., 1970, An activation analysis technique 

for determining groups of trace elements in rocks and 

chondrites: Jour. Radioanal. Chemistry, v. 4, no. 2, p. 

241-264. 

Laul, J. C., Keays, R. R., Ganapathy, R, Anders, Edward, 

and Morgan, J. W., 1972, Chemical fractionations in 

meteorites; V, Volatile and siderophile elements in 

achondrites and ocean ridge basalts: Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 36, no. 3, p. 329-345. 

Laul, J. C., Pelly, I., and Lipschutz, M. E., 1970, Thallium 

contents of chondrites: Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 

34, p. 909-920. 

Learned, R. E., 1970, Written communication, Dept. Sci. Indus. 

Research, Petone, New Zealand. 

LeRiche, H. H., 1968, Ion-exchange concentration of trace 

elements for spectrochemical analysis of soils and rocks: 

Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 32, p. 791-794. 

Lombard, S. M., Marlow, K. W., and Tanner, J. T., 1971, 

The determination of antimony in standard rocks by instrumental neutron activation analysis: Anal. Chim. Acta, 

v. 55, p. 13-17. 

Loveland, W., Schmitt, R. A., and F.isher, D. E., 1969, Aluminum abundances in stony meteorites: Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 33, p. 375-385. 

Loveridge, W. D., and Wanless, R. K., 1969, Written communication, Geol. Survey of Canada, Ottawa. 

Lovering, J. F., and Hughes, T. C., 1971, Rh·enium and 

osmium abundance determinatioilJS and meteoritic contamination levels in Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 lunar samples; in Lunar Sci. Conf., 2d, Houston, Tex., 1971, Proc., 

V. 2: Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press (Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, Supp. 2), p. 1331-1335. 

Luecke, Werner, 1971, Zur Methode der AtomabsorptionsSpektralanalyse der Erdalkalien und refractaren Oxide in 

geochemischen Referenzproben mit einer N20-C2HrFlamme: N eues J ahrb. Mineralogie Monatsh., no. 6, p. 

263-288. 

Luhn, J. K., 1968, Written communication, Miami Univ., 

Oxford, Ohio. 

McCabe, W. J., Ditchburn, R. G., and Adams, C. J. D., 1972~ 

Written communication, Institute of Nuclear Sciences, 

Lower H utt, New Zealand. 

Marinenko, John, and May, Irving, 1968, Fluorimetric determination of gold in rocks with rhodamine B: Anal. 

Chemistry, v. 40, p. 1137-1139. 

--- 1970, Gas chromatographic determination of carbonate 

carbon ,in rocks and minerals: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. 

Paper 700-D, p. D103-D105. 
1972 COMPILATION OF DATA ON USGS STANDARDS 179 

Marinenko, John, May, Irving, and Dinnin, J. 1., 1972, Determination of mercury in geologic materials by flameless atomic absorption spectrometry: U.S. Geol. Survey 

Prof. Paper 800-B, p. Bl51-B155. 

Marowsky, Gerd, 1971a, Aktivierungsanalytische Bestimmung 

von Cadmium, Quecksilber, Thallium, und Wismut in 

Gesteinen: Zeitschr. Anal. Chemie, v. 253, p. 267-271. 

197lb, Aktivierungsanalytische Bestimmung von 

Thallium in Gesteinen, ein vergleich mehrerer Messmethoden: Jour. Radioanal. Chemistry, v. 8, p. 27-32. 

--- 1971c, Sensitivity ranges in neutron activation analysis 

of some rare trace elements (Cd, Hg, Tl, Bi) in silicate 

samples, in Brunfelt, A. 0., and Steinnes, Eiliv, eds., 

Activation analysis in geochemistry and cosmochemistry 

... :Oslo, Univ:ersitetsforlaget, p. 391-396. 

Marowsky, Gerd, and Wedepohl, K. H., 1971, General trends 

in the behavior of Cd, Hg, Tl, and Bi, in some major 

rock forming process•es: Geochim. et Gosmochim. Acta, 

v. 35, p. 1225-1267. 

Martin, A., and Quintin, M., 1970, Utilisation du chlorure de 

sodium comme tampon 1spectral en spectrographie d'emission: application au dosage des elements en traces dans 

les roches silicab~es: France, Centre N atl. Recherche Sci. 

Colloques Nationaux, no. 923, p. 187-195. 

Martini, Marino, and Tonani, Franco, 1968, Le fluor dans les 

roches--erreur d'analyse, echantillons-standards, abondance; Distribution dans la granodiorite du Mte Capanne 

(ile d'Elbe, Toscane); in Ahrens, L. H., ed., Origin and 

distribution of the elements: New York, Pergamon Press, 

p. 1113-1126. 

Matthews, A. D., and Riley, J. P., 1969, The determination of 

thallium in silicate rocks, marine sediments, and sea water: 

Anal. Chim. Acta, v. 48, p. 25-34. 

Maurel, C., and Maurel, Pierre, 1967, Resultats d'analyses de 

six roches etalons, G-2, GSP-1, AGV-1, PCC-1, DTS-1, 

BCR-1 : elements majeurs et elements en traces: Soc. 

Fran~aise Mineralogie et Crystallographie Bull., v. 90, 

no. 2 p. 260-261. 

Maxwell, J. A., Peck, L. C., and Wiik, H. B., 1970, Chemical 

composition of Apollo 11 lunar samples 10017, 10020, 

10072, and 10084, in Apollo 11 Lunar Sci. Con£., Houston, 

Tex., 1970, Proc., V. 2: New York, Pergamon Press 

(Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, Supp. 1), p. 1369-1374. 

Meehan, W. R., 1969, Beryllium in six U.S.G.S. standard rocks: 

Earth and Planetary Sci. Letters, v. 7, no. 1, p. 1-2. 

M.elson, S., 1970, Precision and accuracy of rare earth determinations in rock samples using instrumental neutron 

activation analysis and a Ge(Li) detector: Jour. Radioanal. 

Chemistry, v. 4, no. 2, p. 355-363. 

Meyer, H. G., 1971, Non-destructive determination of uranium 

and thorium in geological materials by resonance-neutron 

activation-analysis: Jour. Radioanal. Chemistry, v. 7, 

p. 67-79. 

Meyrowitz, Robert, 1970, A pyrocatechol violet spectrophotometric procedure for the direct microdetermination of 

aluminum in silicate materials: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. 

Paper 700-D, p. D225-D229. 

Michelsen, 0. B., and Steinnes, E., 1968, Determination of 

copper in geological material by neutron activation and 

gamma-gamma coincidence spectrometry: Talanta, v. 15, 

p. 574-578. 

Miksovsky, Miroslav, 1968, Quantitative spektrographische 

Bestimmung von Spurenel·ementen in Silikaten: Acta 

Geol. Geogr. Univ. Comenianae, Geol. no. 15, p. 253-259. 

Millard, H. T., Jr., and Bartel, A J., 1971, A neutron activation 

analysis procedure for the determination of the noble 

metals in geological samples, in Brunfelt, A. 0., and 

Steinnes, Eiliv, eds., Activation analysis in geochemistry 

and cosmochemistry ... : Oslo, Universitetsforlaget, p. 

353-358. 

Moal, J. Y., Beguinot, J., Ruel, G., and Vannier, M., 1970, Le 

quantometre pour le dosage des elements en traces dans les 

materiaux naturels: Franc·e, Centre Natl. Recherche Sci. 

Colloques Nationaux, no. 923, p. 107-132. 

Moldan, Bedfich, Ruheska, Ivan, and Miksovsky, Miros~av, 

1970, The determination of lead in silicate rocks by atomic 

absorption spectrophotometry with long-path absorption 

tubes: Anal. Chim. Acta, v. 50, p. 342-345. 

Moore, C. B., Gibson, E. K., Larimer, J. W., Lewis, C. F., and 

Nichiporuk, W., 1970, Total carbon and nitrogen abundances in Apollo 11 lunar samples and selected achondrites 

and basalts, in Apollo' 11 Lunar Sci. Con£., Houston, Tex., 

1970, Proc. V.2: New York, Pergamon Pre.ss (Geochim. 

et Cosmochim. Acta Supp. 1) p. 1375-1382. 

Morgan, J. W., and Ehmann, W. D., 1970, Precise determination of oxygen and silicon in chondritic meteorites by 14-

MeV neutron activation with a singl·e transfer system: 

Anal. Chim. Acta, v. 49, p. 287-299. 

Mori, Yakeshi, Jakes, Petr, and Nagaoka, Masatoshi, 1971, 

Major element analysis of silicate rocks using electron 

probe microanalyzer: Kanazawa Univ. Sci. Rept., v. 16, 

No.2, p. 113-120. 

Morrison, G. H., 1971, Multielement neutron activation analysis 

of geological and lunar material using chemical group 

separations and high resolution gamma spectrometry, in 

Brunfelt, A. 0., and Steinnes, Eiliv, eds., Activation 

analysis in geochemistry and cosmochemistry . . . : Oslo, 

Univ.evsitetsforlaget, p. 51-54. 

Morrison, G. H., Gerard, J. T., Travesi, A., Currie, R. L., 

Peterson, S. F., and Potter, N. M., 1969, Multielement 

neutron activation analysis of rocks using chemical group 

separations and high resolution gamma spectrometry: 

Anal. Chemistry, v. 41, p. 1633-1637. 

Morrison, G. H., and Kashuba, A. T., 1969, Multielement 

analysis of basaltic rock using spark source mass spectrometry: Anal. Chemistry, v. 41, p. 1842-1846. 

Mountjoy, Wayne, 1970, Determinatio;t of cobalt in geologic 

materials by solvent extraction and atomic absorption 

spectrometry: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 700-B, 

p. B174-B176. 

Muller, 0., 1970, Sodium, potassium, and cesiu.'"lt concentrations 

in U.S.G.S. standards, periodite PCC-1, dunite DTS-1, 

and diabase W-1 by neutron activation analysis: Earth 

and Planetary Sci. Lettem, v. 8, no. 4, p. 283-284. 

Murad, E., 1968, 1969, Written communications, Stat. Forschungsinst. fiir angew. Mineral., Regensburg. 

1971, Written communication, Mineralog.-Petro--

graphisches Institut, Tiibingen. 

Murali, A. V., Parekh, P. P., and Das, M. S., 1970, On the 

fission track method for the determination of the uranium 

content of whole rock samples: Anal. Chim. Acta, v. 50, 

p. 71-77. 
180 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

Muscat, V. 1., Vickers, T. J., and Andren, Anders, 1972, Simple 

and versatile atomic fluorescence system for determination 

of nanogram quantities of mercury: Anal. Chemistry, 

v.44,p.218-221. 

Nadkarni, R. A., and Halder, B. C., 1971a, Simultaneous determination of chromium and zinc by neutron activation 

analysis: Radiochem. and Radioanal. Letters, v. 8, p. 233-

240. 

--- 1971b, Substoichiometric determination of selenium by 

neutron activation analysis: Radiochem. and Radioanal. 

Letters, v. 7, p. 305-311. 

--- 1972a, Neutron activation analysis of copper by substoichiometric extraction with neocuproine: Anal. Chemistry, v. 44, p. 1504-1506. 

--- 1972b, Substoichiometric determination of mercury by 

neutron activation analysis: Radioanal. Chemistry, v. 10, 

p. 181-186. 

Nagura, M., and Iida, C., 1968, Atomic absorption spectrophotometric determination of cobalt, nickel, lead, and 

copper in silicates with the absorption tube technique: 

Japan Analyst, v. 17, p. 1513-1518. 

Nishimura, Susumu, 1970a, The determination of uranium 

content of standard rocks by fission-track registration in 

muscovite: Radioisotopes, v. 19, p. 30-32. 

--- 1970b, Radium and uranium contents of standard rocks: 

Chern. Geology, v. 5, no. 2, p. 139-141. 

Nomura, K., Mikami, A., Kato, T., and Oka, Y., 1970, The 

determination of scandium and gold in meteorites, tektites, 

and standard rocks by neutron activation analysis with 

an internal-reference method: Anal. Chim. Acta, v. 51, 

p. 399-408. 

Norman, J. C., and Haskin, L. A., 1968, The geochemistry of 

Sc; A comparison to the rare earths and Fe: Geochim. et 

Cosmochim. Acta, v. 32, no. 1, p. 93-108. 

Norton, E. F., and Stoenner, R. W., 1971, A neutron activation 

method for the determination of thorium in rocks and 

minerals using the 22-minute 233Th activity: Anal. Chim. 

Acta, v. 55, p. 1-11. 

O'Gorman, J. V., and Suhr, N. H., 1971, A rapid atomicabsorption technique for the determination of lithium in 

silicate materials: Analyst, v. 96, no. 1142, p. 335-337. 

Omang, S. H., and Paus, P. E., 1971, Trace determination of 

mercury in geological materials by flameless atomic absorption spectroscopy: Anal. Chim. Acta, v. 56, p. 393-398. 

Ondrick, C. W., Suhr, N. H., and Medlin, J. H., 1969, Investigation into increasing the precision of a rotating disksolution technique for the analysis of silicates: Appl. 

Spectroscopy, v. 23, p. 111-115. 

Oosterom, M. G., and Das, H. A., 1971, Determination by 

neutron activation analysis of alkali and other trace elements in ultramafic rocks, in Brunfelt, A. 0., and Steinnes, 

Eiliv, eds., Activation analysis in geochemistry and cosmochemistry ... : Oslo, Universitets.forlaget, p. 455-459. 

Osawa, Masium, and Goles, G. G., 1970, Trace element abundances in Columbia River basalts: Columbia River Basalt 

Symposium, 2d, Cheney, Wash., 1969, Proc., p. 55-71. 

Ozima, M., and Zashu, S., 1971, Written communication, 

Geophys. Inst., Univ. of Tokyo. 

Pant, D. R., and Parekh, P. P., 1971, A new method for the 

radiochemical separation of rubidium and cesium: Jour. 

Radioanal. Chemistry, v. 9, p. 259-265. 

Parker, A., 1969, Some trace element determinations on the 

new U.S.G.S. silicate rock standards: Chern. Geology, 

v.4,no. 3-4,p. 445-449. 

Parker, Andrew, 1970, Chemical and mineralogical analysis of 

some basic and ultrabasic rocks and their initial weathering products: Reading (England) Univ. Geol. Rept. No.4, 

41 p. 

Peters, A., 1968, Ein neues Verfahren zur Bestimmung von 

Eisen (II) oxid in Mineralien und Gesteinen: N eues J ahrb. 

Mineralogie Monatsch., No. 3/4, p. 119-125. 

Peters, Arnd, 1969, Neue Analysendaten von Standardgesteinen: Neues Jahrb. Mineralogie Monatsch. No. 4, p. 

184-188. 

Peterson, S. F., Travesi, A., and Morrison, G. H., 1969, Rapid 

group separation method for neutron activation analysiS 

of geological materials: U.S. Natl. Bur. Standards Spec. 

Pub. 312,v. l,p. 624-633. 

Philpotts, J. A., and Schnetzler, C. C., 1970, Apollo 11 lunar 

samples-K, Rb, Sr, Ba, and rare-earth concentrations in 

some rocks and separated phases, in Apollo 11 Lunar Sci. 

Conf., Houston, Tex., 1970, Proc. V.2: New York, Pergamon Press ( Geochim. et Cosmochim Acta, Supp. 1) , p. 

1471-1486. 

Pouget, R., Carrier, M., Lautelin, M., and Vasseut, A., 1968, 

Written communication, Commissariat a L'Energie 

Atomique, Chatillon-sous-Bagneux, France. 

Price, V., 1969, Written communication, Furman Univ., Greenville, S.C. 

Quijano-Rico, M., 1970, Methodes rapides a tres haute sensibilite pour la determination du bore et du lithium dans les 

meteorites pierreuses et dans les roches: France, Centre 

Natl. Recherche Sci. Colloques Nationaux no. 923, p. 

367-380. 

Quijano-Rico, M., and Wanke, H., 1969, Determination o.f 

boron, lithium, and chlorine in meteorites, i:n Mellman, 

P. M., ed. Meteorite research: Proceedings of a symposium 

on meteorite research held in Vienna, Austria, 7-13 

August 1968: Dordrecht, D. Reider Pub. Co., p. 132-145. 

Quintin, M., 1970, Utilisation de la fluorescence X pour 

!'analyse quantitative non destructive des elements en 

traces de No atomique superieur a 27 dans les roches 

silica tees, bauxites, et carbonates: France, Centre N atl. 

Recherche Sci. Colloques Nationaux, no. 923, p. 75-87. 

Ragland, P. C., 1970, Written communication, Dept. Geol., 

Univ. of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 

Ragland, P. C., Brunfelt, A. 0., and Weigand, P. W., 1971, 

Rare-earth abundances in Mesozoic dolerite dikes from 

eastern United States, in Brunfelt, A. 0. and Steinnes, 

Eiliv, eds., Activation analysis in geochemistry and cosmochemistry ... : Oslo, Universitetsforlaget, p. 227-235. 

Randall, B. A., 0., 1972. Written communication, The University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England. 

Rayburn, K. A., 1968, Elemental analysis of cracking catalysts 

by X-ray fluorescence: Appl. Spectroscopy, v. 22, p. 

726-729. 

Rebagay, T. V, 1969, The determination of zirconium and 

hafnium in meteorites and terrestrial materials by activation analysis: Dissertation, Univ. of Kentucky, Lexington. 

Rebagay, T. V., and Ehmann, W. D., 1970, Simultaneous determination of zirconium and hafnium in standard rocks 

by neutron activation analysis : Jour. Radioanal. Chemistry, v. 5, p. 51-60. 
1972 COMPILATION OF DATA ON USGS STANDARDS 181 

Reed, G. W., and Jovanovic, S., 1969, Some halogen measurements on achondrites: Earth and Planetary Sci. Letters, 

v. 6, p. 316-320. 

Rey, P., Wakita, H., and Schmitt, R. A., 1970, Radiochemical 

neutron activation analysis of indium, cadmium, yttrium, 

and the 14 rare earths in rocks: Anal. Chim. Acta, v. 51, 

p. 163-178. 

Richter, P., 1972, Rontgenspektrometrische Bestimmung von 

Schwefel in silicatischen Proben: Zeitschr. Anal. Chemie, 

v. 258, p. 287-289. 

Roberts, J. L., 1971, An improved colorimetric determination 

of vanadium in geochemical prospecting samples: Talanta, 

v. 18,p. 1070-1072. 

Roelandts, Iwan, 1972, The determination of rubidium in rocks 

and minerals by atomic absorption spectrophotometry: 

Atomic Absorption Newsletter, v. 11, p. 48-49. 

Roelandts, Iwan, and Bologne, Guy, 1970, Written communication, Inst. P•etrologie, Univ. of Liege, Belgium. 

Roelandts, Iwan, and Duchesne, J. C., 1968, Method d'analyse 

des roches silicates principe .et discussion de la precision 

et de !'exactitude obtenues: Soc. Geol. Belgique Annales, 

v. 91, p. 159-164. 

Ropert, M. E., and Broudic, M., 1968, Written communication, Commissariat a L'Energie Atomique, Chatillon-sousBagneux, France. 

Ropert, M. E., Lecable, N., and Monjaux, M., 1968, Written 

communication, Commissariat a L'Energie Atomique, 

Chatillon-sous-Bagneux, France. 

Rose, A. W., 1970, Written communication, Pennsylvania 

State Univ., University Park, Pa. 

Rosier, H. J., Schron, W., and Voland, B., 1968, Germanium 

und Indium, ein Vergleich zwischen regionales Durchschnittsgehalten und den Clarke-W erten, in Ahrens, L. 

H., ed., Origin and distribution of the elements: New 

York, Pergamon Press, p. 1127-1138. 

Rosman, K. J. R., and Jeffrey, P. M., 1971, The determination of zinc in standard reference materials by isotope dilution and atomic absorption analysis: Chern. Geology, v. 

8, p. 25-32. 

Roubault, M., and others, 1970, Dosage des elements a l'etat 

de traces dans les roches et les autres substances minerales naturelles: France: Centre N atl. Recherche Sci. Colloques Nationaux, no. 923,464 p. 

Rowe, J. J., and Simon, F. 0., 1971, Determination of platinum 

and palladium in geological materials by neutron activation analysis after fire-assay preconcentration: Talanta, 

v. 18, p. 121-12!5. 

Rucklidge, J. C., Gibb, F. G. F., Fawcett, J. J., and Gasparrini, E. L., 1970, Rapid rock analysis by electron 

probe: Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 34, no. 2, p. 

243-247. 

Sahores, J., 1968, Dosage des elements majeurs des roches 

par spectrofluorescence X: Centre Rech. Pau Bull., v. 2, 

no. 1, p. 137-162. 

Sceal, J. S. C., and Wea-rer, S. D., 1971, Trace element data 

bearing on the origin of salic rocks from the quaternary 

volcano Paka, Gregory Rift, Kenya: Earth and Planetary Sci. Letters, v. 12, p. 327-331. 

Schilling, Jean-Guy, and Winchester, J. W., 1969, Rare earth 

contribution to the origin of Hawaiian lavas: Contr. 

Mineralogy and Petrology, v. 23, no. 1, p 27-37. 

Schiltz, J. C., 1968, Written communication, Commissariat a 

L'Energie Atomique, Chatillon-sous-Bagneux, France. 

Schlocker, L., 1968, Written communication, U.S. Geol. Survey, Menlo Park, Calif. 

Schmidt, D., 1970, Tin in some standard rocks. Earth and 

Planetary Sci. Letters, v. 10, p. 441-443. 

Schmidt, D., and Starke, K., 1969, Radiochemische Trennung 

zur Bestinunung von Zinn in Gesteinen durch N eutronenaktivierungsanalyse: Radiochim. Acta, v. 11, p. 197-

202. 

Schmid~, K., 1969, Written communication, Zentrales Geologisches Institut, 104, Berlin, DDR. 

Schneider, Gerwulf, 1969, Ergansungen zur Anwendung der 

Rontgenfluoreszenzanalyse bei geochemischen Reihenuntersuchungen: N eues J ahrb. Mineralogie Monatsh., no. 11, 

p. 504-520. 

Schnetzler, C. C., and Nava, D. F., 1971, Chemical composition of Apollo 14 soils 14163 and 142U59: Earth and 

Planetary Sci. Letters, v. 11, p. 345-350. 

Schnetzler, C. C., Philpotts, J. A., Nava, D. F., Schuhmann, 

Shuford, and Thomas, H. H., 1972, Geochemistry of 

Apollo 15 basalt 15555 and soil 15531: Science, v. 175, 

no. 4020, p. 426-428. 

Schoenfeld, 1., 1970, Spectrographic determination of fluorine 

in standard rocks: Appl. Spectroscopy, v. 24, p. 359-361. 

Schroll, E., and Stepan, E., 1969, Zur Rontgenfluoreszenanalyse 

geologischen Materiais: Tschermaks Mineralog. u. petrog. 

Mitt., v. 13, p. 131-147. 

Scott, H. D., 1969, Written communication, Bellaire Research 

Laboratories, Texaco, Inc., Bellaire, Tex. 

Sen Gupta, J. G., 1968, Determination of fluorine in silicate 

and phosphate rocks, micas, and stony meteorites: Anal. 

Chim. Acta, v. 42, p. 119-125. 

--- 1970, Determination of carbon by non-aqueous titration after combustion in a high-frequency induction furn_. 

nace: Anal. Chim. Acta, v. 51, p. 437-447. 

Shapiro, Leonard, 1971, Rapid scanning technique for low 

levels of C02 in silicate rocks: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. 

Paper 750-B, p. Bl61-Bl62. 

Shimizu, Tsuneo, 1969, Scandium content of igneous rocks 

and some oceanic sediments: Chern. Soc. Japan Bull., v. 

52, p. 1561-1569. 

Shimuzu, Tsuneo, and Kuroda, Rokuro, 1969, Abundance of 

scandium in igneous rocks of Japan: Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 33, no. 2, p. 290-292. 

Sievers, R. E., Eisentraut, K. J., Griest, D. J., Richardson, 

M. F., Wolf, W. R., Ross, W. D., Frew, N. M., and 

Isenhour, T. L., 1971, Variations in beryllium and chromium contents in lunar fines compared with crystalline 

rocks, in Lunar Sci. Conf., 2d, Houston, Tex., 1971, 

Proc., V. 2: Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press (Geochim et 

Cosmochim Acta, Supp. 2), p. 1451-1459. 

Sighinolfi, G. P., 1968, The zirconium content in some standard rock samples: Soc. Toscana Sci. Nat. Atti, Mem., Ser. 

A, v. 74, no. 2~ p. 626-629. 

--- 1969, Determination of some major and trace elements 

in new standard rock samples by atomic absorption spectroscopic routine analysis: Soc. Toscana Sci. Nat. Atti, 

Mem., Ser. A, v. 76, p. 312-325. 

Simon, F. 0., 1970, Written communication, U.S. Geol. Survey, Washington, D.C. 

Simon, F. 0., and Millard, H. T., Jr., 1968, Determinations 

of gold in rocks by neutron activation analysis using fireassay preconcentration: Anal. Chemistry, v. 40, p. 1150-

1152. 
182 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

Smith, A. C. S., 1970, Written communication, Univ. College, 

London. 

Smith, Bob C., II, 1970, Wri"i;ten communication, Pennsylvania 

State Univ., University Park, Pa. 

Smith, Bob C., II, and Rose, A. W., 1970, Written communicacation, Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, Pa. 

Smith, J. D., 1971, Spectrophotometric determination of traces 

of tin in rocks, sediments, r,..nd soils: Anal. Chim. Acta, 

v. 57, p. 371-378. 

Smith, J. D., and Burton, J. D., 1972, The occurrence and 

distribution of tin with particular reference to marine 

environments: Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 36, p. 

62:1-629. 

Stahle, Volker, 1970, Nickel und Kobalt in: Gesteinen des 

Nordlinger Ries: Contr. Mineralogy and Petrology, ~. 28, 

no. 1, p. 72-88. 

Steinnes, Eiliv, 1969a, Determination of samarium in rocks 

by epithermal neutron-activation analysis: Zeitschr. 

Anal. Chemie, v. 247, p. 23-27. 

--- 1969b, Rapid determination of aluminum in rocks by 

reactor neutron activation analysis: Kjeller Rept. KR131, Inst. for Atomenergi, Kjeller, Norway, 9 p. 

--- 1971a, Determination of molybdenum in rocks by 

epithermal neutron activation analysis: Anal. Chim. Acta, 

v. 57' p. 249-255. 

--- 1971b, Determination of phosphorus in silicate rocks 

by neutron activation and direct ,IS-counting: Anal. Chim. 

Acta, v. 57, p. 451-456. 

--- 1971c, Epithermal neutron activation analysis of geological materials, in Brunfelt, A. 0., and Steinnes, Eiliv, 

eds., Activation analysis in geochemistry and cosmochemistry ... : Oslo, Universitetsforlaget, p. 113-128. 

--- 1972a, A rapid neutron-activation method for the 

simultaneous determination of arsenic and antimony in 

rocks: Analylst, v. 97, no. 1153, p. 241-244. 

--- 1972b, Simultaneous determination of rubidium, cesium, 

chromium, and phosphorus in rocks by neutron activation and a simple group separation: Jour. Radioanal. 

Chemistry, v. 10, p. 65-73. 

--- 1972c, Written communication, Inst. for Atomenergi, 

Kjeller, Norway. 

Steinnes, E., and Brune, D., 1969, Determination of uranium 

.in rocks by instrumental activation analysis using epithermal neutrons: Talanta, v. 16, p. 13216-1329. 

Stoch, H., 1969, Written communication, Natl. Inst. for 

Metallurgy, Johannesburg, South Africa. 

Stone, Maurice, and Chesher, S. E., 1969, Determination of 

lithium oxide in silicate rocks by atomic-absorption spectrophotometry: Analyst, v. 94, no. 1125, p. 1063-1067. 

Strelow, F. W. E., Liebenberg, C. J., and Toerien, F. von 

S., 1968, Quantitative s.eparation of the alkali metals 

by cation-exchange chromatography with Bio-Rex 40 resin: 

Anal. Chim. Acta, v. 43, p. 465-473. 

--- 1969, Accurate silicate analysis based on separation by 

ion-exchange chromatography: Anal. Chim. Acta, v. 47~ 

no. 2, p. 251-260. 

Strelow, F. W. E., Toerien, F. von S., and Weinert, C. H., 

1970, Accurate determination of traces of sodium and potassium in rocks by ion exchange followed by atomic absorption spectroscopy: Anal. Chim. Acta, v. 50, no. 3, p. 

399-405. 

Suhr, N. H., and Smith, B. C., II, 1970, Written communication, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pa. 

sulcek, Zdenek, and Rubeska, Ivan, 1968, Die Bestimmung 

von Lithium-spuren in Gesteinen: Acta Geol. Geogr. Univ. 

Comenianae, Geol. no. 15 ,p. 177-183. 

Tanaka, T., and Iida, C., 1969, Atomic absorption spectrophotometric determination of lead by the absorption tube 

technique: Japan Analyst, v. 18, p. 492-496. 

Tandon, S.- N., and Wasson, J. T., 1968, Gallium, germanium, 

indium, and irridium variations in a suite of L-group 

cho:ndrite,s: Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta. v. 32, no. 10, 

1087-1109. 

Terashima, S., 1971a, Atomic absorption analysis of minor 

elements in silicates: Japan Analyst, v. 20, p. 321-326 

[in Japanese]. 

--- 1971b, Determination of cobolt, chromium, copper, 

lithium, nickel, lead, strontium, and zinc in silicates by 

atomic absorption spectrophotometry: Japan Geol. Survey Bull., v. 22, no. 5, p. 19-33. 

--- 1971c, Written communication, Geol. Survey of Japan, 

Kawasaki. 

Thompson, G., and Bankston, D. C., 1970, Apparent copper 

inconstancy in artificially prepared standards when determined by emission spectrometry: Appl. Spectroscopy, 

v. 24, p. 375-378. 

Thompson, G., Bankston, D. C., and Pasley, S. M., 1970, 

Trace element data for U.S.G.S. reference silicate rocks: 

Chern. Geology, v. 5, no. 3, p. 215-221. 

Toerien, F. v. S., 1969, Written communication, Natl. Chemical Research Laboratory, Council for Sci. Indus. Research, Pretoria, South Africa. 

Tomura, K., Higuchi, H., Onuma, N., and Hamaguchi, H., 

1968, Rapid determination of dysprosium in rock samples 

by neutron activation analysis with a Ge(Li) detector 

after chemical se~paration: Anal. Chim. Acta, v. 42, p. 

389-395. 

Tomura, Kenji; Higuchi, Hideo; Takahashi, Hiroshi; Onuma, 

N.; and Hamaguchi, H.; 1968, Simultaneous determination of rubidium and cesium in rock samples by neutron 

activation analysis with a lithium-drifted germanium detector after chemical group-separation: Anal. Chim. 

Acta, v. 43, no. 3, p. 523-526. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 1970, Mercury in the environment: 

U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 713, 67 p . 

Van Loon, J. C., and Parissis, C. M., 1969, Scheme of silicate 

analysis based on the lithium metaborate fusion followed 

by atomic absorption spectrophotometry: Analyst, v. 94, 

p. 1057-1062. 

Van Moort, J. C., 1968, Written communication, Dept. Geology, 

Univ. of Tasmania, Hobart. 

Van Zelst, L., 1971a, Instrumental photon and proton activation analysis of some elements in stony meteorites: 

Thesis, Univ. Amsterdam. 

--- 1971b, Non-destructive activation analysis of some 

elements in stony meteorites by proton- and Bremsstrahlen-irradiation, in Brunfelt, A. 0., and Steinnes, Eiliv, 

eds., Activation analysis in geochemistry and cosmochemistry ... : Oslo, Universitetsforlaget, p. 99-104. 

Vidal, F., 1972, Written communication, Inst. Geologie, Univ. 

de Rennes, France. 

Walsh, J. N., 1972, Written communication, Dept. Geol., Kings 

College, London. 

Walters, L. J., Jr., 1967, Bound halogen in sediments: Thesis, 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 224 p. 

·warr, J. J., Jr., and and Dinnin, J. I., 1970, Written com-

. munication, U.S. Geol. Survey, Washington, D.C. 
1972 COMPILATION OF DATA ON USGS STANDARDS 183 

Wasson, J. T., and Baedecker, P. A., 1970, Ga, Ge, In, Ir, 

and Au in lunar, terrestrial, and meteoritic basalts, in 

Apollo 11 Lunar Sci. Conf., Houston, Tex., 1970, Proc., 

v. 2: New York, Pergamon Press (Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, Supp. 1), p. 17 41-1750. 

Webber, G. R., and Newbury, M. L., 1971, X-ray fluorescence 

determination of minor and trace elements in silicate 

rocks: Canadian Spectroscopy, v. 16, p. 90-93. 

Weissberg, B. G., 1971, Determination of mercury in soils by 

flameless atomic absorption spectrometry: Econ. Geology, 

v. 66, p. 1042-1047. 

Welin, E., 1970, Wdtten communication, Naturhistoriska 

Riksmuseet, Stockholm, 50, Sweden. 

Whitley, J. E., Bowden, P., and Angus, N. S., 1971, The 

determination of trace elements in igneous rocks by nuclear techniques, in Brunfelt, A. 0., and Steinnes, Eiliv, 

eds., Activation analysis in geochemistry and cosmochemistry ... : Oslo, Universitetsforlaget, p. 55-64. 

Willis, J. P., Fesq, H. W., Kable, E. J. D., and Berg, G. W., 

1969, The determination of barium in rocks by X-ray 

fluorescence spectrometry: Canadian Spectroscopy, v. 14, 

p. 150-157. 

Wolfe, L. A., and Zeitlin, H., 1970, An X-ray fluorescence 

spectroscopic method for the determination of total manganese in rocks and marine sediments: Anal. Ghim. Acta, 

v. 51, p. 349--354. 

Wright, I. H., 1968, Written communication, Univ. Witwatersrand. [Uncorrected XRF data.] 

Wyttenbach, A., 1969, Rapid insttrumerutal nuclear activation 

analysis of rocks, cements, and meteorites: Helvetica 

Chim. Acta, v. 52, no. 8, p. 2458-2465. 

Y ouh, Chang-Ching, 1968, A report on the chemical analyses 

of granite G-2 and diabase W-1: Geol. Soc. Ohina Proc., 

No. 11, p. 143-146. 

--- 1970, Chemical analysis of standard rock samples 

from U.S. Geological Survey: Geol. Soc. China Proe., 

no. 13, p.161-163. 

DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

DETERMINATION OF GOLD, SILVER, AND TANTALUM IN THE NEW 

USGS STANDARDS BY NEUTRON ACTIVATION ANALYSIS 

By G. N. A.NosHIN1 and G. A. PEREZHOGIN1 

Substokhiometric ·separations after neutron activation were 

used to determine gold, silver, and :tantalum in the new USGS 

standard rocks. Au, Ag, and Ta weve determined in two portions from each of three bottles of the standards. The rocks 

may be considered homogeneous for these elements except for 

Ag in QL0-1 and Au in MAG-1. 

Modern physical and physico-chemical analytical 

methods do not always provide reliable data for 

geochemical samples, and many workers demonstrate the validity of their methods by determining 

the abundance of elements in USGS standard rocks. 

Most determinations on these standards are made 

on different bottles, and it cannot be decided 

whether the variance among the different sets of 

data is due to different analytical methods or to 

heterogeneity of the elements among bottles. Hence, 

it seemed necessary to determine elements in several 

bottles to obtain both an analytical variance that 

would characterize the analytical procedures and 

the variance of the abundance of the elements 

among bottles that would characterize the homogeneity of the distribution of the elements in the entire standard. Such an investigation seemed especially important for the neutron-activation analysis of gold in rocks, because relatively small portions (0.2-0.4 g) are usually taken for the determination. 

The problem of the neutron-activation analysis of 

gold in rocks and minerals has been discussed 

(Perezhogin and Alimarin, 1965; Anoshin and 

others, 1971). Some workers (Rozhkov and others, 

1970; Rakovsky and others, 1971) consider average 

abundances of gold in rocks by neutron-activation 

analysis to be of questionable value because of the 

heterogeneity of the distribution of gold in rocks. 

Analyses of the new USGS rocks may help to solve 

this problem. 

1 Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Siberian Branch, USSR Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk 90, USSR. 

The present and previous (G. N. Anoshin and 

G. A. Perezhogin, unpub. data, 1971) studies have 

been based on substoichiometric separations after 

neutron activation; our present procedure allows us 

to determine gold, silver, and tantalum in a si'ngle 

portion. Tantalum was not determined in shales 

SCo-1 and SGR-1 and in the schist SDC-1. 

Samples ( 0.2-0.4 g) of the finely crushed rocl<:s 

were put into aluminum foil packets, weighed, and 

placed in aluminum containers. Standards were prepared by applying 0.01 ml solutions of gold (10-4 

g/ml), silver (10 mg/ml), and tantalum (10 mg/ 

ml) to filter-paper strips. After drying, the strips 

were put between two similar strips of filter paper 

and wrapped in aluminum foil. These standards 

were then placed in the same aluminum containers 

as the rock samples. These containers were then 

irradiated in a nuclear reactor with a neutron flux 

of 1013n/cm2 /sec for 3 days ·and were allowed to 

cool for 7 days. 

Alundum crucibles were prepared by adding to 

each crucible 0.2 ml of carrier solutions of gold 

(5 mg/ml), silver (100 mg/ml), and tantalum (81 

mg/ml), which were then adjusted with 5 M NaOH 

to alkaline pH and dried. Irradiated samples and 

standards were placed in such crucibles and were 

mixed with a tenfold excess of sodium peroxide. 

The crucibles were then placed in a muffle furnace 

for 8-10 min and the melt was stirred occasionally. 

The crucibles were then removed from the furnace, 

allowed to cool to room temperature, and treated 

with water. The solution with the hydroxide precipitate was transf~rred to a beaker, heated, and 

centrifuged. The precipitate was. washed with hot 

water and again collected by centrifugation. 

The combined supernatents were transferred to 

a beaker and acidified with concentrated HGl while 

being stirred. The solution was heated, 3-4 drops 

185 
186 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

TABLE 108.-Determinations of gold, silvert, and tantalum in USGS standard rocks. 

[ d.f., degrees of freedom. Neg., negative bottle variance. Conclusions from the analysis of variance at Fo.95 or the fractile indicated: NS, not sig- nificant; S, significant (at Fo.oo)] 

Coefficient 

Standard deviation of 

Standa.rd Bottles varia- Conclusions 

Rock 2 3 Mean Bottles Error tion (d.f.=2) (d.f.=3) (error) 

(percent) 

Gold (parts per billion) 

QL0-1 1.75 . 1.8 2.0 1.66 Neg . 0.32 19.3 NS 

1.7 1.3 1.4 

RGM-1 0.23 0.32 0.42 0.28 0.00 0.08 28.6 NS 

.25 .20 .27 

STM-1 .27 .26 .44 .36 .10 .07 19.4 NS 

.26 .40 .5-3 

BHV0-1 1.7 1.9 1.8 1.82 .10 .04 2.2 NS(0.975) 

1.7 1.9 1.9 

MAG-1 2.6 2.8 1.9 2.43 .5 .11 4.5 s 

2.4 3.0 1.9 

SCo-1 2.7 2.9 3.2 2.72 .23 .34 12.5 NS 

2.3 2.2 3.0 

SDC-1 1.1 .9 1.3 1.1 .03 .21 19.1 NS 

.8 1.3 1.2 

SGR-1 9.7 11 12 10.8 Neg. 1.8 16.7 NS 

11 13 8.4 

Silver (parts per billion) 

QL0-1 5.5 4.1 3.9 4.5 0.76 0.15 3.4 s 

5.2 4.0 4.1 

RGM-1 9.5 10 10 10.3 .88 1.7 16.5 NS 

9.2 14 9.1 

STM-1 8.0 6.4 6.6 8.0 Neg. 1.8 2'2.5 NS 

8.2 9.1 10 

BHV0-1 5.2 5.9 5.8 5.7 .44 .17 3.0 NS(0.975) 

5.1 5.8 6.2' 

MAG-1 6.5 6.0 7.0 6.4 .46 .40 6.2 NS 

5.6 6.4 7.1 

SCo-1 23 18 18 19 2.1 1.3 6.8 NS 

20 17 17 

SDC-1 6.8 8.5 8.8 9.0 Neg. 1.9 21.1 NS 

11 8.2 11 

SGR-1 16 20 20 19.2 1.8 1.2 6.2 NS 

18 22 19 

Tantalum (parts per million) 

QL0-1 0.85 0.69 0.45 0.63 0.14 0.08 12.7 NS 

.66 .66 .46 

RGM-1 .59 .46 .53 .54 .06 .03 5.9 NS (0.975) 

.65 .50 .52 

STM-1 8.5 6.4 1 29 7.9 .96 .55 7.0 NS 

8.5 7.0 9.1 

BHVO- .95 1.0 .96 .96 .007 .033 3.4 NS 

1.0 .96 .91 

MAG-1 1.0 1.1 .80 . 88 Neg . .19 22.7 NS 

.65 .80 .92 

1 This value does not belong to the same population as the other Ta data and the mean of the five other Ta values was substituted for the analysis of variance. Because of the substitution, the conclusjon and the estimates should be considered provisional. 
DETERMINATION OF GOLD, SILVER, AND TANTALUM 187 

of antimony (20 mg/ml) and tellurium (15 mg/ml) 

solutions were added, and the gold and the tellurium 

reduced by ascorbic acid and hydrazine sulfate. 

The solution must be clear after the precipitate 

coagulates. The precipitate was collected on glass 

filters and washed with 10 percent HCI. The filtrate was discarded. The precipitate was treated 

with a hot freshly prepared mixture of HCl :HNOa 

( 4: 1), and the solution was rinsed with water into 

a 100-ml flask. The volume of the solution was adjusted with water to about 10 ml, 2 ml of 1.5 x 10-3 

M tetraphenylarsonium chloride-chloroform solution was added, and the mixture was agitated for 

2-3 min (the organic layer must become yellow). 

The contents of the flask were transferred to a centrifuge tube, the tube was centrifuged, and 1.6 ml 

of the organic layer was withdrawn for the gold 

determination. 

The precipitate of the hydroxides containing tantalum and silver was washed with water and treated 

with 2-3 ml of concentrated nitric acid on a water 

bath. The mixture was centrifuged, and the precipitate was washed with concentrated ammonia. 

This precipitate is used for the tantalum determination. 

To the combined solution resulting from the treatments with HN03 and NH40H above, 25 percent 

ammonia was added dropwise until ferric hydroxide 

precipitated. This precipitate was washed and discarded. The solution was acidified with HCl, and the 

precipitate of silver chloride filtered off. The precipitate was washed with 1 percent HCl and with water 

and then dissolved on the filter with concentrated 

ammonia. One ml of a 0.1-M KI solution was added 

to the filtrate, and the silver iodide precipitate was 

collected on a filter paper disc in a demountable 

funnel. Adhesive polyethylene film was then used 

to cover the filter paper to protect the precipitate. 

The precipitate for the determination of tantalum 

was treated with 20-30 drops of hydrofluoric acid, 

2-3 ml of saturated oxalic acid solution was added, 

and the mixture was centrifuged. The centrifugate 

was transferred to a 100-ml flask, diluted with 

water, and 0.5 ml of a 10-2 M tetraphenylarsonium 

chloride solution was added (a white precipitate 

must appear) , followed by 2.5 ml of 1,-2-dichloroethane. The mixture was agitated until the complete 

dissolution of the precipitate. The solution was 

transferred to a tube and centrifuged. The aqueous 

layer was removed by pipette and discarded, and 

2 ml of the organic phase was transferred to a 

graduated tube for the tantalum determination. 

The activities of 198Au (Ey=0.41 Mev, T112 =65 h), 110mAg (Ey=0.66 Mev, T112 =250 days) and 182Ta 

(Ey=l.0-1.1 Mev, Tllz =115 days) were measured on 

a 100 x 80 mm Nal crystal, and the data were recorded in a 256-channel analyzer. The counting 

rates of the nuclides determined the counting times, 

which were generally 10-30 min for Au, 30-100 

min for Ag, and 5-15 min for Ta. 

The data obtained and the estimates and conclusions resulting from the analysis of variance for a 

single variable of classification are given in table 

108. The three elements may be considered homogenously distributed among bottles of sample except for silver in sample QL0-1 and gold in sample 

MAG-1. The problem of the accuracy of the analyses of sedimentary rocks for gold has been discussed by Clifton and others ( 1969) who demonstrated that the accuracy of the analysis for gold 

depends on the number and size of the gold particles present. The heterogeneity of gold in MAG-1 

may be due to a heterogeneous distribution of numbers and sizes of gold particles in the bottles. 

REFERENCES 

Anoshin, G. N., Perezhogin, G. A., and Melnikova, R. D., 

1971, [On some methodical problems of the application 

of radioactivation analysis to studies in the geochemistry 

of gold], in [Analysis and technology of noble metals], 

Conf. Chemistry, Analysis Technology Noble Metals, 8th, 

Novosibirsk, 1969, Trudy, p. 295-297 (in Russian). 

Clifton, H. E., Hunter, R. E., Swanson, F. J., and Phillips, 

R. L., 1969, Sample size and meaningful gold analysis. 

U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 625-C, 17 p. 

Perezhogin, G. A., and Alimarin, I. P;, 1965. [The determination of gold in rocks and meteorites by neutron activation 

analysis]: Zhur. Analit. Khim. v. 20, p. 793-798 (in 

Russian). 

Rakovsky, E. E., Behrenstein, L. E., Shilin, N. L., and Serebryany, B. L., 1971. [Method of radioactivation determination of gold and its application to studies of some 

problems in gold geochemistry], in [Analysis and technolo~r of noble metals], Conf. Chemistry, Analysis, Technology Noble Metals, 8th, Novosibirsk, 1969, Trudy, p. 

305-408 (in Russian). 

Roskov, I. S., Rakovsky, E. E., Behrenstein, L. E., Shilin, N. 

L., and Serebryany, N. L., 1970. [On inhomogeneous distribution of gold in rocks and minerals (as revealed by 

radioactivation analysis)]: Akad. Nauk. SSSH · Dokl., 

v. 191, p. 927-930 (in Russian). 

DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

G-1 ET W-1: REQUIESCANT IN PACE! 

By F. J. FLANAGAN 

A debate is occurring in the literature between Felix 

Chayes who, using correlation coefficients, attributes the wide 

spread of paired data for G-1 and W-1 to systematic interanalyst differences, and A. B. Vistelius who, using scatter 

diagrams, contends that sample heterogeneity is responsible. 

From analyses of four new rocks, paired silica data for G-2 

(the replacement for G-1) and GSP-1 (a much coarser 

grained granodiorite) show less scatter than Vis1telius' diagram for G-1 and W-1, whereas paired silica data for AGV-1 

and BGR-1, both aphanitic rocks, are scattered at least as 

widely as those data for G-1 and W-1. The coarsest powder 

of these new rocks is GSP-1 that has 96 percent passing a 

200-mesh sieve so that a claim of heterogeneity seems unwarranted. An experiment to determine which of the two 

viewpoints i,s correct cannot be made because of the complete 

depletion of G-1 and W-1; hence, Requiescant in Pace! 

The eulogy delivered by Chayes (1969) in his 

"Last Look at G-1-W-1" appears to have been 

premature in view of the full-fledged fray of Chayes 

(1969, 1970) versus Vistelius (1970, 1971). Because the debate about G-1 and W-1 seems to be 

waxing rather than waning, several details of the 

program given insufficient attention and the subsequent change in particle size, some of which may 

have escaped the attention of a casual reader, should 

be listed: 

1. The program was started to see how well rock 

analysts could perform. Obviously, as noted 

many times, analysts were not as good as had 

been believed. 

2. No experimental design is mentioned in U.S. 

Geological Survey Bulletin 980 (Fairbairn 

and others, 1951). 

3. The particle size of the samples (G-1 is described 

as passing an 80-mesh screen and W-1 as passing a 100-mesh screen) was known to be too 

large by many of us before Kleeman ( 1967) 

concluded that they were too coarse to be used 

as reference samples. In retrospect, authors up 

to the present time have been negligent in 

their literature searches because Behre and 

Hassialis ( 1945) published a method based on 

the binomial distribution for calculating the 

amount of sample necessary for a determination to be within specified limits at a predetermined probability, or alternately, for calculating the error that might be incurred in a 

determination, assuming a specified weight of 

sample. 

The particle size of the two samples was 

changed by some unknown person and unknown method during my assignment to other 

laboratories from 1957 to 1962. Upon my return, the particle size of the samples was 

finer than that of the samples of G-1 used in a 

lead study (Flanagan, 1960). The G-1 in the 

six bottles for the lead study had been purposely ground finer to obviate errors that 

might have been incurred because of the coarse 

particle size; I neglected to mention this fact 

in the paper. Ball (1965, p. 263) noted that the 

two rocks were supplied as powders that 

passed a 300-mesh sieve. 

4. There is no description of what happened to the 

two samples between the mixing "by shoveling 

and by shifting on the canvas" (Fairbairn and 

others, 1951, p. 4) and the bottling of the 

samples. Either shoveling or shifting, assuming that the final form of the material was a 

cone, could induce segregation by particle size, 

shape, or density when particles tumbled down 

the surface of the cone. The method of transfer of the material from the cone(?) to the 

bottles is unknown, and, unless some better 

method of mixing had been used, the analysts 

may have started with an unknown but real 

handicap. 

189 
190 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

70.00r-------~r-----------------~~----------------~~----------------~~------- I I I T 

1-

z 

w 

~ 69.00 fw 

a.. 

~ 

N. 

0 

~ 

68.00-

64.50 65.00 

I 

66.00 

.15 

e16a 

ez 

24 19 26 9 .17 

5 . ~~4 ~· 3 

25 .... 6 20 

• 7 • - 8. 18 .13 

1oe • _.16b 

12ae ,12b 16c 

18 

.22 .21 

-

I I 

67.00 68.00 

Si02 IN GSP-1, IN PERCENT 

FIGURE 9.---'Scatter diagram of Si02 determinations. in G-2 and GSP-1. Data and analysts, identified by number, are from 

Flanagan (1969). The average of the data for G-2 and GSP-1 i.s indicated by+· 

5. The bottles were distinguished from each other 

only by the numbers G-1 or W-1. There was 

therefore no way to store the botdes randomly, and the best one can expect is that they 

were stored haphazardly. Consequently, the 

selection of any bottles for analysis would have 

been haphazard, at best. 

6. Although all rock analysts are reminded occasionally to mix the contents of their bottle 

before sampling, there is no assurance that 

they do. 

7. The reasonable assumption by both Chayes and 

Vistelius that Collaborator 1 for G-1 is the 

same as Collaborator 1 for W-1 cannot be 

tested because I discarded the original data for 

the samples a year or two before Chayes wrote 

his "Last Look." 

8. Neither author mentions that 13 pairs of those 

analyses of G-1 and W-1 under consideration 

were listed as the average of two analyses. Although nothing can be done to recover the information lost by averaging, one can wonder 

how much the correlation coefficient or diagram might have been changed. 

9. At the beginning of the program that resulted in 

Geological Survey Bulletin 980 (Fairbairn and 

others, 1951), a bottle each of G-1 and W-1 
I 

\G-1 ET W-1: REQUIESCANT IN PACE! 191 

I I I 

e12b 

•12a 

60.00 1- -

.21 

~ .2 .15 2 

w 

u 

a: 

w 6 a.. 5. 26 24 

~ 17 7.-_ ••• • 9~4 19 23 

> 59.00 r3 ·+ - <:) 

<( 

~ •• 8 18 .22 

d' .. 

en 10 •• 18 e20 

.13 

.14 

58.00 - -

16c l16b 

l I I 

53.0 I 54.0 55.0 56.0 

I s;o, IN BCR-1, IN PERCENT 

FIGURE 10.-Scatter diagram of Si02 determinations in AGV-1 and BGR-1. Data and analysts, identified by number, are from 

Flanagan (1969). The .verage of the data for AGV-1 and BCR-1 is indicated by +· 

were mailed simultaneously ~ each analyst would likely be analyzed simultaneously simdesiring to participate in the co\Ilaborative pro- ply because four analyses can be handled congram (Michael Fleischer, oral cbmmun., 1972). 

As a former rock analyst, I submit that there 

is an overwhelming temptation lto analyze both 

samples simultaneously. A furtJier temptation, 

equally strong, is to make du~Iicate analyses 

of both standards "just to be ~ure of the results," and the duplicate portions of each 

I 

II 

II 

veniently. Even excluding obvious blunders, 

there is an excellent chance of incurring correlated errors in the classical procedure for 

rock analysis if the standard samples were 

handled in this way. Based on such speculation, I agree with Chayes' contention that the 
192 DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES OF EIGHT NEW USGS ROCK STANDARDS 

published data exhibit large amounts of analytical error. Such speculation, however, does 

not obviate arguments by Vistelius based on 

particle shape, size, or density, or upon the 

possible distribution of monomineralic species 

within a given bottle. 

A compilation of data on six USGS samples 

(Flanagan, 1969) gives some further evidence applicable to the ·theses of Chayes and Vistelius. These 

samples were processed so that a minimum of 85 

percent passed a 200-mesh screen; the particle-size 

distribution of the powdered samples is shown in 

table 109. Among the six samples are G-2, a substitute for G-1 but a slightly coarser grained portion 

of the Westerly Granite, and GSP-1, a granodiorite 

(or better, an adamellite) whose grain size is ~uch 

larger than those of G-1 or G-2. If one omits the 

data by analyst 1, who made spectrographic determinations, and plots the results of the determinations by the other analysts of Si02 in G-2 versus the 

paired determinations of Si02 in GSP-1, the plot 

(fig. 9) seems to lend suppo!\t to the contentions of 

both Chayes and Vistelius, because the data, except 

for analyst 14, are well clustered. 

Two other samples in the series of six are AGV -1, 

an andesite from southern Oregon, and BCR-1, a 

basalt from the Columbia River Group, which differ 

markedly from G-2 and GSP-1 in that they are both 

very fine grained rocks. If we plot the Si02 determinations for AGV -1 versus the paired data for BCR1, the resulting plot (fig. 10) is similar to figure 1 of 

Vistelius ( 1971). This scatter diagram, like that for 

G-1 and W-1, can be best interpreted in terms of 

correlated errors, that is, when Si02 is low in AGV1, it is also low in BCR-1, and conversely. Possible 

arguments by Vistelius that the scatter might be due 

to particle size, shape, or density or that the trend 

may have been generated by one or more monomineralic species would be untenable because of the 

fine particle size to which these four samples were 

ground and of the care with which the powders were 

sampled into bottles (Flanagan, 1967). 

Because the supply of G-1 was depleted about 

1965 and that of W-1 in 1972 and because the size 

distribution of the two samples was changed (Ball, 

1965) since the original preparation, there is little 

or M likelihood that one can now test the subject of 

the debate by a well-designed experiment. Hence, 

G-1 et W-1, Requiescant in Pace! 

TABLE 109.-Particle-size distribution, in percent, of six 

USGS samples 

[Reprinted from Flanagan, 1967, table 1] 

Rock sample G-2 GSP-1 AGV-1 PCC-1 DTS-1 BCR-1 

Number of sieve tests 2 3 3 3 3 3 

Mesh size 

+too 0·1 0·2 tr tr 0·1 tr 

-100 +120 0·1 0·1 tr tr 0·1 tr 

-120 +170 0·4 1·1 ·0·5 1·6 1·5 0·1 

-170 +200 0·9 2·5 0·4 5·6 4·0 0·6 

-200 98·5 96·1 99·1 92·8 94·3 99·3 

REFERENCES 

Ball, D. F., 1965, R1apid analysis for SIOme major elements in 

powdered rock by X-ray fluorescence spectrography: 

Analyst, v. 90, p. 258-265. 

Behre, H. A., and Hassialis, M. D., 1945, Sampling and testing, Sec. 19 of Taggart, A. F., Handbook of mineral 

d!'lessing-ores .and industrial miner-als: New York, John 

Wiley and Sons, p. 19-01-19-208. 

Chayes, Felix, 1969, A las.t look at G-1-W-1: Carnegie lnSJt. 

Washington Year Book 67, 1967-68, p. 239-241. 

--1970, Another last look at G-1-W-1: lnternat. Assoc. 

Math. Geology Joor., v. 2, p. 207-209. 

Fairbairn, H. W ., and others, 1951. A coopell"ative investigation of precis~on and accuracy in chemical, spectrochemical, and modal analy;s1i.s of silicate rocks: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 980, 71 p. 

Flanagan, F. J., 1960, The lead content of G-1, Part 5 of 

Stevens, R. E., and others, Second repo•rt on a cooperative investigation of the composition of two .silicate 

rocks: U.S. Geol. Su!"V'ey Bull. 1113, p. 113-121. 

-- 1967. UJS. Geological .Survey siUcate rock standards': 

Geoch.im. et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 31, p. 289-308. 

-- 1969. U.S. Geological Survey standards-H. FirSit 

compilation of data for the nrew U.S.G.S. rocks: Geochim. 

et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 33, p. 81-120. 

Kleeman, A. W., 1967, Sampling error "in the chemical analysis of rocks: Geol. Soc. Australia Jour., v. 14, pt. 1, p. 

43-47. 

Vistelius, A. B., 1970, Statistical model of .~licate analysis 

and results of investigation of G-1 and W-1 samp·les: 

Intern:at. Assoc. Math. Geology Jour., v. 2, p. 1-14. 

-- 1971, S.ome lessons of the G-1-W-1 inwstigation: 

Internat. Assoc. Math. Geology Jour., v. 3, p. 323-326.