Elements in Fruits and Vegetables from 

Areas of Commercial Production in the 

Conterminous United States
Elements in Fruits and Vegetables from 

Areas of Commercial Production in the 

Conterminous United States

By HANSFORD T. SHACKLETTE

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1178

A biogeochemical study of selected food plants based on 

field sampling of plant material and soil

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON: 1980
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

CECIL D. ANDRUS, Secretary

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

H. William Menard, Director

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Shacklette, Hansford T.

Elements in fruits and vegetables from areas of commercial production in the conterminous 

United States.

(Geological Survey Professional Paper 1178)

Bibliography: p. 28

Supt. of Docs, no.: I 19.16:1178

1. Vegetables—United States—Composition. 2. Fruit—United States—Composition. 3. VegetablesUnited States—Soils—Composition. 4. Fruit—United States—Soils—Composition. 5. BiogeochemistryUnited States. 6. Fruit-culture-United States. 7. Truck farming-United States. 8. Soils-United 

States-Composition. I. Title. II. Series: United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1178.

SB320.6.S52 641.3's'0973 80-607141

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, D.C. 20402
CONTENTS

j. II trouuc tion -—••-••—TM--TM—-—-----——-—---—-TM--—TM

Sampling localities ——————————————

Berrien County, Michigan —————

Wayne County, New York ———————

Cumberland County, New Jersey 

Palm Beach County, Florida — 

Hidalgo County, Texas ———————

Imperial County, California ——————

Yuma County, Arizona —--—————

Twin Falls County, Idaho ———————

Yakima County, Washington -----———

San Joaquin County, California 

Mesa County, Colorado ———————

Methods of sampling plants and soils —-— 

Sampling design ——————————

Sampling techniques ————————

Species of plants sampled ————

f ru.it s ------—-•—- --—-—-—................

Vegetables

Collection and preparation of samples

Fruits x i UILO ——————————— .........

Vegetables ———————— —— —

Soils _ — _ - _ • __ — —— • -----

Analytical methods used —————————

Plants--— ————— —————— ————— ——

Statistical procedures used in evaluating data

Concentrations of elements in fruits and vegetables 

Bases for reporting concentrations of elements -----

Page

9

9

10

10

10

11

11

12

12

12

13

13

13

13

17

17

17

Results— Continued

Concentrations of elements in fruits and 

vegetables— Continued

Mean concentrations in samples - —— - —— - — - — - —

Compositional variation among areas, among fields

within areas, and within fields —— - — — — - ——

Analysis of variance -- — — —— - ———— - —— - — —

Significant differences in mean element concentrations among areas of commercial production ——

Concentrations of elements and pH of soils that supported the fruits and vegetables — - —— - — - — -- —

Compositional variation among areas and among

fields within areas — — - —— — — -— ——— - — — -

Analysis of variance - ——— — - —— — — - — - — -—

Significant differences in mean element concentration and pH among areas of commercial

production — -- —— — —— —— — —— -- — — — - ——

Discussion of results — — — ~ — -- —— — — — —— -- — - —— - — - —

Trends in element concentrations in fruits and vegeAmong kinds of produce

Among areas of commercial production — - ——— - —

Trends in element concentrations in soils supporting

fruits and vegetables — ~ — — - — — —— — — ~ — -— — -

Among kinds of produce — — — - — — —— — — — - — —

Among areas of commercial production — — —— - ——

Relationships of the element concentrations in fruits and

vegetables and the concentrations in soils — - — — — - ——

t-ITVM-MQflr ummary ———— —————— - ———— — — „. ———— _________ — __ „„ —__________

Conclusions — — — — — - — — — — — ..———.—— —— .._.... — .. —

References cited - — - — ----- -- — — — — — — - —— — —— — -- — —

ILLUSTRATION

Page

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

2 1

2 1

2 1

23

24

24

24

25

& 97t 

28 

28

Page

FIGURE 1. Map showing locations of counties where fruits and vegetables were

sampled ———--—————————————————— —*--—— —-— —-- o

TABLES

TABLE 1. Summary of methods used for analysis of plants and plant ashes and approximate lower limits of determination - — -- —— - — - —— — — — — -

2. Summary of methods used for analysis of soils and approximate lower 

limits oi determination — - — • —— ..... ————— ...... —— ........ —— .... — .... —

3. Components of variance in composition between samples from within a 

sampling site and between analyses of the same sample -— —— - ——

Page

14

17

ill
IV CONTENTS

TABLES 4-20. Elements in ash or dried material, percent ash yield of dried material, Pase 

and percent dried material yield of fresh fruits and vegetables 

from areas of commercial production:

-I. ^-&iud. &i,ciu gia|JG0 — ~ — — — 

c AfvrVlpQ ' pp

D« HjuropGsn gr&p&s -«-— «»-—«— ---««—— --—»--— -»—««•»—«

8. Oranges —— — —— — — -_——__.___ — .--.-—

1 ft Poaro ....... .................... ......... .... . ...__...«..

U Pin me __ ______ _ __ __ _ _ __ __

1 9 /^oKKorrA . ..... ........ . .... . ... ........ ......

13. Carrots ———— - ————————————————————

14. Cucumbers ——————————— - ———————————

15. Dry beans ———— - ———————— - ——————————

n

Pnf nf-rma . ____ ... __ _ . --—-—- ...... __ __ ___ _

lo, &nap Deans ------ ----- — — ——-—«--— .......... «..«._.........

9O TWnatrioQ - — —— - ————— —— —— — — ———— ——

. .. .. .. 34

_.... ..... 35

—— —— 36

00

„.. .... 40

... _ - 42

.. .... ... 44

. ..... .... 46

__ —— 48

4Q

.... — 50

CO

.. —— ... 54

cc

—— —— 58

—— .... 60

21-37. Summary statistics of element concentrations expressed on fresh-, dry-, 

and ash-weight bases, ash yield of dry material, and dry-material 

yield of fresh material for each kind of fruit and vegetable collected in more than one area:

21. American grapes ————-——————-—————————————- 62

22. Apples ——--———————————————-———————————— 63

23. European grapes -——————-———-—————————————— 64

£t *)A i±t dvanofwilt urrcipciruit ---—————————-—-———-—-—-—————-----———---•• _ _ „ .__ . ..„__ _.........-_......_.-..........-- RK, uu

£t\J, Oft i J)aaf»VlAa CUCIlCO ——-—————-————————-——-" __ ... -MM........................_................_......................... ——TM -—— U fi7i

28. Plums - ————

29. Cabbage ———

^Ift P'nrrntc .... .......

31. Cucumbers —— 

32. Dry beans —— 

33. Lettuce- ————

^ A. Pnfr Q t noo ....—.„

35. Snap beans ——

37 Tmrmtnoo ..

ftQ

..... ... —— .... .. —— —— ——— .. —— —— 70

71

72

73

ri A

7C

in

______ _ ___________________ _ _____ ___ 7 7 

.... ——— . __ . ..... _ .. „ __ . . __ . 7fi

38-45. Summary statistics of element concentrations expressed on fresh-, dry-, 

and ash-weight bases, ash yield of dry material, and dry-material 

yield of fresh material for each kind of fruit and vegetable collected in only one area:

OO. QB /\o£Jclrei££Uo Aanoromio -———•—-—.•—---— ... _............................................._.....__....„........... — — — -- .......... .....««.. . .......... 7Qi jj

O«7. QQ Oonf V/ClllbCUUUpcO almmaa — ——.—..——......——........-•.........—— _ ...... _ ____ ,, ______ .-.«.——-— _____ ........... ____ ............ _____ , Q^J Q(\

4i/. v/nmese caDbage -TM-—-*"— --—-—— --———— -——-—— —---—— ——TM- oi.

41. Eggplant —————————— - ——————————————————— 82

42. Endive — - ————————— -- —— - ——— - ———————————— 83

43. Onions ——————— - —————— - —————————————————— 84

•±*±. A A i Paralov cu aiXs y ..-«........«........-...-...----.- ___ ............. __ _______ ........... ____________ ......... ............ . ____________ ............ owftC,

46-62. Estimates of logarithmic variance for fruits and vegetables from areas 

of commercial production in the conterminous United States:

46. American grapes ————————————————————————— 87

47. Apples ————— - ——————————————————————————— 87

4o.

ACk r^*»OT%af»*nif "v. xJII CILICJ.! \JLLv

C A

uu.

51. Peaches —————————————————————————————— 88

52. Pears ———————————————————————————————— 88
CONTENTS

TABLES 46-62. Estimates of logarithmic variance for fruits and vegetables— Continued Page

53. Plums—-- —— - — -- — -- —— -——————- ———— - —— --..—-—— 88

54. Cabbage —— - — --— -— —— — — ~ — - — - — - —— - —— ----- — - — 89

---— ----—— --— -—--......_...........---— ..... -—---.....-...— ... TM-TM-—--.—-.... . ... CQOI7

____________________________ -.--.—..........-- . .... .._._.._.____....._..........____________... ............. . o QQ</

57. Dry beans -— —— -- — -- — ----- — - — - — -— — - —— - —— -- — — — 89

CQ OO.

fin W. Qri kjiid^J a r* Han ucdiio n c .......................-.—. -«««---««--—•-—-•- - .—-—--.-— ---—...... ........... . ................ ......__..._____._ .... . oni/v/

fil \j j. . Qwmof o w cc L i»ui r*rvrn 11 --.—.-...--—.--.—..--... ................ . ............-.--....-.............-..-—.--......._ .......... - QO<y\j

R9 U__. Tnmflfnp« J. UllldvUCC) ____________ • _____________________________ Q1 i/ J.

63. Areas having significantly different concentrations of elements in fruits 

and.

64-80. Element concentrations and pH of soils that supported fruit trees and 

vines and vegetable plants in areas of commercial production:

64. American-grape-vine soils —— - — - —— - —— - — -- ——— - — — - 95

oo. /\ppie-i>r ee sous ""•"""•••"•"TM--~"TM--------—-"""TM— TM— -—«—-—«-———— yo

66. European-grape-vine soils ——————— — ——— — - ............... 97

ft7 \J t • (T-rarwafniif-f VJTl d^JCll U1L Ll roo \?C oni1o oUllO ................ .-——...-....... ... ............................................. 

....... .. _ QCI/O

fiQ vvJ. V/l /"Yr>£) ClllgC^Ll in or__.f T*O£> CC OUlio Qnilo .................... 

-——.--.-...-.—.- 

................................................... 

..... .. . J. 1 V/V 0O

69. Peach-tree soils — - — — - — - — - — - —— — — — — — - —— — — — - 102

70. Pear-tree soils — — - —— — — - — — — - —— - —— - —— — —— -- — — - 104

71. Plum-tree soils - —— - — -- — - — - — - —— -- —— - — — —— - — — - 106

79 I £*• PloWKocro-nlanf VdJUJUClgjC^'.I.ClULi crnlc oUJ-iO ........... .............................. .................. ....—.... 1 J.V/O OR

7Q I O. fa-mvit-rilarit VCU 1U Li ^JlcUlLi coilo oUl------"•--••••"••• .. .................... ................ ......................... .... ......... J.V/I7 1 0Q

74. I *I. f^tt VCl^UllllJCl 1*11 TnVn3T".nlji ^JlClllLi Tit" crtilc Oi^llO .................................................................... 

.............. .... 

1 ^ 1 ^^j O

75. Dry bean-plant soils - — - — - —— — — - —— -- —— — - — -- ——— - — — - 111

7fi I U» T XJCbvUl-C off nr»o-rkl«*nf ^lldllw ooiloUl ---"--•"•••""••"•""--"TMTMTMTM"TM""-TMTMTMTMTM«TM""«TMTM"TMTM .......... _ ...... — . ............ 1 _£_ 1 1.&O

77 I I • Pr^f JT UvdLL/^^JldllLi of rt-r*1«*nf ooiloUO TM-TMTMTM« ...... ---»—— ............ ........................................ ....... ........... 114 ^ ^tj

/ o. onap" oean-piant soils •••••••••••••-•••""••""•••••••"•"••— ~«TM— «-««TMTM-— ^ J^Q

79. Sweet-corn-plant soils - — — — - — - — — - —— - —— -- —— ----- — - — 118

oU. i. onia Lo~piant sous ---------"""-«••»-«"•""••-"-------••—••••-••"— ..-....-.»»«—«- ^ £\j

81-97. Summary statistics of element concentrations and pH of soils that supported fruit trees and vines and vegetable plants in two or more 

areas:

81. American-grape-vine soils — — — — — — —— - —— — —— ----- — - — - 122

R9 vj£t. Ji^J^JlC^ Annlo-troo-onilc Ul CC CtUJIO . ___ ........... _ .......... 

...... 

_____ ....... ______ . _ ........... _ . l.£i£i 1 99

83. European-grape-vine soils — — — — — — — — - —— - —— « —— - — - 123

04 • vjrrapeiruit- tree sous ------"-•-•""•"—-«-«-••—--------••"«•»•—-----------"••-«""'•• i^ ^o

oo. v^ran^e- tree sous -"--""••••TMTM--*TMTMTMTM-— «-«« -——————....——————— 1.^4

Rfi \J\J, X Poar*Vi-froo Cdlxll L1CC cnilo OvllO __________ ....................... 

............. 

_________ ......... 

.. 

_______ ............. 1 J..i(-r 9 A

ftR CJO, Plnm.f JT 1U111 Ll -rckCk CC coilc 3WJJ.O................. --«-««---«-« — — ........................ __ ............... . ...... ____________ . 1 l.£i<J OR

CJi/. QQ VdUUdgC f^aViKaoi--.t~ilanf ^JldllL> OU119 crtilc ....................................................................... 1 Oft ............. . . .... . . ifi\J

90. Carrot-plant soils — ~ —— »——-—- — - —— - —— - — ----- — — — 126

91. Cucumber-plant soils - — — — — ——— - — — —— — —— — -- — -- — - 127

92. Dry-bean-plant soils — — — — — - — — — - —— — —— — —— - —— — — - 127

QO C/O. T XJCLLUlsC of f iis»a.n1«anf ^JldllL coilc oUlo................. "•"" "" .————.—.-..-... . . ............................ ......................... . 1 ^ OC__O

... --- ___________ .. ................. ... ....„ ___________ ........... .......... ____________ ..... . 1. 1 £iO952

QC C/W* Qnan.Konn-nlsanf k_Tlld£J JUCdll ^JldllL crtilc OUJJ.O __ . _ .................. 

............... — — - ......... .... 

________________ ......... 1 J.__</ 9Q

96. Sweet-corn-plant soils — - — - — - — - —— - — — —— — • —— - — — - 129

Q7 & I . T^maf JL WllldHT^^JldllL rh.nlanf coilc oUJJ.9.. ——«•---" ................................. „..,...-. .—............... ... ............... .. . 1 iij\JQO

98-99. Summary statistics of element concentrations and pH of soils that supported vegetable plants from only one area of commercial production: 

yo. /Ysparagus-pianL sous ------"---•"«---—«"-—-----"--«•*»——----"----"--"---••- lou

99. Onion-plant soils — — — ~ — ------ ——— — -- — - —— — —— -- — ----- 131

100-116. Estimates of logarithmic variance for soils that supported fruits and 

vegetables from areas of commercial production in the 

conterminous United States:

100. American-grape-vine soils — — — — — — — - — - —— « —— — - — — - 131

101. Apple-tree soils — ~ —— - —— - — - ———— -- —— — —— - —— — - — — - 132
VI CONTENTS

TABLES 100-116. Estimates of logarithmic variance for soils—Continued Page 

102. European-grape-vine soils —————————-———————. 132

Ifl^l -LVSO. flrariofrnit VJ1 Cl^Jdl U1L froo L1CC OVJllO cnilc __ .................. ——— ________ 

...... 

________ 

...... 

1 J.tltl QQ

1 •Lv/^* ft4 v/1 Orantro-troQ Clllge LI CC OUllO ertilc ——..—.......—........—..-....—..—_——————..———— 

, 

1 1.1)1) QQ

1.1/0. x^eacii-tree sous --———««««TMTM.«..————————.-—......................... io4

1 OR Pear-trap «nil« ————————————————————————————————— 1 Q4 IvU. J. Cell L1CC OU11O 1.0^

107. Plum-tree soils -------------------------- 135

lUo. V'9.DD9.^6"pl9.rit SOUS TM—TM-TMTMTM—•—"-«----------•—•—-————«—•*«———_ lou

J-U*7. v/cirrot'-pi&nt sous TM---—*-——-————-———.———————.—_........................ IOD

110. Cucumber-plant soils ————————————————————— 136

111. Dry-bean-plant soils ————————————————————— 137

11^. lj6ttU.C6"pl9.Ht SOllS TM—---—«--—-—----.—....................—..................._... Io7

m- . Pr*f JT UUdUU of rt-r»1onf JJlCtllL crtilc OU11&.....——••...««......-...»««——«....«——-——•....«...««-«.*-»... . . 1 ±OOQft 

J. 14. OH8.p~D68.Il~pl8.Ilt SOllS "~"TM-TM—«*-TM-"-TM-TM——«~———————«««»——. loo

115. Sweet-corn-plant soils —————————————————————— 139

116. Tomato-plant soils —»—————-—-—————————•———-—» 139

117. Areas having significantly different concentrations in soils ——————— 140

118. Mean concentrations and high-to-low ratios of elements and water in

fruits 11 UlLo ————— ........... _ .. ——.............. _____ ....... _______ ....... __ . . ____ ...... 1 J."tu AC.

119. Mean concentrations and high-to-low ratios of elements and water in

vegetables ————————————————————"—-———————— 147

120. Mean concentrations and high-to-low ratios of elements and pH of soils

that supported fruits ——————————————————————— 143

121. Mean concentrations and high-to-low ratios of elements and pH of soils

that supported vegetables ——————————————————— 149
ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FROM AREAS OF 

COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION IN THE CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

By HANSFORD T. SHACKLETTE

ABSTRACT

The mean concentrations of 27 chemical elements in eight kinds of 

fruits and nine kinds of vegetables were estimated from field collections within 11 areas of commercial production. Water-content 

and ash-yield measurements permitted the element concentrations 

to be expressed on fresh-, dry-, and ash-weight bases. A three-level 

sampling design was used; and estimates were made of the chemical 

variation in the produce from among the areas, among fields within 

each area, and between sites within fields. Most significant variation was found to be among areas: concentrations of some elements 

in some kinds of produce were found to vary tenfold. Soils in which 

the produce grew were sampled also, and analysis revealed strong 

differences among areas that are attributed, from place to place, to 

cultivation practices, contamination by pesticides, or pollution, as 

well as to climate and underlying geology. In general, little relationship was found between total element concentration in the soil and 

in the produce that could be assigned to natural causes, but where 

the soils are highly contaminated the levels of the contaminating 

element were found to be high in the produce.

The concentrations of elements in fruits and vegetables generally 

differ least in the macronutrients potassium, phosphorus, 

magnesium, and sulfur that are essential for plant growth. Trends 

in concentrations of the micronutrients boron, copper, iron, and zinc 

are similar but not as pronounced as those of the macronutrients. 

The concentrations of the nonnutritive nontoxic elements barium, 

cobalt, lithium, titanium, and zirconium tend to have greater ranges 

than do those of the nutritive elements. Concentrations of elements 

generally considered toxic to organisms exhibit erratic distributions among areas and kinds of produce, and a wide range of values 

is indicated.

INTRODUCTION

The chemical elements in food plants are of interest 

primarily because these plants constitute the major 

source of essential elements (excluding oxygen and 

hydrogen) in human nutrition (Underwood, 1971); 

lesser amounts of these elements are derived from 

water, soil and rocks, and air. The elements contained 

in the plants may be consumed directly in vegetables 

and fruits, or indirectly in meat and milk from animals 

that have eaten the plants. Numerous studies have 

been made of the elements in man's total diet, and 

analyses of many food plants are given in the reports 

of the studies. A lack of uniformity among these 

studies exists, however, in sampling techniques,

methods of analyses, kinds of plants sampled, and 

bases used for reporting element concentrations. Inadequate, or no, descriptions of the origins of the 

samples further reduce the usefulness of many reports.

A National Research Council report (Morrison and 

others, 1974, p. 92) stated, "no systematic study has 

been made of sampling of fruits and vegetables for 

trace elements. More attention has been paid to food 

processing and its effect on changes in trace element 

composition of fruits and vegetables."

The effects of processing on the element content of 

food plants cannot be determined unless reliable bases 

are available for estimating the typical concentrations 

of the elements that are in the edible portion of the 

plants as they grow in the field. Regulations governing 

allowable increases or decreases of element content 

caused by processing food should take into account not 

only the concentrations of elements of interest characteristic of the different food plants, but also the 

variation in chemical composition of the plants among 

the areas of commercial production throughout the 

country.

Some fruits and vegetables are consumed that have 

had little or no processing; therefore, the introduction 

of extraneous elements is minimal, and only the 

elements acquired by the plants while growing in the 

field are generally present. Yet the sources and concentrations of elements in these, as well as in other, food 

plants may be greatly different among areas where the 

plants are grown, as influenced by factors of soil 

chemistry, agricultural practices, climate, and the extent to which environmental pollution affects the produce. Plant species react differently to these influences 

on element content because of their genetic control of 

growth processes and characteristics. If the edible 

parts of the plant are leaves and stems, atmospheric 

pollution may considerably influence the kinds and 

concentrations of elements in these parts. If roots or 

tubers are used for food, the elements in the soil may 

exert the greatest effect, whereas if fruits are the 

edible portion, only the elements that can be readily
ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

transported from the roots to the fruit are likely to 

be greatly influenced by differences in geochemical 

environments.

Quarter-man (1973, p. 171) stated, "The amount of a 

particular trace element in a plant food can depend on 

the species of plant, the breed or strain, and which part 

of the plant is eaten. It can also depend on the season 

of the year and the climate, on the soil type and pH, 

the proximity of other plants, manuring and various 

forms of contamination." These factors may differ 

greatly among regions of foodplant production; therefore their influence creates an interest in determining 

the presence and extent of regional variation in the 

elemental composition of fruits and vegetables.

The chemical composition of fruits and vegetables is 

of interest to the growers of produce because it can be 

used as an index of the nutritional status of the plants. 

Some large-scale commercial operations make frequent 

analyses of the plants during the growing season for as 

many as eight elements; deficiencies in elements that 

may affect yield or market quality are determined and 

are promptly corrected by soil or foliar applications of 

the deficient elements. Analyses are commonly made 

of leaf or stem tissue, but may also use fruit tissue. In 

addition, visible symptoms of specific element deficiencies may be used to initiate corrective measures. 

The data on elemental composition of food plants 

given in reports of these practices are of limited 

usefulness in establishing baseline values to be applied 

to problems of human nutrition, because the emphasis 

in these reports is on plant nutrition or pathology. 

These reports include, however, maximum concentrations of certain elements in the plants, concentrations 

that are potentially toxic to humans. Examples of comprehensive studies of this type include those of 

Goodall and Gregory (1947), Chapman (1966), and Kenworthy (1967).

The emphasis in fruit and vegetable growing is on an 

adequate yield of produce that is of acceptable market 

quality to return a profit to the grower. Quality in this 

context is measured by the ability of the produce to 

withstand harvesting, processing, and marketing 

operations, and to be adequate in such factors as color, 

flavor, and texture. The nutritional value of the produce generally is given only minor, or no, consideration, although Beeson (1957, p. 258) pointed out, "The 

term 'crop quality' means both marketable quality and 

nutritional quality of a crop* * *. Nature has not 

always combined two aspects of crop quality in one 

package, and man has seldom improved matters in his 

efforts to breed plants and manage soil so as to produce crops that are both attractive and high yielding." 

A task force of the Food and Drug Administration 

(Miller, 1974) proposed monitoring the content of two

elements, magnesium and calcium (along with protein; 

vitamins A, B6, and C; thiamin; riboflavin; and niacin) 

in nine food crops. It would seem to be of equal or 

greater importance to monitor some other elements 

that, for man, are obtained principally from food 

plants—copper, for example.

In a paper giving quantitative data on the occurrence in plant tissue of 71 of the 94 naturally occurring 

elements, 46 elements were reported in measurable 

concentrations in the edible portion of food plants 

(Shacklette and others, 1978). The mean concentrations, deviations, and observed ranges of 30 elements 

in many vegetables were reported by Connor and 

Shacklette (1975), who gave element values for the 

material actually analyzed, whether it consisted of 

plant ash or dry plant material. Extensive tables 

giving element concentrations in many food plants 

were published by Beeson (1941), Monier-Williams 

(1949), and Diem (1962); and although the data in these 

reports generally based the concentrations on dry 

weight of the plant material, values based on fresh 

weight occur at places. Only the report by Diem gave 

the water content of the material that was analyzed.

The absence of clearly stated bases for calculating 

element concentrations in samples of foods and other 

biological materials is a deficiency in many published 

reports, and for these one can only assume which bases 

were used (that is, fresh weight, dry weight, or ash 

weight) by judging the kind of material analyzed and 

the magnitude of the concentrations that were 

reported. The use of various bases for expressing 

element concentrations in organic materials was 

discussed by Goodall and Gregory (1947) and is also 

discussed later in this report.

The elemental composition of a variety of foods from 

tropical plants was given by Duke (1970) in an 

ethnobotanical report on some Central American Indians. Many reports of the elements in foods have been 

published by U.S. Government agencies, including the 

Department of Agriculture handbooks (for example, 

see Watt and Merrill, 1950, which gives both water 

and ash contents of the food plants that were 

analyzed). Most of these reports include only the major 

and minor nutritive elements.

The concern with environmental contamination has 

resulted in many publications which include food-plant 

analyses for toxic elements. In a report on toxicants 

occurring naturally in foods, Underwood (1973) provided some background ranges in values for the trace 

elements aluminum, arsenic, iron, copper, molybdenum, zinc, manganese, selenium, lead, tin, cadmium, 

mercury, chromium, fluorine, and iodine in a variety of 

foods of plant origin. Other reports consider fewer 

elements, often only one, as illustrated by those of
INTRODUCTION

Williams and Whetstone (1940), for arsenic; Warren 

(1967) and Egan (1972), for lead; Kropf and 

Geldmacher-v.Mallinckrodt (1968) and Shacklette 

(1972), for cadmium; and Garber (1968), for fluorine. 

An outline of element toxicities to plants, animals, and 

man (Gough and Shacklette, 1979) reported poisonous 

levels of 23 elements that are of general environmental 

concern, although food plants were not specifically 

emphasized.

D. J. Wagstaff, J. F. Brown, and J. R. McDowell 

stated in a paper presented at the Fourth Biennial 

Veterinary Toxicology Workshop held at Logan, Utah, 

June 22, 1978, "Ubiquitous natural elements such as 

arsenic could never have been fully prevented from occurring in foods at low concentrations. The total quantity of toxic metal in a food can be viewed as being 

composed of three portions which originate from different sources. First, that which is the natural 

background, second, that originating from environmental pollution, and third, that which is added during 

food processing or marketing. The most significant environmental and food processing contamination 

sources have been identified and are being controlled. 

However, present information is neither sufficiently 

detailed nor accurate to support definitive apportionment of all toxic metals in food into these three source 

groups." One objective of the present report is to provide background or baseline levels of element concentrations in the edible parts of certain food plants as 

they are commercially grown in this country.

One approach to evaluating the elemental composition of foods, including those of plant origin, is the 

"market basket" method of obtaining samples for 

analysis. In this method samples of the desired products are obtained by purchase from retail food stores 

at different locations throughout the country without 

particular consideration of the origin of the produce. 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (1972) has 

carried out such a program in which selected chemical 

elements as well as other constituents of the samples 

were determined. Another study (Shacklette and 

others, 1978) used similar methods of sampling, but 

limited the analyses to determining the concentrations 

of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, 

fluorine, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, 

and zinc in apples, bulb onions, cabbage, carrots, 

cucumbers, dry beans, head lettuce, oranges, potatoes, 

snap beans, and sweet corn. The mean concentrations 

and ranges of concentrations that were reported provide an estimation of the levels of these elements in 

the produce obtained from retail stores in the states 

of Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, 

Louisiana, Maine, North Dakota, Virginia, and 

Washington.

Relatively few comprehensive reports are available 

in which the concentrations of elements in fruits and 

vegetables are related to those of associated soils. 

Beeson (1941) gave an extensive account of the effects 

of different soils on the mineral content of cultivated 

plants. Most of these comparisons considered only the 

major plant nutrient elements in field crops, not in 

fruits and vegetables, although the concentrations of 

many elements in food plants were listed. Each of the 

many agricultural studies of the soil supply of essential and toxic elements generally considered one, or a 

few, of the elements in relation only to crop yield—not 

to the chemical composition of the crop.

A study of home gardens in Georgia revealed few or 

no consistent correlations of concentrations of 16 

elements in blackeyed peas, cabbage, corn, green 

beans, and tomatoes with the total (not the 

"available") concentrations of the same elements in 

the soils where the vegetables grew (Shacklette and 

others, 1970). The problems of determining the 

availaility to plants of the elements in soils are inherent in the complex relationships of soil chemistry 

and the physiological processes characteristic of different plants. Quarterman (1973, p. 175) stated, "No 

simple relationship has been found between the 

amount of a particular element in the soil and the 

amount which is absorbed by plants." Alia way (1968) 

reviewed methods by which agricultural technology 

can modify the routes and extent of trace element 

movements. He pointed out that plants will grow normally when they contain levels of some elements that 

are too low for the growth or health of the animals 

eating the plants. The elements he reported were 

chromium, cobalt, copper, iodine, manganese, 

selenium, and zinc. At the other extreme, the plants 

will grow despite levels of cadmium, lead, molybdenum, and selenium that are toxic to animals. Conversely, plants will die with levels of arsenic, 

beryllium, fluorine, iodine, nickel, and zinc that are 

tolerated by animals. In general, and certainly for 

some elements, the best measure of the availability of 

soil elements to plants is obtained by chemical analysis 

of the plant as it is grown in the field.

The principal objective of the present study was to 

evaluate the concentrations of elements having particular nutritional or environmental significance that 

occur in fruits and vegetables entering major commercial channels and, therefore, are widely available in 

retail outlets. The samples were collected from plants 

as they grew in the fields before they had been commercially harvested and processed for sale; they were 

prepared for analysis in a manner that enabled their 

element concentrations to be expressed on the freshweight, dry-weight, and ash-weight bases. The sam-
ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

pling design permitted comparisons of element contents to be made between kinds of produce, regions of 

production, fields within regions, and samples within 

fields, and also allowed the extent of variance attributable to combined sample preparation and 

laboratory analysis to be estimated. The elemental 

compositions of the soils that supported the food 

plants were also determined. Cereal grains, soybeans, 

sugarcane, and sugar beets were not sampled, for 

although they contribute greatly to the diet, they are 

so extensively altered by processing prior to consumption that the food product derived from them was expected to be greatly different in chemical composition 

from field collections of the original produce.

All fruits and vegetables considered in this report 

are cultivated varieties (properly termed "cultivars," 

abbreviated "cv.") of species that have been long in 

cultivation. The wild progenitors of some cultivars are 

not know for certain; and the problems of taxonomy, 

origin, and evolution of many food plants are complex 

(Pickersgill, 1977). Some of the herbaceous cultivars in 

commercial use are called "hybrids," generally meaning that the cultivar is the F\ (first filial) generation 

resulting from the crossing of two inbred cultivars of 

the same species. Other hybrids are only selected products of crosses between two cultivars that are sufficiently homozygous ("pure") to be economically propagated from seed. A few hybrids result from crosses 

between natural (that is, "wild") species. Other 

cultivars, especially among fruit trees, shrubs, and 

vines, originate spontaneously as natural somatic 

("sports") or genetic mutations and are heterozygous 

for the desired characteristics; they, therefore, must be 

vegetatively propagated by rooting cuttings or by 

grafting.

The complexities of nomenclature resulting from the 

diverse origins of fruit and vegetable cultivars, and the 

continual introduction of new cultivars developed by 

plant-breeding institutions, have made the identification of some cultivars very difficult, therefore impractical, in field studies of the kind reported herein.

The terminology used in this report follows that in 

general use in this country, which does not always correspond to scientific usage. The two major categories 

of food plants that were sampled, fruits and vegetables, are distinguished on the basis of longestablished custom. For example, the edible product of 

a tomato plant is ordinarily considered to be a 

vegetable, but technically it is a fruit—moreover, it is a 

berry. The sweet and juicy products of trees, shrubs, 

and vines are designated as fruits, but there are some 

exceptions to this definition of fruits, as, for example, 

strawberries and olives. Another pecularity of vernacular usage is that some dry beans, such as lima

beans, are called vegetables and are considered horticultural products, whereas soybeans are referred to 

as a field crop and are, therefore, considered to be 

agronomic products. In some published crop reports, 

potatoes and dry beans are classified as field crops, 

and cantaloupes and watermelons are listed as 

vegetables rather than as fruits. In this report the food 

plants are classified rather arbitrarily as either fruits 

or vegetables, and their common and scientific names 

are given in a later section. The term "produce" refers 

principally to fresh fruits and vegetables that are offered for sale.

A. T. Miesch suggested this study, and his 

assistance in sampling design and statistical treatment of data is greatly appreciated. I acknowledge 

with gratitude the invaluable assistance of Josephine 

G. Boerngen in processsing the large amount of data 

generated in the study. Jessie M. Bowles is thanked 

for help with sample preparation and sorting. Thanks 

also are expressed to R. J. Ebens, J. R. Keith, and 

James Scott, who assisted in the field work, and to the 

following County Agricultural Agents of the Cooperative Extension Service, who provided suggestions for 

selecting areas where the desired produce was grown: 

Harvey Beltner, Donald A. Chaplin, A. H. Karcher, 

Jr., Keith S. Mayberry, Raymond C. Nichols, Robert S. 

Pryor, and Norman J. Smith. The cooperation of the 

many growers who gave permission to sample produce 

and soils on their property is also appreciated. 

This study could not have been accomplished without 

the U.S. Geological Survey chemists who analyzed the 

samples; their names follow: James W. Baker, D. A. 

Bickford, Willis P. Doering, Johnnie Gardner, Patricia 

Guest, Thelma F. Harms, Claude Huffman, Jr., Lorraine Lee, Violet Merritt, H. T. Millard, Jr., Harriet G. 

Neiman, Clara C. S. Papp, James A. Thomas, Michele 

L. Tuttle, J. S. Wahlberg, and William J. Walz.

SAMPLING LOCALITIES

Counties were chosen as the largest sampling units 

because information on agricultural production is 

based on political units, and because agricultural 

agents of the Cooperative Extension Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, are assigned to counties. 

The criteria used for selecting counties in which to 

sample fruits or vegetables were (1) production of 

significant quantities of produce that entered commercial distribution as fresh, dried, canned, or frozen food; 

(2) production of a wide range of food plants, as appropriate for the climatic zone in which located; and (3) 

wide geographic distribution of counties. As a starting 

point in this selection, the National Atlas (U.S. Geological Survey, 1970) was consulted to locate counties
SAMPLING LOCALITIES

having high production of fruits and vegetables. The 

selection was narrowed to counties for which production data indicated that sampling several kinds of 

produce was possible. Letters of inquiry were then sent 

to the county agricultural agents in each of these counties, briefly outlining the proposed study and asking 

for information on the present status of horticultural 

production in the county. Most agents responded to 

the inquiry, and the final selection of counties in which 

to sample was influenced by their replies.

The counties in which sampling was conducted are 

listed and characterized below in the chronological 

order in which they were visited (fig. 1). The soil 

descriptions given are from U.S. Soil Conservation 

Service (1970).

BERRIEN COUNTY, MICHIGAN

Produce was sampled September 11-14, 1972. This 

county has long been an important center of fruit production, having a favorable climate because of the 

moderating effect of Lake Michigan. The principal horticultural crops recorded in 1964 were apples, peaches, 

grapes, plums, strawberries, tomatoes, snap beans, 

and sweet corn. The peach crop in 1972 was destroyed 

by late spring frosts. The sandy soils near Lake 

Michigan are classified as Order Entisols (no 

pedogenic horizons), Suborder Psamments (textures of 

loamy fine sand or coarser), Great Group Udipsamments (containing easily weatherable minerals, never 

moist as long as three consecutive months). The inland 

soils, on which most fruit trees are grown, are 

classified as Order Alfisols (medium to high in bases, 

gray to brown surface horizon, subsurface horizon of 

clay accumulation); Suborder Udalfs (soils usually 

moist, but during the warm season some horizons may 

be intermittently dry for short periods), Great Group 

Hapludalfs (subsurface horizon of clay accumulation 

relatively thin; or only a brownish-colored stain 

marks the horizon). No irrigation was observed in this 

county. The following kinds of produce were sampled: 

fruits—apples, cantaloupes, grapes, pears, and plums; 

vegetables—cabbage, corn, cucumbers, eggplant, peppers, snap beans, and tomatoes.

WAYNE COUNTY, NEW YORK

Produce was sampled September 18-21, 1972. The 

moderating effect of Lake Ontario on the climate has 

made this county a favorable fruit-growing center. Apples, cherries, and peaches are the major fruit crops, 

although pears, grapes, and plums are also grown. 

Snap beans, dry beans, and potatoes are the principal 

vegetable crops. The large food-processing plants are

closely related to the crops of the region. Low hills of 

glacial drift, separated by valleys of alluvial material 

and scattered peat and muck deposits, characterize the 

landscape. The soils are, in general, classified to Great 

Soil Group like those of eastern Berrien County, 

Michigan. The peaty soils are used to grow potatoes 

and peppermint. No irrigation was observed in the 

county. The following kinds of produce were sampled: 

fruits—apples, grapes, peaches, pears, and plums; 

vegetables—potatoes, dry beans, and snap beans.

CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NEW JERSEY

[Samples of apples and sweet corn were obtained near the Cumberland County line in 

Gloucester and Salem Counties, respectively]

Produce was sampled September 24-28, 1972. This 

county lies partly in the coastal plain, characterized by 

low local relief of Quaternary terraces and alluvial embayments; but the central and northern parts of this 

county and of Salem County, and all of Gloucester 

County, are underlain by upper Tertiary rocks and 

have somewhat greater relief. The proximity of these 

counties to Delaware Bay and the Atlantic Ocean 

results in a mild climate well suited to horticulture. 

The Rutgers University Research Farm, devoted to 

horticultural development, and Seabrook Farms, 

where pioneering work in the frozen food industry was 

done, are located in Upper Deerfield Township of 

Cumberland County.

Soils of most croplands are classified as Order 

Ultisol (low in bases, have subsurface horizons of clay 

accumulation); Suborder Udults (usually moist and 

relatively low in organic matter in the subsurface 

horizons); and Great Group Hapludults (have either a 

subsurface horizon of clay accumulation that is 

relatively thin, a subsurface horizon having appreciable weatherable minerals, or both). Numerous 

shell fragments were found in some of the fields that 

were sampled; these fields lie on the upper terraces of 

the coastal-plain sediments.

The principal fruits grown are peaches and apples; 

strawberries are a minor crop. A wide variety of 

vegetables is produced, with major production of 

tomatoes and snap beans and lesser amounts of 

potatoes, green peas, sweet corn, cabbage, cucumbers, 

lettuce, potatoes, and sweet corn. The following kinds 

of produce were sampled: fruits—apples; vegetablescabbage, cucumbers, lettuce, potatoes, snap beans, 

and sweet corn.

PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

Produce was sampled January 29-31, 1973. This 

county is entirely underlain by Quaternary deposits
ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

.COLORADO j 

i Mesa :

' County

EXPLANATION 

• Autumn-harvested produce

D Winter-harvested produce \ n Hidalgo 0 KILOMETERS 400 

'"-• County |——,—"—,——rj——,—i____i ,——,——,-——j

0 MILES 400

FIGURE 1.—Location of counties where fruits and vegetables were sampled.

(Vernon and Puri, 1964) composed of limestones, 

shells, clays, and sands. The coastal part is marked by 

beach terraces of sand and has low relief, whereas most 

of the county is nearly level and is part of the vast 

Everglades swamp. Parts of this swamp have been 

drained, and the deep, highly organic soil now constitutes excellent land for vegetable production. 

Numerous drainage canals and ditches divide the land 

into large flat fields, some of which are planted in 

sugarcane. No irrigation was observed in this county. 

The soils of the sandy terraces are classified as Order 

Entisols (soils without pedogenic horizons); Suborder 

Aquents (soils either permanently wet or seasonally 

wet, have mottled or gray colors); Great Group Psammaquents (textures of loamy fine sand, or coarser). The 

soils of the flat lands south and east of Lake Okeechobee are classified as Order Histosols (wet peat and 

muck soils). Further classification is based only on 

the degree of organic-matter decomposition; the soils 

here have plant residues that are moderately to highly 

decomposed. The deep organic deposits shake or "vibrate" when walked on; and, since they were drained, 

oxidation of the organic material has caused a gradual 

lowering of the land surface.

Citrus fruits (oranges, grapefruit, and lemons) are 

the only fruits grown commercially. A very large variety of vegetables is produced, including beans, cabbage, 

celery, Chinese cabbage, corn, endive, escarole, lettuce, 

parsley, peppers, potatoes, radishes, squash, and 

tomatoes. The three vegetables produced in greatest 

quantity in 1971-72 were yellow sweet corn, 10,156 

carloads; celery, 8,372 carloads; and tomatoes, 3,510 

carloads (Robert S. Pryor, County Extension Director, 

written commun., 1973). The produce of this county is 

shipped mostly as fresh fruit and vegetables, processed foods being limited to citrus concentrates. The 

following kinds of produce were sampled: fruitsgrapefruit and oranges; vegetables—Chinese cabbage, 

endive, lettuce, parsley, snap beans, sweet corn, and 

tomatoes.

HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS

Produce was sampled February 6-7, 1973. This 

county generally has a mild winter climate and frosts 

are uncommon, but a January frost had killed the less 

resistant vegetables such as tomatoes, peppers, and
SAMPLING LOCALITIES

cucumbers just before this area was sampled. Irrigation is required for the culture of all fruits and 

vegetables. The county is underlain by Quaternary 

deposits of the Lower Rio Grande Valley and the Gulf 

Coastal Plain. The soils of the lowland near the Rio 

Grande River are classified as Order Mollisols (black, 

friable, organic-rich surface horizons high in bases); 

Suborder Ustolls (Mollisols of semiarid regions; intermittently dry for a long period, or have subsurface 

horizons of salt or carbonate accumulation); Great 

Group Haplustolls (subsurface horizon high in bases 

but without large accumulations of clay, calcium carbonate, or gypsum). Soils of the northern one third of 

the county are classified as Order Entisols (without 

pedogenic horizons), Suborder Psamments (Entisols 

that have textures of loamy fine sand or coarser), 

Great Group Ustipsamments (contain easily weatherable minerals; intermittently dry for long periods 

during the warm season).

The county leads Texas counties in the production of 

cabbage, cantaloupes, carrots, citrus, cucumbers, broccoli, lettuce, onions, and sweet corn, having 63,900 

acres in vegetables alone (A. H. Karcher, Jr., County 

Agricultural Agent, written commun., 1971). In addition to the production listed above, lettuce, potatoes, 

spinach, tomatoes, and watermelons are also commercially grown. The following kinds of fruits and vegetables were sampled: fruits—grapefruit and oranges; 

vegetables—cabbage, carrots, lettuce, and onions.

IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

Produce was sampled March 2-4, 1973. Most crops 

of this county are grown on the large plain of Imperial 

Valley that is below sea level and is irrigated with 

water from the Colorado River. The climate is warm 

and dry, and crops are grown in all months of the year. 

Soils in the valley are composed of silt and clay 

deposited by flooding of the Colorado River, and soils 

fringing the valley were largely derived from eolian 

sands. The valley soils are classified as order Entisols 

(soils without pedogenic horizons); Suborder Orthents 

(loamy or clayey, with a regular decrease in organic 

matter content with depth); Great Group Torriorthents (Orthents that are never moist as long as three 

consecutive months).

Imperial County is among the most productive agricultural counties in the United States. The major vegetable crops in 1970-71 were asparagus, cabbage, cantaloupes, carrots, cucumbers, lettuce, onions, squash, 

tomatoes, and watermelons. Of these crops, lettuce 

was greatest in quantity (444,000 tons) and had a value 

of $44,795,000 (Imperial County Board of Supervisors, 

1971). Citrus crops are limited to relatively few acres

in this county, and the agricultural agent advised sampling these crops in the Coachella Valley of adjacent 

Riverside County. The following produce was sampled: 

fruits—grapefruit and oranges; vegetables—asparagus, cabbage, lettuce, and carrots.

YUMA COUNTY, ARIZONA

Produce was sampled March 6, 1973. The area from 

which samples were collected is recently reclaimed 

desert land in the general vicinity of Hyder. The 

cultivated land surface is nearly level, is generally 

free of stones, and is irrigated with ground water. 

The water is warm as it comes from the wells and, by 

flowing through ditches in the citrus groves, gives 

some protection from the occasional frosts. When sampled, however, the groves showed some frost damage 

to lemon and orange trees, but little or no damage to 

grapefruit trees. Anhydrous ammonia is injected into 

the irrigation water at the wellhead.

The soils are classified as Order Aridisols (with 

pedogenic horizons low in organic matter and never 

moist as long as three consecutive months), Suborder 

Argids (with a horizon of clay accumulation), Great 

Group Haplargids (with a loamy horizon of clay accumulation and with or without alkali). Many citrus 

groves have been planted recently, and trees in these 

groves had not reached fruiting age when the area was 

sampled. Grapefruit and oranges are the principal 

fruits grown and were the only fruits sampled, 

although lemons, tangerines, and plums are also 

grown. No vegetable crops were observed in the area.

TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO

Produce was sampled September 3-5, 1973. The 

deep canyon of the Snake River marks the northern 

boundary of this county, and water from the river 

enables crops to be grown in this desert area that is 

underlain by volcanic rocks. Along the river, calcic 

soils low in organic matter form a narrow band on a 

plateau that widens to the west and south until terminated by an abrupt higher plateau having soils 

richer in organic material. The calcic soils are classified 

as Order Aridisols (usually dry soils with pedogenic 

horizons, low in organic matter); Suborder Orthids 

(Aridisols with accumulations of calcium carbonate, 

gypsum, or other salts more soluble than gypsum, but 

having no horizon of clay accumulation); Great Group 

Calciorthids (Orthids with a horizon in which large 

amounts of calcium carbonate or gypsum have accumulated). The more organic soils of the higher 

plateau are classified as Order Mollisols (soils with 

nearly black, organic-rich surface horizons and high
8 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

base supply); suborder Xerols (Mollisols found in 

climates with rainy winters but dry summers; soils 

continually dry for long periods in summer), Great 

Group Agerixerolls (having a relatively thin subsurface horizon of clay accumulation or only a brownishcolored stain to mark this horizon).

The plateau along the river formerly produced apples 

and other fruits, but most of these orchards have been 

abandoned. Sweet corn, dry beans, snap beans, and 

potatoes are now produced in this area. Extensive 

plantings of potatoes have been developed on the 

plateau to the south as irrigation was extended to his 

very dry area. The vegetables sampled were dry beans, 

snap beans, sweet corn, and potatoes.

YAKIMA COUNTY, WASHINGTON

Produce was sampled September 7-10, 1973. This 

county was reported to rank first among counties of 

the State in value of all agricultural products, and was 

also first in fruit and vegetable production. It led all 

counties in the United States in apple and pear production (Washington State Department of Agriculture, 

1964). The horticultural crops are produced on the 

broad alluvial plains and terraces that lie adjacent to 

the Yakima River and its tributaries and are irrigated 

with water from these streams. The county has a continental climate which is hot and dry in the summer 

and relatively mild and moist in the winter. The principal soils used for fruit and vegetable growing are 

alluvial soils of fine silty and sandy loams mixed with 

fine volcanic ash. Fruit production is centered on the 

higher terraces where spring frost damage is reduced, 

whereas vegetables and some specialized crops (hops 

and mint) are grown on the lower lands.

Soils of the Yakima Valley are classified as Aridisols 

(soils with pedogenic horizons, low in organic matter, 

usually dry), Suborder Orthids (having a horizon of 

clay accumulation with or without alkali); Great Group 

Haplargids (having a loamy horizon of clay accumulation). The principal fruits grown are apples, apricots, 

berries, cherries, grapes, peaches, and plums. Vegetables, ranked in order of number of acres in production, are sweet corn, asparagus, green peas, tomatoes, 

cantaloupes, rutabagas and turnips, watermelons, 

onions, carrots, lettuce, cucumbers, and spinach. Food 

processing constitutes an important industry in the 

county, and some crops are sold both as fresh and as 

canned or frozen produce. The following kinds of 

produce were sampled: fruits—apples, American and 

European grapes, peaches, pears, and plums; vegetables—potatoes and tomatoes.

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

Produce was sampled September 14-17, 1973. The 

principal agricultural lands lie in the alluvial plain of 

the San Joaquin River, where a large variety of fruits 

and vegetables, as well as other crops and livestock, is 

produced. The horticultual crops are sold both as fresh 

and as processed foods. Rainfall amounts are usually 

low, occurring mostly in winter; therefore, irrigation is 

necessary for most crops. Azonal loamy or clayey 

alluvial soils predominate along the river; these soils 

are classified as Order Entisols (soils having no 

pedogenic horizons); Suborder Orthents (loamy or 

clayey, and having a regular decrease in organicmatter content with depth); Great Group Xerorthents 

(Orthents in climates with rainy winters but dry summers; continually dry for long periods during the warm 

season). Adjacent, but higher, areas have soils that are 

high in bases and have clayey horizons. These soils are 

classified as Order Alfisols (medium to high in bases, 

with gray to brown surface horizons and subsurface 

horizons of clay accumulation); Suborder Udalfs (soils 

usually moist, but may be intermittently dry in some 

horizons); Great Group Hapludalfs (soils with subsurface horizon of clay accumulations that is relatively 

thin, or having only a brownish-colored stain to mark 

this horizon). A small area at the northwestern tip of 

the county has wet organic soils; this area was not 

sampled.

The fruits that are grown include apples, apricots, 

cherries, grapes, nectarines, olives, peaches, pears, 

plums, and strawberries. Of these fruits, grapes and 

cherries are among the county's 10 leading crops in 

value. Tomatoes and asparagus are also among these 

leading crops; and, in addition, snap beans, lima beans, 

cabbage, carrots, cauliflower, sweet corn, cucumbers, 

lettuce, melons, onions, peas, peppers, potatoes, pumpkins, squash, sweet potatoes, beets, and spinach, listed 

in order of quantity that is produced, are commercially 

grown (Stipe and Jones, 1972). The following kinds of 

produce were sampled: fruits—European grapes, 

peaches, and pears; vegetables—cucumbers, dry beans, 

and tomatoes.

MESA COUNTY, COLORADO

Produce was sampled September 22-24, 1973. This 

area is one of the few in the Rocky Mountain region in 

which occurs significant production of fruits and some 

vegetables; total production here, however, is small 

compared to that of other areas that were sampled. 

The cultivated lands lie along the Colorado and Gunnison Rivers and tributary streams where water is
METHODS OF SAMPLING PLANTS AND SOILS

available for irrigation. Field crops and vegetables are 

grown in the low alluvial soils, and fruits are mostly on 

higher ground. The soils are classified as Order Entisols (soils without pedogenic horizons) but fall into 

two Suborders, Fluvents and Orthents. The Fluvents 

(Entisols having organic-matter content decreasing irregularly with depth; formed in loamy or clayey 

alluvial deposits) are further classified to Great Group 

Torrifluvents (never moist as long as three consecutive 

months). Soils of Suborder Orthents (loamy or clayey 

Entisols that have a regular decrease in organic-matter 

content with depth) are further classified as Torriorthents (never moist as long as three consecutive 

months). The following produce was sampled: fruitsapples, peaches, pears, and plums; vegetable—dry 

beans.

METHODS OF SAMPLING PLANTS AND 

SOILS

SAMPLING DESIGN

Only one trip to each area of food-plant production 

was practical because of restrictions of time and 

resources. Organization of the sampling plan, therefore, required first an estimate of the major harvest 

times for the several areas to be sampled in order to 

maximize the opportunity of obtaining different kinds 

of produce during the one visit to each area. Autumn 

harvest was selected as the most important harvest for 

the northern localities, the spring and early summer 

crops being generally less important. This selection, 

however, eliminated the berry crops, cherries, and 

some early summer vegetables from the sampling 

targets in the northern areas. In the southern localities 

the harvest is spread more uniformly throughout the 

year, particularly in areas where several crops of a 

vegetable can be grown in a single year. The tree fruit 

crops are more seasonal, being generally harvested 

during the winter months; therefore the winter harvest 

season was selected for the southern localities (fig. 1), 

although the hazard of frost damage occurs at this 

season.

Counties in eleven areas of fruit and vegetable production were selected for sampling (fig. 1). Within each 

area the sampling plan required the selection of five 

fields in which a particular crop was grown. This selection was based on a general reconnaissance of the area 

before sampling was begun, often with the recommendations of the county agricultural agent as guides, in 

order to locate potential sampling targets for each kind 

of produce. Formal random selection of fields was 

seldom possible: some fields had already been harvested; some were not yet mature; and, for some, 

permission to sample could not be obtained, generally 

because the owner of the land could not be located. 

Fields were sampled, therefore, as the opportunity 

arose.

Within each field (or grove, orchard, vineyard, or 

plot), two sites were selected for sampling produce by 

quartering the field into successively smaller units by 

drawing lots until a sampling site (variously defined as 

a single tree, a vine, a clump, or a row) was chosen. At 

this site an adequate sample of the fruit or vegetable 

was collected. Duplicate samples of produce were collected at about 10 percent of the sites, as dictated by a 

randomization procedure developed before field work 

was begun by generating a block of random numbers 

from 1 to 1,000 and ordering them into numerical sequence by a computer program. As sites were sampled 

they were numbered consecutively, and at the site 

whose sequential number corresponded to the next sequential random number a duplicate sample of plant 

material was obtained. These duplicate samples were 

collected in order to determine the variance in 

geochemical properties within a site. Soil was sampled 

at only one field within each area for each type of 

produce.

After all samples had been dried and pulverized, 

about 10 percent of the samples (45) were split (divided 

into approximate halves), again selecting by random 

numbers generated similarly, but not identically, to 

the random numbers described above. This procedure 

enabled an estimation of laboratory and analytical 

error to be made by a comparison of the analytical 

values reported for each pair of samples.

All prepared samples of plant material and soils, including field duplicates and laboratory splits, were arranged in a randomized order that was unknown to the 

analysts and were then submitted to the analytical 

laboratories. This procedure minimizes the effects of 

variable operator bias and analytical drift on interpretation of the data.

The hierarchical organization of sampling the kinds 

of produce can be outlined as follows:

Two to five areas, depending on the produce (counties in 10 different

States)

Five fields per area 

Two randomly selected sites per field 

Duplicate samples at 45 randomly selected sites 

Laboratory splits of 45 randomly selected samples.

The duplicate samples at 45 sites and the 45 

laboratory splits did not include all kinds of produce 

that were studied because of their random selection 

from the entire lot of sites and samples. Analyses of 

these samples, therefore, provide general estimates of 

chemical variation and sampling error within sites, and 

laboratory error in sample preparation and analysis.
10 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

SAMPLING TECHNIQUES

SPECIES OF PLANTS SAMPLED

It was not possible to sample the cultivar of a species 

at all sampling localties where the species was 

cultivated, because the cultivars that are grown commercially in a particular area are those that are 

especially adapted to the climate, cultivation practices, and market preferences of the area. Although 

some studies have shown that different cultivars of 

certain species differ in concentrations of particular 

elements in edible parts of the plants, other studies 

have found only slight, or no, differences among 

cultivars of other species. (See discussion by Beeson, 

1941.) If differences do exist among some cultivars 

sampled in this study, the summary data given for certain elements in a fruit or vegetable in a locality and in 

the United States will be biased to an unknown extent. 

From an overall dietary viewpoint, however, if these 

differences exist they probably are of minor importance, assuming that the produce actually sampled is 

representative of these foods as consumed by a large 

percentage of the population.

The common and scientific names of species, and the 

names (if known) and numbers of cultivars (cv.) that 

were sampled, are given for each locality in the list that 

follows. Field replicate samples, if collected, are included. The areas are listed in order of sampling.

FRUITS

American grape, Vitis labruscana Bailey. The species name is a horticultural name for the group of cultivars originating from a 

wild grape, V. labrusca L., that is native to North America. 

Cultivars included in this group are Concord, Catawba, 

Niagara, and others. These cultivars can be distinguished from 

those of the European grape (V. vinifera L.) by the "skin" on the 

berry easily slipping from the pulp within, whereas the skin 

adheres to the pulp in the European species. Berrien County, 

Mich.—cv. Concord, 12. Wayne County, N.Y.—cv. Niagara, 7; 

Catawba, 2. Yakima County, Wash.—cv. Concord, 10. These 

grapes are eaten fresh and are also processed as juice, 

preserves, and wine.

Apple, Pyrus malus L. Two groups are recognized, summer 

harvested and autumn harvested; the following samples were of 

autumn-harvested cultivars. Berrien County, Mich.—cv. 

Russet, 1; cv. Stay man (also called Stay man Winesap), 9. 

Wayne County, N.Y.—cv. Greening, 6; cv. Golden Delicious, 4. 

Gloucester County, N.J.—cv. Red Delicious, 6; cv. Greening, 2. 

Yakima County, Wash.—cv. Red Delicious, 6; cv. Standard 

Delicious, 4. Mesa County, Colo.—cv. Red Delicious, 10.

Cantaloupe, Cucumis melo L. Cantaloupe is classified in some production reports as a vegetable. It was sampled only in Berrien 

County, Mich.—cv. unknown, 2. It was not found with mature 

fruits in other areas when sampling was conducted.

European grape, Vitis vinifera L. This grape has been in cultivation 

in Europe and Asia Minor since ancient times. Two groups are

recognized within this species, table grapes and wine grapes, depending on the principal use of the fruit. Only cultivars commonly known as table grapes were sampled; some of these, 

however, are also used in wine making. The European grape is 

commercially grown in this country mostly in the Pacific Coast 

States, principally in California. Yakima County, Wash.—cv. 

Thompson Seedless, 5 (a very sweet grape that is also dried and 

used as raisins); cv. Black Mahukka, 4; cv. Palomino, 2. San Joaquin County, Calif.—cv. Tokay, 10.

Grapefruit, Citrus parodist Sw. Two principal groups were recognized in the trade, the red- or pink-pulp cultivars and the yellowpulp cultivars. Fruits in both groups are eaten fresh, canned, or 

used as frozen juice concentrate. Palm Beach County, Fla.—cv. 

Marsh Seedless, 10. Hidalgo County, Tex.—cv. Ruby Red, 8; cv. 

unknown (yellow pulp), 10. Riverside County, Calif.—cv. 

unknown (yellow pulp), 10. Yuma County, Ariz.—cv. Ruby Red, 

9; cv. unknown (yellow pulp), 1.

Orange, Citrus sinesis Osbeck. Most commercial oranges are 

cultivars of this species. The King orange (generally sold as 

fresh fruit) is, however, a cultivar of Citrus nobilis Lour. The 

Mandarin orange, usually sold as canned fruit of oriental origin, 

is Citrus nobilis var. deliciosa Sw. All samples are cultivars of 

the Citrus sinensis species, of which two groups, fresh-fruit 

cultivars and juice cultivars, are recognized in the trade according to the predominant use of the fruit. Palm Beach County, Fla.—cv. Valencia, 11. Hidalgo County, Tex.—cv. Valencia, 

10. Riverside County, Calif.— cv. Valencia, 10. Yuma County, 

Ariz.—cv. Valencia, 11.

Peach, Prunus persica Batsch. Two groups are recognized, 

freestone and clingstone, the first having flesh that separates 

easily from the stone, in contrast to the adhering flesh of the 

second. Although both kinds are canned, the clingstone with its 

firmer flesh is more commonly processed in this manner. Clingstone cultivars are not usually sold as fresh fruits, except some 

early-season kinds. Most commercial peaches are yellow-flesh 

cultivars, but white-flesh cultivars are grown to a limited extent 

for pickles or are sold as fresh fruit. Wayne County, N.Y.—cv. 

Early Elberta (freestone), 5; cv. Elberta (freestone), 2; cv. Hale 

(freestone), 2. Yakima County, Wash.—cv. Hale (freestone), 10. 

San Joaquin County, Calif.—cv. Halford (clingstone), 10.

Pear, Pyrus communis L. Pears are sold fresh and canned, and for 

both uses the fruit of the Bartlett cultivar is the most important. The cultivar Kieffer, generally used canned or preserved, is supposed to be a chance hybrid of the Bartlett cultivar and the Chinese sand pear, Pyrus serotina Rehd. Berrien 

County, Mich.—cv. Bartlett, 7; cv. Kieffer, 3. Wayne County, 

N.Y.—cv. Bartlett, 7; cv. Seckel, 2; cv. Bosc, 2. Yakima County, 

Wash.—cv. D'Anjou, 10. San Joaquin County, Calif.—cv. 

Bartlett, 10. Mesa County, Colo.—cv. Bartlett, 12.

Plum, Prunus domes tica L. The large purple plums, often partly 

freestone, that are eaten fresh, canned, or dried as prunes, 

belong to this European species, as does the Green Gage 

cultivar that is commonly used fresh, but occasionally is 

canned. The yellow and red plums sold as fresh fruit generally 

are cultivars of an Asiatic plum, Prunus salicina L., or are hybrids of this plum and some American species such as Prunus 

americana Marsh, Prunus hortulana Bailey, and others. Damson, the small purple plum used largely for preserves, is considered here as a Prunus domes tica cultivar, although some 

writers assign it to Prunus institia L. All plums reported here 

are cultivars of the European species. Berrien County, 

Mich.—cv. Stanley, 4; cv. Bluefree, 2; cv. Damson, 4. Wayne 

County, N.Y.—cv. Stanley, 10. Yakima County, Wash.—cv. 

Italian, 11. Mesa County, Colo.—cv. Italian, 10.
METHODS OF SAMPLING PLANTS AND SOILS 11

VEGETABLES

Asparagus, Asparagus officinalis L. Asparagus was sampled in 

only one locality, Riverside County, Calif.—cv. unknown, 10. 

Although it is extensively grown in Yakima County, Wash, and 

San Joaquin County, Cah'f., the harvest period of this vegetable 

generally is March to May, and these counties were not visited 

during this period.

Cabbage, Brassica oleracea var. capitata L. Two color types are 

recognized, the common green cabbage which was sampled, and 

the red cabbage. Cabbage cultivars are assigned to three groups 

on the basis of time of maturation: early (having either pointed 

or spheroid heads), midseason (generally having spheroid 

heads), and late (having spheroid or flattened-spheroid heads). 

Only spheroid (commonly called "round")-head cultivars were 

sampled. The group of cultivars having crinkled leaves that is 

designated savoy cabbage was not sampled. Commercially, cabbages are classified as either fresh or processing kinds, the latter being made up as sauerkraut. Berrien County, Mich.—cv. 

unknown, 3. Cumberland County, N.J.,—cv. unknown, 2. 

Hidalgo County, Texas—cv. unknown, 12. Imperial County, 

Calif.—cv. unknown (a processing kind), 11.

Carrot, Daucus carota L. Carrots are classified commercially as 

fresh market or processing, depending on the method of 

marketing. All samples were cultivars having long taproots. 

Hidalgo County, Texas—cv. unknown, 10. Imperial County, 

Calif.—cv. unknown, 11.

Chinese cabbage, Brassica pekinesis (Luor.) Ruprecht. Chinese cabbage was found only in Palm Beach County, Fla.—cv. unknown, 

3.

Cucumber, Cucumis sativus L. Cultivars are grouped into slicing 

and pickling kinds, the former being generally longer and larger 

than the latter. Fruits of slicing cultivars are sometimes pickled 

either when young and small, or when more mature and larger. 

Small pickles of this species may be sold as gherkins; this name, 

however, is more properly applied to Cucumis anguria L., the 

West Indian gherkin, which has fruits that are spiny and 

2-4 cm long. Berrien County, Mich.—cv. unknown, 10. Cumberland County, N.J.—cv. unknown, 2. San Joaquin County, 

Calif.—cv. unknown, 10.

Dry beans, Phaseolus vulgaris L. Many cultivars of beans have 

originated, principally by natural mutations, from this species. 

Those grown for their dry seeds form a group that is 

distinguished from the cultivars having pods that are edible 

when immature (snap beans), although seeds of both types can 

be eaten as dry beans. Most production reports classify dry 

beans as field crops rather than as vegetables. Wayne County, 

N.Y.—cv. Red Kidney, 7; cv. Yellow Eye (used in canned soups 

and "pork and beans"), 4. Twin Falls County, Idaho—cv. Light 

Red Kidney, 4; cv. Red Kidney, 2; cv. Pinto, 4. San Joaquin 

County, Calif.—cv. Red Kidney, 11. Mesa County, Colo.—cv. 

Pinto, 10.

Endive, Cichorium endivia L. Endive is a leafy salad vegetable of 

minor commercial importance. Palm Beach County, Fla.—cv. 

Green Curled, 2.

Eggplant, Solanum melongena L. Only the large, ovate, purplefruited kinds are commonly grown in this country. Berrien 

County, Mich.—cv. unknown, but probably an F, hybrid of the 

Black Beauty type, 3.

Lettuce, Lactuca sativa var. capitata L. Head lettuce, the only kind 

sampled, is by far the most important kind produced commercially, although leaf, curled, cos, and romaine cultivars are 

widely grown. Cumberland County, N.J.—cv. "659," 10. Palm

Beach County, Fla.—cv. Iceberg type, 10. Hidalgo County, 

Tex.—cv. Iceberg type, 10. Imperial County, Calif.—cv. Iceberg 

type, 10.

Onion, Allium cepa L. Only the type grown for bulbs was sampled, 

although young plants of the bulb type are at places thinned 

from the rows and sold as green or bunched onions, while the remaining wider spaced plants are left to produce bulbs. Some 

cultivars, in contrast, do not form bulbs of marketable quality 

and are grown for sale only as bunching onions. Hidalgo County, Tex.—cv. unknown (white skin type), 10.

Parsely, Petroselinum crispum (Mill.) Nym. Although considered a 

vegetable of minor commercial importance, Palm Beach County 

produced 331 railroad carloads in 1971-72 (R. S. Pryor, County 

Agricultural Agent, written commun., 1972). Palm Beach County, Fla.—cv. Curled, 2.

Pepper, Capsicum frutescens var. grossum Bailey. These peppers 

are the large-fruited types commonly called bell peppers, sweet 

peppers, and pimiento peppers that are green when young but 

turn bright red when mature. Berrien County, Mich.—cv. 

California Wonder, 2.

Potato, Solanum tuberosum L. This potato is often called Irish or 

white potato to distinguish it from sweet potato, Ipomea 

batatas(L.) Poir. Some production reports classify potatoes as a 

field crop rather than as a vegetable. The many commercially 

grown cultivars are of two kinds, russet and red. Russet 

cultivars that are large and elongated are designated in the 

trade as baking potatoes. Wayne County, N.Y.—cv. unknown 

(russet type), 11. Cumberland County, N.J.—cv. unknown 

(russet type), 11. Twin Falls County, Idaho—cv. unknown 

(russet baking type), 10. Yakima County, Wash.—cv. unknown 

(red type), 5; cv. unknown (russet type), 6.

Snap bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L. Commercial usage favors this 

common name rather than green bean or string bean. Cultivars 

are of two types, the green pod and the yellow pod or wax. Berrien County, Mich.—cv. unknown (green type), 2. Wayne County, N.Y.—cv. unknown (green type), 11. Cumberland County, 

N.J.—cv. unknown (green type), 11; cv. Yellow Wax, 2. Palm 

Beach County, Fla.—cv. unknown (green type), 10. Twin Falls 

County, Idaho—cv. Sprite (green type), 10.

Sweet corn, Zea mays var. rugosa Bonaf. Most commercially grown 

cultivars of sweet corn are F, hybrids, and field identification of 

these cultivars is not practical. They are of two types, yellow 

and white, the former being more widely grown as hybrids 

related to the Golden Bantam cultivar. Berrien County, 

Mich.—cv. unknown (yellow), 5. Salem County, N.J.—cv. 

unknown (yellow), 4; cv. Silver Queen (white), 7. Palm Beach 

County, Fla.—cv. unknown (yellow), 10. Twin Falls County, 

Idaho—cv. unknown (yellow), 11.

Tomato, Lycopersicum escutentumMSi. The two commercial groups 

of tomatoes are shipping (for eating as fresh fruits) and processing. Mechanized harvesting has led to the development of 

fruits, especially of processing cultivars, that are thick skinned, 

firm, and spherical to cylindrical in shape. Berrien County, 

Mich.—cv. unknown (shipping), 10. Cumberland County, 

N.J.—cv. unknown (shipping), 3. Palm Beach County, Fla.—cv. 

Floridel (shipping), 10. Yakima County, Wash.—cv. unknown 

(processing), 12. San Joaquin County, Calif.—cv. unknown 

(processing), 11.

COLLECTION AND PREPARATION OF SAMPLES

Samples at a site were subjectively sampled from the 

tree, vine, or row of produce with the intent of obtaining samples representative of the produce as it is
12 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

selected for marketing or processing. Factors used in 

the selection included degree of maturity, size, shape, 

freedom from large blemishes, and coloration, as appropriate for the kind of produce being sampled. The 

fruit and vegetables were placed in plastic bags at the 

collection site in order to reduce loss of their field 

moisture content; at the end of the same day they were 

prepared as for eating or cooking (but were not 

cooked), and the prepared samples were weighed to 

0.1 g. Samples were then heat-sealed in thick polyethylene bags, packed in ice chests to reduce spoilage, and 

as soon as possible shipped by air mail to the Denver 

laboratories where they were frozen and held until drying could be started.

Methods used to prepare the various kinds of 

samples are listed below:

FRUITS

American grape. Bunches washed and drained, berries removed

from stems, skins and seeds included in sample. 

Apple. Fruit washed and drained, fruit peeled, core removed, fruit

sliced.

Cantaloupe. Fruit peeled, seeds removed, flesh sliced and cubed. 

European grape. Fruit washed and drained, fruit cut open, seeds

removed. 

Grapefruit. Fruit peeled, segments separated and cut into pieces,

seeds discarded.

Orange. Fruit prepared the same as for grapefruit. 

Peach. Fruit peeled, seed (pit) removed, fruit sliced. 

Pear. Fruit peeled, core removed, fruit sliced. 

Plum. Fruit washed and drained, seed (pit) removed, fruit sliced.

VEGETABLES

Asparagus. Stalks washed and drained, cut into segments; tough

stalks discarded. 

Cabbage. Outer leaves removed and discarded; firm head washed

and drained, then sliced.

Carrot. Leafy tops removed; root washed, drained, peeled, sliced. 

Cucumber. Fruits washed and drained, not peeled, sliced. 

Dry bean. Seeds removed from dry pods and winnowed to remove

foreign material; molded or imperfect seeds discarded. 

Endive. Leaves washed and drained, cut into pieces. 

Eggplant. Fruit peeled and sliced. 

Lettuce. Heads washed and drained, outer leaves removed to firm

head, head sliced.

Onion. Tops, roots, and dry leaf bases removed; bulb sliced. 

Parsley. Leaves washed and drained. 

Pepper. Fruits washed, seeds and their supporting tissues removed,

fruit sliced.

Potato. Tubers washed and drained, peeled, sliced. 

Snap bean. Pods washed and drained, stems and tips removed, pods

broken into pieces. 

Sweet corn. Shucks (husks) and silks (styles) removed, grains cut

from the cob (rachis), cob discarded. 

Tomato. Fruits washed and drained, sliced.

In the preparation laboratory, the plastic bags containing the frozen individual samples were opened 

wide and placed in shallow aluminum pans which were 

put into an electric oven that had circulating air held at 

a temperature of 38-40° C. By following this procedure, the samples were prevented from contacting 

the aluminum pan. Several days later the samples that 

appeared dry were removed from the oven and weighed 

to 0.1 g. They were then returned to the oven where 

they remained 1 day, then they were weighed again. 

This process was continued until no further loss in 

weight occured; the dry samples were then sealed in 

polyethylene bags. Leafy samples (for example, lettuce 

and cabbage) and those with a high starch content (for 

example, potatoes and corn) dried to a constant weight 

in 3-5 days, whereas samples with a high sugar content (peaches and grapes), rich in colloids (cucumbers), 

or with a high water content (tomatoes) required as 

much as 2 weeks of drying to attain a constant weight.

The dried samples were pulverized or shredded in a 

Waring blender1 that had a glass canister and stainless 

steel blades. The blender was cleaned after grinding 

each sample, either by blowing it out with compressed 

air or by washing it, as necessary. Certain randomly 

selected samples, as described earlier, were divided 

into two parts; then all ground samples were placed in 

covered cardboard cartons. After grinding the plant 

materials the particles were of a size that would pass 

through a screen with apertures of 1.3 mm.

SOILS

A sample of soil was collected at each site where produce was sampled by digging to the lower limit (usually 15-20 cm from the surface) of the plow zone, then 

taking a composite sample of the soil that was removed. The soil had been cultivated at all sampling 

sites; therefore, there had been some mixing of soil 

horizons in zonal soils. The samples were placed in 

manila soil envelopes and allowed to dry at ambient air 

temperatures until they were finally dried in the 

laboratory at 38-40° C. A Nasco-Asplin soil grinder 

equipped with a ceramic mortar, ceramic screw-type 

grinding head, and stainless steel screen was used to 

gently break up the soil aggregates and to separate 

and discard large roots and soil material (mostly 

gravel) larger than 2 mm. The fine material was then 

ground in a vertical Braun pulverizer using ceramic 

plates set to pass 80 mesh. The samples were then arranged in a random sequence and submitted to the 

laboratory for chemical analysis.

'Use of brand names in this report is for descriptive purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey.
STATISTICAL PROCEDURES USED IN EVALUATING DATA 13

ANALYTICAL METHODS USED 

PLANTS

A part of each dried and pulverized sample of fruits 

and vegetables was burned to ash in a furnace which 

was slowly heated from room temperature to 500 ° C, 

and the weight percent of ash produced from the dried 

material was recorded. The ash was used for analysis 

by the emission spectrographic method (Neiman, 1976) 

and for the determination of cadmium, cobalt, zinc, 

sodium, lithium, calcium, potassium, and phosphorus 

using methods described by Harms (1976). Dried plant 

material was used for analysis of arsenic, mercury, 

selenium, and total sulfur. The methods of analysis used for determining the various elements in the plant 

material, and the lower limit of determination, are 

given in table 1.

SOILS

For analysis by emission spectroscopy, a 10-mg aliquot of each soil sample was mixed with 20 mg of a 

sodium carbonate-graphite mixture (1 percent Na), 

then packed into a shallow crater electrode and burned 

for 2 minutes in a direct current arc. The resulting 

spectra were recorded on a photographic plate which 

was developed and visually compared to reference 

standards. The preparation of these standards and the 

method of reporting values were described by Neiman 

(1976). Procedures used for the analysis of soil samples 

by atomic absorption, X-ray fluorescence, and certain 

methods other than emission spectroscopy were described by Huffman and Dinnin (1976) and Wahlberg 

(1976). Millard (1975) described the delayed neutron 

technique used for determining thorium and uranium 

concentrations in soils. All methods used for determining the various elements in soils, and the lower 

limits of determination, are listed in table 2.

STATISTICAL PROCEDURES USED IN 

EVALUATING DATA

Frequency distributions of the analytical data as 

received from the laboratory, in units of weight percent or parts per million, show large positive skewness. 

In order to achieve frequency distributions more nearly symmetrical and closer to the normal form, the 

original data were transformed to logarithms. Many of 

the elements were analyzed by a semiquantitative 

spectrographic method for which the concentrations 

were reported in geometric brackets; log transformation also overcomes some of the effects of this method 

of reporting on evaluation of the data (Miesch, 1967).

The geometric mean is the appropriate measure of 

central tendency for a lognormal distribution and provides a "characteristic" value for the element in the 

sampling media. The geometric mean is estimated as 

the antilog of the arithmetic mean of the logs. A 

measure of variation is given by the geometric deviation, which is the antilog of the standard deviation of 

the logs. About two thirds of the area under the lognormal distribution curve lies in the range GM+GDto 

GMX GD, where GM is the geometric mean and GD is 

the geometric deviation. The confidence interval about 

the geometric mean, the geometric error (GE), can be 

estimated from

(1)

where t is Student's t and AT is the number of values on 

which the geometric mean is based. Where t is selected 

at the 0.05 probability level, the population geometric 

mean has the expected range GM+GE to GMXGE, 

with 95 percent confidence (Shacklette and others, 

1970).

Because of the insufficient sensitivity of some 

analytical methods, some elements were not detected 

in measurable concentrations in many samples of plant 

tissue or soil. This deficiency resulted in some values 

being reported as "less than" (<) a specified limit. 

Such data are said to be censored, and the means and 

deviations were computed using the procedures devised by Cohen (1959) and applied to geochemical data 

by Miesch (1976). Some of the data for a particular element in a plant or soil sample was so severely censored 

that Cohen' s technique was unreliable or impossible, 

and the mean is listed in the tables that follow only as 

"less than" a stated limiting value. The estimated 

means of censored data are commonly below the stated 

lower limit of determination, as given in tables 1 and 2.

The total chemical variation within any one type of 

produce has been viewed as the sum of three components: (1) the variability among the widely separated 

areas, (2) the variability among fields within an area, 

and (3) the variability due to all other causes including 

natural variability within fields and variability that 

arises from sample preparation and analysis. The corresponding analysis-of-variance model is

where n is the grand mean concentration for all areas, 

«i is the difference between n and the mean for the ith 

area, fa j is the difference between n+cti and the mean

for the jth field in the ith area, and T^ is the difference 

between n+oii+fiij and the log analytical value for the
14 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE L—Summary of methods used for analysis of plants and plant ashes and approximate lower limits of

determinations

Element Method

Sample 

weight

(g)

Lower 

limit 

(ppm)

Dry material of sample

As-——— Atomic absorption (arsine generation) 1

Hg—--- Flameless atomic absorption————-- 1

Se-——— 2, 3-diaminonaphthalene-—— — ---— 2

S, total Turbidometric-- —— ——————————— - .5

0.05

.01

.005

100

Ash of sample

Ag——— Emission spectroscopyAl——— ————————————doB———— ————————————do--

Ba——— ———————————-do--

Ca——— Atomic absorption——-

Cd——— ———————————do-­ 

Co——— ———————————doCr---— Emission spectroscopyCu——— ———————————doFe——— ——————————do—

Ga——— ————————————doK------- Atomic absorption-----

La——— Emission spectroscopyLi——— Atomic absorption-----

Mg—--- Emission spectroscopyMn---— -- ——— ——— — ---do-­ 

Mo——— ———————————-do— 

Na-—-- Atomic absorption----- 

Ni——— - Emission spectroscopyp——___ Colorimetric--- —— --•

Pb———- Emission spectroscopySn------ - — - —— -_-______do--

Sr——— ———————————-do—

Ti——— ————.....____.. doV——- — _—__-—_____d0 "

Y——- ............. _—-do--

Yb—— ——————doZn——-- Atomic absorption- — •

Zr——— Emission spectroscopy1.01 

.01 

.01 

.01 

.05

.5

.5

.01

.01

.01

.01 

.05 

.01 

.05 

.01

.01 

.01 

.05 

.01 

.05

.01 

.01 

.01 

.01 

.01

.01 

.01 

.05 

.01

1

150

50

3

100

1

1,

1

10

10

100

70

4

20

1

7

25

10

100

20

10

10

5

15

20

2

10

20

From Harms (1976) and Neiman (1976).
	STATISTICAL PROCEDURES USED IN EVALUATING DATA 15

TABLE 2.— Summary of methods used for analysis of soils and approximate lower limits of

determinations

	Sample Lower 

Element Method weight limit

	(g) (ppm)

Ag- — — Emission spectroscopy--- — -- ———— ——— --- 0.01 0.5

Al — -- X-ray fluorescence spectrometry ——— --- — - .8 2,600

As ——— ————————————— do —————————————— .5 .1

B — — Emission spectroscopy ——— -- ———— — —— - .01 10

Ba ——— ————————————— do —————————————— .01 2

Be ——— ————————————— do —————————————— .01 1

C, total Induction furnace-gasometric- ——— --- — --- .25-. 40 500

Ca----- X-ray fluorescence spectrometry-- ——— — — .8 710

Ce----- Emission spectroscopy- — ---- ————— -- — - .01 200

Co ——— ————————————— do —————————————— .01 3

Cr ——— ————————————— do —————————————— .01 1

Cu ——— ————————————— do —————————————— .01 1

F- ——— Fluorine specific-ion electrode- ——— ———— .1 400

Fe — -- X-ray fluorescence spectrometry---- ——— — -- .8 350

Ga- —— Emission spectroscopy ——— — —— —— — — - .01 5

Ge-- — X-ray fluorescence spectrometry-- ——— — --- .8 .1

Hg--_-_ Flameless atomic absorption-- — —— -- — — .1 .01

K —— __ X-ray fluorescence spectrometry — ——— ——— .8 250

La ——— Emission spectroscopy------- —— -- — ------- .01 30

Li----- Atomic absorption — ——— ———— ——— — --- 1 5

Mg ——— ————————————— do —————————————— 1 600

Mn ——— Emission spectroscopy ——————— —— —— — .01 1

Mo ——— ————————————— do —————————————— .01 3

Na ——— Atomic absorption-- —— ———————— —— — - 1 740

Nb- —— Emission spectroscopy-- — — ——— — ---- — .01 10

Nd ——— ————————————— do —————————————— .01 50

Ni ——— ————— - ———— --do —————— - ——————— .01 2

Pb ——— ————————————— do —————— - ——————— .01 10

Rb- — - Atomic absorption- ——— -- — ------ ——— —— - 1 20

S, total X-ray fluorescence spectrometry ————— — - .8 800

Sc- —— Emission spectroscopy------ — —— — — ---- .01 5

Se-- — X-ray fluorescence spectrometry--- ——— - — .8 .1

Si ——— ————— _-- ————— do — - —— --- —— --- —— .8 2,300

Sn ——— ————————————— do —————————————— .8 .1

Sr — -- Emission spectroscopy —— ----- ——— —— ---- .01 5

Th — -- Neutron activation-delayed neutron technique 6-10 1

Ti- —— X-ray fluorescence spectrometry--- ——— —— - .8 300

U — — Neutron activation-delayed neutron technique 6-10 .1

V ——— Emission spectroscopy-------- —— -- ——— — - .01 7

y ——— ———————————— -do—- ————————— - —— .01 10

Yb ——— ——————— --- — --do ——————— - ———— -- .01 1

Zn----- Atomic absorption ——— ———— ___-_- ———— _ i 10

Zr- —— Emission spectroscopy ————— ______ — — __ .01 10

Mil lard (1976), Huffman and Dinnin (1976), Neiman (1976), and Wahlberg 

(1976).
16 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

fcth sample from the jth field in the ith area. The cor- | 

responding variance components are:

and were estimated by standard techniques (for example, Bennett and Franklin, 1954) from data on as many 

as 20 to 50 samples of each produce type (two to five 

areas, five fields per area, and two samples per field). 

Tables 46-62 give estimates of a£ and of aa2, 0$, and 

aT2 as percentages of a£ for 16 kinds of produce.

Each estimate of aj in tables 46-62 contains 

variance caused by sample preparation and analysis 

and by the sampling procedure, as well as variance in 

plant chemistry over the field. Thus,

where a52 is the variance among sampling sites within a 

field, as2 is the variance within sites (sampling 

variance), and a02 is the variance caused by sample 

preparation and analysis. The components as2 and a02 

were estimated from data on, respectively, the 

duplicate samples taken at 10 percent of the sites and 

the duplicate analyses made on 10 percent of the 

samples. Both the duplicate samples and the sample 

splits for duplicate analysis were randomly interspersed with the other samples and were entirely unknown 

to the analysis. The variance component, a02 , was

estimated as s02 from

2n (2)

where Xu is the measured concentration (or log concentration) in the ith sample and X^i is the corresponding values for the second split of the same sample. 

The same equation was used to estimate a*+o£, using 

the analyses of the two samples from the ith sampling 

site as Xu and X^i and the estimate of as2 was then obtained by subtraction of a02 . The final estimates of a/ 

and a02 are given in table 3.

The estimate of a* and a02 are composite estimates 

that pertain to all types of produce. Composite 

estimates were obtained for reasons of economy and 

because the analytical variance components, at least, 

are not expected to differ among produce types.

The variance components in table 3 can be used to 

partition the "between sites" variance components 

given in tables 46-62. The "between sites" components include variance caused by (1) natural

chemical variation among plants between sites within 

fields, (2) natural variation within sampling sites, and 

(3) variation in the data caused by sample preparation 

and analytical procedures. An example of the partitioning, for aluminum in American grapes (table 46), is 

as follows:

Source of variation Absolute variance Percentage variance

Between sites

Within sites

Analysis

Total

0.06170

0.01980 (table 3)

0.04206 (table 3)

0.12356

46

15

31

92 (table 46)

The total absolute variance (0.12356) within sites was 

derived as 92 percent of the total variance for 

American grapes (0.13430, table 46). The between-sites 

variance corrected for variance within sites and for 

analytical procedures (0.06170) was then derived by 

difference. These results indicate that 31 percent of the 

total variance in the data on aluminum in American 

grapes is caused by the sample-preparation and 

analytical procedures. They also indicate that plants 

within a sampling site tend to be relatively uniform in 

aluminum, and so the chances of large sampling errors 

are minimal. The greatest amount of natural varation— variation in the plants as opposed to variation in 

the data— appears to be between sampling sites within 

fields, which forms 46 percent of the total variance in 

the data and 67 percent of the total variance less the 

variance due to analysis.

For reasons of economy, only one sample of soil was 

taken from each field in which produce was sampled. 

This prohibited estimation of the distribution of 

variance within areas; whether the within-area 

variances are predominantly between fields, between 

sampling sites within fields, or caused by laboratory 

procedures is unknown. The analysis of variance model 

for the study of the soils is:

where X^ is the measured concentration (or log concentration) in the jth sample from the ith area, /* is the 

grand mean for all areas, a; is the difference between /* 

and the mean for the ith area, ft 7- is the difference between n+ai and the value for theyth sample from the 

ith area. The corresponding variance components are

and are tabulated in tables 100-116.
CONCENTRATIONS OF ELEMENTS IN FUITS AND VEGETABLES 17

TABLE 3.—Components of variance in composition between samples from within a sampling site 

and between analyses of the same sample

[Variance components calculated on data transformed to logarithms, except as noted. Leaders (-) in figure column indicate no data

available]

Element, ash, or 

dry material

Variance components

Between samples,

n = 90 

(45 pairs)

Between analyses

n = 90 

(45 pairs)

Total

variance

BBaCaCdCuFeKMgMn0.01980

.00011

0

.00579

0.04206

.01175

.05810

.00467

0.06186

.01186

.01046

NaPS« 

SeSrZn0

Ash yield

Dry material 

yield 1 ———

.00564

.00585

.00101

.00008

.00587

.00276 

)

.00065 

.01405 

.00918 

.00502

1.2962

1.4399

.01567

.02073

.00297

.01225

.01378

.01108

.01013

.00189

.00885

.02252

.01145

.24222

.02131

.02131

.00398

.01233

.01963

.01384

.00706

.00254

.02290

.03170

.00643

1.5384

Variance component derived from nontransformed data.

RESULTS

CONCENTRATIONS OF ELEMENTS IN FRUITS 

AND VEGETABLES

BASES FOR REPORTING CONCENTRATIONS OF ELEMENTS

Concentration of elements in plant material are commonly expressed as the contribution by weight of the 

element in a sample to the total weight of the sample 

that was analyzed as percent, parts per million (ppm, 

which is 10~4 percent), or micrograms per gram (fig/g). 

The actual portion of the total sample that is analyzed 

may consist of a weighed aliquot of fresh plant 

material (commonly with a high water content), of 

plant material dried to an approximate constant 

weight, or of ash obtained by oxidation of the organic 

components of the sample. Of these three physical 

states of the sample, the one chosen for the aliquot to 

be analyzed is determined by requirements of the 

analytical methods that are to be used. Some methods 

require concentration of the elements of interest in 

relation to the total mass of the sample in order to keep

the sample size within reasonable limits and to hold 

accuracy of the analyses within acceptable ranges.

This study is concerned with only the total concentrations of separate elements, not compounds of 

elements, that are in the samples. Moreover, certain 

elements in the samples such as carbon, hydrogen, 

oxygen, and nitrogen are not included as elements of 

interest in this study. Two methods used for concentrating the elements of interest are drying the 

sample and ashing the sample ^>y combustion or 

chemical oxidation ("wet ashing"); The first method, 

drying, removes most of the water and small amounts 

of aromatic compounds from the sample, and the loss 

of the elements of interest is no greater than if the 

plant material had dried under natural conditions. 

Drying also kills the tissues, thus stopping respiration 

and the attendant loss of organic compounds, and further loss of weight by the sample is largely prevented. 

Drying stops, or greatly inhibits, the growth of decayproducing bacteria and other fungi. In this study all
18 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

plant samples were dried, after having determined 

their fresh weight, as soon as practical.

Ashing further concentrates most of the elements of 

interest by oxidizing organic compounds in the sample, thus removing much of the carbon, hydrogen, and 

some other elements from the sample. For analyzing 

the many elements that are relatively stable at combustion temperatures, ash produced by burning is commonly used. Other elements such as arsenic, mercury, 

selenium, and sulfur are volatilized and lost from the 

sample at combustion temperatures; therefore, for 

their determination, samples are "ashed" by the use of 

strongly oxidizing reagents (hydrogen peroxide, perchloric acid).

Although the physical state of the material to be 

analyzed may be determined by requirements of particular analytical methods, the basis used for reporting 

element concentrations may be the weight percent (or 

parts per million) that the element constitutes of the 

fresh material, the dry material, or the ash if in the 

stages of sample preparation the weight lost by drying 

the sample and ashing the sample was recorded. Then 

the choice of the basis for reporting element concentrations can be determined by the intended use of the 

data. If the data are expected to be used principally to 

evaluate dietary requirements or toxicities, either the 

fresh basis or the dry-weight basis is most appropriate. 

If the concentrations of elements are to be used for 

correlating plant and soil chemistry, values expressed 

on an ash-weight basis are commonly used.

For samples taken over a wide range of locations and 

physical conditions, data on element concentrations 

based on analysis of ash are more nearly stable 

(reproducible) than are those based on dry or fresh 

weight because two kinds of variation not directly 

related to the elements of interest, the water and the 

organic-matter contents, are eliminated. The fluctuation in water content of a plant during a 24-hour 

period, from the wilted state to the fully turgid condition, can be very great. Likewise, but to a lesser extent, 

daily fluctuations in the amount of organic compounds 

in a plant or plant part may be appreciable owing to 

changes in relative rates of photosynthesis and 

respiration and to the movement of organic compounds from one part of the plant to another part while 

the amounts of the elements of interest may remain 

relatively constant. Because the concentrations of 

elements are reported as proportions of total-sample 

aliquot weights, the weight fluctuations of the sample 

caused by loss of water and organic compounds may 

greatly affect the concentration of elements that 

is reported.

The parts of most plants (except the salad 

vegetables) used for human food are storage organs of

the plants such as seeds, fruits, stems, tubers, or roots. 

Whereas the elements obtained from the soil probably 

are largely deposited early in the formation of these 

organs and their amounts are only slowly increased 

during the maturation of these organs, the synthesis 

and deposition of sugars, fats, and starches increase 

rapidly toward the time of maturity of the storage 

organs. Therefore, if dried material is analyzed, the 

degree of maturity (ripeness, in fruits) of these tissues 

can greatly influence the reported concentrations of 

the soil-derived elements. If these dried samples are 

burned to ash, thereby eliminating the organic constituents, and the ash is analyzed, the effects of different 

degrees of maturity of the produce on the concentrations of elements of interest are greatly reduced or 

removed. For these reasons it is important to specify 

the basis used for reporting element concentrations in 

plants and, particularly for food plants, the data required for conversion to other bases.

This report gives summaries of element concentrations for each kind of fruit and vegetable on the basis 

of fresh weight, dry weight, and ash weight (except for 

the volatile elements), with the material used for 

analysis specified for each element as given in table 1. 

If the material actually analyzed was ash, the values 

obtained were converted to a dry weight basis using 

the following formula:

Md=(MflXMpa)/LOO, (3)

where Md approximates the mean in dry weight, Ma is 

the mean of the element in ash weight, and Mpa is the 

mean percent ash measured for the particular kind of 

fruit or vegetable.

If the material analyzed was dried fruits or 

vegetables and the analyst reported element concentrations on the dry-weight basis (in this study arsenic, 

mercury, selenium, and total sulfur were so reported), 

these values can be converted to approximate values in 

ash by using the following formula:

(4)

Mpfl/ioo

where Ma approximates the mean in ash weight, 

is the mean of the element in dry material, and Mpa is 

the mean percent ash measured for the particular kind 

of fruit or vegetable.

The concentrations of elements reported on a dryweight basis can be converted to approximate concentrations in fresh material by using the formula:

Mf=(MdXMpd)llQQ, (5)
CONCENTRATIONS OF ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES 19

where My approximates the mean in fresh material, 

is the mean of the element in dry material, and Mpd is 

the mean percent dry material in fresh material.

To convert concentrations of elements reported in 

ash to concentrations in fresh material, first convert 

ash-weight values to dry-weight values by using formula 3 above; then convert the dry-weight values to 

fresh-weight values by using formula 5.

The mean percentage of water in the fresh fruits and 

vegetables can be calculated by subtracting the mean 

percent dry-material yield of fresh material (given in 

the last row of each table) from 100.

MEAN CONCENTRATIONS IN SAMPLES

The chemical composition of the ash of fruits and 

vegetables is first presented by grouping the data by 

areas of commercial production and giving the detection ratios, mean concentrations, deviations, and 

observed ranges for all elements studied for each 

kind of fruit or vegetable (tables 4-20). These data can 

be converted, if desired, to values based on dry 

material or fresh material by using formulas 3 and 5, 

respectively.

The analytical data for kinds of produce were summarized by combining all county data into one matrix 

for a fruit or vegetable that was collected in more than 

one area of commercial production, and determining 

ratios, means, deviations, and ranges in element concentration for each kind of produce. The resulting 

means, deviations, and ranges were converted, as appropriate, to three bases (fresh, dry, and ash weights) 

and are presented in tables 21 to 37. Data in these 

tables can be used as baseline values for these kinds of 

produce as grown in areas of commercial production in 

the United States.

Some kinds of fruits and vegetables were collected at 

a few sites in only one county, although they are widely 

grown commercially in this country. The data on these 

samples are given on fresh-, dry-, and ash—weight 

bases in tables 38 to 45. These data are not purported 

to represent the chemical characteristics of these fruits 

or vegetables as grown throughout this country in 

areas of commercial production but, nevertheless, suggest general ranges in values that may be expected.

Some elements were determined infrequently in the 

plant samples and, therefore, were not entered in the 

tables of element concentrations. These elements, the 

fruit or vegetable in which found, the sampling 

localities, and the concentrations found, follow:

Gallium—Two samples of lettuce, Cumberland

County, N.J., 10 and 15 ppm. 

Lanthanum—One sample of plums, Berrien County,

Mich., 70 ppm; one sample of lettuce, Cumberland

County, N.J., 70 ppm; and one sample of cabbage,

Hidalgo County, Tex., 70 ppm. 

Tin—One sample of grapefruit, Hidalgo County,

Tex., 30 ppm. 

Vanadium—One sample of pears, Berrien County,

Mich., 15 ppm; nine samples of lettuce,

Cumberland County, N.J., 17-70 ppm. 

Ytterbium—Three samples of lettuce, Cumberland

County, N.J., 2-3 ppm. 

Yttrium—Three samples of lettuce, Cumberland

County, N.J., 20-30 ppm.

Although looked for in the samples, the following 

elements, with their stated lower limits of determination in parts per million by multielement spectrographic analysis, were not found: antimony, 300; 

beryllium, 4; bismuth, 20; cerium, 300; europium 

(looked for if lanthanum or cerium was found), 200; germanium, 20; hafnium, 200; indium, 20; neodymium 

(looked for if lanthanum or cerium was found), 70; 

niobium, 20; palladium, 2; praseodymium (looked for if 

lanthanum or cerium was found), 200; rhenium, 70; 

samarium (looked for if yttrium value was greater than 

50 ppm), 200; scandium, 5; tantalum, 500; tellurium, 

5,000; thallium, 500; thorium, 500; tungsten, 300; and 

uranium, 1,000.

COMPOSITIONAL VARIATION AMONG AREAS, 

AMONG FIELDS WITHIN AREAS, AND WITHIN FIELDS

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

The variance components given in tables 46-62 

reflect the amount and nature of the compositional 

variation within each type of produce. The total 

variance indicates the amount of variance present at 

all levels of the experimental design, including sample 

preparation and analysis. If the total variance is small, 

the concentration of the element in the specified type 

of produce tends to be uniform and somewhat independent of its source, and the variance components may 

be of little or no interest. However, if the total variance 

is moderate or large, the variance components expressed as percentages of the total variance will serve 

to indicate the nature and origin of the variance present and can be used as a basis for accumulating additional data more efficiently than would be possible 

otherwise. For example, if a large percentage of the 

total variance is between areas, there is a strong indication that the accumulation of the element by the 

plant in question is environmentally controlled to 

some large extent. On the other hand, if a large 

percentage of the variance is at the lowest level, between sampling sites within fields, the indication is
20 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

that most of the variance is erratic and caused by 

either very local environmental differences, laboratory 

procedures, chance, or a combination of these. The 

percentage variance at the lowest level can be taken as 

the maximum percentage of the variance in the data 

that can be ascribed to sample preparation and 

analysis, as pointed out in the previous section on 

statistical methods.

If further sampling is to be carried out for the 

purpose of estimating more precise compositional 

averages, the variance components can be used to 

design efficient sampling programs. For example, if 

little or no variance is present between areas, it is 

theoretically possible to obtain as good an average by 

taking all samples from one area as would be obtained 

by sampling many areas. If all the variance were at the 

lowest level, between sites within field, it would be 

efficient to collect all the samples from a single field. 

Caution would have to be exercised here, however, 

because the variance components tabulated in tables 

46-62, like all variance components, are only estimates 

and are subject to errors that can be considerable. The 

components should be taken only as general indicators 

of the gross nature of compositional variability within 

each produce type.

SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN MEAN ELEMENT

CONCENTRATIONS AMONG AREAS OF COMMERCIAL

PRODUCTION

The main purpose of the analysis-of-variance computations which led to the results summarized in 

tables 46-62 was to identify compositional differences 

in produce grown in different areas. The differences 

found to be statistically significant are summarized in 

table 63. Individual means are from tables 4-37.

CONCENTRATIONS OF ELEMENTS AND pH OF

SOILS THAT SUPPORTED THE FRUITS AND

VEGETABLES

In the tables of element concentrations and pH that 

follow, the geometric mean values and the ranges in 

values are given as parts per million for the minor 

elements and as percent for the major elements, based 

on the total weight of the sample aliquot (tables 

64-99). No attempt was made to estimate the concentration of the elements in soil that occurred in a form 

available to plants; the best measure of the availability 

of soil elements is the concentration of elements in the 

plant itself. The pH values are reported in standard 

units, using arithmetic means and standard deviations.

COMPOSITIONAL VARIATION AMONG AREAS 

AND AMONG FIELDS WITHIN AREAS

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

Tables 100-116 give estimates of variance components for the geochemistry of the soils between and 

within the same areas in which the produce was sampled. The sampling design and analysis-of-variance 

model have been described in previous sections of this 

report.

The chemical compositions of the soil samples are 

given by grouping the data for the soils that supported 

each kind of fruit or vegetable in each area of commercial production and giving the detection ratios, means, 

deviations, and observed ranges. By this grouping the 

chemical characteristics of soils from these areas can 

be readily compared. The extremes in concentration of 

an element provide an estimate of the ranges within 

which these crops are being profitably produced but, of 

course, do not necessarily define the maximum or 

minimum concentrations that each plant species can 

tolerate. The concentrations given represent the total 

concentrations of an element without consideration of 

the compounds in which the element occurs. This fact 

is emphasized in the data tables for carbon, iron, and 

sulfur, because analyses of these elements are often 

given separately for total amounts of organic or inorganic compounds, or for different oxidation states of 

the elements. These data are given in tables 64-80.

Summaries of the analytical data for soils from all 

sampling areas were prepared by combining the data 

for each sampling area grouped according to the kind 

of fruit or vegetable plants that the soils supported. 

These summaries provide mean concentrations and extremes in ranges in soils for each kind of produce in 

major commercial production areas in the United 

States, as given in tables 81-97.

The summary statistics on the element concentrations in soils that supported vegetable plants from 

only one area of commercial production are given in 

tables 98 and 99.

Some elements were determined infrequently in the 

soil samples, and, therefore, were not entered in the 

tables of element concentrations. These elements, the 

fruit or vegetable supported by the soil, the concentrations found, and the sampling localities, follow: 

Cerium—One sample of apple soil, 200 ppm, Wayne 

County, N.Y. One sample of potato soil, 700 ppm, 

and one sample of tomato soil, 150 ppm, 

Cumberland County, N.J. Two samples of 

asparagus soils, 150 and 200 ppm, Imperial County, Calif. Three samples of orange soils, 100, 150, 

and 200 ppm, Riverside County, Calif. One sample
TRENDS IN ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES 21

of grapefruit soil, 150 ppm, Yuma County, Ariz. 

One sample of American grape soil, 100 ppm, 

Yakima County, Wash. One sample of dry bean 

soil, 150 ppm, Mesa County, Colo.

Molybdenum—One sample of orange soil, 10 ppm, 

Riverside County, Calif. One sample of snap bean 

soil, 2 ppm, Imperial County, Calif. One sample of 

snap bean soil, 2 ppm, and one sample of potato 

soil, 10 ppm, Twin Falls County, Idaho. One sample of potato soil, 50 ppm, Yakima County, Wash. 

One sample of dry bean soil, 3 ppm, Mesa County, 

Colo.

Neodymium—One sample of apple soil, 150 ppm, and 

one sample of snap bean soil, 70 ppm, Wayne 

County, N.Y. Five samples of potato soils, 50, 70, 

70, 70, and 300 ppm, and one sample of tomato 

soil, 70 ppm, Cumberland County, N.J. Two 

samples of asparagus soils, 70 and 150 ppm, Imperial County, Calif. One sample of grapefruit soil, 

70 ppm, and three samples of orange soils, 70, 70, 

and 100 ppm, Riverside County, Calif. One sample 

of American grape soil, 70 ppm, and one sample of 

European grape soil, 70 ppm, Yakima County, 

Wash. One sample of dry bean soil, 70 ppm, Mesa 

County, Colo.

Silver—One sample of American grape soil, 0.7 ppm, 

Berrien County, Mich. One sample of plum soil, 30 

ppm, Wayne County, N.Y. One sample of tomato 

soil, 10 ppm, San Joaquin County, Calif.

SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN MEAN ELEMENT

CONCENTRATION AND pH AMONG AREAS OF

COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION

These differences were compiled from the mean concentrations given by area in tables 64-80, and from the 

between-area significant variances given in tables 

100-116. Mean concentrations of each element in all 

samples of soil that supported each kind of produce 

were obtained from tables 81-97. By examining these 

tables, the highest and lowest mean concentrations for 

areas were determined for each element and soil supporting each kind of produce where significant differences in element concentrations were found. From 

this examination, the areas having the extremes in element concentrations in soils supporting the different 

fruit and vegetable plants were identified, and the 

results are given in table 117.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

TRENDS IN ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN 

FRUITS AND VEGETABLES

Differences in the reported concentrations of an element between kinds of produce or areas of production 

may be due to the relative abilities of the species to absorb the element in preference to other elements and to 

differences in the abundance and availability of the element in the plant's environment.

The hydrogen and oxygen of water and the carbon of 

organic compounds are not elements of interest in this 

study, and their presence in the weighed aliquot of a 

sample that is analyzed affects the concentrations of 

other elements that are determined in the sample. The 

amounts of water and organic carbon in produce are 

subject to wide fluctuations, as was explained earlier; 

therefore, they were removed from the sample aliquots 

by drying and combustion to provide a more stable 

basis, concentrations in ash, for reporting concentrations of most other elements in the sample. The more 

volatile elements that would be lost by combustion 

were determined by analyzing dry plant material, and 

concentrations of these elements are reported on a dryweight basis. The differences in mean element concentrations that were found in this study reflect in some 

measure the element absorption capabilities of the 

plants as well as their geochemical environments.

AMONG KINDS OF PRODUCE

The trends in fruit and vegetable element concentrations are discussed separately. The fruit samples constitute a more homogeneous group than do the 

vegetable samples, because the kinds of tissue in fruits 

are less diverse than those of vegetable samples in that 

different plant organs, including roots, stems, leaves, 

fruits, and seeds, are included in the range of edible 

tissues in vegetables.

FRUITS

For convenience in distinguishing trends in the composition of fruits, the mean element compositions of 

the different kinds, and their percentages of water, 

were rearranged from tables 21-28 and are given in 

table 118. The means indicate clearly that certain 

elements vary widely in concentration among different 

kinds of fruits. The range in concentration is indicated 

by the computed high-to-low ratio for each 

element—the ratio of the highest mean concentration 

to the lowest.

Trends in the concentration of elements in these 

fruits, as shown by their high-to-low ratios, indicate 

characteristic element absorption or accumulation
22 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

tendencies of the different fruit plants. The low ratios 

of the macronutrients potassium, phosphorus, magnesium, and sulfur may indicate a physiological control 

of absorption in response to metabolic requirements 

common to all the different fruits, or they may indicate 

the existence of a barrier in the translocation of the 

elements from the stems into the fruits. The low ratios 

may also be caused by a rather uniform concentration 

of these elements in the cultivated soils where the 

fruits are grown, where macronutrient fertilizers are 

commonly applied to the soils. The ratio of calcium, in 

contrast to the other macronutrients, is high, indicating either a different genetically controlled 

response of the various fruit plants to calcium or, 

again, a difference in soils among the production areas.

The micronutrients boron, copper, iron, and zinc 

have low ratios (less than 3:1) similar to those of most 

macronutrients, but the ratio of manganese is somewhat higher (4.4:1). Although the ratio of, high-to-low 

values of molydbenum cannot be calculated, the means 

that are given indicate that it is very high.

The concentrations of the nonnutritive, nontoxic 

elements barium, cobalt, chromium, lithium, nickel, 

titanium, and zirconium tend to have somewhat 

greater ranges than do those of the nutritive elements, 

but aluminum has a low range and sodium and strontium have very high ranges.

The nonnutritive elements generally considered to 

be toxic to plants (arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and 

lead) occur too erratically in measurable concentrations for high-to-low ratios to be calculated, but a wide 

range in concentrations is shown by the available data. 

The concentrations of these elements are low in natural 

soils, but arsenic, mercury, and lead formerly were 

widely used as pesticides, and soils of many old orchards are contaminated with them. Cadmium in abnormal amounts in plants or soils may be suspected of 

resulting from pollution. With this group of elements, 

local variation in concentrations can be expected to 

occur. The range of selenium values is moderately 

wide, probably reflecting natural variation in soils 

among the sampling areas, but the levels of concentration do not suggest that plant toxicity will occur.

Some trends in mean element concentrations among 

species can be observed. Plums generally have low 

mean concentrations of the nutrient and nontoxic 

nonessential elements, and moderate to low values for 

the toxic elements. Peaches, which are closely related 

genetically to plums, do not show the same trends. 

Grapefruit and oranges are closely related species of 

the same genus and have quite similar mean concentrations of most elements. Their mean lithium and sodium 

contents are noteworthy, but an examination of the 

concentrations by areas shows that this content is not

a genetic characteristic but rather an environmental effect. The two kinds of grapes show no close correspondence in mean element concentrations, which may 

have resulted from the different methods of sample 

preparation used for the two species: seeds were 

removed from the European grape samples but were 

retained in the samples of American grapes. Apples 

and pears are closely related gentically, but exhibit 

little relationship in mean element concentrations. In 

summary, a genetic effect on element concentrations in 

fruits of closely related species was not conclusively 

demonstrated; the strongest evidence for this effect 

was provided by the similarities of concentrations in 

grapefruit and oranges.

VEGETABLES

For presenting trends in the composition of 

vegetables, the mean element contents of the different 

kinds, and their percentages of water, were rearranged 

from tables 29-37 and are given in table 119.

The macronutrients potassium, phosphorus, magnesium, and sulfur have relatively low ratios, with potassium having the lowest range in concentrations 

(1.24:1). The macronutrient calcium has a high ratio. 

These trends are similar to those of fruits, although the 

ranges are somewhat wider, as might be expected 

because different organs of the vegetable plants were 

sampled. The ratios of the micronutrients copper, 

boron, iron, and zinc are also low. Molybdenum concentrations range from below the limit of determination to 

84 ppm; the extremely high values occur in samples of 

snap beans and dry beans which, with other legumes, 

are known molybdenum accumulators.

The ranges in concentration of the nonnutritive nontoxic elements appear to exhibit no general pattern. 

Some element ratios that are extremely high are caused 

by very low estimates of the mean when the concentrations were determined in only a few of the samples. For 

some of these elements, contamination of the sample 

by soil or by airborne pollutants is indicated. The concentrations of titanium, zirconium, and often 

aluminum and iron have been widely used to estimate 

contamination in plant materials, because these 

elements commonly are more concentrated in soil than 

in the ash of uncontaminated plant samples. This kind 

of contamination is indicated for snap beans that have 

high concentrations of these elements. The whole bean 

pod was used for the samples, and, although the pods 

were washed, it was difficult to remove all soil material 

from the pubescent, somewhat viscid, pods. In contrast to snap beans, samples of sweet corn had very 

low concentrations of these elements, which may be ex-
TRENDS IN ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES 23

plained by the protection provided by the husks which 

envelop the grains.

Ratios for the toxic elements arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and lead could not be calculated because some 

means were below the limit of determination, but examination of the means that were available shows a 

very wide range in concentrations. This wide range is 

attributed to airborne pollution, or contamination by 

pesticides, or both. Lead is a common airborne pollutant; and lettuce, which has a large surface-to-volume 

ratio, has the highest lead concentration of any of the 

samples. Although the lettuce was washed, it is evident that much of the lead was not removed from the 

samples collected in one area. At this location the lettuce was a cultivar having heads that were more open 

than those of the cultivars sampled at the other locations. This difference in element content among 

cultivars probably was not caused by different root 

absorption characteristics but only by airborne contamination that was not readily removable from the 

leaves.

The water content has a narrow range among the 

vegetables, except for dry beans. The measurements of 

water content were based on the weights of the 

samples soon after they were collected in the field, and, 

although the bean seeds appeared to be dry, they contained about 15 percent water.

Well-known trends in element absorption among 

kinds of vegetables can be observed in the mean concentrations given in table 119. Cabbage is in a plant 

family (Cruciferae) that is characterized by the ready 

uptake of sulfur and selenium. Plants in the bean family (Leguminosae) contain relatively large concentrations of molybdenum. Sweet corn is known to absorb 

large concentrations of zinc, and potatoes contain 

somewhat elevated levels of potassium. Absorption 

characteristics of other kinds of vegetables are not as 

well known, or are unknown. Some apparent trends 

indicated in this table are worth noting. Cabbage appears to absorb significantly large concentrations of 

calcium, lithium, and sodium. The strontium content 

of carrots seems to be unusually high, as is barium in 

cucumbers. Both cultivars of beans have high iron 

values, in addition to molybdenum. Tomatoes are 

distinguished by having relatively low concentrations 

of all elements of this study.

AMONG AREAS OF COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION

The significant differences among areas for elements 

in each kind of fruit and vegetable given in the 

analysis-of-variance tables 46-62 were assigned to the 

counties having the highest and lowest concentrations, 

as determined from tables 4-20, and are grouped by

element and kind of produce in table 63. The counties 

having element concentrations in a fruit or vegetable 

that lie between the lowest and the highest concentrations are not considered in this table, because their 

between-area significances were not tested.

Data in table 63 demonstrate that many significant 

differences exist in mean element concentrations 

among kinds of produce from the areas in which they 

were sampled. Area trends in element concentrations, 

however, cannot be readily deduced from this table 

because of differences in the concentration capabilities 

of the species for the different elements. If the data in 

this table are considered along with the element data 

for individual areas (tables 4-20) some general trends 

in element concentrations characteristic of certain 

elements and specific areas can be observed.

Large-scale trends are considered first, as 

distinguished for samples from the Eastern States 

(defined as those that lie east of the 97th meridian), and 

from the Western States (west of the 97th meridian).

Lithium. This element was found in only three 

samples of produce from the Eastern States, and these 

samples are suspected of being influenced by pollution, 

but it was found in some samples from each of the production areas in the Western States. The citrus fruits 

illustrate this tendency. No lithium was found in 

samples of grapefruit and oranges from Florida, 

whereas the following mean concentrations (ppm in 

ash) were reported from the Western States: Hidalgo 

County, Texas, grapefruit 3.1, oranges 2.8; Riverside 

County, Calif., grapefruit 4.7, oranges 14; and Yuma 

County, Ariz., grapefruit 21, oranges 20.

Molybdenum. The concentrations of this element in 

produce have strong species and regional trends. All 

dry bean samples from all production areas contain 

measurable concentrations (mean ppm in ash) as 

follows: Wayne County, N.Y., 31; San Joaquin County, 

Calif., 67; Twin Falls County, Idaho, 103; and Mesa 

County, Colo., 180. In contrast, pears are not strong 

molybdenum concentrators, yet show marked differences among areas as follows (mean ppm in ash): 

Berrien County, Mich., <7; Wayne County, N.Y., <7; 

Yakima County, Wash., <7; San Joaquin County, 

Calif., 1.4; and Mesa County, Colo., 7.3. Plums show a 

similar trend. This regional trend in molybdenum, with 

high values in Colorado, was found in all produce that 

was sampled in Mesa County.

Selenium. The trend in concentrations of this element is very similar to that of molybdenum and may 

be illustrated by the mean concentrations (ppm in dry 

material) of oranges, as follows: Palm Beach County, 

Fla., <0.005; Hidalgo County, Texas, 0.0089; Yuma 

County, Ariz., 0.0075; and Riverside County, Calif., 

0.020. This trend differs from that of molybdenum in
24 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

that several kinds of produce have relatively high concentrations in New Jersey and lower concentrations in 

some Western States, as shown by the following example of apples (mean ppm in dry material): Berrien County, Mich., below determination limit in all samples; 

Wayne County, N.Y., 0.0013; Gloucester County, N.J., 

0.0040; Yakima County Wash., 0.0023; and Mesa 

County, Colo., 0.014. Selenium concentrations in all 

produce from Mesa County were higher by an order of 

magnitude than in the same produce from all other 

areas.

Sodium. Sodium concentrations range more widely 

among kinds of produce than among regions, but there 

is a definite trend in most produce toward higher concentrations in the Western States. This trend may be 

shown by lettuce as follows (mean ppm in ash): 

Cumberland County, N.J., 2,200; Palm Beach County, 

Fla., 5,500; Hidalgo County, Texas, 25,000; and Imperial County, Calif., 54,000.

Zinc. Regional trends in this micronutrient vary 

greatly among the kinds of produce. Some fruits have 

higher values in the Eastern States, as illustrated by 

apples (mean ppm in ash): Berrien County, Mich., 79; 

Wayne County, N.Y., 72; Gloucester County, N.J., 86; 

Yakima County, Wash., 49; and Mesa County, Colo., 

50. Plums show the same regional trend, but other 

fruits do not. Sweet corn, a zinc accumulator, may 

have somewhat lower zinc values in the Western 

States, as suggested by the following analyses (mean 

ppm in ash): Berrien County, Mich., 1,200; Salem 

County, N.J., 920; Palm Beach County, Fla., 1,400; 

and Twin Falls County, Idaho, 590. Other vegetables 

do not show this trend.

The element concentrations in some samples of 

vegetables from the New Jersey counties suggest that 

the pollution, or contamination by agricultural practices, affects the amounts reported. Examples of 

unusually high values in produce from this area follow: 

Lettuce—arsenic, 1.3 ppm in dry material; chromium, 

22 ppm in ash; lead, 11 ppm in ash; and titanium, 1,379 

ppm in ash. Snap beans—arsenic, 0.037 ppm in dry 

material and mercury, 0.0057 ppm in dry material. 

Tomatoes—titanium, 11 ppm in ash. Moreover, the 

presence in vegetables from these counties of some 

elements that are only rarely reported in plants indicates that pollution may be suspected as causative. 

The following elements, and their ppm in ash, were 

found only in lettuce from Cumberland County, N.J.: 

Gallium, two samples, 10 and 15 ppm; ytterbium, three 

samples, 2-3 ppm; and yttrium, three samples 20-30 

ppm. One sample of lettuce contained 70 ppm lanthanum and nine samples contained 17-70 ppm 

vanadium—otherwise, lanthanum was found in only

one sample of plums and vanadium in one sample of 

pears, both from Michigan.

TRENDS IN ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN 

SOILS SUPPORTING FRUITS AND VEGETABLES

AMONG KINDS OF PRODUCE

A comparison of the mean concentrations of 

elements in soils supporting each kind of produce is 

given in tables 120-121. The ratios of the highest 

values to the lowest values for each element in the soils 

are also given. By this means, the concentrations of an 

element characteristic of soils supporting the different 

kinds of produce can be compared, and the ratios can be 

used as a measure of ranges in the mean concentrations.

For fruits (table 120), soils supporting oranges are 

characterized by having far the greatest number of 

lowest element values, and European grape soils have 

the greatest number of highest values. General trends 

in soil-element characteristics are not apparent for the 

other kinds of produce.

In comparing the range of values for elements 

among soils supporting different kinds of fruits, 

arsenic and lead stand out as having extreme high-tolow ratios. The high concentrations for both elements 

occur in apple-orchard soils, and the low concentrations for both were found in orange-grove soils. This 

fact suggests that these elements in soils originated 

principally from the use of insecticidal sprays and that 

some kinds of fruit trees were sprayed with lead 

arsenate more commonly than were other kinds. The 

high ratios of aluminum, iron, vanadium, and strontium result from the low natural levels of these 

elements in the sandy soils of citrus groves contrasted 

with the high levels in soils of the West Coast grape 

districts. The high ratios for calcium and strontium in 

soils supporting vegetables probably reflect the requirement of cabbage for basic soils high in calcium 

contrasted with the wide range in soil pH tolerated by 

sweet corn. The other ratios for produce are within low 

ranges for which the effects of natural soil chemistry, 

cultural requirements for specific crops, fertilizer practices, and contamination cannot be distinguished with 

the available data.

AMONG AREAS OF COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION

The areas having significantly different concentrations of each element in soils supporting each kind of 

fruit and vegetable, as indicated by analysis of 

variance (tables 100-116), are listed in table 117. The 

extreme high and extreme low areas are given because 

the analysis of variance measures differences only be-
RELATIONSHIPS OF THE ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN PLANTS AND THE CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS 25

tween the extremes—the other areas fall somewhere 

between the two.

The most striking results shown in table 117 are the 

wide ranges in element and pH values that are 

tolerated by the different kinds of produce. Even the 

toxic elements in soils may have wide ranges in concentration without preventing successful cultivation of 

the fruits and vegetables that were analyzed. For example, soil supporting plums in Mesa County, Colo. 

contained a mean arsenic concentration of 37 ppm, 

while the soil in plum orchards in Yakima County, 

Wash, contained an average of 6.3 ppm. Potato-field 

soils in Twin Falls County, Idaho, averaged 1.1 ppm 

mercury, while those in Yakima County averaged only 

0.032 ppm. Pear-orchard soils in Yakima County 

averaged 160 ppm lead, but those in Berrien County, 

Mich., averaged only 20 ppm. Even concentrations of 

the major nutrient elements calcium, potassium, and 

magnesium have order-of-magnitude differences in 

soils supporting a kind of produce. The latitude in pH 

values also may be wide; for example, both the acid 

soils of Wayne County, N.Y. (pH 4.8), and the alkaline 

soils of Twin Falls County, Idaho (pH 8.2), produce 

profitable crops of potatoes.

Some pronounced trends are shown among areas in 

mean element concentrations and pH in soils supporting the different kinds of produce. A large-scale trend 

is found in the high pH values of soils from the 

Western States and the lower values for those of the 

Eastern States that is related to similar differences in 

calcium and magnesium concentrations in the 

cultivated zone of soils. Similar trends are shown by 

lithium and sodium.

Less distinct differences in east-to-west soil concentrations, but for which the Western States generally 

have higher element values, are shown by aluminum, 

barium, cobalt, chromium, iron, gallium, germanium, 

nickel, rubidium, scandium, strontium, thorium, 

titanium, uranium, vanadium, yttrium, ytterbium, and 

zinc. Locations sampled in the Eastern States tend to 

have higher concentrations only of silicon, which is 

probably caused by leaching of soil elements that are 

more mobile than silicon.

No clear regional trends are shown in concentrations 

of arsenic, boron, carbon, copper, fluorine, mercury, 

potassium, manganese, lead, and tin. If regional differences in concentration of these elements in soils 

originally existed, they have been diminished or 

obliterated by cultivation practices or contamination. 

Boron, copper, manganese, and potassium are deficient for profitable growth of fruits and vegetables in 

some areas and may be added to the soil in fertilizers. 

Total carbon concentration in soil is influenced by the 

content of organic matter and carbonates in soils

which may range widely within areas and so obscure 

regional patterns. Arsenic, mercury, copper, and lead 

were formerly used as pesticides throughout the 

United States, and residues of these elements persist 

in some soils. The remaining elements fluorine and tin, 

as well as arsenic, mercury, and lead, may be added to 

the soil by industrial or vehicular pollution.

Reasons for the differences in element concentrations in soils that support different kinds of produce 

within an area are not obtainable from the tables given 

in this report; they can be deduced only from observations made at the different sites. For example, soils 

supporting lettuce in Florida and potatoes in New 

York are much higher in carbon than are the soils in 

which some other crops are grown in the areas because 

in these two States lettuce and tomatoes were grown in 

peat or muck while the other kinds of produce were 

grown in less organic soils. The high lead and arsenic 

levels in soils at apple-orchard sites in both 

Washington and Michigan relate to spray residues in 

old orchards, whereas soils of young orchards have 

lower concentrations of these elements. Soils of the 

sampling area in Cumberland County, N.J. probably 

reflect effects of contamination, as indicated by the uncommon soil elements found and the concentrations of 

other elements that are often associated with local 

pollution.

The effects of fertilization within and among areas 

cannot be evaluated from the data at hand, but as a 

general practice labor-intensive crops, including most 

kinds of fruits and vegetables, are heavily fertilized 

with the major nutritive elements. These fertilizers 

may contain trace amounts of undesirable elements 

such as cadmium in phosphates that can remain in the 

plow zone of soils for long periods of time. Certain 

micronutrient elements, such as copper, zinc, boron, 

and manganese, may be applied to the soil in areas 

having deficiencies of these elements. Large quantities 

of sewage sludge or other organic wastes were observed in vegetable fields in Imperial County, Calif., 

and these materials probably were also used in other 

areas. These wastes often contain significant amounts 

of undesirable heavy metals.

RELATIONSHIPS OF THE ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES AND 

THE CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS

Numerous studies have demonstrated that the concentration of an element in plant tissue commonly has 

only little correlation with the total concentration of 

the same element in the soil that supported the plant. 

This lack of correlation is caused by the fact that only 

certain chemical states of an element can be absorbed
26 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

by plants; another reason is that inherent physiological characteristics of plant species control the concentrations that can be absorbed. There is no universal 

laboratory method of determining the availability of 

the elements in soils to plants; therefore, this study 

considered only total element concentrations, not 

available concentrations.

If the concentrations of an element in soils exceed 

certain concentrations that can be considered 

"normal," the plants may reflect the high soil levels by 

their increased absorption of the element. This reaction forms the basis for biogeochemical prospecting for 

mineral deposits. Agricultural soils have element concentrations that range within the requirements or 

tolerances of the cultivated plants; therefore, extremely high concentrations of toxic elements, or 

extremely low concentrations of nutritive elements, 

are not expected in these soils. Contamination or pollution, however, may cause local high concentrations of 

certain elements in agricultural soils. Moreover, 

natural differences in concentrations on a continental 

scale may be of sufficient magnitude for some elements 

in soils to elicit a corresponding response in plant element concentrations.

An examination of the tables giving mean element 

values for fruits and vegetables by areas of production 

(tables 4-21) and corresponding tables for soils in 

which these plants grew (tables 64-80) reveal some 

large-scale examples of plant element-soil element correlations. The following examples of correlation are

Sample No.

01AP110S

01AP120S

Soil

As

90

13

(ppm)

Pb

200

70

Sample No.

01 API 100

01AP1200

Fruit

As1

8

10

(ppm)

Pb2

1,000

1,500

Very few correlations of the kinds given above are 

evident in the data on mean element concentrations in 

produce and soils. Doubtless, the averaging of concentrations for areas has obscured some of the correlations that exist at the site level.

The plant-soil relationships at some sampling sites 

showed a strong influence of soil element concentrations on the abundance of some elements in the plants. 

Analyses of plants and soils at each sampling site are 

not given in this report, but were published by Boerngen and Shacklette (1980). The following relationships 

of soil and plant element contents are based on site 

data from the latter report.

Some sites in old apple orchards in Michigan showed 

the influence of having been sprayed with arsenate of 

lead over a period of many years, as follows (paired 

soil-fruit samples):

'in dry material. 

2 In ash.

A second example follows, in which samples were 

collected from an old apple orchard in Washington said 

by the owner to be about 30 years old and to have been 

sprayed with arsenate of lead four to five times per 

year for many years.

ueneveu tu reiate tu natural sun unierences in element

concentrations:

Area Soil Fruit

Mean lithium concentrations (ppm) in ash of grapefruit and in associated soils

Florida ................................. 0.54

Texas .................................. 14

California ............................... 28

Arizona ................................ 27

<4

3.1 

4.7 

12

Mean lithium concentrations (ppm) in ash of oranges and in associated soils

Florida ................................. 6.3

Texas .................................. 15

<4 

2.8 

14 

20

Mean sodium concentrations (ppm) in ash of American grapes and in nssociated soils

Michigan ............................... 1,200

New York .............................. 11,000

Washington ............................ 17,000

220 

230 

1,200

Mean potassium concentrations (ppm) in ash of European grapes and in associated soils

California ............................... 2.0

14 

29

Soil (ppm) Fruit (ppm) 

Sample No. As Pb Sample No. As1 Pb2

09AP410S 114 700 09AP4100 0.3 <10 

09AP510S 135 1,000 09AP5100 0.3 <10

'In dry material. 

2 In ash.

In both examples, the soils contained unusually high 

concentrations of arsenic and lead, if compared to 

"typical" soil concentrations, but the response of the 

apple trees, as measured by the content of these 

elements in the fruits, was not consistent. The apple 

samples from Michigan indicated positive, but not proportional, responses to soil concentrations, whereas 

the apple samples from Washington exhibited no 

response to even higher soil concentrations of these 

elements. These erratic responses probably did not 

reflect surface contamination of the fruits, because all 

apple samples were pared, and the peel was discarded. 

The apple trees in Washington were irrigated, whereas 

those in Michigan depended entirely upon rain and 

snow for their supply of water. It is not clear how this 

difference in water supply could affect the availability 

of the two elements to the trees.
SUMMARY 27

Analyses of paired soil-plant samples for arsenic from 

an area in Cumberland County, N. J., thought to be affected by pollution follow:

Sample No.

03LH210S

03LH110S

03LH510S

03LH310S

03LH410S

SoU 

(ppm)

4.7

11.7

12.6

13.0

17.9

Sample No.

03LH2100

03LH1100

03LH5100

03LH3100

03LH4100

Lettuce1 

(ppm)

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

7.0

'in dry material.

These high arsenic levels in both soil and lettuce are 

most likely caused by air or soil pollution, or both, but 

not by contamination with arsenate of lead insecticide, 

because the lead values for the soils in this area are 

within the normal range. The abnormally high ash 

values found in these plant samples indicate contamination by soil that was not removed when the lettuce was washed.

Copper values for potato tubers and soils from the 

New Jersey sites are anomalously high. However, the 

high values in the potato samples were not caused by 

soil contamination of the samples, as may have occurred with the lettuce samples, because the potatoes 

were peeled and the peels were discarded. Mean copper 

values for potatoes and potato-field soils from all areas 

follow.

Area

Idaho ....................

Soil 1 

(ppm)

........... 17

........... 20

........... 40

........... 140

Potato (ppm in 

ash)

62

74

98

135

The high copper values for New Jersey soils and 

potatoes strongly suggest effects of soil pollution.

The highest and lowest mean element concentrations 

that are significantly different in produce and soils 

among areas of commercial production are given by 

county in tables 63 and 117. The mean concentrations 

for each kind of produce and its supporting soils are 

also given. These tables serve as a ready reference for 

locating strong regional trends in element concentrations; they also delineate the predominant trends in 

soil element-plant element relationships. Only the 

areas having extreme values for each category of 

samples are given, as indicated by analysis-of-variance 

procedures. Other values by area for soils and produce 

fall somewhere between the extremes and can be found 

in summary tables given elsewhere in this report.

Striking features presented in tables 63 and 117 are 

the large numbers of significant differences that are 

identified and, for many elements, the magnitude of 

the differences. Another feature that is evident is the 

general lack of correspondence of extreme values between soils and produce. Very few examples can be 

found for which a county has the extreme values for an 

element in both soils and the produce grown on the 

same group of soils. This fact supports the general 

principle that ordinarily there is a low degree of correlation between the total concentration of an element 

in soils and the concentration in an associated species 

of plant. Only when soil element concentrations exceed 

a certain level do plants respond with a corresponding 

increase in content of that element. This level of 

response differs widely among elements and plant 

species and is also influenced by many external 

environmental factors. These complex relationships 

cannot be generalized quantitatively, but must be 

determined on a case-by-case basis. For this reason the 

generally accepted principle is that the best measure of 

soil element availability is the amount found in the 

plant itself.

SUMMARY

Estimates of the mean concentrations of 27 chemical 

elements in eight kinds of fruits and nine kinds of 

vegetables, based on field collections of produce from 

11 areas of commercial production in the United 

States, provided data that can be used as background 

values for these elements in produce before their concentrations have been altered by harvesting, processing, or cooking. The water content of the samples was 

determined in the field and the ash yield of all dried 

samples was recorded; these measurements permitted 

the mean concentrations to be expressed on a fresh, 

dry, or ash basis.

The sampling design that was followed required the 

sampling of produce in 11 areas, in five fields in each 

area, and at two sites in each field. In addition, a 

duplicate sample of produce was collected at 45 sites 

that were randomly selected before sampling was 

begun. This procedure permitted the use of analysis of 

variance techniques to determine the distribution of 

variation in element concentrations among areas of 

production, among fields within areas, and between 

sites within fields.

Most variation in element concentrations was 

among areas. Variation at the site level included errors 

in sampling, preparation, and analysis, in addition to 

the natural variation that was influenced by factors of 

the environment at the site. The data from the 45 

duplicate field collections and from 45 randomly 

selected laboratory sample splits were used to
28 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

estimate separately the effects of these factors. As a 

general rule, the sampling and analytical errors were 

judged to be within acceptable limits.

A test to determine the differences in concentrations 

of elements at the 0.05 probability level among areas of 

fruit and vegetable production revealed many significant differences in the extreme mean concentrations of 

elements among the different kinds of produce. The 

causes of these differences that could be determined 

with reasonable confidence were distributed on a case 

by case basis among natural soil differences, cultivation practices, contamination by pesticides, and 

pollution.

The cultivated zone of soils was sampled at each site 

where produce was sampled, except where duplicate 

field and site samples of produce were collected. 

Analysis of variance revealed many more significant 

differences in concentrations of elements in soils at the 

area level than were found in produce. Only the total 

concentrations of each element were determined in the 

soil samples—no attempt was made to define available 

concentrations by laboratory procedures, because the 

actual amount absorbed by the plant is the best 

measure of availability of elements in soils.

Correlations between the total concentration of an 

element in soil and in produce samples were generally 

absent or low. A few positive correlations at an area 

scale were attributed to differences in the natural concentrations of an element in the soil, but others most 

probably resulted from contamination or pollution effects on the soil or the produce.

Trends in element concentrations among kinds of 

produce identified the fruits and vegetables which concentrated certain elements in their tissues relative to 

concentrations in others and indicated either a strong 

species control, or an environmental control related to 

areas of production, or both. The trends in element concentrations in soils generally showed a pronounced 

geographical control, to which, at places, contamination and pollution effects were added.

CONCLUSIONS

1. The concentrations of elements in fruits and 

vegetables generally differ least in the 

macronutrients potassium, phosphorus, magnesium, and sulfur that are essential for plant 

growth. Trends in concentrations of the micronutrients boron, copper, iron, and zinc are similar 

but not as pronounced as those of the macronutrients. The concentrations of the nonnutritive, 

nontoxic elements barium, cobalt, lithium, nickel, 

titanium, and zirconium tend to have greater 

ranges than do those of the nutritive elements.

Concentrations of elements generally considered 

toxic to organisms exhibit erratic distributions 

among areas and kinds of produce, and a wide 

range in their concentrations is indicated.

2. The total amounts of most elements in soils have 

only little effect on the amounts in the produce as 

long as concentrations are at the levels found in 

soils of areas where fruits and vegetables are commercially produced. If soil levels exceed these illdefined or unknown levels, either from natural 

causes or from contamination or pollution, concentrations in produce may reflect these excessive 

levels in soils.

3. Regional differences in concentrations as great as 

tenfold were found for some elements in various 

kinds of produce. These trends may be useful in 

examining epidemiological peculiarities; dietary 

recommendations may also be influenced by these 

differences. Caution should be used, however, in 

applying grand mean concentrations of elements 

in produce to specific environmental or nutritional 

problems.

4. The concentrations of various elements in the 

produce sampled in this study, whether due to 

normal soil levels or to contamination or pollution, 

represent levels that may be found in fruits and 

vegetables in commercial markets insofar as the 

sampling adequately covered the major areas of 

production. These levels may be reduced or increased by various methods of food processing 

and preparation. The significance of the concentrations as applied to problems of nutrition and 

health of humans or animals is left to the judgment of investigators in the medical sciences.

REFERENCES CITED

Allaway, W. H., 1968, Agronomic controls over the environmental 

cycling of trace elements: Advances in Agronomy, v. 20, 

p. 235-274.

Beeson, K. C., 1941, The mineral composition of crops with particular reference to the soils in which they were grown—A 

review and compilation: U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Miscellaneous Publication 369,164 p.

___1957, Soil management and crop quality, in U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Soil—Yearbook of Agriculture 1957: U.S. 

Government Printing Office, p. 258-267.

Bennett, C. A., and Franklin, N. L., 1954, Statistical analysis in 

chemistry and the chemical industry: New York and London, 

John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 724 p.

Boerngen, J. G., and Shacklette, H. T., 1980, Chemical analysis of 

fruits, vegetables, and their associated soils from areas of commercial production in the conterminous United States: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 80-84,134 p.

Chapman, H. D., ed., 1966, Diagnostic criteria for plants and soils: 

Riverside, Calif., University of California, Division of 

Agricultural Science, 793 p.
REFERENCES CITED 29

Cohen, A. C., Jr., 1959, Simplified estimators for the normal 

distribution when samples are singly censored or truncated: 

Technometrics, v. 1, no. 3, p. 217-237.

Connor, J. J., and Shacklette, H. T, 1975, Background geochemistry 

of some rocks, soils, plants, and vegetables in the conterminous 

United States, with sections on Field studies by R. J. Ebens, 

J. A. Erdman, A. T. Miesch, R. R. Tidball, and H. A. Tourtelot: 

U.S. Geolological Survey Professional Paper 574-F, 168 p.

Diem, Konrad, ed., 1962, Scientific tables, 6th ed.: Ardsley, New 

York, Geigy Pharmaceuticals, Division of Geigy Chemical 

Corp., 778 p.

Duke, J. A., 1970, Ethnobotanical observations on the Choco Indians: Economic Botany, v. 24, no. 3, p. 344-366.

Egan, Harold, 1972, Trace lead in food, in Hepple, Peter, ed., Lead 

in the environment: London, Institute of Petroleum, p. 34 42.

Garber, K., 1968, Uber den Fluorgehalt von Pflanzen, in Deutsche 

Forschungsgemeinschaft, Fluor-Wirkungen—Forschungsergebnisse bei Pflanze und Tier, Forschungsberichte 14, [The 

fluorine content of plants, in German Research Society, Effects 

of fluorine—Results of research with plants and animals, 

Research report 14]: Wiesbaden, Franz Steiner Verlag, p. 42-48.

Goodall, D. W., and Gregory, F. G., 1947, Chemical composition of 

plants as an index of their nutritional status: Imperial Bureau 

of Horticulture and Plantation Crops, East Mailing, Kent, 

England, Technical Communication 17,167 p.

Gough, L. P., and Shacklette, H. T., 1979, Element concentrations 

toxic to plants, animals, and man: U.S. Geological Survey 

Bulletin 1466,80 p.

Harms, T. F., 1976, Analysis of plants and plant ashes by methods 

other than emission spectroscopy, in Miesch, A. T., 

Geochemical survey of Missouri—Methods of sampling, 

laboratory analysis, and statistical reduction of data: U.S. 

Geological Survey Professional Paper 954-A, p. 17-18.

Huffman, Claude, Jr., and Dinnin, J. I., 1976, Analysis of rocks and 

soils by atomic absorption spectrometry and other methods, in 

Miesch, A. T., Geochemical survey of Missouri—Methods of 

sampling, laboratory analysis, and statistical reduction of data: 

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 954-A, p. 12-14.

Imperial County Board of Supervisors, 1971, Imperial County 

Agriculture, 1971: [Sacramento, California] Office of the 

Agricultural Commissioner, 6 p.

Kenworthy, A. L., 1967, Plant analysis and interpretation of 

analysis for horticulture crops, in Plant analysis, pt. 2 o/Stelly, 

Matthias, ed., Soil testing and plant analysis: Madison, Wise., 

Soil Science Society of America Special Publication Series 2, 

p. 59-75.

Kropf, R., and Geldmacher-v.Mallinckrodt, M., 1968, Der Cadmiungehalt von Nahrungsmitteln und die tagliche Cadmiumaufnahme [The cadmium content of foodstuffs and the daily 

cadmium intake]: Archiv flir Hygiene, v. 152, no. 3, p. 218-224.

Miesch, A. T., 1967, Theory of error in geochemical data: U.S. 

Geological Survey Professional Paper 574-A, 17 p.

___1976, Geochemical survey of Missouri—Methods of sampling, laboratory analysis, and statistical reduction of data: 

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 954-A, 39 p.

Millard, H. T., Jr., 1975, Determinations of uranium and thorium in 

rocks and soils by the delayed neutron technique, in U.S. 

Geological Survey, Geochemical Survey of the western coal 

regions, Second Annual Progress Report, July 1975: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 75-436, p. 79-81.

Miller, Judith, 1974, Agriculture—FDA seeks to regulate genetic 

manipulation of food crops: Science, v. 185, no. 4147, 

p. 240-242.

Monier-Williams, G. W., 1949, Trace elements in food: London, 

Chapman & Hall, Ltd., 511 p.

Morrison, G. H., Pierce, J. O., Allaway, W. H., Angino, E. E., 

Cannon, H. L., Jorden, Roger, Kubota, Joe, Laitinen, H. A., and 

Lakin, H. W., 1974, Sampling, sample preparation, and storage 

for analysis, chap. 11 in The relation of selected trace elements 

to health and disease, v. 1 of Geochemistry and the environment: Washington, D.C., National Academy of Science, 

p. 90-97.

Neiman, H. G., 1976, Analysis of rocks, soils, and plant ashes by 

emission spectroscopy, in Miesch, A. T., Geochemical survey of 

Missouri—Methods of sampling, laboratory analysis, and 

statistical reduction of data: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 954- A, p. 14-15.

Pickersgill, Barbara, 1977, Taxonomy and the origin and evolution 

of cultivated plants in the New World: Nature, v. 268, 18 

August 1977, p. 591-595.

Quarterman, John, 1973, Factors which influence the amount and 

availability of trace elements in human food plants: Plant Foods 

and Human Nutrition, v. 23, no. 1/3, p. 171-190.

Shacklette, H. T., 1972, Cadmium in plants: U.S. Geological Survey 

Bulletin 1314-G, 28 p.

Shacklette, H. T., Erdman, J. A., Harms, T. F., and Papp, C. S. E., 

1978, Trace elements in plant foodstuffs, chap. 3 in pt. 1, 

Oehme, F. W., ed., Toxicity of heavy metals in the environment, 

of vol. 2, Hazardous and toxic substances: New York, Marcel 

Dekker, Inc., p. 25-68.

Shacklette, H. T., Sauer, H. I., and Miesch, A. T., 1970, 

Geochemical environments and cardiovascular mortality rates 

in Georgia: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 574-C, 

39 p.

Stipe, G. J., and Jones, K. W., comp., 1972, Agricultural report: 

[Stockton, Calif.] San Joaquin County Department of 

Agriculture, 20 p.

Underwood, E. J., 1971, Trace elements in human and animal nutrition (3d ed.): New York and London, Academic Press, 543 p.

___1973, Trace elements, chap. 3 in Toxicants occurring naturally in foods (2d ed.): Washington, D.C., National Academy of 

Sciences, p. 43-87.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 1972, General program—Foods, chap. 20 in Compliance program guidance 

manual: Washington, D.C., U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 16 p. plus Attachments A, B1-B4, C, D.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1970, The national atlas of the United 

States of America: Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of the 

Interior, 417 p.

U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1969, Distribution of principal kinds 

of soils—Orders, Suborders, and Great Groups, in The national 

atlas of the United States of America: U.S. Geological Survey, 

sheet 86,2 p.

Vernon, R. O., and Puri, H. S., 1964, Geologic map of Florida: U.S. 

Geological Survey, and Florida Board of Conservation, Division 

of Geology, Map Series 18,1 sheet.

Wahlberg, J. S., 1976, Analysis of rocks and soils by X-ray 

fluorescence, in Miesch, A. T., Geochemical survey of 

Missouri—Methods of sampling, laboratory analysis, and 

statistical reduction of data: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 594-A, p. 11 lr 12.

Warren, H. V., 1967, Lead in potatoes: Royal College of General 

Practioners Journal, v. 25, p. 66-72.

Washington State Department of Agriculture, 1964, Yakima 

County Agriculture: Olympia, County Agriculture Data Series 

1964,69 p.
30 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

Watt, B. K., and Merrill, A. L., 1950, Composition of foods—Raw, 

processed, prepared: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Agriculture Handbook 8,147 p.

Williams, K. T., and Whetstone, R. R., 1940, Arsenic distribution in 

soils and its presence in certain plants: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Technical Bulletin 732,20 p.
TABLES 4-121

TABLE 4.—Elements in ash (or in dry material, as indicated), percent ash yield of dried material, and percent dried-material yield of fresh Ame

commercial production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable concentratio

analyzed. Mean, geometric mean; deviation, geometric deviation. Means and ranges are given in parts per million, 

indicated. Leaders (--) in figure column indicate no data available]

Element, 

ash, or dry

material

An--

Al _ _ _ __ _ _ ttl T —— --------

Acl

Ra__

Ca 2 -

f\ j

Co——- ——

o _ _ _ _ -

Cu — - ————

Fe ———————

Hnl Hg ————————

i/Z

Li — - — —

Mg^ —— - ———

Mn ———————

Mo ———————

Ma_

Ni— — -----

pZ —— —— ——

Pb-- ————

S l»2_________

L1 — — — -

Sr- _ -- _ -- _

Ti _ __ ____ _

Zn ———————

7w»

Ash, percent 

of dry weight

Dry material , 

percent of 

fresh weight

*Dry material

Areas of commercial production

Berrien County, Mich.

Ratio Mean Deviation

0:10 <1 

8:10 320 

3:9 

10:10 230 

10:10 100

10:10 2. 

9:10 

1:10 <1 

4:10 1. 

10:10 85

10:10 460 

2:10 

10:10 24 

0:10 <4 

10:10 1.

10:10 310 

1:10 <7 

10:10 220 

0:10 <10 

10:10 1.

0:10 <20 

10:10 

10:10 

10:10 120 

4:10 2.

10:10 130 

0:10 <20

10:10 4. 

10:10 14

was analyzed

2.27 

025 2.32 

1.34 

1.51

5 1.42 

44 2.61

1 1.93 

1.48

1.63 

0046 1.69 

1.19

4 1.42 

1.85 

2.10 

7 1.30

071 1.26 

Oil 1.48 

1.60 

8 4.58

1.46 

9 1.29 

1.17

Observed 

range

<150 - 700 

<.05 - .10 

100 - 500 

30 - 200

1.6 - 4.6 

<.2 - 3 

<1 - 1 

<1.5 - 3 

50 - 150

300 -1,500 

<.01 - .01 

18 - 32

.7 - 2

150 - 700 

<7 - 30 

100 - 700

1.2 - 2.4

.045- .09 

.005- .02 

70 - 300 

<5 - 30

80 - 270 

2.6 - 6.0 

10 - 16

; values reported on dry weight

Ratio

0:10 

8:10 

2:8 

10:10 

10:10

10:10 

6:10 

1:10 

3:10 

10:10

10:10 

1:10 

10:10 

0:10 

10:10

10:10 

0:10 

10:10 

0:10 

10:10

0:10 

10:10 

10:10 

10:10 

5:10

10:10 

1:10

10:10 

10:10

basis.

Wayne County

Mean

<1 

270 

.026 

280 

76

2.5

.19 

<1 

.65 

76

280 

<.01 

22 

<4 

1.6

220 

<7 

230 

<10 

1.7

<20 

.070 

.0076 

150 

4.0

96 

<20

4.2

15

Deviation

3.00 

1.62 

1.71 

1.93

1.57 

2.32

2.67 

1.45

1.32 

1.22 

1.38 

2.46 

1.37 

1.39

1.40 

1.43 

1.39 

2.72

1.39 

1.3 

l-.l

, N.Y•

Observed 

range

<150 -1,000 

<.05 - .05 

100 - 500 

30 - 200

1.1 - 3.6 

<.2 - .6 

<1 - 1 

<1.5 - 5 

50 - 150

200 - 500 

<.01 - .01 

16 - 28

1 - 3 

50 - 700 

150 - 400 

1.2 - 2.4

.005- .11 

.005- .01 

70 - 200 

<5 - 15

50 - 160 

<20 - 20

2.5 - 5.9

13 - 17

Ratio

0:10 

10:10 

4:9 

10:10 

10:10

10:10 

6:10 

0:10 

4:10 

10:10

10:10 

2:10 

10:10 

1:10 

10:10

10:10 

1:10 

10:10 

1:10 

10:10

1:10 

10:10 

10:10 

10:10 

10:10

10:10 

0:10

10:10 

10:10

Yakima

Mean

<1 

550 

.029 

270 

91

2.9 

.17 

<1 

.28 

61

650 

.0046 

21 

<4 

1.5

48 

<7 

1,200 

<10 

1.3

<20 

.049 

.018 

240 

32

98 

<20

4.7 

20

C
TABLE 5,—Elements in ash (or in dry material, as indicated), percent ash yield of dried material, and percent dried-material yield of fresh apple

production

[Explanations of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found immeasurable concentrations to r 

indicated. Mean, geometric mean. Deviation, geometric deviation. Leaders (--) in figure col umn indicate no data available]

Element, 

ash, or dry

material

Ag~— — —

m-- — — --.'

Caz__

Fer— ------

H ? l..........

u ..........

s i.z— ... —

Se l- —— ... ...

Ash, percent 

of dry weight

Dry material , 

percent of 

fresh weight

Ory material

Bern' en County

Ratio Mean

0:10 <1 

9:10 460 

8:10 .45 

10:10 410 

10:10 77

10:10 .87 

7:10 .18 

0:10 <1 

8:10 .50 

10:10 62

10:10 400 

8:10 .022 

10:10 29 

0:10 <4 

10:10 1.3

10:10 84 

2:10 4.3 

10:10 350 

1:10 <10 

10:10 2.2

3:10 54 

10:10 .025 

0:10 <.005 

10:10 46 

9:10 16

10:10 79 

0:10 <20

10:10 1.6 

10:10 16

Deviation

2.83 

1.48 

1.30 

1.92

1.37 

1.50

3.00 

1.38

1.52 

3.12 

1.33

1.35

1.69 

1.38 

1.51

1.15

1.81 

1.12

1.96 

2.42

1.54 

1.24 

1.08

Areas

, Mich.

of commercial production

Observed 

range

<150 -1 

<.05- 

300 - 

30 -

.48- 

<.2 -

<1.5 - 

30 -

200 - 

<.01- 

17 -

.7 -

30 - 

<7 - 

200 -

1.8 -

<20 -1 

.02-

15 - 

<5 -

40 - 

1.2 - 

13.7 -

,500 

10 

500 

200

1.3

.4

3 

100

700 

6.2 

40

2

150 

7 

650 

15 

2.4

,500 

.03

150 

70

170 

2.4 

17.5

Wayn

Ratio Mean

0:10 <1 

8:10 300 

8:8 .20 

10:10 370 

10:10 130

10:10 1.6 

7:10 .20 

1:10 <1 

3:10 .57 

10:10 70

10:10 330 

1:10 <.01 

10:10 34 

0:10 <4 

10:10 1.7

10:10 130 

1:10 <7 

10:10 360 

0:10 <10 

10:10 2.4

4:10 <20 

10:10 .032 

2:10 .0013 

10:10 150 

4:10 <5

10:10 72 

0:10 <20

10:10 1.6 

10:10 14

e County

Deviation

2.45 

6.02 

1.61 

1.57

1.67 

1.97

4.19 

1.26

1.24 

1.19 

1.16 

1.41 

1.73 

1.19

1.25 

3.31 

1.52

1.30 

1.24 

1.09

, N.Y.

lumber of samples analyzed. Means and ranges are given in p

Areas of commercial production (continued)

Gloucester County, N.J.

Observed Ratio 

range

<100 -1, 

.05 - 

150 

50

.68 -

50* 

300 

25 

1.5 -

70 

<7 

100

1.8 -

<20 

.025- 

<.005- 

70 

<5

50 - 

1.1 - 

12.2 -

0:10 

500 8:10 

.7 10:10 

700 10:10 

200 10:10

3.2 10:10 

.6 10:10 

1 6:10 

7 4:10 

100 10:10

500 10:10 

•01 1:10 

42 10:10 

0:10 

2 10:10

200 10:10 

10 1:10 

750 10:10 

0:10 

3.6 10:10

700 1:10 

10:10 

•01 6:10 

200 10:10 

30 8:10

120 10:10 

0:10

2.3 10:10 

15.7 10:10

Mean

250 

.18 

420 

46

.82 

.27

.81 

1.1 

60

415

38 

<4 

1.3

120 

<7 

1,200

2.3

<20 

.034 

.0040 

46 

12

86 

<20

2.0 

14

Deviation

2.04 

1.49 

1.36 

1.73

1.54 

1.53 

1.32 

1.99 

1.39

1.49 

1.06 

1.35 

1.49 

1.45 

1.31

1.29 

1.32 

1.67 

3.28

1.44 

1.44 

1.77

<150

300 ' 

20

30 

300 

35

50 

<7 

700

1. 

<20

20 

<5

50 

1, 

10.

Observed 

range

-3,000 

10 - .35 

- 700 

- 100

50 - 2.0 

,2 - .6 

1 

5 - 3 

- 100

-1,000 

,01 - .01 

- 40

.7 - 2

- 150 

7 

-7,300

,8 - 3.6

- 50 

,025- .055 

.005- .005 

- 100 

- 70

- 190 

.33 - 4.3 

.4 - 16.3

Ratio

1:10 

10:10 

7:9 

10:10 

10:10

10:10 

5:10 

2:10

10:10

10:10 

1:10 

10:10 

0:10 

10:10

10:10 

2:10 

10:10 

0:10 

10:10

0:10 

10:10 

10:10 

10:10 

10:10

10:10 

0:10

10:10 

10:10

Yakim

Mean

490 

.070 

452 

91

1.1 

.15 

.46

61 

350

36* 

<4 

1.6

56 

4.3 

590

2.2

<20 

.018 

.0023 

130 

16

49 

<20

1.7 

16

a County, Wash.

Deviation

2.14 

2.77 

1.51 

1.61

1.47 

1.39 

1.69

1.19 

1.28 

1.14 

1.25

1.38 

1.38 

2.25

1.26

1.20 

1.69 

1.56 

1.66

1.27 

1.25 

1.11

Observed 

range

<1 - 2 

300 -2,000 

<.05 - .3 

300 -1,000 

50 - 200

.48 - 1.7 

<.2 - .2 

<1 - 1

50 - 70

300 - 500 

<.01 - .01 

26 - 40

1 - 2

30 - 1 00 

<7 - 7 

250 -3,100

1.8 - 3.6

.015- .025 

<.005- .005 

70 - 200 

7 - 30

35 - 70 

1.2 - 2.6 

14.1 - 19.1

Rati

0:1

10:1

4:1

10:1

10:1

10:1

7:1

1:1

5:1

10:1

10:1

2:1

10:1

1:1

10:1

10:1

8:1

10:1

0:1

10:1

3:1

10:1

10:1

10:1

7:1

10:1

0:1

10:1

10:1

was analyzed; values reported on dry weight basis. 

iaes aiven in oercent.
TABLES 4-121 35

TABLE 6.—Elements in ash (or in dry material, as indicated), percent ash yield of dried material, and percent dried-material yield of fresh

European grapes from areas of commercial production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in 

measurable concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Means and ranges are given in parts per 

million, except where percent is indicated. Mean, geometric mean. Deviation, geometric 

deviation. Leaders (--) in figure column indicate no data available]

Element, 

ash, or dry

material

My----------- An- _ ____ __ _

Al _ _ ___ __

As 1

Ra

Ca2— - — —

p Cd- j —— --- —

Co ———————

rr _______

Cu ———————

FP---------- rer ——— 

H_i 9 ——————

K<-

Li- — .... —

Mg^~~ — —

Mn ——— - ——

Mo ———————

N=- _--_

Ni— ----- —

P^ ———————

Ph. ......

S 1 '^ ____ __

Se 1— — ....

Sr- _ --- _ ---

Ti —— — ——

Zn — -- ———

7i~

Ash, percent 

of dry weight

Dry material , 

percent of 

fresh weight

Areas of commercial production

Yakima County, Wash.

Ratio

0:10 

10:10 

0:9 

10:10 

10:10

10:10 

5:10 

0:10 

2:10 

10:10

10:10 

0:10 

10:10 

1:10 

10:10

10:10 

0:10 

10:10 

0:10 

10:10

0:10 

10:10 

7:10 

10:10 

8:10

10:10 

3:10

10:10 

10:10

Mean

<1 

460 

<.05 

310 

36

1.0 

.13 

<1 

.67 

43

360 

<.01 

14 

<4 

1.1

2.4 

<7 

530 

<10 

1.4

<20 

.023 

.0051 

130 

20

50 

1.0

3.1 

23

Deviation

2.04

1.36 

2.09

2.85 

2.76

2.09 

1.54

1.51 

1.68 

1.51 

2.00 

1.52 

1.66

1.29 

2.14 

2.47 

3.86

1.72 

3.20

1.39 

2.3

Observed 

range

200 -1

200 

7

.4 - 

<.2 -

<1.5 - 

30

200

5.2 - 

<4 

.7 -

7 

250 -1 

.6 -

<.015- 

<.005- 

15 

<5

20 

<20

1.5 - 

19

,500

500 

100

3.4 

1

2 

100

700

34 

4 

1.5

70 

,200 

2.4

.04 

.02 

500 

70

120 

70

4.8 

27

Ratio

0:10 

9:10 

0:10 

10:10 

10:10

10:10 

7:10 

1:10 

5:10 

10:10

10:10 

2:10 

10:10 

0:10 

10:10

10:10 

5:10 

10:10 

0:10 

10:10

4:10 

10:10 

0:10 

10:10 

8:10

10:10 

1:10

10:10 

10:10

San Joaquin County

Mean

<1 

590 

<.05 

450 

100

2.5 

.20 

<1 

1.1 

29

680 

.0046 

29 

<4 

1.2

93 

1.6 

1,100 

<10 

3.6

14 

.062 

<.005 

470 

15

87 

<20

2.4 

20

Deviation

2.47

1.46 

1.43

1.54 

1.66

3.86 

1.45

1.64 

1.69 

1.29

1.33

1.38 

1.38 

1.84

1.31

2.48 

1.24

1.61 

3.54

1.43 

1.42 

1.31

, Calif.

Observed 

range

<150

300 

70

1. 

<.

<1 

<1. 

70

300 

<. 

17

1

70 

<7

400

2. 

<20

200 

<5

40 

<20

1. 

11.

-2,000

- 700 

- 200

5 - 4. 

2 - 4 

1 

5 - 10 

- 200

-1,500 

01- 

- 39

3

- 200 

- 10 

-4,000

4 - 6.

- 70 

05-

-1,000 

- 70

- 140 

- 20

3 - 3. 

- 24

8 

01

0 

10

9

material was analyzed; values reported on dry weight basis 

^Means and ranges given in percent.
36 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 7.—Elements in ash (or in dry material, as indicated), percent ash yield of dried material,

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

million, except where percent is indicated. Mean, geometric mean. Deviation, geometric deviation.

Element,

ash, or dry 

material

rtA g_ 0___ ________

HI- Al _ __ ————— ________

As 1 _______

Ra__ __ _______

Ca 2_______

/> _i

Co--— — —

fr-----------

Cu —————————

Fe ———————

Hnl H g ———————————

1^2

Li- — — — -

Mg^ ———————

MM

Mo ———————

Na

Ni----------- lN i ——————————

p2 ————————

DK __ ___ _ _

Sl,2—— — --

Se 1 -— — —

Sr-----------

Ti ————————

Zn ———————

7—

Ash, percent 

of dry weight

Dry material , 

percent of 

fresh weight

k)ry material

Areas of commercial production

Palm Beach County,

Ratio

0:10 

6:10 

9:9 

10:10 

10:10

10:10 

7:10 

1:10 

0:10 

10:10

10:10 

0:10 

10:10 

0:10 

10:10

10:10 

1:10 

10:10 

0:10 

10:10

0:10 

10:10 

4:9 

10:10 

1:10

10:10 

0:10

10:10 

10:10

Fla.

Mean Deviation

<1 

150

140 

46

5.

<r

<1. 

49

210 

<. 

39 

<4 

2.

24 

<7 

1,800 

<10 

3.

<20

260 

<5

126 

<20

3. 

9.

was analyzed;

2.61 <150 

11 1.87 

1.26 100 

1.52 20

6 1.24 4 

18 1.74 < 

<1 

5 

1.44 30

1.44 150 

01 

1.10 30

0 1.26 1

1.45 15 

<7 

1.24 1,300

5 1.26 2

060 1.14 

003 2.32 < 

1.65 150 

<5

1.19 90 

2 1.23 2 

8 1.18 7

values reported on

Observed 

range

- 1,000 

.05 - 

- 200 

70

.2 - 7. 

.2 - 

1

70 

- 500 

42 

.5 - 3

50 

70 

- 2,900

.4 - 4.

.05 - 

.005- 

- 700 

7

- 160 

.6 - 5. 

.1 - 12

dry weight

Ratio

0:10 

8:10 

4 1:9 

10:10 

10:10

4 10:10 

6 5:10 

1:10 

3:10 

10:10

10:10 

0:10 

10:10 

5:10 

10:10

10:10 

0:10 

10:10 

0:10 

8 10:10

1:10 

08 10:10 

01 9:10 

10:10 

7:10

10:10 

0:10

3 10:10 

10:10

basis.

Hidalgo

Mean

<1 

450 

<.05 

240 

160

8.4 

.14 

<1 

.63 

47

320 

<.01 

39 

3.1 

2.2

47 

<7 

2,100 

<10 

3.3

<20 

.053 

.011 

1,100 

8.2

150 

<20

2.6 

13

County,

Deviation

3.43

1.29 

1.38

1.15 

1.77

3.59 

1.41

1.54

1.04 

1.71 

1.56

1.41 

1.50 

1.18

1.23 

1.99 

1.41 

2.72

1.17 

1.13 

1.12

Tex.

<150 

<. 

150 

70

7. 

<. 

<1 

<1. 

30

200

35 

<4

30 

940 

2. 

<20

<.

700 

<5

130 

2. 

10

Observed 

range

- 2,000 

05 - .05 

- 300 

- 200

0 - 10 

2 - .4 

2 

5 - 3 

70

- 700

41 

7 

7 - 3

70 

- 3,000 

4 - 3.6

70 

035 - .07 

005 - .02 

- 2,000 

20

- 200 

2 - 3.1 

15
TABLES 4-121 

and percent dried-material yield of fresh grapefruit from areas of commercial production

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Means and ranges are given in parts per 

Leaders (--) in figure column indicate no data available]

37

Areas of commercial production

Riverside County, Calif.

Ratio

0:10

10:10

1:8

10:10

10:10

10:10

8:10

2:10

5:10

10:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

7:10

10:10

10:10

2:10

10:10

5:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

9:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

0:10

Mean

<1

810

<.05

150

71

6.9

.22

.46

1.3

61

560

<.01

36

4.7

1.9

30

4.3

1,800

7.5

3.3

<20

.083

.022

1,300

19

150

<20

Deviation

2.35

--

1.21 .

1.99

1.11

1.62

1.69

1.91

1.18

1.82

--

1.06

1.89

1.30

1.43

1.38

1.39

3.09

1.26

__

1.09

2.30

1.45

2.11

1.18

--

200

<.

100

30

6.

<.

<1

<1.

50

300

34

<4

1.

15

<7

1,200

<10

2.

.

<.

700

7

no

Observed 

range

- 3,000

05 - .05

- 200

- 150

0 - 8.2

2 - .4

1

5 - 3

70

- 2,000

--

40

11

5 - 3

50

7

- 3,000

70

4 - 4.8

__

070 - .095

005 - .06

- 2,000

30

- 200

--

Ratio

0:10

9:10

6:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

3:10

0:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

4:10

10:10

0:10

(continued)

Yuma

Mean

<1

350

.044

180

70

3.6

.11

<1

<1.5

42

240

<.01

29

12

1.5

37

<7

1,300

<10

2.0

<20

.069

.011

470

3

97

<20

County,

Deviation

2.27

1.99

1.2

2.08

1.89

1.56

--

--

1.36

1.59

--

1.42

1.51

1.51

1.53

--

1.61

__

1.40

__

1.12

1.34

1.82

5.10

1.44

--

Ariz.

<150

<.

150

20

1.

<.

30

150

15

5

•

20

600

1.

.

.

200

<7

60

Observed 

range

- 1,000

05 - .10

- 300

- 150

2 - 7.2

2 - 2

_-

--

70

- 500

--

40

21

7 - 3

70

--

- 2,200

--

2 - 3.6

__

055 - .08

01 - .02

- 1,000

30

- 170

--

10:10 4.4 1.12 3.9 5.1 10:10 5.6 1.39 3.5 11

10:10 10 1.06 9.1 11 10:10 8.6 1.13 10
38 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 8.—Elements in ash (or in dry material, as indicated), percent ash yield of dried material,

[Explanation of column headings: 

except where percent is indicated.

Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

Mean, geometric mean. Deviation, geometric deviation. Leaders (--)

El ement , 

ash, or dry

material

ng fin ____ — ------- ___

Ml Ai_ - _ —_ ------ _____

Acl _______

pBa- 3 ————

rfl ^_____ _ _

/> _J

Co ——————

rr ___ _ __

fuFe ——— ---- i Hgl-- —— --

i/Z

1 •;__ _ _ _

Mg2 —————

Mn —— - ——

Mo —————

Na

Ni —————

p2_________

Pb-- ————

S J-.2_______

Sel— — -

Sr- _ - _ _ -

Ti—— —— —

Zn— — —

Zr- — — -

Ash, percent 

of dry weight

Dry material , 

percent of 

fresh weight

*Dry material

Areas of commercial

Palm Beach County,

Ratio

0:10 

5:10 

0:10 

10:10

10:10 

10:10 

6:10 

3:10 

3:10

10:10 

10:10 

0:10 

10:10 

0:10

10:10 

10:10 

0:10 

10:10 

0:10

10:10 

0:10 

10:10 

1:9

10:10 

0:10 

10:10 

0:10

10:10 

10:10

Mean Deviation

<1

no 

<.

177

40 

5.

50 

338 

<. 

39 

<4

2. 

51 

<7 

1,300 

<10

3. 

<20

<.

200 

<5 

150 

<20

3. 

12

was analyzed;

5.42 

05 

1.57

1.52 

8 1.16 

17 3.77 

57 1.56 

56 4.09

1.61 

1.46 

01 

1.05

5 1.41 

1.64

1.53

3 1.19

060 1.12 

005 --

2.49 

1.26

3 1.09 

1.12

<150 

70

20 

4. 

<. 

<1 

<1.

20 

300

37

1. 

30

700 

2.

<.

20 

110

2.

10

values reported

Fla.

Observed 

range

- 3,000 

- 300

70 

7 - 7.4 

2 - 2.5 

1 

5 - 7

70 

- 1,000

42

5 - 5 

- 150

- 2,200

4 - 3.6

05 - .075 

005 - .005

- 500 

- 240

8 - 3.6 

15

on dry weight

production

Hidalgo County, Tex.

Ratio

0:10 

10:10 

0:9 

10:10

10:10 

10:10 

4:10 

2:10 

1:10

10:10 

10:10 

0:10 

10:10 

4:10

10:10 

10:10 

1:10 

10:10 

0:10

10:10 

1:10 

10:10 

9:10

10:10 

6:10 

10:10 

1:10

10:10 

10:10

basis.

Mean

<1

630 

<.05 

280

220 

8.6 

.13 

.46 

<1.5

47 

360 

<.01 

38 

2.8

2.2 

50 

<7 

1,300 

<10

2.9 

<20 

.064 

.0089

1,100 

5.3 

140 

<20

3.1 

14

Deviation

2.65 

1.32

1.44 

1.19 

1.46 

1.69

1.42 

1.49

1.06 

1.83

1.33 

1.36

1.38

1.30

1.12 

1.42

1.46 

3.16 

1.22

1.15 

1.09

200 

200

150 

7. 

<. 

<1 

<1.

30 

300

35 

<4

1. 

30 

<7 

700

1. 

<20

<.

700 

<5 

120 

<20

2. 

12

Observed 

range

- 3,000 

- 500

- 500 

2 - 12 

2 - 

1 

5 - 3

70 

- 1,000

42 

6

5 - 3 

70 

7 

- 2,600

8 - 3. 

20 

055 - 

01 -

- 2,000 

30 

- 200 

20

7 - 4. 

16

2

6

075 

01

4
TABLES 4-121 

and percent dried-material yield of fresh oranges from areas of commercial production

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Means and ranges are given in parts per million, 

in figure column indicate no data available]

39

Areas of commercial production (continued)

Riverside County, Calif.

Ratio

0:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

7:10

1:10

6:10

10:10

10:10

1:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

2:10

10:10

1:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

9:10

10:10

0:10

Mean

<1

970

<.05

320

42

8.0

.24

<1

1.8

63

570

<.01

36

14

1.9

33

4.3

5,400

<10

2.4

<20

.075

.020

1,400

18

150

<20

Deviation

__

1.43

--

1.18

1.36

1.21

2.22

--

2.83

1.26

1.53

_-

1.07

1.30

1.40

1.24

1.38

1.71

--

1.21

__

1.22

1.39

1.33

2.31

1.28

--

Observed 

range

700

300

30

6.2

<.2

<1

<1.5

50

300

<.01

33

9

1.5

30

<7

1,800

<10

1.8

.05

.01

1,000

<5

100

__

- 2,000

--

500

70

11

.8

1

7

100

- 1,000

.01

40

21

3

50

7

- 11,000

10

3.6

_ _

.12

.04

- 2,000

70

220

--

Ratio

0:10

8:10

2:9

10:10

10:10

10:10

3:10

4:10

4:10

10:10

10:10

2:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

5:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

5:10

10:10

0:10

Yuma

Mean

<1

340

.024

300

150

9.5

.089

.67

1.1

50

480

.0046

35

20

1.7

42

<7

650

9.8

2.5

<20

.071

.0075

900

.4

130

<20

County, Ariz.

Deviation

__

3.21

1.66

1.00

1.18

1.22

2.40

1.46

2.23

1.36

1.96

1.69

1.07

1.30

1.16

1.51

--

2.15

2.90

1.38

_ _

1.10

1.43

1.27

4.57

1.18

--

Observed 

range

<150

<.05

100

6.0

<.2

<1

<1.5

30

200

<.01

31

11

1.5

20

250

<10

1.2

.06

.005

500

<5

100

__

- 3,000

.05

--

- 200

13

.4

1

3

70

- 1,500

.01

38

28

2

70

--

- 2,000

30

3.6

_ _

.085

.01

- 1,000

50

- 150

--

10:10 4.0 1.10 3.5 - 5.1 10:10 4.1 1.16 3.5 5.5

10:10 14 1.11 11 16 10:10 13 1.06 12 15
40 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 9.—Elements in ash (or in dry material, as indicated), percent ash yield of dried material,

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

million except where percent is indicated. Mean, geometric mean. Deviation, geometric deviation.

Element, 

ash, or dry

material

An «y___ _ __

ttl- AT __ _ ____

flcl ________

R__ __ _ _ _

r>.

Ca2— — -

p_i

Co—— — -

rr ______ _

Cu — — ——

Fe r— - — 

H na i--------

VL.

Li- ——— —

Mg2 —————

Mn — — ——

Mo —— ———

MaNi— — — P^_

Ph._— — — s i> 2— —_

Se 1 — -- -

Sr- _ - _ __

Ti— ————

Zn ——————

7w.

Ash, percent 

of dry weight

Dry material, 

percent of 

fresh weight

Areas of commercial

Ratio

0:10 

7:10 

5:10 

10:10 

10:10

10:10 

10:10 

3:10 

5:10 

10:10

10:10 

5:10 

10:10 

0:10 

10:10

10:10 

0:10 

10:10 

4:10 

10:10

1:10 

10:10 

5:10 

10:10 

3:10

10:10 

0:10

10:10 

10:10

Wayne

Mean

<1

240 

.036 

300 

18

.30 

.86 

.45 

1.2 

83

240 

.0071 

18 

<4 

.97

61 

<7 

140 

7.4 

1.3

<20 

.068 

.0036 

27 

<5

no

<20 

7.2

6.9

County

Deviation

, N.

3.39 <150 

2.06 <. 

1.75 150 

1.52 7

1.52 

2.42 

2.40 <1 

4.52 <1. 

1.92 30

1.92 70 

1.78 <. 

1.50 12

1.32 

1.77 20

2.00 50 

1.79 <10 

1.81

-- <20 

1.52 

1.90 <. 

1.55 15 

<5

1.83 50 

1.55 3. 

1.57 3.

Y.

Observed 

range

- 2,000 

05 - .10 

- 1,000 

30

16 - .58 

60 - 3.0 

2 

5 - 15 

- 200

- 700 

01 - .02 

36

50 - 1.7 

150

- 350 

15 

32 - 2.4

20 

035 - .12 

005 - .02 

70 

30

- 250 

0 - 14 

6 - 12

Ratio

0:10 

10:10 

2:10 

10:10 

10:10

10:10 

6:10 

5:10 

9:10 

10:10

10:10 

1:10 

10:10 

1:10 

10:10

10:10 

0:10 

10:10 

7:10 

10:10

1:10 

10:10 

6:10 

10:10 

10:10

10:10 

0:10

10:10 

10:10

production

Yak i ma

Mean

<1

1,200 

.013 

560 

55

.49 

.18 

.69 

3.2 

70

750 

<.01 

20 

<4 

1.5

78 

<7 

190 

15 

2.4

<20 

.029 

.0044 

82 

61

122 

<20

8.9 

14

County

Deviation

2.67 

3.31 

1.38 

2.64

2.01 

2.43 

2.15 

2.16 

1.56

1.77 

1.75 

1.51 

1.67

1.91 

2.92 

1.56

1.32 

1.99 

2.14 

2.45

1.87 

1.70 

1.12

, Wash.

Observed 

range

200 - 7,000 

<.05 - 

300 - 1,000 

15 - 200

.20 - 1. 

<.20 - 

<1 - 1 

<1.5 - 10 

30 - 150

300 - 2,000 

<.01 - 

8.5 - 43 

<4 - 4 

.70 - 3.

30 - 150

100 - 450 

<10 - 70 

1.2 - 4.

<20 - 20 

.02 - 

<.005 - 

30 - 300 

15 - 200

<15 - 300 

1.5 - 9 

12 - 17

10

2 

60

01 

0

8

045 

01

*Dry material was analyzed; values reported on dry weight basis. 

^Means and ranges given in percent.
TABLES 4-121 

and percent dried-material yield of fresh peaches from areas of commercial production

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Means and ranges are given in parts per 

Leaders (--), in figure column indicate no data available]

41

Areas of commercial production (continued)

San Joaquin County, Calif.

Ratio

2:10

9:10

0:9

10:10

10:10

10:10

4:10

0:10

5:10

10:10

10:10

1:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

6:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

2:10

10:10

8:10

10:10

1:10

Mean

.36

520

<.05

350

17

.18

.12

<1

1.3

53

330

<.01

19

<4

1.0

29

<7

180

10

1.5

<20

.051

.0023

42

14

71

<20

Deviation

2.69

2.32

--

1.28

1.72

1.43

2.01

--

1.92

1.54

1.78

--

1.51

--

1.37

1.58

--

1.45

1.57

1.65

__

1.28

1.69

1.85

2.83

1.64

—

Observed 

range

<1

<150

__

300

7

.10 -

<.20 -

--

<1.5 -

30

150

<.01 -

11

-_

.70 -

15

--

75

<10

.60 -

__

.035-

<.005-

15

<5

35

<20

2

1,500

500

30

.29

.40

3

100

700

.01

35

1.5

50

260

15

3.6

.07

.005

100

50

130

30

Ratio

0:10

7:10

8:8

10:10

7:10

10:10

4:10

0:10

1:10

10:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

1:10

10:10

1:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

3:10

10:10

2:10

Mesa County, Colo.

Mean

<1

220

.17

340

5.9

.27

.12

<1

<1.5

33

140

<.01

17

<4

.94

23

<7

160

<10

1.0

<20

.033

.012

48

2.7

71

9.6

Deviation

__

2.88

1.65

1.35

2.76

1.73

2.01

--

--

1.50

1.72

--

1.37

_-

1.50

1.34

_.

1.79

--

1.47

_ _

1.27

1.40

1.75

2.12

1.50

2.16

Observed 

range

__

<150

.10 -

300

<3

.12 -

<.2 -

--

<1.5 -

20

70

--

11

--

.50 -

15

<7

50

<10

.60 -

_ _

.02 -

.01 -

20

<5

30

<20

700

.35

700

20

.70

.4

7

70

300

33

2.0

30

7

350

10

1.8

.045

.02

100

7

100

30

10:10 6.0 1.22 4.3 - 8.2 10:10 7.9 1.41 5.4 15

10:10 11 1.39 6.4 - 17 10:10 11 1.13 9.9 14
42 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 10.— Elements in ash (or in dry material, as indicated), percent ash yield of dried material,

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

geometric mean. Deviation, geometric deviation. Leaders (--) in figure column indicate no data available]

Element, 

ash, or dry

Areas of commercial production

Bern' en County, Mich. Wayne County, N.Y.

mater1a1 Ratio Mean

Ag ——————— 0:10 <1 

Ai___ _ _ _ _ 9-10 390

As 1 —————— l':10 <.05

B ———————— 10:10 430

p,a —————— _ in-in ?i;n

Devia- Observed Ratio Mean Devia- Observed 

tion range tion range

0:10 <1

4.20 <150 - 7,000 9:10 420 2.79 <150 - 2,000

<.05 - .05 5:9 <.0025 — <.0025 - .0025

1.54 300 - 1,000 10:10 350 1.54 300 - 700

i fifi i«;n _ 7nn in-in ian i.an iRn _ "?nn

Ca 2—————— 10:10 2.0

Cd—————— 10:10 .41

Co——————— 2:10 .26

Cr——————— 5:10 1.2

Cu——————— 10:10 130

Fe-—————— 10:10 390

Hgl—————— 3:io .0057

KZ——- — 10:10 25

Li-—————— 0:10 <4

Mg2—————— 10:10 1.7

Mn——————— 10:10 100

Mo——————— 0:10 <7

Na——————— 10:10 380

Ni——————— 7:10 11

pt——————— 10:10 1.7

	16 fc ——— 4:10

——— 10:10 .030

Se 1 —————— 6:10 .0047

Sr——————— 10:10 116

Ti——————— 6:10 5.6

ZnZr10:10 180 

1:10 <20

Ash, percent

of dry weight 10:10 2.3

Dry material, 

percent of 

fresh weight

1.66

1.95

3.31

3.80

1.73

2.01

1.56

1.38

1.34

1.74

1.94

1.72

1.63

1.39

1.31

2.12

2.03

6.20

.92 - 

.20 -

70

150

16

30

4.8

1.5

2

15

300

- 1,000

.

42

.01

150 - 1

.6

150

,400

30

3.6

10:10

10:10

4:10

4:10

10:10

10:10 

1:10

10:10 

0:10

10:10

10:10 

0:10

10:10 

3:10

10:10

2.7

.68

.55

.87

110

290

<.01 

28 

<4

1.7

90

<7 

390 

6.4 

2.3

<20

.02 - 

<.005 - 

30 

<5

30 3:10 13

300

200

.05 10:10 

.01 7:10

10:10 190 

5:10 4.0

.035

.0048

10:10 14

3.22 10 

<20

1.31 1.5

1.13 11

720 10:10 210 

20 1:10 <20

3.6 10:10 2.2

1.50

2.17

2.53

3.83

2.03

1.80

1.23

1.16

1.86

2.16

1.64

1.23

1.75

1.28

2.04

2.05

9.49

1.4

.20 

<1

<1.5 

30

100

<.01 

18

1

20

200 

<10 

1.8

<20

.025 

<.005 

50 

<5

17 10:10 13

1.30 130 

<20

1.22 1.7

1.12 11

5.4

3.0

3

7

200

.01

700

36

2

1 50

- 2,600 

15 

3.6

30

.05 

.02

500

70

290

30

3.5

16

*Dry material was analyzed; values reported on dry weight basis. 

Means and ranges given in percent.
TABLES 4-121 43 

and percent dried-material yield of fresh pears from areas of commercial production

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Means and ranges are given in parts per million, except where percent is indicated. Mean,

Areas

Yakima County, Wash.

Ratio

0:10

8:10

3:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

7:10

7:10

4:10

10:10

10:10

2:10

10:10

1:10

10:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

4:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

7:10

10:10

5:10

10:10

1:10

Mean

<1

320

.032

580

120

1.4

.22

1.0

.95

no

330

.0046

21

<4

1.5

79

<7

420

7.4

1.5

<20

.026

.0070

150

4.7

120

<20

Deviation

__

2.88

1.49

1.39

1.47

1.59

2.03

1.97

2.76

1.64

1.50

1.69

1.28

—

1.21

1.46

—

1.88

1.65

1.35

__

1.21

2.66

1.70

9.11

1.60

--

Observed 

range

<150

<.05

300

70

.74

<.20

<1

<1.5

50

200

<.01

16

<4

1

50

250

<10

1.2

.02

<.005

70

<5

70

<20

__

- 1,500

.05

- 1,000

- 200

3.0

.60

3

5

- 200

700

.01

30

5

2

- 150

_-

- 2,400

15

2.4

__

.03

.02

300

70

- 260

20

Ratio

0:10

8:10

0:9

10:10

10:10

10:10

4:10

7:10

2:10

10:10

10:10

1:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

2:10

10:10

1:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

5:10

10:10

3:10

10:10

0:10

of commercial production (continued)

San Joaquin County, Calif.

Mean

<1

240

<.05

340

100

1.6

.13

.87

.75

120

240

<.01

21

<4

1.4

79

1.4

970

<10

1.4

<20

.031

.0035

200

1.8

100

<20

Deviation

__

2.05

._

1.52

1.83

1.94

1.46

1.25

1.79

1.55

1.50

__

1.44

-_

1.42

1.46

1.38

4.06

—

1.73

__

1.26

1.78

2.31

4.78

1.77

--

Observed 

range

<150

150

30

.52

<-2

<1

<1.5

70

150

<.01

15

.7

50

<7

200

<10

.6

.02

<.005

70

<5

40

__

- 700

..

- 700

- 200

4.0

.2

1

1.5

- 300

- 500

.01

35

._

2

- 150

7

- 6,600

10

2.4

__

.045

.01

- 500

20

- 220

--

Ratio

0:10

8:10

0:9

10:10

10:10

10:10

7:10

10:10

4:10

10:10

10:10

1:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

6:10

10:10

2:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

7:10

10:10

0:10

Mesa County, Colo.

Mean

<1

374

<.05

540

160

1.7

.21

3.1

.60

78

250

<.01

21

7.3

1.0

70

7.3

900

<10

1.3

<20

.023

.012

270

8.9

150

<20

Deviation

__

2.71

—

1.31

2.13

1.90

2.13

1.78

1.84

1.33

1.89

-_

1.62

1.47

1.51

1.72

2.07

1.49

-.

1.95

__

1.31

1.60

1.77

3.32

1.72

--

Observed 

range

<150

300

30

.82

<.2

<1

<1.5

50

70

10

5

.7

30

<7

400

<10

.6

.015

.005

150

<5

80

__

- 1,500

-_

- 700

- 500

4.0

.6

10

100

- 100

- 500

--

40

17

3

- 150

20

- 1,600

70

3.6

_.

.035

.035

- 700

30

- 350

--

10:10 1.9 1.11 1.7 2.3 10:10 2.7 1.33 3.7 10:10 1.7 1.34 1.0 2.6

10:10 14 1.06 13 16 10:10 16 1.12 13 18 10:10 18 1.08 16 20
44 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE II.—Elements in ash (or in dry material, as indicated), percent ash yield of dried material,

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in 

parts per million except where percent is indicated. Mean, geometric mean. Deviation, geometric

Element, 

ash, or dry

material

An-- ---

Al - _--_

As — — —

D-,

Ca 2 -

r* jCd- — ------

Co ——————

(Y-- -------

Cu—— ------

Fe— — —

Hn 1 - __ ____

l/Z

Li- — - —

Mo ——————

Ma

Nj— — —

Pb— ————

Sel— .....

Sr- — - — - —

Ti — —— — —

Zn ——————

7.x.

Ash, percent 

of dry weight

Dry material , 

percent of 

fresh weight

Areas of commercial

Berrien County, Mich.

Ratio

1: 

8: 

4: 

10: 

10:

10: 

7: 

0: 

4: 

10:

10: 

4: 

10: 

0: 

10:

10: 

0: 

10: 

2: 

10:

2: 

10: 

8: 

10: 

5:

10: 

0:

10: 

10:

10 

10 

9 

10 

10

10 

10 

10 

10 

10

10 

10 

10 

10 

10

10 

10 

10 

10 

10

10 

10 

10 

10 

10

10 

10

10 

10

Mean

290 

.025 

280 

54

.45 

.19

1.0 

77

220 

.007 

15 

<4 

.90

100 

<7 

95 

6.6 

.84

<20 

.036 

.0051 

59 

4.2

126 

6.2 

12

Deviation

2.21 

3.07 

1.36 

2.54

1.21 

1.66

2.19 

1.64

1.36 

1.46 

1.25

1.35 

1.42

1.57 

1.33 

1.99

1.35 

1.54 

2.35 

2.97

1.63 

1.67 

1.29

Observed 

range

<150 - 1

150 

10

.35 -

30* 

150 

11 

.5 - 

50 

50 

.6 -

<20 

.025 - 

<.005 - 

15 

<5

65 

2.6 - 

8.0 -

3 

,000 

.33 

500 

200

.66 

.4

3 

200

300 

.01 

20

1 

150

200 

10 

2.4

70 

.055 

.01 

150 

20

280 

17 

16

Ratio

1:10 

6:10 

1:8 

10:10 

10:10

10:10 

5:10 

1:10 

4:10 

10:10

10:10 

1:10 

10:10 

0:10 

10:10

10:10 

0:10 

10:10 

0:10 

10:10

0:10 

10:10 

6:10 

10:10 

3:10

10:10 

0:10

10:10 

10:10

production

Wayne County, N.Y.

Mean

150

320* 

25

.65 

.14

.89 

92

280

15 

<4 

1.1

62 

<7 

163

1.3

<20 

.037 

.0042 

82 

<5

208 

3.9 

12

Deviation

2.28

1.57 

2.25

1.54 

1.78

3.29 

1.89

1.58 

1.27 

1.42 

1.62 

1.63 

1.85

1.32 

1.83 

2.04

2.64 

1.41 

1.30

Observed 

range

<150

150* 

7

.32

30 

150 

9 

.7 

30 

100 

.6

.025 

<.005 

30 

<5

30 

2.2 

6.7

- 1.5 

- 700 

.10 

- 700 

- 150

- 1.2 

.4 

- 1 

- 7 

- 200

- 500 

.01 

- 22

- 2 

- 100 

- 320 

- 2.4

.05 

.01 

- 300 

- 20

- 770 

- 6.6 

- 17

*Dry material was analyzed; values reported on dry weight basis. 

Means and ranges given in percent.
TABLES 4-121 

and percent dried-material yield of fresh plums from areas of commercial production

measurable concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Means and ranges are given in 

Leaders (--) in figure column indicate no data available]

45

Areas of commercial production (continued)

Ratio

1:10

8:10

0:8

10:10

10:10

10:10

3:10

1:10

2:10

10:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

1:10

10:10

1:10

10:10

5:10

10:10

7:10

10:10

1:10

Yakima

Mean

<1

290

<.05

610

60

.62

.11

<1

.51

33

270

<.01

16

<4

1.2

45

<7

125

<10

1.3

<20

.029

.0036

120

12

100

<20

County

Deviation

__

2.50

--

1.51

3.55

1.41

1.56

--

2.77

1.50

1.62

--

1.30

_-

1.24

1.46

--

1.61

--

1.64

_ _

1.18

2.90

1.68

4.72

1.82

--

, Wash.

Observed 

range

<-|

<150

300

20

.41

<.2

<1

<1.5

20

150

10

1

30

50

<10

.6

<20

.025

<.005

70

<5

40

<20

3

- 1,500

--

- 1,500

- 1,500

1.2

.2

2

3

70

- 500

--

26

_-

1.5

70

-_

- 250

10

2.4

70

.04

.02

- 300

- 150

260

20

Ratio

1:10

6:10

7:7

10:10

10:10

10:10

1:10

0:10

1:10

10:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

8:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

7:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

1:10

10:10

0:10

Mesa

Mean

<-|

160

.59

340

13

.60

<.2

<1

<1 .5

29

120

<.01

18

<4

1.0

27

7

110

<10

.85

23

.027

.011

110

<5

65

<20

County,

Deviation

_ _

2.32

1.32

1.35

1.36

1.42

--

--

--

1.46

1.57

--

1.35

--

1.29

1.51

1.26

1.70

--

1.44

1.40

1.23

1.55

1.35

--

1.43

--

Colo.

Observed 

range

<1

<150

.4

300

7

.30

<.2

<1 .5

15

50

12

.7

10

<7

50

.6

<20

.02

.005

70

<5

40

- 1.5

- 500

.9

- 700

- 20

.86

.2

--

- 1.5

- 50

- 200

--

- 26

--

- 1.5

- 50

- 10

- 250

--

- 1.2

- 30

.4

.02

- 150

- 5

- 110

--

10:10 4.3 1.21 3.4 5.9 10:10 5.1 1.13 4.3 6.0

10:10 17 1.13 13 19 10:10 18 1.06 17 20
46 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 12.—Elements in ash (or in dry material, as indicated), percent ash yield of dried material

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

except where percent is indicated. Mean, geometric mean. Deviation, geometric deviation. Leaders (--)

Element, 

ash, or dry

material

«y- An _ _ ____

Ml A___-__-__ - ————— ---

Acl

R____ _ __ _

Ra

Ca 2 -- -

f* Cd--- <J — ----

Co— ———

O--- _ __ _

C U— ———

Fe ...

He, 1 -——

1^2

Mg 2 —————

Mn —————

Mo — — —

Ma

Ni--- _ _ __

9 p2___ ——— _

Pb— — —

S l»2_______

Se 1— ———

S r _ _ ____ _

Ti ——————

Zn— — —

Zr —————

Ash, percent 

of dry weight

Dry material , 

percent of 

fresh weight

Areas of commercial production

Berrien County, Mich.

Ratio

0:2 

0:2 

0:2 

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2 

0:2 

0:2 

2:2

2:2 

0:2 

2:2 

0:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

0:2 

2:2

0:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

0:2

2:2 

0:2

2:2 

2:2

Mean

<} 

<150 

<.05 

120 

150

6.6 

.80 

<1 

<1.5 

39

390 

<.01 

40 

<4 

1.7

150 

15 

4,500 

<10 

3.6

<20 

.58 

.11 

200 

<5

273 

<20

9.3 

7.3

Devia- Observed 

tion range

1.33 100 - 150 

1.00

1.09 6.2 - 7.0 

1.00

1.44 30 - 50 

1.44 300 - 500 

1.00 

1.23 1.5 - 2

1.00 

1.00 

1.28 3,800 - 5,400

1.00

1.09 .55 - .62 

4.16 .04 - .3 

1.00

1.36 220 - 340 

1.10 8.7 - 10 

1.02 7.2 - 7.4

Ratio

0:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2 

1:2 

0:2 

2:2

2:2 

0:2 

2:2 

0:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

0:2 

2:2

0:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

1:2

2:2 

0:2

2:2 

2:2

Cumberland County

Mean

<1 

200 

.05 

122 

200

7.7 

1.7 

<1 

<1.5 

24

500 

<.01 

38 

<4 

3.2

122 

15 

4,700 

<10 

3.6

<20 

.82 

.057 

300 

<5

295 

<20

12 

5.5

Deviation

1.00 

1.00 

1.33 

1.00

1.02 

1.23

1.33 

1.00 

1.02 

1.91

1.33 

1.00 

1.13 4,

1.00

1.00 

1.63 

1.00

1.02 

1.13 

1.14

, N.J.

Observed 

range

100 - 150

7.6 - 7.8 

1.5 - 2 

<1 - 1.

20 - 30

38 - 39 

2 - 5 

100 - 150 

300 - 5,100

.04 - .08 

<5 - 10 

290 - 300

11 - 13 

5.0 - 6.0

material was analyzed; values reported on dry weight basis 

Means and ranges given in percent.
TABLES 4-121 47

and percent dried-material yield of fresh cabbage from areas of commercial production

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Means and ranges are given in parts per million, 

in figure column indicate no data available]

Area of commercial production (continued)

Hidalgo County, Tex.

Ratio

0:10

4:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

2:10

10:10

9:10

10:10

10:10

9:10

10:10

8:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

1:10

10:10

0:10

Mean

<1

96

<.05

162

78

7.7

.59

1.5

<1 .5

29

372

.0046

34

4.7

1.9

188

12

46,000

11

2.6

<20

.66

.10

840

<5

210

<20

Deviation

__

2.97

--

1.40

1.54

1.20

2.05

1.79

--

1.14

1.40

1.69

1.08

1.31

1.23

1.32

1.67

1.18

1.35

1.41

__

1.12

1.36

1.42

--

1.24

--

Observed

range

__

<150

--

100 -

50

6.2 -

.2 -

1

_-

20

200

<.01 -

29

<4

1.5 -

150

<7

36,000 - 64

<10

1.2 -

__

.57 -

.08 -

500 - 1

<5

140

--

500

300

200

11

2

4

30

500

.01

37

7

3

300

30

,000

15

3.6

.75

.2

,500

7

270

Ratio

1:10

4:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

8:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

8:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

6:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

1:10

10:10

0:10

Yuma County,

Mean

<1

78

<.05

120

22

5.5

1.7

.96

<1 .5

34

540

.0096

37

7.1

1.9

133

6.1

30,000

<10

3.8

<20

.80

.31

840

<5

340

<20

Deviation

__

5.06

--

1.24

1.41

1.09

1.47

1.40

-_

1.35

1.31

1.40

1.04

1.45

1.43

1.22

1.18

1.1533

--

1.11

_ _

1.17

1.45

1.36

--

1.06

-_

Ariz.

<1

<150

100

15

5.

1

<1

20

300

<.

33

4

1

100

<7

,000

3.

.

.

500

<5

320

Observed

range

1

-1,500

--

- 150

- 30

2 - 6.4

3

2

--

- 50

- 700

01 - .02

- 38

- 11

3

- 150

7

44,000

--

6 - 4.8

_ _

55 - .95

15 - .45

-1,500

- 30

- 380

--

10:10 7.7 1.09 7.0 - 9.2 10:10 11 1.14 13

10:10 1.10 8.1 11 10:10 7.4 1.13 5.9 9.2
48 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 13.—Elements in ash (or in dry material, as indicated), percent ash yield of dried material, and percent dried-material yield of fresh

carrots from areas of commercial production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Means and ranges are given in parts per million, except where 

percent is indicated. Mean, geometric mean. Deviation, geometric deviation. Leaders (--) in figure column 

indicate no data available]

Element, 

ash, or dry

material

.

Al---l - ------

Ac-1

D ->

Ca 2——

Cd- r* -i — — - —

Co —— - — —

Tr---------

C U ——— —— —

Fe- — — —

K §

Li ——————

Mn —————

Mo — — —

P^

Pb ———— -_

s e i— — -

Ti ————— -

Zn —————

Ash, percent 

of dry weight

Dry material , 

percent of 

fresh weight

Areas of commercial production

Ratio

0:10 

7:10 

7:7 

10:10 

10:10

10:10 

10:10 

2:10 

0:10 

10:10

10:10 

2:10 

10:10 

0:10 

10:10

10:10 

0:10 

10:10 

10:10 

0:10

10:10 

10:10 

10:10 

2:10 

10:10

10:10 

10:10

Hidalgo County

Mean Deviation

180

130 

270

3

1

66 

210

40 

<4 

1

164 

<7 

3,500 

1 

<20

753

7 

11

2.00 

.067 1.45 

1.23 

1.54

.6 1.14 

.3 2.60 

.46 1.70

1.45

1.30 

.0066 1.46 

1.05

.2 1.53 

1.33

1.21 3 

.9 1.54

.11 1.15 

.032 1.40 

1.25

.6 1.16 

1.09

, Tex.

Observed 

range

<150 

.05 - 

100 

200

3.0 - 

.2 -

50 

150 

36 

.5 - 

100

,000 - 4 

.06 -

.09 - 

.02 - 

500 - 1 

<5 

75

6.2 - 

9.3 -

700 

.1 

150 

500

5.0 

4 

1

150

300 

.01 

42

2 

300

,600 

2.4

.15 

.04 

,000 

15

9.9 

12

Ratio

0:10 

2:10 

2:9 

10:10 

10:10

10:10 

10:10 

3:10 

0:10 

10:10

10:10 

2:10 

10:10 

6:10 

10:10

10:10 

0:10 

10:10 

10:10 

0:10

10:10 

10:10 

10:10 

0:10 

10:10

10:10 

10:10

Imperial

Mean

67 

.024 

157 

50

3.5 

3.4 

.57

63*

230 

.0046 

39 

3.5 

1.4

94 

<7 

6,700 

2.8 

<20

.15 

.13 

820 

<5 

417

6.7 

13

County,

Deviation

2.09 

1.66 

1.23 

1.65

1.12 

1.69 

1.56

1.26

1.22 

1.68 

1.05 

1.47 

1.33

1.35

1.22 i 

1.23

1.17 

1.50 

1.42

1.10 

1.08

Calif.

Observed 

range

<150 

<.05 - 

100 

30

3.0 - 

1

50 

200

34 

<4 

.7 -

70

1,900 - 7, 

2.4 -

.12 - 

.08 - 

500 - 1,

5.8 - 

11

200 

.05 

200 

100

4.4 

6 

1

100

300 

.01 

40 

6 

2

150

200 

3.6

.19 

.25 

500

800 

7.8

14

Dry material was analyzed; values reported on dry weight basis. 

Means and ranges given in percent.
TABLE 14.—Elements in ash (or in dry material, as indicated), percent ash yield of dried material, and percent dried-material yield of fres

commercial production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable concentrations to n

Means and ranges are given in parts per million, except where percent is indicated. Mean, geometric mean. Deviation, geometri

in figure column indicate no data available]

Element,

ash, or dry Berr1en County ' Mich '

Areas of commercial production

Wayne County, N.Y. San Joaqui

material

Ag— — - —

Al—————— -

Ac 1 - ________ .

R-,

r,2

Co —————— -

Cr

Cu ————— -

i Hfl 1 — ----- -

i/Z_

Li —— __ — .

Mg 2 —————— .

Mn ————— • Mo ————— • Na ————— -

Ni— — — •

P*-

Pb ————— . cl,2 b ' ———— •

Sr ————— •

Ti —————— .

Zn —— — -

7r _______ --.

Ratio

-- 0:10

8

. i n

7:10

-- 10:10

-- 10:10

-- 10:10

-- 10:10

R-10

-- 3:10

-- 10:10

-- 10:10

-- 0:10

-- 10:10

0:10

-- 10:10

-- 10:10

-- 2:10

-- 10:10

5:10

-- 10:10

-- 0:10

-- 10:10

-- 10:10

-- 10:10

-- 6:10

-- 10:10

n-in

Mean

<1

660

.099

120

170

3.5

1.5

.74

.57

110

1,000

<.01

QQ

<4

3.4

OQO

4 3

1,500

8.9

3 7

<20

.30

034

170

<5

con

<-?n

Deviation

6.60

6.07

1.43

1.99

1 TQ

1 7R

1 39

4 R9

I

on

2 05

1.14

1 AR

2.02

1 ")B

1 35

3.36

1 45

1.13

1.66

1 QO

1.31

<150

<.

70

70

2.

<1

<1.

50

500

27

2

100

<7

790

<10

2.

*

70

<5

450

Observed 

range

- 15,000

05 - .67

200

500

2 - 5.4

6 - 4

1

5 - 7

300

- 3,000

40

K

700

7

- 2,200

50

4 - 9.0

25 - 35

02 - .05

500

100

1,120

Ratio

0:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

1:2

1:2

2:2

2:2

0:2

2:2

0:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

0:2

2:2

0:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

n-?

Mean

<1

700

.63

Q/l

30

2.9

.77

<1

<1.5

71

500

<.01

40

<4

2.4

59

12

1,800

<10

5 4

<20

.29

.069

Q/l

21

360

<?n

Deviation

1

£Q

1 39

1.29

1.00

1.69

1.44

1

/TQ

1.00

1.00

1.33

1.27

1.33

1.00

1.17

1 1 Q

1 23

1.29

1.63

1.17

500

70

2.

<1

<1.

Rfl

2

Rfl

10

4.

*

70

15

Observed 

range

- 1,000

5

O

- 100

0 - 4.2

6 - 1

1

5 - 3

- 100

3

70

15

8

r n

9 a o o

06 - .08

- 100

30

- 400

Ratio

0:10

8 . i n

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

1:10

10:10

10:10

6:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

2:10

10:10

n-in

Mean

<1

476

RR

94

127

3.6

.60

1

<1.5

66

480

.0081

39

<4

2.7

73

16

2,700

19

4.7

<20

.33

.098

420

<5

417

<-?n

D

Zr

Ash, percent 

of dry weight

Dry material , 

percent of 

fresh weight

0:10 <20

10:10 8.7

10:10 4.1

0:2 <20

1.23 5.9 - 12 2:2 12

1.20 3.0 - 5.3 10:10 3.7

0:10 <20

1.27 10 - 14 10:10 11

1.04 3.6 - 3.8 10:10 3.7

k>ry material was analyzed; values reported on dry weight basis. 

^Means and ranges given in percent.
50 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 15.—Elements in ash (or in dry material, as indicated), percent ash yield of dried material, and percent

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

million, except where percent is indicated. Mean, geometric mean. Deviation, geometric deviation.

Element, 

ash, or dry 

material

An--

Al------- __

i Ac 1 - ___ __ __

Da

fa 2

Cd- /"* ft — --------

Co——— -----

O-- _ _______

Cu—— — ——

Fe------ -----

Ha 1

K

z

Li-- — — —

»j__ Mn — ------- —

Mo ———————

Mi— — -----

P 2 __ ——— ____

s l,2

_ 1

s

Ti ———————

~7« Zn-----------

Ash, percent 

of dry weight

Dry material , 

percent of 

fresh weight

Wayne County

Ratio

0:10 

3:10 

0:8 

10:10 

10:10

10:10 

8:10 

9:10 

4:10 

10:10

10:10 

1:10 

10:10 

0:10 

10:10

10:10 

10:10 

10:10 

10:10 

10:10

0:10 

10:10 

10:10 

10:10 

2:10

10:10 

1:10

10:10 

10:10

Mean

66 

<.05 

190 

59

2.1 

.22 

1.9 

1.1 

130

1,500

39 

<4 

3.2

240 

31 

71 

38 

9.0

<20 

.19 

.022 

46 

.53

890 

3.7 

81

Deviation

2.29

1.44 

1.98

1.33 

1.86 

2.70 

1.93 

1.38

1.41 

1.05 

1.49

1.36 

1.74 

1.80 

1.93 

1.00

1.13 

1.42 

1.84 

1.13

i-.io

1.08 

1.02

Areas of

, N.Y.

Observed 

range

<150

100 

20

1.5 -

100* - 

1,000 - 3, 

37* - 

1.5 -

200 

15 

25 

15

.16 - 

.02 - 

20 

<5

780 - 1 

3.5 - 

78.7 -

commercial production

Twin Falls County, Idaho

500

300 

150

3.0 

.6 

8 

3 

200

000 

.01 

43

7

500 

70 

150 

150

.23

.06 

150 

30

,020 

4.3 

82.9

Ratio

0:10 

3:10 

0:10 

10:10 

10:10

10:10 

9:10 

9:10 

1:10 

10:10

10:10 

1:10 

10:10 

2:10 

10:10

10:10 

10:10 

10:10 

10:10 

10:10

0:10 

10:10 

10:10 

10:10 

0:10

10:10 

0:10

10:10 

10:10

Mean

65 

<.05 

142 

47

2.5 

.22 

3.4

120* 

800

39* 

1.6 

3.3

170 

103 

110 

26 

9.0

<20 

.18 

.016 

196 

<5

700 

3.7 

82

Deviation

3.67

1.23 

1.56

1.19 

1.43 

2.31

1.34 

1.30

1.03 

2.12 

1.24

1.46 

1.83 

1.65 

1.34 

1.00

1.12 

1.40 

1.50

1.16 

1.09 

1.10

<150

100 

20

2.

100 

700

38* 

<4 

3

70 

30 

50 

15

100 

580

3.

68.

Observed 

range

500

- 200 

70

0 - 3.6 

2 - .4 

10 

5 - 100 

- 200

- 1,500 

01 - .01 

42 

5 

5

- 300 

- 200 

- 200 

30

14 - .2 

01 - .02 

- 300

- 860 

4 - 4.4 

5 - 92.4

material was analyzed; values reported on dry weight basis, 

Means and ranges given in percent.
TABLES 4-121 

dried-material yield of "fresh" (before oven drying) dry beans from areas of commercial production

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Means and ranges are given in parts per 

Leaders (--) in figure column indicate no data available]

51

Areas of commercial production (continued)

San Joaquin County, Calif.

Ratio

2:10

5:10

0:8

10:10

10:10

10:10

8:10

10:10

1:10

10:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

4:10

10:10

0:10

Mean

<1

<150

<.05

150

110

2.2

.20

7.7

<1.5

100

1,700

<.01

39

<4

3.5

200

67

83

78

11

<20

.21

.020

280

2.3

770

<20

Deviation

_ _

--

--

1.33

1.42

1.12

1.54

1.33

--

1.43

1.52

--

1.02

--

1.38

1.35

1.46

1.40

1.27

1.15

__

1.15

1.00

1.52

1.89

1.06

--

Observed 

range

<-|

<150

70

70

1.8

<.2

5

<1 .5

70

1,000

38

2

150

50

50

50

9

.18

150

<5

700

3

- 1,500

--

- 200

- 150

2.6

.4

12

2

- 200

- 3,000

_-

40

--

5

- 300

- 100

150

- 100

12

_ —

.28

_-

500

- 150

- 820

--

Ratio0:10

4:10

0:9

10:10

9:10

10:10

10:10

9:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

1:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

1:10

10:10

0:10

Mesa County, Colo.

Mean

<!

110

<.05

137

29

4.5

.45

10

<1 .5

148

1,200

<.01

38

<4

3.3

180

240

83

54

9

<20

.19

.11

360

<5

810

<20

Deviation

_ _

1.99

--

1.26

3.27

1.15

1.50

1.40

--

1.58

1.36

_-

1.03

_-

1.24

1.26

1.35

2.20

1.46

1.00

_ _

1.08

1.65

1.59

--

1.08

--

Observed 

range

<150

100

<3

3.8

.2

6

70

700

<.01

35

3

150

150

25

30

.17

.04

200

<5

720

__

- 300

--

- 200

- 100

6

.8

14

--

- 300

- 2,000

.01

40

--

5

- 300

- 300

- 300

- 100

--

_ _

.22

.2

- 700

10

- 900

--

10:10 4.0 1.04 3.7 - 4.2 10:10 4.2 1.07 4.0 4.9

10:10 1.04 80.3 - 91.5 10:10 90 1.04 82.9 - 93.7
52 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 16.—Elements in ash (or in dry material, as indicated), percent ash yield of dried material,

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

except where percent is indicated. Mean, geometricic mean. Deviation, geometric deviation. Leaders (--) in

Element, 

ash, or dry 

material

An y_ a _ —— __ _ ——— ______ ____

Ml- ni _ ---------- ________

n<-l_ __ ____ _

D =>

fa 2

P _i

Co ———————

rr_ _ _ _ _____

Cu— — - — —

Fe--— — —

H

n i g —————————

K z -_

Li-~~ ... —

Mg^ ————————

Mn ———————

Mo ———————

Wa

Ni ———————

p2__-._______

Ph.. — __ ....

Sl.2_________

se i— — — -

Sr- _ __ -.---

Ti ___________

Zn ——— — —

Zr ———————

Ash, percent 

of dry weight

Dry material, 

percent of 

fresh weight

Areas of commercial production

Cumberland County, N.J.

Ratio

0:10 

10:10 

6:6 

10:10 

10:10

10:10 

10:10 

4:10 

10:10 

10:10

10:10 

7:10 

10:10 

3:10 

10:10

10:10 

1:10 

10:10 

5:10 

10:10

2:10 

10:10 

10:10 

10:10 

10:10

10:10 

10:10

10:10 

10:10

Mean

<1

1 1 ,000 

1.3 

97 

157

3.1 

3.9 

.53 

22 

36

4,500 

.011 

28 

1.9 

2.0

253 

<7 

2,200 

8.8 

1.5

11 

.34 

.078 

.57 

1,379

380 

75

14 

6.2

Deviation

2.37 

1.45 

1.66 

2.02

1.36 

1.50 

4.13 

2.13 

1.47

1.87 

2.19 

1.35 

2.50 

1.29

1.46

1.22 

1.82 

1.48

1.80 

1.12 

1.54 

1.38 

2.02

3.12 

7.47

2.37 

1.25

3,000

50 

70

2. 

1. 

<1 

7 

20

2,000 

<.

18 

<4 

1.

150 

<7 

1,600 

<10

<20

100 

500

150 

20

18 

3.

Observed 

range

- 30,000 

5 - 2 

300 

500

0 - 4.6 

5 - 6 

4 

70 

50

- 15,000 

01 - .04 

40 

8 

5 - 3

500 

7 

- 2,900 

20 

6 - 2.4

30 

29 - .4 

04 - .2 

200 

- 3,000

- 3,360 

300

29 

7 - 8.0

Ratio

1:10 

8:10 

3:7 

10:10 

10:10

10:10 

10:10 

0:10 

0:10 

10:10

10:10 

6:10 

10:10 

0:10 

10:10

10:10 

0:10 

10:10 

0:10 

10:10

0:10 

10:10 

8:10 

10:10 

0:10

10:10 

0:10

10:10 

10:10

Palm

Mean

<1

180 

.034 

85 

84

5.3 

.94 

<1 

<1.5 

49

555 

.0081 

40 

<4 

1.4

255 

<7 

5,500 

<10 

3.6

<20 

.22 

.008 

1,000 

<5

680 

<20

14 

3.5

Beach County, Fla.

Deviation

1.37 

1.44 

1.48 

1.38

1.15 

1.46

1.50

1.71 

1.32 

1.03

1.31 

1.23 

1.43 

1.29

1.15 

1.77 

1.37

1.26 

1.22 

1.25

<1 

<150 

<.

50 

70

4.

30

300 

<. 

37

200 

3,300 

2.

<.

700

460 

11 

2.

Observed 

range

2 

- 300 

05 - .05 

- 150 

- 150

5 - 6.6 

6 - 2

- 100

- 2,000 

01 - .01 

40

7 - 2 

- 300 

- 9,200 

4 - 4.8

16 - .25 

005 - .02 

- 2,000

- 920 

20 

9 - 5.7

Dry material was analyzed; values reported on dry weight basis. 

Means and ranges given in percent.
TABLES 4-121 

and percent dried-material yield of fresh lettuce from areas of commercial production

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Means and ranges are given in parts per million, 

figure column indicate no data available]

Areas of commercial production

53

Ratio

0:10

8:10

6:8

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

2:10

1:10

10:10

10:10

3:10

10:10

2:10

10:10

10:10

1:10

10:10

3:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

4:10

10:10

0:10

Hidalgo County, Tex.

Mean Deviation

<1

362

.044

90

113

5.0

2.6

.46

<1.5

75

534

.0057

39

1.5

1.8

181

<7

25,000

6.4

4.1

<20

.29

.077

634

2.2

620

<20

__

2.66

1.22

1.29

1.30

1.12

1.70

1.70

—

1.16

1.41

1.56

1.04

2.46

1.47

1.57

__

1.22 20

1.64

1.15

__

1.16

1.36

1.26

1.15

1.19

--

<150

<.

70

70

3.

.

<1

<1.

70

300

<.

37

<4

1

70

<7

,000

<10

3.

.

.

500

<5

420

Imperial County,

Observed 

range

__

- 1,500

05 - .05

150

150

8 - 5.8

6 - 4

1

5 - 2

100

700

01 - .01

40

6

3

300

15

- 36,000

15

6 - 4.8

__

24 - .38

04 - .1

- 1,000

7

800

--

Ratio

0:10

7:10

1:8

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

4:10

2:10

10:10

10:10

8:10

10:10

8:10

10:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

7:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

2:10

10:10

0:10

Mean

<1

183

<.05

100

13

3.9

8.7

.66

.50

84

634

.010

37

6.0

1.8

154

<7

54,000

9.3

3.9

<20

.29

.18

758

<5

460

<20

Deviation

__

1.84

—

1.20

1.61

1.17

1.36

1.46

3.00

1.21

1.26

1.03

1.05

1.60

1.26

1.10

__

1.11 46

1.13

1.13

__

1.16

1.26

1.39

—

1.13

--

Calif.

Observed 

range

__

<150

<.05 -

70

7

2.8 -

5

<1

<1.5 -

70

500 - 1

<.01 -

34

<4

1.5 -

150

__

,000 - 64

<10

3.6 -

__

.22 -

.10 -

500 - 1

<5

340

--

500

.05

150

30

4.8

14

1

3

100

,000

.02

40

9

3

200

,000

10

4.8

.33

.2

,500

20

530

10:10 13 1.22 11 19 10:10 13 1.15 10 16

10:10 3.6 1.17 2.9 - 4.8 10:10 3.8 1.17 3.3 - 5.3
54 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 17.—Elements in ash (or in dry material, as indicated), percent ash yield of dried material,

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in 

per million, except where percent is indicated. Mean, geometric mean. Deviation, geometric

Element, 

ash, or dry 

material

.

Al------- 4.

As 1 —— — LB— — — t—

a2

C" Cd- A — --------

Co———— ——

rr_ _ ________

Cu ————————

H n l

K

Z

Li- —— —— ——

Mn— —— -----

Mo ———————

Nj— — ———

Pb ———————

se i__________

T' *

Zn ————— - —

7 u%

Ash, percent 

of dry weight

Dry material , 

percent of 

fresh weight

Areas of commercial production

Wayne County, N.Y.

Ratio Mean Deviation

0 

6 

7 

10 

8

10 

10 

7 

2

10

0

1

10 

0 

10

10 

8 

10 

0 

10

0 

10 

10 

10 

4

10 

1

10 

10

*Dry material was 

Means and ranges

:10 250

:10 64 

:10 9.

:10 1.

:10 62 

:10 544

•10 43* 

:10 <4 

:10 2.

:10 81 

:10 9 

:10 310

:10 4. 

:10 <20

:10 40 

:10 2.

:10 350 

:10 <20

:10 4. 

:10 19

analyzed 

given in

4.44 

064 2.35 

1.33 

1 4.25

48 1.38 

4 2.68 

90 1.74 

67 2.09 

1.54

1.31 

1.05 

4 1.35

1.20 

1.89 

2.04

4 1.13

14 1.17 

009 1.48 

1.95 

5 1.74

1.35 

1 1.13 

1.06

<150 

<. 

50 

<3

20 

300 

41* 

1.

70 

<7 

100

3.

15 

<5

280 

<20

3. 

18

i values reported 

percent.

Observed 

range

- 1,500 

05 - .25 

- 100 

- 100

34 - .71 

4 - 6.5 

3 

5 2 

- 100

- 700 

01 - .01 

47

5 - 3

- 100 

30 

- 900

6 - 4.8

11 - .19 

005 - .02 

- 100 

100

- 480 

20

4 - 4.9 

21

on dry weight

Ratio

0:10 

10:10 

10:10 

10:10 

10:10

10:10 

10:10 

3:10 

4:10 

10:10

10:10 

0:10 

10:10 

0:10 

10:10

10:10 

2:10 

10:10 

7:10 

10:10

0:10 

10:10 

10:10 

10:10 

10:10

10:10 

1:10

10:10 

10:10

basis.

Cumberland County,

Mean

645 

.21 

68 

81

.60 

1.1 

.57 

1.1 

135

516

41* 

<4 

1.2

114 

3.3 

290 

10 

4.0

<20 

.16 

.021 

43 

36

370 

<20

5.8 

16

Deviation

2.00 

1.42 

1.22 

1.42

1.17 

1.19 

1.56 

1.63 

1.33

1.39 

1.06 

1.16

1.53 

1.94 

1.27 

1.43 

1.16

1.11 

1.25 

1.48 

2.83

1.16 

1.12 

1.14

200

50 

50

1

100 

300 

38 

1.

70 

<7

200

3.

30 

10

280 

<20

4. 

13

N.J.

Observed 

range

- 1,500 

10 - .35 

- 100 

- 150

48 - .76 

1.5 

1 

1 - 2 

- 200

700 

45 

5 - 2

- 200 

10 

- 400 

15 

6 - 4.8

14 - .19 

02 - .24 

70 

- 150

520 

20

8 - 7.0 

21
TABLES 4-121 

and percent dried-material yield of fresh potatoes from areas of commercial production

measurable concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Means and ranges are given in parts 

deviation. Leaders (--) in figure column indicate no data available]

55

Areas of commercial production (continued)

Twin Falls County, Idaho

Ratio

0:10

8:10

0:9

6:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

3:10

5:10

10:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

7:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

1:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

6:10

10:10

0:10

Mean

<1

273

<.05

44

41

1.3

2.6

.57

<1.5

74

400

<.01

43

<4

1.8

62

6.7

3,900

<10

3.2

<20

.093

.010

78

<5

273

<20

Deviation

__

2.19

--

1.42

1.44

1.18

1.54

1.56

--

1.50

1.38

--

1.04

--

1.15

1.38

1.32

1.16

--

1.35

__

1.24

1.48

1.27

--

1.36

--

Observed 

range

<150

<50

30

1.0

1.5

<1

<1.5

50

300

41

1.5

30

<7

3,100

2.4

<20

.065

.005

70

<5

140

_ _

- 700

_-

70

70

1.6

5.5

1

15

- 150

- 700

_-

46

--

2

- 100

10

- 5,000

--

6.0

50

.13

.02

- 100

20

- 380

--

Ratio

1:10

7:10

0:10

8:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

1:10

10:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

5:10

10:10

9:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

7:10

10:10

0:10

Yakima County, Wash.

Mean

<1

195

<.05

58

29

.67

2.8

3.6

<1.5

98

520

<.01

42

<4

2.1

94

5.7

1,400

16

4.6

<20

.12

.008

100

6.2

385

<20

Deviation

_ _

2.33

--

1.44

1.99

1.11

1.43

1.43

--

1.46

1.39

--

1.05

--

1.30

1.35

1.38

1.12

1.57

1.10

_ _

1.14

1.62

1.37

2.20

1.27

--

Observed 

range

<1

<150

<50

10

.58

2

2

<1.5

70

300

40

1.5

70

7

1,200

<10

3.6

.10

.005

70

<5

280

1

- 1,000

--

- 100

70

.82

5

6

20

- 150

- 700

--

46

--

3

- 150

10

- 1,700

30

4.8

_ _

.14

.02

- 150

15

630

--

10:10 3.3 1.23 2.6 4.8 10:10 4.0 1.19 3.2 5.0

10:10 19 1.13 15 23 10:10 21 1.14 17 25
56 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 18.— Elements in ash (or in dry material, as indicated), percent ash yield of dried material,

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples, in which the element was found in 

indicated. Mean, geometric mean. Deviation, geometric deviation. Leaders (--) in figure column

Element, 

ash, or dry 

material

An___ __

MI- Al__ ——— _ ———

Ac 1 - _ __

D -,

fa 2

Cd ————————

Co ———————

O- _ _ _

Cu ———————

Fe r— ------

H ni g ————————

v<-_

Li-— — — -

Mgt ——————————

Mn ———————

Mo ———————

Ma

Ni ———————

pi... -._ ____

Ph.- ——— — sy~- 

Se 1 --— — - ———

Ti ———————

Zn ———————

Zr ———————

Ash, percent 

of dry weight

Dry material , 

percent of 

fresh weight

Areas of commercial production

Ratio

0:2 

2:2 

0:2 

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2 

1:2 

0:2 

2:2

2:2 1 

0:2 

2:2 

0:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

0:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

0:2

2:2 

2:2

Berrien County , Mich.

Mean Deviation

<1

590 

<.05 

200 

200

5.5 

.35 

<1 

<1.5 

170

,200 

<.01 

39 

<4 

3.9

390 

14 

280 

46 

4.8

<20 

.17 

.040 

150 

84

530 

<20

5.5 

22

1-Dry mateial was analyzed; values 

Means and ranges given in percent

1.27

1.00 

1.00

1.03 

2.17

2.17 

2.10 

1.04 

1.44

1.44 

1.63 

1.63 

1.82 

1.00

1.04 

1.00 

2.80 

1.29

1.50 

1.04 

1.08

500

5. 

<1 

100 

700 

38 

3

300 

10 

200 

30

70 

7

400 

5. 

21

reported on

Observed 

range

700

4 - 5. 

2 - 

1

- 300 

- 2,000 

40 

5

- 500 

20 

- 400 

70

17 -

- 300 

100

710 

4 - 5. 

23

dry-weight

Ratio

1:10 

10:10 

0:9 

10:10 

10:10

6 10:10 

6 10:10 

6:10 

8:10 

10:10

10:10 

0:10 

10:10 

0:10 

10:10

10:10 

9:10 

10:10 

10:10 

10:10

0:10 

18 10:10 

10:10 

10:10 

10:10

10:10 

0:10

7 10:10 

10:10

basis.

Wayne

Mean

<1

980 

<.05 

200 

210

9.6 

.37 

1.0 

2.1 

49

1,300 

<.01 

34 

<4 

5.4

460 

13 

170 

36 

3.9

<20 

.15 

.020 

290 

46

490 

<20

7.0 

7.3

County

Deviation

1.95

1.41 

1.89

1.10 

2.20 

3.91 

1.71 

1.23

1.63 

1.05 

1.25

1.78 

1.84 

1.38 

1.84 

1.15

1.16 

1.25 

1.58 

1.66

1.15 

1.13 

1.07

, N.

<1

500

150 

100

8

<1 

<1

30

700 

31

5

200 

<7 

100 

15 

3

150 

30

410

5 

6

Y.

Observed 

range

2 

- 3,000

- 300 

- 700

.2 - 11 

.2 - .8 

7 

.5 - 5 

70

- 3,000

36 

10

- 1,000 

30 

- 350 

70 

.6 - 4.8

.11 - .20 

.02 - .04 

500 

100

- 670 

.8 - 8.1 

.4 - 8.1
TABLES 4-121 

and percent dried-material yield of fresh snap beans from areas of commercial production

57

measurable concentrations to 

indicate no data available]

number of samples analyzed. Means and ranges are given in parts per million, except where percent is

Areas of commercial production (continued)

10:10

Cumberland County, N.J. Palm Beach County, Fla. Twin Falls County, Idaho

Ratio

0:10

10:10

4:8

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

8:10

8:10

10:10

10:10

3:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

4:10

Mean

<1

2,200

.037

140

125

5.9

.23

1.1

2.8

73

1,200

.0057

37

<4

3.7

200

28

280

26

4.3

<20

.17

.045

170

130

500

16

Deviation

__

2.67

2.20

1.36

1.56

1.19

1.34

1.78

2.99

1.32

1.62

1.56

1.05

—

1.30

1.35

1.84

1.54

1.29

1.16

__

1.25

1.27

1.16

2.50

1.12

1.55

Observed 

range

700

<.05

100

50

4.8

.2

<1

<1.5

50

700

<.01

34

3

150

10

150

15

3.6

.11

.04

150

30

400

<20

_.

- 7,000

.10

- 200

- 200

8.2

.4

3

10

- 150

- 3,000

.01

40

_-

5

- 300

70

- 550

30

4.8

__

.22

.08

- 200

500

- 560

30

Ratio

0:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

8:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

2:10

Mean

<1

460

<.05

152

22

8.4

.56

<1

4.8

83

1,100

<.01

35

<4

3.0

370

19

800

15

4.6

<20

.19

.021

474

46

730

<20

Deviation

__

2.01

__

1.37

1.69

1.35

1.66

__

2.03

1.53

1.46

__

1.07

__

1.63

1.77

1.32

2.03

1.77

1.21

._

1.41

1.25

1.42

1.96

1.07

--

Observed 

range

200

100

7

4.2

.2

2

30

700

31

1

150

15

300

<10

3.6

.10

.02

300

15

650

<20

__

- 1,500

__

- 300

30

11

1

__

15

150

- 2,000

__

37

__

5

- 1,000

30

- 2,100

30

6.0

._

.26

.04

- 700

- 100

- 800

100

Ratio

0:10

10:10

0:8

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

8:10

5:10

10:10

10:10

1:10

10:10

9:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

0:10

Mean

<1

922

<.05

245

157

8.5

.27

1

1.2

81

1,100

<.01

35

12

4.5

220

140

470

20

4.8

<20

.17

.027

450

22

530

<20

Deviation

__

1.63

__

1.24

1.38

1.12

1.72

1.54

2.66

1.36

1.35

-_

1.05

2.18

1.24

1.19

1.26

1.25

1.26

1.00

__

1.17

1.53

1.24

1.58

1.11

--

Observed 

range

500

200

100

7

.2

<1

<1.5

50

700

<.01

32

5

3

200

100

300

15

.12

.02

300

10

450

__

- 1,500

-_

- 300

- 300

10

1

2

7

- 150

- 2,000

.01

37

27

5

- 300

- 200

- 650

30

--

__

.20

.06

- 500

50

- 600

--

1.16 6.5 - 10 10:10 1.21 5.7 - 10 10:10 5.9 1.05 5.5 - 6.4

10:10 9.6 1.35 15 10:10 7.5 1.10 6.4 8.6 10:10 23 1.23 15 31
58 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 19.—Elements in ash (or in dry material, as indicated), percent ash yield of dried material,

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

million, except where percent is indicated. Mean, geometric mean. Deviation, geometric deviation.

Element, 

ash, or dry 

material

rtAn- g__ —— _ —— ____

rtA1-------_- i_ --------

Ac-1-- _ _

D -%

fa 2

p j

Co ———————

rr_ _ _ _ _____

Cu- ----------

Fp_ _ _ _ _____

HQ!

i/Z

Mg 2 ---------

Mn — — — —

Mo— ——————

Na

Ni— — — --

p^

Ph.. ———— S*> 2 --

Se 1 — -- —

Sr — — — —

Ti~— — —

Zn —..—.—

Zr — — — —

Ash, percent 

of dry weight

Dry material , 

percent of 

fresh weight

Areas of commercial production

Berrien County, Mich.

Ratio

10:10 

5:10 

3:10 

9:10 

7:10

10:10 

10:10 

2:10 

1:10 

10:10

10:10 

5:10 

10:10 

0:10 

10:10

10:10 

4:10 

10:10 

6:10 

10:10

1:10 

10:10 

10:10 

9:10 

1:10

10:10 

0:10

10:10 

10:10

Mean

<1 

<150 

<.

63

5.

<1.

53

790

39* 

<4 

3.

156 

4. 

160 

9. 

8.

<20

16 

<5

1,200 

<20

2. 

22

05 

7

25 

73 

46 

5

0074 

9

7

5 

9

15 

014

3

Deviation

1.33 

3.02

1.73 

2.26 

1.69

1.41

1.46 

1.39 

1.05

1.31

1.50 

2.35 

1.72 

1.71 

1.73

1.27 

1.44 

1.49

1.37 

1.39 

1.38

Observed 

range

<150 

<.05 

<50 

<3

.12 

.4 

<1 

<1.5 

30

500 

<.01 

34

3

70 

<7 

50 

<10 

2

<20 

.10 

.01 

<10 

<5

760 

2.1 

12

- 5,000 

.4 

100 

30

.80 

4 

1 

3 

70

- 1,500 

.01 

40

5

- 300 

15 

- 350 

20 

12

20 

.22 

.02 

30 

7

- 1,860 

5.5 

32

Ratio

0:10 

2:10 

0:10 

3:10 

0:10

10:10 

10:10 

1:10 

1:10 

10:10

10:10 

2:10 

10:10 

0:10 

10:10

10:10 

10:10 

10:10 

6:10 

10:10

1:10 

10:10 

10:10 

4:10 

1:10

10:10 

0:10

10:10 

10:10

Salem County

Mean

<1 

50 

.05 

28 

<3

.16 

1.8 

<1 

<1.5 

58

790 

.0046 

39 

<4 

4.4

120 

13 

200 

9.7 

11

<20 

.083 

.026 

7.4 

<5

920 

<20

2.0 

32

Deviation

3.00 

1.93

1.42 

4.22

1.44

1.53 

1.69 

1.07

1.41

1.44 

1.34 

1.37 

1.53 

1.16

1.35 

1.79 

1.65

1.11 

1.26 

1.13

, N.J.

Observed 

range

<150 

<50

.12 

.2 

<1 

<1.5 

30

500 

<.01 

34

3

70 

7 

150 

<10 

.9

<20 

.05 

.01 

<10 

<5

790 

1.2 

27

- 300 

- 70

.40 

- 6.5 

- 1 

- 1.5 

- 100

1,500 

.01 

- 42

- 7

- 150 

- 30 

- 400 

- 15 

- 12

- 20 

.12 

.04 

- 15 

- 7

1,060 

- 2.5 

- 39

material was analyzed; values reported on dry weight basis. 

2Means and ranges given in percent.
TABLES 4-121 

and percent dried- material yield of fresh sweet corn from areas of commercial production

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Means and ranges are given in parts per 

Leaders (--) in figure column indicate no data available]

59

Areas of commercial production (continued)

Palm Beach County, Fla.

Ratio

0:10

2:10

0:8

10:10

1:10

10:10

10:10

0:10

2:10

10:10

10:10

1:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

3:10

10:10

8:10

10:10

1:10

10:10

8:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

0:10

Mean Deviation

<1

50 3

<.05

85 1

<3

.34 1

1.8 1

<1

<1 .5

59 1

680 1

<.01

40 1

<4

3.4 1

160 1

5.0 1

170 1

11 1

9.0 1

<20

.14 1

.00481

26 1

<5

1,400 1

<20

__

.00

--

.48

--

.20

.42

--

--

.27

.29

__

.04

__

.45

.37

.31

.75

.32

.00

_ _

.11

.40 .29"

--

.20

--

Observed 

range

<150

50

<3

.28

1

<1.5

50

500

<.01

37

2

70

<7

75

<10

<20

.13

<.005

15

1,050

__

- 300

--

- 150

20

.46

2.5

--

30

- 100

- 1,000

.01

43

__

5

- 200

7

- 300

15

--

100

.17

.01

30

--

- 2,100

--

Ratio

0:

9:

0

10:

5:

10:

10:

1:

1:

10:

10:

0:

10:

0:

10:

10:

7:

10:

0:

10:

0:

10:

10:

10:

0:

10:

1:

10

10

:9

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

Twin Falls County, Idaho

Mean Deviation

<1

240

<.

57

2.

.

<1

<1 .

44

470

<.

39

<4

3.

140

7.

170

<10

10

<20

.

.

18

<5

590

<20

05

9

18

43

5

01

7

5

i

10

010

__

1.83

--

1.27

3.31

1.20

1.64

--

--

1.34

1.29

_-

1.07

__

1.30

1.19

1.66

1.56

--

1.16

_ _

1.14

1.59

1.40

--

1.22

--

Observed 

range

__

<150 -

--

50 -

<3 -

.14

.2

<1 -

<1 .5

30 -

300 -

__

35 -

__

3 -

100 -

<7 -

75 -

--

.9

— —

.09

.005

15 -

--

420 -

<20 -

1,000

100

20

.26

.8

1

3

70

700

42

5

150

15

350

- 12

.13

.02

30

800

20

10:10 3.3 1.18 5.0 10:10 2.4 1.19 1.9 3.2

10:10 21 1.10 17 24 10:10 25 1.10 23 - 30
60 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 20.—Elements in ash (or in dry material, as indicated), percent ash yield of dried

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

geometric mean. Deviation, geometric deviation. Leaders (--) in figure column indicate no data available]

Element, 

ash, or dry

Areas of commercial production

Berrien County, Mich. Cumberland County, N.J.

material

AV— — -

Ac -

D •}

Pa 2

Co —————— .

rv

C U —————— .

Fe ______ .

i H n i

L/Z

9 Mg^ —————— .

Mn ——— - —— .

Mo ——————— • Na —————— -

Mi

P

ph —————————— .

sl. 2

LI-:::::::::

Qi«

Pi- _______ .

Ratio

- 0:10

8

. i ri

- 2:7

- 10:10

- 10:10

- 10:10

- 9:10

- 2:10

- 4:10

- 10:10

- 10:10

- 1:10

- 10:10

- 0:10

- 10:10

- 10:10

- 5:10

- 10:10

- 1:10

- 10:10

- 0:10

- 10:10

- 10:10

- 10:10

T-in

Mean

<1

<150

.023

110

54

1

0

2.7

.49

1.1

100

740

<.01

35

<4

2.2

5.5

2,700 

<10

3.2

<20

.25

.027

52

i «

Deviation

1.69

1.37

1

00

1.40

1.96

1.66

1.71

1.57

2.10

1.13

1 T Q

1.54

2.62

2.13

1.33

1.15

1 £O

d dl

<150

<

70

30

1

<1

<1

<1

50

300

<

29

1

100

<7

900

<10

2

30<-R

Observed 

range

- 10, 

.20 -

.1 -

.5 -

- 3,

.01 -

.5 -

- 13,

.4 -

.20 -

.01 -

000

25

150

150

10

1

2

200

000

.01

40

3.0

500

30

000

15

4

Q

OQ

.06

100

in

Ratio

0:10

7:10

2:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

7:10

3:10

10:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

4:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

10:10 7-in

Mean

<1

230

.023

84

42

1.4

.99

07

63

522

<.01

OQ

<4

1.7

75

5.2

1,300 

<10

<20

.25

.027

55

<•<;

Deviation

3.04

1.69

1.21

1.60

1.32

1.49

1 1 Q

2.39

1.12

1 r\ r

1.32

1.48

1.27

1.23

1.15

1.53

1.67

Observed 

range

<150 - 1,

<.05 -

70

30

.96 -

.4 -

<1

<1.5 -

50

300 - 5,

30

1.5 -

50

<7

1,100 - 2,

1

0

.20 -

.02 -

30

<-<;

500

.05

100

100

2

1.5

1

7

70

000

3

100

10

100

O r

.33

.05

150

i<;n

Zr ——————— 0:10 <20

Ash, percent 

of dry weight 10:10 8.9 1.25 6.9 -

Dry material , 

percent of 

fresh weight 10:10 3.3 1.44 1.8 -

*Dry material was analyzed; values reported on dry 

Means and ranges given in percent.

13

6.

weight

0:10

10:10

,5 10:10

basis.

<20

14 1.09 12 - 15

4.5 1.18 3.9 - 6.2
TABLES 4-121 

material, and percent dried-material yield of fresh tomatoes from areas of commercial production

61

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Means and ranges are given in parts per million, except where percent is indicated. Mean,

Areas of commercial production (continued)

Palm Beach County, Fla.

Ratio

D:10

6:10

1:7

9:10

0:10

10:10

9:10

1:10

3:10

10:10

10:10

1:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

9:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

9:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

0:10

Mean

<i

153

<.05

65

<3

.70

.38

<1

.81

121

380

<.01

30

<4

1.3

73

7.5

3,200

<10

1.6

<20

.19

.015

55

<5

210

<20

Deviation

..

2.28

--

1.47

—

1.62

2.46

—

2.33

1.47

1.46

--

1.20

--

1.35

1.38

1.35

1.28

—

1.33

__

1.08

2.71

2.00

--

1.34

--

Observed 

range

_.

<150 - 200

<.05 - .05

<50 - 150

—

.82 - 1.5

<.2 - 1.5

<1 - 1

<1.5 - 3

70 - 200

300 - 700

<.01 - .01

23 - 42

--

.7 - 2

50 - 150

<7 - 15

2,500 - 5,900

--

1.2 - 2.4

__

.18 - .23

.01 - .02

30 - 150

--

160 - 350

--

Ratio

0:10

5:10

1:8

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

5:10

3:10

10:10

10:10

1:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

2:10

10:. 10

9:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

5:10

10:10

0:10

Yakiman County

Mean

<!

133

<.l 5

81

13

1.0

2.2

.74

.91

73

550

<.01

34

<4

1.6

114

1.7

3,600

15

2.5

<20

.21

.035

92

4

250

<20

Deviation

__

2.86

--

1.36

1.76

1.99

1.84

1.39

1.87

1.22

1.65

.-

1.24

--

1.25

1.37

4.12

1.44

1.46

1.38

_.

1.20

2.44

2.14

2.32

1.45

--

, Wash.

Observed 

range

_.

<150

<.05 -

50

5

.80 -

1

<1

<1 . 5 -

50

500 - 1,

<.01 -

23

--

1.5 -

70

<7

2,300 - 6,

<10

1.2 -

..

.14 -

.10 -

30

<5

110

--

San Joaquin County, Calif.

700

.15

150

30

3.2

5.5

1

2

100

000

.01

45

2

150

20

800

30

3.6

.26

.15

300

15

400

Ratio

D:10

4:10

2:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

1:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

2:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

0:10

10:10

0:10

Mean

<•)

92

<.023

81

40

1.2

.38

<1

<1 .5

37

300

.0046

31

<4

1.6

88

16

11,000

<10

2.5

<20

.16

.16

280

<5

130

<20

Deviation

__

3.31

1.69

1.20

1.65

1.30

1.90

--

--

1.30

1.24

1.69

1.10

--

1.15

1.43

1.38

1.77

--

1.24

__

1.13

1.78

1.32

--

1.57

--

<150

<.

70

20

<1

30

200

<.

27

1.

50

10

4,000

1.

200

80

Observed 

range

..

700

05 - .05

100

70

82 - 1.8

2 - 1.0

4

--

50

500

01 - .01

36

--

5 - 2

150

30

- 26,000

--

8 - 3.6

__

14 - .21

08 - .35

500

--

240

--

10:10 14 9.1 10:10 13 10:10 1.20 13

10:10 5.2 1.27 3.0 - 6.9 10:10 6.4 1.18 5.4 - 8.9 10:10 7.6 1.05 7.0
62 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 21.—Summary statistics of element concentrations expressed on fresh-, dry-, and ash-weight bases, ash yield of dried material, and 

dry-material yield of fresh American grapes collected in three areas of commercial production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean; deviation, geometric deviation. Means 

and ranges are given in parts per million, except as indicated. Leaders (--) in figure column indicate no 

data available. Plant material analyzed was ash, except as indicated; values converted to dry-weight and 

fresh-weight bases]

Element, 

ash, or dry 

material

tty----------- An--- -___--

Ml- ni _ ——————— ________ -

Ac-1- __ _ _ ___ _

D-»

fa 2

f* j Cd- — — -----

Co —— — ——

r>_ _ _______

Cu — -- ——— -

Fe-- ____ -- i Hg 1 ———————

Kz

Li-— ... ... _

Mg^ __________

Mn — — _-_ — _

Mo -—__——

MA

Ni— — — ~

p2___________

Ph_ _______

Sl» 2 — — ~

Se 1 — — — -

Q r _ _________

Ti- —————— -

Zn — - ————

"7 M

Ash, percent 

of dry weight

Dry material 

percent of 

fresh weight

Basis for reporting values

Ratio |rresn weight basis Dry weight basis Ash weight basis

0:30 

26:30 

9:26 

30:30 

30:30

30:30 

21:30 

2:30 

11:30 

30:30

30:30 

5:30 

30:30 

1:30 

30:30

30:30 

2:30 

30:30 

1:30 

30:30

1:30 

30:30 

28:30 

30:30 

19:30

30:30 

1:30

30:30 

30:30

Mean

2.7 

.0035 

1.9 

.66

.019 

.0017 

.0018 

.0031 

.54

3.2 

.00067 

.16

.011 

1.1 

2.9 

.012

.0099 

.0019 

1.2 

.054

.81

Mean

17 

.022 

12 

4.1

.12 

.011 

.011 

.019 

3.4

20 

.004 

1.0

.069 

6.9 

18 

.074

.062 

.012 

7.4 

.34

5.1 

16

Devia- Observed Mean 

tion range

<1

370 

3.05 <0.05 - 0.25 

260 

89

2.6 

.23 

.24 

<1.5 

73

430 

1.75 <.01 - .01 

22 

<4 

1.5

150 

<7 

390 

<10 

1.6

<20 

1.36 .035 - .11 

2.69 <.005 - .15 

160 

7.4

110 

<20

4.5 

1.22 10 - 24

Deviation

2.31

1.46 

1.65

1.56 

2.62 

2.03

1.41 

1.73 

1.24 

1.39 

2.86 

2.81 

1.34

1.64 

4.64

1.53 

1.37

<150

100 

30

1 

< 

<1 

<1

50

200

14 

<4

30 

<7 

100 

<10 

1

<20

70 

<5

50 

<20

2

Observed 

range

- 1,000

- 500 

- 200

.1 - 6.2 

.3 - 3

.5 - 3 700 

- 150

- 2,000

32 

5 

.7 - 3

- 700 

30 

- 5,900 

- 200 

.2 - 2.4

30

- 300 

- 100

- 350 

20

.1 - 7.7

^Dry material was analyzed; values converted only to fresh-weight basis. 

^Means and ranges given in percent. 

'•'One sample probably contaminated.
TABLES 4-121 63

TABLE 22.—Summary statistics of element concentrations expressed on fresh-, dry-, and ash-weight bases, ash yield of dried material, and 

dry-material yield of fresh apples collected in five areas of commercial production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean; deviation, geometric deviation. Means 

and ranges are given in parts per million, except as indicated. Leaders (—) in figure column indicate no 

data available. Plant material analyzed was ash, except as indicated; values converted to dry-weight and 

fresh-weight bases]

Element, 

ash, or dry 

material

MAn-----_---_- y___________

Al----------- ttl 

Ac 1 -- _ _ _ ___

D i

rv.2

rd_ _ _ ______

Co ———————

o_ _ ________

Cu ———— ———

Fe ———————

Hn Hg 1 ————————

i/£

LT- —— .... ——

Mg^ ——— - ————

Mn ——— - ———

Mo ———————

Na ———————

Ni ———————

p2___________

Pb ———————

Sl> 2— — —

se i— — — - oc

Ti ———————

Zn ———————

7 «

Ash, percent 

of dry weight

Dry material, 

percent of 

fresh weight

Basis for reporting values

Ratio

1:50 

45:50 

37:48 

50:50 

50:50

50:50 

36:50 

10:50 

15:50 

50:50

50:50 

13:50 

50:50 

1:50 

50:50

50:50 

14:50 

50:50 

1:50 

50:50

14:50 

50:50 

25:50 

50:50 

38:50

50:50 

0:50

50:50 

50:50

Fresh weight basis

Mean

1.1 

.20 

1.2 

.21

.0030 

.0051 

.0012 

.0019 

.17

.92 

.094 

.0040

.20 

.011 

1.6

.0059

.0073 

.0039 

.00039 

.26 

.027

.18

Dry weight basis

Mean Devia- Observed 

tion range

7.2 

<.05 — <.05 - 10 

8.3 

1.4

.020 

.034 

.0083 

.013 

1.1

6.1 

<.01 — <.01 - .12 

.63

.027

1.3 

.070 

11

.040

.049 

.026 1.35 .015 - .045 

.0026 3.36 <.005 - .08 

1.7 

.18

1.2 

14 1.09 10 - 19

Mean

<1

400

455 

77

1.1 

.19 

.46 

.70 

63

350

35 

<4 

1.5

74 

3.9 

600 

<10 

2.2

2.7

97 

10

67 

<20

1.6

Ash weight

Deviation

2.34

1.52 

1.81

1.56 

1.76 

1.69 

2.98 

1.33

1.41 

1.21 

1.29

1.94 

1.92 

2.03

1.23 

2.71

2.19 

2.92

1.47 

1.24

basis

<1 

<150

150 

20

< 

<1 

<1 

30

200

17 

<4

20 

<7 

100 

<10 

1

<20

15 

<5

35 

1

Observed 

range

2 

- 3,000

- 1,500 

- 200

.48- 3.2

.2 - .6 

1

.5 - 7 

100

- 1,000

43 

4 

.7 - 2

- 200 

10 

- 3,100 

15 

.2 - 3.6

- 1,000

- 300 

70

190 

.1 - 4.3

Dry material was analyzed; values converted only to fresh-weight basis. 

Means and ranges given in percent.
64 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 23.—Summary statistics of element concentrations expressed on fresh-, dry-, and ash-weight bases, ash yield of dried material, and 

dry-material yield of fresh European grapes collected in two areas of commercial production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean; deviation, geometric deviation. Means 

and ranges are given in parts per million, except as indicated. Leaders (--) in figure column indicate no 

data available. Plant material analyzed was ash, except as indicated; values converted to dry-weight and 

fresh-weight bases]

Element, 

ash, or dry 

material

An----------- M y

Ai HI _ _ _______

Ac 1 -- __ _____ r\o

R-,_ ___

r,2

f* A

Co ———————

(Y---------

Cu —————— -

FP ———————

Hnl

K^_____

1 LI!___________

Mg^ ————— - ——

Mn ——— _ ——

Mo— ——— --

N-,

Ni-— — —

p

Pb-- ———— cl,2

Se 1— — -"-"

$r — _ _ _ _

Ti-----__--__

7n-----------

7,_

Ash, percent 

of dry weight

Dry material, 

percent of 

fresh weight

Basis for reporting values

Ratio Fresl1 wei ght basis Dry weight basis

0:20 

19:20 

0:19 

20:20 

20:20

20:20 

12:20 

0:20 

7:20 

20:20

20:20 

2:20 

20:20 

1:20 

20:20

20:20 

5:20 

20:20 

0:20 

20:20

4:20 

20:20 

7:20 

20:20 

16:20

20:20 

4:20

20:20 

20:20

Mean

2.9

2.1

.35

.0091 

.00091

.0041 

.36

2.8 

.00065 

.11

.0074

.35 

.024 

4.4

.013

.039 

.0080 

.00048 

1.4 

.096

.37 

.039

Mean

14 

<.05 

10 

1.7

.043 

.0043

.020 

1.7

13 

.0031 

.54

.035

1.7 

.11 

21

.062

.19 

.038 

.0023 

6.5 

.46

1.8 

.19

21.2

Devia- Observed Mean 

tion range

<1 

520

370 

62

1.6 

.16 

<1 

.73 

63

490 

1.91 <.01 - .01 

20 

<4 

1.3

62 

4.2 

770 

<10 

2.3

6.9 

1.76 .015 - .1 

2.95 <.005 - .02 

240 

17

66 

6.9

2.7 

1.24 10.7 - 26.6

Ash weight basis

Deviation

2.24

1.47 

2.18

2.50 

2.07

3.97 

1.75

1.73 

1.74 

1.52

1.96 

1.55 

1.90

1.85 

3.10

2.65 

3.68

1.70 

3.10

1.43

<150

200 

7

<

<1

30

200

5 

<4

7 

<7 

250

<20

15 

<5

20 

<20

1

Observed 

range

- 2,000

- 700 

- 200

.4 - 4.8 

.2 - 4

.5 - 10 

- 200

- 1,500

.2 - 39 

4 

.7 - 3

- 200 

10 

- 4,000

.6 - 6 

70

- 1,000 

70

- 140 

70

.3 - 4.8

*Dry material was analyzed; values converted only to fresh-weight basis. 

^Means and ranges given in percent.
TABLES 4-121 65

TABLE 24.—Summary statistics of element concentrations expressed on fresh-, dry-, and ash-weight bases, ash yield of dried material, and 

dry-material yield of fresh grapefruit collected in four areas of commercial production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean; deviation, geometric deviation. Means and 

ranges are given in parts per million, except as indicated. Leaders (--) in figure column indicate no data 

available. Plant material analyzed was ash, except as indicated; values converted to dry-weight and freshweight bases]

Element, 

ash, or dry 

material

fl a _ _

Ml- A!. _ ————————— _ _ __-

Ac 1 - _______

Ra

Ca 2

TH_ _ _ _ _ __

fn _ _ __ _ _ _

fr_

Cu ——————————

Fe ——————

Hg Hnl ———————

yi

Li .......

M»£

Mm

MA

Ma

Ni— ..... —

p2_....___ —

Ph__ —————

S*j2-~~

So 1 - ______

cr_ ___ __ _ _

Ti ———————

Z n ———————

2r- —————

Ash, percent 

of dry weight

Dry material, 

percent of 

fresh weight

Basis for reporting values

Ratio f:resh weight basis Dry weight basis

0:4 

33:40 

17:36 

40:40 

40:40

40:40 

23:40 

4:40 

8:40 

40:40

40:40 

0:40 

40:40 

22:40 

40:40

40:40 

3:40 

40:40 

5:40 

40:40

1:40 

40:40 

32:40 

40:40 

22:40

40:40 

0:40

40:40 

40:40

J,Dry material was analyzed 

Means and ranges given in

Mean

1.4 

.0034 

.65 

.29

.022 

.00061 

.00068 

.0018 

.19

1.2

.14 

.014 

.0072

.13 

.012 

6.1 

.065 

.011

.0066 

.0010 

2.5 

.021

.49

Mean Devia- Observed 

tion range

14 

.034 2.93 <.05 - .4 

6.5 

2.9

.22 

.0061 

.0068 

.018 

1.9

12 

<.01 

1.4 

.14 

.072

1.3 

.12 

61 

.65 

.11

.066 1.42 <.050 - .095 

.010 2.52 <.005 - .06 

25 

.21

4.9 

10 1.20 7.0 - 15

Mean

<1 

380

170 

77

5.9 

.16 

.18 

.47 

50

310

36 

3.7 

1.9

34 

3.1 

1,600 

17 

3.0

<20

650 

5.4

130 

<20

3.8

Ash weight basis

Deviation

3.06

1.35 

2.04

1.59 

1.76 

2.87 

3.14 

1.39

1.82

1.24 

2.76 

1.46

1.56 

1.53 

1.57 

2.24 

1.40

2.22 

4.08

1.34 

1.43

<150

100 

20

1 

< 

<1 

<1

30

150

15 

<4

15 

<7

600 

10

1

<20

150 

<5

60 

2

Observed 

range

- 3,000

- 300 

- 200

.2 - 10 

.2 - .6 

2 

.5 - 3 

70

- 2,000

42 

21 

.7 - 3

70 

7 

- 3,000 

70 

.2 - 4.8

70

- 2,000 

70

- 200 

.3 - 11

; values converted only to fresh-weight basis, 

percent.
66 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 25.—Summary statistics of element concentrations expressed on fresh-, dry-, and ash-weight bases, ash yield of dried material, and 

dry-material yield of fresh oranges collected in four areas of commercial production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean; deviation, geometric deviation. Means and 

ranges are given in parts per million, except as indicated. Leaders (--) in figure column indicate no data 

available. Plant material analyzed was ash, except as indicated; values converted to dry-weight and freshweight bases]

Element, 

ash, or dry 

material

Al----------- Ml - —————— -

Ac 1 -- _ ______

D ^

fa 2

r* A

Co ———————

r r _ _ ____

Cu ———————

Fe —— ___ -

Hn i i

Li-——- —

ui^c.

M«

Mo —_——___

Ma

N £——— ______

cl>2

Se 1 — — — -

Ti ___________

Zn _—_—___

Z r — — — __

Ash, percent 

of dry weight

Dry material, 

percent of 

fresh weight

Basis for reporting values

Ratio

0:40 

33:40 

2:38 

40:40 

40:40

40:40 

20:40 

10:40 

14:40 

40:40

40:40 

3:40 

40:40 

24:40 

40:40

40:40 

3:40 

40:40 

6:40 

40:40

1:40 

40:40 

30:39 

40:40 

20:40

40:40 

1:40

40:40 

40:40

Fresh weight basis

Mean

2.0 

.0014 

1.2 

.040

.037 

.00066 

.0024 

.0037 

.24

2.0 

.00034 

.17 

.025 

.0098

.20 

.014 

7.5

.013

.0087 

.0010 

3.3 

.020

.66

Dry weight basis

Mean Devia- Observed 

tion range

15 

.011 2.10 <.05 - .05 

9.4 

3.1

.28 

.0050 

.019 

.029 

1.9

15 

.0026 2.00 <.01 - .01 

1.3 

.19 

.076

1.5 

.11 

58

.097

.067 1.17 .055 - .12 

.0077 2.31 <.005 - .04 

26 

.15

5.0 

13 1.2 10 - 16

Mean

430

260 

86

7.

52

430

37 

5. 

2.

43 

3. 

1,600

2. 

<20

710 

4.

140 

<20

3.

Ash weight

Deviation

3.25

1.43 

2.30

8 1.29 

14 2.79 

52 1.62 

80 3.39 

1.43

1.67

1.07 

3 3.71 

1 1.37

1.49 

1 1.53 

2.56

7 1.31

2.51 

2 4.70

1.23 

6 1.18

basis

Observed 

range

<150

70 

20

4.7 

<2

20 

200

31 

<4 

1.5

20 

<7 

250

1.2 

<20

20 

<5

100 

<20

2.7

- 3,000

- 500 

- 500

13 

2.5 

1 

7 

- 100

- 1,500

42 

28 

5

150 

7 

-11,000 

30 

3.6

20

- 2,000 

70

- 240 

20

5.5

^Dry material was analyzed; values converted only to fresh-weight basis, 

and ranges given in percent.
TABLES 4-121 67

TABLE 26.—Summary statistics of element concentrations expressed on fresh-, dry-, and ash-weight bases, ash yield of dried material, and 

dry-material yield of fresh peaches collected in four areas of commercial production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean ; deviation, geometric deviation. Means and 

ranges are given in parts per million, except as indicated. Leaders (--) in figure column indicate no data 

available. Plant material analyzed was ash, except as indicated; values converted to dry-weight and freshweight bases]

Element, 

ash, or dry 

material

A?

A 1

D •*

Ca 2

PI

Co ---------

fV_ _ _ _

C U ———— -----

FP — — ___ -

i Hg 1 — —————

Li- ———— ——

Mn ———————

Mo ———————

Ma

Ni ———————

Ph ———————

Li— -

sr_ _ _______

Ti— — — —

Zn ——————

Zr ———————

Ash, percent 

of dry weight

Dry material , 

percent of 

fresh weight

Basis for reporting values

Ratio

2:40 

33:40 

15:37 

40:40 

37:40

40:40 

24:40 

8:40 

20:40 

40:40

40:40 

7:40 

40:40 

1:40 

40:40

40:40 

1:40 

40:40 

18:40 

40:40

2:40 

40:40 

23:40 

40:40 

24:40

40:40 

3:40

40:40 

40:40

Fresh weight basis

Mean

.00058 

2.6 

.0026 

2.3 

.11

.0017 

.0011 

.0018 

.0078 

.34

1.8 

.00034 

.11

.0066 

.25

.96 

.044 

.0090

.072 

.0043 

.00046 

.28

.55 

.025

Dry weight basis

Mean Devia- Observed 

tion range

.0059 

26 

.026 4.26 <.05 - .35 

23 

1.1

.017 

.011 

.018 

.078 

3.4

18 

.0034 2.17 <.01 - .02 

1.1

.066 

2.5

9.6 

.44 

.090

.72 

.043 1.57 .020 - .12 

.0046 2.57 <.005 - .02 

2.8

5.5 

.25

10 1.47 3.6 - 17

Ash weight basis

Mean

.098 

430

380 

18

.29 

.19 

.30 

1.3 

56

300

19 

<4 

1.1

42 

<7 

160 

7.3 

1.5

12

46 

<5

91 

4.2

6.7

Deviation

3.65 

3.35

1.55 

2.94

1.85 

3.69 

2.73 

3.41 

1.80

2.31 

1.52 

1.47 

1.98

1.79 

2.65 

1.76

1.28 

2.02

1.78 

2.76

1.60

Observed 

range

<150 - 7,

150 - 1, 

<3

.12 -

20 

70 - 2,

8.5 - 

<4 

.5 -

15 

<7 

50

.32 - 

<20

15 

<5

30 

<20

1.5 -

2 

000

000 

200

1.2 

3 

2 

15 

200

000

43 

4 

3

150 

7 

450 

70 

4.8

20

300 

30

300 

30

15

k)ry material was analyzed; values converted only to fresh-weight basis. 

^Means and ranges given in percent.
68 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 27.—Summary statistics of element concentrations expressed on fresh-, dry-, and ash-weight bases, ash yield of dried material, and 

dry-material yield of fresh pears collected in five areas of commercial production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean; deviation, geometric deviation. Means 

and ranges are given in parts per million, except as indicated. Leaders (—) in figure column indicate no 

data available. Plant material analyzed was ash, except as indicated; values converted to dry-weight and 

fresh-weight bases]

Element, 

ash, or dry 

material

An-- --

AI_i As-1 ------- --

Ra

r ,2

PH. _ ________

Co-— ———

r r ___ _ ______

Cu ———————

Fe-—- — —

Hg 1 ———————

V?--- _ _______

Li ————— —

Mg^ —————————

Mn-------- _ -

Mo ————————

NA

|\|i ___ __ __

9

p2 ————————

Rh ————————

$1' 2 — — —

Se1 - —

$r _____ _

Ti ___________

Zn

Zr-----------

Ash, percent 

of dry weight

Dry material , 

percent of 

fresh weight

Basis for reporting values

Ratio frresn we ight basis Dry weight basis Ash weight basis

0:50 

42:50 

9:50 

50:50 

50:50

50:50 

38:50 

30:50 

19:50 

50:50

50:50 

7:50 

50:50 

11:50 

50:50

50:50 

8:50 

50:50 

17:50 

50:50

7:50 

50:50 

35:50 

50:50 

26:50

50:50 

3:50

50:50 

50:50

Mean

1.1

1.4 

.47

.0057 

.00085 

.0028 

.022 

.35

.91 

.00057 

.072 

.0035 

.0047

.26 

.0060 

1.8 

.018 

.0050

.031 

.0044 

.00087 

.57

.47 

.022

Mean

7.1 

<.05 

9.2 

3.2

.038 

.0057 

.019 

.014 

2.3

6.1 

.0038 

.48 

.023 

.032

1.7 

.040 

12 

.12 

.034

.21 

.029 

.0058 

3.8

3.2 

.15

15

Devia- Observed Mean 

tion range

<1

340 

<.05 - .55 

440 

150

1.8 

.27 

.90 

.69 

110

290 

1.80 <.01 - .01 

23 

1.1 

1.5

83 

1.9 

560 

5.7 

1.6

9.8 

1.32 .015 - .05 

2.31 <.005 - .02 

180 

<5

150 

7.1

2.1 

1.17 11 - 20

Deviation

2.93

1.53 

1.86

1.76 

2.55 

2.64 

5.47 

1.69

1.76

1.41 

3.71 

1.35

1.65 

3.07 

2.50 

2.37 

1.63

1.74 

2.04

2.01 

1.81

1.33

<150

150 

30

<

<1 

<1

30

70

10 

<4

20 

<7 

150 

<10

<20

30 

<5

10 

<20

1

Observed 

range

- 7,000

- 1,000 

- 700

.52- 5.4 

.2 - 3 

10 

.5 - 100 

- 300

- 1,000

42 

17 

.7 - 3

150 

20 

- 6,600 

70 

.6 - 3.6

30

- 700 

- 200

- 720 

30

.0 - 3.7

Dry material was analyzed; values converted only to fresh-weight basis. 

Means and ranges given in percent.
TABLES 4-121 69

TABLE 28.—Summary statistics of element concentrations expressed on fresh-, dry-, and ash-weight bases, ash yield of dried material, and 

dry-material yield of fresh plums collected in four areas of commercial production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean; deviation, geometric deviation. Means and 

ranges are given in parts per million, except as indicated. Leaders (--) in figure column indicate no data 

available. Plant material analyzed was ash, except as indicated; values converted to dry-weight and fresh-weight 

bases]

Element,

ash, or dry

material

Mfl ay___________ _ _ _ _ _____

Al__ HI--_ _

flc 1 - ____ __ __

D 3

Ca 2

/* j

Co ———————

Cr-----------

Cu ----------

Fe--— — —

Ha 1 — — — ——

K

Z

Li-- — ______

Mg^ — ——— —

Mn ——— ———

Mo ———————

M,

Ni— ________

p2___________

Pb ——— ———— s"> 2—

Li —— —— — -

Sr ---------

T-j_ _ ________

Zn ——— _____

Zr ——— — —

Ash, percent 

of dry weight

Dry material , 

percent of 

fresh weight

Ratio

4:40

28:40

40:40

40:40

40:40

16:40

2:40

11:40

40:40

40:40

5-40

40:40

0:40

40:40

40:40

8:40

40:40

3-40

40:40

10:40

40:40

29:40

40:40

16:40

40:40

1:40

40:40 

40:40

Fresh weight basis

Mean

1.4

2.5

.22

nmo.

.00081

.0044

1.4

.00049

.11

.0074

.36

.025

Q1

.033

.0074

.056

.0045

.00080

.60

1.7

--

Mean

10

<.05

1 Q

1 • *J

.027

.0058

03?

2.4

10

.0035

.77

.053

1 P.

5

0

.24

.40

.032

.0057

T^ • J

12

14

Basis for reporting values

Dry weight basis

Devia- Observed Mean 

tion range

<1

210

<.05 - 3

32

.12

<1

.66

51

200

1.84 <.010 - .010

.6

<4

1.1

53

37

120

4.9

1.1

8.4

1.31 .020 - .055

2.08 <.0050 - .020

QQ

<5

120

<20

4.8 

1.29 8.0 - 20

Ash weight

Deviation

2.43 <

1.59

2 93

i . ~ j

1 O C

2 on

2.01

1.72

1 . J T^ 

1 07

1 65

1.67

1.45

1 7P,

3 1 2

1 • J <J

2.12

1.44

basis

Observed 

range

<1

150 - 1,

150 - 1,

7 - 1,

<.2 -

<1

<1 5 -

15

50

9

10

<7

<7

<10

.6 -

<20

15

<5

30

<20

2.2 -

3

500

500

500

1.2

.4

2

7

200

500

oc

2.0

150

10

10

10

2.4

70

300

150

770

20

17

j;Dry material was analyzed; values converted only to fresh-weight basis. 

^Means and ranges given in percent.
70 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 29.—Summary statistics of element concentrations expressed on fresh-, dry-, and ash-weight bases, ash yield of dried material, and 

dry-material yield of fresh cabbage collected in four areas of commercial production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean; deviation, geometric deviation. Means and 

ranges are given in parts per million, except as indicated. Leaders (--) in figure column indicate no data 

available. Plant material analyzed was ash, except as indicated; values converted to dry-weight and fresh-weight 

bases]

Element,

ash, or dry

material

Ratio f?res '1 weight basis

Mean

Basis for reporting values

Dry weight basis Ash weight basis

Mean DeviationObserved 

range

Mean DeviationObserved 

range

Ag——————— 1:24

Al-—————— 10:24 .69

As 1 —————— - 2:21 .0012

B———————— 24:24 1.0

Ba——————- 24:24 .38

Ca 2 —-———— 24:24 .048

Cd——————— 24:24 .0073

Co———--—— 19:24 .0080

C r —- —— -— 0:24

Cu————-—— 24:24 .22

Fe- —------ 24:24 3.3

Hg 1 —-———— 10:24 .00051

K z ——————— 24:24 .26

Li-—————— 19:24 .036

Mg ^—————— 24:24 .015

Mn——————— 24:24 1.1

Mo——————— 19:24 .066

Na—- ——-- 24:24 210

Ni——————— 8:24 .049

p^——————— 24:24 .023

Pb- 5 —------ 0:24

S 1 ^— ----- 24:24 .056

Se 1 —————— 24:24 .012

Sr--- ———— -- 24:24 5.0

Ti— ——— -— 3:24

In-- — — — -- 24:24 1.9

Zr—- —— — 0:24

Ash, percent 

of dry weight

Dry material, 

percent of 

fresh weight

24:24

24:24

.015

13

4.8

.61

.093

.10

2.9

42

.0065

3.3

.46

.19

14

.85

2,700

.62

.30

.72 

.15

64

24

1.92

1.67

1.18

2.12

<.05 - .05

<.01 - .02

.55 

.04

.95 

.45

95

140

52

6.6

1.0

1.1

31

450

36

4.9

2.0

150

9.1

29,000

6.7

3.2

<20

690 

<5

270 

<20

3.33

1.35

2.41

1.23

2.08

1.80

1.29

1.40

1.09

1.66

1.39

1.33

1.78

237

1.71

1.33

1.75

1.33

9.3 1.22

<150

100

15

1 

- 1,500

300

200

5.2 

.20

20

200

29 

<4 

1.0

100 

<7

3,800 

<10 

1.2

200 

<5

140

7.0

11

3.0

4

50

700

39

11

5.0

300

30

64,000

15

4.8

1,500

30

380

13

1.19 5.0 - 11

Dry material was analyzed; values converted only to fresh-weight basis. 

Means and ranges given in percent.
TABLES 4-121 71

TABLE 30.—Summary statistics of element concentrations expressed on fresh-, dry-, and ash-weight bases, ash yield of dried material, and 

dry-material yield of fresh carrots collected in two areas of commercial production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean; deviation, geometric deviation. Means and 

ranges are given in parts per million, except as indicated. Leaders (--) in figure column indicate no data 

available. Plant material analyzed was ash, except as indicated; values converted to dry-weight and fresh-weight 

bases]

Element,

ash, or dry

material

Ratio weight basis

Mean

Basis for reporting values

Dry weight basis Ash weight basis

Mean Deviation

Observed 

range

Mean Deviation

Observed 

range

Ag——————— 0:20

Al-——————— 9:20 .94

As 1 --— — - 9:16 .0048

B———————— 20:20 1.2

Ba——————— 20:20 1.0

Ca 2—————— 20:20 .031

Cd——————— 20:20 .018

Co——————— 5:20 .0044

Cr——————— 0:20

C U ——————— 20:20 .55

Fe--—----- 20:20 1.9

Hg 1 ——————— 6:20 .00068

Kz——————— 20:20 .33

Li-——————— 6:20 .020

Mg ^——————— 20:20 .011

Mn——————— 20:20 1.0

Mo——————— 0:20

Na——————— 20:20 410

Ni — -----— 3:20 .031

pt——————— 20:20 .020

Ph ....... 0:20

S 1 '^—————— 20:20 .016

Se 1 --—----- 20:20 .0077

Sr——————— 20:20 6.6

Ti——————— 2:20

Zn——————— 20:20 2.5

Zr——————— 0:20

Ash, percent 

of dry weight

Dry material, 

percent of 

fresh weight

20:20

20:20

7.8

.040 

9.9 

8.5

.26 

.15 

.037

4.6

16

.0057

2.8

.16

.092

8.5

3,400

.26

.16

.13 

.064

55

21

1.86 <.05 - ,10

1.56 <.01 - .01

1.24 .09

2.20 .02

.19 

.25

110

140

120

3.6 

2.1 

.52

<1.5

65

220

39

2.3

1.3

120 

<7

4,800 

3.6 

2.3

<20

780 

<5

290 

<20

7.1

2.31

1.26

2.67

1.13

2.47

1.62

1.35

1.25

1.05

1.78

1.44

1.49

1.46

2.23

1.47

1.33

1.62

1.15

<150

100

30

3.0 

.2

50

150

34 

<4

70

2,600 

<10

.5 -

.6 -

500 

<5

75

700

200

500

5.0

6

1

150

300

42

6

2

300

9,600

15

3.6

1,500

15

800

9.9

12 1.11 9.3 - 14

^Dry material was analyzed, values converted only to fresh-weight basis. 

Means and ranges given in percent.
72 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 31.—Summary statistics of element concentrations expressed on fresh-, dry-, and ash-weight bases, ash yield of dried material, and 

dry-material yield of fresh cucumbers collected in three areas of commercial production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean;, deviation, geometric deviation. Means and 

ranges are given in parts per million, except as indicated. Leaders (--) in figure column indicate no data 

available. Plant material analyzed was ash, except as indicated; values converted to dry-weight and freshweight bases]

Element, 

ash, or dry 

material

A ri_ _ _ _

HI Ai _ -------- ___ _ _ __

Ac 1 _______

Da

fa 2

r

r r _ _ _

Cu —— —— - ———

Fe- — - ————

H

n-l g __________

ifi

Li-——- —

M«

Mo ———————

N-,

Nj— — -----

Pb_- _______

Sl' 2~— _—

Se 1 — — — -

$r ______ _

Zn — — — —

Zr — — — _—

Ash, percent 

of dry weight

Dry material, 

percent of 

fresh weight

^Dry material

Basis for reporting values

Ratio Fresn wei Qht basis

0:22 

18:22 

19:22 

22:22 

22:22

22:22 

22:22 

16:22 

5:22 

22:22

22:22 

6:22 

22:22 

0:22 

22:22

22:22 

14:22 

22:22 

15:22 

22:22

0:22 

22:22 

22:22 

22:22 

10:22

22:22 

0:22

22:22 

22:22

was analyzed;

Mean

2.2 

.011 

.039 

.50

.014 

.0036 

.0034 

.0017 

.32

2.6 

.00018 

.15

.011

.50 

.032 

7.7 

.050 

.017

.012 

.0023 

.93 

.015

1.9

values converted

Dry weight basis

Mean Devia- Observed 

tion range

57 

.28 3.72 <.05 - .90 

9.9 

13

.35 

.093 

.087 

.043 

8.3

67 

.0047 2.02 <.01 - .02 

3.9

.29

13 

.82 

200 

1.3 

.43

.31 1.15 .25 - .42 

.059 1.96 .02 - .2 

24 

.38

50 

4.1 1.20 2.9 - 5.6

only to fresh-weight basis.

Ash weight basis

Mean

580

110 

130

3.5 

.94 

.88 

.43 

84

680

39 

<4 

2.9

130 

8.3 

2,000 

13 

4.3

4.3

240 

3.8

500 

<20

10

Deviation

4.93

1.38 

2.00

1.31 

1.91 

1.24 

4.18 

1.69

1.92 

1.09 

1.36

2.36 

2.15 

1.49 

2.13 

1.35

1.35

2.09 

1.34

1.35 

1.23

<150

70 

70

2

50 

300 

27 

2

50 

<7 

790

2 

2

70 

<5

320 

5

Observed 

range

- 15,000

200 

500

.0 - 5.4 

.4 - 4 

1 

.5 - 7 

300

- 3,000 

40 

5

700 

20 

- 5,100 

50 

.4 - 9

.4 - 9

700 

100

- 1,120 

.9 - 14
TABLES 4-121 73

TABLE 32.—Summary statistics of element concentrations expressed on fresh-, dry-, and ash-weight bases, ash yield of dried material, and 

dry-material yield of fresh dry beans collected in four areas of commercial production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean; deviation, geometric deviation. Means and 

ranges are given in parts per million, except as indicated. Leaders (--) in figure column indicate no data 

available. Plant material analyzed was ash, except as indicated; values converted to dry-weight and freshweight bases]

Element,

ash, or dry

material

Basis for reporting values

Ratio Fresn weight basis Dry weight basis Ash weight basis

Mean Mean DeviationObserved 

range

Mean DeviationObserved 

range

Ag——————- 2:40

Al-—————— 15:40 2.7

As 1 ———-—— 0:35

B———————— 40:40 5.0

Ba——————— 39:40 1.8

Ca 2—————— 40:40 .090

Cd——————— 35:40 .0086

Co——————— 38:40 .16

Cr——————— 6:40 .13

Cu——————— 40:40 4.0

Fe-—————— 40:40 40

Hg 1 ——————— 3:40 .0022

Kz——————— 40:40 1.3

Li-- ——— 2:40 .017

Mg^—————— 40:40 .11

M n——————— 40:40 6.3

Mo——————— 40:40 2.8

Na——————— 40:40 2.8

Ni——- — -— 40:40 1.5

pt——————— 40:40 .31

Pb--——— 0:40

S 1 ^————--- 40:40 .16

Se 1 — ———— 40:40 .026

Sr——————— 40:40 5.6

Ti——————— 7:40 .0060

Zn——————-- 40:40 26

Zr———-——— 1:40

Ash, percent 

of dry weight

Dry material, 

percent of 

fresh weight

40:40

40:40

3.2 

<.05 

5.8 

2.1

.11 

.010 

.19 

.15 

4.7

47

.0026

.3

.020

.13

7.4 

3.3 

3.3 

1.8 

.37

.19

.030

6.6

.0070

31

2.00 <.01 - .01

1.14 .16

2.29 .02

.28 

.2

82

150

55

2.7

.26

4.8

3.9

120

1,200

39

.52

3.3

190

84

85

45

9.5

<20

170

.18

790 

<20

3.9

3.97 <150

35

32

43

75

55

4.97

1.45

1.53

1.04

2.93

1.33

1.39

2.42

1.77

1.78

1.12

2.54

2.87

1.14

1.09

70 

<3

3

1,500

300

150

1.5 -

70

700

35 

<4 

1.5

70

15

25

15

9

20 

<5

580 

<20

14

100

- 300

- 3,000

43

5

7

- 500

- 300

- 300

- 150 

12

700

150

1,020

30

3.4 - 4.9

85 1.07 5.5 - 93.7

Dry material was analyzed; values converted only to fresh-weight basis. 

Means and ranges given in percent.
74 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 33.—Summary statistics of element concentrations expressed on fresh-, dry-, and ash-weight bases, ash yield of dried material, and 

dry-material yield of fresh lettuce collected in four areas of commercial production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean; deviation, geometric deviation. Means and 

ranges are given in parts per million, except as indicated. Leaders (--) in figure column indicate no data 

available. Plant material analyzed was ash, except as indicated; values converted to dry-weight and fresh-weight 

bases]

Element, 

ash, or dry 

material

ny----------- A a _ _ __ _ ____

HI----------- A-l __ _________

Acl_ _____ ____

Ra

r,2

/-* j

Co —— - — - —

rr_ _ _ _ _ ___

Cu ——————

pe ————— ___ i Ha 1 -——— Vt.

Li- — — — -

Mg<^ —————————

Mn ———————

Mo ———————

M-, ___

Ni ———————

P*___________

Pb--- — — —

s y_________

Se 1 -- --------

s r_ _ _ _ _ __

T1— —————

Zn ———————

Z r ——— -_ ——

Ash, percent 

of dry weight

Dry material , 

percent of 

fresh weight

*Dry material was 

Means and ranges

Ratio Fresn weight basis

1:40 

33:40 

16:29 

40:40 

40:40

40:40 

40:40 

10:40 

13:40 

40:40

40:40 

24:40 

40:40 

13:40 

40:40

40:40 

2:40 

40:40 

15:40 

40:40

2:40 

40:40 

38:39 

40:40 

16:40

40:40 

10:40

40:40 

40:40

analyzed 

given in

Mean

3.1

.55 

.39

.025 

.018 

.0019

.34

5.6 

.00035 

.21 

.012 

.010

1.2 

.0031 

6.5 

.042 

.018

.029 

.012 

.0024 

3.1

3.1 

.024

; values converted 

percent.

Basis for reporting

Dry weight basis

Mean Devia- Observed 

tion range

73 

<.02 

1.3 

9.4

.59 

.42 

.046

8.1

130 

.0083 1.88 <.01 - .04 

5.0 

.28 

.24

29 

.074 

150 

1.0 

.42

.70 

.28 1.23 .16 - .4 

.057 3.39 <.01 - .2 

74

73 

.56

4.2 1.34 2.9 - 8

only to fresgh-weight basis.

values

Ash weight basis

Mean

<1 

520

93 

67

4.2 

3.0 

.33 

<1.5 

58

960

36 

2.0 

1.7

210 

.53 

1 1 ,000 

7.2 

3.0

5.0 

530

520 

4.0

14

Deviation

8.04

1.41 

2.90

1.33 

2.47 

3.06

1.57 

2.74

1.22 

2.72 

1.35

1.45 

4.22 

3.64 

1.61 

1.63

2.15 

2.20

1.85 

9.55

1.56

<1 

<150

50 

7

2

<1 

<1 

20

300

18 

<4

70 

<7 

1,600 

<10

<20

100 

<5

150 

<20

1

Observed 

range

2 

- 30,000

300 

500

.0 - 6.6 

.8 - 14 

4 

.5 - 70 

100

- 1,500

42 

9 

.7 - 3

500 

15 

- 64,000 

20 

.6 - 4.8

30

- 2,000 

- 5,000

- 3,360 

300

.8 - 29
TABLES 4-121 75

TABLE 34.—Summary statistics of element concentrations expressed on fresh-, dry-, and ash-weight bases, ash yield of dried material, and 

dry-material yield of fresh potatoes collected in four areas of commercial production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean; deviation, geometric deviation. Means 

and ranges are given in parts per million, except as indicated. Leaders (--) in figure column indicate no 

data available. Plant material analyzed was ash, except as indicated; values converted to dry-weight and 

fresh-weight bases]

Element, 

ash, or dry 

material

An

Ml- A1 ----------

Ac MO 1 --- ————————— ___ ____

D n

fa 2

P _i

Co-----------

(Y-----------

Cu ————————

Fe- — — — — -

Hnl

i/Z_

Li-— — ... -

Mg^ ——— - —— --

Mn ———————

Mo ————— - —

Ma

Ni— — — --

p2_. _________

Ph — - ————

S i>2_________

se i~~ — —

$r-----------

Ti —— - — - —

Zn ———————

Zr-— — - —

Ash, percent 

of dry weight

Dry material, 

percent of 

fresh weight

Basis for reporting values

Ratio frres '1 weight basis Dry weight basis

1:40 

31:40 

17:39 

34:40 

38:40

40:40 

40:40 

23:40 

12:40 

40:40

40:40 

1:40 

40:40 

0:40 

40:40

40:40 

22:40 

40:40 

16:40 

40:40

1:40 

40:40 

40:40 

40:40 

27:40

40:40 

2:40

40:40 

40:40

Mean

2.5

.46 

.26

.0056 

.014 

.0069 

.0039 

.70

3.9 

.34 

.016

.69 

.047 

6.6 

.056 

.033

.023 

.0021 

.47

2.7 

.096

Mean

13 

<.05 

2.4 

1.3

.029 

.076 

.037 

.021 

3.7

21 

<.01 

1.8

.084

3.6 

.25 

35 

.29 

.17

.12 

.011 

2.6

14 

.50

19

Devia- Observed Mean 

tion range

<1

310 

5.14 <.05 - .35 

58 

32

.70 

1.8 

.86 

.49 

88

490 

<.01 -- .01 

42 

<4 

2.0

86 

5.9 

830 

7.0 

4.1

<20 

1.29 .065 - .19 

1.72 .005 - .04 

61 

<5

340 

12

4.2 

1.17 13 - 25

Ash weight basis

Deviation

2.78

1.38 

2.93

1.52 

1.98 

2.98 

5.42 

1.60

1.38 

1.05 

1.29

1.46 

1.75 

3.22 

2.17 

1.26

1.78

1.32 

1.28

1.29

<1

<150

<50 

<3

<1 

<1

20

300 

38 

1

30 

<7 

100 

<10 

2

<20

15 

<5

140 

<20

2

Observed 

range

1 

- 1,500

100 

- 150

.34 - 1.6 

.40 - 6.5 

5 

.5 - 20 

- 200

- 700 

47 

.5 - "3

- 200 

30 

- 5,000 

30 

.4 - 6

50

150 

- 150

- 630 

20

.6 - 7

Dry material was analyzed; values converted only to fresh-weight basis. 

Means and ranges given in percent.
76 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 35.—Summery statistics of element concentrations expressed on fresh-, dry-, and ash-weight bases, ash yield of dried material, and 

dry-material yield of fresh snap beans collected in five areas of commercial production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean; deviation, geometric deviation.

Means and ranges are given in parts per million, except as indicated, 

indicate no data available. Plant material analyzed was ash, except as 

dry-weight and fresh-weight bases]

Leaders (--) in figure column 

indicated; values converted to

Element, 

ash, or dry 

material

An---

Ml- Al----------- —————— -

A<-1_ __ ____ ___

R a

fa 2

PI

Co ————— —

f>---------

Cu ————— - — —

Fe —— - ------

Hoi

K^-----------

L1-— — —— -

Mg^ —— - ——— -

Mn ———————

Mo ———————

l\la______

Ni ———————

p*..-- .......

Rh —— _ ———— .

Si' 2— — —

s-Jte i— — — -

$r ———————

Ti— —————

Zn ———————

Zr ———————

Ash, percent 

of dry weight

Dry material , 

percent of 

fresh weight

Ratio

1:42 

42:42 

4:37 

42:42 

42:42

42:42 

42:42 

23:42 

31:42 

42:42

42:42 

4:42 

42:42 

9:42 

42:42

42:42 

41:42 

42:42 

40:42 

42:42

0:42 

42:42 

42:42 

42:42 

42:42

42:41 

6.42

42:42 

42:42

Fresh weight basis

Mean

7.3 

.00074 

1.4 

.77

.060 

.0026 

.0059 

.018 

.56

9.2 

.00033 

.27 

.0040 

.031

2.3 

.23 

2.8 

.18 

.034

.019 

.0031 

2.4 

.35

4.2 

.28

Basis for reporting

Dry weight basis

Mean Devia- Observed 

tion range

66 

.0067 3.85 <.05 - .1 

13 

7.0

.55 

.024 

.054 

.16 

5.1

84 

.0030 1.92 <.01 - .01 

2.4 

.036 

.28

21 

2.1 

25 

1.7 

.31

.17 1.27 .1 - .26 

.028 1.51 .02 - .08 

22 

3.2

38 

2.6

11 1.70 5.9 - 31

values

Mean

<1

950

180 

100

7.

2. 

73

1,200 

35 

4.*

300 

30 

360 

24 

4.

<20

310 

45

550 

37

7.

Ash weight

Deviation

2.43

1.43 

2.73

8 1.30 

34 1.89 

77 2.55 

3 2.66 

1.53

1.52

1.06 

52 1.01 

0 1.45

1.72 

2.74 

2.05 

1.72 

4 1.16

1.75 

2.60

1.22 

1.95

0 1.20

basis

<1

200

100 

7

4

<1 

<1

30

700

31 

<5 

1

150 

<7 

100 

<10 

3

70

7

400 

<20

5

Observed 

range

1 

- 7,000

- 300 

- 700

.2 - 11 

.2 - 1 

7 

.5 - 15 

- 300

- 3,000

40 

27 

10

- 1,000 

- 200 

- 650 

70 

.6 - 6

- 700 

- 500

- 800 

- 100

.4 - 10

Dry material was analyzed; values converted only to fresh-weight basis. 

Means and ranges given in percent.
TABLES 4-121 77

TABLE 36.—Summery statistics of element concentrations expressed on fresh-, dry-, and ash-weight bases, ash yield of dried material, and 

dry-material yield of fresh sweet corn collected in four areas of commercial production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean; deviation, geometric deviation. Means 

and ranges are given in parts per million, except as indicated. Leaders (--) in figure column indicate no 

data available. Plant material analyzed was ash, except as indicated; values converted to dry-weight and 

fresh-weight bases]

Element, 

ash, or dry 

material

An—

Mlr Ai _ --------- _____ _ __

As 1—-— —

D -.

fa 2

PI

Co ————

(V-----------

Cu ----------

FP -----------

Hnl

1 !___________ L|

M,,<L

Mn ————— ---

Mo ———————

Ma

Mi— m - — — — — 

p2___________

Ph ———————

T 9 s y_— - — SocP 1- __ __

$r--- — _ ----

Ti ————— —

Zn ——— -----

Zr —————— —

Ash, percent 

of dry weight

Dry material , 

percent of 

fresh weight

Ratio Fresn weight basis Dry

0:40 

18:40 

3:37 

32:40 

13:40

40:40 

40:40 

4:40 

5:40 

40:40

40:40 

8:40 

40:40 

0:40 

40:40

40:40 

24:40 

40:40 

20:40 

40:40

3:40 

40:40 

38:40 

33:40 

2:40

40:40 

1:40

40:40 

40:40

Mean

.65 

.025 

.38 

.0084

.0014 

.0065 

.0020 

.037 

.35

4.4 

.0012 

.25

.025

.91 

.045 

1.2 

.055 

.063

.22 

.028 

.0028 

.10

6.4

Mean

2.6 

.10 

1.5 

.034

.0057 

.026 

.0081 

.15 

1.4

17 

.0046 

1.0

.099

3.6 

.18 

4.7 

.22 

.25

.88 

.11 

.011 

.42

25 

25

Basis for reporting values

weight basis Ash weight basis

Devia- Observed Mean 

tion range

<]

100 

3.32 <.05 - .4 

58 

1.3

.22 

1.0 

.31 

5.7 

54

670 

1.69 <.01 - .01 

39 

<4 

3.8

140 

6.9 

180 

8.5 

9.7

34 

1.37 .05 - .22 

2.17 <.01 - .04 

16

980 

<20

2.6 

1.28 12 - 39

Deviation

3.71

1.56 

5.79

1.56 

2.84 

1.91 

3.51 

1.38

1.48 

1.06 

1.37

1.40 

1.98 

1.59 

1.62 

1.34

2.53 

1.72 

1.49

1.34

Observed 

range

100

<50 

<3

.12 

.2 

<1 

<1.5 

30

300 

34 

2

70 

<7 

50 

<10 

.9

<20

<10 

<5

420 

<20

1.2

- 5,000

100 

30

.80 

6.5 

1 

30 

- 100

- 1,500 

43 

7

- 300 

30 

- 400 

20 

12

- 100

30 

70

- 2,100 

20

5.5

,Dry material was analyzed; values converted only to fresh-weight basis. 

•Means and ranges given in percent.
78 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 37.—Summary statistics of element concentrations expressed on fresh-, dry-, and ash-weight bases, ash yield of dried material, and 

dry-material yield of fresh tomatoes collected in five areas of commercial production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean; deviation, geometric deviation. Means and 

ranges are given in parts per million, except as indicated. Leaders (--) in figure column indicate no data 

available. Plant material analyzed was ash, except as indicated; values converted to dry-weight and freshweight bases]

Element, 

ash, or dry 

material

An

Al___ HI- ———————— __ _____ -

«<-!__ _ ______

Ra____ _ ___

Ca2

r A

Co-— — —

Cr-----------

Cu—— —— - ——

Fe ————— --

Hnl Hg ————————

v?-

H_ LI _ _ ___ _ _ -

M~.£

M M

Mo ———————

Na— — — --

Ni— — — -

p2 — ________

PS _________

Si»2_______._

se i— — — - oc 

c«*

T1— — — —

Zn ———————

Z r— —— -—

Ash, percent 

of dry weight

Dry material , 

percent of 

fresh weight

Ratio

0:50 

30:50 

8:50 

49:50 

40:50

50:50 

48:50 

16:50 

13:50 

50:50

50:50 

5:50 

50:50 

0:50 

50:50

50:50 

30:50 

50:50 

10:50 

50:50

0:50 

50:50 

49:49 

50:50 

15:50

50:50 

0:50

50:50 

50:50

Fresh weight basis

Mean

1.1 

.00046 

.52 

.11

.0074 

.0059 

.0032 

.0039 

.46

3.0 

.00016 

.21

.011

.62 

.042 

21 

.022 

.015

.011 

.0018 

.52

1.4

Basis for reporting

Dry weight basis

Mean Devia- Observed 

tion range

20 

.0089 4.80 <.05 - .25 

10 

2.0

.14 

.11 

.062 

.074 

8.8

58 

.0031 1.91 <.01 - .01 

4.1

.20

12 

.82 

410 

.43 

.29

.21 1.21 .14 - .33 

.036 2.86 .01 - .35 

10

26 

5.2 1.43 1.8 - 8.9

values

Ash

Mean

<1

170

84 

17

1.2 

1 

.52 

.62 

73

480

34 

<4 

1.7

100 

6.8 

3,400 

3.6 

2.4

<20 

83

220 

<20

12

weight

Deviation

4.92

1.39 

4.45

1.69 

2.87 

1.95 

2.99 

1.68

1.90 

1.18 

1.34

1.68 

2.08 

2.26 

2.79 

1.41

2.33 

1.62

1.25

basis

Observed 

range

<150 - 1

<50 - 

<3 -

.8 - 

<.2 - 

<1 - 

<1.5 - 

30 -

200 - 

23 - 

.7 -

50 - 

<7 - 

900 - 26 

<10 - 

1.2 -

20 - 

<5 -

80 - 

6.9 -

,500

150 

150

3.2 

10 

4 

7 

200

500 

45 

3

500 

30 

,000 

30 

4.8

300 

150

620 

17

•;Dry material was analyzed; values converted only to fresh-weight basis. 

Means and ranges given in percent.
TABLES 4-121 79

TABLE 38.—Element concentrations expressed on fresh, dry, and ash weight bases, ash yield of dried material, and dry-material yield of

fresh asparagus from San Joaquin County, California

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean; deviation, geometric deviation. Means and 

ranges are given in parts per million, except as indicated. Leaders (--} in figure column indicate no data 

available. Plant material analyzed was ash, except as indicated; values converted to dry-weight and freshweight bases]

Element, 

ash, or dry 

material

An

Al-_- Ml--_ ____ _

flc-1--- __ _ __

D •»

r,2

r~ j

Co- — — —

fY---------

Cu ———————

Fe-~- - — —

H ni

l/Z_

Li —————— -

Mg^ ——————

Mn— —————

Mo ———————

Ma

Ni— - — — -

p2________.._

Pb-__ ___ -__

S?.2_______

Se 1— ----- ~

$r ___ _ -__

Ti ———————

7n------ _ -__

Z r_- —

Ash, percent 

of dry weight

Dry material , 

percent of 

fresh weight

k)ry material

Ratio Fresh weight basis

0:10 

7:10 

1:9 

10:10 

10:10

10:10 

10:10 

3:10 

1:10 

10:10

10:10 

2!: 10 

10:10 

4:10 

10:10

10:10 

7:10 

10:10 

5:10 

10:10

0:10 

10:10 

10:10 

10:10 

8:10

10:10 

0:10

10:10 

10:10

was analyzed,

Mean

2.3

1.0 

.23

.021 

.0025 

.0045

.95

4.7 

.00036 

.33 

.022 

.014

1.1 

.054 

23 

.068 

.043

.051 

.045 

4.0

7.3

values converted

Basis for reporting

Dry weight basis

Mean Devia- Observed 

tion range

29 

<.05 — <.05 - .05 

13 

2.9

.27 

.032 

.057

12

60 

.0046 1.69 <.01 - .01 

4.2 

.28 

.18

14 

.68 

290 

.86 

.55

.65 1.07 .62 - .72 

.57 1.12 .45 - .65 

50

92 

7.9 1.10 6.3 - 8.6

only to fresh-weight basis.

values

Mean

<1

290

130 

29

2.7 

.32 

.57 

<1.5 

120

600

42 

2.8 

1.8

140 

6.8 

2,900 

8.6 

5.5

<20 

500

920 

<20

10

Ash weight

Deviation

basis

Observed 

range

4.31 <150 - 3,

1.31 70 - 

1.40 20 -

1.10 2.4 - 

1.51 .2 - 

1.56 <1 

<1.5 - 

1.30 100 -

1.68 300 - 2,

1.04 39 - 

1.48 <4 - 

1.16 1.5 -

1.31 70 - 

1.49 <7 - 

1.26 2,200 - 4, 

1.60 <10 - 

1.12 4.8 -

1.36 300 

<5 - 1,

1.09 810 - 1 

1.09 9.0 -

000

150 

50

3.2 

.6 

1 

3 

200

000

46 

5 

2

200 

15 

300 

15 

6.0

700 

500

,030 

12
80 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 39.—Element concentrations expressed on fresh, dry, and ash weight bases, ash yield of dried material, and dry-material yield of

fresh cantaloupes from Berrien County, Michigan

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean; deviation, geometric deviation. Means 

and ranges are given in parts per million, except as indicated. Leaders (--) in figure column indicate no 

data available. Plant material analyzed was ash, except as indicated; values converted to dry-weight and 

fresh-weight bases]

Element, 

ash, or dry 

material

An

A 1

n _,

fa 2

P

r r _ _ ________

Cu -----------

Fe ----------

Ha*

1/2

Li- —— —— —— -

Mn — ——— —

Mo —— ————

Ni ——— — —

P 2

cl,2

s l

Q r_ __ ________

Zn — — ———

Zr — ———— _

Ash, percent 

of dry weight

Dry material , 

percent of 

fresh weight

Basis for reporting values

Ratio Fresl1 wei 9ht basis Dry weight basis

0:2 

2:2 

0:2 

2:2 

2:2

2:0 

1:2 

1:2 

0:2 

2:2

2:2 

0:2 

2:2 

0:2 

2:2

2:2 

0:2 

2:2 

0:2 

2:2

0:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

1:2

2:2 

0:2

2:2 

2:2

Mean

3.6

.93 

.25

.093

.46 

2.5 

.29 

.016 

.29 

2.7 

.013

.013 

.0022 

.52

1.8

Mean .

45 

<.05 

12 

3.1

.12

5.8 

31 

3.' 7 

.21 

3.6 

34 

.17

.17 

.028 

6.6

23 

7.9

Devia- Observed Mean 

tion range

460

120 

32

1.2

59 

320

38 

<4.0 

2.1

37 

<7 

3,500

1.7

<20 

1.09 .16 - .18 

1.63 .02 - .04 

67 

<5

230 

<20

9.8 

1.40 6.2 - 10

Ash weight basis

Deviation

1.82

1.33 

2.97

3.38

1.27 

1.91 

1.06 

1.63 

2.43 

1.30 

1.63

3.12 

1.32

1.18

Observed 

range

300 - 700

100 - 150 

15 - 70

.5 - 2.8 

<.2 - .4 

<1 - 1

50 - 70 

200 - 500 

37 - 40 

1.5 - 3 

20 - 70 

2,900 - 4,200 

1.2 - 2.4

30 - 150 

<5 - 20

190 - 280 

8.7 - 11

material was analyzed; values converted only to fresh-weight basis. 

Means and ranges given in percent.
TABLES 4-121 81

TABLE 40.— Element concentrations expressed on fresh, dry, and ash weight bases, ash yield of dried material, and dry-material yield of

fresh Chinese cabbage from Palm Beach County, Florida

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean; deviation, geometric deviation. Means and 

ranges are given in parts per million, except as indicated. Leaders (—) in figure column indicate no data 

available. Plant material analyzed was ash, except as indicated; values converted to dry-weight and freshweight bases]

Element, 

ash, or dry 

material

An

Ml-- A1---_- ——— ——— -- --

flc-l. _____ _____ _

R a

Ca 2— — — -

p_i

Co ———————

o W _ ——————————— _ _ ____

Cu ————— —

Fe ——————— i Ho 1 - —— —— ——

i/2

Li _______

Mg^ —————————

Mn ———————

Mo ——— - —— -

Na— ----- —

NjTM. — .... 

p2___________

Ph ———————

S l>2_________

se i— — -— $r ___ ___ _

Ti~— ------

Zn— — — -

Z r —

Ash, percent 

of dry weight

Dry material , 

percent of 

fresh weight

Basis for reporting values

Ratio

0:2 

1:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

0:2 

0:2 

0:2 

2:2

2:2 

1:2 

2:2 

0:2 

2:2

2:2 

1:2 

2:2 

0:2 

2:2

0:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

0:2

2:2

0:2

2:2 

2:2

Fresh weight basis

Mean

.013 

.82 

.82

.069

.15 

2.1 

.38 

.015 

.49 

82 

.028

.031 

.00035 

14

3.5

Dry weight basis

Mean Devia- Observed 

tion range

.26 1.49 .2 - .35 

17 

17

1.4

3.0

4.2 

<.01 - <.01 - .01 

7.8

.30 

10 

170 

.58

.64 1.01 .64 - .65 

.0071 1.63 .005 - .01 

280

72 

4.9 1.11 4.6 - 5.3

Mean

<1

<150

80 

80

7.0 

<.2 

<1 

<1.5 

15

210

39 

<4 

1.5

50 

<7 

8,400 

<10 

2.9

<20

1,400 

<5

360 

<20

20

Ash weight basis

Devia- Observed 

tion range

<150 - 200

1.29 70 - 100 

1.29 70 - 100

1.20 6.2 - 8.0

1.00 

1.63 150 - 300 

1.00 

1.00

1.00 

<7 - 7 

1.13 7,700 - 9,200

1.33 2.4 - 3.6

1.63 1,000 - 2,000 

1.06 350 - 380

1.07 19 - 21

Dry material was analyzed; values converted only to fresh-weight basis. 

Means and ranges given in percent.
82 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 41.—Element concentrations expressed on fresh, tfry, and ash weight bases, ash yield of dried material, and dry-material yield of

fresh eggplant from Berrien County, Michigan

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean; deviation, geometric deviation. Means 

and ranges are given in parts per million, except as indicated. Leaders (--) in figure column indicate no 

data available. Plant material analyzed was ash, except as indicated; values converted to dry-weight and 

fresh-weight bases]

Element, 

ash, or dry 

material

ag--------- An--------- — _

Al----------- Hl- ————————

Ac 1 - ___ _ ___ rvo

D i

fa 2

/"* -4 Cd- — ———— —

Co- ——————

r>_ _ _____

Cu ———————

Fe--— — —

Ha 1 — ------

yc.

Li————— —

Mg^ ——————

Mn ———————

Mo ———————

Na

Ni— — ----- pt

Pb-- ——— -

S*jZ~~~-

Seoc1 - ———— _

Sr----- _ ----

Ti_ _ _ _ __

Zn ———————

7r------___ _

Ash, percent 

of dry weight

Dry material , 

percent of 

fresh weight

Basis for reporting values

Ratio Fresh weight basis Dry weight basis

0:2 

1:2 

0:2 

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2 

0:2 

0:2 

2:2

2:2 

0:2 

2:2 

0:2 

2:2

2:2 

1:2 

2:2 

0:2 

2:2

0:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

0:2

2:2 

0:2

2:2 

2:2

Mean

.44 

.31

.0052 

.026

.63 

2.4 

.20 

.013 

1.4 

5.1 

.013

.013 

.00098 

.24

1.5

Mean

<.05 

6.3 

4.4

.075 

.38

9.0

34 

<.01 

2.9

.18 

20 

73 

.18

.18 

.014 

3.4

22 

7.0

Devia- Observed Mean 

tion range

<1

<150

80 

59

1.0 

<5.0 

<1 

<1.5 

120

460

39 

<4 

2.4

270 

<7 

970 

<10 

2.4

<20 

1.03 .18 - .19 

1.63 .010 - .020 

46 

<5

290 

<20

7.4 

1.05 6.8 - 7.3

Ash weight basis

Deviation

1.29 

1.27

1.23 

1.15

2.10 

1.82 

1.04 

1.33 

2.34 

1.20 

1.00

1.82 

1.16

1.09

<150

70 

50

1 

4

70 

300 

38 

2

150 

<7 

850

30 

260

7

Observed 

range

- 200

100 

70

.0 - 1.5 

.5 - 5.5

- 200 

- 700 

40 

4

- 200 

7 

- 1,000

70 

- 320

.0 - 8.0

Dry material was analyzed; values converted only to fresh-weight basis 

Means and ranges given in percent.
TABLES 4-121 83

TABLE 42.—Element concentrations expressed on fresh, dry, and ash weight bases, ash yield of dried material, and dry-material yield of

fresh endive from Palm Beach County, Florida

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean; deviation, geometric deviation. Means and 

ranges are given in parts per million, except as indicated. Leaders (--) in figure column indicate no data 

available. Plant material analyzed was ash, except as indicated; values converted to dry-weight and fresh-weight 

bases]

Element,

ash, or dry

material

M

A ay____ _ _____

Ai__- _ ___ _ _

i Mo Ac 1 ---------- ________

D =

fa 2

p_i

Co ——— - — -

o_ _ ____ _ _

C U ——— . _____

Fe — _.___—_

Ga — — — — _

Hnl Hg __________

i/Z

Li— ——— --

Mg 2 ————— _ ——

Mn —_——_-_

N-,

_ _____ _ __ 

P 2 ___________

P h_ _______

S 1 '^ ___ __

Li---——

Ti ———— _____

Zn ———————

7«

Ash, percent 

of dry weight

Dry material , 

percent of 

fresh weight

Ratio

0:2

2:2

1:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

0:2

1:2

2:2

2:2

0:2

1:2

2:2

0:2

2:2

2:2

0:2

2:2

0:2

2:2

0:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

0:2

2:2 

2:2

Fresh weight basis

Mean

1.2

1.2

(~\r o

.014

.99

12

BC;

.012

4.2

250

.0040

12

.12

7.9

—

Basis for reporting values

Dry weight basis Ash

Mean Devia- Observed Mean 

tion range

<1

101 -- -- 460

<.05 - .2

1 Q Q/l

18 -- -- 84

.90 -- -- 4.1

.22 — — 1.0

<1.0

15 -- -- 70

190 -- -- 870

<10

<.01 - .01

8

r OO

<4

1 Q Q/l

66 — -- 300

<7

4,000 — — 18,500

<10

• vJO i- • *T

<20

77 1 no T 7 QQ

.06 1.91 .04 - .10

180 -- -- 840

1.9 -- -- 9

120 -- — 560

<20

22 

6.4 1.05 6.2 - 6.6

weight basis

Devia- Observed 

tion range

1.82 300 - 700

1.29 70 - 100

1.29 70 - 100

1.04 4.0 - 4.2

1.00

1.00

2.17 500 - 1,500

1.02 34 - 40

1.29 .70- 1

1.00

1.04 18,000 - 19,000

1.00

1.29 700 - 1,000

2.17 5 - 15

1.13 510 - 610

1.12 20 - 24

Dry material was analyzed; values converted only to fresh-weight basis. 

Means and ranges given in percent.
84 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 43.—Element concentrations expressed on fresh, dry, and ash weight bases, ash yield of dried material, and dry-material yield of

fresh onions from Hildalgo County, Texas

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean; deviation, geometric deviation. Means and 

ranges are given in parts per million, except as indicated. Leaders (--) in figure column indicate no data 

available. Plant material analyzed was ash, except as indicated; values converted to dry-weight and fresh-weight 

bases]

Element, 

ash, or dry 

material

HAn---- y____ _ -

Al HI_ ———— _________

Ac-1 --- _ ___ _

R _ ___ ___ ____

D a

r*2

r* j

Co — — — --

rr_ _ __ _ _

Cu- ——— —— ——

Fe— — — -

Ha— — .....

\(£-

L1- — — ....

Mg^ ————————

Mn ———————

Mo ———————

Ma _ _________

|\H_ I>M _ ________

p2 ————————

Ph ——— - ——

sU---

Se 1 -- -------

Cv>____ __ __ __ _

Ti ——— _ ——

Zn ——— - ——

Zr— — - — -

Ash, percent 

of dry weight

Dry material , 

percent of 

fresh weight

k)ry material

Ratio F res '1 weight basis

0:10 

10:10 

7:10 

10:10 

10:10

10:10 

10:10 

4:10 

2:10 

10:10

10:10 

0:10 

10:10 

2:10 

10:10

10:10 

5:10 

10:10 

10:10 

10:10

0:10 

10:10 

10:10 

10:10 

10:10

10:10 

0:10

10:10 

10:10

was analyzed;

Mean

6.3 

.0045 

1.0 

.88

.046 

.0050 

.0028 

.0021 

.46

3.3

.13

.0063 

.012

1.6 

.024 

110 

.059 

.019

.033 

.0042 

8.8 

.16

2.2

values converted

Basis for reporting

Dry weight basis

Mean Devia- Observed 

tion range

63 

.045 1.74 <.05 - .05 

10 

8.8

.46 

.050 

.028 

.021 

4.6

33 

<.01 

1.3 

.063 

.12

16 

.24 

1,100 

.59 

.19

.33 1.21 .21 - .45 

.042 1.38 .02 - .06 

88 

1.6

22 

10 1.2 8.2 - 13

only to fresh-weight basis.

values

Mean

<1 

1,500

250 

200

11

1.2 

.66 

.5 

110

780

30 

1.6 

2.8

390 

5.6 

2,700 

13 

4.6

<20

2,100 

37

530 

<20

4.2

Ash weight

Deviation

1.21 1

1.35 

1.39

1.13 

1.23 

1.46 

3.00 

1.42

1.35

1.05 

2.23 

1.19

1.56 

1.75 

1.27 1 

1.26 

1.16

1.23 1 

1.87

1.28 

1.17

basis

Observed 

range

,000 - 2,

150 - 

150 -

8.4 - 

1.0 - 

<1 - 

<1.5 - 

70 -

500 - 1,

28 - 

<4 - 

2 -

150 - 

<7 - 

,900 - 3, 

10 - 

3.6 -

,500 - 3, 

10 -

420 - 

3.1 -

000

300 

500

12 

1.5 

1 

3 

200

000

32 

6 

3

700 

15 

800 

20 

6

000 

100

980 

5.4
TABLES 4-121 85

TABLE 44.— Element concentrations expressed on fresh, dry, and ash weight bases, ash yield of dried material, and dry-material yield of

fresh parsley from Palm Beach County, Florida

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean; deviation, geometric deviation. Means 

and ranges are given in parts per million, except as indicated. Leaders (--) in figure column indicate no 

data available. Plant material analyzed was ash, except as indicated; values converted to dry-weight and 

fresh-weight bases]

Element, 

ash, or dry 

material

rtAl----------- l_ —————— _ 

A<; •*•----------

Ra

Ca 2 — — — -

r> A

Co ———————

Cu ———————

Fe--— — —

H

n i

K Z

Li- ——— - —

N'

p2 ————— . ——

Ql»2

_ 1

SJ^

In ...........

7 «

Ash, percent 

of dry weight

Dry material , 

percent of 

fresh weight

Ratio

0:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

1:2 

0:2 

1:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

0:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

0:2 

2:2

0:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

1:2

2:2 

0:2

2:2 

2:2

Fresh weight basis

Mean

1.1 

.006 

.19 

.39

.013

.055

1.1 

.0029 

.091

.0027

.016 

.10 

5.9

.0041

.034 

.0034 

3.9

.73

Basis for reporting

Dry weight basis

Mean Devia- Observed 

tion range

9.5 00 00 

.050 1.00 

1.6 

3.2

.11

.46

9.5 

.024 1.33 .02 - .03 

.76

.023 —

1.3 

.87 

49

.034 --

.28 1.00 

.028 1.63 .02 - .04 

32

6.1 

12 1.05 12 - 12.9

values

Mean

500

84 

170

5.8

24 

500

40 

<4 

1.2

70 

46 

2,600

1.8 

<20

1,700

320 

<20

19

Ash weight basis

Devia- Observed 

tion range

1.00

1.29 70 - 100 

1.23 150 - 200

1.16 5.2 - 6.2 

<.2 - .2

<1.5 - 3 

1.33 20 - 30

1.00 

1.00 

1.33 1 - 1.5

1.00 

1.82 30 - 70 

1.12 2,400 - 2,800

1.00

1.23 1,500 - 2,000 

<5 - 10

1.12 300 - 500 

1.03 19 - 19.8

Dry material was analyzed; values converted only to fresh-weight basis. 

Means and ranges given in percent.
86 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 45.—Element concentrations expressed on fresh, dry, and ash weight bases, ash yield of dried material, and dry-material yield of

fresh peppers from Berrien County, Michigan

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean; deviation, geometric deviation. Means and 

ranges are given in parts per million, except as indicated. Leaders (--) in figure column indicate no data 

available. Plant material analyzed was ash, except as indicated; values converted to dry-weight and freshweight bases]

Element, 

ash, or dry 

material

n a _ _ ___

Al---------__ Ml --- ———

Ac-1-----------

R_ ___________

D r>

fa 2

r* A

Co- — - ———

fr-----------

Cu ———————

Fe _— — — _

Hg 1 - —— - ———

i/Z_

Li-_ — ______

Mg^ ————————

Mn ———————

Mo —————— -

Nfl----_

Ni— — — --

p2 —————— __

Ph.- —— _ ——

Sl> 2— - _____

s e i— — — -

Sr ————— ---

Ti ———————

7n---__- __-_

Zr-- ————— -

Ash, percent 

of dry weight

Dry material , 

percent of 

fresh weight

^Dry material was 

Means and ranges

Ratio Fresn wei 9 nt basis

0:2 

1:2 

1:2 

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2 

0:2 

0:2 

2:2

2:2 

0:2 

2:2 

0:2 

2:2

2:2 

0:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

0:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

0:2

2:2 

0:2

2:2 

2:2

analyzed 

given in

Mean

.65 

.32

.0063 

.016

1.1 

5.4 

.21 

.016 

1.4

8.4 

.21 

.019

.022 

.015 

.25

2.3

; values converted 

percent.

Basis for reporting

Dry weight basis

Mean Devia- Observed 

tion range

<.050 -- <.050 - .15 

8.4 

4.2

.081 -- 

.21

14

71 

<.01 

2.7

.20 

18

109 

2.7 

.24

.28 1.03 .28 - .29 

.02 1.00 

3.3

30 

7.7 1.32 6.3 - 9.3

only to fresh-weight basis.

values

Mean

<1 

<150

100 

50

.97 

2.5 

<1 

<1.5 

170

840

32 

<4 

2.5

210 

<7 

1,300 

32 

2.9

<20

39 

<5

360 

<20

8.4

Ash weight basis

Devia- Observed 

tion range

<150 - 300

1.00 

1.00

1.19 .86 - 1.1 

1.00

1.23 150 - 200 

1.29 700 - 1,000 

1.12 30 - 35 

1.33 2.0 - 3.0 

1.63 150 - 300

1.11 1,200 - 1,400 

1.91 20 - 50 

1.33 2.4 - 3.6

1.44 30 - 50 

1.31 300 - 440

1.27 7.1 - 10
TABLES 4-121 87

TABLE 46.— Estimates of logarithmic variance for American grapes 

from three areas of commercial production in the conterminous 

United States

[Asterisk (*), significantly greater than zero at the 0.05 probability 

level]

Element, ash, Total Percent of total variance

. . n . Between Between fields Between sites material variance areas within areas within fields

Al ———————— 0.13430 8 <1 92

B —— -__._—- .08212 <1 30 70

Ba— — - —— - .05223 <1 *71 29

Ca— — — — .03918 <1 11 89

Cd — ----- .10793 22 *36 42

Cu—— - ———— - .02349 10 33 57 

Fe 06621 *44 6 50

K ———————— .01125 3 <1 98

Mg ——— - ——— .02664 <1 <1 100

Mn- —— — —— .26212 63 31 6

Na ———————— .25346 *66 5 29 

p ———————— .01916 13 <1 87

S ———————— .02001 *32 *42 26

Se ———————— .17675 *14 *68 18

Sr ———————— .06267 *39 <1 61

Zn— — —— — .04514 5 <1 95

Ash, percent 

of dry weight 1 2.0817 <1 <1 100

Dry material , 

percent of 

fresh weight 1 13.280 *73 *18 9

•^Variance calculated from nontransformed data.

TABLE 47.— Estimates of logarithmic variance for apples from five 

areas of commercial production in the conterminous United States

[Asterisk (*), significantly greater than zero at the 0.05 probability 

level]

Element, ash, Total Percent of total variance

. . , . Between Between fields Between sites material variance areas within areas within fields

Al ———————— 0.11593 7 9 84

As ———————— .48775 16 *69 15

B ———————— .03429 19 *43 38 

Ba ———————— .07057 *29 17 54

Ca ———————— .03937 *27 *33 40

Cd ———————— .04177 10 <1 90

Cu ———————— .01669 <1 *34 66

K ———————— .00741 *29 12 59

Mg ———————— .01219 10 17 74

Mn ———————— .09578 *71 8 21

Na ———————— .01299 *44 *24 32

p ———————— .00851 <1 2 98

S ———————— .01937 *56 *16 28

Sr— —————— .13136 *65 9 26

Ti ———————— .13626 *13 27 59

Zn ———————— .02994 30 13 57

Ash, percent 

of dry weight 1 .34045 6 22 72

Dry material , 

percent of 

fresh weight 1 2.9988 *25 12 63

^Variance calculated from nontransformed data.

TABLE 48.— Estimates of logarithmic variance for European grapes 

from two areas of commercial production in the conterminous 

United States

[Asterisk (*), significantly greater than zero at the 0.05 probability 

level]

Element, ash, Total Percent of total variance

... . u Between Between fields Between sites material variance areas within areas within fields

Al ———————— 0.11966 <1 38 62

B ———————— .03528 *34 <1 66

Ba ———————— .17266 *57 <1 43

Ca ———————— .19194 33 *36 31

Cu ———————— .08430 *62 13 24

Fe ———————— .07541 *45 <1 55

K ———————— .08214 *59 20 20 

Mg ———————— .04905 *37 <1 63

Mn ———————— .11491 *50 <1 50 

Na ———————— .11169 *44 <1 56

P ———————— .10651 *70 7 23

S- —— — —— .10453 *90 <1 9

Sr ———————— .25664 *60 <1 40 

Ti ———————— .23044 <1 24 76

Zn — — — — — .06489 *37 13 50

Ash, percent 

of dry weight 1 1.0261 19 26 55

Dry material, 

percent of 

fresh weight 1 15.263 10 18 72

•'Variance calculated from nontransformed data.

TABLE 49.— Estimates of logarithmic variance for grapefruit from 

four areas of commercial production in the conterminous United 

States

[Asterisk (*), significantly greater than zero at the 0.05 probability

level]

Element, ash, Total Percent of total variance

. . 1U Between Between fields Between sites

material variance areas within areas within fields

Al ——— — —— 0.18569 *28 1 71

B ———————— .02195 *46 <1 54

Ba ———————— .11663 *41 <1 59

Ca 04538 *49 4 47

Cu ———————— .02090 8 *48 44

Fe ———————— .07494 *41 20 39

K ———————— .00952 *27 16 57

Mg ———————— .02833 14 <1 86

Mn ———————— .04002 *29 *28 43

Na ——— - ——— .04525 *37 <1 63

P ———————— .02385 *48 *20 32

S ———————— .01256 *55 <1 45

Sr ———————— .14921 *69 <1 31

Zn ——————— .01742 *38 20 42

Ash percent 

of dry weight 1 3.3243 *55 *18 27

Dry material , 

percent of 

fresh weight 1 4.1878 *64 2 34

Variance calculated from nontransformed data.
88 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 50.— Estimates of logarithmic variance for oranges from four 

areas of commercial production in the conterminous United States

[Asterisk (*), significantly greater than zero at the 0.05 probability 

level]

Element, ash, Total Percent of total variance

^ . . . 1U Between Between fields Between sites material variance areas witnin areas witnin fields

AT r\ onCQO *Qn Q CO

B ———————— .02640 *43 18 39

Ba ———————— .16402 *87 3 10

Ca ———————— .01416 *56 3 42

Cu ———————— .02426 3 7 90

Fe ——————— .05171 11 *33 56

K ———————— .00106 35 *26 39

Mg— — ———— .01946 *18 12 70

Mn ———————— .03321 *1 5 <1 85

Na ———————— .19940 *71 *14 15

p ———————— .01466 *21 <1 79

S— — — — — .00547 *29 <1 71

S r ———————— .20647 *69 <1 31

Zn ———————— .00847 <1 2 98

of dry weight 1 .47054 *51 <1 49

Dry material , 

percent of 

fresh weight 1 2.6117 *32 <1 69

Variance calculated from nontransformed data.

TABLE 51.— Estimates of logarithmic variance for peaches from four 

areas of commercial production in the conterminous United States

[Asterisk (*), significantly greater than zero at the 0.05 probability 

level]

. . , . Between Between fields Between sites material variance areas within areas within fields

Al — - ———— -- 0.25969 *30 <1 70

B ———————— .03867 *28 24 48

Ba ———————— .21549 *54 <1 46

Ca ———————— .10072 *29 <1 71

Cu — - ———— -- .08410 *32 <1 68

Fe--— ——— - .15377 *57 <1 43

K ———————— .04595 <1 <1 TOO

Mg ———————— .03513 *17 <1 83 

Mn— ———— - .10868 *56 <1 44

p ———————— .07165 *30 <1 70

S ———————— .04409 *60 2 38

Sr ————— — - .01048 *31 <1 69

Ash, percent 

or dry weight 1 9.0217 *26 17 57

Dry material , 

percent of 

fresh weight 1 14.447 *48 <1 52

Variance calculated from nontransformed data.

TABLE 52.— Estimates of logarithmic variance for pears from five 

areas of commercial production in the conterminous United States

[Asterisk (*), significantly greater than zero at the 0.05 probability 

level]

Element, ash, Total Percent of total variance

UIJf Iuy10 Between Between fields Between sites 

material variance areas within areas within fields

Al ——————— 0.18966 <1 <1 100

B ———————— .03604 *23 11 66

Ba — .—.._.. .07672 *27 13 61

Ca- —— - — — .06188 7 31 62

Cd ———— - — - .11595 *44 6 50

Cu ———————— .05219 52 93

Fe-— — — - .06108 <1 31 68

K ——— — ——— .02250 3 12 86

Mg ———————— .17080 28 89

Mn ———————— .05080 <1 *53 47

Na ———————— .16322 12 *48 40

p ———————— .04623 6 26 68

S —————— - — .01651 *27 <1 73

Se— —— — — .07863 *27 *41 32

Sr ———————— .09763 8 20 72

Zn ———————— .09304 3 *43 54

Ash, percent 

of dry weight 1 .44193 *66 3 30

Dry material , 

percent of

fresh weight 1 6.3830 *66 3 30

Variance calculated from nontransformed data.

TABLE 53.— Estimates of logarithmic variance for plums from four 

areas of commercial production in the conterminous United States

[Asterisk (*), significantly greater than zero at the 0.05 probability 

level]

Element, ash, Total Percent of total variance

material variance areas within areas within fields

Al ——— — - — 0.08467 66 88 

B ———————— .04510 *41 5 54

Ba ———————— .23738 *34 16 50

Ca ———————— .02496 6 *50 44

C U ———————— .10774 *56 <1 44

Fe ———————— .06557 *42 <1 58

v nn?n <•! *d? <i7

Mg ———————— .01684 7 31 62 

Mn ———————— .08902 *62 <1 38

N a ———————— .05059 8 29 63

p ———————— .06491 7 30 62

S ———————— .01485 20 *36 44

Se ——————— .06560 *36 16 48

Sr ———————— .08641 8 *44 49

Zn ———————— .11522 *27 *41 32

Ash, percent , 

of dry weight 1 6.2372 13 *59 28

Dry material , 

percent of 

fresh weight 1 12.674 *53 *33 14

Variance calculated from nontransformed data.
TABLES 4-121 89

TABLE 54.— Estimates of logarithmic variance for cabbage from four 

areas of commercial production in the conterminous United States

[Asterisk (*), significantly greater than zero at the 0.05 probability 

level]

Element, ash, Total Percent of total variance

. . . Between Between fields Between sites

material variance areas within areas within fields

B ———————— 0.01742 13 10 77 

Ba ———————— .20639 *B7 <1 12

Ca ———————— .01028 *65 10 25

Cd ———————— .12337 *51 17 33

Co ———————— .04960 25 8 67

Cu ———————— .01842 *17 <1 83

Fe ———————— .02521 27 <1 73

K ————————— .00165 *57 5 38

Li ———————— .04581 *61 <1 38

Mg— — ----- .02495 13 <1 87

Mn ———————— .01722 31 *35 34

Mo ———————— .05389 *57 *27 15

Na ———————— .20808 *98 <1 2

p ———————— .01747 32 25 42

S ———————— .00709 *49 <1 51

Se ———————— .15325 *66 <1 34

Sr ———————— .07931 *75 7 18

Zn ———————— .02067 *73 *15 12

Ash, percent

of dry weight 1 4.8903 *73 7 20

Dry material , 

percent of 

fresh weight 1 2.1899 *62 10 28

Variance calculated from nontransformed data.

TABLE 55.— Estimates of logarithmic variance for carrots from two 

areas of commercial production in the conterminous United States

[Asterisk (*), significantly greater than zero at the 0.05 probability 

level]

Element, ash, Total Percent of total variance

material variance areas with1n areas within fields

B ———————— 0.01605 *23 <1 76

Ba ———————— .30955 *86 *9 5

Ca ——————— .00291 <1 15 85

Cd ———————— .2160B *38 <1 62 

Cu ———————— .02472 <1 <1 100

Fe— - —— —— .01305 <1 <1 100 

K ——— - — —— .00059 2 <1 98

Mg ———————— .02528 <1 12 88 

Mn ———————— .00465 *84 3 13

Ma ———————— .04469 *84 3 13

P noQOO *"5O XI CQ

S — .......... .01251 *60 <1 40

Sr- —— ----- .01634 <1 <1 100

Zn ———————— .06779 *68 <1 32

of dry weight 1 1.6724 *28 <1 72

Variance calculated from nontransformed data.

TABLE 56.— Estimates of logarithmic variance for cucumbers from 

three areas of commercial production in the conterminous United 

States

[Asterisk (*), significantly greater than zero at the 0.05 probability 

level]

U ' y '°yiO Between Between fields Between sites

A] ———————— 0.38377 <1 18 B2

As— — - ——— .30174 31 *64 5

B ———————— .02395 20 <1 80

Ba ——— - ——— .11491 *51 *30 19

Ca ——————— .01863 <1 <1 100

Co ———————— .00646 *32 <1 6B

Cu ———————— .05763 22 30 48

Fe ———————— .09482 *39 5 56 

K—— —— ----- .00167 <1 *67 33

Mg ———————— .01925 12 21 67

Mn ———————— .19782 *73 *15 12

N-j —— - ————— .06074 5 *78 17

P ———————— .01843 17 4 79

S ———————— .00361 <1 36 64 

Se ———————— .11629 *65 *18 17

Sr— —— ——— .13853 *63 18 19

Zn — — — — .02272 *65 4 31

Ash, percent 

of dry weight 1 4.9200 *35 15 50

percent of . 

fresh weight 1 .79488 4 <1 96

•'•Variance calculated from nontransformed data.

TABLE 57.— Estimates of logarithmic variance for dry beans from 

four areas of commercial production in the conterminous United 

States

[Asterisk (*), significantly greater than zero at the 0.05 probability 

Jevel]

. 1U Between Between fields Between sites

material variance areas within areas within fields

B ———————— 0.02020 *17 <1 83

Ba- — — — - .13673 *31 <1 69

Ca ———————— .02982 *76 *13 11

Cd— — — — .05180 *38 8 55

Co- - _ ____.-. 17342 *54 11 34

Cu ———————— .02697 3 *42 55

Fe 03815 *41 *23 36

K ———————— .00027 11 <1 89

Mg ———————— .02084 <1 <1 100

Mn— ----- .02063 12 3 85

Mo ———— ----- .17854 *76 3 21

Na ———————— .07074 <1 <1 100

Ni ———————— .07732 *50 <1 50

p ———————— .00324 *61 <1 39

S ———————— .00339 *24 8 68

Se ———————— .16469 *84 <1 16

Sr ———————— .19947 *77 6 17

Zn —— - ———— .00362 *39 *37 24

Ash, percent 

of dry weight 1 .12337 *35 10 55

Dry material , 

percent of , 

fresh weight 1 36.355 *36 *29 35

^Variance calculated from nontransformed data.
90 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 58.— Estimates of logarithmic variance for lettuce from four 

areas of commercial production in the conterminous United States

[Asterisk (*), significantly greater than zero at the 0.05 probability 

level]

Element, ash, Total Percent of total variance

. . , . Between Between fields Between sites matenal variance areas within areas within fields

Al ———————— 0.76786 *89 <1 10 

B— — ----- . .02970 <1 <1 100

Ba- — ----- — .26616 *84 1 15

Ca ——————— .01873 *57 <1 43

Cd ———————— .19049 *83 <1 17

Cu ———————— .04490 *60 13 28

Fe ——————— .24585 *80 <1 20

K-— --- —— .01187 *39 <1 61

Mg-— ----- .01784 9 18 73

Mn ———————— .02864 *32 *26 42

Na ——————— .40647 *97 <1 2

p ———————— .05514 *78 1 21

S-— — — — .00934 *62 3 35

Se——— ----- .34107 *92 <1 8

Sr- —— - — — .15104 *86 <1 14

Zn— — — — .07308 <1 *92 8

Ash, percent 

of dry weight 1 30.469 8 <1 92

Dry material , 

percent of 

fresh weight 1 2.3780 *65 *15 20

Variance calculated from nontransformed data.

TABLE 59.— Estimates of logarithmic variance for potatoes from 

four areas of commercial production in the conterminous United 

States

[Asterisk (*), significantly greater than zero at the 0.05 probability 

level]

Element, ash, Total Percent of total variance

,. . , . u Between Between fields Between sites 

material variance areas within areas within fields

Al ———————— 0.13469 *17 13 69

B ———————— .01582 14 *42 44

Ba ——————— .20911 *51 *37 12 

Ca- —— - ——— .04021 *80 <1 19

Cd ———————— .09590 *30 *44 25 

Cu ———————— .04633 *40 13 46 

Fe ——————— .02020 9 <1 91

K ———————— .00049 12 16 72 

Mg— —————— .01324 *28 8 64

Mn — - ————— .02960 *34 7 59 

Na ——————— .32647 *91 *6 4

p ————— . — . .01223 *38 <1 62

S ———————— .01419 *65 *18 17

Se ———————— .06513 *55 <1 45

Sr-- —————— - .07116 *47 *30 23 

Ti ———— - ——— .27643 20 *39 41

Zn ——————— .01549 17 *32 51

Ash, percent 

of dry weight 1 1.4361 *70 9 21

Dry material , 

percent of 

fresh weight 1 9.4412 *46 *37 17

^Variance calculated from nontransformed data.

TABLE 60.— Estimates of logarithmic variance for snap beans from 

five areas of commercial production in the conterminous United 

States

[Asterisk (*), significantly greater than zero at the 0.05 probability 

level]

Element, ash, Total Percent of total variance

. iu Between Between fields Between sites 

material variance areas w i thin areas within fields

Al- — — ----- 0.16107 *35 *31 34

B ———————— .02637 *36 13 51

Ba ——————— .23149 *80 <1 20

Ca 01516 *52 *35 13

Cd ———————— .08245 *24 <1 76

Co ———————— .06705 11 *47 42

Cr ———— ----- .11849 19 *55 26

Cu —— - ———— .03798 *44 3 53

Fe ——————— .03570 <1 9 91 

K— —— - ——— .00080 *30 *44 26

Mg ———————— .02771 *26 *33 41 

Mn ———————— .06063 *39 6 55

Mo ———————— .22318 *82 *7 11

Na ——————— .11192 *61 *26 13

Mi ———————— .05533 *37 <1 62

p ———————— .00458 15 *53 32

S — ----- - —— .01062 5 14 82

Se- - 03735 *56 <1 44

Sr-- —————— - .07973 *58 <1 42

Ti ———————— .19610 *56 *17 26

Zn ————— - — .00865 *63 <1 37

Ash, percent 

of dry weight 1 2.0250 *42 *44 14

Dry material , 

percent of 

fresh weight 1 70.435 *89 *6 5

Variance calculated from nontransformed data.

TABLE 61.— Estimates of logarithmic variance for sweet corn from 

four areas of commercial production in the conterminous United 

States

[Asterisk (*), significantly greater than zero at the 0.05 probability 

level]

Element, ash, Total Percent of total variance

iu Between Between fields Between sites 

material variance areas within areas within fields

B ———————— 0.03628 *36 <1 64

Ca ——————— .04097 *41 *27 32 

Cd ———————— .22368 28 *62 10 

Cu ———————— .02094 8 <1 92

Fe ———— - —— - .03115 *31 <1 69

K ———————— .00061 <1 12 88

Mg ————— —— .01926 <1 23 77 

Mn ——————— - .02192 93 89

Na ——————— .04312 <1 12 88 

D m OTQ ^i /l QQ

Se ————— - — .12375 *69 11 19 

Sr — —— —— - .04675 *62 <1 37

Zn ———————— .03610 *74 *16 10

Ash, percent 

of dry weight 1 .80232 *32 *43 24

Dry material , 

percent of , 

fresh weight 1 38.084 *53 *34 13

^Variance calculated from nontransformed data.
TABLES 4-121

TABLE 62.— Estimates of logarithmic variance for tomatoes from five areas of commercial production in the conterminous United States

[Asterisk (*), significantly greater than zero at the 0.05 probability 

level]

91

Element, ash,

or dry 

material

D-,

Ca —— - ——— —

r* Cd-- J —— - —— -

Cu ————————

FP _ __ _ __ _ _

i/

Mg —————————

M n __ __ __ _ _

Na__

p —————————

S-------------

SP_ _ _ ___ __

Sr _ __ _ _ __

Zn— — - ———

Ash, percent 

of dry weight

Dry material, 

percent of 

fresh weight

Total

Io9l0 

variance

0.02045

OTCOO

.06251

.23011

.05758

.10148

.00562

.02104

05752

1445^

noopn

.00774

OOOQO

15461

04834

6.9331 

3.4890

Between 

areas

*97

*83\J\J

*32\J L.

*65\J *J

*66

*17

*19

*29

*61

*68

*/l O

*58+J\J

*59*J -/

*59

*54

*56 

*70

Percent of total

Between fields 

within areas

5*j

<1

<1

5*J

13I <J

<1

24

<1

2

*16

1 O

3\J

3\J

<1

<1

<1 

9

variance

Between sites 

within fields

68

17

CO

29

20

OO

57

71

37

16

40

39

op

41

45

44 

21

Variance calculated from nontransformed data.
92 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 63.— Areas having significantly different concentrations of elements at the 0.05 probability

level in fruits and vegetables

[Concentrations given in ash, except as indicated. Significance tested at the 95-percent confidence level]

Element, ash 

or dry material

Al , ppm — — — —

As, ppm —— -——

Ba, ppm —— — ——

Ca, percent — —

Cd, ppm ----- ——

Co, ppm ------

Cu, ppm — —— ——

Fe, ppm —— — ——

Kind of produce, 

and mean concentration, all areas

Grapefruit, 380

Orange, 430

Peach, 430

Lettuce, 520

Potato, 310

Snap bean, 950

Apple, 0.20

Cucumber, 0.28

European grape, 370 

Grapefruit, 170

Orange, 260

Peach, 380

Pear, 440

Plum, 370

Snap bean, 180

Sweet corn, 58

Tomato, 84

Apple, 77

European grape, 62

Grapefruit, 77

Orange, 86

Peach, 18

Pear, 150

Plum, 32

Cabbage, 52

Carrot, 120

Cucumber, 130

Dry bean, 55

Lettuce, 67

Potato, 32

Snap bean, 100

Tomato, 17

Apple, 1.1

Grapefruit, 5.9

Orange, 7.8

Peach, 0.29

Cabbage, 6.6

Dry bean, 2.7

Lettuce, 4.2

Potato, 0.70

Snap bean, 7.8

Sweet corn, 0.22

Tomato, 1.2

Pear, 0.27 

Cabbage, 1.0

Carrot, 2.1

Cucumber, 0.94

Dry bean, 0.26

Lettuce, 3.0

Potato, 1.8

Snap bean, 0.34

Tomato, 1.0

Cucumber, 0.88 

Dry bean, 4.8

European grape, 63

Peach, 56

Plum, 51

Cabbage, 31

Lettuce, 58

Potato, 88

Snap bean, 73

Tomato, 73

American Grape, 430

European grape, 490

Grapefruit, 310

Peach, 300

Plum, 200

Cucumber, 680

Lettuce, 960

Sweet corn, 670

Tomato, 480

Area; mean

High

Riverside County, Calif.; 810

Riverside County, Calif.; 970

Yakima County, Wash.; 1,200

Cumberland County, N.J.; 11,000

Cumberland County, N. J. ; 645

Cumberland County, N.J.; 2,200

Berrien County, Mich.; 0.45

Cumberland County, N.J.; 0.63

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 450 

Hidalgo Co. , Tex. ; 240

Riverside County, Calif.; 320

Yakima County, Wash.; 560

Yakima County, Wash.; 580

Yakima County, Wash.; 610

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 245

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 85

Berrien Co., Mich.; 110

Wayne County, N.Y. ; 130

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 100

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 160

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 220

Yakima County, Wash.; 55

Berrien Co. , Mich.; 250

Yakima County, Wash.; 60

Berrien County, Mich.; 150

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 270

Berrien County, Mich.; 170

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 110

Cumberland County, N.J.; 157

Cumberland County, N.J.; 81

Wayne Co. , N.Y.; 210

Berrien County, Mich.; 54

Wyane County, N.Y.; 1.6

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 8.4

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 8.6

Yakima County, Wash.; 0.49

Cumberland County, N.J. , and

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 7.7

Mesa County, Colo. ; 4.5

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 5.3

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 1.3

Wayne County, N.Y.; 9.6

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.34

Berrien County, Mich.; 1.8

Wayne County, N.Y. ; 0.68 

Cumberland County, N.J. , and

Imperial County, Calif.; 1.7

Imperial County, Calif.; 3.4

Berrien County, Mich.; 1.5

Mesa County, Colo.; 0.45

Imperial County, Calif.; 8.7

Yakima County, Wash.; 2.8

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.56

Berrien County, Mich.; 2.7

Berrien County, Mich.; 0.74 

Mesa County, Colo.; 10

Yakima County, Wash.; 43

Wayne County, N.Y. ; 83

Wayne County, N.Y.; 92

Berrien County, Mich.; 39

Imperial County, Calif.; 84

Cumberland County, N.J. ; 135

Berrien County, Mich.; 170

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 121

Yakima County, Wash.; 650

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 680

Riverside County, Calif.; 560

Yakima County, Wash.; 750

Wayne County, N.Y.; 280

Berrien County, Mich.; 1,000

Cumberland County, N.J.; 4,500

Berrien County, Mich.; and

Salem County, N.J. ; 790

Berrien County, Mich. ; 740

concentration

Low

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 150

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 110

Mesa County, Colo.; 220

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 180

Yakima County, Wash.; 195

Berrien County, Mich.; 590

Mesa County, Colo.; 0.024

Berrien Co., Mich.; 0.099

Yakima County, Wash.; 310 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 150

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 177

Wayne Co., N.Y.; 300

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 340

Berrien County, Mich.; 280

Cumberland County, N.J.; 140

Salem County, N.J.; 28

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 65

Salem County, N.J.; 46

Yakima County, Wash.; 36

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 46

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 40

Mesa County, Colo.; 5.9

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 100

Mesa County, Colo.; 13

Imperial County, Calif.; 22

Imperial County, Calif.; 22

Cumberland County, N.J.; 30

Mesa County, Colo.; 29

Imperial County, Calif.; 13

Wayne County, N.Y.; 9.1

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 22

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <3

Gloucester County, N.J.; 0.82

Yuma County, Ariz.; 3.6

Yuma County, Ariz.; 2.0

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 0.18

Imperial County, Calif,; 5.5

Wayne County, N.Y.; 2.1

Cumberland County, N.Y.; 3.1

Wayne County, N.Y. ; 0.48

Berrien County, Mich.; 5.5

Salem County, N.J.; 0.16

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.70

San Joaquin, Calif.; 0.13 

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 0.59

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 1.3

San Joaquin, Calif.; 0.60

San Joaquin, Calif.; 0.20

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.94

Cumberland County, N.J.; 1.1

Cumberland County, N.J. ; 0.23

Palm Beach County, Fla. , and

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 0.38

Cumberland County, N.J.; <1 

Wayne County, N.Y.; 1.9

San Joaquin County; Calif.; 29

Mesa County, Colo.; 33

Mesa County, Colo.; 29

Cumberland County; N.J.; 24

Cumberland County; N.J.; 36

Wayne County, N.Y. ; 62

Wayne County, N.Y.; 49

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 37

Wayne County, N.Y.; 280

Yakima County, Wash.; 360

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 210

Mesa County, Colo.; 140

Mesa County, Colo.; 120

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 480

Hidalgo County, Texas; 534

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 470

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 300
TABLES 4-121

TABLE 63.— Areas having significantly different concentrations of elements at the 0.05 probability 

level in fruits and vegetables—Continued

93

Element, ash, 

or dry material

K, percent -----

Li , ppm--- — ---

Mg, percent----

Mn, ppm----- — -

Mo, ppm--------

Na , ppm — ------

Ni , ppm-- — ----

P, percent-----

Pb, ppm--------

S, percent 1 - —

Kind of produce, 

and mean concentration, all areas

Apple, 35

European grape, 20

Grapefruit, 36

Cabbage, 36

Lettuce, 36

Snap bean, 35

Grapefruit, 3.7 

Orange, 5.3

Pear, 1.1

Cabbage, 4.9

Carrot, 2.3

Lettuce, 2.0

Snap bean, 0.52

Orange, 2.1

Peach, 1.1

Potato, 2.0

Snap bean, 4.0

Tomato, 1.7

Apple, 74

European grape, 62

Grapefruit, 34

Orange, 43

Peach, 42

Plum, 53

Carrot, 120

Cucumber, 130

Lettuce, 210

Potato, 86

Snap bean, 300

Tomato, HO

Cabbage, 9.1

Dry bean, 84

Snap bean, 30

American grape, 390 

Apple, 600

European grape, 770

Grapefruit, 1,600

Orange, 1,600

Cabbage, 29,000

Carrot, 4,800

Cucumber, 2.000

Lettuce, 11,000

Potato, 830

Snap bean, 360

Tomato, 1,800

Dry bean, 45

Snap bean, 24

European grape, 2.3

Grapefruit, 3.0

Orange, 2.7

Peach, 1.5

Cabbage, 3.2

Dry bean, 9.5

Lettuce, 3.0

Potato, 4.1

Tomato, 2.4

Apple, <20 

Pear, 9.8

American grape, 0.062

Apple, 0.026

Grapefruit, 0.066

Orange, 0.067

Peach, 0.043

Pear, 0.029

Cabbage, 0.72

Carrot, 0.13

Dry bean, 0.19

Lettuce, 0.28

Potato, 0.12

Snap bean, 0.17

Tomato, 0.21

Area; mean

High

Gloucester County, N.J. ; and

Mesa County, Colo.; 38

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 29

Palm Beach County, Fla., and

Hidalgo County, Texas; 39

Berrien County, Mich.; 40

Hidalgo County, Texas, 39

Berrien County, Mich.; 39

Yuma County, Ariz.; 12 

Yuma County, Ariz.; 20

Mesa County, Colo.; 7.3

Imperial County, Calif.; 7.1

Imperial County, Calif.; 3.5

Imperial County, Calif.; 6.0

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 12

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 2.5

Yakima County, Wash.; 1.5

Wayne County, N.Y.; 2.4

Wayne County, N.Y.; 5.4

Berrien County, Mich.; 2.2

Wayne County, N.Y.; 130

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 93

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 47

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 51

Yakima County, Wash., 78

Berrien County, Mich., 100

Hidalgo County, Tex., 164

Berrien County, Mich.; 283

Cumberland County, N.J.; 253

Cumberland County, N.J.; 114

Wayne County, N.Y., 460

Berrien County, Mich.; 215

Berrien County, Mich., and 

Cumberland County, N.J.; 15

Mesa County, Colo.; 240

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 140

Yakima County, Wash.; 1,300 

Gloucester County, N.J.; 1,200

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 1,100

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 2,100

Riverside County, Calif.; 5,400

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 46,000

Imperial County, Calif.; 6,700

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 2,700

Imperial County, Calif.; 54,000

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 3.900

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 470

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 11,000

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 78

Berrien County, Mich.; 46

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 3.6

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 3.5

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 3.3

Yakima County, Wash.; 2.4

Berrien County, Mich., Cumberland

County, N.J. , and Imperial

County Calif.; 3.6

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 11

Imperial County, Calif.; 3.9

Wayne County, N.Y. ; 4.4

Berrien County, Mien., 3.2

Berrien County, Mich.; 54 

Berrien County, Mich.; 16

Berrien County, Mich.; 0.071

Gloucester County, N.J.; 0.034

Riverside County, Calif.; 0.083

Riverside County, Calif.; 0.075

Wayne County, N.Y.; 0.068

Wayne County, N.Y.; 0.035

Imperial County, Calif.; 0.80

Imperial County, Calif., 0.15

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 0.21

Cumberland County, N.J.; 0.34

Cumberland County, N.J.; 0.16

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.19

Berrien County, Mich., and

Cumberland County, N.J.; 0.25

concentration

Low

Berrien County, Mich.; 29

Yakima County, Wash.; 14

Yuma County, Ariz.; 29

Hidalgo County, Texas; 34

Cumberland County, N.J.; 28

Cumberland County, N.J.; 34

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <4 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <4

All others; <4

Berrien County, Mich., and

Cumberland County, N.J.; <4

Hidalgo County, Tex.; <4

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <4

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <4

Yuma County, Ariz. ; 1.7

Mesa County, Colo.; 0.97

Cumberland County, N.J.; 1.2

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 3.0

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 1.3

Mesa County, Colo.; 29

Yakima County, Wash.; 2.4

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 24

Yuma County, Ariz. ; 42

Mesa County, Colo., 23

Mesa County, Colo. ; 27

Imperial Counmty, Calif.; 94

Cumberland County, N.J.; 59

Imperial County, Calif.; 154

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 62

Cumberland County, N.J.; 200

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 73

Imperial County, Calif.; 6.1

Wayne County N.Y.; 31

Wayne County, N.Y., 13

Berrien County, Mich.; 220

Berrien County, Mich.; 350

Yakima County, Wash.; 530

Yuma County, Ariz.; 1,300

Yuma County, Ariz.; 1 ,300

Berrien County, Mich.; 4,500

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 3.500

Berrien County, Mich.; 1,500

Cumberland County, N.J.; 2,200

Wayne County, N.Y.; 310

Wayne County, N.Y.; 170

Cumberland County, N.J.; 1,300

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 26

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 15

Yakima County, Wash., 1.4

Yuma County, Ariz.; 2.0

Riverside County, Calif.; 2.4

Mesa County, Colo.; 1.0

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 2.6

All others; 9

Cumberland County, N.J.; 1.5

Yakima County, Wash.; 0.46

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 1.6

Yakima County, Wash.; <20 

Yakima County, Wash., San Joaquin

County, Calif., and Mesa County,

Colo.; <20

Yakima County, Wash.; 0.049

Yakima County, Wash.; 0.018

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 0.053

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.060

Yakima County, Wash.; 0.029

Mesa County, Colo.; 0.023

Berrien County, Mich.; 0.55

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 0.11

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 0.18

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.22

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 0.093

Wayne County, N.Y.; 0.15

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 0.16
94 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 63.—Areas having significantly different concentrations of elements at the 0,05 probability 

level in fruits and vegetables—Continued

Element, ash. 

or dry material

Se, ppm 1 - ------

Sr, ppm ------ -

Ti ppm --------

Zn, ppm -------

Zr2 , ppm ----- —

Ash, percent

of dry weight-­

Dry material ,

percent of

fresh weight ---

Kind of produce, 

and mean concentration, all areas

American grape, 0.012 

Pear, 0.0058

Plum, 0.0057

Cabbage, 0.15

Carrot, 0.064

Cucumber, 0.059

Dry bean, 0.030

Lettuce, 0.057

Potato, 0.011

Snap bean, 0.028

Sweet corn, 0.011

Tomato, 0.036

American grape, 160 

Apple, 97

European grape, 240

Grapefruit, 650

Orange, 710

Peach, 46

Cabbage, 690

Cucumber, 240

Dry bean, 170

Lettuce, 530

Potato, 61

Snap bean, 310

Sweet corn, 16

Tomato, 83

o

American grape , 7.4 

Apple, 10

Potato2 , 9.6

Snap bean, 45

Apple, 67 

European grape, 66

Grapefruit, 130

Pear, 150

Plum, 120

Cabbage, 270

Carrot, 290

Cucumber, 500

Dry bean, 790

Snap bean, 550

Sweet corn, 980

Tomato, 220

Peach, 4.2

Lettuce., 4.0

Snap bean, 37

Grapefruit, 3.8

Orange, 3.6

Peach, 6.7

Pear, 2.1

Cabbage, 9.3

Carrot, 7.1

Cucumber, 10

Dry bean, 3.9

Potato, 4.2

Snap bean, 7.0

Sweet corn, 2.6

Tomato, 12

American grape, 16

Apple, 14

Grapefruit, 10

Orange, 13

Peach, 10

Pear, 15

Plum, 14

Cabbage, 7.8

Carrot, 12

Dry bean, 85

Lettuce, 4.2

Potato, 19

Snap bean, 11

Sweet corn, 25

Tomato, 5.2

Area; mean

High

Yakima County, Wash.; 0.018 

Mesa County, Colo.; 0.012

Mesa County, Colo.; 0.011

Imperial County, Calif.; 0.31

Imperial County, Calif.; 0.13

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 0.098

Mesa County, Colo.; 0.11

Cumberland County, N.J.; 0.078

Yakima County, Wash.; 0.056

Cumberland County, N.J.; 0.045

Salem County, N.J.; 0.026

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 0.16

Yakima County, Wash.; 250 

Mesa County, Colo.; 207

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 470

Riverside County, Calif.; 1,300

Riverside County, Calif.; 1,400

Yakima County, Wash.; 82

Hidalgo County, Tex. , and

Imperial County, Calif.; 840

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 420

Mesa County, Colo.; 360

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 1,000

Yakima County, Wash.; 100

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 470

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 26

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 280

Wayne County, N.Y.; 40 

Berrien County, Mich., and

Yakima County, Wash.; 16

Cumberland County, N.J.; 36

Cumberland County, N.J.; 130

Gloucester County, N.J.; 86 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 87

Hidalgo County, Tex., and

Riverside County, Calif.; 150

Wayne County, N.Y.; 210

Wayne County, N.Y. ; 208

Imperial County, Calif.; 340

Imperial County, Calif.; 417

Berrien County, Mich.; 630

Wayne County, N.Y.; 890

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 730

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 1,400

Berrien County, Mich.; 370

Mesa County, Colo.; 9.6

Cumberland County, N.J.; 75

Cumberland County, N.J.; 16

Yuma County, Ariz.; 5.6

Yuma County, Ariz.; 4.1

Yakima County, Wash.; 8.9

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 2.7

Cumberland County, N.J.; 12

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 7.6

Cumberland County, N.J.; 12

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 4.0

Cumberland County, N.J.; 5.8

Cumberland County, N.J.; 8.0

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 3.3

Cumberland County, N.J. , and

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 14

Yakima County, Wash.; 20

Berrien County, Mich., and

Yakima County, Wash.; 16

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 13

Hidalgo County, Tex., and

Riverside County, Calif.; 14

Yakima County, Wash.; 14

Mesa County, Colo.; 18

Mesa County, Colo.; 18

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 8.9

Imperial County, Calif.; 13

Mesa County, Colo.; 90

Cumberland County., N.J. ; 6.2

Yakima County, Wash.; 21

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 23

Salem County, N.J.; 32

Yakima County, Wash.; 6.4

concentration

Low

Wayne County N.Y.; 0.0076

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 0.0035

Yakima County, Wash.; 0.0036

Cumberland County, N.J.; 0.057

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 0.032

Berrien County, Mich.; 0.034

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 0.020

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.008

Cumberland County, N.J.; 0.009

Wayne County, N.Y.; 0.020

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.0048

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.015

Berrien County, Mich.; 150 

Berrien County, Mich., and

Gloucester County, N.J.; 46

Yakima County, Wash.; 130

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 260

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 200

Wayne County, N.Y.; 27

Berrien County, Mich.; 200

Cumberland County, N.Y.; 84

Wayne County, N.Y.; 46

Cumberland County, N.J.; 157

Wayne County, N.Y.; 40

Berrien County, Mich.; 150

Salem County, N.J.; 7.4

Berrien County, Mich.; 52

Berrien County, Mich.; 2.8

Wayne County, N.Y.; 3

Wayne County N.Y.; 2.5

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 22

Yakima County, Wash.; 49 

Yakima County, Wash.; 50

Yuma County, Ariz.; 97

Mesa County, Colo.; 100

Mesa County, Colo. ; 65

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 210

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 205

Cumberland County, N.J.; 360

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 700

Wayne County, N.Y.; 490

Twin Falls County, Idaho, 590

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 130

All others; <20

All others; <20

Berrien County, Mich., Wayne

County N.Y., and Twin Falls

County, Idaho; <2.0

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 2.6

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 3.1

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 6.0

Mesa County, Colo.; 1.7

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 7.7

Imperial County, Calif.; 6.7

Berrien County, Mich.; 8.7

Twin Falls County, Idaho, and

Mesa County, Colo. ; 3.7

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 3.3

Berrien County, Mich.; 5.5

Salem County, N.J.; 2.0

Yakima County, Wash.; 6.4

Berrien County, Mich.; 14

Wayne County, N.Y. , and

Gloucester County, N.J.; 14

Yuma County, Ariz.; 8.6

Yuma County, Ariz.; 13

Wayne County, N.Y.; 6.9

Wayne County, N.Y.; 13

Berrien County, Mich., and

Wayne County, N.Y.; 12

Cumberland County, N.J.; 5.5

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 11

Wayne County, N.Y.; 81

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 3.5

Cumberland County, N.J.; 16

Wayne County, N.Y.; 7.3

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 21

Berrien County, Mich.; 3.3

^Concentrations in dry material.

'Probability level could not be computed because of an excessive number of values below the limit of 

determination.
TABLES 4-121 95 

TABLE 64.— Element concentrations and pH of soils that supported American grape vines in areas- of commercial production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable concentrations to number of samples 

analyzed. Mean, geometric mean, except as indicated. Deviation, geometric deviation, except as indicated. Means and ranges are given in parts 

per million, except where percent is indicated. Leaders (--) in figure column indicate no data available]

Areas of commercial production

Element, 

or pH

Al 1 — — -

g_ _ „__

D =

Be ——— -

C, total 1 -

TalCo — - — -

Cr —————

Cu —————

F—— —— -,

Fe, total 1 

Ga — -----

Ge ——— —

Hg— - — 

I/I

La —————

Li-——.

U-l

Na 1 - ——

Mb —— —— —

Ni —————

pb—— —— --

Rb —————

S, total-- 

SC — -----

fil— — -

Sn — — —

Sr — — —

Th— -—

Til—— ——

U —— _. ——

V — — —

Y ——————

Zn- ———— JSL---

Berrien County, Mich.

Ratio

5:5 

5:5 

4:5 

5:5 

0:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

0:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

2:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

2:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

0:5 

4:5 

2:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

4:5 

4:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

Mean

3.0 

6.1 

24 

450 

<1

1.2 

.41 

6.1 

24 

36

<400 

1.3 

7.5 

1.1 

.048

1.6 

26 

15 

.22 

700

.62 

8.0 

9.8 

21 

55

<800 

3.8 

.081 

36 

.88

94 

5.9 

.26 

1.7 

34

12

1.4 

56 

170 

5.9

Deviation

1.30 

2.01 

2.12 

1.26

2.00 

1.12 

1.20 

1.37 

3.45

1.26 

1.34 

1.10 

1.67

1.22 

1.16 

1.38 

1.24 

1.28

1.12 

1.23 

1.17 

2.28 

1.30

1.45 

2.31 

1.05 

1.89

1.37 

1.39 

1.35 

1.43 

1.48

1.39 

1.44 

1.22 

1.72 

.71

Observed 

range

1.9 

3.2 

<10 

300

.56 

.36 

5.0 

15 

7

1.0 

5 

.97 

.023

1.2 

<30 

9 

.16 

500

.57 

<10 

7 

10 

40

<3 

<.10 

34 

.59

70 

4.0 

.16 

.92 

20

<10 

<1 

42 

70 

5.2

3.5 

15 

50 

- 500

2.4 

.46 

7.0 

30 

- 150

1.7 

10 

1.2 

.092

1.9 

30 

21 

.27 

- 1,000

.73 

10 

10 

50 

75

5 

.25 

38 

2.7

150 

8.6 

.35 

2.3 

50

15 

2 

68 

300 

6.8

Ratio

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

0:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

1:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

0:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

4:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

2:5 

5:5 

2:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

4:4 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

Wayne County, N.Y.

Mean

4.0 

5.6 

24 

370 

<1

2.2

.74 

4.5 

19 

35

1.7 

13 

1.2 

.057

1.4 

<30 

21 

.38 

260

1.1 

9.5 

8.1 

22 

48

780 

4.5 

.086 

33 

.54

150 

5.1 

.37 

2.1 

41

15 

1.5 

58 

230 

5.9

Deviation

1.04 

1.60 

1.25 

1.32

1.28 

1.28 

1.26 

1.14 

1.94

1.11 

1.25 

1.08 

1.34

1.06

1.24 

1.12 

1.25

1.08 

1.10 

1.22 

1.35 

1.13

1.13 

1.26 

1.77 

1.06 

1.56

1.00 

1.37 

1.09 

1.18 

1.32

1.28 

1.28 

1.11 

1.90 

.94

Observed 

range

3.8 

2.9 

20 

300

1.8 

.53 

3.0 

15 

15

<400 

1.5 

10 

1.1 

.042

1.3

15 

.32 

200

.98 

<10 

7 

15 

40

<800 

3 

<.10 

30 

.28

3.8 

.33 

1.7 

30

10 

1 

49 

150 

4.8

4.1 

10 

30 

500

3.3 

1.0 

5.0 

20 

70

- 1,400 

1.9 

15 

1.3 

.085

1.5

27 

.42 

- 300

1.1 

10 

10 

30 

55

- 900 

5 

.19 

35 

.96

6.9 

.40 

2.5 

50

20 

2 

63 

- 700 

6.8

Ratio

5:5 

5:5 

2:5 

5:5 

4:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

3:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

2:5 

5:5 

4:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

Yakima County,

Mean

6.1 

6.0 

7.3 

610 

.95

2.0 

3.1 

15 

52 

31

570 

4.5 

19 

1.5 

.028

1.7 

30 

20 

1.4 

570

1.7 

10 

20 

17 

61

740 

19 

.16 

27 

.97

300 

9.3 

.69 

2.3 

150

22 

2.8 

140 

180 

7.4

Deviation

1.05 

1.35 

2.58 

1.20 

1.10

1.24 

1.26 

1.00 

1.42 

1.58

1.57 

1.07 

1.14 

1.09 

1.20

1.05 

1.64 

1.06 

1.11 

1.20

1.03 

1.00 

1.28 

1.36 

1.07

1.36 

1.14 

1.69 

1.03 

1.59

1.00 

1.22 

1.09 

1.08 

1.00

1.35 

1.20 

1.89 

1.84 

.44

Wash.

Observed 

range

5.7 

3.7 

<10 

500 

<1

1.4 

2.5

30 

20

400 

4.0 

15 

1.3 

.023

1.5 

<30 

19 

1.2 

500

1.7

15 

15 

55

<800 

15 

<.10 

26 

.47

7 

.60 

.21

15 

2 

82 

100 

6.8

6.4 

8.3 

20 

700 

1.0

2.3 

4.2

70 

50

- 1,200 

4.8 

20 

1.6 

.034

1.8 

50 

22 

1.5 

- 700

1.8

30 

30 

65

- 1,100 

20 

.32 

28 

1.7

12 

.75 

2.6

30 

3 

- 410 

- 500 

8.0

and ranges given in percent. 

^Standard units. Mean is arithmetic. Deviation is standard.
TABLE 65.—Element concentrations and pH of soils that supported apple trees in areas of commercial production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found inmeasurable concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean, except 

deviation, except as indicated. Means and ranges are given in parts per million, except wherepercent is indicated. Leaders (--) in figure column indicate no data available.]

Element, 

or pH

Al 1

C^total 1 - 

Ca

Fe, total 1

Hn __ _____

Berr

Ratio Mean

5:5 2.8 

5:5 16 

5:5 26 

5:5 410

5:5 1.3 

5:5 .48 

5:5 4.1 

5:5 22 

5:5 18

0:5 <400 

5:5 1.0 

5:5 7.1 

5:5 1.1

Areas of commercial production

Jen County, Mien.

Deviation

1.12 

3.09 

1.50 

1.32

1.20 

1.31 

1.32 

1.35 

1.50

1.15 

1.57 

1.13 

9 fin

Observed Ratio 

range

2.6 - 

5.6 - 

20 

300

1.0 - 

.36 - 

3 

15 

10

.83 - 

5 

.99 -

3.4 5:5 

90 5:5 

50 3:5 

500 5:5 

1 1:5

1.5 5:5 

.70 5:5 

5 5:5 

30 5:5 

30 5:5

2:5 

1.2 5:5 

15 5:5 

1.3 5:5

Wayne County, N.Y.

Mean

3.6 

46 

12 

330 

<1

1.7 

.66 

4.8 

20 

19

1.8 

14 

.70 

?n

Deviation

1.11 

2.61 

2.30 

1.26

2.65 

1.30 

1.35 

1.28 

1.33

1.13 

1.20 

1.59

Observed Ratio 

range

3.2 - 

13

300

.34 - 

.45 - 

3 

15 

15

<400 

1.6 - 

10 

.39 -

4.2 

100 

30 

500

3.5 

.92 

7 

30 

30

400 

2.2 

15 

1.2

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

0:5

5:5 

5:5 

0:5 

5:5 

5:5

1 :5 

5:5 

1:5 

5:5

Areas of

Gloucester County, N.J.

Mean

1.0 

35 

28 

160

1.2 

.17 

<3 

29 

20

<400 

1.2 

<5 

.91

Deviation

1.30 

1.37 

1.72 

1.14

1.43 

1.27

1.95 

1.28

1.14 

1.22

Observed Ratio 

range

.67 - 

23 

20 

150

.82 - 

.13 -

15 

15

1.0 - 

<5 

.71 -

1.3 5:5 

49 5:5 

70 1:5 

200 5:5 

4:5

2.1 5:5 

.23 5:5 

5:5 

70 5:5 

30 5:5

5:5 

1.4 5:5 

5 5:5 

1.1 4:5

commercial production (continiled)

Yakima County, Wash.

Mean

7.3 

32

570 

.95

1.9 

2.8 

16 

57 

36

520 

4.2' 

19 

.64

Deviation

1.08 

3.48

1.36 

1.10

1.40 

1.07 

1.14 

1.20 

1.63

1.34 

1.08 

1.14 

3.54

Observed Ra

range

6.7 

11

500 - 1

1.3 - 

2.5 - 

15 

50 

20

400 — 

3.9 - 

15

8.0 5

130 5

20 5

1,000 5

1 4

3.1 5

3.0 5

20 5

70 5

70 5

800 5

4.7 5

20 5

1.6 5

*Means and ranges given in percent. 

Standard units. Mean is arithmetic. Deviation is standard.
TABLES 4-121

TABLE 66.—Element concentrations and pH of soils that supported European grape vines in areas of commercial

production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in 

measurable concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean, except as 

indicated. Deviation,geometric deviation, except as indicated. Means and ranges are given in 

parts per million, except where percent is indicated. Leaders (--) in figure column indicate no 

data available]

97

Areas of commercial production

El ement , 

or pH

All-——

A,. _____ _

D?>

Be —————

C.-total 1 -

r = l__ __ _

Co ——————

f>_____ _ _

Cu —————

Fe, total 1 

Ga —————

Ge—— ——

Hg——— —

K 1

La —————

Li— ———

Mgl ——————

Mn —————

Ma l__

Nb —————

Ni —————

Pb —————

Dk

S, total — 

Sr- ____

i Si 1 - ______

Sn —————

c r_ ____ _

Th— - —

Ti 1 —— —

U ——————

V ——————

Y ——————

WL

Zn —————

Zr —————

nw2 pH ————— -

Yakima County, Wash.

Ratio

5:5 

5:5 

3:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

3:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

4.5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

1:5 

5:5 

3:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

Mean

6.6 

4.7 

12 

570 

1.0

.95 

2.9 

15 

39 

22

550 

4.8 

18 

1.4 

.030

1.6 

31 

22 

1.3 

480

1.8 

9.5 

19 

17 

61

17 

.11 

28 

1.2

370 

10 

.75 

2.0 

160

20 

2.2

96 

150 

7.9

Deviation

1.04 

1.19 

2.30 

1.20 

1.00

1.24 

1.03 

1.00 

1.48 

1.20

1.16 

1.03 

1.17 

1.11 

1.96

1.06 

1.93 

1.05 

1.03 

1.35

1.02 

1.10 

1.14 

1.36 

1.09

1.17 

2.08 

1.01 

1.78

1.32 

1.16 

1.04 

1.06 

1.14

1.00 

1.20 

1.15 

1.28 

.29

Observed 

range

6.2 - 

3.6 - 

<10 

500

.73 - 

2.8 -

30 

20

500 

4.7 - 

15 

1.2 - 

.01 -

1.5 - 

<30 

20 

1.3 - 

300

1.8 - 

<10 

15 

15 

55

<800 

15 

<.l - 

28 

.67 -

300 

8.6 - 

.71 - 

1.9 - 

150

2

87 

100 

7.5 -

6.9 

5.6 

30 

700

1.3 

3.0

70 

30

700 

5.0 

20 

1.5 

.16

1.7 

70 

23 

1.4 

700

1.9 

10 

20 

30 

70

1,100 

20 

.29 

29 

2.5

500 

12 

.79 

2.2 

200

3 

120 

200 

8.3

Ratio

5:5 

5:5 

0:5 

5:5 

4:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

2:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

4:5

5:5 

1:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

3:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

0:5 

5:5 

0:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

San Joaquin County, Calif.

Mean

7.1 

10 

<]0 

930 

.95

.97 

2.5 

7 

26 

27

370 

2.6 

17 

1.2 

.021

2.0

12 

.60 

410

2.3 

8.9 

8.7 

22 

72

8.7 

<.l 

30 

1.1

530 

11 

.32 

2.9 

94

15 

1.8 

54 

54 

6.4

Deviation

1.04 

1.11

1.17 

1.10

1.22 

1.03 

1.00 

1.25 

1.58

1.24 

1.08 

1.17 

1.21 

1.80

1.03

1.07 

1.03 

1.32

1.05 

1.16 

1.36 

1.35 

1.04

1.22

1.03 

1.37

1.16 

1.24 

1.09 

1.15 

1.37

1.28 

1.50 

1.12 

1.12 

.78

Observed 

range

6.6 

9.4

700 

<1

.71 

2.4

20

15

<400 

2.3 

15 

.94 

<.01

2.0 

<30 

11 

.58 

300

2.2 

<10 

5 

15 

70

<800 

7

28 

.78

500 

8.9 

.29 

2.4 

70

10 

1 

47 

47 

5.7

7.4 

12

- 1,000 

1

1.2 

2.6

30 

50

- 500 

2.7 

20 

1.5 

.039

2.1 

30 

13 

.63 

- 500

2.5 

10 

10 

30 

75

- 800 

10

31 

1.6

- 700 

16 

.36 

3.3 

- 150

20 

3 

65 

65 

7.5

^Means and ranges given in percent.

^Standard units. Mean is arithmetic. Deviation is standard.
98 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 67.—Element concentrations and pH of soils that

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in 

as indicated. Deviation, geometric deviation, except as indicated. Means and ranges are given 

indicate no data available]

Element, 

or pH

All————

Be —————

C, total 1-

Co —————

Cu —— - —

Fe, total 1 

Ga —————

Hg—- ....

K l

La —————

Li — ———

Mn— -* ———

Nb —————

Ni— ———

Pb —————

S, total-- 

Sc —————

o -1

Sn —————

sr _ _ _____

Tn — ———

Til —— ___

U ——————

V ——————

Y ——————

V W

Zn —————

Zr —————

PS?---

Areas of commercial production

Palm Beach County, Fla.

Ratio

1:5 

4:5 

2:5 

5:5 

0:5

5:5 

4:5 

0:5 

5:5 

5:5

2:5 

2:5 

0:5 

5:5 

4:5

5:5 

0:5 

3:5 

2:5 

5:5

0:5 

0:5 

0:5 

0:5 

0:5

0:5 

0:5 

1:5 

5:5 

2:5

3^5 

0:0 

5:5 

5:5 

1:5

0:5 

0:5 

2.5 

5:5 

5:5

Mean

.35 

17

1.4 

.61 

<3 

2.5 

8.2

300 

.024 

<5 

.82 

.016

.087 

<30 

.54 

.058 

13

<.07 

<2 

<20

<800 

<3

39 

.078

.066 

.62 

<7

100 

7.6

Deviation

3.86 

1.17

1.40 

8.98

2.11 

1.62

2.18 

4.25

1.17 

1.86

1.37

1.68 

1.18 

2.29

1.14 

4.11

1.24 

1.49

1.63 

1.94 

1.70

<. 

<.

<10 

15

<.

1 

5

<400 

<.

<5 

<.

5

31* 

<10

<10 

50 

5.

Observed 

range

26 - .44 

1 - 1.3 

- 70 

- 20

96 - 2.3 

07 - 7.4

- 7 

- 15

- 900 

03 - .17

64 - .96 

01 - .031

052 - .12

- 11 

06 - .072 

- 30

11 - .27 

- 44 

1 - .47

- 100

050 - .090 

37 - 1.1

- 10 

- 200 

0 - 8.9

Ratio

5:5 

5:5 

4:5 

5:5 

0:5

5:5 

5:5 

3:5 

5:5 

5:5

2:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

0:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

4:5 

4:5 

5:5 

5:5

1:5 

3:5 

2:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

Hidalgo County, Texas

Mean

2.8 

3.5 

15 

450

.78 

.53 

3.4 

15 

8.7

320 

.94 

9.3 

1.1 

.025

1.6 

<30 

14 

.27 

180

.63 

9.5 

4.4 

10 

63

2.8 

.077 

37 

.45

100 

6.3 

.23 

1.8 

28

10 

1.5 

39 

190 

7.7

Deviation

1.08 

1.21 

1.54 

1.26

1.49 

1.17 

1.65 

1.00 

1.22

3.09 

1.15 

1.17 

1.18 

1.20

1.06

1.11 

1.14 

1.17

1.05 

1.10 

1.87 

1.00 

1.04

1.11 

3.01 

1.05 

1.66

1.00 

1.32 

1.10 

1.08 

1.20

1.00 

1.00 

1.32 

1.33 

.42

2. 

2.

300

7 

<400 

7*

1. 

12

150

<2

60

<800 

<3

35*

4.

1. 

20

30 

150 

7.

Observed 

range

6 - 3.1 

8 - 4.3 

20 

- 500

55 - 1.4 

43 - .64 

5

10

- 1,400 

85 - 1.2 

10 

87 - 1.3 

020 - .031

6 - 1.8

16 

22 - .32 

- 200

59 - .67 

10 

7

65

880 

3 

1 - .34 

39 

25 - .98

1 - 8.0 

21 - .27 

6 - 1.9 

30

60 

- 300 

1 - 8.1

^Means and ranges given in percent.

^Standard units. Mean is arithmetic. Deviation is standard.
TABLES 4-121

supported grapefruit trees in areas of commercial production

measurable concentrations to number of samples analyzed, 

in parts per million, except where percent is indicated.

Mean, geometric mean, except 

Leaders (--) in figure column

99

Areas of commercial production (continued)

Riverside County, Calif.

Ratio

5:5

5:5

0:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

2:5

5:5

0:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

Mean

6.8

3.2

<10

1,100

1.2

.62

3.0

8.1

26

15

870

2.6

20

1.3

.018

2.4

57

28

1.1

480

2.6

10

13

16

110

730

9.4

<.l

28

1.6

660

15

.40

2.6

88

28

2.8

76

180

8.6

Deviation

1.05

1.21

--

1.20

1.25

1.25

1.06

1.22

1.50

1.28

1.17

1.08

1.28

1.13

1.53

1.00

1.36

1.09

1.08

1.35

1.02

1.00

1.25

1.14

1.10

1.81

1.37

__

1.03

2.78

1.46

1.26

1.09

1.13

1.40

1.20

1.20

1.11

1.50

.19

Observed 

range

6.4

2.6

1,000

1.0

.48

2.7

7

20

10

700

2.4

15

1.1

.010

50

25

1.0

300

2.5

10

15

90

<800

7

27

.79

500

11

.36

2.3

70

20

2

66

100

8.4

7.2

4.2

_-

- 1,500

1.5

.84

3.2

10

50

20

- 1,000

3.0

30

1.5

.030

__

100

31

1.2

- 700

2.7

__

15

20

- 120

- 1,430

15

__

29

9.6

- 1,000

21

.44

3.2

- 150

30

8

88

- 300

8.9

Ratio

5:5

5:5

4:5

5:5

4:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

3:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

0:5

5:5

3:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

Yuma County, Ariz.

Mean

5.9

5.4

14

1,300

.95

.82

3.3

8.1

70

19

610

2.5

16

1.3

.029

2.5

38

27

1.0

440

1.7

8.9

19

18

95

<800

9.3

.12

29

.82

700

9.2

.38

2.6

93

19

2.0

67

230

8.8

Deviation

1.09

1.20

1.50

1.25

1.10

1.39

1.11

1.22

1.28

1.33

1.39

1.06

1.14

1.15

1.19

1.06

1.71

1.07

1.09

1.44

1.10

1.16

1.33

1.17

1.05

__

1.17

1.65

1.02

1.56

1.41

1.31

1.05

1.08

1.17

1.33

1.46

1.08

1.67

.36

Observed 

range

5.4

4.3

<10

1,000

<1

.57

2.9

7

50

15

400

2.4

15

1.1

.024

2.3

30

25

.92

300

1.5

<10

15

15

90

7

<.l

28

.46

500

6.8

.35

.24

70

15

1.5

60

150

8.5

6.7

7.2

20

- 1,500

1

1.3

3.8

10

100

30

- 900

2.7

20

1.6

.037

2.7

100

29

1.1

700

1.9

10

30

20

- 100

__

10

.23

30

1.2

- 1,000

14

.39

2.9

100

30

3.0

73

- 500

9.3
100 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 68.—Element concentrations and pH of soils that

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in 

indicated. Deviation,geometric deviation, except as indicated. Means and ranges are given in parts 

data available]

Areas of commercial production

Element, 

or pH

All————

D ^

C, total 1 -

Co --------

f r--------

Cu --------

Fe, total 1 

Ga— ———

Ge --------

Hg— ———

La——— —

Li —————

Mg 1 — — —

l

Nb- — — _

Ni — ___—

Pb _——___

Rb —— - — —

S, total —

_

c^l Si 1 _-— —

S n — — —

Th — - ——

Til-— —

u _________

V _______

Y ——————

vu

Zn— —— —

pH 2 ————

Palm Beach County, Fla.

Ratio

0:5 

2:5 

1:5 

5:5 

1:5

5:5 

3:5 

0:5 

4:5 

5:5

1:5 

1:5 

0:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

0-:5 

3:5 

0:5 

5:5

0:5 

0:5 

0:5 

0:5 

0:5

1:5 

0:5 

0:5 

5:5 

2:5

1:5 

1:1

5:5 

5:5 

0:5

0:5 

1:5 

2:5 

5:5 

5:5

Mean

<.26 

.075

18

.77 

.12 

<3 

1.8 

25

<400

<5

.85 

.015

.076 

<30 

6.3 

<.06 

19

<.07 

<2 

<20

<800 

<3

45* 

.080

<5 

3.0 

.072 

.68 

<7

8.2 

200 

7.3

Deviation

7.84 

1.17

2.07 

5.96

3.72 

6.05

1.10 

1.72

1.58 

1.49 

5.79

1.02 

4.86

1.24 

1.88

3.88 

2.10 

1.53

Observed 

range

<.l - .74 

<10 - 20 

15 - 20 

<1 - 1

.48 - 2.6 

<.07 - .87

<1 - 7 

7 - 300

<.03 - .13

.75 - .92 

.01 - .034

.044 - .16 

<5 - 10 

1 - 70

<800 - 800

43 - 45 

<.l - .47

<5 - 7

.055 - .094 

.37 - 1.4

<1 - 1 

29 - 41 

100 - 700 

5.0 - 8.9

Ratio

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

2:5

5:5 

5:5 

3:5 

5:5 

5:5

2:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

0:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

0:5 

3:5 

2:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

Hidalgo County, Texas

Mean

3.3 

4.0 

26 

500 

.80

.49 

.36 

2.8 

17 

9.4

370 

1.1 

8.1 

1.1 

.023

1.7 

<30 

15 

.27 

180

.62 

10 

5.2 

11 

67

<800 

2.8 

.086 

37 

.33

87 

5.3 

.24 

1.8 

26

12 

1.5 

36 

260 

6.6

Deviation

1.04 

1.25 

1.50 

1.00 

1.23

1.31 

1.15 

1.50 

1.17 

1.37

1.24 

1.09 

1.22 

1.15 

1.32

1.02

1.12 

1.23 

1.17

1.05 

1.00 

1.42 

1.20 

1.13

1.50 

2.96 

1.01 

1.88

1.22 

1.30 

1.07 

1.05 

1.25

1.25 

1.28 

1.14 

1.25 

1.12

Observed 

range

3.2 

2.8 

20

.35 

.29 

<3 

15 

7

<400 

.97 

7 

.86 

.016

1.6

13 

.21 

150

.60

3 

10 

60

<3

36* 

.15

70 

4.1 

.23 

1.7 

20

10 

1 

31 

200 

5.3

- 3.5 

- 5.0 

- 50

- 1

.66 

.43 

- 5 

- 20 

- 15

- 500 

- 1.2 

- 10 

- 1.2 

.031

- 1.7

- 17 

.34 

- 200

.68

- 7 

- 15 

- 80

- 5 

.29 

- 37 

.88

- 100 

7.9 

.28 

1.8 

- 30

- 15 

- 2 

- 44 

- 300 

- 7.9

*Means and ranges given in percent.

^Standard units. Mean is arithmetic. Deviation is standard.
TABLES 4-121

supported orange trees in areas of commercial production

measurable concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean, except as 

per million, except where percent is indicated. Leaders (--) in figure column indicate no

101

Areas of commercial production (continued)

Riverside County, Calif.

Ratio

5:5

5:5

0:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

4:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

4:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

1:5

5:5

1:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

Mean

6.6

2.4

<10

1,300

1.1

.48

2.7

7

31

8.8

690

2.1

19

1.2

.032

2.4

55

19

.80

330

2.6

9.5

13

17

100

<800

7

--

30

.69

610

15

.34

2.3

65

17

1.7

59

160

8.6

Deviation

1.07

1.70

--

1.25

1.20

1.36

1.05

1.00

1.38

1.40

1.26

1.06

1.14

1.17

1.51

1.01

2.44

1.09

1.10

1.58

1.04

1.10

1.25

1.17

1.04

__

1.00

--

1.07

1.19

1.20

1.16

1.07

1.09

1.16

1.17

1.17

1.21

1.49

.52

Observed 

range

6.0

1.1

1,000

1

.32

2.5

20

7

500

2.0

15

.94

.019

2.3

<30

17

.69

200

2.5

<10

10

15

95

<800

<.l

27

.53

500

13

.32

2.0

50

15

1.5

48

100

8.0

7'.2

4.6

_-

- 1,500

1.5

.70

2.8

__

50

15

- 900

2.3

20

1.4

.059

2.4

150

21

.88

700

2.7

10

15

20

- 105

- 960

--

.25

32

.82

- 700

19

.38

2.6

70

20

2

80

- 300

9.3

Ratio

4:5

5:5

4:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

4:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

3:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

3:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

0:5

5:5

3:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

Yuma County, Ariz.

Mean

2.6

3.0

15

1,100

1.0

.77

1.6

8.1

66

14

500

.90

16

.90

.029

1.3

28

19

.75

330

1.2

8.9

21

17

67

<800

8.1

.13

31

.68

610

11

.26

2.4

93

16

1.7

53

160

8.8

Deviation

4.60

1.88

1.54

1.20

1.00

1.23

5.24

1.22

1.33

1.35

1.15

8.28

1.14

1.73

1.18

4.42

1.11

2.11

1.91

1.26

1.93

1.16

1.42

1.17

1.98

__

1.22

2.18

1.16

1.50

1.36

1.13

2.21

1.04

1.17

1.49

1.36

1.43

1.14

.15

Observed 

range

<.26

1.2

<10

1,000

.57

.081

7

50

10

400

<.03

15

.34

.024

.092

<30

5

.24

300

.39

<10

15

15

20

7

<.l

29

.50

500

9.9

.062

2.3

70

10

1.5

28

150

8.6

6.1

4.9

20

- 1,500

--

1.0

3.7

10

100

20

- 600

2.6

20

1.2

.035

2.8

30

29

1.1

- 500

1.9

10

30

20

100

__

10

.31

40

1.3

- 1,000

13

.39

2.5

- 100

30

3

67

- 200

9.0
102 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 69.—Element concentrations and pH of soils that

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in 

indicated. Deviation, geometric deviation, except as indicated. Means and ranges are given in parts 

no data available]

Areas of commercial production

El ement , 

or pH

Al 1 -

Ac

O-,

Be —— — -

C, total 1 - 

ral- _ _ _

Co —————

Pr__

Cu— — --

Fe, total 1 

Ga —————

Ge— — -

Hg— — -

K!

La —————

U ........

Mn —————

Nal-- -_-

Mb —————

Ni —————

Pb —————

Rb —————

S, total-- 

Sc _____

Se_ ____

Si —————

Sn ———— -

s r_ _ _____

Th_ in - _ _ ___

Til- — ——

U ——————

V ——————

Y ——————

WL

Zn —————

Zr ————

pH2~~~

Ratio

5:5 

5:5 

.4:5 

5:5 

0:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

3:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

1:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

3:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

2:5

5:5 

1:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

Wayne County

Mean Deviation

4.0 

24 

17 

390 

<1

2.7 

.63 

5.3 

26 

19

460 

1.9 

14 

1.3 

.059

1.4 

<30 

21 

.39 

300

1.0 

8.9 

9.4 

90 

49

770 

5.3 

<.l 

33 

.69

150 

5.6 

.40 

2.0 

45

16 

2.0 

63 

260

5.5

1.11 

4.16 

1.70 

1.48

1.16 

1.10 

1.16 

1.25 

1.33

1.26 

1.11 

1.20 

1.12 

1.32

1.05

1.19 

1.15 

1.72

1.06 

1.16 

1.37 

2.88 

1.23

1.25 

1.16

1.04 

2.51

1.30 

1.49 

1.13 

1.03 

1.26

1.33 

1.46 

1.18 

1.50 

.53

, N.Y.

Observed 

range

3.6 

2.6 

<10 

300

2.1 

.56 

5 

20 

15

<400 

1.7 

10 

1.0 

.040

1.4 

<30 

17 

.34 

150

.98 

<10 

7 

20 

40

<800 

5 

<.l 

31 

.15

100 

3.3 

.34 

1.9 

30

10 

1.5 

53 

200 

4.9

4. 

- 110 

30 

- 700

3.

7* 

30 

30

- 600 

2. 

15 

1.

1. 

30 

25

- 500

1. 

10 

15 

- 300 

65

- 1,000 

7

35 

1.

- 200 

9.

2.

50

20 

3. 

78 

- 500 

6.

6

1 

73

2

4 

085

5 

46

1

16 

6

5 

46

1

0 

0

Ratio

5:5 

5:5 

1:5 

5:5 

3:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

1:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

4:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

3:5 

5:5 

4:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

Yakima

Mean

6.7 

2.9 

<10 

530 

.89

1.6 

3.0 

14 

57 

36

480 

4.3 

19 

1.3 

.043

1.3 

<30 

22 

1.3 

500

1.9 

9.5 

25 

11 

50

1,900 

15 

.11 

27 

.71

450 

8.9 

.63 

2.1 

150

17 

1.9 

82 

150 

5.7

County

Deviation

1.06 

1.27

1.16 

1.16

1.08 

1.06 

1.20 

1.36 

1.46

1.10 

1.02 

1.14 

1.18 

1.31

1.05

1.03 

1.03 

1.00

1.00 

1.10 

1.60 

1.20 

1.07

1.81 

1.00 

1.65 

1.03 

3.63

1.26 

1.13 

1.02 

1.07 

1.00

1.17 

1.14 

1.04 

1.28 

.86

, Wash.

Observed 

range

6.1 

2.3 

<10 

500 

<1

1.5 

2.7 

10 

50 

30

400 

4.2 

15 

1.0 

.032

1.2 

<30 

21 

1.2

<10 

15 

10 

45

940

<.l 

21 

<.l

300 

7.5 

.61 

1.9

15 

1.5 

77 

100 

4.3

7.03 

3.8 

20 

- 700 

1

1.8 

3.2 

15 

- 100 

70

- 500 

4.4 

20 

1.5 

.063

1.4 

70 

23

1.3

10 

50 

15 

55

- 4,100

.22 

28 

1.5

- 500 

9.9 

.65 

2.3

20 

2.0 

86 

- 200 

6.4

^Means and ranges given in percent.

^Standard units. Mean is arithmetic. Deviation is standard.
TABLES 4-121

supported peach trees in areas of commercial production

measurable concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean, except as 

per million, except where percent is indicated. Leaders (--) in figure column indicate

103

Areas of commercial production (continued)

San Joaquin County, Calif.

Ratio

5:5

5:5

4:5

5:5

3:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

3:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

1:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

4:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

1:5

5:5

0:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

3:3

5:5

5:5

5:5

Mean

6,5

4.6

16

700

.89

1.4

1.9

17

140

100

420

4.4

18

1.5

.035

1.6

<30

22

1.2

550

1.0

9.5

45

15

79

_

17

<.l

29

.85

220

8.4

.58

2.6

160

16

1.5

91

100

6.8

Deviation

1.02

1.24

1.55

1.00

1.16

1.09

1.02

1.17

1.64

1.69

1.93

1.03

1.17

1.08

1.14

1.00

--

1.07

1.02

1.56

1.04

1.10

1.78

1.57

1.07

__

1.17

—

1.04

1.25

1.20

1.34

1.04

1.23

1.14

1.14

1.00

1.09

1.31

.09

Observed 

range

6.3 -

3.7 -

<10

._

<1

1.2 -

1.9 -

15

70

50

<400 - 1

4.3 -

15

1.3 -

.030-

__

<30

20

1.1 -

300 - 1

.96 -

<10

30

10

70

<800

15

__

27

.64 -

200

6

.56 -

2.2 -

150

15

_-

78

70

6.8 -

6.6

6.6

20

1

1.6

2.0

20

200

150

,100

4.5

20

1.6

.043

30

24

1.2

,000

1.0

10

100

30

85

870

20

30

1.2

300

12

.61

3.6

200

20

97

150

7.0

Ratio

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

4:5

5:5

5:5

3:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

3:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

4:5

5:5

3:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

Mesa County, Colo.

Mean Deviation

5.2

10

55

500

1.1

2.8

2.2

5.7

57

24

800

2.3

15

.62

.040

2.0

28

38

1.3

150

.66

8.9

17

82

97

940

7.0

.13

30

.83

140

13

.31

3.7

94

17

1.7

130

120

7.7

1.07

8.35

1.45

1.00

1.20

1.04

1.07

1.20

1.20

1.25

1.48

1.05

1.00

3.56

1.43

1.02

1.11

1.06

1.03

1.00

1.03

1.16

1.17

2.11

1.09

1.33

1.00

2.46

1.03

1.66

1.35

1.31

1.06

1.07

1.37

1.36

1.17

1.10

1.25

.27

Observed 

range

4.7

.26

30

1.0

2.7

2.1

5

50

20

600

2.2

<.l

.026

1.9

<30

35

1.2

.63

<10

15

50

85

<800

<.l

29

.45

100

8.9

.29

3.4

70

15

1.5

110

100

7.3

5.6

69

70

__

1.5

3.0

2.5

7

70

30

- 1,600

2.4

--

1.5

.058

2.0

30

40

1.3

--

.69

10

20

- 300

- 100

- 1,480

--

.43

31

1.7

- 200

19

.33

4.0

- 150

30

2.0

- 140

- 150

8.0
104 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 70.—Element concentrations and pH of soils that

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in 

except as indicated. Means and ranges are given in parts per million, except where percent is

Areas of commercial production

El ement , 

or pH

All————

D -i

Be __— —

C.-total 1 - 

(-•,1

Co — _— —

Fe, total 1 

Ga — — _-

Ge — — —

Hg— ——— 

K 1 -

La — — —

Mgl _______

Na 1

Mb — — —

Ni _____ ___

Pb _ — _—__

Rb ________

S, total —

_

SI 1 -- — -

Sn — — —

Th-— ——

Til- — __.

u _________

V _______

Y _________

Zn ——— —

Zr-~- ——

pH2 — ——

Bern en County, Mich.

Ratio

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

1:5

5:5 

5:5 

4:5 

5:5 

5:5

0:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

0:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

4:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

0:5 

4:5 

3:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

4:4 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

Mean

3.1

5.8 

38 

450

1.2 

.33 

5.1 

24 

25

<400 

1.4 

8.8 

1.3 

.044

1.7 

<30 

17 

.25 

460

.65 

9.5 

10 

20 

66

<800 

4 

.12 

36 

.59

75 

7.1 

.28 

1.8 

40

12 

1.4 

53 

190 

5.4

Deviation

1.26 

1.66 

1.52 

1.26

.30 

.11 

.62 

.37 

.68

1.34 

1.51 

1.19 

1.51

1.16

1.55 

1.46 

1.91

1.47 

1.10 

1.69 

1.28 

1.26

1.61 

1.69 

1.04 

1.59

1.17 

1.41 

1.31 

1.15 

1.64

1.25 

1.42 

1.17 

1.33 

.74

Observed 

range

2.2 

2.8 

20 

300

.84 

.29 

<3 

15 

15

1.0 

5 

1.0 

.031

1.4

10 

.16 

200

.53

5 

15 

50

<3

33* 

.35

70 

5.2 

.19 

1.5 

20

10 

1 

40 

150 

4.5

3.9 

9.2 

50 

- 500 

1

1.7 

.38 

7 

30 

50

1.9 

15 

1.6 

.078

2.0

26 

.37 

- 1,000

1.3 

10 

15 

30 

85

7 

.22 

37 

1.2

- 100 

11 

.39 

2.1 

70

15 

2 

60 

- 300 

6.2

Ratio

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

1:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

3:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

1:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

0:5 

5:5 

1:5 

5:5 

4:5

5:5 

4:4 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

Wayne County

Mean

4.3 

7.0 

28 

340

2.0 

.68 

5.9 

27 

13

420 

2.0 

12 

1.2 

.060

1.5 

<30 

29 

.49 

360

1.0 

10 

12 

23 

55

<800 

5.5

34 

.56

140 

7.7 

.45 

2.2 

44

18 

1.9 

60 

210 

6.6

Deviation

1.16 

3.19 

1.46 

1.48

.29 

.72 

.57 

.58 

.58

1.32 

1.30 

1.25 

1.24 

1.33

1.16

1.22 

1.27 

2.25

1.15 

1.00 

1.62 

2.10 

1.50

1.56

1.04 

3.23

1.35 

1.20 

1.13 

1.17 

1.44

1.50 

1.49 

1.49 

1.86 

.87

, N.

3 

1 

20 

200

1

3 

15 

7

<400 

1 

10

1 

<30 

21

150

7 

10 

30

3 

33

100 

6

1 

30

10 

1 

31 

100 

5

Y.

Observed 

range

.6 - 4.9 

.1 - 24 

50 

- 500 

1

.4 - 2.7 

.36 - 1.2 

10 

50 

20

- 600 

.3 - 2.5 

15 

.87 - 1.5 

.047 - .096

.2 - 1.7 

30 

34 

.36 - .63 

- 1,000

.87 - 1.2

20 

70 

85

10 

.1 - .21 

36

- 200 

.0 - 9.3 

.37 - .50 

.8 - 2.6 

70

30 

3 

90 

- 500 

.7 - 7.8

^Means and ranges given in percent.

^Standard units. Mean is arithmetic. Deviation is standard.
TABLES 4-121 105

supported pear trees in areas of commercial production

measurable concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean, except as indicated. Deviation, geometric deviation 

indicated. Leaders (—) in figure column indicate no data available.]

Areas of commercial production (continued)

Yakima County, Wash. San Joaquin County, Calif. Mesa County, Colo.

Ratio

5:5

5:5

1:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

3:5

5:5

5r5

5:5

5:5

1:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

2:5

5:5

2:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

Mean

6.3

23—

570

1.1

2.4

1.9

12

57

44

690

3.1

19

1.0

.029

1.6

28

23

1.1

370

1.7

<10

19

160

58

770

15

.083

29

.84

450

8.2

.49

2.0

130

20

2.0

160

no

6.3

Deviation

1.35

1.35

--

1.20

1.20

1.17

2.18

1.25

1.20

1.44

1.53

1.67

1.14

1.26

1.36

1.05

1.11

1.14

1.04

1.32

1.04

—

1.14

1.33

1.08

1.24

1.00

2.76

1.14

1.24

1.26

1.17

1.29

1.06

1.25

1.28

1.28

1.17

1.20

.31

Observed 

range

3.7

14

<10

500

1.0

1.8

.47

10

50

30

400

1.2

15

.71

.019

1.5

<30

20

1.1

300

1.7

<10

15

100

55

<800

<.l

27

.68

300

7.0

.31

1.8

100

15

1.5

140

100

6.0

7.4

29

15

- 700

1.5

2.8

2.8

15

70

70

- 1,200

4.0

20

1.2

.040

1.7

30

28

1.2

- 500

1.8

10

20

- 200

65

- 900

-_

.31

36

1.2

- 500

11

.56

2.1

- 150

30

3

- 210

- 150

6.7

Ratio

5:5

5:5

4:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

1:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

4:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

1:5

5:5

3:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

4:4

5:5

5:5

5:5

Mean

7.5

14

19

870

1.0

2.6

1.8

17

110

240

570

4.9

20

1.4

.073

1.8

<30

27

1.4

600

.99

9.5

65

61

93

_

19

.16

25

1.1

240

9.9

.54

2.7

170

20

2.0

120

95

7.0

Deviation

.08

.15

.81

.22

.00

1.17

1.10

1.17

1.36

1.37

1.20

1.04

1.00

1.16

1.30

1.03

—

1.07

1.01

1.68

1.03

1.10

1.89

1.20

1.21

__

1.14

2.58

1.03

1.23

.25

.44

.03

.08

.17

.28

.33

1.06

1.52

5.96

Observed 

range

6.7

12

<10

700

2.2

1.7

15

100

150

500

4.7

1.2

.057

1.7

<30

25

1.3

300

.95

<10

30

50

70

<800

15

<.l

24

.90

200

6.3

.52

2.5

150

15

1.5

120

70

6.5

8.0

16

30

- 1,000

--

3.3

2.2

20

- 200

- 300

- 700

5.1

_

1.7

.10

1.8

30

30

1.4

- 1,000

1.0

10

- 150

70

- 110

- 860

20

.35

26

1.5

- 300

15

.56

3.1

- 200

30

3.0

- 130

- 150

8.0

Ratio

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

2:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

1:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

0:5

5:5

2:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

Mean

4.6

9.1

28

610

1.2

2.9

4.5

6.1

48

28

660

2.5

15

1.1

.042

1.9

26

28

1.0

230

.74

<10

14

28

84

<800

7.0

<.l

28

1.0

240

13

.30

3.4

75

15

1.4

85

140

8.0

Deviation

.13

.18

.20

.36

.63

1.20

1.25

1.20

1.35

2.11

1.30

1.07

1.00

1.21

2.47

1.11

1.16

1.12

1.08

1.58

1.04

._

1.20

1.20

1.17

__

1.00

—

1.04

1.26

1.25

1.24

1.07

1.05

1.17

1.00

1.20

1.09

1.35

1.30

Observed 

range

4.0

7.4

20

500

1

2.3

3.6

5

30

15

500

2.4

.80

.019

1.6

<30

25

.94

150

.70

<10

10

20

65 •

27

.70

200

10

.27

3.2

70

1.0

76

100

7.8

5.4

11

30

- 1,000

3

3.8

6.5

7

70

- 100

- 1,000

2.7

__

1.3

.20

2.0

30

33

1.2

- 500

.77

10

15

30

95

__

—

-_

30

1.3

- 300

18

.32

3.6

- 100

__

1.5

94

- 200

8.1
106 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 71.—Element concentrations and pH of soils that

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in 

indicated. Deviation,geometric deviation, except as indicated. Means and ranges are given in 

indicate no data available]

Element, 

or pH

All-——

n<- _ ______

Ra

Be———— -

C.-total 1 -

r-,l__ _ ___

Co- — ——

o_____ _ _

Cu —————

F—— ...

Fe, total 1 

Ga— ———

Ge——— —

Hg— ----- 

K 1

La-- ———

Li ——— —

Mg 1 ————

Mn —————

Mal_

Mb ———— -

Ni —————

Pb —— — -

Rb —————

S, total-- 

Sc_ _ _ _ __

Se ____ -

i Si 1 ————

Sn —————

s r _ _ _ ___

Th——— ——

Til —————

U ——————

V— ————

Y ——————

WL

Zn —————

z r ———

J,2 pH —————

Areas of commercial production

Berrien County, Mich.

Ratio

5:5 

5:5 

4:5 

5:5 

0:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

2:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

2:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

3:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

0:5 

4:5 

3:5 

5:5 

3:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

4:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

Mean

3.1 

6.4 

24 

480 

<1

1.3 

.39 

5.3 

30 

18

330 

1.2 

8.2 

1.2 

.061

1.7 

26 

14 

.22 

690

.61 

8.9 

10 

28 

63

<800 

4.5 

.14 

36 

<.10

94 

4.8 

.28 

1.7 

34

12 

1.6 

57 

230 

5.9

Deviation

1.38 

2.60 

2.35 

1.35

1.58 

1.29 

1.16 

1.72 

1.50

1.71 

1.43 

1.52 

1.15 

1.32

1.18 

1.16 

1.67 

1.62 

1.86

1.18 

1.16 

2.14 

2.05 

1.35

1.94 

2.53 

1.07

1.37 

1.68 

1.54 

1.44 

1.80

1.85 

1.60 

1.38 

1.67 

.56

Observed 

range

2.3 

2.4 

<10 

300

.81 

.32 

5 

15 

10

<400 

.82 

5 

.99 

.047

1.5 

<30 

8 

.13 

300

.49 

<10 

5 

15 

45

<3 

<.l 

33 

<.10

70 

3.0 

.18 

1.1 

15

<10 

1 

38 

150 

5.2

4.9 

18 

50 

- 700

2.2 

.57 

7 

50 

20

- 700 

1.9 

15 

1.4 

.085

2.2 

30 

25 

.36 

- 1,500

.75 

10 

30 

70 

90

10 

.46 

38 

1.1

- 150 

8.9 

.48 

2.8 

70

30 

3 

80 

- 500 

6.4

Ratio

5:5 

5:5 

4:5 

5:5 

2:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

2:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

2:5 

5:5 

3:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

Wayne County, N.Y.

Mean

4.3 

18 

20 

450 

.80

2.9 

.79 

6.5 

55 

25

420 

2.1 

14 

1.2 

.15

1.5 

26 

27 

.52 

330

1.1 

10 

14 

62 

63

780 

6.1 

.11 

31 

1.9

160 

8.1 

.44 

2.8 

61

16 

1.9 

130 

130 

6.6

Deviation

1.10 

1.81 

1.87 

1.26 

1.23

1.54 

1.26 

1.16 

1.56 

2.86

1.10 

1.12 

1.20 

1.40 

5.26

1.11 

1.16 

1.27 

1.16 

1.75

1.08 

1.00 

1.20 

2.27 

1.26

1.14 

1.20 

1.82 

1.05 

4.18

1.14 

1.52 

1.05 

1.28 

1.20

1.36 

1.33 

1.64 

1.64 

.71

Observed 

range

3.9 

9.9 

<10 

300 

<1

2.1 

.58 

5 

30 

10

400 

1.8 

10 

.65 

.04

1.2 

<30 

20 

.41 

200

.96

10 

30 

45

<800 

5 

<.l 

30 

.74

150 

4.8 

.41 

2.3 

50

10 

1.5 

92 

92 

5.7

- 4.7 

- 41 

- 30 

- 500 

- 1

- 6.1 

- 1.1 

- 7 

- 100 

- 150

- 500 

- 2.4 

- 15 

- 1.5 

- 2.6

- 1.6 

- 30 

- 37 

.62 

- 700

- 1.1

- 15 

- 200 

- 85

- 900 

- 7 

.25 

- 34 

- 24

- 200 

- 12 

.46 

- 4.0 

- 70

- 20 

- 3.0 

- 310 

- 310 

- 7.4

gleans and ranges given in percent.

^Standard units. Mean is arithmetic. Deviation is standard.
TABLES 4-121 107 

supported plum trees in areas of commercial production

measurable concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean, except as 

parts per million, except where percent is indicated. Leaders (--) in figure column

Areas of commercial production (continued)

Yakima County, Wash.

Ratio

5:5

5:5

3:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

4:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

2:5

5:5

1:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

4:4

5:5

5:5

5:5

Mean

6.7

6.3

12

650

1

1.7

3.0

16

45

36

570

4.8

20

1.3

.025

1.6

29

23

1.3

620

1.7

10

20

19

62

780

17

<.l

26

.93

450

9.7

.74

2.1

170

24

2.4

110

140

6.8

Deviation

1.08

1.27

1.98

1.16

1.00

1.14

1.14

1.14

1.26

1.46

1.23

1.06

1.00

1.09

1.69

1.03

1.07

1.07

1.08

1.63

1.06

1.00

1.28

1.60

1.08

1.20

1.17

__

1.03

1.50

1.26

1.17

1.05

1.05

1.17

1.25

1.26

1.13

1.35

.55

Observed 

range

6.1

4.8

<10

500

1.5

2.6

15

30

30

500

4.4

1.2

.010

1.5

<30

22

1.2

500

1.6

15

10

55

<800

15

<.l

26

.48

300

7.9

.70

2.0

150

20

2

100

100

6.2

7.3

8.3

30

- 700

--

1.9

3.5

20

50

70

- 800

5.2

__

1.5

.037

1.6

30

25

1.4

- 1,500

1.9

__

30

30

65

- 950

20

.6

27

1.4

- 500

12

.79

2.2

- 200

30

3

- 140

- 200

7.4

Ratio

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

3:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

3:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

2:5

5:5

2:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

Mesa County, Colo.

Mean

5.5

37

53

410

1.0

2.7

2.2

5.3

50

31

780

2.6

17

1.1

.040

1.9

28

36

1.2

160

.68

8.9

17

190

95

710

7.0

.082

29

1.2

150

12

.36

3.8

93

16

1.6

130

140

7.6

Deviation

1.12

1.89

1.16

1.32

1.00

1.06

1.11

1.16

1.00

1.38

1.11

1.35

1.17

1.24

1.44

1.10

1.11

1.02

1.01

1.14

1.03

1.16

1.17

1.83

1.06

1.66

1.00

2.80

1.05

1.35

1.00

1.24

1.30

1.15

1.17

1.14

1.14

1.06

1.20

.35

Observed 

range

5.0

16

50

300

2.5

1.8

5

20

700

2.2

15

.83

.027

1.6

<30

35

1.2

150

.65

10

15

100

90

<800

<.l

27

.74

9.8

.31

3.1

70

15

1.5

120

100

7.0

6.6

91

70

- 500

--

2.9

2.4

7

__

50

- 900

4.6

20

1.4

.062

2.0

30

37

1.3

- 200

.70

10

20

- 500

- 100

- 1,400

--

.31

31

1.6

__

17

.57

4.5

- 100

20-

2.0

- 140

- 150

7.9
108 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 72.—Element concentrations and pH of soils that supported cabbage plants in areas of commercial production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in 

measurable concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean, except as indicated. 

Deviation , geometric deviation, except as indicated. Means and ranges are given in parts per 

million, except where percent is indicated. Leaders (--) in figure column indicate no data 

available]

Areas of commercial

Element, 

or pH

Al 1 -

Ac __ ______

R------___

D -5

Be— — -

C.-total 1 -

r a l_

Co— ———

Tr--------

Cu —————

F— — ...

Fe, total 1 

Ga — — —

Ge — — —

Hg— — - 

K 1

La .--—__

Li _______

Mg 1 — __.__

Mn — — — _

Na 1

Nb —— — ——

Ni _______

Pb —— —— —

Rh--__ _ -

S, total — 

Sc —————

Se — - __ -

i Si 1 -——

c«

Sr------ _

Th— .....

Til— — -

U ——___.

V ——————

Y ________

Yb — ———

Zn — — —

Zr --------

J,2 pH —— —— -

Ratio

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

3:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

3:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

2:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

0:5 

5:5 

3:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

Hidalgo County , Texas

Mean Deviation

4.9 

6.8 

22 

370 

.89

4.5 

12 

5.3 

41 

18

610 

2.7 

16 

1.0 

.031

1.7 

28 

29 

.76 

260

.67 

8.0 

11 

14 

79

<800 

7.5 

.12 

20

.89 ?

530 

9.8 

.31 

3.0 

75

16 

1.6 

83 

81 

8.1

1.05 

1.21 

1.20 

1.32 

1.16

1.03 

1.02 

1.16 

1.32 

1.36

1.18 

1.00 

1.14 

1.14 

1.23

1.01 

1.11 

1.05 

1.46 

1.25

1.03 

1.23 

1.38 

1.20 

1.03

1.17 

1.50 

1.01 

1.28

1.16 

1.22 

1.02 

1.05 

1.17

1.14 

1.14 

1.02 

1.22 

.13

5 

5. 

20 

300 

<1

4. 

12 

5 

30 

15

500 

15

1.

<30 

28

200

<io"

7 

10 

75

7 

<.

20

500 

8.

2.

70

15 

1. 

81 

70 

7.

Observed 

range

- 7 

0 - 8.3 

- 30 

- 500 

- 1

3 - 4.7 

- 13 

- 7 

- 50 

- 30

- 800

- 20 

88 - 1.2 

023 - .038

7 - 1.8 

- 30 

- 31 

39 - .93 

- 300

65 - .69 

- 10 

- 15 

- 15 

- 80

- 10 

1 - .18 

- 21 

63 - 1.2

- 700 

2 - 13 

30 - .32 

7 - 3.1 

- 100

- 20 

5 - 2 

- 85 

- 100 

9 - 8.2

Ratio

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

4:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

2:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

4:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

1:5 

5:5 

3:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

production

Imperial County

Mean

5.2 

6.7 

41 

530 

.95

1.5 

4.6 

5.7 

48 

25

760 

2.3 

15 

1.4 

.031

1.9 

26 

34 

1.4 

260

.60 

9.5 

16 

16 

89

7.5 

.14 

28 

.95

280 

11 

.30 

3.0 

81

15 

1.5 

73 

140 

8.1

Deviation

, Calif.

1.10 4 

1.29 4 

1.32 30 

1.16 500 

1.10 <1

1.93 

1.08 4 

1.20 5 

1.35 30 

1.60 15

1.26 600 

1.15 1 

1.00 

1.09 1 

1.28

1.04 1 

1.16 <30 

1.10 29 

1.16 1 

1.25 200

1.06 

1.10 <10 

1.14 15 

1.14 15 

1.03 85

<800 

1.34 5 

2.36 < 

1.04 26 

1.24

1.20 200 

1.18 8 

1.07 

1.13 2 

1.22 70

1.00 

1.00 

1.12 60 

1.20 100 

.15 7

Observed 

range

.4 - 5.6 

.9 - 8.9 

50 

- 700 

1

.48 - 2.2 

.1 - 5.0 

7 

70 

50

- 1,000 

.8 - 2.6

.2 - 1.5 

.023 - .042

.8 - 2.0 

30 

37 

.1 - 1.6 

- 300

.56 - .64 

10 

20 

20 

90

- 1,100 

10 

.1 - .34 

30 

.72 - 1.2

- 300 

.8 - 13 

.27 - .32 

.5 - 3.4 

- 100

78 

- 150 

.9 - 8.3

^Means and ranges given in percent.

^Standard units. Mean is arithmetic. Deviation is standard.
TABLES 4-121 

TABLE 73.—Element concentrations and pH of soils that supported carrot plants in areas of commercial production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in 

measurable concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean, except as 

indicated. Deviation, geometric deviation, except as indicated. Means and ranges are given in 

parts per million, except where percent is indicated. Leaders (--) in figure column indicate no 

data available]

109

Areas of commercial production

Element, 

or pH

All——.

AC;--------

Q-i

Be——— —

C.-total 1 - 

(-,!_

Co—————

f r_ _ _____

Cu —————

p

Fe, total 1 

Ga— ———

Ge——— —

Hg— -----

Kl

La ——— --

Li _____

Mg 1 ——————

Mn —————

wa l_

Nb~ ————

Ni —————

Pb —————

Rb —————

S, total — 

SC — -----

Se--_ ___

Si ________

Sn -------

Sr- __ - __

In-- in —— _ -

Til —— ——

U —____-_

V — ______

Y _________

Yb —— — ——

Zn —___-_.

Zr- ------ 0

nU^ pH —————

Ratio

5:5 

5:5. 

5:5 

5:5 

4:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

1:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

0:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

4:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

1:5 

5:5 

1:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

Hidalgo

Mean

4.4 

8.0 

28 

500 

.95

1.4 

2.5 

5 

26 

15

<400 

1.7 

13 

1.2 

.020

2.0 

<30 

20 

.64 

240

.67 

9.5 

10 

12 

81

5.7

33 

.68

150 

7.9 

.30 

2.2 

41

14 

1.8 

52 

180 

8.1

County

Deviation

1.09 

1.14 

1.46 

1.00 

1.10

1.08 

1.14 

1.00 

1.25 

1.00

1.03 

1.25 

1.10 

1.71

1.03

1.13 

1.04 

1.25

1.05 

1.10 

1.31 

1.25 

1.10

1.20

1.02 

2.31

1.00 

1.23 

1.03 

1.05 

1.32

1.35 

1.36 

1.06 

1.36 

.23

, Texas Imperial County

Observed 

range

3.9 

6.8 

20

<1

1.2 

2.2

20

<400 

1.6 

10 

1.1 

.01

1.9

18 

.60 

200

.63 

<10 

7 

10 

75

<800 

5 

<.l 

32 

.16

5.8 

.29 

2.0 

30

10 

1.5 

49 

150 

7.7

- 5.0 

- 9.2 

- 50

1

1.5 

- 3.0

- 30

- 400 

1.7 

- 15 

- 1.4 

.04

- 2.0

- 25 

.67 

- 300

.72 

- 10 

- 15 

- 15 

- 95

- 930 

7 

.26 

- 34 

1.3

- 9.8 

.31 

2.3 

- 50

- 20 

- 3 

- 57 

- 300 

- 8.3

Ratio

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

2:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

4:5

5:5 

3:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

2:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

2:5 

5:5 

3:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

Mean

5.2 

5.9 

50 

570 

.80

1.9 

4.4 

7 

44 

30

680 

2.3 

15 

1.3 

.019

2.0 

28 

36 

1.4 

370

.82 

8.0 

18 

15 

87

620 

8.7 

.14 

29 

.79

280 

9.8 

.32 

3.1 

87

19 

1.8 

67 

130 

8.2

Deviation

, Calif.

Observed 

range

1.15 4.3 - 

1.11 5.3 - 

1.00 

1.20 500 

1.23 <1

1.06 1.7 - 

1.23 3.1 - 

1.00 

1.44 30 

1.00

1.07 600 

1.09 2.0 - 

1.00 

1.06 1.2 - 

2.03 <.01 -

1.10 1.9 - 

1.11 <30 

1.06 33 

1.07 1.3 - 

1.32 300

1.36 68 - 

1.23 <10 

1.17 15 

1.28 10 

1.05 80

2.11 <800 - 1 

1.22 7 

2.07 <.l - 

1.04 27 

1.57 .39 -

1.20 200 

1.17 7.7 - 

1.16 .26 - 

1.04 2.9 - 

1.22 70

1.14 15 

1.18 1.5 - 

1.04 65 

1.25 100 

.18 8.0 -

6.2 

7.0

700 

1

2.0 

5.0

70

700 

2.6

1.4 

.034

2.4 

30 

38 

1.5 

500

1.4 

10 

20 

20 

90

,800 

10 

.28 

30 

1.2

300 

11 

.40 

3.2 

100

20 

2 

72 

150 

8.4

^Means and ranges given in percent. 

Standard units, Mean is arithmetic. Deviation is standard.
110 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 74.—Element concentrations and pH of soils that supported cucumber plants in areas of commercial production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in 

measurable concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean, except as indicated. 

Deviation, geometric deviation, except as indicated. Means and ranges are given in parts per 

million, except where percent is indicated. Leaders (--) in figure column indicate no data 

available]

Areas of commercial production

Element, 

or pH

All — - —

As--------

D^

Be--- —— -

C, total 1 -

Tal

Co-- ——— --

fr--------

Cu— —— --

Fe, total 1 

Ga--- — --

Ge———— -

Hg———— -

K 1

La ——— —

Mgl ——— ---

Mn —————

Na 1_

[\lh________

Ni—— ———

Pb ——— ---

Rb ——— ---

S, total-- 

Sc— — ---

;>e SP-------- — --- 

Si 1 - _ _

Sn —————

Sr- _ ----

Th- —— ——

Til —————

ll_________

V _________

y ——————

V L.

Zn———— -

Zr ——— —

J,2 pH ———— -

Berrien County, Mich.

Ratio

5:5 

5:5 

2:5 

5:5 

0:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

2:5 

5:5 

5:5 

4:5 

5:5

5:5 

1:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

1 :5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

1:5 

2:5 

1:5 

5:5 

3:5

5:5 

3:3 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

4:5 

4:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

Mean

3.2 

4.8 

6.8 

440 

<1

1.3 

.61 

4.8 

21 

17

370 

1.5 

7.0 

.59 

.061

1.5 

<30 

13 

.22 

880

.61 

<10 

8.2 

23 

52

2.3

34 

.18

75 

4.3 

.27 

1.7 

31

11 

1.2

50 

150 

6.3

Deviation

1.65 

4.89 

3.98 

1.44

1.60 

2.26 

1.35 

1.42 

1.72

1.24 

1.82 

1.28 

3.32 

2.76

1.18

1.32 

1.20 

1.51

1.06

1.62 

2.92 

1.25

2.51

1.15 

4.84

1.34 

1.54 

1.62 

1.28 

1.83

1.53 

1.51 

1.28 

1.57 

.71

Observed 

range

2.3 

.94 

<10 

300

.58 

.38 

3 

15 

7

<400 

.91 

5 

.69 

.03

1.2 

<30 

10 

.17 

500

.56 

<10 

5 

10 

40

<800 

5 

<.l 

27 

.22

50 

2.6 

.17 

1.3 

20

<10 

<1 

36 

100 

5.5

7.5 

67 

30 

- 700

2.0 

2.6 

7 

30 

30

- 500 

4.2 

10 

1.3 

.35

1.8 

30 

19 

.26 

- 1,500

.66 

10 

15 

150 

70

810 

7 

1.9 

39 

.89

- 100 

6.0 

.57 

2.2 

70

20 

2 

63 

- 300 

7.3

Ratio

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

4:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

4:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

2:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

3:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

0:5 

5:5 

4:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

San Joaquin County, Calif.

Mean

7.7 

7.4 

22 

870 

.95

1.8 

2.0 

18 

120 

130

440 

5.1 

19 

1.3 

.082

1.6 

26 

29 

1.4 

710

1.0 

8.9 

61 

21 

75

<800 

30 

.14 

26 

1.0

240 

9.4 

.56 

2.7 

180

20 

2.4 

100 

110 

7.5

Deviation

1.08 

1.53 

1.20 

1.22 

1.10

1.17 

1.03 

1.17 

1.25 

1.25

1.24 

1.04 

1.14 

1.38 

1.73

1.04 

1.16 

1.05 

1.01 

1.57

1.04 

1.16 

1.20 

1.64 

1.05

2.01 

1.89 

1.03 

2.91

1.25 

1.18 

1.02 

1.06 

1.17

1.28 

1.25 

1.06 

1.20 

.15

Observed 

range

6.9 

4.2 

20 

700 

<1

1.5 

1.9 

15 

100 

100

<400 

4.9 

15 

.82 

.043

1.6 

<30 

27 

1.4 

500

.95 

<10 

50 

15 

70

20 

<.l 

25 

.21

200 

8.4 

.54 

2.6 

150

15 

2 

99 

100 

7.3

8.4 

13 

30 

- 1,000 

1

2.2 

2.0 

20 

150 

150

- 600 

5.3 

20 

1.8 

.13

1.7 

30 

30 

1.5 

- 1,500

1.0 

10 

70 

50 

80

100 

.38 

27 

4.3

- 300 

12 

.57 

2.9 

- 200

30 

3 

- 110 

- 150 

7.7

^Means and ranges given in percent. 

Standard units. Mean is arithmetic, deviation is standard.
TABLE 75.—Element concentrations and pH of soils that supported dry bean plants in areas of commercial productio

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found inmeasurable concentrations to number of samples analyzed, 

indicated. Deviation, geometric deviation, except as indicated. Means and ranges are given in parts per million, except where percent is indicated, 

indicate no data available]

Areas of commercial production

Element, 

or pH

Al 1 -

Ra

Be — — —

C, total 1 -

Co .— — -

Cr- -----

Cu — — —

Fe, total * 

Ga— — -

Ge — — —

Hg—— - —— 

I/I

La- —— --

Li- ————

Na 1 -- — -

Nb — — —

Ni — — _.

Pb — -----

Rb — —— ——

S, total--

Se-— — -

Si 1 -— —

Sn — — —

Sr — — —

Th- — — -

U ——————

V ——————

Zn — — —

Zr—— ....

pH 2—— - —

Wayne County, N.Y.

Ratio

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

0:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

3:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

1:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5

4:5 

4:5 

5:5 

5:5

0:5 

4:5 

3:5 

5:5 

4:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

Mean

3.4 

7.1 

26 

300

1.2 

.69 

5.0 

22 

43

430 

1.8 

8.8 

1.0 

.047

1.4 

<30

21 

.30 

340

.80 

9.5 

5.3 

10 

44

<800 

3.8 

.15 

34 

.31

100 

5.2 

.35 

2.0 

33

13

1.5 

44 

370 

5.8

Deviation

1.39 

1.62 

1.50 

1.00

1.31 

3.14 

1.00 

1.35 

1.73

1.14 

1.36 

1.40 

1.49 

1.37

1.25

1.09 

1.32 

1.48

1.08 

1.10 

2.24 

1.00 

1.20

1.45 

3.81 

1.15 

2.25

1.54 

1.45 

1.17 

1.05 

1.26

1.25 

1.00 

1.14 

1.79 

.44

Observed 

range

2.3

3.4 

20

.78 

.37

15

20

<400 

1.2

7 

.53 

.030

1.1 

<30 

19 

.21 

200

.73 

<2

35

<3 

2?'

70 

3.3 

.28 

1.9 

30

10

37 

200 

5.4

5.6

- 12 

- 50

1.6 

- 5.3

- 30 

- 70

- 500 

2.8 

- 15 

- 1.4 

.070

1.9 

- 30 

- 23 

.42 

- 500

.85 

- 10 

- 10

- 55

5 

.9 

- 37 

.58

- 200 

7.5 

.43 

2.1 

- 50

- 15

- 51 

- 700 

6.5

Twin Falls County, Idaho

Ratio Mean

5:5 4.7 

5:5 5.2 

5:5 26 

5:5 610 

5:5 1.1

5:5 2.0 

5:5 4.7 

5:5 6.5 

5:5 50 

5:5 16

5:5 800 

5:5 2.2 

5:5 15 

5:5 1.0 

5:5 .038

5:5 1.7 

5:5 30 

5:5 25 

5:5 1.3 

5:5 280

5:5 .88 

5:5 10 

5:5 16 

5:5 16 

5:5 76

1:5 

5:5 7.0 

3:4 21 

5:5 29 

5:5 1.0

5:5 200 

5:5 12 

5:5 .34 

5:5 3.0 

5:5 65

5:5 16 

5:5 1.8 

5:5 76 

5:5 180 

5:5 8.1

Deviation

1.12 

1.26 

1.25 

1.20 

1.20

1.26 

1.38 

1.16 

1.00 

1.14

1.50 

1.08 

1.00 

1.22 

1.22

1.07 

1.00 

1.05 

1.16 

1.46

1.09 

1.00 

1.14 

1.14 

1.06

1.00 

2.22 

1.04 

2.75

1.00 

1.13 

1.06 

1.06 

1.16

1.14 

1.36 

1.11 

1.36 

.26

Observed Ratio 

range

4.0 

4.0 

20 

500

1

1.6 

3.3 

5

15

500 

2.0

.80 

.03

1.6

24 

1.1 

200

.80

15 

15 

70

<800

28" 

.18

11 

.31 

2.7 

50

15 

1.5 

71 

150 

7.7

5.3 

7.3 

30 

700 

1.5

2.7 

6.5 

7

20

- 1,400 

2.4

1.3 

.046

1.9

27 

1.5 

500

.99

20 

20 

80

940

48 

30 

2.5

14 

.36 

3.2 

70

20 

3 

92 

- 300 

8.4

5:5 

5:5 

3:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

1:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

0:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

3:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

1:5 

5:5 

4:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

Areas of commercial production (co

San Joaquin County, Calif.

Mean

7.1 

3.8 

12 

870 

1

1.1 

1.9 

16 

110 

61

4.0 

19 

1.5 

.026

1.6 

<30 

23 

1.2 

610

1.0 

8.9 

57 

15 

84

19 

.14 

28 

.58

260 

8.0 

.51 

2.7 

160

16 

2.0 

110 

120 

7.0

Deviation

1.18 

1.15 

2.30 

1.22 

1.00

1.02 

1.14 

1.14 

1.36 

1.36

1.34 

1.14 

1.27 

1.40

1.09

1.05 

1.01 

1.36

1.02 

1.16 

1.20 

1.00 

1.05

1.14 

1.60 

1.04 

2.08

1.25 

1.15 

1.31 

1.04 

1.14

1.14 

1.33 

1.04 

1.25 

.19

Observed 

range

5.3 

3.2

700

1.1

1.7 

15 

100 

50

<400 

2.3 

15 

.96 

.016

1.5

22 

1.2 

500

1.0 

50 

80

<800 

15

2?'

.17

200 

6.5 

.31 

2.6 

150

15 

1.5 

100 

100 

6.8

7.9 

4.7 

30 

- 1,000

1.2 

2.4 

20 

- 200 

- 100

500 

4.6 

20 

1.7 

.035

1.9

25

1.2 

- 1,000

1.1 

10 

70

90

- 890 

20 

.29 

30 

.98

- 300 

9.5 

.59 

2.8 

- 200

20 

3 

- 120 

150 

7.3

Ratio Me

5:5 3.8 

5:5 8.9 

5:5 33 

5:5 570 

2:5 .8

5:5 2.1 

5:5 3.3 

5:5 5.0 

5:5 45 

5:5 17

5:5 630 

5:5 1.9 

5:5 14 

5:5 1.1 

5:5 .0

5:5 1.5 

3:5 31 

5:5 26 

5:5 .9

5:5 180

5:5 .7

1:5 <10 

5:5 15 

5:5 18 

5:5 82

2:5 680 

5:5 5.7 

3:5 .1

5:5 30 

5:5 .8

5:5 310 

5:5 10 

5:5 .3

5:5 3.6 

5:5 140

5:5 17 

5:5 1.8 

5:5 84 

5:5 110 

5:5 7.9

i;Means and ranges given in percent. 

Standard units. Mean is arithmetic. Deviation is standard.
112 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 76.—Element concentrations and pH of soils that

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in 

indicated. Deviation, geometric deviation, except as indicated. Means and ranges are given in 

indicate no data available]

Areas of commercial production

Element, 

or pH

All- ___.

flc_____ __ _

D =

Be—- ———

C.total 1 - 

ralCo — — —

rr_ _ _____

Cu— ———

F— ....

Fe, total 1 

Ga— — —

Ge— ———

Hg—— - — 

Ifl

La--- ———

1 i____.___

Mg 1 1 — — —

Mn —————

M-,l_

Nb — - ——

NI —————

Pb ——— --

Rb — —— - —

S, total — 

Sc- __ ---

SP __ _ -

Si 1 1 - _ ---

Sn— —— --

Sr--------

Th-- —— ...

Til-——

U ——————

V _________

Y ——————

WL

Zn — — —

Zr —————

PH2~~-

Cumberland County, N.J.

Ratio

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

2:5

5:5 

5:5 

3:5 

5:5 

5:5

1:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

4:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

4:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

0:5 

4:5 

2:5 

5:5 

4:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

Mean

2.0 

11 

28 

200 

.80

.94 

.27 

3.0 

16 

14

<400 

1.0 

5.7 

1.0 

.048

.70 

29 

14 

.17 

190

.20 

9.5 

7.0 

14 

37

<800 

2.9 

.075 

37 

.66

23 

7.3 

.48 

2.4 

24

16 

1.6 

38 

200 

6.6

Deviation

1.37 

1.65 

1.72 

1.28 

1.23

1.26 

1.17 

1.64 

1.33 

1.35

1.25 

1.20 

1.22 

1.39

1.20 

1.07 

1.25 

1.31 

1.33

1.24 

1.10 

1.28 

1.42 

1.37

1.07 

3.95 

1.08 

3.61

1.46 

1.44 

1.11 

1.17 

1.37

1.33 

1.14 

1.37 

1.28 

.44

Observed 

range

1.3 

4.7 

20 

150 

<1

.66 

.24 

<3 

10 

10

<400 

.82 

5 

.75 

.030

.53 

<30 

10 

.12 

150

.15 

<10 

5 

10 

25

<3

<.l 

35 

<.l

15 

4.8 

.42 

2.0 

15

10 

1.5 

27 

150 

6.0

- 2.8 

- 18 

- 70 

- 300 

- 1

- 1.2

.34 

5 

- 20 

- 20

- 900 

- 1.4 

- 7 

- 1.2 

.063

.85 

- 30 

- 17 

.24 

- 300

.27 

- 10 

- 10 

- 20 

- 55

- 3 

.46 

- 42 

- 1.8

- 30 

- 11 

.54 

- 2.9 

- 30

- 20 

- 2 

- 59 

- 300 

- 7.0

Ratio

0:5 

5:5 

0:5 

5:5 

0:5

5:5 

5:5 

0:5 

5:5 

5:5

1:5 

4:5 

0:5 

1:5 

5:5

5:5 

0:5 

0:5 

5:5 

5:5

0:5 

0:5 

0:5 

0:5 

0:5

0:5 

0:5 

3:5 

5:5 

2:5

5:5

1:4 

5:5 

0:5

1:5 

0:5 

5:5 

0:5 

5:5

Palm Beach County, Fla.

Mean

<.26 

.93 

<10 

77 

<1

46 

3.0 

<3 

1.4 

50

<400 

.076 

<5 

<.l 

.14

.27 

<30 

<5 

.19 

200

<.07 

<10 

<2 

<10 

<20

<800 

<3 

.14 

.55 

.054

82

<.03 

1.1 

<7

<10 

<1 

83 

<10 

4.9

Devtation

5.66 

2.18

1.03 

1.05

1.42 

1.00

2.21

1.19 

1.62

1.14 

7.30

2.10 

1.23 

10.7

1.41 

1.46

1.25 

.11

Observed 

range

.22 - 18

50 - 300

44 - 48 

2.9 - 3.2

1 - 2

<400 - 400 

.056- .20

<.l - 1.3 

.11 - .16

.17 - .57

.15 - .21 

70 - 7,000

<.l - .32 

.42 - .71 

<.l - 1.3

70 - 150

<.03 - .03 

.64 - 1.5

<10 - 10 

58 - 100 

4.7 - 5.0

^Means and ranges given in percent.

^Standard units. Mean is arithmetic. Deviation is standard.
TABLES 4-121

supported lettuce plants in areas of commercial production

measurable concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean, except as 

parts per million, except where percent is indicated. Leaders (--) in figure column

113

Areas of commercial production (continued)

Hidalgo County, Texas

Ratio

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

4:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

3:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

0:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

0:5

5:5

3:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

Mean

4.9

10

20

500

.95

3.9

11

5

41

16

730

2.5

15

1.0

.047

1.8

28

30

.87

240

.82

<10

12

15

81

<800

7

.11

22

1.7

500

10

.32

2.8

75

16

1.6

78

100

8.1

Deviation

1.07

1.15

1.00

1.00

1.10

1.12

1.00

1.00

1.32

1.14

1.21

1.02

1.00

1.23

1.20

1.02

1.11

1.02

1.03

1.25

1.04

—

1.25

1.00

1.11

__

1.00

1.57

1.04

2.03

1.00

1.20

1.03

1.07

1.17

1.14

1.14

1.06

1.31

.25

Observed 

range

4.5

8.5

<1

3.3

30

15

600

2.5

.74

.036

1.8

<30

29

.84

200

.79

10

70

<.l

21

.88

8.3

.31

2.5

70

15

1.5

72

70

7.8

5.3

12

--

__

1

4.4

__

__

50

20

- 1,000

2.6

--

1.3

.059

1.9

30

30

.90

- 300

.86

__

15

--

90

__

--

.19

23

5.6

__

13

.34

3.0

- 100

20

2

81

- 150

8.4

Ratio

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

3:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

4:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

2:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

1:5

5:5

4:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

Imperial County, Calif.

Mean

4.9

11

37

610

.89

2.2

2.8

7

48

31

630

2.2

17

1.3

.041

1.7

31

40

1.2

310

.61

8

17

22

93

__

8.7

.18

29

1.0

260

12

.31

3.3

87

19

1.9

81

100

8.0

Deviation

1.50

2.07

1.32

1.36

1.16

1.19

2.75

1.00

1.35

1.38

1.24

1.41

1.17

1.15

1.70

1.31

1.35

1.10

1.67

1.38

1.07

1.23

1.17

1.20

1.14

__

1.22

1.90

1.18

1.77

1.50

1.12

1.10

1.10

1.22

1.14

1.33

1.12

1.46

.11

Observed 

range

2.4

6.3

30

500

<1

1.9

.46

30

20

500

1.2

15

1.1

.029

1.1

<30

34

.48

200

.56

<10

15

20

80

<800

7

<.l

26

.40

200

11

.27

2.8

70

15

1.5

67

70

7.9

6.5

40

50

- 1,000

1

3.0

4.6

-_

70

50

- 800

2.8

20

1.5

.10

2.0

50

43

1.6

- 500

.66

10

20

30

- 120

- 1,700

10

.36

39

1.8

- 500

14

.33

3.6

- 100

20

3

88

- 150

8.2
114 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 77.—Element concentrations and pH of soils that

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in 

indicated. Deviation, geometric deviation, except as indicated. Means and ranges are given in 

indicate no data available]

Areas of commercial production

Element, 

or pH

All————

D ^

Be ________

C, total 1-

Co— — —

Cu ——— —

F— ....

Fe, total 1 

Ga— -----

Ge ——— —

Hg——— — 

K 1

La-- — —

Li— — -

Mg 1 _______

Mn— —— —

Nb —— — —

Pb — - ——

S, total —

Sc --------

Se------- -

i Si 1 - ____

Sn —— - —

Sr--- _ - _

Th-—— —

Til— — -

U — ___—

V _-_-____.

Y ——————

Wl_

7«

Zr-— ——

P

Wayne County, N.Y.

Ratio

5:5 

5:5 

4:5 

5:5 

0:5

5:5 

5:5 

4:5 

5:5 

5:5

2:5 

5:5 

4:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

0:5 

4:5 

5:5 

5:5

4:5 

1:5 

5:5 

5:5 

4:5

2:5 

4:5 

5:5 

5:5 

4:5

5:5 

4:4 

5:5 

5:5 

4:5

4:5 

4:5 

5:5 

4:5 

5:5

Mean

2.6 

13 

16 

240

5.9 

1.0 

4.3 

17 

17

374 

1.2 

7.9 

1.0 

.070

.92 

<30 

14 

.24 

145

.49

6.1 

14 

33

670 

3.4 

.34 

20 

.49

110 

4.7 

.26 

2.4 

22

12 

1.3 

46 

118 

4.8

Deviation

1.99 

1.85 

1.55 

2.10

3.61 

2.27 

1.38 

2.09 

2.41

1.45 

1.34 

1.60 

1.99 

2.55

2.00

1.97 

1.51 

1.54

3.45

1.36 

1.35 

1.49

1.75 

1.44 

1.84 

3.19 

3.81

1.38 

1.15 

2.40 

1.47 

2.53

1.39 

1.60 

1.26 

6.02 

6.30

Observed 

range

.77 

6.2

70

2.0 

.61 

<3 

5 

7

500 

.67 

<5 

.31 

.024

.27

17 

.12 

70

<.07

5 

1 

<20

<800 

<3 

.13 

2.5 

<.l

70 

4.1 

.055 

1.6 

<7

36 

<200 

4.9

4.0 

24 

20 

500

40 

4.3 

5 

30 

50

- 600 

1.5 

10 

1.7 

.31

1.4

22

.33 

- 200

1.0 

10 

10 

20 

50

- 1,500 

5 

.58 

36 

2.4

150 

5.3 

.41 

4.5 

50

15 

2 

64 

- 500 

6.8

Ratio

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

1:5 

4:5 

4:5 

5:5 

4:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

Cumberland County, N.J.

Mean

3.8 

34 

61 

450 

1.5

1.2 

.38 

6.1 

59 

140

700 

2.0 

11 

1.3 

.20

1.4 

110 

21 

.35 

220

.45 

13 

13 

20 

67

5.5 

.25 

35 

.78

87 

13 

.62 

4.6 

57

44 

4.5 

51 

255 

5.5

Deviation

1.06 

1.30 

1.20 

1.26 

1.46

1.31 

1.07 

1.20 

1.46 

1.29

1.39 

1.07 

1.20 

1.11 

1.32

1.07 

2.52 

1.06 

1.10 

1.35

1.04 

1.25 

1.25 

1.00 

1.02

1.63 

2.42 

1.02 

4.36

1.22 

1.14 

1.03 

1.04 

1.20

1.44 

1.26 

1.12 

1.25 

.58

Observed 

range

3.6 

24 

50 

300 

1

.88 

.34 

5 

30 

100

500 

1.8 

10 

1.2 

.15

1.3 

50 

20 

.30 

150

.43 

10 

10

60

<800 

<3 

<.l 

34 

.97

70 

11 

.61 

4.4 

50

30 

3 

45 

200 

4.8

4.1 

46 

70 

500 

2

1.7 

.40 

7 

70 

- 150

- 1,200 

2.1 

15 

1.5 

2.7

1.5 

- 500 

23 

.39 

300

.48 

15 

15

75

- 810 

7 

.75 

36 

3.4

- 100 

15 

.65 

4.9 

70

70 

5 

61 

300 

6.3

and ranges given in percent. 

Standard units. Mean is arithmetic. Deviation is standard.
TABLES 4-121 115 

supported potato plants in areas of commercial production

measurable concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean, except as 

parts per million, except where percent is indicated. Leaders (--) in figure column

Areas of commercial production (continued)

Twin Falls County, Idaho

Ratio

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

3:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

4:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

0:5

5:5

1:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

Mean

4.5

4.4

31

700

1.1

1.8

3.5

8.8

53

20

500

2.0

14

1.1

.031

1.7

28

22

1.0

280

.96

10

19

17

72

<800

7

__

31

1.4

217

11

.32

2.7

70

21

2.2

66

210

8.2

Deviation

1.06

1.12

1.38

1.28

1.20

1.21

1.47

1.40

1.16

1.68

1.15

1.01

1.20

1.15

1.21

1.05

1.50

1.06

1.08

1.46

1.06

1.30

1.33

1.17

1.12

__

1.28

__

1.04

1.59

1.20

1.37

3.19

1.10

1.28

1.42

1.35

1.09

1.64

1.64

Observed 

range

4.2

3.7

20

500

1.0

1.5

1.2

7

50

15

400

1.9

10

.93

.023

1.6

<30

21

.91

200

.88

<10

15

15

60

5

<.l

29

.80

200

6.6

.30

2.6

50

15

1.5

58

150

8.0

4.8

4.9

50

- 1,000

1.5

2.4

5.4

15

70

50

- 600

2.0

15

1.4

.037

1.8

50

24

1.1

- 500

1.0

15

30

20

80

_ _

10

.21

32

2.6

- 300

15

.33

3.2

- 100

30

3.0

73

- 500

8.3

Ratio

5:5

5:5

0:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

2:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

1:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

4:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

1:5

5:5

1:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

4:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

Yakima County, Wash.

Mean

7.1

7.1

<10

610

1.0

.76

2.7

18

61

40

360

4.8

17

1.4

.032

1.4

<30

23

1.2

700

2.0

9.5

30

12

52

_ _

20

__

27

.95

370

7.9

.68

1.9

180

22

2.4

93

150

7.1

Deviation

1.07

1.15

__

1.20

1.00

1.25

1.04

1.36

1.36

1.64

1.65

1.07

1.17

1.09

1.20

1.14

__

1.13

1.11

1.57

1.10

1.10

1.00

1.25

1.27

__

1.00

__

1.02

1.39

1.32

1.24

1.10

1.11

1.17

1.35

1.26

1.03

1.28

.35

Observed 

range

6.6

6.0

500

.55

2.6

15

50

20

<400

4.4

15

1.3

.026

1.2

<30

19

1.1

500

1.7

<10

10

40

<800

<.10

27

.63

300

6.1

.60

1.7

150

15

<1

90

100

6.7

7.9

8.8

__

- 700

--

.96

2.9

30

- 100

70

- 700

5.1

20

1.5

.041

1.6

30

26

1.5

- 1,500

2.2

10

__

15

70

- 830

--

.16

28

1.4

- 500

9.5

.76

2.1

- 200

30

3

98

- 200

7.6
116 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 78.—Element concentrations and pH of soils that

[Explanation of column headings: 

deviation, except as indicated.

Ratio, number of samples in which 

Means and ranges are given in parts

the element was found in 

per million, except where

Areas of commercial production

Element, 

or pH

All- . ..

Ac_ __

D -,

Be —————

C^total 1 -

r, 1

Co-- —— --

Q r_ _ ___ _

Cu- —— - ——

Fe, total 1 

Ga——— ---

Ge- — ----

Hg— — -

K 1 —

La —————

Li-——

Mg 1 ————

Mn ———— --

Na 1 ————

Nb —————

Ni —————

Pb —————

DK

S, total — 

Sc ————

Se —————

Si 1 - -

Sr — -----

Th-~- —

Ti 1 —— ---

U ——————

V ——————

Y ——————

Z n ——— --

Zr—— - —

nWRatio

2:2 

2:2 

0:2 

2:2 

0:2

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

0:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

0:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

0:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

0:2 

2:2 

0:2 

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

Berrien

Mean

2.8 

5.5 

<10 

300 

<1

.58 

.43 

5 

15 

21

<400 

1.5 

5.9 

1.1 

.047

1.2 

<30 

12 

.20 

1,500

.57 

<10 

8.4 

15 

42

<800 

5 

<•! 

38 

3.6

59 

4.0 

.22 

1.4 

20

12 

1.5 

54 

150 

6.4

County,

Deviation

1.15 

1.20

1.00

1.05 

1.10 

1.00 

1.00 

1.63

1.03 

1.27 

1.29 

1.31

1.00

1.13 

1.00 

1.00

1.03

1.29 

1.00 

1.09

1.00

1.02 

7.87

1.27 

1.26 

1.07 

1.00 

1.00

1.33 

1.00 

1.03 

1.00 

.07

Mich.

Observed 

range

2.5 - 3.1 

4.8 - 6.2

.56 - .60 

.40 - .46

15 - 30

1.4 - 1.5 

5 - 7 

.91 - 1.3 

.039 - .057

11 - 13

.56 - .59 

7 - 10 

40 - 45

37 - 38 

.83 - 15

50 - 70 

3.4 - 4.7 

.21 - .24

10 - 15 

53 - 55 

6.3 - 6.4

Ratio

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

4:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

3:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

1:5 

5:5 

2:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

Wayne

Mean

4.6 

5.1 

36 

500 

.95

1.8 

.45 

7.5 

41 

19

540 

2.3 

15 

1.5 

.056

1.6 

28 

32 

.54 

480

.94 

11 

16 

16 

77

7.5 

.078 

33 

.86

150 

8.0 

.48 

2.6 

75

19 

1.9 

77 

200 

5.7

County,

Deviation

1.06 

1.28 

1.63 

1.00 

1.10

1.14 

1.28 

1.17 

1.32 

1.33

1.29 

1.03 

1.00 

1.15 

1.37

1.01 

1.50 

1.13 

1.09 

1.35

1.06 

1.20 

1.33 

1.14 

1.04

1.17 

2.73 

1.04 

1.47

1.00 

1.17 

1.06 

1.16 

1.17

1.33 

1.33 

1.08 

1.46 

62

N.Y.

Observed 

range

4.3 - 

3.8 - 

20

<1

1.5 - 

.34 - 

7 

30 

15

400 

2.3 -

1.2 - 

.035-

1.5 - 

<30 

28 

.48 - 

300

.87 - 

10 

10 

15 

75

<800 

7 

<.l - 

31 

.50 -

6.7 - 

.45 - 

2.2 - 

70

15 

1.5 - 

69 

150 

4.8 -

5.1 

6.7 

70

1

2.1 

.67 

10 

50 

30

800 

2.4

1.7 

.086

1.6 

50 

38 

.59 

700

1.0 

15 

20 

20 

80

860 

10 

.31 

34 

1.4

9.3 

.51 

3.2 

100

30 

3.0 

84 

300 

6.2

and ranges given in percent. 

Standard units. Mean is arithmetic. Deviation is standard.
TABLES 4-121 117

supported snap bean plants in areas of commercial production

measurable concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean, except as indicated, 

percent is indicated. Leaders (--) in figure column indicate no data available.]

Deviation, geometric

Areas of commercial production (continued)

Cumberland County, N.J.

Ratio

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

1:5

5:5

5:5

3:5

5:5

5:5

1:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

3:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

4:5

4:5

5:5

5:5

0:5

4:5

2:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

Mean

2.5

6.5

28

220

<1

.78

.45

3.4

21

14

__

1.4

5.7

1.1

.068

.91

30

14

.15

170

.20

9.5

4.4

13

35

<800

3.8

.068

35

.92

27

8.2

.45

2.6

26

16

1.7

35

210

6.2

Deviation

1.56

1.31

1.46

1.20

--

1.42

4.74

1.65

1.64

1.35

__

1.35

1.20

1.11

5.73

1.52

1.64

1.17

1.21

1.17

1.24

1.10

2.02

1.25

1.42

__

1.45

4.09

1.15

1.60

1.76

1.46

1.37

1.15

1.25

1.33

1.17

1.24

1.64

.47

Observed 

range

1.4

4.5

20

200

<1

.54

.15

<3

15

10

<400

.98

5

.92

.020

.60

<30

11

.13

150

.15

<10

<2

10

25

<3

<.l

28

.51

15

4.7

.26

2.0

20

10

1.5

25

150

5.5

4.9

- 8.7

- 50

- 300

- 1

- 1.3

7.0

- 5

- 50

- 20

- 500

2.2

7

1.2

- 1.4

1.8

- 50

- 16

.20

- 200

.27

- 10

- 10

- 15

- 55

__

- 5

.47

- 40

1.8

- 50

- 11

.56

- 2.9

- 30

- 20

2.0

- 46

- 500

- 6.7

Ratio

1:5

3:5

4:5

5:5

0:5

5:5

5:5

0:5

5:5

5:5

0:5

1:5

0:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

0:5

0:5

1:5

5:5

1:5

0:5

1:5

0:5

0:5

0:5

0:5

2:5

5:5

1:5

0:5

0:5

5:5

5:5

0:5

1:5

1:5

2:5

5:5

5:5

Palm Beach County, Fla.

Mean

__

.17

48

19

<1

.89

.28

<3

2.4

5.2

<400

._

<5

.75

.016

.20

<30

<5

__

22

__

<1 0

._

<10

<20

<800

<3

.054

38

--

<5

<]

.081

.52

<7

..

._

6.3

89

6.9

Deviation

__

2.61

4.22

1.60

--

1.49

3.71

__

1.37

2.08

..

__

__

2.02

1.54

3.99

__

__

__

4.33

__

__

__

—

--

__

__

11.2

1.18

--

__

__

2.16

1.28

--

..

__

3.60

3.19

.62

Observed 

range

.26 - 7.4

<.l - .8

<10 - 200

20 - 30

--

.58 - 1.5

.082 - 2.6

__

1.5 - 3.0

1.5 - 10

__

<.03 - 1.9

__

.21 - 1.1

.010 - .025

.098 - 2.4

__

__

<.06 - .084

2 - 70

<.07 - .052

__

<2 - 5

__

--

__

__

<.l - 1.5

29 - 45

<.l - .22

__

__

.044 - .28

.40 - .69

--

<10 - 15

<1 - 1.5

<10 - 38

30 - 300

6.2 - 7.9

Ratio

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

0:5

5:5

3:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

Twin Falls County, Idaho

Mean

5.1

6.3

28

650

1.2

1.8

3.4

7

57

18

580

2.6

15

1.4

.037

1.8

33

27

1.1

450

1.0

10

17

17

76

<800

8.1

.12

30

1.0

240

12

.42

3.0

81

22

2.4

80

180

8.3

Deviation

1.05

1.49

1.20

1.16

1.25

1.27

1.26

1.00

1.20

1.17

1.15

1.05

1.00

1.09

1.25

1.04

1.26

1.07

1.08

1.26

1.02

1.00

1.17

1.17

1.06

__

1.22

1.76

1.04

1.42

1.25

1.27

1.06

1.07

1.22

1.20

1.25

1.06

1.36

.11

Observed 

range

4.8

4.5

20

500

1.0

1.3

2.6

50

15

500

2.4

1.2

.030

1.7

30

25

.96

300

1.0

15

15

70

7

<.l

28

.58

200

8.1

.39

2.8

70

20

2

76

150

8.1

- 5.4

- 12

- 30

-700

- 1.5

- 2.6

- 4.4

—

- 70

- 20

-700

- 2.7

__

- 1.6

- .052

- 1.8

- 50

- 29

- 1.2

-500

- 1.1

__

- 20

- 20

- 80

__

- 10

- .23

- 31

- 1.5

-300

- 16

- .44

- 3.3

-100

- 30

- 3

- 89

-300

- 8.4
118 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 79.—Element concentrations and pH of foils that

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in 

as indicated. Deviation, geometric deviation, except as indicated. Means and ranges are given in 

indicate no data available]

Areas of commercial production

El ement , 

or pH

All-——

AC __ ___ __ _

K =

D «

C.-total 1 -

r a l__ _ _ _

Co ——————

Cr------ _

Cu ——————

Fe, total 1 

Ga —————

Ge— — -

Hg— — ~

Kl

La — - ——

li __ _ _

i Mgl ——————

Mm.

|\l=l__ __ _ __

Nb —————

Ni —————

Pb —— - ——

nu.

S, total-- 

Sc~— —

SP-- ___ -

i Si 1 -- __ _

Sn —————

s r _ _ _ _ __

Th- —— — -

Til- ————

U ——————

V ——————

Y ——————

vu.

Zn —————

Zr —————

pH nu2—————

Berrien County, Mich.

Ratio

5:5 

5:5 

4:5 

5:5 

0:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

1:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

0:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

2:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

0:5 

2:5 

3:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

4:4 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

4:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

Mean

2.4 

7.9 

20 

410 

<1

.72 

.36 

5.2 

30 

13

<400 

1.0 

7.1 

1.1 

.043

1.4 

<30 

12 

.20 

520

.60 

8.0 

7.0 

22 

52

<800 

2.2 

.12 

35 

.28

87 

4.9 

.19 

1.3 

28

9.5 

1.1 

40 

140 

6.1

Deviation

1.31 

2.83 

2.13 

1.32

1.51 

1.13 

1.42 

1.67 

1.25

1.16 

1.41 

1.12 

1.59

1.28

1.28 

1.20 

1.42

1.09 

1.23 

1.28 

1.35 

1.17

1.81 

1.82 

1.13 

2.33

1.22 

1.25 

1.39 

1.16 

1.20

1.10 

1.20 

1.13 

1.35 

.69

Observed 

range

1.6 

3.9 

<10 

300

.53 

.31 

3 

20 

10

<400 

.91 

5 

.92 

.023

.93

9 

.16 

300

.54 

<10 

5 

15 

40

<3 

<.l 

29 

.10

70 

3.6 

.11 

1.1 

20

<10 

1 

35 

100 

5.5

- 3.4 

- 48 

- 50 

- 500

- 1.5 

.42 

7 

- 70 

- 15

- 400 

- 1.3 

- 10 

- 1.2 

.082

- 1.7

- 17 

.27 

- 700

.66 

- 10 

- 10 

- 30 

- 60

- 5 

.26 

- 40 

.70

- 100 

- 5.8 

.25 

- 1.6 

- 30

- 10 

- 1.5 

- 45 

- 200 

- 7.3

Ratio

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

0:5

5:5 

5:5 

1:5 

5:5 

5:5

3:5 

5:5 

2:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

2:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

3:5 

5:5 

3:5 

5:5 

5:5

0:5 

0:5 

4:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

3:5 

4:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

Salem

Mean

1.2 

5.5 

31 

180 

<1

.81 

.18 

<3 

32 

18

430 

1.2 

3.7 

1.1 

.069

.63 

26 

10 

.14 

160

.082 

10 

2.2 

12 

26

<800 

<3 

.16 

39 

.79

12 

4.8 

.47 

2.4 

23

9.8 

1.4 

32 

360 

6.3

County, N.J.

Deviation

1.69 

1.57 

1.38 

1.17

1.41 

1.30

3.49 

1.36

1.14 

1.16 

1.33 

1.32 

2.50

1.16 

1.16 

1.17 

1.24 

1.33

1.98 

1.00 

2.63 

1.38 

1.18

1.53 

1.02 

1.56

1.79 

1.29 

1.34 

1.18 

1.46

1.79 

1.85 

1.32 

1.46 

.44

Observed 

range

.61 

3.4 

20 

150

.55 

.15 

<3 

15 

15

<400 

1.0 

<5 

.70 

.023

.53 

<30 

8 

.096 

100

<.07

<2

10 

20

<.l

38 

.43

5 

3.4 

.32 

2.0 

15

<10 

<1 

21 

300 

5.7

- 2.1 

- 11 

- 50 

- 200

- 1.2 

.27 

- 3 

- 300 

- 30

- 500 

- 1.5 

- 5 

- 1.3 

.21

.75 

- 30 

- 12 

.17 

- 200

.21

- 7 

- 20 

- 30

.24 

- 40 

- 1.2

- 20 

- 6.8 

.65 

- 2.8 

- 30

- 20 

- 3 

- 41 

- 700 

- 6.8

^Means and ranges given in percent.

^Standard units. Mean is arithmetic. Deviation is standard.
TABLES 4-121

supported sweet corn in areas of commercial production

measurable concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean, except 

parts per million, except where percent is indicated. Leaders (—) in figure column

119

Areas of commercial production (continued)

Palm Beach County, Fla.

Ratio

0:5

1:5

4:5

5:5

0:5

5:5

5:5

0:5

5:5

5:5

2:5

0:5

0:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

0:5

0:5

0:5

5:5

0:5

1:5

0:5

0:5

0:5

0:5

0:5

2.5

5:5

3:5

0:5

--

5:5

5:5

0:5

0:5

0:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

Mean

<.3

—

34

15

<1

.52

.092

<3

4.5

15

390

<.03

<5

.76

.029

.077

<30 '

<5

<.06

34

<.07

—

<2

<10

<20

<800

<3

.092

41

.17

<5

—

.054

.56

<7

<10

<1

20

78

5.8

Deviation

--

2.58

1.28

--

1.41

1.16

—

1.26

1.28

1.27

—

__

1.20

1.41

1.40

--

__

__

1.48

__

__

__

--

--

__

--

1.30

1.05

3.19

_ _

—

1.24

1.20

--

__

--

1.45

1.99

.39

Observed Ratio 

range

5:5

<.l - .12 5:5

<10 - 70 5:5

10 - 20 5:5

5:5

.32 - .71 5:5

.077 - .11 5:5

5:5

3-5 5:5

10 - 20 5:5

<400 - 500 5:5

5:5

5:5

.59 - .92 5:5

.018 - .040 5:5

.050 - .11 5:5

3:5

5:5

5:5

20 - 50 5:5

5:5

<10 - 10 5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

0:5

5:5

<.l - .13 3:5

38 - 43 5:5

<.l - .53 5:5

5:5

5:5

.040 - .066 5:5

.44 - .69 5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

12 - 32 5:5

30 - 200 5:5

5.5 - 6.4 5:5

Twin Falls County, Idaho

Mean

4.6

5.0

24

650

1.1

2.4

5.3

7.5

71

24

630

2.3

17

1.2

.035

1.7

30

26

1.3

400

.92

10

17

17

71

<800

7.0

.13

27

1.1

220

11

.35

2.9

87

21

2.3

68

230

8.0

Deviation

1.15

1.38

1.25

1.16

1.20

1.27

1.46

1.34

1.41

1.38

1.24

1.14

1.17

1.12

1.25

1.05

1.64

1.09

1.14

1.64

1.07

1.00

1.17

1.17

1.10

_ _

1.28

2.20

1.08

1.55

1.20

1.19

1.17

1.08

1.22

1.42

1.46

1.08

1.46

.13

Observed 

range

4.1

3.5

20

500

1

1.6

2.9

5.0

50

15

500

2.1

15

1.0

.024

1.6

<30

24

1.1

200

.87

15

15

65

5

<.l

25

.69

200

8.4

.31

2.6

70

15

1.5

62

150

7.9

- 5.8

- 7.3

- 30

- 700

- 1.5

- 3.0

- 7.9

- 10

- 100

- 30

- 800

- 2.9

- 20

- 1.4

.043

- 1.8

- 50

- 30

- 1.6

- 700

- 1.0

__

- 20

- 20

- 80

__

- 10

- 3.1

- 30

- 1.9

-300

- 13

.45

- 3.1

- 100

- 30

- 3.0

- 75

- 300

- 8.2
120 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE SO.—Element concentrations and pH of soils that

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in 

except as indicated. Means and ranges are given in parts per million, except where percent is

Areas of commercial production

Element, 

or pH

Al 1

AO

n _

Be —————

C.-total 1 - 

r,l

Co-- —— ——

Qr_ _ _____

Cu ———————

Fe, total 1 

Ga — - ——

Ge— — -

Hg— — - 

K 1 -

La ————— liii:~--:

Mn —————

M-,1

Nb —————

Ni— — -.

Pb —————

Rb —————

S, total — 

SC —————

ieCp_ _ ___ ——____ ____

$jl _______

S n —————

Th--— —

Ti 1 — — -

U —————

V —————

Y ——————

Zn —————

Zr —

pH2 — — -

-u, ————— —

Berrien County, Mich.

Ratio

5:5 

5:5 

3:5 

5:5 

0:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

2:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

0:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

0:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

0:5 

1:5 

4:5 

5:5 

3:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

Mean

2.4 

5.0 

12 

370 

<1

.95 

.42 

4.1 

23 

15

370 

1.0 

6.1 

1.0 

.061

1.3 

<30 

11 

.18 

680

.59 

<10 

8.2 

19 

45

<800

.19 

38 

.15

81 

4.2 

.20 

1.2 

20

10 

1.1 

44 

130 

6.5

Deviation

1.16 

3.15 

2.30 

1.32

1.34 

1.11 

1.32 

1.90 

1.28

1.70 

1.27 

1.20 

1.13 

2.14

1.14

1.16 

1.16 

1.73

1.08

1.41 

2.13 

1.12

2.00 

1.04 

2.34

1.22 

1.20 

1.14 

1.14 

1.00

1.00 

1.36 

1.19 

1.74 

4.55

Observed 

range

2.1 

.95 

<10 

300

.66 

.35 

3 

15 

10

<400 

.B2 

5 

.88 

.031

1.1

9 

.16 

300

.52

7 

10 

40

<3

.11 

36 

.23

70 

3.3 

.17 

.98

1 

38 

70 

5.8

3.0 

20 

30 

- 500

1.4 

.46 

5 

70 

20

- 700 

1.5 

7 

1.2 

.22

1.5

13 

.23 

- 1,000

.65

15 

70 

50

5 

.36 

40 

.35

- 100 

5.4 

.24 

1.4

2 

54 

- 300 

7.0

Ratio

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

1:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

1:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

4:5 

5:5 

5:5

1:5

4:5 

2:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

Cumberland County, N.J.

Mean

2.5 

7.3 

33 

222

.89 

.23 

4.1 

24 

19

<400 

1.3 

6.5 

1.2 

.051

.79 

41 

16 

.17 

240

.23 

13 

5.7 

13 

41

4.5 

.070 

37 

1.1

31 

9.2 

.58 

2.8 

31

28 

3.3 

31 

330 

6.8

Deviation

1.21 

1.25 

1.26 

1.35

1.19 

1.22 

1.32 

1.37 

1.60

1.12 

1.16 

1.07 

1.36

1.09 

1.32 

1.09 

1.10 

1.25

1.04 

1.25 

2.52 

1.25 

1.05

1.50 

3.17 

1.03 

1.38

1.38 

1.12 

1.10 

1.12 

1.38

1.46 

1.58 

1.10 

1.75 

1.09

Observed 

range

1.9 

5.0 

30 

150 

<1

.67 

.18 

3 

15 

10

<400 

1.1 

5 

1.0 

.036

.67 

30 

14 

.14 

200

.22 

10 

<2 

10 

40

<800 - 

<3 

<.l 

35 

.75

20 

8.5 

.54 2.4 ' 

20

20 

2 

28 

200 

6.0

- 3.2 

- 8.9 

- 50 

- 300

- v 1.5

- 1.0 

.32 

- 5 

- 30 

- 30

- 400 

- 1.5 

- 7 

- 1.2 

.082

.83 

- 50 

- 17 

.19 

- 300

.24 

- 15 

- 15 

- 15 

- 45

860 

- 7 

.35 

- 39 

- 1.6

- 50 

- 11 

.68 

- 3.3 

- 50

- 50 

- 7 

- 34 

- 700 

- 8.6

^Means and ranges given in percent. 

^Standard units. Mean is arithmetic. Deviation is standard.
TABLES 4-121 121

supported tomato plants in areas of commercial production

measurable concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean, except as indicated, 

indicated. Leaders (--) in figure column indicate no data available.]

Deviation, geometric deviation,

Areas of commercial production (continued)

Palm Beach County, Fla. Yakima County, Wash. San Joaquin County, Calif.

Ratio

0:5

2:5

0:5

5:5

0:5

5:5

5:5

1:5

5:5

5:5

0:5

0:5

0:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

0:5

0:5

1:5

5:5

0:5

1:5

0:5

0:5

0:5

0:5

0:5

0:5

5:5

1:5

0:5

__

5:5

5:5

0:5

0:5

0:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

Mean

<.26

.070

<10

17

<1

.58

.29

»

2.7

45

<400

<.03

<5

.81

.020

.099

<30

<5

<.06

57

<.07 '

—

<2

<10

<20

<800

<3

<.l

39

—

<5

__

.053

.58

<7

<10

<1

21

140

8.2

Devia- Observed 

tion range

14.1 <.l - 1.3

—

1.17 15 - 20

--

1.15 .53 - .74

1.29 .20 - .40

<3 - 5

2.85 1 - 15

1.60 20 - 70

__

—

—

1.23 .59 - 1.0

1.51 .010 - .03

1.17 .076 - .12

—

__

<.06 - .06

1.20 50 - 70

__

<10 - 15

__

__

—

_

__

—

1.10 35 - 44

<.l - .85

__

—

1.21 .039 - .067

1.14 .47 - .65

--

__

__

1.05 20 — 23

1.35 100 - 200

.50 7.4 - 8.7

Ratio

5:5

5:5

0:5

5:5

4:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

3:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

0:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

2:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

1:5

5:5

1:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

3:3

5:5

5:5

5:5

Mean

7.4

5.5

<10

620

.95

.57

2.9

17

88

37

<400

4.9

20

1.4

.046

1.3

<30

22

1.2

700

2.0

8.0

30

10

46

__

20

._

27

1.0

410

6.2

.64

1.8

160

18

2

96

120

6.6

Deviation

1.05

1.38

__

1.63

1.10

1.10

1.02

1.17

1.40

1.32

__

1.04

1.00

1.15

1.32

1.03

__

1.03

1.02

1.41

1.04

1.23

1.00

1.00

1.10

__

1.00

__

1.04

1.51

1.32

1.11

1.04

1.21

1.14

1.36

1.00

1.08

1.25

.26

Observed 

range

6.9

3.6

500

<1

.51

2.8

15

70

30

<400

4.8

1.2

.03

1.3

21

1.2

500

1.9

<10

40

<800

<.l

26

.52

300

5.2

.62

1.5

150

15

86

100

6.3

7.7

8.4

__

- 1,500

1

.64

2.9

20

- 150

50

- 400

5.2

__

1.7

.67

1.4

__

23

1.3

- 1,000

2.1

10

__

__

50

- 940

__

.18

28

1.5

- 500

7.0

.68

2.4

- 200

30

__

— 100

- 150

6.9

Ratio

5:5

5:5

0:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

1:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

0:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

3:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

0:5

5:5

1:5

5:5

4:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

Mean

6.9

3.3

<10

870

1.0

.40

2.7

6.1

20

8.1

__

2.4

18

1.0

.026

2.1

<30

13

.58

280

2.7

8.9

10

16

75

<800

6.5

__

29

.53

810

15

.33

3.0

93

11

1.2

48

100

8.5

Deviation

1.02

1.25

__

1.22

1.00

1.23

1.02

1.2

1.28

1.22

__

1.08

1.17

1.14

1.72

1.02

-_

1.08

1.04

1.20

1.02

1.16

1.31

1.14

1.07

__

1.16

—

1.05

3.13

1.22

1.44

1.03

1.08

1.17

1.20

1.25

1.14

1.46

.22

Observed 

range

6.8

2.7

700

.29

2.7

5

15

7

<400

2.3

15

.87

.010

2.0

12

.56

200

2.6

<10

7.0

15

70

5

<.l

27

.75

700

10

.32

2.7

70

10

1.0

40

70

8.2

7.1

4.8

__

- 1,000

--

.48

2.8

7

30

10

- 500

2.7

20

1.2

.039

2.1

—

15

.62

- 300

2.8

10

15

20

80

__

7

.11

30

1.4

- 1,000

24

.34

3.3

- 100

15

1.5

55

- 150

8.7
122 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 81.—Summary statistics of element concentrations andpH of soils that supported American grape vines in

three areas of commercial production

Ltxplanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean, except as indicated. Deviation, 

geometric deviation, except as indicated. Means and ranges are given in parts per million, except as 

indicated]

Element,

or pH

All ——-

As--------

D -.

Be— — -

C.total 1 -

Ca 1 — — -

Co— -----

Cr—— ——

Fe, total *

Ge—— — -

Hg——— —

l/l

La —————

Li —————

Mg 1 ——————

Mn ———— ——

Ratio

15:15

15:15

11:15

15:15

4:15

15:15

15:15

15:15

15-15

15:15

6:15

15:15

15:15

15:15

15:15

15:15

5-1 5

15:15

15:15

IR-IR

Mean Devia4.1

5.9

17

470

.72

1.8

1.0

7.5

29

34

310

2.2

12

1.3

.042

1.5

21

17

.49

47D

tion

1.40

I

/TO

2.12

1 OC

1.29

1.62

2.48

1.73

1.67

2.21

") Of}

1.78

1.55

1.17

1 CO

1.15

1.69

1.29

2.21

i .fid

Observed

range

1.9 -

2.9 -

<10

300

<1

.56 -

.35 -

3

15

7

<400

.97 -

5

.97 -

<.01 -

1.2 -

30

9

.16 -

?nn

6.3

15

50

700

1

3.3

4.2

15

70

150

1,400 

4.8

20

1.6

.092

1.9

27 

1.5

i nnn

Element,

or pH

Na 1 — -

Nb ———

Ni ————

Pb— —

Rb — —

S, total

Sc ———

i

Sn ———

Sr ————

Th— —

Ti 1 ———

U ————

V ————

Y ————

Zn —— -- 

Zr--—

nH£ ____

Ratio

15:15

11:15

15:15

4:15

14:15

8

. 1 C

15:15

15:15

15:15

14:14

15:15

15:15

15:15

15:15 i (;•!(;

Mean

1.0

9.4

12

20

54

680

6.8

.11

32

7Q

160

6.6

.40

2.0

59

16

1 Q

76

190

fi a

Deviation

1.54

1.12

1.59

1.66

1.21

1.31

2.24

1.90

1.73

1 C.Q

1.45

1 57

1.29

2 no

1.47

1.52

1.75

1.77

07

Observed

range

.57 -

<10

7

10

40

<800

<3

<.l -

O£

9D

70

3.8 -

.16 -

.92 -

20

<10

<1

42

70

a. R

1.8

10

30

50

75

1,100

20

OQ

2.7

300

12

7Q

2

c

150

30

3

410

700

R n

^Means and ranges given in percent.

^Standard units. Mean is arithmetic; deviation is standard.

TABLE 82.—Summary statistics of element concentrations and pH of soils that supported apple trees in five areas

of commercial production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean, except as indicated. Deviation, 

geometric deviation, except as indicated. Means and ranges are given in parts per million, except as 

indicated]

Element,

or pH

All-——

flc_ __ _ __ __

D^

Be—- — -

C.-total 1 -

Ca 1 —— —

Co —————

F— — —

Fe, total 1

Ga-- — --

Ge ——— ---

Hg— ———

I/I

La —————

Li .....

Mg 1 ————

Mn —————

Ratio

25:25

25:25

19:25

25:25 9'25

25:25

25:25

20:25

o c . oc

13-25

25:25

?1 -PS

24:25

25:25

o c . o c.

25:25

25:25

25:25

Mean

3.3

27

20

350

7Q

1.7

.82

5

33

24

400

1.84

9.8

.92

.09

1.3

40

17

.42

290

Deviation

1.98

2.50

2

Cf1.65

1.24

1.74

2.98

2 15

1.71

1 RQ

1.59

1.68

2

f\f1.79

2.79

1.51

1 QT

1 CO

2.56

2.20

Observed

range

.67 -

5.6 -

<10

150

<1

.34 -

.13 -

<3

15

10

<400

.83 -

<5

<.l -

.01 -

.57 -

<30

7

.11 -

100

8.0

135

70

1,000

1

3.5

3.0

20

70

70

900

4.7

20

1 CQ

.68

2.0

100

37

1.3

1,500

Element,

or pH

Na 1 ———

Nb— —

Ni ———

Pb —— --

Rh ---

S, total

Sc ———

i Si 1 — --

Sn ————

Sr ————

Th— - -

Ti 1 — -

U ————

V ————

Y ————

Yb ————

Zn ————

Zr-———

pH 2— -

Ratio

24:26

17:25

22:25

o c . o c

25-25

8:25

18:25

8:24

25-25

23-25

25-25

22:22

25-25

25:25

25:25

24:25

23:24

25'25

25:25

25:25

Mean

.57

9.2

8

1

120

49

660

4.6

.060 •33

.7

104

6.8

1Q

2.2

49

13

1.5

190

6.4

Deviation

3.00

1.14

2.70

2

Q£

1.61

1.49

2.49

3.24

1.16

•5 04

3.48

1.51

1 53

1.46

2.33

1 ?4

1 35

1.56

1.86

1.03

Observed

range

<.07

<10

<2

20

20

<800

<3

<.l

26

<.l

10

3.2

.17

1.0

10

<10

<1

42

100

4.6

2.2

10

30

- 1,000

- 1,000

- 1,600

20

.61

41

.69

500

12

.72

4.0

- 200

20

2

- 200

- 700

7.9

^Means and ranges given in percent.

^Standard units. Mean is arithmetic; deviation is standard.
TABLES 4-121

TABLE 83.—Summary statistics of element concentrations andpH of soils that supported European grape vines in

two areas of commercial production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean, except as indicated. Deviation, 

geometric deviation, except as indicated. Means and ranges are given in parts per million, except as 

indicated]

123

Element,

or pH

Al 1 ——— -

Ac_ __ ___

nBe —————

C^total 1 -

Ca 1 --- — -

Co ——— --

Cu--- — --

Fe, total 1

Ga ————

Ge— — —

Un

K 1

La — — —

Li- _______

Mn — — _ —

Ratio

10:10

10:10

3:10

10:10

9:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

7:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

9:10

10:10

4:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

Mean

6.8

7.0

4.5

730

QQ

.96

2.7

10

32

24

460

3.5

17

1.3

.024

1 Q

22

16

.89

440

Deviation

1.05

1.56

3

r-e\

1.36

1.07

1.21

1.08

1.49

1.46

1.41

1.29

1.40

1.16

1 1 Q

2.43

1.14

2.02

1 "3D

1.52

1.34

Observed

range

6.3 -

3.6 -

500

7.1 -

2.4 -

7

20

15

<400

2.1 -

.94 -

1.5 -

<30

11

.58 -

300

7.4

12

30

1,000

1

13

3.0

70

50

700

4.7

20

1.5

.16

2.1

70

23

1.4

700

Element,

or pH

Na 1 ———

Nb — —

Pb-- —

Rb -— —

S, total

Sc — — —

i

Sn — —

Sr — —

Th— —

Ti 1 -- —

U _______

V ————

Y __— — _

Yb — —

Zn — —

Zr- — —

PHZ-—

Ratio

10:10

7:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

1:10

10:10

3:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

Mean

2.1

9.3

13

20

66

12

.060

29

1.2

440

11

.49

2.4

120

17

2.0

72

160

7.2

Deviation

1.14

1.13

1.37

1.12

1.47

2.57

1.04

1.55

1.20

59

.25

.43

f)C

.37

"3D

.25

.96

Observed

range

1.78 -

^i n

15

<800

7

, •»

9Q

.67 -

300

8.6 -

.29 -

1.9 -

70

10

1

47

100

5.7 -

2.52

10

20

30

1,100

20

.29

30

2 5

700

16

7Q

3.3

200

20

3

120

200

8.3

*Means and ranges given in percent.

^Standard units. Mean is arithmetic; deviation is standard.

TABLE 84. -Summary statistics of element concentrations andpH of soils that supported grapefruit trees in four

areas of commercial production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean, except as indicated. Deviation, 

geometric deviation, except as indicated. Means and ranges are given in parts per million, except as 

indicated]

Element,

or pH

Al 1 — — -

Be—— ——

C.total 1 -

Ca 1 — — -

Co— — —

Cu- —— ---

Fe, total 1

Ga-- —— -

Ge— — —

Hg—— — -

K l

La — — —

Li_ _______

Ratio

16:20

19:20

10:20

20:20

9:20

20:20

19:20

13:20

20:20

20:20

14:20

17:20

15:20

20:20

19:20

20:20

10:20

i Q -9n

17:20

20:20

Mean

1.9

2.2

8.9

320

on

.86

1.4

16

12

560

<.03

9.3

1.1

.022

.99

16

.34

150

Deviation

5.55

o on

3.03

6.05

1.41

1.54

3.49

2.17

3.71

1.60

1.74

2

0/r

1.52

4.22

2.12

2.02

3.90

4.83

Observed

range

<.26 -

* 1

<"in

15

.48 -

<.07 -

<3

1

5

<400

<.03 -

.64 -

.05 -

<30

<.06 -

5

7.4

7.2

70

1,500 

1 5

7.3

7.1

10

100

30

1,400

2.9

30

1.6

.036

2.7

100

31

1.2

700

Element,

or pH

Na 1 ———

Nb — —

Nl— — —

Pb — —

Rb — —

S, total

Sc — —

Se— —

Si 1 ———

Sn — —

Sr — —

Th ------

Ti 1 — —

U _______

V _______

Y _______

Zn — —

Zr — —

pH2~—

Ratio

16:20

12:20

14:20

15:20

15:20

3:20

13:20

6

. 9n

20:20

17:20

i Q • 9n

15:15

20:20

20:20

16:20

15:20

15:20

17:20

20:20

20:20

Mean

.48

8.9

5 4

12

54

380

4.1

Dfi?

33

.51

<5

9.6

.22

1.7

29

13

1.5

34

170

8.2

Deviation

7.38

1.16

? 37

2.05

2.53

2

CQ

1 1 Q

1.55

2.12

1.89

4.20

1.94

1 Q7

1.73

1.73

.98

Observed

range

<.07 -

{ i n

<2

<20

<800

<3

s -I

27

<5

4.1 -

.049 -

.37 -

<7

ln

,

._

50

5.0 -

2.7

10

30

20

120

1,500

15

34

44

9.6

1,000

21

.44

1 9

150

30

3

QQ

500

9.3

*Means and ranges given in percent.

^Standard units. Mean is arithmetic; deviation is standard.
124 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 85.—Summary statistics of element concentrations and pH of soils that supported orange trees in four

areas of commercial production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean, except as indicated. Deviation, 

geometric deviation, except as indicated. Means and ranges are given in parts per million, except as 

indicated]

Element,

or pH

All——-

Ac__ __ ___

D -.

Be — — —

C^total 1 -

Ca 1 — - —

Co — — —

Fe, total 1

Ga—— — -

Ge— - ——

Hg— -—

K 1

La— ———

Li —————

Mg 1 —————

Mn —————

Ratio

14:20

17:20

10:20

20:20

13:20

20:20

18:20

13:20

19:20

20:20

13:20

15:20

15:20

20:20

20:20

20:20

7:20

i Q • on

15:20

20:20

Mean

<.26

1.4

9.3

330

.91

.61

.68

16

13

<.03

8 Q

1.0

.024

on

16

13

.26

140

Deviation

__

4.66

2

c -j

5.92

1.22

1.59

4.82

2.11

4.40

2

c o

1.43

2.30

1 QG

1.58

4

QC

1 0?

1.99

4.13

4.39

Observed

range

<.26 -

<.l -

<10

15

<1

.32 -

<.07 -

<3

<1

7

<400

<.03 -

<5

.01 -

.04 -

<30

<5

.06 -

1

7.4

5.0

50

1,500

1.5

2.6

3.7

10

100

300

900

2.6

20

1.4

.059

2.7

150

29

1.1

700

Element,

or pH

Na 1 ———

Nb ———

Ni ———

Pb ————

Rb ————

S, total

Sc ———

i Si 1 ———

Sn ——— -

Sr ———

Th ———

Ti ————

U ————

V ————

Y ————

Zn ———

Zr— —

pH 2———

Rat i o

15:20

12:20

15:20

15:20

15:20

2:20

13:20

6

. on

20:20

17:20

16:20

16:16

20:20

20:20

15:20

15:20

16:20

17:20

20:20

20:20

Mean

.49

8 Q

5.9

12

49

880

3.9

nco

35

.39

8.9

.20

1.6

25

12

1.3

<10

190

7.8

Deviation

5.85

1.16

3 53

1.53

2 43

1.13

2.11

3.15

1.20

2.40

1.74

2.05

1 QO

4.17

1.59

1.53

1.57

1.31

Observed

range

<.07 -

<10

<2

<10

<20

<800

<3

<.l -

27

<.l -

<5

3

.06 -

.37 -

<7

<10

<1

<10

100

5.0 -

2.7

10

30

20

100

960

10

.31

45

1.3

1,000

19

.38

2.6

100

30

3

on

700

9.3

^Means and ranges given in percent.

^Standard units. Mean is arithmetic; deviation is standard.

TABLE 86.—Summary statistics of element concentrations andpHof soils that supported peach trees infourareas

of commercial production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean, except as indicated. Deviation, 

geometric deviation, except as indicated. Means and ranges are given in parts per million, except as 

indicated]

Element,

or pH

All--—

Ac- _ __ _

Ra

Be--— —

C^total 1 -

Ca 1 —— —

Co —— - —

C U - — — -

Fe, total 1

Ga— ———

Ge — — ——

Hg———— -

K l

La —————

Li- — . ...

Mn — ———

Ratio

20:20

20:20

14:20

20:20

11:20

20:20

20:20

20:20

20:20

20:20

16:20

20:20

20:20

19:20

20:20

20:20

6

. nri

20:20

20:20

20:20

Mean

5.3

7.5

17

520

Q7

2.0

1.7

9.2

*3C

510

3.0

16

1.1

1.6

19

25

.90

330

Deviation

1.25

4.23

2.72

1.33

1.27

1.39

1.84

1.73

1.99

2.11

1.56

1.47

1.20

1 QG

1 *3Q

1.16

1.70

1.30

1.67

1.86

Observed

range

3.5 -

r\£

300

1.2 -

.56 -

20

15

<400

1.7 -

10

CO

n oc

1.3 -

<30

17

.33 -

150 -

6.9

i no

70 

700

1.5

3.1

3.1

20 

200

150

1,600 

4.5

20

1.6

HOC

2.0

70

40

1.3

1,000

Element,

or pH

Na 1 — —

Nb — — 

Ni ———

Pb ———

S, total

Sc — —

Si 1 1 - ——

Sn — —

Sr ——— - 

Th— —

Ti 1 -- —

U ————

V— - ...

Y.- ————

wl

Zn — —

Zr- ———

pH2— -

Ratio

20:20

14:20

20:20

20:20

20:20

12:20

20:20

7:20

20:20

19:20

20:20

20:20

20:20

20:20

20:20

20:20

1 Q • 1 Q

20:20

20:20

20:20

Mean

1.0

9.3 

20

33

66

870

9.9

.072

29

7Q

210

8.6

.46

2.5

100

16

1 Q

OQ

150

6.4

Deviation

1.47

1.13

2.01

3.24

1

OO

1.96

1.67

L. . J /

1.09

2.14

1.71

1.50

1.35

i . ^ i 

1.73

1 O C

1.32

1.58

1.03

Observed

range

.63 -

j,-t n

7 

10

40

<800

5

> i

9C

100

3.3 -

.29 -

1.9 -

30

10

1.5 -

CO

70

4.3 -

1.9

10

100

300

100

4,100

20

35

1.7

500

19

.66

4.0

200

30

3

140

500

8.0

-Means and ranges given in percent.

^Standard units. Mean is arithmetic; deviation is standard.
TABLES 4-121 125

TABLE 87.—Summary statistics of element concentrations andpH of soils that supported pear trees in five areas

of commercial production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean, except as indicated. Deviation, 

geometric deviation, except as indicated. Means and ranges are given in parts per million, except as 

indicated]

Element,

or pH

All——-

Ac _ __ _

R-,

Q

C, total 1 -

Ca 1 —— —

Co- ———

o_ __ ___

Fe, total 1

GAGe ———— -

Hg——— —

K 1— — -

La —————

Li — — - -

Mg 1 ————

Mn —————

Ratio

25:25

f\ r\ , f\ t25-25

25:25

25:25

24-25

25-25

25-2 ci

18:25

25:25

25-25

25:25

25-25

7-2 (>

25-25

25:25

25:25

Mean

4.9

10

21 54 n

.92

2.1

1.3

8

0

46

40

510

2.5

14

1.2

.047

1.7

24

24

.72

380

Deviation

1.43

2.10

2

(\£-

1.43

2.75

1.75

1.92

1.50

1.67

1 45

1.24

1.74

1.14

1.20

1 34

1.98

1.85

Observed

range

2.2 -

1.1 -

<10

200

<1

.84 -

.29 -

<3

15

7

<400

.97 -

5

.71 -

.019-

1.2 -

<30

10

.16 -

150

7.9

29

50

1,000

3

3.8

6.5

20

200

300

1,200

5.1

20

1.7

2.0

2.1

30

34

1.4

1,000

Element,

or pH

Na 1 ———

Nb——— -

Ni— —

Pb ———

Rh

S, total

Sc ———

i

Sn ———

Th——

Ti 1 — -

U ————

V ————

Y ————

Yb ————

Zn ————

Zr ————

pH— —

Ratio

25:25

3:25

24:25

25-25

24:25

23:23

25'25

25:25

24:24

25:25,

25:25

Mean

.96

8.9

1 Q

42

69

570

8.5

.092

30

art

190

9.1

31

2.4

78

17

1.7

QQ

140

6.7

Deviation

1.47

1.16

2.19

2 35

1 O. C

1.34

1.94

2.97

1.15

1.77

1.91

1.39

1

OQ

1.29

1.91

1

0Q

1 "39

1.61

1.62

1.02

Observed

range

.30 -

<10

5

10

30

<800

<3

<.l -

24

<.l -

70

5.2 -

.14 -

20

10

1

31

70

4.5 -

1.8

10

150

200

110

990

20

/TO

37

1.5

500

18

.42

3

C

200

30

3

210

500

8.1

*Means and ranges given in percent.

^Standard units. Mean is arithmetic; deviation is standard.

TABLE 88.—Summary statistics of element concentrations and pH of soils that supported plum trees infourareas

of commercial production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean, except as indicated. Deviation, 

geometric deviation, except as indicated. Means and ranges are given in parts per million, except as 

indicated]

Element,

or pH

All-——

Ac ___

D-.

Be—-- —

Cj.totallCa l— ——

Co-- — ---

Cr- _ _ ___

C U —————

Fe, total 1

Ga ——— —

Ge — - ——

Hg— -----

K l

La — - —

Mgl ————

Ratio

20:20

20:20

16:20

20:20

12:20

20:20

20:20

20:20

20:20

20:20

17:20

20:20

20:20

20:20

20:20

20:20

11:20

20:20

20:20

20:20

Mean

4.7

24

490

.89

2.0

1.2

7.4

44

f\C

con

2.4

14

1.2

1.7

27

.66

390

Deviation

1.40

2

/-r

1.16

1.59

2.35

1 CO

1 52

1 Q7

1.40

1.77

1.51

2.92

1.15

1.12

2.21

2.12

Observed

range

2.3 -

<10

300

<1

.81 -

.32 -

15

10

<400

.84 -

.01 -

1.2 -

<30

8

C\

.13 -

150

7.4

91

70

700

1

6.1

3.5

20

100

150

900

5.1

20

1.5

2

c

2.2

30

1.4

1,500

Element,

or pH

Na 1 — -

Nb ————

Ni ————

Pb ————

Rb ————

S, total

Sc— —

i

Sn ———

Th— —

Ti 1 ———

U- —— —

V ————

Y ————

yi

Zn ———

Zr- ———

PH2———

Ratio

20:20

16:20

20:20

20:20

20:20

6:20

19:20

9:20

20:20

i Q • or\

20:20

20:20

20:20

20:20

20:20

19:20

19:19

20:20

20:20

20:20

Mean

.96

15

50

69

670

7.6

.091

30

on

i on

8.3

.43

75

17

1

Q

100

170

6.7

Deviation

1.55

1.10

1.29

1.42

1.79

2.91

1.13

3

/TO

1 O C

1.62

.54

.45

.47

.40

.57

1.56

.81

Observed

range

.49 -

<10

5

10

800

<3

<.l -

f)C

<.l -

70

3.0 -

1 Q

1.1 -

15

<10

1

OQ

100

5.2 -

1.9

10

500

110

1,400

20

OQ

500

17

7Q

200

30

3

310

500

7.9

*Means and ranges given in percent.

^Standard units. Mean is arithmetic; deviation is standard.
126 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 89.— Summary statistics of element concentrations and pH of soils that supported cabbage plants in two

areas of commercial production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean, except as indicated. Deviation, 

geometric deviation, except as indicated. Means and ranges are given in parts per million, except as 

indicated]

Element,

or pH

All- — —

Ac----

n ..

Be—— — -

C.total 1 -

Ca 1— — -

Fe, total 1

Ga— — --

Ge — - ——

H 9——— —

K 1

La —————

Li ——

Mg 1 ——————

Mn —————

Ratio

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

7:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

5:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

Mean

5.1

6.7

30

440

2.6

7.9

5.5

44

21

680

2.4

15

1.2

.031

1 Q

27

32

1.0

260

Deviation

1.08

1.23

1.49

1.13

2.03

1.69

1 1 Q

1.34

1.50

1.25

1.13

1.10

1.19

1.24

1.06

1.14

1.11

1.54

1.23

Observed

range

4.4 -

4.9 -

20

300

<1

.48 -

4.1

5

30

15

500

1.8 -

15

QQ

.023 -

1.7 -

<30

9D

.39 -

200

5.8

8.9

50

700

1

4.7

13

7

70

50

1,000 

2.7

20

1.5

.042

2.0

30

37 

1.6

300

El ement ,

or pH

Na 1 ———

Nb ———

Ni ——— . 

Pb ———

Rb ———

S, total

Sc ———

Si 1 1 ———

Sn—— --

Th— —

Ti 1 ———

U ———— 

V ————

Y ————

Vk

Zn ———

Zr— —

pH 2———

Ratio

10:10

6:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

1:10

10:10

6:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

Mean

.63

8.9

13

15

84

7.5

.13

24

.92

oon

10

.31

3.0

78

15

1.5

7Q

110

8.1

Deviation

1.08

1.16

1 1 Q

1.07

1.25

2.00

1 1 Q

1.46

1.20

1.05

1.09

1.19

1.10

1.10

1.10

1.40

1.34

Observed

range

.56 -

<10

7

10

75

<800

5

<.l -

20

CO

200

8.2 -

o a

2.5 -

70

151.5 -

60

70

7.9 -

.69

10

20

20

90

1,100

10

30

1.2

700

13

32

100

20

2

Bd

150

8.3

^Means and ranges given in percent.

^Standard units. Mean is arithmetic; deviation is standard.

TABLE 90.—Summary statistics of element concentrations and pH of soils that supported carrot plants in two

areas of commercial production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean, except as indicated. Deviation, 

geometric deviation, except as indicated. Means and ranges are given in parts per million, except as 

indicated]

Element, 

or pH

Al 1— — -

Pa

Be —— - —

C.-total 1 -

Co —————

Cr —————

Cu— — -.

Fe, total 1 

Ga —————

Ge —————

Hg— — - 

K 1

La —————

Li —————

Mg 1 ——————

Mn ————

Ratio

10:10 

10:10 

10:10 

10:10 

6:10

10:10 

10:10 

10:10 

10:10 

10:10

6:10 

10:10 

10:10 

10:10 

9:10

10:10 

3:10 

10:10 

10:10 

10:10

Mean Deviation

4.8 

6.9 

38 

530 

.89

1.6 

3.3 

5.9 

33 

21

460 

1.3 

14 

1.2 

.020

2.0 

24 

27 

.96 

290

.15 

.22 

.48 

.15 

.16

.18 

.42 

.19 

.50 

.44

.53 

.20 

.19 

.08 

.79

.07 

1.19 

.37 

.53 

.40

Observed 

range

4.0 - 

5.3 - 

20 

500 

<1

1.2 - 

2.2 - 

5 

20 

15

<400 

1.6 - 

10 

1.1 - 

<.01 -

1.9 - 

<30 

18 

.60 - 

200

6.3 

9.2 

50 

700

1

2 

5.1 

7 

70 

30

700 

2.6 

15 

1.4 

.040

2.4 

30 

38 

1.5 

500

Element, 

or pH

Nfl 1 -----

Nb— —

Ni ———

Pb —— --

Rb ———

S, total 

Sc

1 Si 1 -- —

Sr— —

Th— —

Ti 1 — -

U ————

V ————

Y ————

Vk

Zn ———

Zr—- -

r.Ul

Ratio

10:10 

6:10 

10:10 

10:10 

10:10

3:10 

10:10 

4:10 

10:10 

10:10

10:10 

10:10 

10:10 

10:10 

10:10

10:10 

10:10 

10:10 

10:10 

10:10

Mean

.74 

8.9 

13 

13 

84

560 

7.0 

.087 

31 

.73

200 

8.8 

.31 

2.6 

59

16 

1.8 

59 

150 

8.1

Deviation

1.26 

.16 

.44 

.28 

.09

.87 

.33 

2.70 

1.07 

1.89

1.41 

1.23 

1.12 

1.21 

1.58

1.32 

1.26 

1.16 

1.37 

2.04

Observed 

range

.63 - 

<10 

7 

10 

75

<800 

5 

<.l - 

28 

.16 -

140 

5.8 - 

.26 - 

2.0 - 

30

10 

1.5 - 

49 

100 

7.7 -

1.4 

10 

20 

20 

95

1,800 

10 

.28 

34 

1.3

300 

11 

.40 

3.2 

100

20 

3 

72 

300 

8.4

*Means and ranges given in percent.

^Standard units. Mean is arithmetic; deviation is standard.
TABLES 4-121

TABLE 91.—Summary statistics of element concentrations and pH of soils that supported cucumber plants in two

areas of commercial production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean, except as indicated. Deviation, 

geometric deviation, except as indicated. Means and ranges are given in parts per million, except as 

indicated]

127

Element,

or pH

All—-—

fie ____ ____

D_

Be—— ——

C, total 1 -

Ca 1 — ——

Co — - ——

rr_ _ _

Cu —————

Fe, total 1

Ga — - ——

Gp __ _ _

Hg——— —

Kl— — -

La-- ——— -

Li ....

Mg 1 — — ...

Mn — — —

Ratio

10:10

10:10

7:10

10:10

4:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

6:10

10:10

10:10

9:10

10:10

10:10

3:10

10:110

10:110

10:110

Mean

4.9

6.0

15

610

an

1.5

1.1

Q -3

46

410

2.7

12

.89

.071

1.6

20

.56

790

Deviation

1.76

3.06

I

CO

1.23

1.47

2.28

2

f\C

2 CO

2.14

1.74

2.41

2.19

1.13

1.19

2.72

1.53

Observed

range

2.3 -

.94 -

<10

300

<1

'.58 -

.38 -

3

15

7

<400

.91 -

5

<.l -

.03 -

87

<30

10

.17 -

500

8.5

67

30

1,000 

1

2.2

2.6

20

600

5.3

20

1 Q

i a

30

30

1.4

1,500

El ement ,

or pH

Na l— -

Nb ———

Ni ————

Pb ————

Rb ————

S, total

Sc ———

Si i 1 — -

Sn —— --

Sr- ———

Th--~ -

Ti 1 -- —

U ————

V ——— -

y ————

Vk

Zn ———

Zr- — -

pH 1 -—

Ratio

10:10

4:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

1:10

7:10

10:10

8

. i r\

10:10

8:8

10:10

10:10

10:10

9:10

9:10

10:10

10:10

10:10

Mean

.78

8

r\

22

22

£O

<800

—

f\QC

30

.46

130

7.0

.39

2.2

74

15

1.7

72

130

6.9

Deviation

1.30

2.20

1 9Q

——

4 95

1.19

1.91

1.62

1.64

2

7 C.

1.57

1.43

.83

Observed

range

.56 -

<10

5

10

40

<800

<3

<.l -

25

<.21 -

tin

2.6 -

17-

1.3 -

20

<10

<1

oc

100

5.5 -

1.0

10

70

150

on

810

100

1.9

300

12

57

2.9

200

30

3

114

300

7.7

^Means and ranges given in percent.

^Standard units. Mean is arithmetic; deviation is standard.

TABLE 92.—Summary statistics of element concentrations and pH of soils that supported dry bean plants in four

areas of commercial production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean, except as indicated. Deviation, 

geometric deviation, except as indicated. Means and ranges are given in parts per million, except as 

indicated]

El ement ,

or pH

All-——

Ac

Da

Be— — -

Cal--

C, total 1 -

C0 —————

Cr_ _ __ ___

Cu — - ——

Fe, total 1

Ga— — -

Ge— - — -

Hg-— —

I/I

La-- —— -

Mgl ————

Mn ___ — __

Ratio

20:20

20:20

i Q . o n

20:20

12:20

20:20

20:20

20:20

20:20

20:20

14:20

20:20

20:20

20:20

20:20

20:20

9:20

20:20

20:20

?n-9n

Mean

4.5

ao

2.1

1.5

7.1

49

29

500

2.3

14

1.1

.036

1.6

22

24

.78

??n

Deviation

1.46

1.53

1.52

3.10

1.46

1.64

i ao

1.96

1 CO

1.49

1.41

1.40

1.31

2.03

1.11

1.84

1 T)

Observed

range

2.1

<10

300

<1

.26

.78

5

15

<400

1.2

7

.016

.61

<30

19

.21

ic,n

7.9

12

50

- 1,000 

1.5

7.9

3.2

20

20

- 100

- 1,400

4.6

20

1.7

.070

2.0

OQ

1.6

_ i nnn

Element,

or pH

Nal ———

Nb ———

Ni ———

Pb-- — -

Rb —————

S, total

Sc ———

i Si J--.. —

Sn —— -

Sr ———

Th— —

Ti 1 —— -

U ————

V ————

Y ————

Zn ————

Zr————

nH^

Ratio

20:20

13:20

19:20

20:20

20:20

4:20

19:20

13:19

20:20

19:20

20:20

20:20

20:20

20:20

20:20

20:20

20:20

20:20

20:20

9n-9D

Mean

.89

9.1

16

14

69

570

7.3

.17

30

£O

200

8.4

.37

2 Q

83

1 R

i a

74

170

7 •)

Deviation

1.15

1.14

2.57

1.27

1.33

1.48

1.91

2 53

1.13

1.67

1.46

1 QQ

1.25

1.94

1.20

1.29

1 4^

1.82

QR

Observed

range

.68 -

<10

<2

10

35

<800

<3

<.l -

27

<.l -

70

3.3 -

23 -

1.9 -

30

10

1.5 -

37

100

R &. _

1.1

10

70

20

OR

1,300

20

.9

40

2 5

500

14

.66

4.0

200

20

3.0

120

700

aa

^Means and ranges given in percent. 

Standard units. Mean is arithmetic; deviation is standard.
128 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 93.—Summary statistics of element concentrations and pH of soils that supported lettuce plants in four

areas of commercial production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean, except as indicated. Deviation, 

geometric deviation, except as indicated. Means and ranges are given in parts per million, except as 

indicated]

Element,

or pH

All-——

As--------

B-a

Be —— ——

C, total 1 -

Ca 1— — -

Co—- ——

Cu —————

Fe, total 1

Hg——— —

l/l

La ——— —

Mgl ——————

Mn —————

Ratio

15:20

20:20

15:20

20:20

9:20

20:20

20:20

13:20

20:20

20:20

12:20

19:20

15:20

16:20

20:20

20:20

11:20

15:20

20:20

20:20

Mean

1.4

5.8

1 o

o/~n

OO

4.4

2.2

14

24

470

.80

7.7

/TO

.060

OO

27

15

.43

230

Deviation

5.87

4.10

2

0 c

2.55

1.21

4.45

4.24

i on

4.34

1 7Q

1 C*3

4.56

2.29

3.34

1.78

2.33

1

0 C

2

07

2.56

2.60

Observed

range

<.26

.22

<10

50

<1

.66

.24

<3

1 

10

<400

<.03

<5

<.l

.029

.17

<30

<5 

.12

70

6.3

40

70

- 1,000 

1

48

11

7

70

50

- 1,000 

2.8

20

1.5 

.16

2.0

50

43 

1.6

- 7,000

Element,

or pH

Nal— -

Nb ————

Ni ————

Pb— —

Rb ————

S, total

Sc ——— -

Si i 1 - ——

Sn ————

Th— —

Til-- -

U ————

V ————

Y ————

Zn ————

Zr— —

pH 2— -

Ratio

15:20

6

O A

15:20

15:20

15:20

1:20

14:20

12:20

20:20

16:20

20:20

15:15

16:20

20:20

15:20

16:20

15:20

20:20

15:20

20:20

Mean

.25

7.4

6.1

13

43

4.1

11

CO

120

9.6

.17

2.2

25

14

1.3

67 

53

6.9

Deviation

3.48

1.27

3.11

1.65

2.31

2.08

2.15

5.89

4.17

3.47

1.36

3

Q1

1 C*3

4.26

1.51

1.59

1.46

5.07

1.38

Observed

range

.07 -

<10

<2

<10

<20

<800

<3

<.l -

.42 -

.19 -

15

4.8 -

<.03 -

.64 -

<7

<10

<1

27

<10

4.7 -

.89

10

20

30

115

1,700

10

.46

42

5

C

500

14

.54

3.7

100

20

3

100

300

8.4

^Means and ranges given in percent.

^Standard units. Mean is arithmetic; deviation is standard.

TABLE 94.—Summary statistics of element concentrations and pH of soils that supported potato plants in four

areas of commercial production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean, except as indicated. Deviation, 

geometric deviation, except as indicated. Means and ranges are given in parts per million, except as 

indicated]

Element, 

or pH

All————

D-a

Be—- — -

C, total 1 -

Co— — --

Fe, total 1 

Ga— — —

Ge — — —

Hg— — - 

I/I

La ——— —

LI--— —

Mg 1 ——————

Mn —————

^Means and 

^Standard

Ratio

20:20 

20:20 

14:20 

20:20 

15:20

20:20 

20:20 

19:20 

20:20 

20:20

14:20 

20:20 

19:20 

20:20 

20:20

20:20 

9:20 

19:20 

20:20 

20:20

ranges 

units.

Mean

4.2 

11 

19 

470 

1.0

1.8 

1.4 

8.0 

43 

37

490 

2.1 

12 

1.2 

.061

1.3 

20 

20 

.57 

280

given in 

Mean is

Deviation

1.63 

2.34 

2.92 

1.75 

1.45

2.70 

2.70 

1.87 

1.99 

2.70

1.45 

1.75 

1.46 

1.42 

2.47

1.50 

4.04 

1.42 

2.09 

2.01

percent, 

arithmetic

Observed 

range

.79 - 

3.7 -

70 - 1,

.55 - 

.34 - 

<3 

5 

7

<400 - 1, 

.67 - 

<5 

.31 - 

.023 -

.27 - 

<30 

<5 

.12 - 

70 - 1,

7.9 

46 

70 

000 

2

39 

5.0 

30 

100 

150

200 

5.1 

20 

1.7 

.31

1.8 

500 

26 

1.4 

500

El ement , 

or pH

Ma 1

Nb ————

Pb-- ——

Rb ————

S, total 

Sc ———

i Si 1 — -

Sn —— --

Sr ———

Th— —

Ti 1 ———

U ————

V ————

Y ————

Yb ————

Zn ————

Zr- —— -

pH— —

Ratio

10:20 

14:20 

20:20 

20:20 

19:20

4:20 

18:20 

11:20 

20:20 

18:20

20:20 

19:19 

20:20 

20:20 

19:20

19:20 

18:19 

20:20 

19:20 

20:20

Mean

.82 

9.7 

15 

15 

54

540 

7.1 

.13 

28 

.88

170 

8.7 

.43 

2.8 

63

22 

2.4 

61 

180 

6.7

Deviation

2.25 

1.33 

1.89 

1.32 

1.45

1.55 

2.14 

3.15 

1.77 

2.70

1.88 

1.53 

1.79 

1.47 

2.40

1.77 

1.73 

1.36 

2.36 

1.16

Observed 

range

<.D7 -

5 

10 

<20

<800 - 1, 

<3 

<.l 

2.5 - 

<.l -

70 

4.1 - 

.054 - 

1.6 - 

<7

36 

4.8 -

2.1 

15 

30 

20 

80

500 

20 

.75 

35 

3.4

500 

15 

.78 

4.9 

200

70 

5 

98 

500 

8.3

; deviation is standard.
TABLES 4-121

TABLE 95.—Summary statistics of element concentrations andpH of soils that supported snap bean plants in five

areas of commercial production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean, except as indicated. Deviation, 

geometric deviation, except as indicated. Means and ranges are given in parts per million, except as 

indicated]

129

El ement ,

or pH

All-——

Ac. _ ___ „

D_

Be ———— -

C.total 1 -

Ca 1 ————

Co —————

fV- -

C U ——— —

Fe, total 1

Ga —————

Ge ——— --

Hg—— ———

1/1

La ————

Li— — -

Mg 1 — —

Mn ————

Ratio

18:22

20:22

19:22

22:22

10:22

22:22

22:22

22:22

22:22

11:11

18:22

17:22

22:22

22:22

22:22

11:11

17:22

18:22

22:22

Mean

2.0

2.7

29

200

on

1.1

.64

4 3

1O

13

410

7.4

1.1

.039

.91

f\C

14

.24

210

Deviation

4.43

4 75

2.46

3 97

1.40

1.67

3.72

1

QO

1.94

2.10

2.66

2

QQ

2.46

3.55

4.61

Observed

range

<.26 -

<.l -

<10

10

<1

.54 -

.08 -

<3

1.5 -

<400

<.03 -

<5

.21 -

.01 -

.10 -

<30

<.06 -

2

7.4

12

200

700

1.5

2.6

7.0

10

70

30

800

2.7

1.7

1.4

TO

1.1

1,500

El ement ,

or pH

Nairn) ————

Ni ————

Rb ———

S, total

Sc- —— -

i Si 1 ———

Sn ———

Th ------

Ti 1 - — -

U ————

V—— —

Y ————

Vk

Zn ———

Zr— —

pH 2— -

Ratio

18:22

14:22

17:22

17:22

17:22

1:22

16:22

9:22

22:22

1 O-99

17:22

16:16

22:22

22:22

17:22

1 O -99

1 D . 99

19:22

22:22

22:22

Mean

.32

9.1

6.4

13

41

<800

4.5

.072

34

CO

36

8.3

9Q

1 D

25

1.6

40

160

6.7

Deviation

3.73

1.22

•3 in

1.46

2.04

1.89

3 Q1

1.14

7.33

1.50

2.26

2

rt/-

3.77

1.60

1.60

2.40

1.98

1.05

Observed

range

<.07

<10

<2

<10

<20

<800

<3

<.l

9Q

<.l

<5

3.4

043

.40

<7

<10

<1

<10

30

4.8

- 1.0

15

- 20

- 20

on

- 800

- 10

- 1.5

- 45

- 15

- 300

- 16

.56 •j -j

- 100

- 30

- 3

OQ

- 500

- 8.4

^Means and ranges given in percent.

^Standard units. Mean is arithmetic; deviation is standard.

TABLE 96.—Summary statistics of element concentrations and pH of soils that supported sweet corn plants in

four areas of commercial production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean, except as indicated. Deviation, 

geometric deviation, except as indicated. Means and ranges are given in parts per million, except as 

indicated]

Element, 

or pH

Al 1 — — -

fle

n a

Be— -----

C, total 1 - 

Ca 1 ————

Co —————

C U —————

Fe, total 1 

Ga-— - —

Ge —————

Hg— — - 

I/I

La —————

Mg 1 ————

Mn —————

^Means and 

^Standard

Ratio

15:20 

16:20 

18:20 

20:20 

5:20

20:20 

20:20 

11:20 

20:20 

20:20

11:20 

15:20 

12:20 

20:20 

20:20

20:20 

5:20 

15:20 

15:20 

20:20

ranges 

units.

Mean

1.1

27 

160 

.62

.92 

.42 

3.1 

24 

17

410 

<.03 

5.1 

1.0 

.042

.58 

18 

10 

.17 

180

given in 

Mean is

Deviation

4.18

1.86 

4.55 

1.54

1.93 

4.95 

2.27 

3.40 

1.42

1.42

2.57 

1.29 

1.83

3.57 

1.77 

2.18 

4.32 

3.16

percent, 

arithmetic

Observed 

range

<.26 -

<io' -

10 

<1

.32 - 

.07 - 

<3 

3 

10

<400 

<.03 - 

<5 

.59 - 

.018-

.05 - 

<30 

<5 

<.06 - 

20

5.8 

48 

70 

700 

1.5

3.0 

7.8 

10 

300 

30

800 

2.9 

20 

1.4 

.21

1.7 

50 

30 

1.6 

700

El ement , 

or pH

I

Nb ————

Ni ———

Pb— —

Dh

S, total

Sc ———

Si i 1 -— -

Sn ———

Sr — —

Th— —

Ti 1 — --

U ————

V ————

Y ————

Zn ———

Zr ———— o

pH 2-——

Ratio

13:20 

13:20 

13:20 

15:20 

15:20

0:20 

7:20 

12:20 

20:20 

18:20

15:20 

14:14 

20:20 

20:20 

15:20

12:20 

14:20 

20:20 

20:20 

20:20

Mean

9.1 

3.7 

13 

33

<800 

1.8 

.12 

35 

.47

23 

6.4 

.20 

1.5 

20

9.8 

1.2 

36 

170 

6.6

Deviation

1.14 

3.80 

1.73 

1.97

2.86 

1.82 

1.19 

2.72

8.09 

1.56 

2.42 

1.96 

3.64

1.92 

1.93 

1.65 

2.05 

.96

Observed 

range

<.07 - 

<10 

<2 

<10 

20

<3

25* - 

<.l -

<5 

3.4 - 

.04 - 

.44 - 

<7

<10 

<1 

12 

30 

5.5 -

1.0 

10 

20 

30 

80

10 

.31 

43 

1.9

300 

13 

.66 

3.1 

100

30 

3 

75 

700 

8.2

; deviation is standard.
130 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 97.—Summary statistics of element concentrations and pH of soils that supported tomato plants in five

areas of commercial production

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean, except as indicated. Deviation, 

geometric deviation, except as indicated. Means and ranges are given in parts per million, except as 

indicated]

Element, 

or pH

Al 1 -

flc__

p a

Dp ___ __ _ __

C, total 1 -

Ca 1— — -

Co —— — -

rr_ __ ___

C U ________

Fe, total 1

6a— -----

Ge —

Hg— -----

I/I

La——— —

LI — ———

Mg 1 -— —

Rat i o

nf\ nr

O O . O C

9:25

10:25

25:25

25:25

25-25

7

. o c

20:25

nf\ n r

n r OC

25:25

on . oc

21:25

25:25

Mean

2

/~

4.5

70

.65

.71

5 2

19

21

8

1

1.1

.037

.77

14

11

.24

280

Deviation

4.93

4.74

4.29

1 34

1.45

3.12

2.12

2.04

2.23

1.88

3.01

2.10

1

QC

3.45

2.67

Observed 

range

/ oc

<.l -

<10

15

<1

.29 -

.19 -

<3

1

7

400

<.03 -

<5

<.01 -

.076 -

<30

<5

<.06 -

50

7.9

20

50

1,500 

1 14

1.4

2.9

20

150

70

700

5.2

20

1.7

.22

2.1

50

23

1.3

1,000

El ement , 

or pH

Na 1

Nb — —

Ni ______

Pb — —

Rb - —— —

S, total

Sc——— -

Se —— -

Si 1 ———

Sn — —

Sr-- — -

Th— —

Ti 1 — -

u _______

V _______

Y _______

Yb——— -

Zn — —

Zr — —

P H— —

Ratio

f)f\ r) r

n

o a

19:25

nr\ n r

2:25

15:25

8

. 9£

25-25

1 Q . OC

20:20

25-25

20:25

nr\ n r

1 Q . OQ

O C . OC

25:25

25:25

Mean

7.9

6.6

12

40

570

4.0

r\/~O

34

.37

7.8

OC

1.6

30

13

1.3

42

150

7.3

Deviation

1.51

3 52

1.70

1.70

1.28

3.21

2

QO

1 1 Q

4.17

1.71

2

r /i

1 9.7

4.30

1 Q"3

2.00

1 C.Q

1.79

1.02

Observed 

range

<.07 -

<10

<2

<10

<20

<800

<3

<.l -

OC

<.l -

<5

3.3 -

.039 -

.47 -

<7

<10

<1

20

70

5.8 -

2

0

15

30

70

on

940

20

.36

43

1.6

1,000

24

.66 •? •}

200

50

7

100

700

8.7

^Means and ranges given in percent.

^Standard units. Mean is arithmetic; deviation is standard.

TABLE 98.—Element concentrations andpH of soils that supported asparagus in San Joaquin County, California

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean, except as indicated. Deviation, 

geometric deviation, except as indicated. Means and ranges are given in parts per million, except as 

indicated]

Element, 

or pH

Al 1— — -

D-a

Be ———— -

C.-total 1 -

r,l_ _ __ _

rn __ __ _

C r —————

Fe, total 1

Ga

Ge — — —

Hg—— — - 

I/I

La —— -—

Li _____

u 1

Mn ——————

Ratio

5:5 

5:5 

0:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

4:5

5:5 

4:5 

5:5 

5:5 

R-R

Mean

6.5 

2.2 

<10 

1,200 

1

.58 

3.0 

6.1 

26 

12

550 

2.3 

20 

1.2 

.020

2.5 

55 

18 

.81 

370

Deviation

1.06 

1.52

1.25 

1.00

1.40 

1.18 

1.20 

1.50 

1.50

1.16 

1.15 

1.28 

1.13 

1.67

1.06 

2.44 

1.18 

1.25 

l.??

Observed 

range

5.8 - 

1.5 -

1,000 - 1

.41 - 

2.6 - 

5 

20 

7

500 

1.9 - 

15 

1.1 - 

<.01 -

2.3 - 

<30 

15 

.6 - 

?nn

6.8 

3.8

,500

.89 

3.7 

7 

50 

20

700 

2.7 

30 

1.5 

.034

2.7 

150 

23 

1.0 

Rnn

El ement , 

or pH

Na !-____

M-i

Pb ——— ———

Rb —— ——

S, total 

Sc— —

i Si 1 -—-

Sn — —

Sr — —

Th— —

Til _____

u _______

V _______

Y _______

Yb — —

Zn ——— -

nH2_.___

Ratio

5:5 

3:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

0:5 

5:5 

3:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

5:5 

5:5 

5:5 

5:5

R-R

Mean

2.4 

8.9 

11 

17 

96

<800 

7.5 

.13 

29 

.76

610 

16 

.32 

2.2 

75

19 

1.9 

60 

120 

«.?

Deviation

1.06 

1.16 

1.59 

1.17 

1.07

1.17 

2.79 

1.07 

1.38

1.20 

1.31 

1.11 

1.12 

1.17

.14 

.14 

.20 

.25 

.nn

Observed 

range

2.2 

<10

7 

15 

85

7 

<.l

26 

.54

500 

11 

.28 

1.9 

70

15 

1.5 

48 

100 

fi.R

- 2.6 

- 10 

- 20 

- 20 

- 100

- 10 

.38 

- 32 

- 1.1

- 700 

- 23 

.37 

- 2.5 

- 100

- 20 

- 2 

- 72 

- 150 

R.Q

and ranges given in percent. 

-Standard units. Mean is arithmetic; deviation is standard.
TABLES 4-121 

TABLE 99.—Element concentrations and pH of soils that supported onion plants in Hidalgo County, Texas

[Explanation of column headings: Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found in measurable 

concentrations to number of samples analyzed. Mean, geometric mean, except as indicated. Deviation, 

geometric deviation, except as indicated. Means and ranges are given in parts per million, except as 

indicated]

131

El ement ,

or pH

All————

Ac ______ _

Da

Be-- — —

C.-total 1 -

Ca 1— ——

Co- ———

rr_ _ __ _

Cu —————

Fe, total 1

Ga-- —— -

Ge —— - —

Hg— — -

I/I

La —————

Li- ————

Mn —————— _

Ratio

5:5

5-5

5-5

5:5

4:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5-5

5:5

5:5

5-5

5-5

5:5

3.5

5:5

R-R

Mean

4.8

7.3

OQ

500

4.4

12

6.5

61

oc

2.8

15

1.1

.032

1.7

OO

30

1.0

440

Deviation

1.07

1.16

1.20

1.00

1.10

1.02

1.01

1.16

1.20

1

O£T

1.22

1.02

1.00

1.11

1.41

1.03

1.11

1.00

1.01

1.44

Observed

range

4.4

5.9

20

s"\

4.3

12.0

5

50

20

700

2.7

1.0

m o

1.6

<30

.96 •^nn

5.2

8

/1

30

1

4.5

12.4

7

70

30

- 1,000

2.8

1.3

.041

1.7

30

1.0

?nn

Element,

or pH

Na l _ -

Nb —— --

Ni ———

Pb ———

Rb ———

S, total

Sc- — -

si~i"~" c_

Th-—— -

Ti 1 ———

U ————

V ————

Y ————

Vk

In— —

Zr- —— -

nH2 _____

Ratio

5:5

4:5 5. 5

5:5

5.5

0:5

5:5

5:5 5.5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5:5

5.5

5-5

5:5

5:5

c.c

Mean Deviation

.64 1.05

9.5 1.10

19 1.14

13 1.25

07 i no

<800

10 1.00

.18 1.49

21 1.02

1.1 1.44

290 KK

9.7

.29

3.0

130

2.4

OO

110

.06

.06

.02

.25

O C

o c

.01

.20

o •? no^7

Observed

range

.61

>1 n

15

10

on

.12

20

.61

200

8.9

.27

3.0

100

20

2

OO

100

09

.69

- 10

- 20

- 15

OR

—

32

- 21

- 1.6

- 500

- 10

32

- 3.1

- 150

- 30

- 3

- 90

- 150

O./I

^Means and ranees given in percent.

^Standard unitEi. Mean is arithmetic; deviation is standard.

TABLE 100.—Estimates of logarithmic variance for American-grape vines soils from three areas of

commercial production

[Asterisk (*),significantly greater than zero at the 0.05 probability level]

Element, Total Percent of total variance Element, Total Percent of total variance 

Io 9l0

or pH

Al

A<-

p _.

C- ---

Cr— - —

Fe— -

Ga — --

Ge—— -

Hg- —

Li — —

Mg ———

Mn ———

Na ———

variance

O noo i £

.05054

.07148

.02061

.04735

.07784

.06396

.13750

.08607

.04750

.00566

.04624

.00375

.16502

.06134

.04898

Between 

areas

jf O A

<1

35

*49

*96

22

*77

<1

*80

*75

*48

27

29

*97

*85

*98

Between fields or pH 

within areas

16

100

65

50

4

70

7

23

100

5

20

25

52

73

71

3

15

2

Nb ———

Ni ———

Pb — --

Rb- ——

Si ———

Sn ———

Sr ———

Th ———

Ti ———

U ———

V ———

Y ————

Yb ———

Zir— —

lr ....

pH 1 ——

variance Between Between fields 

areas within areas

.00157

.05366

.05437

OO79Q

.15015

.00483

.06930

.03075

.05078

HI *39Q

.13547

.02906

.03704

.07066

.06767

1.1196

O£

*85

<1

24

*93

*91

14 *91

*87

23

JuQ O

*50

*66

*60

<1

*53

74

15

100

76

7

9

D £

9

49

77

n

49

34

40

100

47

Variance calculated from nontransformed data.
132 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 101.—Estimates of logarithmic variance for apple tree soils from five areas of commercial production

[Asterisk (*), significantly greater than zero at the 0.05 probability level]

Element 

or pH

Ra

Ca- —

r_ _ _ _

Co-- ——

Cu—— -

Fe ———

Ga- — -

Ge — —

V

Li ———

Mg — —

Mn ———

NA

Total percent of total variance Element, To Percent of total variance 

Ioq10 login

variance

- 0.10493

.15953

DR4T3

oc om

.06029

.09097

.06029

.04184

.06114

.08646

.07515

.05987

.13312

O7O1 c

Between Between fields or pH variance Between Between fields 

areas within areas areas within areas

*96 

6 

*69 

*79

•*97 

24 

*91 

*61

*32 

*97 

*88 

1

*94 

*86 

*97 

*72 

*98

4 

94 

31 

21

3 

76 

9 

39

68 

3 

12 

99

6 

14 

3 

28 

2

Mb —— -

Mi —— -

Pb— —

Rb —— -

Si —— -

Sn —— -

Sr —— -

Th —— -

Ti —— -

U ——— -

V ——— .

Y ——— -

l/L

Zn —— -

Zr- — -

P

.00180

.17569

.13936

.04964

.10913

.00476

.21861

.34988

.03406

noqi q

.03079

.15643

.01668

.01621

.04360

.07729

- 1.1986

*86

*93 

*94 

*40 

*97

*40 

*78 

*75 

*84

16 

*80 

*40 

*71

100 

14 

99 

17

7 

6 

60 

3

60 

22 

25 

16

47 

84 

20 

60 

29

Variance calculated from nontransformed data.

TABLE 102.— Estimates of logarithmic variance for European-grape vines soils from two areas of

commercial production

[Asterisk (*), significantly greater than zero at the 0.05 probability level]

El ement 

or pH

Al — -_

Ac

D -s

Be———

Ca——

r__ __ _

Co— ——

r- _

Cu——

F ————

Fe — —

Ga ———

Ge ———

Hg———

Li ———

Mg ———

Mn ———

Total Percent of 

1o 9lO

variance

- 0.00064

.06327

.02687

.00069

.00213

.00790

.05478

rn?Q?

noooo

.03040

.03765

.00468

.00613

.15109

.00591

.03516

.06005

.01606

Between 

areas

*53 

*94 

*79 

<1 

*91

<1 

100 

42 

<1

*70 

*98 

<1 

25

<1 *94 

*98 

*99 

<1

total variance Element

Between fields or pH 

within areas

47 

6 

21 

100 

9

100 

<1 

<1 

100

30 

2 

100 

75

100 

6 

2 

<1 

100

Mb ———

Ni — —

Pb———

Rb — —

Sc — —

Si ———

Sn- ——

Sr —— -

Th ———

Ti — --

u ______

V ______

Y ______

Yb — --

Zn ———

Zr -----

nH 1 —— -

pn

Total percent O f 

login

total variance

variance Between Between fields 

areas within areas

.00173

.06503

.02005

.00335

.04623

.00036

.04064

.02079

.00625

.07164

.01497

.03474

.01375

.01869

03232

.01011

- 1.4046

*95 

<1 

*84 

13 

*75

*87 

*75 

*<1 

*54

<1

*99 

*86 

*68

*58 

<1 

*90 

20 

*75

5 

100 

16 

87 

25

13 

25 

100 

46

100 

1 

14 

32

42 

100 

10 

80 

25

Variance calculated from nontransformed data.
TABLES 4-121 

TABLE 103.—Estimates of logarithmic variance for grape fruit tree soils from four areas of commercial production

[Asterisk (*), significantly greater than zero at the 0.05 probability level]

133

Element 

or pH

Al__ __ _

A<:--__-

D^

Ca —— - 

r______

O___ _

Cu -----

F ______

Fe — —

Ga — -

Ge —— -

Hg— - 

i/

Li ——

Mg — — 

Mn — —

Total percent of total variance Element, Total Percent of total variance 

Iog 10 log in

variance

0

/IQQOO

'jocon

.77266

.32391 

03917

40050

.04803

05955

.77480

.10751

rn i QP

03844

.49406

.12021

TQl P£

.58105

Between Between fields or pH 

areas within areas

*98 

*76 

*99 

*41

*48 

*91 

*59 

26

*94 

*95 

*67 

20

*99 

*90 

*99 

*92

2 

24 

1 

59

52 

9 

41 

74

6 

5 

33 

80

1 

10 

1 

8

Na- —— -

Mi

Pb————— -

Rb —— — -

Si ——— -

Sn ——— •

C r___ __ .

Th— — -

Ti ——— .

U —— — .

V — ___.

Yb— — -

Zn —— --

Zr ——— .

nH 1

variance Between Between fields 

areas within areas

.74993

O OO CO

.02702 

.16484

.00610 

29755

.81140 

04554

.13329 

.09401

.95195 

.06437

.05615

oooco

.05939 

.99727

*95 

*91 

*93 

*99

*84 

*64 

*88 

*72

*98 

*91 

*94 

*92

*85 

*97 

24 

19

5 

9 

7 

<1

16 

36 

12 

16

2 

9 

6 

8

15 

3 

76 

81

•^Variance calculated from nontransformed data.

TABLE 104.— Estimates of logarithmic variance for orange tree soils from four areas of commercial production

[Asterisk (*), significantly greater than zero at the 0.05 probability level]

Element, ° a Percent of total variance Element 

log in

or pH

Al-----

A<;--_--

D^

Ca —— -

r_____.

rr_ _ _.

Cu —— -

Fe——

Ga——

Ge —— -

Hg———

Li —— -

Mg —— -

Mn —— -

Na

variance

•- 0.56612

.48441

.75426

.48773

.04167

.46582

.17791

.89176

.10224

.17742

.04231

56657

.10643

O ~7O£ C

47985

.57570

Between Between fields or pH 

areas within areas

*80 

*78 

*99 

*55

17 

*86 

6 

*72

*97 

7 

*37 

*80

*66 

*94 

*67 

*96

20 

22 

<1 

45

83 

14 

94 

28

3 

93 

63 

20

34 

6 

33 

4

Ni — —

Pb — --

Rb———

Si — —

Sn -----

Th — —

Ti- — —

U— - —

V ______

Y ———— WL

Zn — —

Zr ———

pHl~~

Total

Io 9l0 

variance

23310

.02361

.16169

.00743

.16241 

- 1.0424

05934

.11517

.07979

1.0406

nopon

.02716

• 1 -» \J 1 t038Q?

- 1.9162

Percent of total variance

Between Between fields 

areas within areas

*94 

*85 

*86 

*83

*54 

*99 

*89 

*72

*76 

*100 

*62 

*67

*63 

6 

*49

6 

15 

14 

17

46 

1 

11 

28

24 

<1

38 

33

37 

94 

51

Variance calculated from nontransformed data.
134 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 105.—Estimates of logarithmic variance for peach tree soils from four areas of commercial

production

[Asterisk (*), significantly greater than zero at the 0.05 probability level]

Element 

or pH

AT _ ___

AC __ _ __

0 =

Ca———

Co— -

Cu ———

F ———

Fe ———

Ga ———

Ge———

Hg———

V

Li ———

Mg ———

Mn ———

Total Percent of total variance Element, Tota1 Percent of 

log]n log in

variance

- 0.01143

.41371

12445

.01718

.01874

.02569

07039

.10809

.12634

.04201

.03476

.00679

.08956

00541

.01616

nco oo

m oco

total variance

Between Between fields or pH variance Between Between fields 

areas within areas areas within areas

*92 

24 

*74 

*52

*99 

*93 

*92 

*82

*80 

*35 

*98 

M8 

10

*34 

*95 

*89 

*98 

*73

8 

76 

26 

48

1 

7 

8 

18

20 

65 

2 

52 

90

66 

5 

11 

2 

27

Na —— -

Nb —— -

Ni —— - 

Pb —— -

Rb —— -

Sc———

Si —— -

Sn —— -

Sr —— -

Th —— -

Ti —— - 

U ——— .

V ——— -

Y ——— .

Yb———

Zn- — -

Zr- — -

pH

.03496

.00173

.10751

o ncoo

nooQQ

.06174

.00157

.13744

.06615

.03564

.02140

.01669

.07018

.01030

.01026

.01784

.04565

1.2711

*99

*70 

*71

*88 

*96 

*87

*83 

*56 

*95 

*85 

*89

3 

*88 

64 

*78

1 

100 

30 

29

12 

4 

13 

100

17 

44 

5 

15 

11

100 

97 

12 

36 

22

•'•Variance calculated from nontransformed data.

TABLE 106.— Estimates of logarithmic variance for pear tree soils from five areas of commercial

production

[Asterisk (*), significantly greater than zero at the 0.05 probability level]

Element 

or pH

D ~

Be- —

Ca— -—

Co———

O _ ---

F ————

Fe- —

Ga ———

Ge —— -

Hg— -

Li ———

Mg ———

Total percent of total variance Element, To Percent of total variance 

Iog 10 logm

variance

0.02789

.11167

(TU44

.01353

OOO. C1

.02746

ncOOO

.09165

O CO CO

.03985

.05604

.02920

.00920

.06017

.00362

.01735

i nooi

Between Between fields or pH variance Between Between fields 

areas within areas areas within areas

*75 

Ml 

*65 

*59

19 

*84 

*71 

*70

*78 

*82 

*62 

*72 

*69

22 

23 

MO 

M2 

*92

25 

59

41

81 

16 

29 

30

22

18 

38 

28 

31

78 

77 

60 

58 

8

Mn ———

i\r

Pb —— -

pk

Si—— -

Sn —— -

$r— — -

Th ———

U ——— -

V ——— -

Y ——— -

vu

Zn —— -

ul p

n7O1 Q

.03247

.13258

.16003

.01879

nQQQO

.00431

.07153

.09364

noi on

.02175

.01406

.09047

n one o

nonon

D4903

.04666

- 1.1833

16 

*80 

*73 

*82

M3 

*84 

*79 

4

*89

*72

*85 

*80

17 

*83

*70

84 

20 

27 

18

57 

16 

21 

96

11 

61 

28 

15 

20

62 

83 

17

30

Variance calculated from nontransformed data.
TABLES 4-121

TABLE 107.— Estimates of logarithmic variance for plum tree soils from four areas of commercial

production

[Asterisk (*),significantly greater than zero at the 0.05 probability level]

135

Element 

or pH

A1-- --

A<-____

Da

Ca———

r_ _ _

Co—— -

Q r _ _ __

Cu- —

F- — —

Fe — —

Ga ———

Ge —— -

Hg— -

Li — --

Mg ———

Mn ———

, Total Percent of 

Io 9l0

variance

0 02521

.20478

.10176

.01708

1 7OCQ

.04622

.05410

n?4Q?

.07418

03029

.07447

.03701

nnono

23291

nnooo

D?Q?Q

.14749

1 o oc o

Between 

areas

*75 

*60 

*47 

*32

*96 

*58 

*93 

27

4 

*65 

*85 

*70 

<1

*34 

Ml *61 

*92 

*62

total variance Element

Between fields or pH 

within areas

25 

40 

*53 

68

4 

42 

7 

73

96 

35 

15 

30 

100

66 

39 

39 

8 

37

Ma

Nb —— -

Pb ——— -

Rb —— •

Sc ——— -

Si- —— •

Sn ——— -

<;»•

Th ——— -

Ti ——— .

U — ----

V ——— -

Y ———— .

Yb— —

Zn— —

z r _ — . i pH 1 —— -

Total p erC ent of total variance 

log in

variance Between Between fields 

areas within areas

.04539 

.04294

.25798 

.01402

.06975 

.00349 

.32636

noono

.04924 

.04113

.03033 

.10127 

.02491

02213

.04404 

.03879

.74460

*96 

23 

*68 

M9

*75 

*87 

M2 

*91

*51 

*70 

*67 

*80 

27

18 

*61 

20 

*58

4 

77 

32 

51

25 

13 

58 

9

49 

30 

33 

20 

73

82 

39 

80 

42

Variance calculated from nontransformed data.

TABLE 108.— Estimates of logarithmic variance for cabbage plant soils from four areas of commercial

production

[Asterisk (*), significantly greater than zero at the 0.05 probability level]

Element 

or pH

A!--- _

D ^

Be — —

Ca— —

T------

Co ———

Cr--- _

Cu———

F —————

Fe — --

Ga — --

Ge — --

Hg———

Li — —

Mg — —

Total pe rc ent of 

log in

variance

- 0. 00110

.00930

04592

.02079

.01735

09397

1 *3QC 7

.00534

.01606

.03185

.01081

00398

.00156

nnooQ

.01000

.00103

.05062

Between 

areas

77 

*54

*99 

*71

8 

28 

*54

*71

*85 

*61 

*69

total variance Element

Between fields or pH 

within areas

100 

100 

23 

46

100

29 

100

100 

92 

72 

46 

100

29 

100 

15 

39 

31

Mn ———

Ni ———

Pb — —

Rb ———

Sc— —

Si ———

Th — —

Ti — —

U ———

V ———

Y ______

Yb — —

Zn — —

pH1 ——

Total percent of 

log in

total variance

variance Between Between fields 

areas within areas

.000930 <1

.00164 *79

02213 M9

00554 16

00145 *90

.01040 <1

.00999 <1

04517 *88

.00632 <1

.00164 <1

.00600 <1

.00156 <1

.00156 <1

00236 *47

.03270 *80

.02000 <1

100 

21 

51 

84

10 

100 

2 

100

12 

100 

99 

100 

100

100 

100 

53 

29 

100

Variance calculated from nontransformed data.
136 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 109.—Estimates of logarithmic variance for carrot plant soils from two areas of commercial

production

[Asterisk (*), significantly greater than zero at the 0.05 probability level]

Element, 

or pH

AT ______ _

Ac_ __ ___

Ca ———

Co ———

Cr--- -- -

Cu ———

Fe ———

Ga ———

Ge——— -

Hg———

Li ————

Mg ———— 

Mn ————

Percent of total variance 

login

variance Between Between fields 

areas within areas

0.00494 *49 51 

.01089 *75 25 

.04152 *68 32 

.00427 25 75

.03642 *84 16 

.00840 *89 11 

.01070 100 <1 

.04102 *58 42

.04531 100 <1 

.01025 *93 7 

.00620 25 75 

.00116 <1 100

.07538 <1 100 

.00094 <1 100 

.03181 *95 5 

.06035 *99 1 

.02852 *58 42

El ement 

or pH

Na ———

Pb ———

Rb ———

Sc ———

Si ———

Sn ———

Sr ———

Th ———

Ti ———

U ————

V- ——

Y ————

Yb ———

Zn ———

ofX— pn

Total 

Iog 10 

variance

.01106

m 9QQ

.00143

.02175

.00161

nocno

.07810

00959

.00230

.01168

ncoco

.01855

.01108

.00681

noooo

.04250

Percent

Between 

areas

18 *76 

19 

20

69 

*88

*92

32 

4 

*97 

*82

*46

*92

41

of total variance

Between fields 

within areas

82 

24 

81 

30

31 

12 

100 

8

68 

96 

3 

18

54 

100 

8 

59 

100

Variance calculated from nontransformed data.

TABLE 110.— Estimates of logarithmic variance for cucumber plant soils from three areas of commercial 

production

[Asterisk (*) significantly greater than zero at the 0.05 probability level]

Element, 

or pH

Al

Ac_

R =

Ca— —

Co— —

fV— — —

Cu———

Fe ———

Ga ———

Ge ———

Hg———

Li ————

Mg ————

Mn ————

Percent of total variance 

login

variance Between Between fields 

areas within areas

0.09025 *73 27 

.25468 <1 100 

.05926 15 85 

.05766 *72 28

.18097 *65 35 

.03111 25 75 

.16969 *94 6 

.29329 *95 5

.41802 *92 8 

.16988 *80 20 

.09788 *93 7 

.17516 12 88

.12529 <1 100 

.00320 13 87 

.06157 *88 12 

.33695 *99 1 

.03524 <1 100

Element 

or pH

Na ———

Pb ———

Rb ———

Sc ———

Si ———

Sn ———

Sr-- ---

Th———

Ti ———

U ———

V ———

Y ———

Yb ———

Zn ———

Zr

pH 1 ——

Total

10910 

variance

noo c i

.40021

.13147

.01661

47350

.00877

.40000

.13196

.06940

.06636

.02364

.31960

04139

.04633

.05639

n ocoo

1.0296

Percent

Between 

areas

*94 

*70

*86 

*78 

36 

*90

*78 

*67 

*74 

*88

*57 

*64

16 

*74

of total variance

Between fields 

within areas

2 

6 

100 

30

14 

22 

64 

10

22 

33 

26 

12

43 

36 

11 

84 

26

Variance calculated from nontransformed data.
TABLES 4-121

TABLE III.—Estimates of logarithmic variance for dry bean plant soils from four areas of commercial

production

[Asterisk (*), significantly greater than zero at the 0.05 probability level]

137

Element, Total Percent of 

login

or pH

Al-----

D -»

Ca —— -

C_ _ __.

Co —— -

Cr-----

Cu— -

F ——— -

Fe —— -

Ga ——

Ge —— -

Hg—— -

i/

Li —— -

Mg —— -

Mn —— -

variance

-- 0.03043

03952

04315

.04094

.01376

.05814

.09442

.01316

05059

noc oo

.02577

.01649

m /IQQ

nriooo

nooi c

.06514

Between 

areas

*58 

*59 

*34 

*88

*37 

*65 

*97 

*88

*80 

*67 

*67 

*70 

17

*38

*54 

*94 

*70

total variance Element Total percent of 

log in

total variance

Between fields or pH variance Between Between fields 

within areas areas within areas

42 

41 

66 

12

62 

35 

3 

12

20 

33 

33 

30 

83

62 

100 

46 

6 

30

Ni ———

Pb ———

Rh

Sc ———

Si —— -

Sn ———

Th —— -

Ti- — -

U- ———

V- ———

Y ______

Yb ———

Zn ———

Zr —— -

pHl--

• »J»J"OO

.18914

.01350

.01879

m QOQ

.00305

.15487

.01585

• \J\J I +JL.

.02075

.01120

i mQ 1?

.00688

.01256

.01956

.07903

1.1205

*74 

*86 

*86 

*88

*92 

27 

16 

*73

*68 

30 

*95 

*94 

26

*94 

70 

91

26 

14 

14 

12

8 

73 

84 

27

32 

70 

5 

6 

74

100 

6 

30 

9

Variance calculated from nontransformed data.

TABLE 112.—Estimates of logarithmic variance for lettuce plant soils from four areas of commercial

production

[Asterisk (*), significantly greater than zero at the 0.05 probability level]

El ement 

or pH

A!--- -

Ca ———

C------

Cr-----

Cu— — -

Fe— —

Ga —— -

Ge———

Hg-—

V

Li ———

Mg ——— 

Mn ———

, Total Percent of 

Io 9l0 - -

variance

0.46495

42754

.09360

.19965

48509

.53046

.50964

.07706

.10157

.29278

.07431

.16636

.22449 on~7o/-

.19744

Between 

areas

*97 

*58 

*81 

*82

*90 

*99 

*97 

*87

*92 

*97 

*71 

*71

*90 

*99 

*92

total variance Element, Total Percent of total variance 

login

Between fields or pH variance Between Between fields 

within areas areas within areas

3 

42 

19 

18

10 

1 

3 

13

8 

3 

29 

29

10 

1 

8 

100

Na —— -

Pb----

PK

Sc— —

Si —— -

Sr— — -

Ti —— -

U ——— .

V ——— -

Y- —— .

Yb—— -

Zn- — -

7.-

pH 1 ——

.31041

i QQ/I n

no c 70

.14806

.07113

.75016

36484

.02063

.34473

.05505

1.0502

.02695

.03038

.01361

.38599

*99 

*97 

*80 

*96

*97 

*46 

*95 

*46

*99 

*84 

*99 

*78

*82 

*76 

*97 

*97

1 

3 

20

4

3 

54 

5 

54

1 

16 

1 

21

18 

24 

3

3

^Variance calculated from nontransformed data.
138 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 113.—Estimates of logarithmic variance for potato plant soils from four areas of commercial

production

[Asterisk (*), significantly greater than zero at the 0.05 probability level]

Element, Total Percent of 

login

or pH

Al-----

Ac _ __.

D -!

Be —— -

Ca- — -

Q_ _ __.

Co- — -

Q r __ _.

Cu- ——

F ——— .

Fe —— -

Ga— -

Ge —— -

Hg— -

I/

Li— ..

Mg —— - 

Mn —— -

variance

•- 0.05078

.16575

.14877

.10650

i nppi

99 C£9

91 9G£

HQ9£Q

.10311

91 QPQ

.03449

.07366

H9Q97

n9TQQ

.18369

.03299

.03392

i 9Pi n

.10905

Between 

areas

*55 

*86 

*91 

*51

*56 

*83 

*60 

*81 

*63

*72 

*39 

*94 

*54 

<1

*74 

28 

14 

*93 

*73

total variance Element

Between fields or pH 

within areas

45 

14 

9 

49

44 

17 

40 

19 

37

28 

61 

6 

46 

100

26 

71 

86 

7 

27

Ma

Nb ———

Ni ——— 

Pb — --

Rb ———

Sc ———

Si- — -

Sn — --

Th ———

Ti- — -

U ———

V ———

Y —— --

WL

Zn — --

nH 1

Total Percent of 

login

total variance

variance Between Between fields 

areas within areas

l ti??0

.00950

.09434

.01656

.03725

.11273

.06358

.19611

.09129

.04043

.07191

HQQ 9£

32998

.06695

.06108

02203

.14018

- 1.6314

*47 

*44 

*89 

*53

*59 

*85 

<1 

<1 

*87

*78 

*49 

*76 

*49 

*70

*72 

*84 

<1 

*83

53 

56 

11 

47

41 

15 

100 

100 

13

22 

51 

24 

51 

30

28 

16 

100 

17

Variance calculated from nontransformed data.

TABLE 114.— Estimates of logarithmic variance for snap bean plant soils from five areas of

commercial production

[Asterisk (*), significantly greater than zero at the 0.05 probability level]

Element 

or pH

/\1__ _

AQ-----

D -,

Ca ———

r------

Co ———

Cu- ——

Fe ———

Ga ———

Ge ———

Hg— -

I/

Li ——

Mg ——— 

Mn ———

Percent of total variance Element 

Io9l0

variance

0 34029

.51976

1 9£Q9

- 43405

O C>l Q9

.01573

.04687

.34833

.09291

70945

.08247

r\ o cno

.18655

9O COC

.16954

.31567

.51276

Between Between fields or pH 

areas within areas

*61 

*88 

30 

*97

*47 

*72 

*86 

*94

*62 

*74 

*97 

30

19 

*61 

*99 

*98 

*80

39 

12 

70 

3

53 

28 

14 

6

38 

26 

3 

70

81 

39 

1 

2 

20

Ma

Ni ———

Pb— —

Rb ———

Si ———

Sn-- —

Th-- —

Ti ———

U— - —

V ———

Y ———

WL

Zn ———

i pH 1 ——

Total percent O f total variance 

login

variance Between Between fields 

areas within areas

O>l QQQ

184?"}

.02064

.11110

.05332

.00362

OC C. 9O

.58835

.03616

.14516

1 1 QH9

.90091

.03403

03404

.17017

.08900

- 1.2994

*99 

*83 

*80 

*95

*86 

*38 

*78 

*97

*65 

*79 

*96 

*99

*63 

*70 

*84 

9 

*82

1 

17 

20 

5

14 

62 

22 

3

35 

21 

4 

1

37 

30 

16 

91 

18

Variance calculated from nontransformed data.
TABLES 4-121

TABLE 115.—Estimates of logarithmic variance for sweet corn plant soils from four areas of commercial

production

[Asterisk (*), significantly greater than zero at the 0.05 probability level]

139

El ement 

or pH

Al-----

Ac_--"--

Ra

Ca ———

r______

o_ _ __

Cu -----

Fe-- —

Ge———

Hg— -

K _ ____

Li ———

Mg ———

, ° a Percent of total variance Element 

Iog10

variance

0 38244

95358

Dfi?^

.54677

.60874

.09787

33290

02599

OCOO 7

0133?

.07149

TQOQO

1 O 1 CO

38484

Between Between fields or pH 

areas within areas

*95 

*93 

<1

*98 

*98 

*78

*72 

*45 

*99 

*52

19 

*98 

*97 

*99

5 

7 

100

2 

2 

22

28 

55 

1 

48

81 

2 

3 

1

Mn ———

Pb ———

Dk

Si ———

Sn ———

Th ———

Ti- ——

U ———

V ———

Yb———

In— —

Zr ——— i

nt-H pH - ——

Total Percent of total variance 

Iog 10

variance Between Between fields 

areas within areas

.04202

.10132

.00715

.02705

.64710

.04785

1 ft"39fi

.10631

.05716

1

1 OCO

- 1.1340

*91 

*76 

*97

*85 

*52 

*97

*81 

*93 

*96 

*99

*60 

*81 

*64 

*81

9 

24 

3

15 

48 

3

19 

7 

4 

1

40 

19 

36 

19

•^Variance calculated from nontransformed data.

TABLE 116.—Estimates of logarithmic variance for tomato plant soils from five areas of commercial production

[Asterisk (*\ significantly greater than zero at the 0.05 probability level]

Element 

or pH

Al---_-

Ca ———

Co -----

Cu — --

Fe ———

Ga ———

Ge ———

Hg———

Li _____

Mg — — 

Mn — —

, ° Percent of total variance Element, Total Percent of total variance 

Iog 10 logm

variance

0.42696

.50817

.47679

.29205

.02994

no/i DD

35009

.10965

.85356

.10070

01059

.08157

27377

.09394

.30517

.21456

Between Between fields or pH variance Between Between fields 

areas within areas areas within areas

*99 

*71 

*96 

*99

*76 

*88 

*81 

*79

*99 

*97 

*64 

*44

*99 

*98 

*99 

*91

29 

4 

1

24 

12 

19 

21

3 

36 

56

2 

9

Ni —— -

Rb— ——

Si —— -

Sn —— -

Th —— -

Ti —— -

U ——— .

V ——— .

Y ——— .

vu.

Zn—— -

Zr— -

pH 1 - —

01Q7Q

.04028

.07264

1 "39T3

.00612

.31586

OCO7O

.06564

.19651

.92649

.05602

.07066

ncnoo

.06940

i i fti ft

*85 

*40 

*99 

*93

*91 

*58 

*99 

*86

*99 

*96 

*99 

*82

*79 

*96 

*51 

*70

15 

60 

1 

7

9 

42 

1 

14

1

4 

1 

18

21

4 

49 

30

^Variance calculated from nontransformed data.
140 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 117.— Areas having significantly different concentrations of elements and pH at the 0.05 

probability level in soils supporting fruits and vegetables

Element 

or pH

Kind of produce 

supported by soi1, and 

mean concentration 

in soils, all areas

Area; mean concentrations

High Low

Al, percent----

As, ppm--

B, ppmBa, ppm--

Be, ppm---- 

C, percentAmerican grape, 4.1 

Apple, 3.3 

European grape, 6.8 

Grapefruit, 1,9 

Orange, 1.3 

Peach, 5.3 

Pear, 4.9 

Plum, 4.7 

Carrot, 4.8 

Cucumber, 4.9 

Dry bean, 4.5 

Lettuce, 1.4

Potato, 4.2 

Snap bean, 2.0 

Sweet corn, 1.1 

Tomato, 1.9

European grape, 7.0 

Grapefruit, 2.2 

Orange, 1.4 

Pear, 10 

Plum, 13 

Carrot, 6.9 

Dry bean, 5.9 

Lettuce, 5.8

Potato, .11 

Snap bean, 2.7 

Sweet corn, 1.7 

Tomato, 2.6

Apple, 20 

Peach, 17 

Pear, 21 

Plum, 24 

Carrot, 38 

Dry bean, 24 

Lettuce, 18 

Potato, 19 

Tomato, 4.5

American grape, 470 

Apple, 350 

European grape, 730 

Grdpefruit, 320 

Orange, 330 

Peach, 520 

Pear, 540 

Plum, 490 

Cabbage, 440 

Cucumber, 610 

Dry bean, 550 

Lettuce, 260 

Potato, 470 

Snap bean, 200 

Sweet corn, 160

Potato, 1.0

Grapefruit, 0.86 

Peach, 2.0 

Pear, 2.1 

Plum, 2.0 

Cabbage, 2.6 

Carrot, 1.6 

Dry bean, 1.5 

Lettuce, 4.4 

Potato, 1.8 

Snap bean, 1.1

Sweet corn, 0.92 

Tomato, 0.65

Yakima County, Wash.; 6.1 

Yakima County, Wash.; 7.3 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 7.1 

Riverside County, Calif.; 6.8 

Riverside County, Calif.; 6.6 

Yakima County, Wash.; 6.7 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 7.5 

Yakima County, Wash.; 6.7 

Imperial County, Calif.; 5.2 

San Joaquin County, Calif., 7.7 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 7.1 

Hidalgo County, Tex. and

Imperial County, Calif.; 4.9 

Yakima County, Wash.; 7.1 

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 5.1 

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 4.6 

Yakima County, Wash.; 7.4

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 10 

Yuma County, Ariz.; 5.4 

Riverside County, Calif.; 5.5 

Yakima County, Wash.; 23 

Mesa County, Colo.; 37 

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 8.0 

Mesa County, Colo.; 8.9 

Cumberland County, N.J., and 

Imperial County, Calif.; 11 

Cumberland County, N.J.; 34 

Cumberland County, N.J.; 6.5 

Berrien County, Mich.; 7.9 

Cumberland County, N.J.; 7.3

Mesa County, Colo.; 61 

Mesa County, Colo., 55 

Berrien County, Mich.; 28 

Mesa County, Colo.; 53 

Imperial County, Calif.; 50 

Mesa County, Colo.; 33 

Imperial County, Calif.; 37 

Cumberland County, N.J.; 61 

Cumberland County, N.J.; 33

Yakima County, Wash.; 610 

Yakima County, Wash.; 570 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 930 

Yuma County, Ariz.; 1,300 

Riverside County, Calif.; 1,300 

San Joaquin County, Calif-; 700 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 870 

Yakima County, Wash.; 650 

Imperial County, Calif.; 530 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 870 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 870 

Imperial County, Calif.; 610 

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 700 

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 650 

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 650

Cumberland County, N.J.; 1.5

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 1.4 

Mesa County, Colo.; 2.8 

Mesa County, Colo.; 2.9 

Wayne County, N.Y.; 2.9 

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 4.5 

Imperial County, Calif.; 1.9 

Mesa County, Colo.; 2.1 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 46 

Wayne County, N.Y.; 5.9 

Wayne County, N.Y., and Twin

Falls County, Idaho; 1.8 

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 2.4 

Berrien County, Mich.; 0.95

Berrien County, Mich.; 3.0 

Gloucester County, N.J.; 1.0 

Yakima County, Wash.; 6.6 

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 2.8 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <0.26 

Wayne County, N.Y.; 4.0 

Berrien County, Mich.; 3.1 

Berrien County, Mich.; 3.1 

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 4.4 

Berrien County, Micji.; 3.2 

Wayne County, N.Y.; 3.4 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <0.26

Wayne County, N.Y.; 2.6 

Palm Beach County.; Fla.; <0.26 

Palm Beach County,Fla.; <0.30 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <0.26

Yakima County, Wash.; 4.7 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.35 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.075 

Berrien County, Mich.; 5.8 

Yakima County, Wash.; 6.3 

Imperial County, Calif.; 5.9 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 3.8 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.93

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 4.4

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.17

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <1

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.070

Wavne County, N.Y.; 12 

Yakima County, Wash.; <10 

Yakima County, Wash.; <10 

Yakima County, Wash.; 12 

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 28 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 12 

Palm Beach County, Fla., <10 

Yakima County, Wash.; <10 

Palm Beach County, Fla., Yakima

County, Wash., and San Joaquin

County, Calif.; <10

Wayne County, N.Y.; 370 

Gloucester County, N.J.; 160 

Yakima County, Wash.; 570 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 17 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 18 

Wayne County, N.Y.; 390 

Wayne County, N.Y.; 340 

Mesa County, Colo.; 410 

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 370 

Berrien County, Mich.; 440 

Wayne County, N.Y.; 300 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 77 

Wayne County, N.Y.; 240 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 19 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 15

Wayne County, N.Y.; <1

Riverside County, Calif.; 0.62 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 1.4 

Berrien County, Mich., 1.2 

Berrien County, Mich.; 1.3 

Imperial County, Calif.; 1.5 

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 1.4 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 1.1 

Cumberland County, N.J.; 0.94 

Yakima County, Wash.; 0.76 

Berrien County, Mich.; 0.58

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.52 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 0.40
TABLES 4-121 141

TABLE 111.—Areas having significantly different concentrations of elements and pH at the 0.05 

probability level in soils supporting fruits and vegetables—Continued

Element,

Kind of produce

supported by soil and,

mean concentration

in soils, all areas

Area; mean concentrations

High Low

Ca, percent----

Co, ppmCr, ppmCu, ppmF, ppmFe, percent----

American grape, 1.0 

Apple, 0.82 

European grape, 2.7 

Grapefruit, 1.4 

Orange, 0.68 

Peach, 1.7 

Pear, 1.3 

Plum, 1.2 

Cabbage, 7.9 

Carrot, 3.3 

Cucumber, 1.1 

Dry bean, 1.5 

Lettuce, 2.2 

Potato, 1.4 

Snap bean, 0.64 

Sweet corn, 0.42 

Tomato, 0.71

American grape, 7.5 

Apple, 5.0 

Peach, 9.2 

Pear, 8.2 

Plum, 7.4

Cucumber, 9.3 

Dry bean, 7.1

Potato, 8.0 

Snap bean, 4.3 

Tomato, 5.2

American grape, 29 

Apple, 33 

Grapefruit, 16 

Orange, 16 

Peach, 59 

Pear, 46 

Carrot, 33 

Cuc'umber, 50 

Dry bean, 49 

Lettuce, 14 

Potato, 43 

Snap bean, 18 

Sweet Corn, 24 

Tomato, 19

Apple, 24 

Grapefruit, 12 

Peach, 36 

Pear, 40 

Cucumber, 46 

Dry bean, 29 

Lettuce, 24 

Potato, 37 

Snap bean, 13 

Sweet corn, 7

European grape, 460 

Peach, 510 

Pear, 510 

Plum, 520 

Dry bean, 500 

Potato, 490

American grape, 2.2 

Apple, 1.8 

European grape, 5.5 

Grapefruit, 0.67 

Orange, 0.44 

Peach, 3.0 

Pear, 2.5 

Plum, 2.4 

Cabbage, 2.4 

Carrot, 1.3 

Cucumber, 2.7 

Dry bean, 2.3 

Lettuce, 0.80 

Potato, 2.1 

Snap bean, 0.81 

Sweet corn, 0.43 

Tomato, 0.74

Yakima County, Wash., 3.1 

Yakima County, Wash.; 2.8 

Yakima County, Wash.; 2.9 

Yuma County, Ariz.; 3.3 

Riverside County, Calif.; 2.7 

Yakima County, Wash., 3.0 

Mesa County, Colo.; 4.5 

Yakima County, Wash., 3.0 

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 12 

Imperial County, Calif., 4.4 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 2.0 

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 4.7 

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 11 

Twin Falls County, Idaho, 3.5 

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 3.4 

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 5.3 

Yakima County, Wash.; 2.9

Yakima County, Wash.; 15 

Yakima County, Wash.; 16 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 17 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 17 

Yakima County, Wash.; 16

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 18 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 16

Yakima County, Wash.; 18 

Wayne County, N.Y.; 7.5 

Yakima County, Wash.; 17

Yakima County, Wash.; 52 

Yakima County, Wash.; 57 

Yuma County, Ariz., 70 

Yuma County, Ariz.; 66 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 140 

San Joaquin County, Calif., 110 

Imperial County, Calif.; 44 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 120 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 110 

Imperial County, Calif.; 48 

Yakima County, Wash.; 61 

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 57 

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 71 

Yakima County, Wash.; 88

Yakima County, Wash.; 36 

Yuma County, Ariz.; 19 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 100 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 240 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 130 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 61 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 50 

Cumberland County, N.J.; 140 

Berrien County, Mich.; 21 

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 24

Yakima County, Wash., 550 

Mesa County, Colo., 800 

Yakima County, Wash.; 690 

Mesa County, Colo., 780 

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 800 

Cumberland County, N.J.; 700

Yakima County, Wash.; 4.5 

Yakima County, Wash., 4.2 

Yakima County, Wash.; 4.8 

Riverside County, Calif., 2.6 

Riverside County, Calif.; 2.1 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 4.4 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 4.9 

Yakima County, Wash., 4.8 

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 2.7 

Imperial County, Calif.; 2.3 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 5.1 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 4.0 

Hidalgo County, Texas; 2.5 

Yakima County, Wash.; 4.8 

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 2.6 

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 2.3 

Yakima County, Wash.; 4.9

Berrien County, Mich.; 0.41 

Gloucester County, N.J.; 0.17 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 2.5 

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 0.53 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.12 

Wayne County, N.Y.; 0.63 

Berrien County, Mich.; 0.33 

Berrien County, Mich.; 0.39 

Imperial County, Calif.; 4.6 

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 2.5 

Berrien County, Mich.; 0.61 

Wayne County, N.Y.; 0.69 

Cumberland County, N.J.; 0.27 

Cumberland County, N.Y.; 0.38 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.28 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.092 

Cumberland County, N.J.; 0.23

Wayne County, N.Y.; 4.5 

Gloucester County, N.J.; <3 

Wayne County, N.Y.; 5.3 

Berrien County, Mich.; 5.1 

Berrien County, Mich., and Mesa

County, Colo.; 5.3 

Berrien County, Mich.; 4.8 

Wayne County, N.Y., and Mesa

County, Colo.; 5.0 

Wayne County, N.Y.; 4.3 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <3 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <3

Wayne County, N.Y.; 19 

Wayne County, N.Y.; 20 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 2.5 

Palm Beach County, Fla., 1.8 

Wayne County, N.Y.; 26 

Berrien County, Mich.; 24 

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 26 

Berrien County, Mich.; 21 

Wayne County, N.Y.; 22 

Palm Beach County, Fla., 1.4 

Wayne County, N.Y.; 17 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 2.4 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 4.5 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 2.7

Berrien County, Mich.; 18 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 8.2 

Wayne County, N.Y.; 19 

Wayne County, N.Y.; 13 

Berrien County, Mich.; 17 

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 16 

Cumberland County, N.J.; 14 

Wayne County, N.Y.; 17 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 5.2 

Berrien County, Mich.; 13

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 370 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 420 

Berrien County, Mich.; <400 

Berrien County, Mich.; 330 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; <400 

Yakima County, Wash.; 360

Berrien County, Mich.; 1.3 

Berrien County, Mich.; 1.0 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 2.6 

Palm Beach County Fla.; 0.024 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <0.03 

Wayne County, N.Y.; 1.9 

Berrien County, Mich.; 1.4 

Berrien County, Mich.; 1.2 

Imperial County, Calif.; 2.3 

Hidalgo County, Tex.; <.03 

Berrien County, Mich.; 1.5 

Wayne County, N.Y.; 1.8 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.076 

Wayne County, N.Y.; 1.2 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <0.03 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <0.03 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <0.03
142 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 117.— Areas having significantly different concentrations of elements and pH at the 0.05' 

probability level in soils supporting fruits and vegetables—Continued

Element, 

or pH

Ga, ppm--- — —

Ge, ppm — -----

Hg, ppm —————

K, percent ———

Li, ppm —————

Mg, percent- —

Kind of produce 

supported by soil and, 

mean concentration 

in soils, all areas

American grape, 12

Apple, 9.8

Grapefruit, 9.3

Orange, 8.8

Peach, 16

Pear, 14

Plum, 14

Cucumber, 12

Dry bean, 14

Lettuce, 7.7

Potato, 12

Snap bean, 7.4

Tomato, 8.1

American grape, 1.3

Grapefruit, 1.1

Cabbage, 1.2

Lettuce, 0.62

Sweet corn, 1.0

Tomato, 1.1

American grape, 0.042 

Apple, 0.090

Orange, 0.024

Peach, 0.043

Plum, 0.055

Dry bean, 0.036

Lettuce, 0.060

Potato, 0.061

Tomato, 0.037

Apple, 1.3 

European grape, 1.8

Grapefruit, 0.99

Orange, 0.80

Peach, 1.6

Pear, 1.7

Plum, 1.7

Cabbage, 1.8

Lettuce, 0.83

Snap bean, 0.91

Sweet corn, 0.58

Tomato, 0.77

Apple, 17 

European grape, 16

Grapefruit, 16

Orange, 13

Peach, 25

Pear, 24

Plum, 24

Cabbage, 32

Carrot, 27

Cucumber, 20

Dry bean, 24

Lettuce, 15

Snap bean, 14

Sweet corn, 10

Tomato, 11

American grape, 0.49

Apple, 0.42

European grape, 0.89

Grapefruit, 0.34

Orange, 0.26

Peach, 0.90

Pear, 0.72

Plum, 0.66

Cabbage, 1.0

Carrot, 0.98

Cucumber, 0.56

Dry bean, 0.78

Lettuce, 0.43

Potato, 0.57

Snap bean, 0.24

Sweet corn, 0.17

Tomato, 0.24

Area; mean

High

Yakima County, Wash.; 19

Yakima County, Wash.; 19

Riverside County, Calif.; 20

Riverside County, Calif.; 19

Yakima County, Wash.; 19

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 20

Yakima County, Wash.; 20

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 19

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 19

Imperial County, Calif.; 17

Yakima County, Wash.; 17

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 15

Yakima County, Wash.; 20

Yakima County, Wash.; 1.5

Riverside County, Calif., and

Yuma County, Ariz.; 1.3

Imperial County, Calif.; 1.4

Imperial County, Calif.; 1.3

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 1.2

Yakima County, Wash.; 1.4

Wayne County, N.Y.; 0.057 

Berrien County, Mich.; 0.23

Riverside County, Calif.; 0.032

Wayne County, N.Y.; 0.059

Berrien County, Mich.; 0.061

Wayne County, N.Y.; 0.047

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.14

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 1.7

Berrien County, Mich.; 0.061

Mesa County, Colo.; 1.9 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 2.0

Yuma County, Ariz.; 2.5

Hidalgo County, Tex. ; 1.7

Mesa County, Colo.; 2.0

Mesa County, Colo. ; 1.9

Mesa County, Colo.; 1.9

Imperial County, Calif.; 1.9

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 1.8

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 1.8

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 1.7

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 2.1

Mesa County, Colo.; 35 

Yakima County, Wash.; 22

Riverside County, Calif.; 28

Riverside County, Calif, and

Yuma County, Ariz.; 19

Mesa County, Colo. ; 38

Wayne County, N.Y.; 29

Mesa County, Colo. ; 36

Imperial County, Calif.; 34

Imperial County, Calif.; 36

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 29

Mesa County, Colo. ; 26

Imperial County, Calif.; 40

Wayne County, N.Y. ; 32

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 26

Yakima County, Wash.; 22

Yakima County, Wash.; 1.4

Mesa County, Colo. ; 1.3

Yakima County, Wash.; 1.3

Riverside County, Calif.; 1.1

Riverside County, Calif.; 0.80

Yakima County, Wash.; 1.3

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 1.4

Yakima County, Wash.; 1.3

Imperial County, Calif.; 1.4

Imperial County, Calif.; 1.4

San Joaquin County, Calif.;!. 4

Twin Falls County , Idaho, 1.3

Imperial County, Calif.; 1.2

Yakima County, Wash.; 1.2

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 1.1

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 1.3

Yakima County, Wash.; 1.2

concentrations

Low

Berrien County, Mich.; 7.5

Gloucester County, N.J.; <5

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <5

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <5

Wayne County, N.Y.; 1.4

Berrien County, Mich.; 8.8

Berrien County, Mich.; 8.2

Berrien County, Mich.; 7.0

Wayne County, N.Y.; 8.8

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <5

Wayne County, N.Y.; 7.9

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <5

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <5

Berrien County, Mich.; 1.1

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.82

Hidalgo County, Texas; 1.0

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <0.1

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.76

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.81

Yakima County, Wash.; 0.028 

Mesa County, Colo.; 0.041

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.015

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 0.035

Yakima County, Wash.; 0.025

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 0.026

Imperial County, Calif.; 0.041

Yakima County, Wash.; 0.032

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.020

Gloucester County, N.J.; 0.60 

Yakima County, Wash.; 1.6

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.087

Riverside County, Calif.; 0.032

Yakima County, Wash.; 1.3

Wayne County, N.Y.; 1.5

Wayne County, N.Y.; 1.5

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 1.7

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.27

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.20

Palm Beach County, Fla., 0.077

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.099

Gloucester County, N.J.; 8.9 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 12

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.54

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 6.3

Wayne County, N.Y.; 21

Berrien County, Mich.; 17

Berrien County, Mich.; 14

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 29

Hidalgo County, Tex. ; 20

Berrien County, Mich.; 13

Wayne County, N.Y.; 21

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <5

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <5

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <5

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <5

Berrien County, Mich.; 0.22

Gloucester County, N.J.; 0.13

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 0.60

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.058

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <0.06

Wayne County, N.Y.; 0.39

Berrien County, Mich.; 0.25

Berrien County, Mich.; 0.22

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 0.76

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 0.64

Berrien County, Mich., 0.22

Wayne County, N.Y.; 0.30

Cumberland County, N.J.; 0.17

Wayne County, N.Y.; 0.24

Plam Beach County, Fla.; <0.06

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <0.06

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <0.06
TABLES 4-121

TABLE 117.— Areas having significantly different concentrations of elements andpH at the 0.05 

probability level in soils supporting fruits and vegetables—Continued

143

Element, 

or pH

Mn, ppm---- — —

Na, percent ——

Nb, ppm--- — ---

Ni , ppm- — — --

Pb, ppm--- —— -

Rb, ppm-- — — --

Kind of produce 

supported by soil and, 

mean concentration 

in soils, all areas

American grape, 470

Apple, 290

Grapefruit, 150

Orange, 140

Peach, 330

Plum, 390

Carrot, 290

Dry bean, 320

Potato, 250

Snap bean, 210

Sweet corn, 180

Tomato, 280

American grape, 1.0

Apple, 0.57

European grape, 2.1

Grapefruit, 0.48

Orange, 0.49

Peach, 1.0

Pear, 0.96

Plum, 0.96

Cabbage, 0.63

Cucumber, 0.78

Dry bean, 0.89

Lettuce, 0.25

Potato, 0.82

Snap bean, 0.32

Tomato, 0.47

Potato, 9.7

American grape, 12

Apple, 8.1

European grape, 13

Grapefruit, 5.4

Orange, 5.9

Peach, 20

Pear, 18

Cabbage, 13

Carrot, 13

Cucumber, 22

Dry bean, 16

Lettuce, 6.1

Potato, 15

Snap bean, 6.4

Tomato, 6.6

Grapefruit, 12

Orange, 12

Peach, 33

Pear, 42

Plum, 50

Dry bean, 14

Lettuce, 13

Potato, 15

Snap bean, 13

Sweet corn, 13

Tomato, 12

Apple, 49

European grape, 66

Grapefruit, 54

Orange, 49

Peach, 66

Pear, 69

Plum, 69

Cucumber, 62

Dry bean, 69

Lettuce, 43

Potato, 54

Snap bean, 41

Sweet corn, 33

Tomato, 40

Area; mean

High

Berrien County, Mich..; 700

Yakima County, Wash.; 670

Riverside County, Calif.; 480

Riverside County, Calif., and

Yuma County, Ariz.; 330

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 550

Berrien County, Mich.; 690

Imperial County, Calif.; 370

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 610

Yakima County, Wash.; 700

Berrien County, Mich.; 1,500

Berrien County, Mich.; 520

Yakima County, Wash.; 700

Yakima County, Wash.; 1.7

Yakima County, Wash.; 2.0

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 2.3

Riverside County, Calif.; 2.6

Riverside County, Calif.; 2.6

Yakima County, Wash.; 1.9

Yakima County, Wash.; 1.7

Yakima County, Wash.; 1.7

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 0.67

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 1.0

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 1.0

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 0.82

Yakima County, Wash.; 2.0

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 1.0

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 2.7

Cumberland County, N.J.; 13

Yakima County, Wash.; 20

Yakima County, Wash.; 22

Yakima County, Wash.; 19

Yuma County, Ariz.; 19

Yuma County, Ariz.; 21

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 45

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 65

Imperial County, Calif.; 16

Imperial County, Calif.; 18

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 61

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 57

Imperial County, Calif.; 17

Yakima County, Wash.; 30

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 17

Yakima County, Wash.; 30

Yuma County, Ariz.; 18

Riverside County, Calif., and

Yuma County, Ariz.; 17

Wayne County, N.Y.; 90

Yakima County, Wash.; 160

Mesa County, Colo. ; 190

Mesa County, Colo. ; 18

Imperial County, Calif.; 22

Cumberland County, N.J.; 20

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 17

Berrien County Mich.; 22

Berrien County, Mich.; 19

Mesa County, Colo.; 96

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 72

Riverside County, Calif.; 110

Riverside County, Calif.; 100

Mesa County, Colo.; 97

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 93

Mesa County, Colo.; 95

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 75

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 84

Imperial County, Calif.; 93

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 72

Wayne County, N.Y.; 77

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 71

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 75

concentrations

Low

Wayne County, N.Y.; 260

Gloucester County, N.J.

Palm Beach County, Fla.

Palm Beach County, Fla.

Mesa County, Colo.; 150

Mesa County, Colo.; 160

130

13

19

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 240

Mesa County, Colo.; 180

Wayne County, N.Y.; 145

Palm Beach County, Fla.

Palm Beach County, Fla.

Palm Beach County, Fla.

Berrien County, Mich.;

Gloucester County, N.J.

Yakima County, Wash.; 1

Palm Beach County, Fla.

Palm Beach County, Fla.

Mesa County, Colo.; 0.6

Berrien County, Mich.;

Berrien County, Mich.;

Imperial County, Calif.

Berrien County, Mich.;

Mesa County, Colo.; 0.7

Palm Beach County, Fla.

Cumberland County, N.J.

Palm Beach County, Fla.

Palm Beach County, Fla,

Wayne County, N.Y.; <10

Wayne County N.Y.; 8.1

Gloucester County, N.J.

22

34

57

).62

0.086

8

<0.07

<0.07

).65

).61

0.60

.61

<0.07

0.45

<0.07

<0.07

1.3

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 8.7

Palm Beach County, Fla.

Palm Beach County, Fla.

Wayne County, N.Y.; 9.4

<2

<2

Berrien County, Mich.; 10

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 11

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 10

Berrien County, Mich.; i

Wayne County, N.Y.; 5.3

Palm Beach County, Fla.

Wayne County, N.Y.; 6.1

Palm Beach County, Fla.

Palm Beach County, Fla.

Palm Beach County, Fla.

Palm Beach County, Fla.

J.2

<2

<2

<2

<10

<10

Yakima County, Wash.; 11

Berrien County, Mich.; 20

Yakima County, Wash.; 19

Wayne County, N.Y.; 10

Palm Beach County, Fla. <10

Yakima County, Wash.; 12

Palm Beach County, Fla.

Palm Beach County, Fla.

Palm Beach County, Fla.

Gloucester County, N.J.

do

<10

<10

26

Yakima County, Wash.; 61

Palm Beach County, Fla.

Palm Beach County, Fla.

Wayne County, N.Y.; 49

Wayne County, N.Y.; 55

<20

<20

Yakima County, Wash.; 62

Berrien County, Mich.; 52

Wayne County, N.Y.; 44

Palm Beach County, Fla.

Wayne County, N.Y., 33

Palm Beach County, Fla.

Palm Beach County, F-la.

Palm Beach County, Fla.

<20

<20

<20

<20
144 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 117.—Areas having significantly different concentrations of elements andpH at the 0.05 

probability level in soils supporting fruits and vegetables—Continued

Element, 

or pH

Sc, ppm-- — -- —

Si , percent ----

Sn, ppm--- — ---

Sr, ppm-- — — --

Th, ppm--------

Ti , percent- — -

Kind of produce 

supported by soil and, 

mean concentration 

in soils, all areas

American grape, 6.8

Apple, 4.6

European grape , 12

Peach, 9.9

Pear, 8.5

Plum, 7.6

Cucumber, 7.7

Dry bean, 7.3

Lettuce, 4.1

Potato, 7.1

Snap bean, 4.5

Tomato, 4.0

American grape, 32

Apple, 33

European grape, 29

Grapefruit, 33

Orange, 35

Peach, 29

Pear, 30

Plum, 30

Cabbage, 24

Carrot, 31

Cucumber, 30

Lettuce, 11

Snap bean, 34

Sweet corn, 35

Tomato, 34

Apple, 0.70 

European grape, 1 .2

Grapefruit, 0.51

Orange, 0.34

Plum, 0.80

Snap bean, 0.58

Sweet corn, 0.47

Tomato, 0.37

American grape, 160

Apple, 104

European grape, 440

Grapefruit, 140

Orange, 85

Peach, 210

Pear, 190

Plum, 180

Cabbage, 380

Carrot, 200

Cucumber, 130

Dry bean, 200

Lettuce, 120

Potato, 170

Snap bean, 36

Sweet corn, 23

Tomato, 63

American grape, 6.6

Apple, 6.8

Grapefruit, 9.6

Orange, 8.9

Peach, 8.6

Pear, 9.1

Plum, 8.3

Cucumber, 7.0

Dry bean, 8.4

Lettuce, 9.6

Potato, 8.7

Snap bean, 8.3

Sweet corn, 6.4

Tomato, 7.8

American grape, 0.40

Apple, 0.38

European grape, 0.49

Grapefruit, 0.22

Orange, 0.20

Peach, 0.46

Pear, 0.31

Plum, 0.43

Cucumber, 0.39

Lettuce, 0.17

Potato, 0.43

Snap bean, 0.28

Sweet corn, 0.20

Tomato, 0.26

Area; mean

High

Yakima County, Wash.; 19

Yakima County, Wash.; 17

Yakima County, Wash.; 17

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 17

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 19

Yakima County, Wash.; 17

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 30

San Joaquin County Calif.; 19

Imperial County, Calif.; 8.7

Yakima County, Wash.; 20

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 8.1

Yakima County, Wash.; 20

Berrien County, Mich.; 36

Gloucester County, N.J.; 39

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 30

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 39

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 45

Wayne County, N.Y.; 33

Berrien County, Mich.; 36

Berrien County, Mich.; 36

Imperial County, Calif.; 27

Hidalgo County Texas; 33

Berrien County, Mich.; 34

Cumberland County, N.J.; 37

Berrien County, Mich., and

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 38

Salem County, N.J.; 39

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 39

Gloucester County, N.J.; 2.0 

Yakima County, Wash.; 1.2

Riverside County , Calif.; 1.6

Riverside County, Calif.; 0.69

Wayne County, N.Y.; 1.9

Berrien County, Mich.; 3.6

Salem County, N.J.; 0.79

Cumberland County, N.Y.; 1.1

Yakima County, Wash., 300

Yakima County, Wash.; 500

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 530

Yuma County, Ariz.; 700

Riverside County, Calif.; and

Yuma County, Ariz., 610

Yakima County, Wash.; 450

Yakima County, Wash.; 450

Yakima County, Wash.; 450

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 530

Imperial County, Calif.; 280

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 240

Mesa County, Colo.; 310

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 500

Yakima County, Wash.; 370

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 240

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 220

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 810

Yakima County, Wash.; 9.3

Mesa County, Colo.; 9.8

Riverside County, Calif.; 15

Riverside County, Calif.; 15

Mesa County, Colo.; 13

Mesa County, Colo.; 13

Mesa County, Colo. ; 12

San Joaquin County, Calif., 9.4

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 12

Imprial County, Calif.; 12

Cumberland County, N.J.; 13

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 12

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 11

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 15

Yakima County, Wash.; 0.69

Yakima County, Wash.; 0.59

Yakima County, Wash.; 0.75

Riverside County, Calif.; 0.40

Riverside County, Calif.; 0.34

Yakima County, Wash.; 0.63

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 0.54

Yakima County, Wash.; 0.74

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 0.56

Cumberland County, N.J.; 0.48

Yakima County, Wash.; 0.68

Wayne County, N.Y.; 0.48

Salem County, N.J.; 0.47

Yakima County, Wash.; 0.64

concentrations

Low

Berrien County, Mich.; 3.8

Gloucester County, N.J.; <3

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 8.7

Wayne County, N.Y.; 5.3

Berrien County, Mich.; 4.0

Berrien County, Mich.; 4.5

Berrien County, Mich.; 2.3

Wayne County, N.Y.; 3.8

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <3

Wayne County, N.Y.; 3.4

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <3

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <3

Yakima County, Wash.; 27

Yakima County, Wash.; 27

Yakima County, Wash.; 28

Riverside County, Calif.; 28

Riverside County, Calif.; 30

Yakima County, Wash.; 27

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 25

Yakima County, Wash.; 26

Hidalgo County, Texas; 20

Imperial County, Calif.; 29

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 26

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.55

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 30

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 27

Yakima County, Wash.; 27

Berrien County, Mich., 0.28 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 1.1

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.078

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.080

Berrien County, Mich.; 0.14

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <0.1

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.17

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <0.1

Berrien County, Mich.; 94

Gloucester County, N.J.; 13

Yakima County, Wash.; 370

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 6.1

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <5

Mesa County, Colo.; 140

Berrien County, Mich.; 75

Berrien County, Mich.; 94

Imperial County, Calif.; 280

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 150

Berrien County, Mich.; 75

Wayne County, N.Y., 100

Cumberland County, N.J.; 23

Cumberland County, N.J.; 87

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <5

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <5

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <5

Wayne County, N.Y.; 5.1

Berrien County, Mich.; 4.7

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 6.3

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 3.0

Wayne County, N.Y.; 5.6

Berrien County, Mich.; 7.1

Berrien County, Mich.; 4.8

Berrien County, Mich.; 4.3

Wayne County, N.Y.; 5.2

Cumberland County, N.J.; 7.3

Wayne County, N.Y.; 4.7

Berrien County, Mich.; 4.0

Salem County, N.J. ; 4.8

Berrien County, Mich.; 4.2

Berrien County, Mich.; 0.26

Berrien County, Mich.; 0.23

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 0.32

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.066

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.072

Mesa County, Colo.; 0.31

Berrien County, Mich.; 0.28

Berrien County, Mich.; 0.28

Berrien County, Mich.; 0.27

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <0.03

Wayne County, N.Y.; 0.26

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.081

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.054

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.053
TABLES 4-121 145

TABLE 111.—Areas having significantly different concentrations of elements andpH at the 0.05 

probability level in soils supporting fruits and vegetables—Continued

II

Element

Kind of produce Area; mean concentrations 

supported by soil and, 

mean concentration

in sons, all areas High LQW

V, ppmY, ppmYb, ppm--

Zn, ppm--

European grape, 2.4 

Grapefruit, 1.7

Orange, 1.6 

Peach, 2.5 

Pear, 2.4 

Plum, 2.5 

Carrot, 2.6 

Cucumber, 2.2 

Dry bean, 2.8 

Lettuce, 2.2 

Potato, 2.8 

Snap bean, 1.8 

Sweet corn, 1.5 

Tomato, 1.6

American grape, 59 

Apple, 49

European grape, 120 

Grapefruit, 29 

Orange, 23 

Peach, 100 

Pear, 78 

Plum, 75 

Carrot, 59 

Cucumber, 74 

Dry bean, 83 

Lettuce, 25 

Potato, 63 

Snap bean, 25 

Sweet corn, 20 

Tomato, 30

American grape, 16 

Apple, 13

European grape, 17 

Grapefruit, 13 

Orange, 12 

Pear, 17

Carrot, 16 

Cucumber, 15 

Lettuce, 14 

Potato, 22 

Snap bean, 15 

Tomato, 13

American grape, 1.8 

Grapefruit, 1.5 

Orange, 1.3

Cucumber, 1.7 

Lettuce, 1.3 

Potato, 2.4 

Snap bean, 1.6 

Sweet corn 1.2 

Tomato, 1.3

American grape, 76 

Apple, 81

European grape, 72 

Grapefruit, 34 

Orange, 49 

Peach, 88 

Pear, 88 

Plum, 100 

Cabbage, 78 

Carrot, 59 

Cucumber, 72 

Dry bean, 74 

Lettuce, 67 

Potato, 61 

Snap bean, 40 

Sweet corn, 36 

Tomato, 42

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 2.9 

Riverside County, Calif., and

Yuma County, Ariz.; 2.6 

Yuma County, Ariz.; 2.4 

Mesa County, Colo.; 3.7 

Mesa County, Colo.; 3.4 

Mesa County, Colo.; 3.8 

Imperial County, Calif.; 3.1 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 2.7 

Mesa County, Colo.; 3.6 

Imperial County, Calif.; 3.3 

Cumberland County, N.J.; 4.6 

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 3.0 

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 2.9 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 3.0

Yakima County, Wash.; 150 

Yakima County, Wash.; 150 

Yakima County, Wash.; 160 

Yuma County, Ariz.; 93 

Yuma County, Ariz.; 93 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 160 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 170 

Yakima County, Wash., 170 

Imperial County, Calif.; 87 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 180 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 160 

Imperial County, Calif.; 87 

Yakima County, Wash.; 180 

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 81 

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 87 

Yakima County, Wash.; 160

Yakima County, Wash.; 22 

Yakima County, Wash., and

Mesa County, Colo.; 17 

Yakima County, Wash.; 20 

Riverside County, Calif.; 28 

Riverside County, Calif.; 17 

Yakima County, Wash., and

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 20 

Imperial County, Calif.; 19 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 20 

Imperial County, Calif.; 19 

Cumberland County, N.J., 44 

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 22 

Cumberland County, N.J., 28

Yakima County, Wash.; 2.8 

Riverside County, Calif., 2.8 

Riverside County, Calif., and

Yuma County, Ariz.; 1.7 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 2.4 

Imperial County, Calif.; 1.9 

Cumberland County, N.J.; 4.5 

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 2.4 

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 2.3 

Cumberland County, N.J.; 3.3

Yakima County, Wash.; 140 

Yakima County, Wash., and 

Mesa County, Colo.; 130 

Yakima County, Wash.; 96 

Riverside County, Calif.; 76 

Riverside County, Calif.; 59 

Mesa County, Colo.; 130 

Yakima County, Wash.; 160 

Mesa County, Colo.; 130 

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 83 

Imperial County, Calif.; 67 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 100 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 110 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 83 

Yakima County, Wash.; 93 

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 80 

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 68 

Yakima County, Wash.; 96

Wayne County, N.Y.; 1.7 

Yakima County, Wash.; 2.0 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.62

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.68 

Wayne County, N.Y.; 2.0 

Berrien County, Mich.; 1.8 

Bern en County, Mich.; 1.7 

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 2.2 

Berrien County, Mich., 1.7 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 2.7 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 1.1 

Yakima County, Wash.; 1.9 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.52 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.56 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 0.58

Berrien County, Mich.; 34 

Berrien County, Mich.; 25 

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 94 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <7 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <7 

Wayne County, N.Y.; 45 

Berrien County, Mich.; 40 

Berrien County, Mich.; 34 

Hidalgo County, Texas; 41 

Berrien County, Mich., 31 

Wayne County, N.Y.; 33 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <7 

Wayne County N.Y.; 22 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <7 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <7 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <7

Berrien County, Mich.; 12 

Berrien County, Mich.; 9.5

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 15 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <10 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <10 

Berrien County, Mich.; 12

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 14 

Berrien County, Mich.; 11 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <10 

Wayne County, N.Y.; 12 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <10 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <10

Berrien County, Mich.; 1.4 

Palm Beach County, Fla., <1 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <1

Berrien County, Mich., 1.2 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <1 

Wayne County, N.Y.; 1.3 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <1 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <1 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <1

Berrien County, Mich.; 56 

Gloucester County, N.J.; 55

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 54 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 12 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 8.2 

Wayne County, N.Y.; 63 

Berrien County, Mich.; 53 

Berrien County, Mich.; 57 

Imperial County, Calif.; 73 

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 52 

Berrien County, Mich.; 50 

Wayne County, N.Y.; 44 

Cumberland County, N.Y.; 38 

Wayne County, N.Y.; 46 

Cumberland County, N.J.; 35 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 20 

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 21
146 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 117.—Areas having significantly different concentrations of elements andpH at the 0.05 

probability level in soils supporting fruits and vegetables—Continued

Element . 

or pH

pH, standard 

units----------

Kind of produce 

supported by soil and, 

mean concentration 

in soils, all areas

Apple, 190

Pear, 140

Cabbage, 110

Lettuce, 53

Sweet corn, 170

Tomato, 150

American grape, 6.4

Apple, 6.4

European grape, 7.2

Orange, 7.8

Peach, 6.4

Pear, 6.7

Plum, 6.7

Cucumber, 6.9

Lettuce, 6.9

Potato, 6.7

Snap bean, 6.7

Tomato, 7.3

Area; mean

High

Gloucester County, N.J.; 420

Wayne County, N.Y.; 210

Imperial County, Calif.; 140

Cumberland County, N.J.; 200

Salem County, N.J. ; 360

Cumberland County, N.J.; 330

Yakima County, Wash.; 7.4

Mesa County, Colo.; 7.8

Yakima County, Wash.; 7.9

Yuma County, Ariz. 8.8

Mesa County, Colo. 7.7

Mesa County, Colo. 8.0

Mesa County, Colo. 7.6

San Joaquin County Calif.; 7.5

Hidalgo County, Tex. , and

Imperial County, Calif.; 8.1

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 8.2

Twin Falls County, Idaho; 8.0

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 8.5

concentrations

Low

Yakima County, Wash., and

Mesa County, Colo.; 140

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 95

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 81

Palm Beach County, Fla.; <10

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 78

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 100

Berrien County, Mich., and 

Wayne County, N.Y.; 5.9

Wayne County, N.Y.; 5.5

San Joaquin County, Calif.; 6.4

Hidalgo County, Tex.; 6.6

Wayne County N.Y.; 5.5

Berrien County, Mich.; 5.4

Berrien County, Mich.; 5.9

Berrien County, Mich.; 6.3

Palm Beach County, Fla.; 4.9

Wayne County, N.Y.; 4.8

Palm Beach County, Fla., 5.8

Berrien County, Mich.; 6.5

TABLE 118.—Mean concentrations and high-to-low ratios of elements and water in fruits

[Means are geometric means. Concentrations are parts per million in ash, except as indicated. 

Leaders (--) in figure columns indicate that mean and ratio cannot be calculated because of 

excessively censored data. Highest values underscored lowest values marked with asterisk (*)]

Element, 

or water

i As 1 ———

D s

Co — —

Cr— —

Cu — —

i Hg 1 — -

Kz — —

Li—— —— 

Mg 2 —— - 

Mn — — —

Na 2 — — 

P^ ......

Pb ———

Si; 2-- 

Se 1 — - 

Sr — —

Zn ——— -

Zr— =--

Water-3-

Kind of fruit

American 

grape

370 

.022 

260 

89

2.6 

.23 

.24 

*.42

73 

430 

.0040

22

1.5 

150 

*.099

.039 

1.6

.062 

.012 

160 

7.4

110 

84

Apple

400 

.13 455 —— 

~77

1.1 

.19 

.46 

.70

63 

350 

*.0022 

35

1.5 

74 

3.9

.060

2.2 

*2.7

*.026 

.0026 

97 

10

67 

86

European 

grape

520

370 

62

1.6

.16

.73

62 

490 

.0031 

20

1.3 

62 

4.2

.077

2.3 

6.9

.038 

*.0023 

240

*66 

6.9 

*79

Grapefruit

.034 

*170 

77

5.9

.16 

.18 

.47

*50 

310

36

3.7 

1.9 

*34 

3.1

.16 

T70

.066 

.010 

650 

5.4

130 

IPOrange

430*.on

260 

86

7.8

!52 

.80

52 

430 

.0026

5.3 

77T 

43 

3.1

.16 

*1.0 

2.7

.067 

.0077 

710 ~472

140 

87

Peach

430 

.026 

380 

*18

*.29 

.19 

.30 

1.3

56 

300 

.0034 

19

42

.016 

7.3 

1.5

I2

.043 

.0046 

*46 

7.3

91 

*4.2 

90

Pear

340 

.0068 

440 

150

1.8 

.27 

.90 

769

110 

290 

.0038 

23

l.*5 

83 

1.9

.056 

5.7 

1.6 

9.8

.029 

.0058 

180 

4.6

150

Plum

*210 

.016 

370 

32

.57 

*.12 

*.050 

.66

51 

*200 

.0035 

*16

53

3.7

*.012 

4.9

8.' 4

.032 

.0057 

89 

*2.6

120 

86

High-tolow ratio

2.5

2.7 

8.3

26.9 

>2.3 

>18.0 

3.1

2.2 

2.5

2.'3

>4.8 

1.9 

4.4 

>42.4

13.3 

>17.0 

2.7 

>4.4

2.6 

5.2 

15.4 

6.5

2.3 

l!l

^Concentrations in dry material. 

^Concentrations given in percent. 

Percent of fresh weight.
TABLES 4-121 

TABLE 119.—Mean concentrations and high-to-low ratios of elements and water in vegetables

147

[Means are geometric means. Concentrations are parts per million in ash, except as indicated. Leaders (--) in 

figure columns indicate that mean and ratio cannot be calculated because of excessively censored data. Highest 

values underscored lowest values marked with asterisk (*)]

Element, 

or water

HI- A1_ _ ————— _ _

Ac-L _ __

R^-

Ta 2

r* A

Co ———

Cr ——— 

Cu ———

FP- — --

Ha 1

K z

Li — —

Mg^ ———

Mn ————

Mo ————

M-,2

Ni — —

p2______

Pb ———

S 1 ' 2 — - 

Se 1 — --

c r___ _ _

Ti ————

Zn ————

Zr— -- 

WateH--

Cabbage

95 

.015 

140 

52

6.6 

1.0 

1.1

*31 

450 

.0065 

36

4.9 

2.0 

150 

9.1

2.9

6.7 

3.2

.72 7T5" 

690 

2.9

270 

92

Carrot

110 

.040

140 

120

3.6 

2.1 

.52

65 

*220 

.0057 

39

2.3 

*1.3 

120

.48 

*3.6 

*2.3

.13 

.064 

780

*.17 

290 

88

Cucumber

580 

.28 

110 

130

3.5 

.94 

.88 

.43

84 

680 

.0047 

39

2.9

130 

8.3

.20 

13 

4.3

.31 

.059 

240 

3.8

500 

96^

Kind

Dry Bean

*82

150 

55

2.7 

*.26 

4.8 

1^

120 

1,~2UO

*.0026 

39

*.52 

3.3 

190 

JJ4

*.0085 

45 ~9.5

.19 

.030 

170 

.18

790 

*15

of vegetable

Lettuce

520 

.038 

93 

67

4.2 

~^3 3.0 

*.33

58 

960 

•.0083

2.0 

1.7 

210 

*.53

1.1 

7.2 

3.0 

5.0

.28 

.057 

530 

1.3

520 

*4.0 

96

Potato

310 

.031 *58 

32

.70 

1.8 

.86 

.49

88 

490

ii

2.0 

*86 

5.9

.083 

7.0 

4.1

.12 *.on

61 

9.6

340 

12 

81

Snap bean

950 

*.0067 

180 

100

7.8 

.34 

.77 

2.3

73 

1,200

.0030 

35

*.52 

4.0 

300 

^0

.036 

24 

4.4

.17 

.028 

310 

^5

550 

37 

89

Sweet corn

100 

.10 

*58 

*1.3

*.22 

1.0 

*.31 

5.7

54 

670 

.0046 

39

3.8 

140 

6.9

.018 

8.5 

9.7

*.ll *.on

*16 

980

75

Tomato

170 

.0089 

84 

17

1.2 

1.0 

.52 

.62

73 

480 

.0031 

*34

1.7 

100 

6.8

.34 

*3.6 

2.4

.21 

.036 

83 

1.3

*220 

95

High-tolow ratio

11.6 

>6.0 

3.1 

100.

30.0 

11.5 

15.5 

>17.3

3.9 

5.5 

>3.2 

1.2

>9.4 

3.1 

3.5 

>159.

341. 

12.5 

4.2

6.6 

13.6 

48.8 

265.

4.5 

>9.3 

6.4

^Concentrations in dry material. 

^Concentrations given in percent. 

Percent of fresh weight.
148 ELEMENTS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

TABLE 120.—Mean concentrations and high-to-low ratios of elements and pH of soils that support fruits

[Means are geometric means. Concentrations are parts per million, except as indicated.

Leaders (—) in figure columns indicate that mean and ratio cannot be calculated because of

excessively censored data. Highest values underscored lowest values marked with asterisk(*)]

Element, 

or pH

Al 1 -

Ac-- __ __

R__.____

D ,

Be ———

C 1 — —

Ca 1

Co ————

r>------

Cu- ———

F;r::::

Ga ———

Ge- ———

Hg— — 

K 1 -

M_ _ _ _

1 Mg 1 ———

Mn ————

Na 1 ———

Nb — —

Ni ———

Pb— —

Dk

$--_ _ _

Sc ___ - *J\*

Se- _ -- i c-i 1 _ __

Sn ———

$r-__ _

Thr~—

Ti 1 — --

U ————

V-— —

Y — - —

vh---- _

Zn ——— -

Zr ———

pH 1 ' 2 —

Kind of fruit

American 

grape

4.1 

5.9 

17 

470 

*.72

1.8 

1.0 

7.5 

29 

34

*310 

2.2 

12 

1.3 

.042

1.5 

21 

17 

.49 

470

1.0 

9.4 

12 . 

20 

54

680 

6.8 

.11 

32 

.78

160 

*6.6 

.40 

2.0 

59

16 

1.8 

76 

190 

~*6.4

Apple

3.3 

27 

20 

350 

.78

1.7 

.82 

5.0 

33 

24

400 

1.8 

9.8 

*.92 

.090

1.3 

40 

T7 

.42 

290

.57 

9.2 

8.1 

120 

*49

660 

4.6 

.060 

33 

.70

104 

6.8 

.38 

2.2 

49

13 

1.5 

81 

190 

*6.4

European 

grape

6.8 

770 

*4.5 

730 

.98

.96 

2.7 

10 

3T 

24

460 

1T~ 3.5 

T.3 

.024

1.8 

22 

16 

.89 

440

"O 2.1 

13 

20 

66

12 

.060 *29 

1.2

440 

11 

.49 

2JT 

120

17 

2.0 

72 

160 

7.2

Grapefruit

1.9 

2.2 

8.9 

*320 

.80

.86 

1.4 

4.3 

*16 

*12

—— 560 .67 

9.3 

1.1 

*.022

.99 

26 

16 

.34 

150

*.48 

*8.9 

*5.4 *12 

54

*380 

*4.1 

.062 

33 

.51

140 

9.6 

.22 

1.7 

29

13 

1.5 

*34 

170 

8.2

Orange

*1.3 

*1.4 

9.3 

330 

.91

*.61 

*.68 

*3.9 

*16 

13

450 

*.44 

*8.8 

1.0 

.024

*.80 

*16 

*13 

*.26 

*140

.49 

*8.9 

5.9 

*12 

*49

880

3.9 

*.058 

35 

*.39

*85 

8.9 

*.20 

*1.6 

*23

*12 

*1.3 

49 

~~7.8 190 

Peach

5.3 

7.5 17 x 

520 

.87

2.0 

1.7 

9.2 

59 

36

510 

3.0 

16 

1.1 

.043

1.6 

19 

25 

~.90 

330

1.0 

9.3 

20 

31 

66

870 

9.9 

.072 

*29 

.78

210 

8.6 

.46 

2.5 

100

16 

1.8 

88 

150 

*6.4

Pear

4.9 

10 

21 

540 

.92

2.1

1.3 

8.2 

46 

_40

510 

2.5 

14 

1.2 

.047

1.7 

24 

24 

.72 '380

.96 

*8.9 

18 

42 

6£

570 

8.5 

.092 

30 

.80

190 

9.1 

.31 

2.4 

78

17 

~T.7 

88 

*140 

6.7

Plum

4.7 

13 

24 

4~90 

.89

2.0 

1.2 

7.4 

44 

26

520 

2.4 

14 

1.2 

.055

1.7 

27 

24 

.66 

390

.96 

9.5 

15 

50 

69.

670 

7.6 

.091 

30 

.80

180 

8.3 

.43 

2.5 

75

17 

~T.8 

100 

T70 

6.7

High-tolow ratio

5.2 

19.2 

5.3 

2.3 

1.4

3.4 

4.0 

2.6 

3.7 

3.3

1.8 

8.0 

1.9 

1.4 

4.1

2.3 

2.5 

1.9 

3.5 

3.4

4.4 

1.1 

3.7 

10 

1.4

>2.3 

2.9 

1.9 

1.2 

3.1

5.2 

1.6 

2.5 

1.6 

5.2

1.4 

1.5 

2.9 

1.4 

1.3

^Concentrations given in percent.
TABLES 4-121 149

TABLE 121.— Mean concentrations and high-to-low ratios of elements andpH of soils that supported vegetables

[Means are geometric means. Concentrations are parts per million except as indicated. Leaders (--) in 

figure columns indicate that mean and ratio cannot be calculated because of excessively censored data. 

Highest values underscored;lowest values marked with asterisk (*)]

Element, 

or pH

Al 1 — -

Be ———

C 1

Ca 1 -- -

Co— — -

Cu ———

lli:::::

Ga— —

Ge ———

Hg ———

K 1

La — —

Li

Mg 1 ———

Mn ———

Ma !---_-

Nb ———

Ni ———

Pb ———

Rb ———

S ————

Sr- _ - _

SP-- __ - 1 Si 1 ——

Sn ———

Th r— - 

T1 1 —— -

U ————

V ————

Y ————

WL

Zn ———

Zr ———

pHl.2—

Cabbage

5.1 

6.7 

30 

440 

.93

2.6 

7.9 

5.5 

44 

21

680 

~T.4 

15 

1.2 

.031

1.8 

27 

12 

~T.O 

260

.63 

8.9 

13 

15 

_84

7.5 

.13 

24 

.92

380 

H

3.0

15 

1.5 

78 

110 

8.1

Carrot

4.8 

6.9 

38 

530 

.89

1.6 

3.3 

5.9 

33 

21

460 

1.3 

14 

1.2 

*.020

2.0

27 

.98 

290

.74 

8.9 

13 

13 

_84

560 

7.0 

.087 

31 

.73

200 

8.8 

.31 

2.6 

59

16 

1.8 

59 

150 

8.1

Cucumber

4.9 

6.0 

15 

610 

.80

1.5 

1.1 

9.3 

50 

JG

410 

2.7 

12 

.89 

.071

1.6 

24 

20 

.56 

790

.78 

8.0 

22 

•62 22 

7.7 

.085 

30 

.46

130 

7.0 

.39 

2.2 

74

15 

1.7 

72 

130 

6.9

Kind of

Dry bean

4.5 

5.9 

24 

550 

.89

2.1 

1.5 

7.1 

49 

29

500 

2.3 

14 

1.1 

.036

1.6 

22 

24 

.78 

320

.89 

9.1 

16 

14 

69

~~7.3 570 

.17 30 —— 

.63

200 

8.4 

.37 

2.8 

_83

15 

1.8 

74 

170 

7.2

vegetable

Lettuce

1.4 

5.8 

18 

260 

.83

4.4 

"272 

3.7 

*14 

24

470 

.80 

7.7 

*.62 

.060

.83 

_27

.43 

230

.25 

*7.4 

6.1 

13 

43

4.1 

.13

.62

120 

9.6 

*.17 

2.2 

25

14 

1.3 

67 

*53 

6.9

Potato

4.2 

11 

19 

470 

1.0

1.8 

1.4 

8.0 

43 

37

490 

2.1 

12 

1.2 

.061

1.3 

20 

20 

.57 

280

.82 

9.7 

15 

15 

54

*540 

7.1 

.13 

28 

.88

170 

8.7 

2T8~ .43 

63

22

61 

180

Snap bean

2.0 

2.7 

29 

200 

.80

1.1 

.64 

4.3 

18 *13

410 

.81 

7.4 

1.1 

.039

.91 

26 

14 

.24 

210

.32 

9.1 

6.4 

13 

41

4.5 

.072 

34 

.58

36 

8.3 

.28 

1.8 

25

15 

1.6 

40 

160 

6.7

Sweet corn

*1.7 

27 

*160 

.62

v92 

*)42 

*3.1 

24 

17

410 

*.43 

*5.1 

1.0 

.042

*.58 

18 

*10 

*.17 

*180

*.18 

9.1 

*3.7 

13 

*33

*1.8 

.12 

35 

.47

*23 

*6.4 

.20 

*1.5 

*20

*9.8 

*1.2 

*36 

170 *6.6

Tomato

1.9 

2.6 

*4.5 

240 *.78

*.65 

.71 

5.2 

19 

21

*320 

.74 

8.1 

1.1 

.037

.77 

*14 

11 

.24 

280

.47 

7.9 

6.6 

*12 

40

570

*.062 

34 

*.37

63 

7.8 

.26 

1.6 

30

13 

1.3 

42 

150 

7.3

High-tolow ratio

4.6 

6.4 

8.4 

3.8 

1.3

6.8 

19 

3.0 

3.6 

3.5

2.1 

6.3 

2.9 

1.9 

3.5

3.4 

1.9 

3.2 

5.9 

4.4

5.0 

1.3 

6.0 

1.8 

2.5

4^3 

2.7 

3.2 

2.5

17 

1.6 

2.5 

2.0 

4.2

2.2 

2.0 

2.2 

3.4 

1.2

^Concentrations given in percent.

-Standard units.

ft U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 198O—677.129/49