Geochemical Survey of 

Waters of Missouri 

By GERALD L. FEDER 

GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF MISSOURI 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 954-E 

An examination of statewide 

geochemical variations in 

surface and ground water 

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON 1979 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

CECIL D. ANDRUS, Secretary 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

H. William Menard, Director 

Library of Congress catalog-card No. 79-600129 

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

Washington, D.C. 20402 

Stock Number 024-001-03211-2 
CONTENTS 

Page 

Abstract ------------------------------------------------------------------------- E 1 

Introduction -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 

Hydrologic setting------------------------------------------------------------ 2 

Physiography and climate -------------------------------------------- 2 

Ozark Plateaus----------------------------------------------------- 3 

Mississippi Alluvial Plain--------------------------------------- 3 

Central Low land -------------------------------------------------- 3 

Climate--------------------------------------------------------------- 3 

Geohydrologic units ---------------------------------------------------- 3 

Quaternary alluvium -------------------------------------------- 3 

Glacial deposits---------------------------------------------------- 3 

Cretaceous and Tertiary strata------------------------------- 4 

Pennsylvanian strata--------------------------------------------- 4 

Mississippian strata ---------------------------------------------- 4 

Cambrian and Ordovician strata (southwest Missouri)- 4 

Cambrian and Ordovician strata (southeast Missouri) - . 6 

Ground water -----------------------------------------------------------·------ 6 

Methods of investigation---------------------------------------..,------- 6 

Page 

Ground water-Continued 

Methods of investigation-Continued 

Sampling design--------------------------------------------------- E6 

Sampling techniques -------------------------------------------- 7 

Analytical procedures-------------------------------------------- 8 

Ground-water results ------------------------------------------------- 10 

Chemical variability---------------------------------------------- 10 

Composition of geohydrologic units------------------------- 12 

Q-mode factor analysis ------------------------------------------ 12 

Composition of mine waters ----------------------------------- 51 

Surface water ----------------------------------------------------------------- 57 

Methods of investigation--------------------------------------------- 57 

Sampling design--------------------------------------------------- 57 

Sampling techniques --------------------------------------------- 58 

Analytical procedures-------------------------------------------- 59 

Surface-water results-------------------------------------------------- 59 

Summary and conclusions -------------------------------------------------- 64 

References cited--------------------------------------------------------------- 6 5 

Appendix I ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 7 

ILLUSTRATIONS 

FIGURES 1--37. Maps showing: 

1. Physiographic divisions of Missouri ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- E 2 

2. Mean annual precipitation------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 

3. Locations of seven principal geohydrologic units in Missouri---------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 

4. Locations of wells from which waters were sampled from different stratigraphic (geohydrologic) units------------ 7 

5. Iron concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri ----------------------------------------- 13 

6. Silica (Si02) concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri------------------------------- 14 

7. Sodium concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri------------------------------------- 15 

8. Potassium concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri --------------------------------- 16 

9. Boron concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri--------------------------------------- 17 

10. Strontium concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri--------------------------------- 18 

11. Magnesium concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri-------------------------------- 19 

12. Lithium concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri------------------------------------ 20 

13. Sulfate (S04) concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri----------------------------- 21 

14. Barium concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri------------------------------------ 22 

15. Dissolved solids (residue on evaporation at 180°C) in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri 23 

16. Calcium concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri ----------------------------------- 24 

17. Bicarbonate (HC03) concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri-------------------- 25 

18. Bromine concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri------------------------------------ 26 

19. Aluminum in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri----------------------------------------------------- 27 

20. Chlorine concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri------------------------------------ 28 

21. Manganese concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri------------------------------ 29 

22. Sulfide (S--) concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri------------------------------ 30 

23. Molybdenum concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri------------------------------ 31 

24. Fluorine concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri------------------------------------ 32 

25. Iodine concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri-------------------------------------- 33 

26. Nitrate concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri------------------------------------ 34 

27. Nitrite concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri-------------------------------------- 35 

28. Ammonia concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri--------------------------------- 36 

29. Organic nitrogen concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri------------------------ 37 

III 
IV CONTENTS 

Page 

FIGURES 1-37. Maps showing -Continued 

30. Orthophosphate concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri------------------ E38 

31. Total phosphorus concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri---------------- 39 

32. Cadmium concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri------------------- 40 

33. Zinc concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri ------------------------------ 41 

34. Copper concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri ------------------------ 4 2 

35. Rubidium concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri---------------------- 43 

36. Gross alpha radioactivity in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri------------------------- 44 

37. Gross beta radioactivity in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri-------------------------- 45 

38. Factor-variance diagram for ground waters of Missouri--------------------------------------------------------- 48 

39-43. Maps showing: 

39. Geographic variations in the composition loadings on end member 1--------------------------------------------------- I 52 

40. Geographic variations in the composition loadings on end member II------------------------------------------------ ! 53 

41. Geographic variations in the composition loadings on end member III------------------------------------------------- 54 

42. Geographic variations in the composition loadings on end member IV----------------------------------------------- 55 

43. Drainage map of Missouri showing units chosen for surface-water sampling and the locations of sampling sites-- 57 

TABLES 

Page 

TABLE 1. Analytical methods used in reconnaissance geochemical study of ground water in Missouri -------------------------------- E8 

2. Elements looked for in spectrographic analysis of evaporation residues but rarely or never detected in this study---------- 11 

3. Comparison of estimated logarithmic variance components for chemical constituents for ground waters of Missouri ----------- 11 

4. Summary of analytical data on ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri------------------------------------------ 46 

5. Composition scores for the varimax axes, Fer------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 50 

6. Composition loadings (~k) on the varimax axes for four-factor model-------------------------------------------------------------------- 50 

7. Ground-water analyses from two mining areas in southern Missouri------------------------------------------------------------------------- 56 

8. Comparison of estimated logarithmic variance components for surface waters-------------------------------------------------------------- 59 

Metric unit 

millimeter ( mm) meter (m) 

kilometer ( km) 

sauare meter (m2 ) 

square kilometer (km2 ) 

hectare ( ha) 

cubic centimeter (cms) 

liter (L) cubic meter (m2) 

cubic meter cubic hectometer (hm3) 

liter 

liter 

liter 

cubic meter 

cubic meter 

gram (g) 

gram 

metric tons (t) 

metric tons 

kilogram per square centimeter (kg/cm2) 

kilogram per square 

centimeter 

cubic meter per second 

(m3/s) 

CONVERSION FACTORS 

Inch-Pound equivalent 

Length 

0.031937 inch (in) 

3.28 feet (ft) 

.62 mile (mi) 

Area 

10.76 

.386 

2.47 

Volume 

0.061 

611.03 

35.31 

.00081 

=810.7 

2.113 

1.06 

.26 

.00026 

6.290 

Weight 

square feet (ft2 ) 

square mile (mi2) acres 

cubic inch (ina) 

cubic inches 

cubic feet (fts) 

acre-foot (acre-ft) 

acre-feet 

pints (pt) 

quarts (qt) gallon (gal) million gallons (Mgal or 106 gal) barrels (bbl) (1 bbl=42 gal) 

0.035 ounce, avoirdupois (oz avdp) 

.0022 pound, avoirdupois (lb avdp) 1.102 tons, short (2,000 lb) 

0.9842 ton, long (2,240 lb) 

Specific combinations 

0.96 

.98 

35.3 

atmosphere (atm) 

bar (0.9869 atm) 

cubic feet per second (fts;s) 

Metric unit Inch-Pound equivalent 

Specific combinations-Continued 

liter per second (L/s) 

cubic meter per second 

per square kilometer 

[ (ma;s) jkm2] meter per day (m/d) 

meter per kilometer 

(m/km) 

kilometer per hour 

(km/h) 

meter per second (m/s) 

meter squared per day 

(m2/d) 

cubic meter per second 

(m11/s) 

cubic meter per minute 

(m3 /min) 

liter per second (L/s) 

liter per second per meter [ (L/s)/m] 

kilometer per hour 

(km/h) 

meter per second (m/s) 

gram per cubic 

centimeter (g/cms) 

gram per square 

centimeter (g/cm2 ) 

gram per square centimeter 

degree Celsius ( °C) 

degrees Celsius 

(temperature) 

.0353 

91.47 

3.28 

5.28 

.9113 

3.28 

10.764 

22.826 

=264.2 

15.85 

4.83 

.62 

2.237 

612.43 

2.048 

cubic foot per second 

cubic feet per second per 

square mile [ (fta/s)jmi2] 

feet per day (hydraulic conductivity) (ft/d) 

feet per mile (ft/mi) 

foot per second (ft/s) 

feet per second 

feet squared per day (ft2/d) 

(transmissivity) 

million gallons per day 

(M.gal/d) 

gallons per minute (gal/min) 

gallons per minute 

gallons per minute per foot 

[(gal/min) /ft] 

mile per hour (mi/h) 

miles per hour 

pounds per cubic foot (lb/ftS) 

pounds per square foot (lb/ft2) 

.0142 pound per square inch (lb/in2) 

Temperature 

1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) 

=[(1.8X°C)+32] degrees Fahrenheit 
GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF MISSOURI 

GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF WATERS OF MISSOURI 

By GERALD L. FEDER 

ABSTRACT 

A reconnaissance geochemical survey of surface and ground waters 

of the State of Missouri was made to provide epidemiologists with information on the state-wide distribution. and variability of chemical constituents. The information obtained also may be useful as background 

information for studies in environmental pollution and mineral exploration. 

Results from the state-wide sampling program, based on a hierarchical analysis of variance design and randomly chosen sampling sites, 

show that the concentrations of many chemical constituents in waters 

of Missouri vary both among and within the major geohydrologic units 

by statistically significant amounts. 

The chemical constituents in surface waters show fewer statistically 

significant differences between geohydrologic units than the ground 1 

waters, and in some geohydrologic units the surface water is chemically 

quite different from the ground water, especially in its trace element 

content. Where geohydrologic units overlie one another, there may be 

large differences in the quality of water obtained from closely spaced 

wells pumping water from different geohydrologic units. 

Analysis of the ground-water data by Q-mode factor analysis indicates that general chemical character of the waters can be moderately 

well described in terms of four theoretical water types. These include: 

(1) a Ca-Mg-HC03 water with relatively high Cu, (2) a Na-HC03-Cl 

water with high K, Li, Al, B, Rb, Sr, F, and Br, (3) a Ca-HC03-S04 

water with high Fe and Mn, and (4) a water low in total dissolved solids 

and with low concentrations of trace elements. This last water type 

was necessary to account for dilution of ground water due to precipitation and the lowering of dissolved solids in ground water due to membrane filtration processes. 

INTRODUCTION 

This report describes the results of a survey of the 

chemical characteristics of surface and ground water in 

the State of Missouri which was undertaken as a part of 

a general survey of the geochemical environment of the 

State. The general objective of the study has been to provide unbiased estimates of the "natural" chemical character and regional variability among the ground and surface water of the seven major geohydrologic units. The 

survey was undertaken in cooperation with medical scientists of the Environmental Health Surveillance Center 

of the University of Missouri, and all results have been 

made available to them in support of their studies of the 

possible effects of environmental geochemistry on health 

and disease. A preliminary description of the survey and 

I 

its implications for epidemiologic research was published 

by Connor and others (1972), and a general statement of 

the goals and methods was given by Miesch (1972 and 

1976). Much of the work on which this report is based has 

. appeared in a series of progress reports (U.S. Geological 

Survey, 1972a-1972f, 1973) issued at intervals of 6 

months during the 4 years of the study. 

The role of trace elements in health and disease has 

been of interest to medical researchers for a long time, 

but an increasing public awareness of trace-element hazards in the environment has focused attention on the 

need for data on the expected concentrations and ranges 

of many trace elements in ordinary components of the 

environment, such as water, dusts, plants, and foods, under natural conditions. 

Water often has been implicated in human disease 

caused by microorganisms or by toxic doses of certain 

trace elements, but little is known about the possible 

subtle health effects of long-term exposure to low or 

moderate, or perhaps insufficient, concentrations of 

water-borne trace ·elements relative to recommended 

levels. The trace-element character of potable water is 

regarded as a factor of possible major importance by epidemiologists, not only because water is directly consumed by humans but also because of possible concentrations of water-borne trace elements in the edible parts of 

plants and animals. Perhaps the most widely known relation between water chemistry and human disease is 

that of fluoride and tooth decay, but some investigators 

suspect there is a relation between water hardness and 

heart disease (Schroeder, 1966; Sauer, 1974). In addition, Voors (1971) implicates strontium, barium, nitrate, 

lithium, and cadmium as possible determinants of atherosclerotic heart disease. Shamberger and Frost (1969) 

reported on the possible protective effect of selenium 

against cancer. 

Trace-element variations in surface and ground water 

may reflect both pristine environmental conditions and 

pollution that has resulted from human activities. 

Throughout this study, primary emphasis is placed on 

establishing the natural background concentrations of 

trace elements in the major types of surface and ground 

El 
E2 GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF MISSOURI 

water in Missouri. In addition to providing data for baseline epidemiological studies, such data may be useful for 

assessing the extent of pollution of surface and ground 

water and in identifying anomalies in geochemical prospecting surveys. Areas of known or expected anomalous 

water chemistry purposely were excluded from the main 

sampling program, although a few special areas were 

sampled later to establish whether or not they should actually be considered anomalous. Because the emphasis of 

this study was on potable water, deep saline ground 

water found in many areas of the State was excluded 

from the study. 

In order to maximize the efficiency of the sampling 

program and to permit objective evaluation of the data, 

rigorous statistical procedures were followed as much as 

possible throughout the study. Although the major purpose of the work described herein is to support epidemi50 

I 11 1

1 1 1

1 

50 

100 

I 

logical research, this study also is one of a series aimed 

at evaluating sample design and techniques of the data 

analysis in geochemical surveys. General discussions of 

sampling problems encountered in environmental geochemistry were given by Miesch (1972) and Feder (1972). 

I acknowledge with gratitude the facilities and services provided by Dr. Carl J. Marienfeld and his associates of the Environmental Health Surveillance Center, 

University of Missouri. 

HYDROLOGIC SETTING 

PHYSIOGRAPHY AND CLIMATE 

Missouri contains parts of three physiographic provinces as defined by U.S.G.S. (1968) and shown in figure 

1. 

150 

I 

.100 MILES 

200 KILOMETERS 

I 

FIGURE I.-Map showing the physiographic divisions of Missouri. 
GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF WATERS OF MISSOURI E3 

OZARK PLATEAUS 

The Ozark Plateaus province is mostly a rugged area 

of deep, narrow valleys, and is dissected most strongly 

in the southern part of the State. Ridgetop altitudes vary 

from 300 to more than 500 m above sea level and maximum local relief is about 150 m. The region is divided 

into the Springfield Plateau, Salem Plateau, and St. 

Francois Mountains. 

The St. Francois Mountains contain the highest point 

in the State, Taum Sauk Mountain, at 540 m above sea 

level. The area is underlain largely by Precambrian igneous rocks and consists of rugged hills with a local topographic relief commonly exceeding 150 m. A few outlying hills exist where Precambrian rocks have been 

exposed by erosion in areas surrounding the St. Francois 

Mountains, and some buried hills are known from geophysical studies and drilling. 

The Salem Plateau is underlain predominantly by dolomitic rocks of Cambrian and Ordovician ages. Located 

at the southern part of the State, the Salem Plateau is 

dissected thoroughly with valleys that are separated by 

sharp ridges. Solution of the dolomitic rocks has had an 

important effect on the landforms and drainage characteristics in the area. Sinkholes, caves, losing streams, 

dry valleys, and large springs are common in this area. 

The Springfield Plateau is underlain by limestones of 

Mississippian age. It is characterized by gently rolling 

topography and an abundance of small springs and caves. 

MISSISSIPPI ALLUVIAL PLAIN 

The Mississippi Alluvial Plain is the northwestern part 

of the Mississippian embayment, and it is underlain 

largely by Quaternary age alluvial deposits of the Mississippi River flood plain. The region is relatively flat, with 

altitudes ranging from 70 to 90 m above mean sea level. 

Crowleys Ridge, in which rocks of Paleozoic, Cretaceous, and Tertiary age, are exposed, lies diagonally 

across the area and reaches an altitude of about 150 m 

above sea level. 

CENTRAL LOWLAND 

The Central Lowland province includes almost all of 

the area north of the Missouri River (Dissected Till 

Plains) and a large area south of the river in the western 

part of the State (Osage Plains). 

The Dissected Till Plains are underlain mostly by 

Pleistocene glacial deposits. The eastern part of the area 

is generally an undulating prairie with rolling hills, 

whereas the western part is more hilly. Altitudes range 

from 140m above sea level near the Mississippi River to 

about 300 m above sea level near the western border of 

the area. 

The Osage Plains are underlain by strata of Pennsylvanian age. The area is south of the limit of glaciation 

and is characterized by rolling plains of low relief. · 

CLIMATE 

The climate in Missouri is continental and is characterized by large variations in temperature and precipitation. The average annual air temperature ranges from 

12° C in the north to 16° C in the south. 

Average annual precipitation is 86 em in the north and 

117 em in the southeast. 

Figure 2 shows the distribution of precipitation in Missouri. 

GEOHYDROLOGIC UNITS 

The principal objective of this study was to describe 

the variability in trace-element concentrations among 

the ground and surface waters of the major hydrologic 

systems in Missouri. The surface and ground waters of 

the State were divided into conceptual units that are believed to be hydrologically distinct. The conceptual units 

chosen are referred to in this report as geohydrologic 

units (Maxey, 1964). Eight such geohydrologic units containing potable ground water were defined on the basis 

of stratigraphy (Howe and Koenig, 1961): (1) Quaternary 

alluvium in the Missouri and Mississippi River Valleys, 

(2) materials deposited by glacial and associated activity, 

(3) rocks of Cretaceous and Tertiary age, (4) rocks of 

Pennsylvanian age, (5) rocks of Mississippian age, (6) 

rocks of Cambrian and Ordovician age in southwestern 

Missouri, (7) rocks of Cambrian and Ordovician age in 

southern and southeastern Missouri, and (8) rocks of 

Precambrian age. Because the rocks of Precambrian age 

contain too few wells of acceptable construction for sampling, this last unit was not included in this study. The 

distribution of the other seven units is shown in figure 3. 

QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM 

The quaternary alluvium includes the sandy and clayey 

alluvial fill up to about 100 m thick in both the Missouri 

and Mississippi River Valleys (fig. 3), most of which is 

considered to be of Wisconsin age. The sandy layers in 

the Quaternary alluvium throughout most of these valleys yield large supplies of water to wells. (Yields of 

more than 50 L/s are common.) 

Many large towns, including North Kansas City and 

Columbia, obtain water supplies from this source. In addition, the Quaternary alluvium supplies large amounts 

of irrigation water. 

GLACIAL DEPOSITS 

Glacial deposits of Quaternary age, consisting of bouldery clay, sand, gravel, and loess, cover most of the 
E4 GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF MISSOURI 

,-. --l\----t-,.:? __ _!13° ____ 92° 

'-<, : ~ Kirksvill 

~1 l ,; 

oo·~ . i' • 

\'-

0 50 100 150 200 KILOMETERS 

f-"-rL-r+~~-L~ 

0 50 100 MILES 

FIGURE 2.-Mean annual precipitation, in centimeters. 

State north and east of the Missouri River. The thickness 

of this geohydrologic unit reaches more than 100 m in 

places. 

Throughout most of this area, ground-water yields to 

wells are small ( <3 L/s), and the water often contains 

more than 1,000 mg/L dissolved solids. 

CRETACEOUS AND TERTIARY STRATA 

Cretaceous and Tertiary strata consist of up to about 

700 m of predominantly unconsolidated clays, marls, and 

sands; these sediments underlie most of the southeastern 

lowlands. The unit crops out in Crowleys Ridge and from 

there dips to the southeast under the Mississippi River 

alluvial sediments. Some aquifers that are exposed on 

Crowleys Ridge are as much as 600 m deep in the southeast corner of the State adjacent to the Mississippi River. 

Wells yielding more than 25 L/s are common. The quality 

of water is highly variable, and most concentrations of 

dissolved solids range from 100 to 1,000 mg/L. 

PENNSYLVANIAN STRATA 

Pennsylvanian strata consist of up to about 600 m of 

sandstone, shale, limestone, and coal, and lie beneath 

most of the west-central part of the State. Most wells in 

this unit have small yields ( <3 L/s), and the water often 

contains more than 1,000 mg/L dissolved solids. 

MISSISSIPPIAN STRATA 

Mississippian strata are up to about 300m thick and 

consist predominantly of limestone, with a few interbedded dolomites and shales; these rocks underlie most of 

southwest Missouri. These strata generally yield moderate amounts (5 L/s) of water to wells. Extensive zinc 

and lead mineralization is present, and ground water in 

some parts of this unit has a high dissolved-solids content. However, outside of mineralized areas, the water 

generally contains less than 300 mg/L dissolved solids. 

CAMBRIAN AND ORDOVICIAN STRATA (SOUTHWEST 

MISSOURI) 

Cambrian and Ordovician strata (southwest Missouri) 

consist of approximately 500 m of predominantly dolomite with a few interbedded sandstones, and these rocks 

underlie the Mississippian strata. Most towns in southwest Missouri obtain water supplies from this unit. Wells 

penetrating this unit generally yield between 6 and 30 L/ 

s. The water generally contains less than 300 mg/L dissolved solids. 
GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF WATERS OF MISSOURI 

95° 94° 93° 

---:---L----,.....-----,.--L_T __ -;---~--)---.---~iL, ~ • I I I ( ! I 

i t------1 i ~---------, (, ! i 

_J -) i I I . I r-j_---~--- -l , ; ! r ---, , , , ---- I 

·---i f-·-----1 ; I I I 

r-------l l__ ___ j-- ----+--------~ 1 

i 1 i !Glacial ~eposits :---~T---

-i_ j-------1 ; I I i I --- I ; ., _________ l_ _ _, i I 

• I L l , I r·--.J--r I ' I - -- ---t ; -----1- l 

~------j \ I I r-----1 i • ! ' i ( I ' I I I I 1 I -..t_ r---- -----<----• '('~ / ... ..__ I 1 \_~:0 r-'---, '· r--- 1"2. / I ~----'--- .. ' 

/ ;----~atern~ry 

! ~lluviufrl1 -L-r--.r I ,--- I 

I I I 

I 

i1------- -~ I I 

I ' . I 

1 Pen,~l~a_r:!!~~ 

~- . _____ ~rata 

I I 

38"J.~. I ~~t I I ~ - I 

L ... ____ _ 

I 

A Geohydrologic units exposed at the surface. 

(Shaded areas were excluded from this study.) 

50 100 150 200 KILOMETERS 

I I I I I I I I I 

50 100 MILES 

FIGURE 3.-Locations of seven principal geohydrologic units in Missouri. 

E5 

goo 
E6 GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF MISSOURI 

CAMBRIAN AND ORDOVICIAN STRATA (SOUTHEAST 

MISSOURI) 

Cambrian and Ordovician strata (southeast Missouri) 

are lithologically similar to the Cambrian and Ordovician 

(southwest Missouri) unit, except that, in southeast Missouri, these strata are exposed at the surface. The unit 

is up to about 700 m thick and underlies most of the Missouri Ozarks, except in southwest Missouri. Wells fully 

penetrating this unit generally yield between 6 and 30 L/ 

s. The water generally contains less than 300 mg/L dissolved solids. Adjacent to the St. Francois Mountains, 

the Cambrian formations contain extensive lead deposits, and there are numerous mines in the area. 

Even though the seven geohydrologic units described 

here served as a basis for sampling both ground and surface water, the methods of investigation and data analysis were distinct enough to warrant separate treatment 

of ground and surface water in this report. 

GROUND WATER 

METHODS OF INVESTIGATION 

SAMPLING DESIGN 

Sampling of ground water in this study was based on 

a four-level hierarchical (nested) analysis-of-variance design in which the first three levels are associated with 

specific ranges of geographic scales; the fourth level is 

included to measure variation arising from both temporal 

changes in water quality and errors associated with laboratory and sampling procedures. The top level of this 

design consists of the seven geohydrologic units described previously. The second and third levels, respectively, consist of 4-km2 sites within geohydrologic units 

and wells within sites. Fifty-six samples were collected 

and analyzed in a completely randomized sequence from 

49 wells throughout the State. The sampling plan consisted of (1) dividing the potable ground waters of Missouri into seven geohydrologic units, (2) sampling one 

well in each of five sites within each of the seven geohydrologic units, (3) sampling a second well within each of 

two of the five sites in each geohydrologic unit, and (4) 

resampling one well in each of the seven geohydrologic 

units after a random interval of time. The sites and wells 

within sites were selected for sampling by formal randomization procedures (Miesch, 1976) in an attempt to 

avoid sampling bias. The duplicate sampling of wells at 

the fourth level was done at random intervals over a 3-

month period. 

Wherever possible, wells approved by the Missouri 

Division of Health for public water supplies were used 

because they are constructed to meet rigid State specifications, they are generally of high capacity, and well logs 

are available at the Missouri Division of Geological Survey and Water Resources. Selecting large capacity and 

properly constructed wells and collecting a sample from 

a faucet at the pump minimizes the chances of contamination of samples from the plumbing. 

The locations of sampling sites are shown in figure 4. 

The limited numbers of acceptable sampling sites within 

the glacial drift and Pennsylvanian geohydrologic units 

resulted in clustering of sample localities in these units. 

The sampling plan was designed to fit the following 

statistical model (Miesch, 1976): 

where Xukt is the amount of a given chemical constituent 

measured in an individual ground-water sample, IL is the 

grand mean of the log concentrations of the constituent 

in all areas of the State, lXj represents the difference between the average log concentration in the ith geohydrologic unit and the grand mean. f3ii represents the difference between the average for the jth site and the 

average for the ith geohydrologic unit, 'Yi.ik represents 

the difference between the kth well and the average for 

the jth site, and 8ukt represents the difference between 

the l th sample and the average for the kth well. For this 

study, the last term (80 k1) reflects variation arising from 

both analytical and sampling errors that arise partly 

from time-dependent changes within a well during the 

sampling period. 

According to the above model, the total observed logarithmic variance in X, estimated as s x

2 , may be partitioned into four components, each an estimate of a scalerelated variance (Miesch, 1976, table 1) 

(2) 

where sr: represents variation observed among geohydrologic units, s If represents variance among sites within 

geohydrologic units (large-scale differences within a geohydrologic unit), s] represents variance between wells 

within sites (small-scale differences within a geohydrologic unit), and sl represents the "error'' variance. With 

the exception of pH data, all variance components in this 

study were estimated following logarithmic transformation of reported concentrations because the analytical 

data for most chemical constituents tended to have 

marked positive skewness in their frequency distribu-

. tions, and log transformations resulted in data better approximating a normal distribution. Log transformation 

·also yielded means and variances for geohydrologic units, 

sites, and wells that tended to be uncorrelated (Miesch, 

1976). 
GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF WATERS OF MISSOURI E7 

I I 

50 

I 

100 

I 

150 

I 

200 KILOMETERS 

I 

EXPLANATION 

0 Sample site 

Second sample in 

r~ same township 

~Duplicate sample 

@ Quaternary alluvium sample 

@ 

® 

® 

Drift sample 

Cretaceous and Tertiary 

sample 

Pennsylvanian sample 

Mississippian sample 

Cambrian and Ordovician 

(below Mississippian) sample 

Cambrian and Ordovician 

sample 

50 100 MILES 

FIGURE 4.-Locations of wells from which waters were sampled from different stratigraphic (geohydrologic) units. 

The data for many of the chemical constituents include 

values reported as "less than" the laboratory detection 

levels. Only those chemical constituents with fewer than 

20 percent of the values reported as "less than" were 

chosen for the analysis of variance. As discussed by 

Miesch (1976, p·. A26), a value equal to seven-tenths of 

the detection level was substituted for reports of "less 

than." 

The sample design used constitutes a "stage 1a design" as described by Connor and others (1972) and 

Miesch (1976) for use in geochemical surveys of large regions. For most chemical constituents, this sampling appears to be sufficient to provide the desired degree of 

stability (Miesch, 1976) in any geochemical maps constructed to show differences among geohydrologic units. 

"Phase-2" sampling (Miesch, 1976), used for mapping 

smaller-scaled features, was not conducted. 

SAMPLING TECHNIQUES 

All water samples were collected in acid-washed polyethylene bottles, and the bottles were filled either by immersing them in springs or from a faucet connected to a 

well pump. Where wells were sampled, the pump was 

run for at least 10 min before sampling. A 2-liter sample 

for spectrographic, radiochemical, and selected chemical 

analyses was first filtered through a 0.45-~.tm filter, then 

acidified with 3 mL of double redistilled reagent-grade 

concentrated HN03 • In addition, a 1-liter sample of untreated water was collected for laboratory determination 

of pH, specific conductance, alkalinity, and arsenic. A 

sample for sulfide determination also was collected in a 

separate 100-mL bottle, and about 0.1 g of zinc acetate 

was added immediately to precipitate the sulfide. A sample for nitrogen determinations was collected in a 500-
EB GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF MISSOURI 

mL bottle, immediately treated with 30 mg HgCl2 , chilled 

to approximately 4o C, and sent to the laboratory for immediate analysis. This procedure minimized changes in 

the nitrogen forms. 

specific conductance. A description of the procedures for 

making these determinations is given in Skougstad and 

Feder (1976). 

All laboratory determinations were made in U.S. Geological Survey laboratories according to methods listed 

in table 1. More detailed descriptions are given in Skougstad and Feder (1976), Barnett (1976), and Janzer (1976). 

Table 2 lists those elements routinely looked for in spectrographic analysis of evaporation residues but rarely or 

never detected in the present study. 

ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 

Owing to the possibility of rapid changes in certain 

chemical properties of water, some determinations were 

made at the well or spring at the time of collection. These 

determinations included temperature, pH, alkalinity, and 

TABLE !.-Analytical methods used in reconnaissance geochemical study of ground water in Missouri 

[AAS, atomic-adsorption spectrophotometer] 

Determination Method' Reported as 

Aluminum Spectrographic Micrograms per liter. 

Alkalinity Electrometric titration Mi 11 i grams per liter as HC03 and C0 3 • 

Arsenic Silver diethyldithiocarbamate Micrograms per liter. 

Boron Spectrographic Do. 

Barium -----do---------------------- Do. 

Bromine Catalytic oxidation Milligrams per liter. 

Calcium AAS--direct Do. 

Cadmium AAS-direct, spectrographic Micrograms per liter. 

Chlorine Mercurimetric Milligrams per liter. 

Cobalt Spectrographic Micrograms per liter. 

Chromium -----do----------------------- Do. 

Copper -----do----------------------- Do. 

Fluorine Zirconium-eriochrome cyanide R Milligrams per liter. 

Iron AAS--direct, spectrographic Micrograms per liter. 

Hardness Complexometric Milligrams per liter as CaC03 • 
GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF WATERS OF MISSOURI 

TABLE !.-Analytical methods used in reconnaissance geochemical study of ground water in MissouriContinued 

Determination Method Reported as 

Hardness, noncarbonate -----do----------------------- Do. 

Mercury Flameless AAS Micrograms per liter. 

Iodine eerie-arsenious Do. 

Potassium AAS-direct Milligrams per liter. 

Lithium -----do----------------------- Micrograms per liter. 

Magnesium -----do----------------------- Milligrams per liter. 

Manganese AAS--direct, spectrographic Micrograms per liter. 

Molybdenum Spectrographic Do. 

Nitrogen (ammonia)' Distillation, titration, or Milligrams per liter as nitrogen. 

ness 1 erizat ion. 

Nitrogen (nitrate)' Brucine Milligrams per liter as nitrate. 

Nitrogen (nitrite)' Diazotization Mi 11 i grams per 1 iter as nitrite. 

Nitrogen (organic)' Kjeldahl digestion Milligrams per liter as nitrogen. 

Sodium AAS--d i rect Milligrams per liter. 

Nickel Spectrographic Micrograms per liter. 

Phosphorus (total) Acid-persulfate hydrolysis Milligrams per liter as phosphorus. 

Phosphate Phosphomo lybdate Milligrams per liter as phosphate. 

Lead Spectrographic Micrograms per liter. 

Hydrogen-ion concentration Electrometric, glass electrode Standard units. 

Radioactivity (alpha) Counter Picocuries per liter. 

Radioactivity (beta) ----------do------------------- Do. 

E9 
ElO GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF MISSOURI 

TABLE !.-Analytical methods used in reconnaissance geochemical study of ground water in MissouriContinued 

Determination Method Reported as 

Rubidium Spectrographic Micrograms per liter. 

Selenium Di ami no benzidine Do. 

Silica (as SiO,) Molybdate blue Milligrams per liter. 

Sulfate Thor in Do. 

Solids (dissolved) Gravimetric; residue on Do. 

evaporation at 18QOC 

Specific conductance Wheatstone bridge 2 Micromhos per centimeter at 250C. 

Strontium Spectrographic Micrograms per liter. 

Temperature Thermometer 2 Degree Celsius(OC). 

Zinc AAS--di rect Micrograms per 1 iter. 

'Determinations made in Little Rock, Ark., laboratories of the Water Resources Division. 

2Determined in field at time of collection. 

GROUND-WATER RESULTS 

CHEMICAL VARIABILITY 

Estimates of the logarithmic variance components s:f, 

s(f, Sy2 , s8

2 , and of their corresponding percentages of the' 

total variance sx2 are given in table 3. They were derived 

using computational procedures outlined by Anderson 

and Bancroft (1952, p. 327) for hierarchial designs with 

unequal subclasses. 

The most notable feature of these estimates is that 

those representing compositional variation among wells 

within a site and between samples from the same well 

are generally small when compared to those representing the larger scaled geographic variation (s:f and s(f). 

This indicates that a single water sample (or at most two : 

or three) is generally satisfactory for characterizing the 

chemistry of ground water within a geographic area (a 

few kilometers across). Only Mg, Li, and Br exhibit important variation within sites. Moreover, all of the sampling and analytical methods used, with the possible exception of those for Cl and Al, appear to be suitably 

precise. Most of the variation among the chemical constituents in Missouri ground waters is on a broad scale. 

For the most part, the variation occurs between wells or 

springs more than several kilometers apart and between 

geohydrologic units. It is this latter variation that is of 

primary interest in this study. 

The components of logarithmic variance in table 3 

serve not only to quantify the nature of the chemical variability among the ground waters of Missouri, but, also, 

may be used to derive an index of stability for maps that 

are based on the geohydrologic unit means. The index is 

(Miesch, 1976) 

V =N /E m v s' (3) 

where Nv is equal to s:f andEs is an estimate of the variance of the geohydrologic unit means if computed from 

the available data, that is, without further sampling. 

This variance is given by 

s2 s2 s2 

{3 '"Y /) 

E =-+--+---

s nf3 nf3n-r nf3n-rnb 

(4) 
GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF WATERS OF MISSOURI Ell 

TABLE 2.-Elements looked for in spectrographic analysis of 

evaporation residues but rarely or never detected in this 

study 

Lower limit Lower limit 

Element of detection Element of detection 

(ppm) (ppm) 

Be Sn 15 

Bi 15 Ti 10 

Ga 6 15 

Ge 15 Zr 20 

Ag 

where nf3, ny, and n 6 are, respectively, the numbers of 

sites sampled within geohydrologic units (five), the number of wells sampled within each site (one or two), and 

the number of samples from each well (one or two). Because unequal numbers of wells were sampled in each 

site, and because duplicate samples were not taken from 

each well, the quantities of ny and n, can be either one or 

two, depending on the particular site or well. However, 

because the corresponding estimated variances, si and 

sl, generally are small in comparison with sl (table 3), 

the additional error is of little consequence; the values of 

na and nf3 were both set to 1, giving 

E =(s2 +s2 +s2 )/5. (5) s {3 Q 5 

The computed values of V, for each chemical constituent are given in table 3. Computer simulation studies 

(Connor and others, 1972) have indicated that regional 

patterns are almost impossible to describe (or map). even 

though present, if the variance ratio. V,. is less than 

one. As V"' increases, such maps exhibit increasing reliability of the means. All of the values ofV,_ given in table 

3, except that for pH, are 1.0 or greater and range up to 

9.3. Moreover, conventional F -tests indicate that the 

variances among geohydrologic units. except for pH. are 

all significant at the 0. 05 probability level. Consequently. 

the means for the geohydrologic units are regarded as 

adequate for representation on geochemical maps. and 

the maps are expected to depict the general nature of the 

regional geochemical character of ground waters of the 

State. However, the analysis of variance also indicates 

that an important variation occurs within geohydrologic 

units over distances of more than a few kilometers, and 

description of the geographic configuration represented 

by this variance component (slf) requires a great deal of 

additional sampling and laboratory analysis. 

TABLE a.-comparison of estimated logarithmic variance components for chemical constituents for ground waters 

of Missouri 

[All variance components are significantly greater than zero at the 0.05 probability level, except as noted by asterisks. Constituents 

are ranked In order of decreasing V m variance mean ratio 1 

Between Between sites Between 

Total log geohydrologic units wells within sites Between samples v!!! 

Variable variance 

(~z log to ~) Percent Percent Percent Percent 

~! of total s 2 of total S' of total ~! of terra 1 

-- -, 

Fe (~o~g/L) 1.6867 1.0934 65 0.3276 19 0. 2621 16 *0.0036 <1 9.3 

SiOz (mg/L} .0616 .0375 61 .0233 38 *.0005 <1 *.0003 <1 7.8 

Na (mg/L) .5699 .3391 60 .1749 31 .0552 10 *.0008 <1 7.5 

K {mg/L} .1803 .0943 52 .0677 38 .0154 9 *.0028 2 5.4 

B (pg/L) .3639 .1872 50 .1370 38 .0415 11 * .0027 <1 5.0 

Sr (~o~g/L) .3140 .1570 50 .1402 45 .0150 5 *.0018 <1 5.0 

Mg (mg/L} .2593 .1264 49 * .0725 28 .0592 23 *.0013 <1 4.8 

L i (~o~g/L) .7243 .3421 47 *.1939 27 *.1793 25 *.0090 1 4.4 

so. (mg/L) .9056 .4096 45 .3711 41 .1246 14 *.0002 <1 4.1 

Temperature ("C) .0022 .0010 43 .0009 40 *0 <1 *.0004 17 3.8 

Ba (~o~g/L} .2828 .1202 43 .1314 47 .0302 11 *.0011 <1 3.8 

Dissolved so 1 ids 

(mg/L) .0768 .0299 39 .0390 51 .0074 10 *.0005 <1 3.2 

Specific conductance (field) (&&mho .0766 .0277 36 .0398 52 .0067 9 *.0024 2.8 

/em at 250C) 

Ca (mg/L) .1669 .0546 33 .1050 63 .0056 3 *.0017 2.4 

Carbonate hardness 

(mg/L as CaCOJ .1518 .0479 32 .0954 63 .0081 5 *.0004 <1 2.4 

HCO( (mg/L) .0354 .0112 32 .0197 56 .0040 11 *.0005 1 2.4 

Br mg/L) .3727 .0989 27 *.0490 13 * .1455 39 *.0793 21 1.8 

Al {mg/L) .0438 .0099 23 .0146 33 *0 <1 *.0193 44 1.5 

Cl (mg/L) 1. 0460 .1715 16 .3937 38 *0 <1 *.4808 46 1.0 

pH' .1961 *.0070 4 .1516 77 *.0125 6 *.0250 13 .2 

'pH, by defin1tion, is a loganthm1c value and was not transformed for th1s analys1s. 
E12 GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF MISSOURI 

COMPOSITION OF GEOHYDROLOGIC UNITS 

Each map (figs. 5-20) distinguishes three gross compositional units, two of which are the geohydrologic units 

displaying the highest and lowest mean concentrations, 

and the third (unpatterned) consisting of the five geohydrologic units having mean compositions intermediate to 

these extremes. Although the statistical significance of 

the difference between the highest and lowest mean concentrations was demonstrated by the analysis of variance 

(sr: was significant for all constituents, except pH, at the 

0.05level), applications of Duncan's (1955) multiple-range 

test, as used in a geochemical survey of the plants and 

soils of Missouri by Erdman, Shacklette, and Keith (1976), 

generally failed to identify significant differences among 

means other than those between the highest and lowest 

means. The geometric mean concentration, the geometric deviation, and the observed range of concentrations 

are shown for each of the seven units. 

Many chemical constituents were below the limits of 

analytical determination in all of the samples from one or 

more geohydrologic units, but were detected in most or 

all samples from the other units. Even though the data 

could not be examined by analysis of variance methods, 

it seems apparent that these observed differences among 

geohydrologic units are important, and hydrogeochemical maps were prepared (figs. 21-37). The chemical constituents include N03 , N02 , NH3 , organic N, Cd, Cu, F, 

I, Mn, Mo, Rb, Zn, P04 , total P, and sulfide in addition 

to Gross Alpha activity and Gross Beta activity. 

The chemical properties of the seven geohydrologic 

units are summarized in table 4. The detection ratio in 

table 4 is the ratio of the number of water samples in 

which• the chemical constituent was determined to the 

number of independent samples analyzed from the particular geohydrologic unit. The number analyzed is given 

as five in most instances because two of the eight samples from each unit were from wells or springs in the 

same site where other samples had been taken, and one 

sample was a duplicate from a previously sampled well 

or spring. For each constituent, the expected value is 

given as the geometric mean (GM), which is the antilog 

of the mean logarithm of concentrations in five wells (one 

in each site) in each unit. The chemical variability was 

estimated as the geometric deviation (GD). The GD is 

the antilog of the standard deviation of the logarithmic 

values, and it is a factor that may be used to estimate the 

expected range of the constituent (Miesch, 1976). Where 

concentrations less than the lower limits of analytical determination were encountered, Cohen's (1959) method, 

as discussed by Miesch (1976, p. A28), was used to estimate both GM and GD. 

Q-MODE FACTOR ANALYSIS 

Because the concentrations of chemical constituents in 

water are rarely independent of one another, the variation of a multitude of chemical properties can be viewed 

. as reflecting the variation of some fewer number of fundamental effects of "factors." The chemical data obtained in this study were analyzed by techniques of Qmode factor analysis as described by Miesch (1976). In 

this application, the goal was to describe each observed 

sample composition in terms of a minimum number of 

fundamental water types. These water types are regarded as hypothetical samples that can be combined in 

various proportions to approximate the chemical compositions of each of the actual samples. The goal of the analysis is to derive a relation of the form 

X =a F +a F + · · · +a. F . , (6) ij i1 lj i2 2j zm m J 

where Xii is an estimate of the concentration of the jth 

constituent in the ith sample, the F's are hypothetical 

water compositions (the factors), and the a's are coefficients giving the proportions for combining the hypothetical end members to approximate the composition of the 

ith sample. In Q-mode factor-analysis terminology, the 

F values are the composition scores and the a values are 

the composition loadings. In this study, m (the number 

of factors) was found to be equal to 4. Miesch (1976) described the mathematical basis and procedures in detail. 

Q-mode factor-variance diagrams for the chemical data 

are given in figures 38A and 38B. Only the five within 

geohydrologic unit samples from the seven geohydrologic units were used for this analysis. These diagrams 

show the proportions of the total variance in the chemical 

data for each constituent that can be accounted for by 

mixing 2-10 hypothetical end members. It is apparent 

from the diagrams that mixtures of four end members 

can account for about one-half or more of the variance in 

each constituent. 

An initial Q-mode factor analysis included all of the 

chemical and spectrographic determinations represented 

in table 4 except those with low detection ratios. A few 

other constituents (N03 , NH4 , I, and radiochemical data) 

were eliminated from the final analysis because they 

were found not to respond to the common factors to 

which the other variables appeared related; their variances could not be accounted for by models with fewer 

than eight or nine end members. 

The data for the 18 remaining constituents represented on the factor-variance diagrams were expressed 

as parts-per-million values and summed. The difference 

between 106 and this sum was taken as H20. The sum of 

the 19 variables then was 106 for each sample as required 

for this form of Q-mode factor analysis (Miesch, 1976). 

Although the values for H20 were overwhelmingly larger 

than the values for any other constituent, all values were 

brought into the same range by scaling the values for 

each constituent to range from zero to one. The factor 
GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF WATERS OF MISSOURI 

95° 

II 

l GM=320 

94° 

L_ GD=5.39 -

1 Range-io-s.2oo 

I 

I 

l 38c -l 

I 

l 

I 

l 

I 

I 

I 3r--r I 

I 

t1 

I 

- GM-==-100 -, 

G[~=7.67 : 

_ R~nge=<1~-l.700 

L----~ 

92° 

A. Geohydrologic units exposed at the surface. 

(Shaded areas were excluded from this study.) 

I 

I 

(--

1 

I 

~ - _J 

~~=53~ ~GI::>,;,g_~ 

! ---- ~---

37° j ! Range= fQ-3.600 I 

I 

II 

I 

----1 

- ___:._-- ....__---J-----:_-:--L--- ___J.,.- i---

93'' 91' 

I 

> ' ,, /'-.J' 

'fl 

J '! ::~ 

~G /_J:~L_i) B. Geohydrologic units overlain by younger strata. 

50 

I,' ,, I ,I 

50 

100 

I 

150 

I 

1 DO MILES 

ZOO KILOMETERS 

I 

90'' 

FIGURE 5.-Iron concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri. Patterns show units 

having the significantly different extreme high (crosshatched) and low (stippled) mean concentrations. GM, geometric mean, micrograms per liter; GD, geometric deviation; Range, range of concentrations observed in eight 

samples from the geohydrologic unit. 

E13 
E14 GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF MISSOURI 

95' 94° 93" 

39" 

1- -

I 

I 

I GM~tl -

L_ G0=:=-1~81 I Range= 7.5 -33 I 

I 

l 

38' -~ 

I 

I 

I 

l_ 

I 

I 

I 3r-r 

37° 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I, I L \ 1 ,-L 

--GM=;8.8 I , __ ; 

csn=-t.03"-,, i- _L 

-~ange=8.r9.1 '--~ t l ____ ......L; 

,, 

A. Geohydrologic units exposed at the surface. 

(Shaded areas were excluded from this study.) 

93° 

B. Geohydrologic units overlain by younger strata. 

50 100 150 200 KILOMETERS 

I I I I I I I I I 

50 100 MILES 

goo 

FIGURE 6.-Silica (Si02

) concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri. Patterns show 

units having the significantly different extreme high (crosshatched) and low (stippled) mean concentrations. GM, 

geometric mean, in milligrams per liter; GD, geometric deviation; Range, range of concentrations observed in all 

eight samples from the geohydrologic unit. 
95° 

GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF WATERS OF MISSOURI 

A Geohydrologic units exposed at the surface. 

(Shaded areas were excluded from this study.) 

50 100 150 200 KILOMETERS 

I I I I I I I I I 

50 100 MILES 

goo 

FIGURE 7.-Sodium concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri. Patterns show units 

having the significantly different extreme high (crosshatched) and low (stippled) mean concentrations. GM, geometric mean, in milligrams per liter; GD, geometric deviation; Range, range of concentrations observed in all eight 

samples from the geohydrologic unit. 

E15 
E16 

95' 

38' 

I 

I 

I 

r·- _, 

I 

I 

3JO f 

I 

I 

1-

I 

I 

94" 

94° 

GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF MISSOURI 

93° 

_ GNF=2~-2 -l 

GQ=2.25 I 

Rar9e=1.1_-!·6 

A Geohydrologic units exposed at the surface. 

(Shaded areas were excluded from this study.) 

I j ~-----

! ·--.-----1, 

l. ' I i ' l I l 

- ~--- i__- --j ----_i_l __ L_---'--r---: 

92° 91° 

B. Geohydrologic units overlain by younger strata. 

I I 

50 

I 

50 

100 

I 

150 

I 

100 MILES 

200 KILOMETERS 

I 

FIGURE 8.-Potassium concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri. Patterns show 

units having the significantly different extreme high (crosshatched) and low (stippled) mean concentrations. GM, 

geometric mean, in milligrams per liter; GD, geometric deviations; Range, range of concentrations observed in all 

eight samples from the geohydrologic unit. 
GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF WATERS OF MISSOURI 

94° 

---:--L_ --, -----,..-- L-.,. --.,-- _i __ )- -~-- _liL, ~ I \ \ ( I I I I I I . ( I I 

I ~-----, I ~-------, ' , I __;__ : I I : 1-_L __ ~--- ' 

\ 

~ I 1 r--- __, I I ~---- ' _______ ~ I I : I I I t ~ ~-----~ I ' I ! 

40° ~ 1 r---- i ' __;'------+------J I 

""' ! I f---- IGM=70 i ~----____!_~--- - ! ! I iGD=3.70, : I 

-L ___ _J--- ----l i Range=J,o-900 I ! 

--- ! ! ~- -- _>·------"---~-----+-r __ __j_--:-- "1 ~------j I ! 

r---, 1 ! , 1 ~ 

; I /-1-~ ~--------~---~ -r-'---, 1 r·-- : ! ~-~-~· I ~-- --~ I 

! i !'l_ ' I I L--r-- J 

.• \ I ,- \ 

1+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+++-+-1--+-1 .. :. :-·: .:-:: r:··:·:~·~·;_·_. . . l 

A Geohydrologic units exposed at the surlace. 

(Shaded areas were excluded from this study.) 

') 'r---' "--;'-,; 

)\ ~ ./' 1 ') 

360 _j__-:L__i 

goo 

50 100 150 200 KILOMETERS 

I I I I I I I I I 

50 100 MILES 

FIGURE 9.-Boron concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri. Patterns show units 

having the significantly different extreme high (erosshatched) and low (stippled) mean concentrations. GM, geometric mean, in micrograms per liter; GD, geometric deviation; Range, range of concentrations observed in all eight 

samples from the geohydrologic unit. 

E17 
E18 GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF MISSOURI 

95" 94" 93° 

-----..L _____ ---r-- --1'"--.,---~----

~ ' ' : ), 

i r---- ~ - ------~-L 

I 

I 3r-r-l 

I 

r 

I 

I 

L----....o 

' i 

GM=460 ' ! 

G9=2.17---+- ---~ 

--Rapge=270f,SOO 1 I , 

l_ ---L 

9T 

· .. · 

I ,, 'r--·-----;'>.: 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

370 r 

I 

I 

, __ 

I 

A Geohydrologic units exposed at the surface. 

(Shaded areas were excluded from this study.) 

I : 

: ~ 

-:Jl_M==J3Cl 

jGD=6.6~ 

__ JRange=~-:-l,JQQ_ 

I I l_- ~--

I ' 

L----...J~ 

94° 

B. Geohydrologic units overlain by younger strata. 

~) l <2 ., I [_) 

360 _f_--"~Lgoa 

50 100 150 200 KILOMETERS 

I I 

I I I I I 

I 

I 

50 100 MILES 

FIGURE 10.-Strontium concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri. Patterns show 

units having the significantly different extreme high (crosshatched) and low (stippled) mean concentrations. GM, 

geometric mean, in micrograms per liter; GD, geometric deviation; Range, range of concentrations observed in all 

eight samples from the geohydrologic unit. 
GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF WATERS OF MISSOURI 

~ ----- _;--J----r-- ;q::..+--+-+-=1~ I ' I I t i I ~ r------ -{ A-+...+=o=l+-1--+'+-+--+-+.:.-1--~ ~ LGM~9.~ ·~ft-++14~++~~~~~~~4-~++~~~ I GD=2.16· 

: Range=~~~~~-_ Aj:ttittJ=tbtjjj:tj::iji:jti:tl~~~jjjttt 

38° J-- -~-~ I I I r--- 1 -n~~tttt~1ltttttpjji$tbtb 

,------

1 

I 

A Geohydrologic units exposed at the surface. 

(Shaded areas were excluded from this study.) 

50 100 150 200 KILOMETERS 

I I I I I I I I I 

50 100 MILES 

goo 

FIGURE H.-Magnesium concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri. Patterns show 

units having the significantly different extreme high (crosshatched) and low (stippled) mean concentrations. GM, 

geometric mean, in milligrams per liter; GD, geometric deviation; Range, range of concentrations observed in all 

eight samples from the geohydrologic unit. 

E19 
E20 

95" 

I 

I 

3r -1----

1 

I 

r---- -- --, I 

I 

I 

,. 

I 

I 

3JO -r---

1 

I 

, __ 

I 

I 

----- ____ , 

' 

94° 

GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF MISSOURI 

9T 

--.,---i--.. ---~---:-r_ 

' ~ c I 

i 

----j---L---~----- -~- --

GM=12 : ~--G~:z:os---t---- ---~ 

' Ra~ge=6·43: 'I· I 

,-

)i I ~ ' 

, I J A. Geohydrologic units exposed at the surface. 

(Shaded areas were excluded from this study.) I , [_ 

36" -l--~LL._ 

94° 92° 

B. Geohydrologic units overlain by younger strata. 

50 

I 

50 

100 

I 

150 

I 

100 MILES 

200 KILOMETERS 

I 

90" 

FIGURE 12.-Lithium concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri. Patterns show units 

having the significantly different extreme high (crosshatched) and low (stippled) mean concentrations. GM, geometric mean, in micrograms per liter; GD, geometric deviation; Range, range of concentrations observed in all eight 

samples from the geohydrologic unit. 
95° 

GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF WATERS OF MISSOURI 

II 

I 

94° 

I -r----

L____ ' 

I G~:~b : GD=6J~ 

93° 

l ___ R~ngero.s=s-,-

380 -1 ~~'l 

I , 

I 

I 

,------

A Geohydrologic units exposed at the surface. 

(Shaded areas were excluded from this study.) 

i ' ( ~ ' I I '" , ', 

L -~ c ~]--! -, - '-"l-,,_':] L~ i ! ! I \ 

----'-, ~ ! ! } 

~ !,---_r---, . ~ 

'L ' i ' "'.~ 

' __ "), ! :____ )_l-( '(. '-' --"- _T ____ --r I ~-~- ;- _N~ 

, I \ J ' r' 1 

~-----i '---- --- ' GMi-7-<11:' J 

i "i-----~ 11 GD=j3.95\ > 

1 ' I l, , Ra~e=O.ff.._32~ 

i i ! ! l i L ,;--~--- " {'v _ _i ___ ,;_ __ .--J _____ I ____ L ___ ___.__r- ___ ' __ .c_ I 'J(j 

J I \,, 1 r--......-...\-

930 92° 91° ) r- $ 

B. Geohydrologic units overlain by younger strata. ./ i "J 

36° --L-~L_J_ 

0 

I I 

50 

I 

50 

100 

I 

150 

I 

100 MILES 

200 KILOMETERS 

I 

FIGURE 13.-Sulfate (S04 ) concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri. Patterns show 

units having the significantly different extreme high (crosshatched) and low (stippled) mean concentrations. GM, 

geometric mean, in milligrams per liter; GD, geometric deviation; Range, range of concentrations observed in all 

eight samples from the geohydrologic unit. 

E21 
E22 GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF MISSOURI 

95" 94° 92" 

---,,--.l.... __ ~--~--L-T"--~---~--.---.---!7_ ~ l . . I ), I I 

r----

r --- i 

r1--· -

I 

I 

L_ G.M=i-io 

I 

I 

I 

d}ll ~53" -

1

i 

Gb=1.18 i 

(, 

__ J_ ____ 1--------j 

I ~-- ---

j-GM~-2ot--- ---- _J 

: GD=3.~ ~ 

Range_=i24- 650 

3r --r - -~nge=4d-=i7 ___ _ 

L. 

37" 

I 

,_ I 

: I L ____ ,.. 

I 

I 

,. 

I 

I r---

1 

I I 

,_- -~ 

I r 

I : 

L----..Ji 

A. Geohydrologic units exposed at the surface. 

(Shaded areas were excluded from this study.) 

--1 

'-----,-------- --J, 1 -----~ r I 

I ; ! l i ~ 

- ......:._--.;__---J-----~-~-- L-----'--r---

B. Geohydrologic units overlain by younger strata. 

I I 

50 

I 

50 

100 

I 

150 

I 

200 KILOMETERS 

I 

100 MILES' 

FIGURE 14.-Barium concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri. Patterns show units 

having the significantly different extreme high (crosshatched) and low (stippled) mean concentrations. GM, geometric mean, in micrograms per liter; GD, geometric deviation; Range, range of concentrations observed in all eight 

samples from the geohydrologic unit. 
GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF WATERS OF MISSOURI 

95° 94° --T--L ___ :---;--L-T---r--'--; ___ i ___ li_ 

. ~ ~ I I / i ! 

~-- --l i r-- -- ----r _ L_ ---L1 ____ J __ _ -, r----~ .__- I i I 

1

1 ---! r---- --~ GMb48o · ' I 

r------ "' L __ .GMUJ4---+-------~ ! 

i RanJge=249-1,400 1 --~ r - l ! ! ! 

L- ----L---~ ! r ___ _j_-r, ----

;-- -~. I 

I 

~--------'- -7 ___ .....~,.... ____ ' 

/ I 

' (--------! 

! 

A. Geohydrologic units exposed at the surface. 

(Shaded areas were excluded from this study.) 

I 

,_ I 

I 

I 

37"- r --- , 

I 

, __ 

I 

: ~- -

--;~~~~~.~ 

! Range=~6Q-459 -~ I -- ----~---

1 

i 

I I 

L----...1....,...-- 1 

93° 92° 91° 

B. Geohydrologic units overlain by younger strata. 

I I 

50 

I 

50 

100 

I 

150 

I 

100 MILES 

200 KILOMETERS 

I 

FIGURE 15.-Dissolved solids (residue on evaporation at 180"C) in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in 

Missouri. Patterns show units having the significantly different extreme high (crosshatched) and low (stippled) 

mean concentrations. GM, geometric mean, in milligrams per liter; GD, geometric deviation; Range, range of concentrations observed in all eight samples from the geohydrologic unit. 

E23 
E24 

95° 

I 

I 

37"' --r-----

1 

I 

~-

1 

I 

,_ I 

I 

I 

370 -r1 

,_ I 

I 

I 

---, I 

I I 

L.-----'~ 

GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF MISSOURI 

i ,-.--,-- .-.-

I Range=37..l60 

) ! I I 

- _ _l __ T ____ I I 

I ~ 

----r 

A Geohydrologic units exposed at the surface. 

(Shaded areas were excluded from this study.) 

B. Geohydrologic units overlain by younger strata. 

I I 

50 

I 

50 

100 

I 

150 

I 

100 MILES 

200 KILOMETERS 

I 

FIGURE 16.-Calcium concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri. Patterns show units 

having the significantly different extreme high (crosshatched) and low (stippled) mean concentrations. GM, ge~ 

metric mean, in milligrams per liter; GD, geometric deviation; Range, range of concentrations observed in all eight 

samples from the geohydrologic unit. 
GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF WATERS OF MISSOURI 

A Geohydrologic units exposed at the surface. 

(Shaded areas were excluded from this study.) 

0 

I' I 

50 

I 

50 

100 

I 

150 

I 

100 MILES 

200 KILOMETERS 

I 

FIGURE 17.-Bicarbonate (HC03) concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri. Patterns 

show units having the significantly different extreme high (crosshatched) and low (stippled) mean concentrations. 

GM, geometric mean, in milligrams per liter; GD, geometric deviation; Range, range of concentrations observed in 

all eight samples from the geohydrologic unit. · 

E25 
E26 

95" 94° 

94° 

GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF MISSOURI 

92° 

A. Geohydrologic units exposed at the surface. 

(Shaded areas were excluded from this study.) 

93" 92° 

B. Geohydrologic units overlain by younger strata. 

I I 

50 

I 

50 

100 

I 

150 

I 

100 MILES 

200 KILOMETERS 

I 

FIGURE 18.-Bromine concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri. Patterns show units 

having the significantly different extreme high (crosshatched) and low (stippled) mean concentrations. GM, geometric mean, in milligrams per liter; GD, geometric deviation; Range, range of concentrations observed in all eight 

samples from the geohydrologic unit. 
GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF WATERS OF MISSOURI 

A Geohydrologic units exposed at the surface. 

(Shaded areas were excluded from this study.) 

50 100 150 200 KILOMETERS 

I I I I I I I I I 

50 100 MILES 

goo 

FIGURE 19.-Aluminum in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri. Patterns show units having the 

significantly different extreme high (crosshatched) and low (stippled) mean concentrations. GM, geometric mean, in 

micrograms per liter; GD, geometric deviation; Range, range of concentrations observed in all eight samples from 

the geohydrologic unit. 

E27 
E28 GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF MISSOURI 

95' 94" 9T 

---,---l-. ___ 1 - ----;----.,---.,---~--·:;-- -~--

~ ( 

(, 

39" 

38' 

I 

I 3T-r I 

I 

t 

I 

I 

I 

I 

,. 

I 

I 

370 r 

I 

,_ I 

I 

I 

---~ 

I 

I. , .. 

I 

GM!=16 ' 

Ji0.¥5:97 . + - Ra~ge=3.3-1~0 I 

A. Geohydrologic units exposed at the surface. 

(Shaded areas were excluded from this study.) 

l' 

; 

I 

·- I 

~ ! 

i 

----1 '--,-----~--

I , 1 

: i ! ! l I 

- _j_-- ~--- r-J-----L i--L---~ -r---

92° 91° 

B. Geohydrologic units overlain by younger strata. 

I I 

50 

I 

50 

100 

I 

150 

I 

100 MILES 

200 KILOMETERS 

I 

90" 

FIGURE 20.-Chlorine concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri. Patterns show units 

having the significantly different extreme high (crosshatched) and low (stippled) mean concentrations. GM, geometric mean, in milligrams per liter; GD, geometric deviation; Range, range of concentrations observed in all eight 

samples from the geohydrologic unit. 
GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF WATERS OF MISSOURI 

A Geohydrologic units exposed at the surface. 

(Shaded areas were excluded from this study.) 

0 

I' I 

50 

I 

50 

100 

I 

150 

I 

100 MILES 

200 KILOMETERS 

I 

FIGURE 21.-Manganese concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri. Crosshatched 

pattern shows the units having the highest observed mean concentrations. GM, geometric mean, in micrograms per 

liter; GD, geometric deviation; Range, range of concentrations observed in all eight samples. 

E29 
E30 GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF MISSOURI 

95" 

-----L.---1 ----r-- j__ 'T"'---:-- -~- -)-- -~--

' I ( i 

38c 

I 

I 

1-· 

I 

I 

~ - _L 

I 

3T-r· I 

I 

r------ -~ I 

I 

I 

. -- i 

! 

4-1--- .. 

11 

•I I - -- - J I I 

-- GM=1

0:1lf 

A Geohydrologic units exposed at the surface. 

(Shaded areas were excluded from this study.) 

- -- \ 

" f I - ··- --

I' 

! . ......__ 

I t- GD=a.04 f I'\. 

J~ I= -Range= <0.1- :4: - -- ~ -h.. I 1-,- tG 1/ 

: , __ 

b 

I I 

i 

I 

L. !J 

--1--!-l' I II ~ 

1 1 v I '=·+-v~1 Y; f f-::v-"- ·r---- -

I( I P,[? I 

\ ' I i 

n I I ! 

. L - .......;__- - _;___ - - ,......_ j ---

I I 

50 

I 

50 

100 

I 

150 

I 

100 MILES 

200 KILOMETERS 

I 

FIGURE 22.-Sulfide (S--) concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri. Crosshatched 

pattern shows the unit having the highest observed mean concentrations. GM, geometric mean, in milligrams per 

liter; GD, geometric deviation; Range, range of concentrations observed in all eight samples. 
GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF WATERS OF MISSOURI 

~-----J---I- ---t--- 1 I I 

I I I 

' I I '~r-------{ L____ J I 

/ ~~<3.6 I [. _____ _ 

38° J-----~-~ I I 

I r- 1 I ~----- I 

L 

I 

,_ 

-

t -----1~ t: -

1- - r 

i 

I 

... 

-

A Geohydrologic units exposed at the surface. 

(Shaded areas were excluded from this study.) 

~--~ r_J r-L--.---~ ~ i 1: I t, S--"-, 1 ~- __ I I '• __rJ1 I ' ' ' I ._, ---j ll ~ II I ~~---L_-~ I I ', I "' ' I :_____~-----~ '-vy' --. I I i ~ -- --l i I I I ____ 1_ 

r::.. _j__i 

.... ........_1 I 1 r L~-----1- ' l __ j ___ .__, f _ ___J _____ l r 1 ---:-~ .. __, 

-T-----i i ,~ i I I I \ I - -r ____ __., ~ i i i J 

i I I ~ I J-----r \ ( '-,. -~ - !!-... 

GM=f3 . .t: ! li-......... 

GD~2.05 I~ 

' \ I 'L ;- i ' /~ ' I I ') ! :_____ ,J-( ' 

1Raoge=<2-]~_ - C'-- -~1,1 

1/ I~- ---1--1 -11 I fi 

I ,,_, t'"';/2.L .J-U'i ~P' I 

\ I I I 

l I ! I .... _ __. ___ ..__ __ rJ 

___l _____ j_ __ T ____ ~ 1,-- '.____~ _;-_) ' ~"""" 

I I \ ,r ' r I I ~-----~ ,--------; !-~ - ~ -------i I ~----,-------1-, ~ GM='f1.6,\. ~ r I : i l I Range= <0.:>,:;:2 I' ! l i l 1)------r--J .. , ,.0 _____ Ll __ L ___ _J,_r ___ ~ --~ ! 'fJ 

94° 93° 92° 91° ') r----''-;':;> Ji c? 

B. Geohydrologic units overlain by younger strata. .:' i I 

36° _f_ _ --""1 L _j_ 

goo 

50 100 150 200 KILOMETERS 

I I I I I I I 

I I I 

I I 

50 100 MILES 

FIGURE 23.-Molybdenum concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri. Crosshatched 

pattern shows the unit having the highest observed mean concentrations. GM, geometric mean, in micrograms per 

liter; GD, geometric deviation; Range, range of concentrations observed in all eight samples. 

E31 
E32 

95° 

GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF MISSOURI 

93° 

A Geohydrologic units exposed at the surface. 

(Shaded areas were excluded from this study.) 

---rL·-:---, /"i ____ l__~ i ' t,"- />·---,, 

" \ I I i ~- -r------, "-y' "-.... ........_ J I L-,.-----1- \ ! ! ]--. ---1, r-....l------1 r ' ---;~~__t 

' _____ L_T ______ i I '~ i I I I \ 

- _ _Lj , '·r----J. ' i i i I 

r ----~ i I I i I ~ ~ J:-----r I (' 

I G;;;-~~ ~1 1 i ! \ GM=o.17 i ! /'.->t 1 R•nge<0.1+0A------ l__'- j_ i ! ___ )., ~-= ·: 0 ,~iho_.J..J._( l'~' 370 -r--- - ~· I ------,------, , ~~.ge- . -;u.'3. _?V"""' I ~--------1 I i ~ ! \-----_/ l- / I 

I I I i_ I I -----t - ~ \ I ;-'\ ( 

~--------.. !' ~-- -- T--------r I i ---- I l l \ r' 

I ' I ' I l ' ' ~ \ , 1

· 1 1 1 I L, ;--1 ---J ; ' I I I I ' I I I , .... ,·~ '-----.... .....- _ ___;. ___ ,;__ __ ,__j _____ !_ ___ l ___ ___l_,... ___ ' __ L I 'Jt/ 

I I I I ' I 1'---.\- 940 93o 92o 91o 'I r--- r'>:; 

B G h d I ;J \ <:? . eo y ro ogic units overlain by younger strata. , 1 ) 

36° --L_ 1 LJ 

I I 

50 

I 

50 

100 

I 

150 

I 

100 MILES 

200 KILOMETERS 

I 

900 

FIGURE 24.-Fluorine concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri. Crosshatched pattern shows the unit having the highest observed mean concentrations. GM, geometric mean, in milligrams per liter; 

GD, geometric deviation; Range, range of concentrations observed in all eight samples. 
GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF WATERS OF MISSOURI 

A Geohydrologic units exposed at the surface. 

(Shaded areas were excluded from this study.) 

B. Geohydrologic units overlain by younger strata. 

0 

II I 

50 

I 

50 

100 

I 

150 

I 

100 MILES 

200 KILOMETERS 

I 

FIGURE 25.-Iodine concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units.in Missouri. Crosshatched pattern 

shows the units having the highest observed mean concentrations. GM, geometric mean, in milligrams per liter; 

GD, geometric deviation; Range, range of concentrations observed in all eight samples. 

E33 
E34 GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF MISSOURI 

95" 

---,--...J.----, --i--..1.--,.. --,--_, __ )_- -~--- --rl, c .' ' ! 

r-----1 -----, ', 1 

38" 

I 

I 

370 --r- 1 

I 

I 

I 

L I ____ ..... ' 

37" 

r-- -- -~ r - -r----- -L __ 

I I I 

: GM=OtJS- -- __ J ~'HJ1 : I Range:b0.4-4.4 i 

- - - l l_ -- -- ~ - ~-- t 

__ , 

i i I 

- --- -~ 

I I LT ______ ____._ -r----- , I 

i 

A Geohydrologic units exposed at the surface. 

(Shaded areas were excluded from this study.) 

' ( ~ 

---~-~ ! ! '", / ', 

:_ __ _f-----~ "v I "i : ----- '-,------{ ___ , _ _..,._._,.~ r- -~- l r ' ' 

,__, i I I I \ 

--'-, ' i i i I 

~ : J-----r I ( 

'L -:-- i ) /~ GM=OA9 ' ,L( ' i'GD;._2-.~ ~f_.r-1 ' _?$~ 

· ·r----------r ----~-~~~~~~~.o ~~ ~J-<~ i 

I I I I l. ' ' I i ; ! ! l i ~ J---,---J ~ -~---..:._ ____ j_ ____ L ___ L ____ L,..--- --~ i ~ 

~· ~· ~,. ) \ -''/ 

B. Geohydrologic units overlain by younger strata. .: I _j) 

36° _;_ - ___,, ;_-

I I 

50 

I 

50 

100_ 

I 

150 

I 

100 MILES 

200 KILOMETERS 

I 

goo 

FIGURE 26.--Nitrate concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri. Crosshatched pattern 

shows the unit having the highest observed mean concentrations. GM, geometric mean, in milligrams per liter; GD, 

geometric deviation; Range, range of concentrations observed in all eight samples. 
GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF WATERS OF MISSOURI 

A Geohydrologic units exposed at the surface. 

(Shaded areas were excluded from this study.) 

0 50 100 150 200 KILOMETERS 

I 

I I I I I I I I I I I I 

50 100 MILES 

\ 

..} 

goo 

FIGURE 27.-Nitrite concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri. Crosshatched pattern 

shows the unit having the highest observed mean concentration. GM, geometric mean, in milligram per liter; GD, 

geometric deviation; Range, range of concentrations observed in all eight samples. 

E35 
E36 

95" 

I 

I 

- - --~ i 

GMr<o.on": 

GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF MISSOURI 

93° 

Ran9e=<O.O~_-!),JQ __ __ __, ' 3r--f l_ I 

I I 

- -__, r1 i I I 

L----..J 

I 

r1 

I 

3r -r --- 1 

I 

~--

1 

I 

94° 

A. Geohydrologic units exposed at the surface. 

(Shaded areas were excluded from this study.) 

; <' ~ I I I " ' ', ~-~-)__-~ I ' ' I "- 1 ~ :___~-~---~ "~"./ I J ! I -~- l,-----~-,:__ ___ ,_~--'_.1 

- ---L; [~_____;-- lll i i i \ \ l I I I 

'r--~---"-~ ~ ! \ 1 ..! ! \ ~-s----: I ,,J, 1 GM=O.Q16 I j_ ,r 

I .G~,6.2:l :____, j -( ' ,, ---r----~ ~ iRange=~o.01-o.so ;- _»~ I ' I \------ I _r' I l 1--------j ' l ~----~-;; .I 

:------ - --r ! "1------t, /1 < \ \\ ~ i ! I I L J--,----J 1'-.J 1 : ~ l I 1 ,.. ' I 

_.......;. ___ ..:.._ ___ .--J _____ I ____ L ___ _;__,.. ___ ~ --~ 1 'Jt) 

I I I ..... J ,-........ ....... \-

93° 92° 91° 1 r- $ 

B. Geohydrologic units overlain by younger strata. .: i 'J 

36° __ j_- ____, i- __1 

I I 

50 

I 

50 

100 

I 

150 

I 

100 MILES 

200 KILOMETERS 

I 

I 

goo 

FIGURE 28.-Ammonia concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri. Crosshatched 

pattern shows the units having the highest observed mean concentrations. GM, geometric mean, in milligram per 

liter; GD, geometric deviation; Range, range of concentrations observed in all eight samples. 
GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF WATERS OF MISSOURI 

A Geohydrologic units exposed at the surface. 

(Shaded areas were excluded from this study.) 

B. Geohydrologic units overlain by younger strata. 

50 100 150 200 KILOMETERS 

I I I I l I I l I I I I 

50 100 MILES 

sao 

FIGURE 29.-0rganic nitrogen concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri. Crosshatched pattern shows the unit having the highest observed mean concentrations. GM, geometric mean, in milligrams per liter as N; GD, geometric deviation; Range, range of concentrations observed in eight samples. 

E37 
E38 GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF MISSOURI 

95" 94° 9T 

___ ; _ _j_ ___ ; -----;--j__T" __ ; ___ i __ ·;--~---~:-

1., l 1

1 

,f I 

38( 

) -- r---- -, ', I 

r"- -- _L_- -- - --~---- -- - --L ___ _ 

1---

I 

I 

I 

L_ 

I 

I 

I 

L__ 

-~ 

I 

I 

I 

L 

I 

I 

I 

r --- -i I I 

-- -G~=o.o~- ----- --l- ------~ Gb= s-.34j : '; 

Rbnge=<t:0.01- 0.2~ 

-: ! -

L--

-l 

·~-

37" -1--

1 

I I , __ 

I 

I I 

L----~ 

A. Geohydrologic units exposed at the surface. 

{Shaded areas were excluded from this study.) 

50 100 150 200 KILOMETERS 

I I I I I I I I I I I I 

50 100 MILES 

goa 

FIGURE 30.-0rthophosphate concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri. Crosshatched pattern shows the unit having the highest observed mean concentrations. GM, geometric mean, in milligrams per liter; GD, geometric deviation; Range, range of concentrations observed in eight samples. 
95° 

GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF WATERS OF MISSOURI 

A Geohydrologic units exposed at the surface. 

(Shaded areas were excluded from this study.) 

50 100 150 200 KILOMETERS 

I I I I I I I I I I I I 

50 100 MILES 

\ I 

goo 

FIGURE 31.-Total phosphorus concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri. Crosshatched pattern shows the unit having the highest observed mean concentrations. GM, geometric mean, in milligrams per liter; GD, geometric deviation; Range, range of concentrations observed in eight samples. 

E39 
E40 GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF MISSOURI 

I--------

1 

I 

L_ GM=:£1.-1- --- ~ 

1 --RanlJ~<1-2 

I I 

l_____ ;--

380 -~ -;r-1 I I 

I r- 1 I L_ ________ I 

I 

A. Geohydrologic units exposed at the surface. 

(Shaded areas were excluded from this study.) 

50 100 150 200 KILOMETERS 

I I I I I I I I I 

50 100 MILES 

-;,{ ___ ,._~ .. __, 

i i \ 

! \ .,' --: l 

L_ _ALl ir'-'t:alllllllllll ... 

goo 

FIGURE 32.-Cadmium concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri. Crosshatched pattern shows the unit having the highest observed mean concentrations. GM: geometric mean, in micrograms per 

liter; GD, geometric deviation; Range, range of concentrations observed in eight samples. 
GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF WATERS OF MISSOURI 

A Geohydrologic units exposed at the surface. 

(Shaded areas were excluded from this study.) 

50 100 150 200 KILOMETERS 

I I I I I I I I I 

50 100 MILES 

goo 

FIGURE 33.-Zinc concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri. Crosshatched pattern 

shows the unit having the highest observed mean concentrations. GM, geometric mean, in micrograms per liter; 

GD, geometric deviation; Range, range of concentrations observed in eight samples. 

E41 
E42 

95' 

L__ ' 

I 

I 

I 

l 

38' --~ 

' I 

L ' 

l 

I ' 

3r -f 

37u 

,_ I ' 

I 

I 

' I 

r 

t 

I 

I 

I ' 

, __ -

' I 

GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF MISSOURI 

94" 92" 

GM=;<3.7 

Range=<2-5 

I 

----. 

A Geohydrologic units exposed at the surface. 

(Shaded areas were excluded from this study.) 

i 

__ j 

I I ' : l I L _ __i ___ ~ ____ j _____ !_ ___ L ___ ___i.._r- ___ I 

i I 

93c 91° 

B. Geohydrologic units overlain by younger strata. 

I I 

50 

I 

50 

100 

I 

150 

I 

100 MILES 

200 KILOMETERS 

I 

FIGURE 34.-Copper concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri. Crosshatched pattern 

shows the unit having the highest observed mean concentrations. GM, geometric mean, in micrograms per liter; 

GD, geometric deviation; Range, range of concentrations observed in eight samples. 
GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF WATERS OF MISSOURI 

A Geohydrologic units exposed at the surface. 

(Shaded areas were excluded from this study.) 

I ~-----~ I I I r--------1 

I i I I 

L----..J-r--- 1 

94° 

B. Geohydrologic units overlain by younger strata. 

36° 

0 50 100 150 200 KILOMETERS 

I I I I I I I I I I 

50 100 MILES 

) 

goo 

FIGURE 35.-Rubidium concentrations in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri. Crosshatched 

pattern shows the units having the highest observed mean concentrations. GM, geometric mean, in micrograms per 

liter; GD, geometric deviation; Range, range of concentrations observed in eight samples. 

E43 
E44 

95" 

GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF MISSOURI 

94" 

t1 I. 

I 

L....... ' 

. I 

---~--)---i---;-

' I I \ I I 

. iLl i 

----1----------- _ _jI 

I 1··-·--...:.T i 

I I 

----+ 

..J .. ..f' 

l 

I 

' ' 

f---------.:.. 

I GM::<~.2 : Range=;<2.4-6.3 

~ --. ·-"~.'- ··- .. 

--1 --:,.:-.,I 

I 

I 

I 

L 

I 

L----~ 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

... 

A Geohydrologic units exposed at the surface. 

(Shaded areas were excluded from this study.) 

--.1 

..,._ I 

I ·r:- I ; ....... 

I .... 

~r- ~ GI\J3.'3 ·n 

I I 1'-.. rr- -GD..,-1.93 h I tl 1 _a1,S.e=1.2- .. - r.t f I I I 11 y I n vJ;_ ~e- . I I [;.( 1'7-r=Y-- l. T-- [ ----- K....., I tJ-V I I 

\ ; i i 

I- I 1 : I i -~---.Jo.-.---~~-

93° 

B. Geohydrologic units overlain by younger strata. 

I I ,.."" I f_i ( j, ~-,:;.-~ )<.Li- I ~r, .... ____ .• ../ I 

'-c/ J ,/ 

:::J -8.9~ 

L /In- J A I I' tT!·-j' '-' 

L .ll.. I l\ I T ,.t:.· 

J .)) 

..4 Jf J 

i I 1 3 60 ··/.l.J-l-'1 --~ 

goo 

50 100 150 200 KILOMETERS 

I I I I I I I I I 

50 100 MILES 

FIGURE 36.-Gross alpha radioactivity in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri. Crosshatched 

pattern shows the units having the highest observed mean radioactivity. GM, geometric mean, in picocuries per 

liter as uranium-natural; GD, geometric deviation; Range, range of radioactivity observed in eight samples. 
GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF WATERS OF MISSOURI 

A Geohydrologic units exposed at the surface. 

(Shaded areas were excluded from this study.) 

I I 

50 

I 

50 

100 

I 

150 

I 

100 MILES 

200 KILOMETERS 

I 

FIGURE 37.-Gross beta radioactivity in ground waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri. Crosshatched pattern shows the unit having the highest observed mean radioactivity. GM, geometric mean, in picocuries per liter as 

cesium-137; GD, geometric deviation; Range, range of radioactivity observed in eight samples. 

E45 
E46 GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF MISSOURI 

TABLE 4.-8ummary of analytical data on ground 

(GM, geometric mean; GD, geometric deviation; Ratio, detection ratio=( number of 

Strata of Cretaceous 

Quarternary alluvium Glacial Deposits and Tertiary age Variable 

GM GO Ratio GM GO Ratio GM GO Ratio 

Miscellaneous 

Temperature at time 

of collection (OC)--- Dissolved solids 

15.4 1.12 5:5 12.7 1.00 5:5 20.9 1.37 5:5 

calculated (mg/L)---- 310 1.39 5:5 480 1.94 5:5 230 1. 78 5:5 

Hardness (Ca, Mg), 

as caco. (mg/L)------ 210 1.32 5:5 290 1.43 5:5 51 5.61 5:5 

None arbon ate 

hardness (mg/L)------ <8.2 4:5 44 2.90 5:5 <2.0 1:5 

Specific conductance, 

1 aboratory (,mho/em 

at 250c)------------- Specific conductance 470 1.46 5:5 740 1.88 5:5 400 1.80 5:5 

at time of co 11 ecti on (pmho/cm at 250C)-- 560 1.38 5:5 960 2.18 5:5 500 1.85 5:5 

pH--------------------- 1

7.6 a.3 5:5 1

7.1 ~ .3 5:5 1

7.5 •.a 5:5 

Chemical 

Si0 2 (mg/L)------------ 24 1.38 5:5 28 1.36 5:5 14 1.37 5:5 

Fe (,g/L)-------------- 2600 2.49 5:5 5300 4.30 5:5 530 9.67 5:5 

Mn (,g/L)-------------- 490 1.72 5:5 470 4.77 5:5 86 5.80 4:5 

Ca ~mg/L)-------------- 63 1.30 5:5 89 1.27 5:5 15 5. 70 5:5 

Mg mg/L~-------------- 13 1.47 5:5 15 2.23 5:5 3.4 6.00 5:5 

Na (mg/L -------------- 18 2.05 5:5 31 4.37 5:5 33 3.07 5:5 

K (mg/L)--------------- 3.2 1. 51 5:5 2.2 2.25 5:5 2.4 2.00 5:5 

HCO, (mg/L)------------ 230 1.36 5:5 290 1.30 5:5 210 1.80 5:5 

Sulfide (mg/L)--------- .090 2.10 2:5 .090 2.10 2:5 <.10 0:5 

SO, (mg/L)------------- 39 2.42 5:5 90 3.01 5:5 7.7 3.95 5:5 

Cl (mg/L)-------------- 12 1.89 5:5 16 5.97 5:5 11 4.90 5:5 

F (mg/L)--------------- .14 2.00 3:5 .14 1.56 4:5 .17 1.92 4:5 

Br (mg/L)-------------- .072 2.42 5:5 .18 2.48 5:5 .10 3.53 5:5 

I (mg/L)--------------- .0052 3.69 4:5 .014 2.72 5:5 .0046 2.79 5:5 

Organic N (mg/L}, as N- .059 4. 96 4:5 .29 8.43 -5:5 .M33 17 .o 3:5 

NO. ~mg/L)------------- <.012 2:5 .012 3.86 3:5 <.01 1:5 

NH 3 mg/L}, as N------- .073 5.01 4:5 .34 7.83 5:5 .076 6.23 4:5 

N0 1 (mg/L)------------- .17 2.20 4:5 .39 1.81 5:5 .19 2.44 4:5 

PO, (mg/L), as PO, ----- .062 3.49 4:5 .021 6.34 3:5 <.042 3:5 

Total P (mg/L), as P--- .033 2.34 4:5 .054 1.53 5:5 .018 3.63 3:5 

Cd (ug/L)-------------- 1.8 1.56 4:5 <1.4 4:5 <1.1 1:5 

Zn (l'g/L)-------------- 12 1.58 4:5 <16 4:5 14 2.64 3:5 

Spectrographic 

Al (,g/L)-------------- 11 1. 75 5:5 15 1.54 5:5 12 1.43 5:5 

Ba (11 g/L)-------------- 540 1.31 5:5 200 3.34 5:5 100 4.74 5:5 

B (,g/L)-------------- 49 2.02 5:5 70 3.70 5:5 34 3.01 5:5 

Cu ~~~g/L~-------------- <1.3 3:5 <2.2 0:5 <1.1 3:5 

Pb ,g/L -------------- <3.5 1:5 <5.7 0:5 <2.8 2:5 

Li (,g/L)-------------- 5.6 3.60 5:5 12 2.05 5:5 2.0 31.2 4:5 

Mo (11g/L)-------------- <1.8 1:5 <2.7 1:5 <1.6 1:5 

Ni (,giL)-------------- <4.7 3:5 <8.6 3:5 <3.4 2:5 

Rb (11g/L)-------------- <2.6 2:5 <3.9 0:5 5.1 2.52 4:5 

Sr (,g/L)-------------- 240 1.83 5:5 460 2.17 5:5 130 6.62 5:5 

RadioGross alpha (11g/L as U-nat )------------ <6.4 2:5 <8.9 0:5 8.2 2.75 3:4 

Gross alpha 

(pCi/L as U-nat)----- <2.1 2:5 <3.0 0:5 2.7 2. 75 3:4 

Gross beta (pCi/L as Sr-90/Y-90)------- 3.3 1.45 5:5 3.4 2.10 5:5 4.0 1.38 4:4 

Gross beta (pCi/L as Cs-137) ----------- 4.0 1.47 5:5 4.1 2.15 5:5 4.9 1.39 4:4 

1

Arithmetic mean. 2Standard deviation. 
GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF WATERS OF MISSOURI E47 

waters from seven geohydrologic units in Missouri 

samples In which variable could be measured) : (total number of samples analyzed)] 

Strata of Strata of Strata of Cambrian Strata of Cambrian 

Pennsylvanian age Mississippian age and Ordovician age and Ordovician age 

(SW Missouri) ( SE Missouri) 

GM GO Ratio GM GO Ratio GM GO Ratio GM GO Ratio 

determinations 

15.5 1.16 5:5 14.4 1.00 5:5 18.6 1.01 5:5 14.6 1.00 5:5 

640 1.49 5:5 210 1.54 5:5 250 1.54 5:5 250 1.14 5:5 

97 2.30 5:5 170 1.54 5:5 210 1.39 5:5 250 1.15 5:5 

<1.6 1:5 13 3.04 3:5 13 4.10 5:5 <1.4 1:5 

1000 1.52 5:5 360 1.51 5:5 420 1. 57 5:5 460 1.13 5:5 

1300 1.60 5:5 400 1.48 5:5 470 1.48 5:5 520 1.14 5:5 1

7.8 2,6 5:5 I] ,3 1,4 5:5 1

7.6 2,2 5:5 1

7.5 •.1 5:5 

determinations 

12 1.81 5:5 9.7 1.14 5:5 8.7 1.09 5:5 8.8 1.03 5:5 

320 5.39 5:5 100 7.67 5:5 6.0 10.7 2:5 <11 1:5 

<27 3:5 6.4 6.49 2:5 <16 1:5 <10 0:5 

21 2.45 5:5 59 1.65 5:5 51 1. 50 5:5 51 1.18 5:5 

9.9 2.16 5:5 3.1 2.78 5:5 19 1.33 5:5 29 1.14 5:5 

160 3.20 5:5 5.5 2.28 5:5 8.7 2.87 5:5 1.9 1.65 5:5 

6.6 2.16 5:5 .75 1.64 5:5 2.1 1. 94 5:5 .67 1.40 5:5 420 1.41 5:5 190 1.46 5:5 230 1.34 5:5 310 1.14 5:5 

<.16 1:5 <.11 1:5 .14 5.04 3:5 <.1 0:4 

6.3 6.16 5:5 3.5 14.7 4:5 28 2.34 5:5 .18 22.4 3:5 

75 5.27 5:5 6.6 2.00 5:5 9.7 2.98 5:5 <.10 0:5 

1.5 2.49 5:5 <.11 <.15 4:5 <.10 0:5 

.25 4.12 5:5 .054 2.49 5:5 .072 1.28 5:5 .019 1.36 5:5 

.015 2.38 5:5 .002 4.27 2:5 .0096 2.25 5:5 <.0022 . 1:5 

.15 2.83 5:5 .og8 3.66 5:5 .033 4.65 4:5 .021 3.20 4:5 

.0074 6.98 2:5 .0074 4.25 2:5 .0085 2. 76 2:5 <.011 1:5 . 21 1.83 5:5 <.011 1:5 .062 2.41 5:5 <.01 0:5 

-<.12 2:5 2.4 12.5 4:5 .26 44.4 3:5 3.4 2.78 5:5 

·<.016 1:5 .0066 7.98 2:5 .0073 5.90 2:5 <.01 0:5 

<.014 1:5 .012 3.46 3:5 <.012 1:5 <.015 2:5 

<1.1 1:5 <1.1 1:5 <1.0 0:5 <1.0 0:5 

<16 4:5 <28 2:5 14 2.00 3:5 75 2.87 5:5 

determinations 

23 1.40 5:5 11 1.43 5:5 10 1.20 5:5 11 1.54 5:5 

140 2.20 5:5 53 1.18 5:5 51 2.21 5:5 43 1.27 5:5 

200 3.46 5:5 11 1.49 5:5 26 2.12 5:5 11 1.30 5:5 

<3.7 1:5 <1.6 2:5 .64 1.44 3:5 2.4 1. 74 3:5 

<7.3 0:5 <2.2 2:5 <2.6 0:5 <2.6 0:5 

68 2.02 5:5 1.6 5.83 5:5 11 2. 73 5:5 .66 5.94 3:5 

<3.6 0:5 <.88 0:5 3.2 2.05 4:5 <2.0 0:5 

<8.0 1:5 <3.3 2:5 <3.0 0:5 <5.6 1:5 

7.8 2.13 4:5 <1.6 1:5 <2.1 4:5 <2.2 0:5 

670 2.45 5:5 71 1.94 5:5 130 2.50 5:5 46 1.22 5:5 

activity 

<13 1:5 <4.5 1:5 9.9 1. 92 5:5 <5.5 0:5 

<4.2 1:5 <1.5 1:5 3.3 1.93 5:5 <1.8 0:5 

6.5 2.91 4:5 1.4 1.14 4:5 3.0 1.69 5:5 <1.2 1:5 

7.9 2.90 4:5 1.6 1.19 4:5 3.7 1.68 5:5 <1.3 1:5 
E48 GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF MISSOURI 

70 

a: 

0 

LL 

c 

w 

.... 60 z 

::> 

0 

u 

u 

<( 

w 

u 

z 

<( 50 

a: 

<( 

> 

LL I 0 I 

z I 

0 I i= 40 I a: 

0 I Cl.. I 0 

a: I Cl.. I 

f-so4 

I 

30 I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

20 I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

10 I 

I 

I 

I 

I A 

0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

NUMBER OF FACTORS 

FIGURE 38.-Factor-variance diagram for ground waters of Missouri. 
90 

80 

70 

a: 

0 

LL 

0 

w 

1-

z 60 

::::> 

0 

(.) 

~ 

w 

(.) 

z 

<( 

a: 

<( 

> 

LL 

0 

z 

0 

i= 

a: 

0 

0.. 

0 

a: 

0.. 

3 

GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF WATERS OF MISSOURI 

4 5 6 7 

NUMBER OF FACTORS 

FIGURE 38.-Continued. 

E49 

10 
E50 GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF MISSOURI 

analysis was performed on the scaled data and the derived factor model was transformed back to units of parts 

per million by means of the constant sum (106). 

One sample, from the glacial drift geohydrologic unit, 

was found in the initial factor analysis to be an outlier 

anomalous with respect to the others and was not used. 

This sample came from an area of probable groundwater contamination, as evidenced by high ammonia and 

organic nitrogen contents (NH3 (as N), 8. 7 mg/L, organic N (as N), 12 mg/L). 

Although the factor-variance diagrams indicate that 

the compositions of all but one (see above) of the groundwater samples can be approximated by mixtures of four 

end members, they give no indication of the chemical natures of the end members. By convention, the samples 

can be regarded as being represented by vectors within 

a four-dimensional vector system. The angle between 

any two vectors is related inversely to the overall compositional similarity between the samples they represent. The end-member compositions can be represented 

by any four sample vectors or.any four hypothetical vectors. The purpose here is merely to summarize the multivariate chemical data and not to develop an actual mixing model. Consequently, the end-member vectors were 

taken as the four-varimax axes. These reference vectors 

(axes) have the property of being orthogonal to each 

other and, therefore, represent four water compositions 

that are as divergent from each other as possible. The 

four end-member compositions (composition scores) are 

given in table 5; some of the composition scores are negative but, inasmuch as the scores are used only to summarize the compositional natures of the samples, they 

suffice. 

TABLE 5 .-composition scores for the varimax axes, F ei 

Variable, 1 

Al-----------

6------------

Cu-----------

Li-----------

Rb-----------

Sr-----------

Ca-----------

Mg-----------

Na-----------

K------------ Fe-----------

Mn-----------

SiOz---------

HCOs·---------

50,----------

Cl-----------

F------------ Br----------- H,O----------

0.011 

-.042 

.004 

-.001 

-.003 

-.061 

79.921 

52.567 

-54.328 

-.653 

-5.792 

-.428 

-7.590 

372.175 

9.400 

-9.437 

-.097 

-.105 

999564 

End member, !5. 

II 

0.032 

.475 

.002 

.144 

.017 

1.513 

-8.410 

7.708 

399.709 

13.386 

-1.497 

-.235 

4.657 

627.610 

27.851 

255.216 

2.964 

• 769 

998668 

III 

0.016 

.002 

.000 

-.013 

-.005 

.345 

150.445 

9.151 

-16.490 

1. 784 

20.552 

2.302 

64.023 

281.962 

149.180 

8.818 

-.322 

.209 

999328 

IV 

0.006 

.015 

.000 

.003 

.006 

-.003 

-3.100 

-12.362 

14.064 

1.408 

-1.888 

-.135 

6.839 

24.593 

-28.692 

-16.740 

.063 

.033 

1000015 

The composition loadings for each sample are given in 

table 6 and show the degree of similarity between the 

sample and the respective end-member composition of 

table 5. Each of the water-sample compositions can be 

approximated by mixing the four end-member compositions in the proportions indicated by the composition 

loadings. The degree of approximation is as indicated by 

the factor-variance diagrams in figure 38, A and B. In 

situations where a sample has a high loading on one of 

the end members, that sample tends to contain high concentrations of those constituents for which the score values are high, and low concentrations of those constituents for which the composition score values are low or 

negative. 

Perusal of the scores (table 5) suggests the chemical 

character of the respective end members (axes). The 

highest positive scores for axis I indicate a Ca, Mg, 

HC03 water with relatively high Cu compared to other 

end members. The second appears to be aNa, HC03 , Cl 

water with high K, Li, Al, B, Rb, Sr, F, and Br; and the 

third a Ca, HC03 , 804 water with Si02 , Fe, and Mn. The 

TABLE 6.-Composition loadings (~)on the varimax axes for 

four-factor model 

End member, !5. 

Sample No., i Geohydrologic unit 

II III IV 

71 1512 Quaternary alluvium----- 0.24 0.11 0.40 0.26 

71 1483 ----do------------------ . 21 .10 .28 .41 

71 1672 ----do------------------ .31 . 21 .32 .16 

71 1791 ----do------------------ .25 .08 .43 .24 

71 1892 ----do------------------ .16 .04 .29 .50 

71 1326 Glacial deposits-------- . 37 .18 .48 -.02 

71 1508 ----do------------------ .25 .11 .39 .24 

71 1674 ----do------------------ .24 .07 .39 .29 

71 1887 ----do------------------ .04 .04 .57 .35 

71 1309 Cretaceous and Tertiary .24 .06 .20 .50 

strata. 

71 1310 ----do------------------ .09 .33 .17 .41 

71 1484 ----do------------------ .08 .13 .07 .72 

71 1591 ----do------------------ .22 .25 .13 .40 

71 1794 ----do------------------ .25 .04 .27 .43 

71 1324 Pennsylvanian strata---- .03 .82 .07 .08 

71 1386 ----do------------------ .15 .66 .04 .15 

71 1481 ----do------------------ .13 .59 .10 .18 

71 1511 ----do------------------ .24 .09 .41 .26 

71 1890 ----do------------------ .16 .68 .13 .03 

71 1307 Mississippian strata---- .37 .03 .14 .46 

71 1510 ----do------------------ .32 .06 .12 .50 

71 1793 ----do------------------ .23 .01 .16 .60 

71 1850 ----do------------------ .31 .11 .26 .32 

71 1888 ----do------------------ .21 .00 .12 .67 

71 1509 Cambrian and Ordovician .36 .03 .12 .48 

strata (southwest 

Missouri). 

71 1593 ----do------------------ .38 .07 .17 .37 

71 1596 ----do------------------ .31 .04 .12 .52 

71 1597 ----do------------------ .37 .08 .17 .37 

71 1847 ----do------------------ .43 .24 .21 .12 

71 1323 Cambrian and Ordovician .56 .06 .13 .25 

strata (southeast 

Missouri). 

71 1482 ----do------------------ .59 .08 .14 .18 

71 1679 ----do------------------ .71 .07 .12 .10 

71 1844 ----do------------------ .43 .04 .13 .39 

71 1849 ----do------------------ .49 .03 .15 .32 
GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF WATERS OF MISSOURI E51 

scores for the fourth end member tend to be. generally 

low in absolute value, except for H20, indicating an end 

member more chemically pure than the first three. 

The composition loadings can be used to construct 

maps that show the regional variability in the general 

geochemical characteristics of the ground waters (figs. 

39-42). Each map shows the loadings for all the samples 

with respect to one of the theoretical end members. The 

factor loadings are given to one decimal place on the 

maps. Those samples represented by the highest values 

on the map are compositionally most similar to the respective theoretical end member. 

Most of the samples with high loadings on the first end 

member (fig. 39) are from the dolomite of the Cambrian 

and Ordovician (southeastern Missouri) geohydrologic 

unit, as is to be expected for Ca, Mg, HC03 water. The 

relatively high Cu concentrations of waters in this geohydrologic unit probably reflect the widespread mineralization of the rapidly circulating oxygenated ground 

waters. Samples with high loadings on the second end 

member (fig. 40) were collected from the Pennsylvanian 

unit and are relatively rich in N aCl and most of the trace 

elements. The high concentrations of trace elements are 

probably due to the abundance of trace-element-rich 

shales and coals in this aquifer (Feder and others, 1972). 

However, it is noteworthy that despite the high concentrations of many trace metals in the shales, including Fe, 

Zn, Mo, Pb, Cu, and Hg, they are present in relatively 

low concentrations in the ground water. Presumably, 

this is due to the presence of H2S, and the low solubilities 

of the metal sulfides in equilibrium with H2S. The one 

sample from the Pennsylvanian geohydrologic unit that 

does not have a high loading on this end member (sample 

1511) was obtained from a spring flowing out of a large 

channel-sandstone deposit. Samples with high loadings 

on the third member (fig. 41) were collected from the 

glacial deposits and Quaternary alluvium units. 

Samples with high loadings on the fourth end member 

(fig. 42) are from different geohydrologic units, and the 

relatively low dissolved solids content of the end member 

suggests that the samples with high loadings reflect simple dilution either as a result of precipitation or some 

membrane processes. For example, samples 1510, 1888, 

and 1979, which have high loadings on the fourth end 

member, are all from springs or wells in the Mississippian geohydrologic unit and, characteristically, ground 

water in this geohydrologic unit may contain a high proportion of recently recharged water derived from local 

precipitation (Feder and others, 1969). The sample with 

the highest loading on this end member is from a deep 

well in the Cretaceous and Tertiary geohydrologic unit. 

The ground water from this well contains a much lower 

dissolved solids content than ground water from the 

same formations at shallower depths. The lower dissolved solids in water from this well cannot be ascribed 

to dilution resulting from infiltration of local precipitation, but rather is interpreted as having resulted from 

membrane processes at depth as discussed by Hanshaw 

and Coplen (1973). 

COMPOSITION OF MINE WATERS 

Within the ground-water sampling program, areas 

within geohydrologic units believed to have unusual 

ground-water chemistry (for example, mineralized or 

polluted areas) were not sampled because the emphasis 

of the program was to describe the chemistry of the "normal" ground water in the units. Wherever these unusual areas were selected in the random selection process, they were rejected and alternative areas were 

selected by the same process. As a followup to this program, two areas of suspected anomalous ground-water 

chemistry were sampled. 

The first area sampled was the New Lead Belt, which 

lies in the Cambrian and Ordovician geohydrologic unit 

in southeastern Missouri. Ground-water samples were 

collected from flowing drill holes at the faces of new underground mine workings. The samples were believed to 

have been uncontaminated by mine operations. A single 

filtered (0.45 ~-tm) sample was collected at each of two 

mines. 

The second area sampled was the Joplin Lead-Zinc 

District in the Mississippian geohydrologic unit. This 

area is no longer actively mined, but water is still being 

pumped for industrial use from some of the abandoned 

mines. One sample was collected from the discharge of 

one such pump, and the other sample was collected from 

a continuous flow from a mine shaft. Both samples were 

filtered through a 0.45-~-tm membrane filter. 

The analyses of these four samples are listed in table 

7. In crder to assess just how anomalous these waters 

may be, any observed value that lies outside the effective 

range of values for "normal" ground water from the respective geohydrologic units is tagged with an H (higher 

than the upper limit of the expected range) or with an L 

(lower than the lower limit of the expected range). The 

expected range is from GM/GIY to GMxGIY, where the 

values of GM and GD are from table 4; the expected 

range is estimated to include the concentrations in 95 

percent of the normal ground waters of the geohydrologic unit. In situations where GM and GD could not be 

estimated, a concentration in mine water was judged to 

be anomalously high if the value was 10 or more times 

greater than the geometric mean in "normal" water. 

Such values are tagged with an (H) in table 7. 

The ground-water samples from mines in the Joplin 

area are distinctly different from the "normal" ground 

water of the Mississippian geohydrologic unit. The "nor-
E52 

1-·- -----

1 0.1. 

L_ ---- -~io.o 

I ' I 

I L_ 

38° --~ 

I 

I 

I 

,- - - ---

I 

r• 0~4- -~~--

: •o.4! 

370 r--- - -~ 

I 0.4 I • 

r-- -- --- 1 

I I 

L.-----'i 

GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF MISSOURI 

92" 

A. Geohydrologic units exposed at the surface. 

(Shaded areas were excluded from this study.) 

B. Geohydrologic units overlain by younger strata. 

50 100 150 200 KILOMETERS 

I I I I I I I I I 

50 100 MILES 

FIGURE 39.-Geographic variation in the composition loadings on end-member I. 

90° 
GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF WATERS OF MISSOURI 

I 

I • r----- - I 

I 

I 

I 

,_ -- ---

1 

L----~~ 

I 

I 

I 

! f _ _j --T 

1 1 o.o1 -y~- -- _; i • i ' I I 

! ' I .. L ___ ~ -

I I '--i -_j __ ~ f _ _;_ 

I '--, I , __ 1 ______ __;_, 

I I 1 

I .0.1! 'L 

i 1-, ! --~--~---· ---~ ,--- ' __ j_, 

I ~ _ -------~ o.o 

--------r ! "i-- ; ; : ! l i --~ --~--;---J _____ I_-: __ L ___ _l._r 

A Geohydrologic units exposed at the surface. 

(Shaded areas were excluded from this study.) 

93° 91° 

B. Geohydrologic units overlain by younger strata. 

50 100 150 200 KILOMETERS 

I I I I I I I I I 

50 100 MILES 

FIGURE 40.-Geographic variation in the composition loadings on end-member II. 

E53 

goo 
E54 GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF MISSOURI 

95' 94'~ 93' 92" 

ct ---.--J_ ----;o.4-;-- _;___,. ---:-- -~--.)~- -,---';- ' 

''"" 

39'" 

38' 

37' 

37" 

I 

I 

) 

r 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

0.4 

• 

L----~ 

0.1 

• 

.J 

-: 

I ·--- __ _;, 

I 

I 

I 

?, I 

-"'-. c-, 01'' x,, 

o~{ 

• 

... , 

, ' , , I 

- ~-- ~ ~-- J---- _!_---L--- ___l_ r 

A. Geohydrologic units exposed at the surface. 

(Shaded areas were excluded from this study.) 

93'' 91" 

I 

"\ 

B. Geohydrologic units overlain by younger strata. 

50 100 150 200 KILOMETERS 

50 100 MILES 

-.: ...... )~'~:•0' 0 ' ... 

'. ' 

·, '.~,/· ~ .--c-- 1 

·)..r..', 

'-.. ---~~t ---~--r---~~J ) ' \ 

FIGURE 41.-Geographic variation in the composition loadings on end-member III. 
95° 

GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF WATERS OF MISSOURI 

~---

' I ___ ..J.__~ I 1 

~-- ---~-r __ _j_1--

; ( 

~-------~---\ I 

A. Geohydrologic units exposed at the surface. 

(Shaded areas were excluded from this study.) 

B. Geohydrologic units overlain by younger strata. 

50 100 150 200 KILOMETERS 

I I I I I I I I I 

50 100 MILES 

FIGURE 42.-Geographic variation in the composition loadings on end-member IV. 

E55 

goo 
E56 GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF MISSOURI 

TABLE 7 .-Ground-water analyses from two mining areas in southern Missouri 

[H, analytical value exceeds estimated upper limit of 95-percent range of constituent in "normal" water; L, analytical value exceeds estimated 

lower limit of 95-percent range of constituent in "normal" water; (H), 95-percent range not estimated but analytical value is 10 times or more 

greater than geometric mean in "normal" water) 

Constituent 

Al (pg/L)-------

Ba (pg/L)-------

8 (pg/L) ------- Cd (pg/L)-------

Cr (l'g/L)------- Co (pg/L)-------

Cu (pg/L)-------

Fe (pg/L)------- Pb (pg/L)-------

Li (pg/L)-------

Mn {pg/L)------- Mo {,.g/L)-------

Ni (pg/L)-------

Sr {l'g/L)------- Zn {pg/L)-------

Hg (pg/L)------- Se {pg/L)-------

Br {pg/L)-------

1 (pg/L)--------

F (pg/L) -------- Cl {mg/L)------- 504 (mg/L)------

HCOa {mg/L)----- NOa (mg/L)------

N02 (mg/L)------

NH4 (mg/L)------ Organic N (mg/L) 

P-total {mg/L)--

Ca (mg/L)------- Mg (mg/L)-------

Na (mg/L)------- K (mg/L)-------- SiOa (mg/L)-----

pH {field)------

Dissolved solids 

{mg/L)-------- Noncarbonate 

hardness {mg/L) Total hardness 

(mg/L)-------- Gross a 1 ph a as 

·u-nat. ( pC i /L) 

Gross beta as 

Ca-137 (pCi/L) 

Geohydrologic unit and sample location 

Strata of Mississippian age 

Joplin area 

No. 1 

180 H 

<60 

<25 

35 (H) 

<30 

<20 

12 

50 

11 

10 

120 

<9 

50 (H) 

100 

13,000 (H) 

.7 

<1 

51 

10 

1,200 (H) 76 H 

920 H 

180 

.3 

<.1 

.04 

.09 

.02 

460 H 

9.7 

7.8 

1.6 

11 

7.09 

1,580 H 

1,000 H 

1,200 H 

<21 

5.6 H 

Joplin area 

No. 2 

160 H 

<35 L 

19 

3 

<17 

<12 

2 

20 

1 

20 

<10 

<6 

30 

110 

2,800 (H) 

.5 

<1 

63 

14 

400 

12 

490 

272 

<.1 L 

<.1 

.09 

.01 

.02 

260 H 

14 

12 

1.8 

9.6 

7.10 

934 H 

480 H 

710 H 

22 

2.7 H 

Strata of Cambrian and Ordovician age (southeast Missouri) 

New Lead belt 

No. 1 

30 H 

<10 L 

65 

<1 

<5 

<4 

1 

<10 

44 (H) 

10 

<10 

4 

<5 

200 H 

20 

<.5 

<1 

26 

3 

700 

7.4 (H) 

18 

197 

<.1 L 

<.1 

.02 

.02 

.02 

31 L 

16 L 

17 H 

3.9 H 

9.0 

7.92 H 

200 

0 

140 

7.2 

4.7 

New Lead belt 

No. 2 

35 H 

<10 L 

50 

<1 

<5 

<4 

4 

20 

3 

<10 

<10 

2 

<5 

120 H 

<10 

<.5 

<1 

9 L 

4 

300 

1. 4 (H) 

16 

192 

<.1 L 

<.1 

.03 

.03 

.04 

32 L 

18 L 

6.5 H 

2.5 H 

8.5 

7.83 H 

179 L 

0 

150 

9.1 

3.6 
GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF WATERS OF MISSOPRI E57 

mal" water is a calcium bicarbonate type and generally 

has the lowest trace-element content of any ground 

waters sampled. The mine waters. on the other hand. 

have high calcium and sulfate concentrations and high 

concentrations of several trace elements. including the 

highest values for Cd, Zn. and Ni encountered in the entire study. The reasons why the mine water in the Joplin 

area is of such poor quality are probably: (1) large amounts 

of iron sulfide are present in the mineral deposits; (2) the 

mining was near the surface and attendant collapse resulted in good hydrologic connection between the surface 

and the mine workings; and (3) the extensive tailings 

piles that cover the mine areas contain appreciable 

amounts of sulfide minerals that are still being leached 

by well-oxygenated precipitation that drains through the 

tailings piles into the local ground water. 

The calcium-magnesium-bicarbonate type ground water 

in the New Lead Belt has lower concentrations of these 

I I 

50 

I 

50 

· eonstitu~nts than "normal" for tht> gt>ohydrologie unit. 

100 

I 

In g~n~ral. th~ trae~-t.>l~nwnt eom·pntration~ an• eon~iderably low~r than tho~t.> in milw watt.•r from tht> .Joplin 

area. pr~~umably b~eau~P mim·~ in thP Nt>\\" Lt>ad Bt>lt 

ar~ t•omparativ~ly dt:>t.>p and tht> ~rround watPr i~ poorly 

oxyg~nat~d. 

SURFACE WATER 

METHODS OF INVESTIGATION 

SA~IPI.I:'\(; DESI(;:'\ 

Th~ surfae~-wat~r part of thP ~tudy wa~ d<.·~igrwd to 

d~serib~ tht:> eompo~itional variation~ in ~urfa<.'P-watt>r 

chemistry du~ to variation~ in gPo logy. ( >nly four of tht> 

s~v~n g~ohydrologie unit~. whieh ~Pl"Yt>d a~ thP ba~i~ for 

sampling ground wat~r~. al~o wt.>rP U~t>d for ~ampling 

surfac~ wat~rs. Th~~w an• ~hown in fi~rurP 4a. Two of tht> 

other thr~~ g~ohydrologie unit~ oe<.·ur PntirPly. or almo~t 

150 

I 

I 

100 MILES 

FIGURE 43.-Drainage map of Missouri showing units chosen for surface-water sampling and the locations of sampling 

sites (dots in circles). 
E58 GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF MISSOURI 

entirely, in the subsurface; the remaining unit consists of 

the alluvium in the drainages of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. 

Four criteria were established in selecting streamsampling sites within the selected geohydrologic units-

!. The drainage basin within which the stream occurs 

should lie completely within one of the four geohydrologic units. 

2. A continuous-recording gaging station should be located on the stream at or near the proposed sampling site. 

3. The drainage area above the gage should be 250-

1,300 km2 • 

4. The stream should be relatively free of municipal 

and industrial effluents. 

After identifying all streams meeting these criteria, two 

sampling sites were selected from each of the four geohydrologic units (fig. 43). 

Each of the selected streams was sampled during a 

low-flow period in the fall and again during high flows in 

the spring. All low-flow samples were collected during 

the fall of 1972, and the high-flow samples were collected 

during runoff events in 1972 and 1973. The low-flow samples were collected to represent base-flow conditions 

when the major contribution to streamflow is from ground 

water. The sampling plan was designed to consider the 

possibility of significant changes in stream-water quality 

resulting from adsorption of trace elements on suspended sediments or removal of trace elements by aquatic 

organisms. An estimate of the effects of aquatic organisms on water quality was obtained by collecting predawn and late-afternoon samples at each low-flow sampling site. This was done to observe any differences in 

stream-water quality resulting from photosynthetic activity during the day (late-afternoon samples) and respiration during the night (predawn samples). In order to 

estimate the amounts of adsorption of trace elements on 

suspended sediments, filtered and unfiltered samples 

were collected during a single event consisting of a large 

rise in stream discharge following a spring rainfall. 

The estimates of the effects on surface-water chemistry due to diel fluctuations in activity of aquatic organisms, high flow versus low flow, and variations between 

filtered and unfiltered water were obtained as differences in the chemistry of sampled sites. The geographic 

aspect of variation in water chemistry was determined 

by sampling in a standard (nested) analysis-of-variance 

design. This permitted the estimation of 

(7) 

SAMPLING TECHNIQUES 

The unfiltered low-flow samples were collected by immersing acid-washed polyethylene bottles in the center 

of the streams after rinsing them several times with the 

stream water. The filtered low-flow samples were collected by filling a Skougstad-type filter (Brown and others, 1970) with stream water and 1.4 kg/cm2 nitrogen 

pressure from a pressure tank to force the water through 

a 0.1-~tm filter. 

In order to sample during a stream-flow rise, most 

sites had to be visited during a rainfall event. The multiple-vertical depth-integrated (composite) stream-sampling method was abandoned in favor of a single depthintegrated sample from the center of the stream using a 

weighted 5-gal acid-washed polyethylene carboy. The 

composite sampling method was abandoned because of 

two reasons: The large number of stream-sampler fillings 

required to furnish sufficient water for laboratory analysis required too much time and there was danger of extending the sampling period into widely variable conditions. Another reason was the possibility of contamination 

of samples from precipitation during the numerous emptyings of the sampler bottles into the 5-gal carboy. 

After filling the 5-gal carboy at the stream site, individual sample bottles for laboratory determinations were 

filled nearby in a covered area. The unfiltered samples 

were poured out of the carboy after giving it a vigorous 

shaking. The filtered samples were handled in the same 

way as the low-flow samples, except that a 1.2-~tm prefilter was used in conjunction with the 0.1-~tm final filter. 

The following samples were collected during each site 

visit: 

(1) one 2-L filtered acidified1 for spectrographic analysis 

(2) one 2-L unfiltered acidified 1 for spectrographic 

analysis 

(3) one 2-L unfiltered unacidified for radiochemical 

analysis 

(4) two 1-L filtered acidifled1 for wet chemical analysis 

(5) one 1-L filtered unacidifled for wet chemical analysis 

(6) two 1-L unfiltered acidified 1 for wet chemical analysis 

(7) one 1-L unfiltered unacidified for wet chemical 

analysis 

(8) one 1-L filtered acidified2 for N03 , N02 , NH3 , organic N, P04 

(9) one 500-mL unfiltered acidifled2 for total P. 

Samples for determination of the various forms of niwhere sa2 is a regional component of variance (between trogen and phosphorous were kept in an ice-filled cooler 

geohydrologic units) and sl is a component that includes 

both the local variance (between streams) and the "error" variance. 

11 mLIL of double-redistilled, reagent-grade concentrated HN03 • 

22 mL/L of IN H2S04 • 
GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF WATERS OF MISSOURI E59 

and shipped by bus each week to the U.S. Geological 

Survey laboratory in Little Rock, Ark., where they were 

analyzed on the same day they were received. 

ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 

In order to minimize changes due to shipping of certain 

chemical constituents, certain water-quality determinations were made at the sampling site. These determinations included pH, alkalinity, temperature, and dissolved 

oxygen. Dissolved oxygen was not determined during 

high-flow sampling because of intense rainfall. A description of the procedures for making these determinations 

is given in Skougstad and Feder (1976). 

All labor~ tory determinations were made in U.S. Geological Survey laboratories according to methods listed 

in table 1. More detailed descriptions of laboratory analytical procedures are given in Miesch (1976). Table 2 

lists those elements routinely looked for in spectrographic analysis but are rarely or never detected in evaporation residues of 0.1-JLm filtered waters. However, 

several of these elements are detected in unfiltered 

waters. 

Analytical results for total determinations by the spectrographic method represent true totals. All other reported totals are for aliquots of unfiltered samples after 

O.lN HCl-digestions for approximately 24 hr. 

SURFACE-WATER RESULTS 

Results of the analysis of variance to estimate the logarithmic variance components sc} and sl and of their corresponding proportions of the total variance sf are given 

in table 8. Separate estimates were made on low-flow 

predawn and late afternoon samples, filtered and unfiltered low-flow samples for each of the above categories, 

and for filtered and unfiltered high-flow samples. These 

results show that Ca, I, Mg, Mn, Na, and Sr exhibit statistically significant regional variation (at the 95-percent 

confidence level) in either predawn or late afternoon (or 

both) low-flow samples, regardless of filtration treatment. In addition, Fe, Si02 , total solids on evaporation, 

and Gross Alpha activity exhibit significant regional 

variation in either the predawn or late afternoon filtered 

samples. For the high-flow samples Ba, B, K, Mg, N03 , 

S04 , Na, Sr, and dissolved solids on evaporation exhibit 

significant regional variation in the filtered samples. 

TABLE B-comparison of estimated logarithmic variance components for surface waters 

[a.m., p.m. denote predawn and late-afternoon samples, respectively. *, denotes significantly greater than zero at the 0.05-probability 

level. I, insufficient data above detection level. ND, not detennined] 

Between Within 

Total 

geohydrologic units geohydrologic units 

Constituent Flow Filtration log Percent Percent 

variance Component Component of total of total 

Aluminum (Al) Low: 

a.m. Filtered 0.1696 0.1199 72 0.0497 28 

p.m. Filtered . 2225 .0000 0 .2225 100 a.m. Raw .4418 .2314 53 .2105 47 

p.m. Raw .3124 .0582 19 .2542 81 

High Filtered .0516 

Raw .2651 

.0238 46 .0278 54 

.1455 55 .1196 45 

Ammonia ( NH,) Low: 

a.m. Filtered .0453 .0000 0 .0453 100 

p.m. Filtered .1138 .0000 0 .1138 100 a.m. Raw ND 

p.m. Raw ND 

High Filtered I 

Raw ND 

Arsenic (As) Low: 

a.m. Filtered I 

p.m. Filtered I a.m. Raw I 

p.m. Raw I 

High Filtered I 

Raw .2610 .0000 0 .2610 100 

Barium (Ba) Low: 

a.m. Filtered .0614 .0125 20 .0489 80 

p.m. Filtered .0553 .0027 5 .0526 95 a.m. Raw .0942 .0196 21 .0746 79 

p.m. Raw .0773 .0122 16 .0651 84 

High Filtered .0608 

Raw .2621 

*.0475 78 .0133 22 

.1341 51 .1280 49 
E60 GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF MISSOURI 

TABLE B.-comparison of estimated logarithmic variance components for surface waters-Continued 

Between Within 

Total 

geohydrologic units geohydrologic units 

Constituent Flow Filtration log Percent Percent 

variance Component Component of total of total 

Bicarbonate (HCO,) Low: 

a.m. Filtered 0.0099 0.0058 58 0.0041 42 

p.m. Filtered .0095 .0032 34 .0063 66 a.m. Raw NO 

p.m. Raw NO 

High Filtered .1124 .0826 74 .0297 26 

Raw NO 

Boron (B) Low: 

a.m. Filtered .0947 .0581 61 .0366 39 

p.m. Filtered .0766 .0464 61 .0302 39 a.m. Raw .1117 .0662 59 .0454 41 

p.m. Raw .1191 .0661 55 .0530 45 

High Filtered .0755 *.0594 79 .0161 21 

Raw .1905 .0786 41 .1119 59 

Bromine (Br) Low: 

.a.m. Filtered .1218 .0328 27 .0889 73 

p.m. Filtered .3284 .1792 55 .1491 45 a.m. Raw .2092 .1413 68 .0669 32 

p.m. Raw .3021 .0000 0 .3021 100 

High Filtered .1199 .0702 58 .0498 42 

Raw .1761 .0000 0 .1761 100 

Cadmium (Cd) Low: 

a.m. Filtered I 

p.m. Filtered I 

a.m. Raw I 

p.m. Raw I 

High Filtered I 

Raw .1801 .1077 60 .0740 40 

Calcium (Ca) Low: 

a.m. Filtered .0115 */.0094 82 .0021 18 

p.m. Filtered .0107 *.0082 77 .0025 23 a.m. Raw .0105 *.0091 86 .0014 14 

p.m. Raw .0114 *.0091 79 .0024 21 

High Filtered .1416 .0909 64 .0507 36 

Raw .1908 .0000 0 .1908 100 

Chromium (Cr) Low: 

a.m. Filtered I 

p.m. Filtered I a.m. Raw I 

p.m. Raw I 

High Filtered I 

Raw .2603 • 1622 62 .0981 38 

Chlorine (Cl) Low: 

a.m. Filtered .0548 .0235 43 .0313 57 

p.m. Filtered .0474 .0176 37 .0298 63 

a.m. Raw .0686 .0236 34 .0450 66 

p.m. Raw .0509 .0178 35 .0331 65 

High Filtered .1321 .0751 57 .0570 43 

Raw NO 

Cobalt (Co) Low: 

a.m. Filtered I 

p.m. Filtered I a.m. Raw I 

p.m. Raw I 

High Filtered I 

Raw .3927 .1126 29 .2801 71 

Copper (Cu) Low: a.m. Filtered .0576 .• 0337 59 .0238 41 

p.m. Filtered .0441 .0227 52 .0214 48 a.m. Raw .0624 .0000 0 .0624 100 

p.m. Raw .0578 .0000 0 .0578 100 

High Filtered .0078 .0000 0 .0078 100 

Raw .1708 .0232 14 .1476 86 
GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF WATERS OF MISSOURI E61 

TABLE B.-comparison of estimated logarithmic variance components for surface wate.........COntinued 

Between Within 

Total 

geohydrologic units geohydrologic units 

Constituent Flow Filtration log Percent Percent 

variance Component Component of total of total 

Fluorine (F) low: a.m. Filtered 0.0598 0.0200 33 .0.0398 67 

p.m. Filtered .0664 .0379 57 .0285 43 a.m. Raw NO 

p.m. Raw NO 

High Filtered .0804 .0481 60 .0323 40 

Raw .2785 .0393 14 .2391 86 

Iodine (I) low: a.m. Filtered .3659 .2452 67 .1206 33 

p.m. Filtered .3545 *.2694 76 .0851 24 a.m. Raw .1833 *.1602 87 .0231 13 

p.m. Raw .3602 .2859 79 .0743 21 

High Filtered .1586 .0122 8 .1464 93 

Raw .4719 .0000 0 .4719 100 

Iron (Fe) low: a.m. Filtered .0566 *.0453 80 .0113 20 

p.m. Filtered .1284 .0944 74 .0340 26 a.m. Raw .4472 .3208 72 .1264 28 

p.m. Raw .3858 .2670 69 .1188 31 

High Filtered .0754 .0537 71 .0217 29 

Raw .2248 .1171 52 .1077 48 

lead ( Pb) low: 

a.m. Filtered I 

p.m. Filtered I a.m. Raw I 

p.m. Raw I 

High Filtered I 

Raw .2494 .0547 22 1,1946 78 

Magnesium (Mg) low: 

a.m. Filtered .1202 *.1172 98 .0030 2 

p.m. Filtered .1196 *.1161 97 .0035 3 a.m. Raw .1268 *.1226 97 .0042 3 

p.m. Raw .1241 *.1199 97 .0042 3 High Filtered .1938 *.1756 91 .0182 9 

Raw .1755 .0814 46 .0940 54 Manganese (Mn) low: 

a.m. Filtered .8237 *.7239 88 .0998 12 

p.m. Filtered .6783 *.5940 88 .0844 12 a.m. Raw .5539 *.4373 79 .1166 21 

p.m. Raw .5816 .4074 70 .1742 30 

High Filtered .3587 .0000 0 .3587 100 

Raw .1361 .0733 54 .0628 46 Mercury (Hg) low: 

a.m. Filtered I 

p.m. Filtered I a.m. Raw I 

p.m. Raw I 

High Filtered I 

Raw .4743 .3611 76 .1133 24 

Nickel (Ni) low: 

a.m. Filtered I 

p.m. Filtered I a.m. Raw I 

p.m. Raw I 

High Filtered I 

Raw .1685 .0633 38 1.1052 62 

Nitrate, (NO,) low: 

a.m. Filtered .3717 .0000 0 .3717 100 

p.m. Filtered .6757 .4569 68 .2188 32 a.m. Raw NO 

p.m. Raw NO 

High Filtered .1076 *.1020 95 .0056 5 

Raw NO 

Organic nitrogen N(Organic) low: 

a.m. Filtered .1547 .0000 0 .1547 100 

p.m. Filtered .1490 .0775 52 .0715 48 a.m. Raw NO 

p.m. Raw NO 

High Filtered .3072 .0121 4 .2951 96 

Raw NO 
E62 GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF MISSOURI 

TABLE B.-Comparison of estimated logarithmic variance components for surface waters-continued 

Between Within 

Total 

geohydrologic units geohydrologic units 

Constituent Flow Filtration log Percent Percent 

variance Component Component of total of total 

Potassium (K) Low: 

a.m. Filtered 0.0759 0.0550 72 0.0209 28 

p.m. Filtered .0816 .0593 73 .0223 27 a.m. Raw .0749 .0550 74 .0198 26 

p.m. Raw .0841 .0550 65 .0292 35 

High Filtered .0402 *.0326 81 .0076 19 

Raw NO 

Selenium (Se) Low: 

a.m. Filtered I 

p.m. Filtered I 

a.m. Raw I 

p.m. Raw I 

High Filtered 0.0189 .0053 28 .0137 72 

Raw NO 

Silica (SiO~) Low: 

a.m. Filtered .0044 *.0034 78 .0010 22 

p.m. Filtered .0044 *.0035 78 .0010 22 

a.m. Raw NO 

p.m. Raw NO 

High Filtered .0131 .0051 39 .0080 61 

Raw NO 

Sodium (Na) Low: 

a.m. Filtered .1426 *.1156 81 .0270 19 

p.m. Filtered .1317 *.1134 86 .0183 14 

a.m. Raw .1424 *.1178 83 .0246 17 

p.m. Raw .1364 *.1155 85 .0209 15 

High Filtered .2740 *.2276 83 .0463 17 

Raw NO 

Strontium (Sr) Low: 

a.m. Filtered .2362 *.2004 85 .0357 15 

p.m. Filtered .1993 * .1670 84 .0323 16 

a.m. Raw .2156 *.1748 81 .0408 19 

p.m. Raw .2279 *.1985 87 .0294 13 

High Filtered .2444 *.1854 76 .0590 24 

Raw .3574 .2300 64 .1274 36 

Sulfate (SO.) Low: 

a.m. Filtered .5517 .3664 66 .1853 34 

p.m. Filtered .2449 .1559 64 .0891 36 

a.m. Raw NO 

p.m. Raw NO 

High Filtered .2831 .2642 *93 .0189 

Raw NO 

Titanium (Ti) Low: 

a.m. Filtered I 

p.m. Filtered I 

a.m. Raw .6520 .4504 69 .2016 31 

p.m. Raw .5400 .1635 30 .3765 70 

High Filtered I 

Raw .2375 .1258 53 .1117 47 

Vanadium (V) Low: 

a.m. Filtered I 

p.m. Filtered I 

a.m. Raw I 

p.m. Raw I 

High Filtered I 

Raw .2558 .1306 51 .1252 49 

Zinc (Zn) Low: 

a.m. Filtered .0674 .0000 0 .0674 100 

p.m. Fi 1 tered .0424 .0272 64 .0152 36 

a.m. Raw .1562 .0000 0 .1562 100 

p.m. Raw .1938 .0828 43 .1110 57 

High Filtered .1717 .0818 48 .0899 52 

Raw .1759 .0000 0 .1759 100 

Zirconium (Zr) Low: 

a.m. Filtration I 

p.m. Filtration I 

a.m. Raw I 

p.m. Raw I 

High Filtration I 

Raw .1910 .0000 0 .1910 100 

pH Low: 

a.m. Filtered .0355 .0000 0 .0355 100 

p.m. Filtered .0474 .0080 17 .0395 83 

a.m. Raw NO 

p.m. Raw NO 

High Filtered .2132 .1471 69 .0661 31 

Raw NO 
GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF WATERS OF MISSOURI E63 

TABLE B.-Comparison of estimated logarithmic variance components for surface waters-Continued 

Constituent Flow Filtration 

Total solids on evaporation Low: 

a.m. Filtered 

p.m. Filtered a.m. Raw 

p.m. Raw 

High Filtered 

Raw 

Gross alpha activity Low: 

a.m. Filtered 

p.m. Filtered a.m. Raw 

p.m. Raw 

High Filtered 

Gross beta Raw 

activity Low: 

a.m. Filtered 

p.m. Filtered a.m. Raw 

p.m. Raw 

High Filtered 

Raw 

None of the chemical constituents for the unfiltered highflow samples showed significant regional variation. In 

addition fewer low-flow unfiltered samples than filtered 

samples showed significant regional variation. This is a 

result of the large variations in suspended material in the 

streams at the time of sampling, and as would be expected, this variability is especially pronounced during 

periods of high flow. 

The analysis-of-variance results for filtered low-flow 

samples show considerable differences from the highflow samples in the numbers and types of chemical constituents that show significant regional variability. This 

is due to the low-flow samples representing predominantly ground-water discharge to the streams, while the 

high flow samples represent mostly rapid chemical reactions near the land surface during overland runoff. In the 

karst terranes associated with Cambrian and Ordovician 

(southeastern Missouri) and the Mississippian geohydrologic units (fig. 43), surface runoff to streams is limited, 

and much of the precipitation falling on the land surface 

travels through sinkholes and caverns and eventually 

discharges to the streams. This results in closer and 

longer contact of the streamflow with the rocks of the 

geohydrologic unit, thereby reducing the differences both 

in concentrations and ratios of chemical parameters between high-flow and low-flow water quality, and even 

between surface water and ground water. In contrast, 

the precipitation runoff from the shales, sandstones, and 

unconsolidated glacial deposits of the Pennsylvanian and 

glacial deposits geohydrologic units respectively (fig. 43) 

Between Within 

Total 

geohydrologic units geohydrologic units 

log 

Percent Percent 

variance Component Component 

of total of total 

0.0075 0.0053 70 0.0022 30 

.0120 *.0106 88 .0014 12 

NO 

NO 

.0952 *.0721 76 .0231 24 

.1719 .0261 15 .1458 85 

65 .1644 35 .4642 .2998 • 5036 .2531 50 .2505 50 

I 

I 

I 

.1939 .0697 36 .1245 64 

.0901 *.0817 91 .0083 9 

.0961 *.0817 85 .0145 15 

.1404 .0587 42 .0816 58 

.1883 .1214 65 .0668 35 

.0489 .0278 57 .0212 43 

.1619 .0890 55 .0728 45 

remains mostly at or close to the land surface and reaches 

the streams rapidly. This results in a marked difference 

in the high-flow and low-flow chemical composition of the 

stream water, and it also results in a relatively large difference between ln~-flow surface water and ground-water 

chemical composition. This is especially evident in the 

Pennsylvanian geohydrologic unit. For example, the 

ground water from the Pennsylvanian geohydrologic unit 

had the highest mean lithium value, (68 JLg/L) of all geohydrologic units, yet both the low-flow and high-flow 

samples for both streams sampled in this unit had lithium 

values below the 10-JLg/L detection limit for both filtered 

and unfiltered samples. This indicates that even during 

low-flow periods, there is little contribution to streamflow by aquifers in the Pennsylvanian geohydrologic 

unit. Most of the streamflow probably comes from 

strongly leached near-surface aquifers and saturated residium. The two streams sampled in this geohydrologic 

unit have drainage areas of 1,087 and 1,072 km2 , yet 

their median 7 -day low flows are 20 and 6 L/s, respectively (Skelton, 1966). The flow rates contrast with those 

of the two streams sampled in the Cambrian and Ordovician (southeastern Missouri) geohydrologic unit, which 

have drainage areas of 1,046 and 1,031 km2, but have median 7 -day low flows of 765 and 3,455 L/s. This difference 

in base flow of streams between the two geohydrologic 

units is caused by many factors, but the most important 

are believed to be related to the permeability and thickness of the aquifers and the extent of hydraulic connection between the aquifers and the streams. These factors 
E64 GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF MISSOURI 

are also important in determining, within a geohydrologic unit, how closely the major-ion and trace-element 

composition of surface waters during low flow reflects 

the trace-element content of the ground water. By comparing the concentrations of chemical constituents for filtered low-flow samples (Appendix I) with the summary 

data for ground water (table 4) it can be seen that ground 

water and low-flow surface water in the Cambrian and 

Ordovician (southeastern Missouri) geohydrologic unit 

are quite similar in quality, whereas in the Pennsylvanian geohydrologic unit they are quite different. 

Comparisons of the analysis-of-variance results for 

surface waters and ground waters should be made with 

caution, due to the fewer degrees of freedom for the surface-water data. Also, because only two streams were 

sampled in each geohydrologic unit, summary statistics 

for the data are not given; instead, the entire sample 

analyses are tabulated in Appendix I. 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

1. The concentrations of many chemical constituents 

in ground waters of Missouri show statistically significant variation between the major geohydrologic units 

over distances of a few kilometers or more. The nature 

of the chemical variability of Missouri ground water may 

have important implications in epidemiology. Populations in cities and farms in different parts of the State 

using water from different geohydrologic units will be 

exposed to some very different assemblages of major-ion 

and trace-element constituents. However, the waterquality characteristics of supplies from widely spaced 

towns within the same geohydrologic unit also may differ 

significantly. Cities and farms located within a few kilometers of each other and drawing water from the same 

geohydrologic unit will, in general, be using water of 

about the same chemical properties, unless greatly different plumbing systems and methods of water treatment are in use. 

2. The general chemical character of ground water in 

the seven geohydrologic units can be moderately well described in terms of various combinations of four theoretical water types. These are viewed as three dominant 

ground-water types, and a fourth type apparently reflects dilution by relatively rapid infiltration of local precipitation, or reduction in dissolved solids due to membrane filtration through associated clays. 

3. Tables of summary statistics provide estimates of 

typical concentrations and the expected variability of 

chemical constituents in each of the geohydrologic units. 

This does not imply that all water from each unit is chemically similar; chemically anomalous water probably occurs in each unit. Geochemical maps based on data from 

the tables can be used by epidemiologists to observe patterns in chemical composition among ground waters of 

the State and to compare these with epidemiological patterns to search for possible relationships between groundwater chemistry and health. When using the geochemical 

maps for epidemiological comparisons, investigators 

should be aware of the three-dimensional aspect of 

ground-water supplies and the possible large differences 

in the chemical compositions of ground waters from different aquifers underlying an area. The tables and maps 

also can be used to provide base-line information for geochemical exploration or pollution studies. For example, 

ground water containing 70 J.Lg/1 lithium would be considered "normal" if it occurred in the Pennsylvanian 

geohydrologic unit (table 4), but would be anomalous if 

found in the Cambrian and Ordovician strata (southeastern Missouri) geohydrologic unit. 

4. The presence of high values of ammonia and organic 

nitrogen in some ground waters from northwest Missouri 

suggests the presence of organic contamination in this 

area and the need for a more widespread and thorough 

study. The abandoned lead-zinc mines in the Joplin mining area contain ground water with anomalously high 

concentrations of numerous chemical constituents when 

compared with ground waters in the same geohydrologic 

unit but outside the mining area. However, without 

premining base-line values, it is not possible to determine if the high concentrations of many chemical constituents are natural or manmade anomalies. 

5. During low flow, many chemical constituents in surface waters of Missouri show significant differences between geohydrologic units. 

6. Most of the variability between geohydrologic units 

in the chemical composition of surface water occurs in 

filtered water. The chemical composition of unfiltered 

samples is controlled strongly by the proportion of suspended sediment in streamflow. The large variability of 

suspended sediment content in samples collected from 

streams within a geohydrologic unit overwhelms any real 

variability between geohydrologic units in the chemical 

composition of unfiltered samples. 

7. The chemical composition of filtered low-flow surface waters in the Cambrian and Ordovician (southeastern Missouri) and Mississippian geohydrologic units is 

similar to that of the ground waters sampled in these 

units. However, the chemical composition of filtered lowflow surface waters in the Pennsylvanian and glacial deposits geohydrologic units is different from that of the 

ground waters sampled in these units. 

8. During high-flow periods, the differences between 

filtered surface-water samples and ground-water samples from the same geohydrologic unit are greater than 

during low flow. 

9. There were no significant variations in trace-element concentrations between predawn and late after-
GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF WATERS OF MISSOURI E65 

noon filtered samples. However, there were significant 

differences in pH, alkalinity, and percent oxygen saturation. Any differences in the trace-element concentration in the sampled streams, between predawn and late 

afternoon, were too subtle to determine by the laboratory methods used. Future studies to determine if such 

differences do occur will require more precise laboratory 

methods. 

REFERENCES CITED 

Anderson, R. L., and Bancroft, T. A., 1952, Statistical theory in research: New York, McGraw-Hill, 399 p. 

Barnett, P. R., 1976, Analysis of water residue 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. A22-A23. 

Brown, Eugene, Skougstad, M. W., and Fishman, M. J., 1970, Methods for collection and analysis of water samples for dissolved minerals and gases: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, TWRI 5-A2, 160 p. 

Cohen, A. C., Jr., 1959, Simplified estimators for the normal distribution when samples are singularly censored or truncated: 

Technometrics, v. 1, no. 3, p. 217-237. 

Connor, J. J., Feder, G. L., Erdman, J. A., and Tidball, R. R., 1972, 

Environmental geochemistry in Missouri-a multidisciplinary study: 

24th International Geologic Congress, Symposium 1, p. 7-14. 

Duncan, D. B., 1955, Multiple range and multiple F tests: Biometrics, 

vol. II, no. 1, p. 1-42. 

Erdman, J. A., Shacklette, H. T., and Keith, J. R., 1976, Elemental 

composition of corn grains, soybean seeds, pasture grasses, and 

associated soils from selected areas in Missouri: U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 954-D, 23p. 

Feder, G. L., 1972, Problems of sampling in trace element investigations, in Cannon, H. L., and Hopps, H. C., eds., Geochemical environment in relation to health and disease: Annals of the New 

York Academy of Science, v. 199, p. 118-123. 

Feder, G. L., Ebens, R. J., and Connor, J. J., 1972, The relationship 

between lithology and trace-element content of ground water, in 

Harbaugh, T. E., and Warner, D. L., eds., Short papers of the 

Eighth Annual Water Resources Conference: American Water Resources Association, St. Louis, Missouri, p. 104. 

Feder, G. L., Skelton, John, Jeffery, J. G., and Harvey, E. J., 1969, 

Water resources of the Joplin area, Missouri: Missouri Geological 

Survey and Water Resources Report no. 24, 97 p. 

Hanshaw, B. B., and Coplen, T. B., 1973, Ultrafiltration by a compacted clay membrane-11. Sodium ion exclusion at various ionic 

strengths: Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 37, p. 2311-2327. 

Howe, W. B., and Koenig, J. W., 1961, The stratigraphic succession in 

Missouri: Missouri Geological Survey and Water Resources, v. 40, 

185 p. 

Janzer, V. J., 1976, Analysis of water for radioactivity, 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. A23-A25. 

Maxey, G. B., 1964, Hydrostratigraphic Units: Journal of Hydrology, 

v. 2, p. 124-129. 

Miesch, A. T., 1972, Sampling problems in trace element investigations 

of rocks, in Cannon, H. L., and Hopps, H. C., eds., Geochemical 

environment in relation to health and disease: Annals of the New 

York Academy of Science, v. 199, p. 95-104. 

--1976, Geochemical survey of Missouri-Methods of sampling, 

laboratory analysis, and statistical reduction of data, with sections 

on laboratory methods, by Barnett, P. R., Bartel, A. J., Dinnin, 

J. 1., Feder, G. L., Harms, T. F., Huffman, Claude, Jr., Janzer, 

V. J., Millard, H. T., Jr., Nieman, H. G., Skougstad, M. W., and 

Wahlberg, J. S.: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 954-

A, 39p. 

Sauer, H. 1., 1974, Relationship between trace element content of 

drinking water and chronic diseases: Proceedings of the 16th 

Water-Quality Conference, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, 

p. 39-48. 

Schroeder, H. A., 1966, Municipal drinking water and cardiovascular 

death rate: Journal of the American Medical Association, v. 185, 

no. 2, p. 81-85. 

Shamberger, R. J., and Frost, D. V., 1969, Possible protective effect 

of selenium against human cancer: Journal of Canadian Medical 

Association, v. 100, p. 682. 

Skelton, John, 1966, Low-flow characteristics of Missouri streams: Missouri Geological Survey and Water Resources Report no. 20, 47 p. 

Skougstad, M. W., and Feder, G. L., 1976, Analysis of water by chemical methods, in Miesch, A. T., Geochemical survey of MissouriMethods of sampling, laboratory analysis, and statistical reduction 

of data: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 954-A, p. 

A18-A21. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 1968, Landforms of the United States: U.S. 

Geological Survey pamphlet, 15 p. 

--1972a, Geochemical survey of Missouri-Plans and progress for 

first six-month period (July-December, 1969): U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-file Report, 49 p. 

--1972b, Geochemical survey of Missouri-Plans and progress for 

second six-month period (January-June, 1970): U.S. Geological 

Survey Open· tile Report, 60 p. 

--1972c, Geochemical survey of Missouri-Plans and progress for 

third six-month period (July-December, 1970): U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-file Report, 33 p. 

--1972d, Geochemical survey of Missouri-Plans and progress for 

fourth six-month period (January-June, 1971): U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-file Report, 63 p. 

--1972e, Geochemical survey of Missouri-Plans and progress for 

filth six-month period (July-December, 1971): U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-file Report, 145 p. 

--1972f, Geochemical survey of Missouri-Plans and progress for 

sixth six-month period (January-June, 1972): U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-file Report, 86 p. 

--1973, Geochemical survey of Missouri-Plans and progress for 

seventh six-month period (July-December, 1972): U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-file Report, 59 p. 

Voors, A. W., 1971, Atherosclerotic heart disease and drinking water 

trace metals in North Carolina, in Hemphill, D. D., ed., Trace 

substances in environmental health-Y: University of Missouri, 

Columbia, Missouri, p. 523-533. 

APPENDIX 
E68 GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF MISSOURI 

APPENDIX I.-Analyses of surface water from four geohydrologic units in Missouri 

[F, filtrate from 0.1 micrometer filter; R, raw; S, suspended] 

Pennsylvanian strata 

Cedar Creek near Pleasantville Big Creek at Blairstown 

Variable 

Date sampled---------------------

Discharge (m3/s)-----------------

Temperature (OC)-----------------

Total dissolved solids (mg/L)----

5pecific conductance (~mhos/em at 250C)-------------

pH-------------------------------

02 (mg/L)------------------------

02 (percent saturation)----------

NH3, as N (mg/L)-----------------

Organic N, as N (mg/L)-----------

NOa, as N (mg/L)-----------------

N03, as N (mg/L)----------------- HCOs, (mg/L)---------------------

5i02, (mg/L), F------------------

Gross alpha (as U natural pCi/L): 

F------------------------------ 5------------------------------ Gross beta (as 5r-90, pCi/L): 

F------------------------------

5------------------------------ P (mg/L): 

F------------------------------ R------------------------------

Ca (mg/L): 

F------------------------------ R------------------------------

Mg (mg/L): 

F------------------------------

R---------------------------~-- Na (mg/L): 

F------------------------------ R------------------------------

K (mg/L): 

F------------------------------ R------------------------------

504·(mg/L): 

F------------------------------ R------------------------------ Cl (mg/L): 

F------------------------------

R------------------------------

Br (~g/L): 

F------------------------------ R------------------------------ F(~g/L): 

F------------------------------

R------------------------------

I (~g/L): 

F------------------------------

R------------------------------

Low flow 

a.m. 

11-12-71 

0.48 

7.4 

220 

318 

7.71 

7.9 

66 

<.01 

.12 

<.001 

.06 

164 

12 

1.1 

.2 

5.6 

1.1 

50 

51 

.01 

.07 

5.0 

4.8 

5.5 

5.4 

3.0 

3.4 

25 

25 

5.2 

4.4 

80 

70 

100 

100 

2 

10 

p.m. 

11-11-71 

0.48 

8.0 

218 

320 

7.92 

8.6 

73 

<.01 

.31 

<.001 

.06 

168 

12 

<.9 

.1 

5.5 

1.1 

51 

51 

.01 

.06 

4.9 

4.9 

5.4 

5.2 

3.1 

3.4 

16 

5.2 

4.7 

70 

70 

100 

100 

2 

4 

High flow 

10-22-72 

23 

15.5 

41 

70 

6.65 

.03 

1.6 

-<.01 

.63 

22 

4.6 

13 

26 

12 

37 

5.7 

8.5 

1.5 

3 

1.8 

4.2 

4.7 

9.3 

9.9 

2.3 

3.7 

20 

20 

200 

1,000 

8 

10 

Low flow 

a.m. 

10-29-71 

0.62 

16.0 

196 

363 

7.80 

5.3 

54 

<.01 

.77 

.010 

1.00 

154 

11 

2.6 

1.3 

9.0 

3.4 

50 

51 

.14 

.27 

7.0 

7.2 

11 

10 

6.1 

6.4 

36 

39 

11 

11 

100 

200 

300 

200 

10 

20 

p.m. 

10-28-71 

0.76 

18.1 

198 

354 

7.91 

7.2 

75 

<.01 

.97 

.003 

1.20 

152 

11 

2.4 

1.7 

9.2 

3.8 

49 

50 

.13 

.27 

7.0 

7.3 

10 

10 

6.0 

6.1 

32 

39 

11 

11 

100 

90 

300 

200 

8 

7 

High flow 

5-24-72 

11.3 

18.6 

116 

165 

7.32 

.07 

.05 

.4 

3.2 

56 

4.1 

<.6 

120 

6.6 

1.7 

.08 

5.9 

20 

140 

3.5 

22 

5.1 

7.9 

3.8 

5.1 

17 

21 

5 

8 

70 

60 

300 

5,000 

50 

20 
GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF WATERS OF MISSOURI E69 

APPENDIX I.-Analyses of surface water from four geohydrologic units in Missouri-continued 

Pennsylvanian strata 

Cedar Creek near Pleasantville Big Creek at Blairstown 

Variable Low flow High flow Low flow High flow 

a.m. p.m. a.m. p.m. 

Zr (pg/L): 

F------------------------------ <9 <9 <2 <10 <10 <3 

R------------------------------ <10 <10 200 15 12 1,600 

v (pg/L): 

F------------------------------ <3 <3 <.9 3 3 <2 

R------------------------------ <3 <3 110 13 10 900 

Ti (pg/L): 

F------------------------------ <2 <2 <.9 <3 <3 1 

R------------------------------ 7 7 7,000 <3 <3 54,000 

Sn (pg/L): 

F------------------------------ <5 <5 <.9 <5 <5 <2 

R------------------------------ <5 <5 <20 <6 <5 <120 

Sr (pg/L): 

F------------------------------ 70 67 23 190 180 86 

R------------------------------ 67 74 90 190 160 700 

Ag (~&g/L): 

F------------------------------ <.3 <.3 <.09 <.3 <.3 <.1 

R------------------------------ <.3 <.3 <2 <.3 ~.3 <8 

Ni (Pg/L): 

F------------------------------ <5 6 3 6 9 <2 

R------------------------------ 8 7 88 14 13 500 

Mo (pg/L): 

F------------------------------ <2 <2 <.4 4 3 2 

R------------------------------ <2 3 <9 4 3 40 

Li (pg/L): 

F------------------------------ <10 <10 <1 <10 <10 <10 

R------------------------------ <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 10 

Pb ("g/L): 

F------------------------------ <5 <5 1 <5 <5 <2 

R------------------------------ <5 <5 25 <6 <5 190 

Ga (pg/L): 

F------------------------------ <1 <1 <0.4 <1 <1 <1 

R------------------------------ <1 <1 14 <2 <2 250 

Cu (pg/L): 

F-~---------------------------- 2 3 2 4 5 2 

R------------------------------ 2 1 36 4 4 200 

Co ("g/L): 

F------------------------------ <5 <5 <.9 <5 <5 <2 

R------------------------------ <5 <5 32 <6 <5 82 

Cr (pg/L): 

F------------------------------ <5 <5 <.9 <5 <5 <2 

R------------------------------ <5 <5 110 7 5 650 

B ("g/L}: 

F------------------------------ 17 17 10 45 44 15 

R------------------------------ 21 16 100 56 58 850 

Bi ("g/L): 

F------------------------------ <3 <3 <.9 <4 <3 <2 

R------------------------------ <3 <3 <18 <4 <4 <80 

Be ("g/L): 

F------------------------------ <1 <1 <.3 <1 <1 <.6 

R--------------~--------------- <1 <1 <6 <2 <2 <40 
E70 GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF MISSOURI 

APPENDIX I.-Analyses of surface water from four geohydrologic units in Missouri-continued 

Pennsylvanian strata 

Cedar Creek near Pleasantville 

Variable low flow High flow 

a.m. p.m. 

Ba (,g/l): 

F------------------------------ 80 80 36 

R------------------------------ 90 92 740 

Al (,g/l): 

F------------------------------ 57 58 18 

R------------------------------ 310 Zn (,g/l): 

250 82,000 

F------------------------------ 30 30 8 

R------------------------------ 20 20 90 

Mn (,g/l): . 

F------------------------------ 160 130 290 

R------------------------------ 200 Fe (,g/l): 

190 1,100 

F------------------------------ 40 60 50 

R------------------------------ 360 Se (,g/l): 

620 1,100 

F------------------------------ 20 20 4 

R------------------------------ 8 10 3 

As (,g/l): 

F------~----------------------- 1 2 <1 

R------------------------------ <1 <1 1 

Hg (pg/l): 

F------------------------------ .1 .1 .3 

R------------------------------ <.1 <.1 .3 

Cd (pg/l): 

F------------------------------ <1 <1 2 

R------------------------------ <1 <1 1 

Glacial deposits 

Shoal Creek near Braymer 

Variable 

Date sampled---------------------- Discharge (m1 /s)------------------

Temperature (OC)------------------ Total dissolved solids (mg/l)----- Specific conductance 

(~mhos/em at 250C)------------- pH-------------------------------

02(mg/l)-------------------------

02(percent saturation)----------- NHa, as N (mg/l)-----------------

Organic N, as N (mg/l)----------- N02, as N (mg/l)-----------------

low flow 

a.m. 

9-30-71 

0.03 

21.7 

360 

500 

7.82 

4.8 

54 

.04 

.60 

.003 

p.m. 

9-29-71 

0.03 

24.2 

358 

495 

7.99 

6.1 

73 

.09 

.47 

.003 

High flow 

4-20-72 

8.5 

14.4 

364 

510 

7.99 

.08 

1.6 

.02 

Big Creek at Blairstown 

low flow High flow 

a.m. p.m. 

150 140 60 

190 180 5,800 

15 69 23 

4,300 3,500 630,000 

40 40 30 

30 50 480 

100 110 7 

330 320 7,300 

20 40 20 

1,300 1,500 18,000 

8 6 5 

2 3 -------

3 1 <1 

1 5 20 

<.1 <.1 <.1 

<.1 < .1 .3 

<1 "<1 <1 

1 1 2 

Medicine Creek near Galt 

low flow 

a.m. 

9-29-71 

0.08 

21.0 

276 

457 

7.88 

6.5 

72 

.01 

.34 

.003 

p.m. 

9-28-71 

0.08 

29.0 

262 

441 

8.40 

7.1 

92 

<.01 

• 37 

.003 

High flow 

4-20-72 

5.4 

13.3 

296 

365 

7.98 

<.01 

2.1 

.02 
GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF WATERS OF MISSOURI E71 

APPENDIX I.-Analyses of surface water (rom four geohydrologic units in Missouri-continued 

Glacial deposits 

Shoa 1 Creek near Braymer Medicine Creek near Galt 

Variable Low flow High flow Low flow High flow 

a.m. p.m. a.m. p.m. 

NO a, as N (mg/L)--------~-------- .10 .02 • 27 .10 .02 .90 

HCO (mg/L)---------------------- 308 302 231 206 186 160 

Si02 (mg/L), F-------------------

Gross alpha (as U natural pCi/L): 

9.7 9.6 6.1 11 11 8.7 

F------------------------------ 2.3 3.7 2.1 1.8 1.8 1.6 

$------------------------------ .7 .9 8.7 .7 .3 35 

Gross beta (as Sr-90, pCi/L): 

F------------------------------ 7.4 7.3 8.8 8.1 7.2 5.0 

$------------------------------ 3.4 3.9 20 1.5 2.8 36 

p (mg/L): 

F------------------------------ .03 .09 .28 .03 .05 .21 

R------------------------------ .16 .17 .39 .11 .12 .42 

Ca (mg/L): 

F------------------------------ 79 79 79 61 59 53 

R------------------------------ 77 78 77 62 59 57 

Mg (mg/L): 

F------------------------------ 12 12 13 12 12 12 

R------------------------------ ' 12 12 13 12 12 14 

Na (mg/L): 

F------------------------------ 11 11 16 17 17 11 

R------------------------------ 11 11 16 17 17 12 

K (mg/L): 

F------------------------------ 3.9 4.1 6.4 3.2 3.4 5.7 

R------------------------------ 4.0 3.9 5.2 3.6 3.3 6 

so. (,g/L): F------------------------------ 18 18 72 71 71 64 

R------------------------------ 25 17 72 73 70 64 

Cl (,g/L) : 

F------------------------------ 5.1 5.3 12 5.2 ,, 5.3 8 

R------------------------------ 5.2 5.3 14 5.2 5.3 15 

Br (,.g/L): 

F------------------------------ 30 70 80 100 90 

R------------------------------ 100 100 200 50 8 F (,g/L) : 

F------------------------------ 300 300 400 300 300 400 

R------------------------------ 400 300 1,000 100 300 2,000 

I (,g/L): 

F------------------------------ 50 40 10 20 20 10 

R------------------------------ 40 70 40 20 20 4 

Zr (,g/L): 

F------------------------------ <15 <15 <10 <14 <13 <12 

R------------------------------ <16 <16 110 15 <14 760 

v (,.g/L): 

F------------------------------ <4 <4 <7 <3 <3 <12 

R------------------------------ <4 <4 60 <4 <3 140 

Ti (,g/L): 

F------------------------------ <4 <4 <4 <3 <3 <6 

R------------------------------ 150 74 2,800 150 57 5,900 

·sn (,g/L): 

F------------------------------ <4 <4 <7 <3 <3 <6 

R------------------------------ <4 <4 <15 <4 <3 <24 

Sr (~&g/L): 

F------------------------------ 410 390 260 270 230 120 

R------------------------------ 400 400 280 260 250 200 
E72 GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF MISSOURI 

APPENDIX I.-Analyses of surface water from four geohydrologic units in Missouri-continued 

Glacial deposits 

Shoal Creek near Braymer Medicine Creek near Galt 

Variable Low flow High flow Low flow High flow 

a.m. p.m. a.m. p.m. 

Ag (pg/L): 

F------------------------------ <.7 <.7 <.4 <.7 <.6 <2 

R------------------------------ <.8 <.8 <1 <.7 <.7 ,<5 

Ni (pg/L) : 

F------------------------------ <15 <15 <7 <14 <13 <6 

R------------------------------ <16 16 45 16 13 130 

Mo (pg/L): 

F------------------------------ 8 7 5 5 5 2 

R------------~----------------- 7 5 4 5 5 5 

Li (pg/l): 

F------------------------------ <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 

R------------------------------ <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 

Pb (pg/l): 

F------------------------------ <7 <7 <7 <7 <6 <6 

R------------------------------ <8 <8 13 <7 <7 31 

Ga (pg/L): 

F------------------------------ <4 <4 <4 <3 <3 <3 

R------------------------------ <4 <4 15 <4 <3 65 

Cu (pg/l): 

F------------------------------ .8 2 2 1 1 3 

R------------------------------ 1 1 12 3 .8 70 

Co (,g/l): 

F------------------------------ <4 <4 <7 <3 <3 <3 

R------------------------------ <4 <4 16 <4 <3 20 

Cr (,g/l): 

F------------------------------ <7 <7 <7 <6 <6 <6 

R------------------------------ <8 <8 38 <7 <7 99 

B (,g/L): 

F------------------------------ 34 35 40 41 34 31 

R------------------------------ 45 45 100 48 38 150 

Bi (llg/l): 

F------------------------------ <7 <7 <5 <7 <6 <6 

R------------------------------ <8 <8 <10 <7 <7 <24 

Be (llg/L): 

F-------------------------~---- <2 <2 <3 <2 <2 <2 

R------------------------------ <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <5 

Ba (,g/l): 

F------------------------------ 240 240 140 86 76 86 

R------------------------------ 280 280 480 110 88 930 

Al (pg/L): 

F------------------------------ 7 12 30 12 10 10 

R------------------------------ 3,300 1,700 34,000 3,700 1,200 68,000 

Zn (pg/l): 

F------------------------------ 10 10 8 30 20 20 

R------------------------------ 10 10 140 20 10 160 

Mn (ll g/L): 

F------------------------------ 780 820 25 770 340 8 

R------------------------------ 1,000 1,000 670 1,200 600 1,000 

Fe (pg/L): 

F------------------------------ 10 10 10 10 10 10 

R------------------------------ 940 1,000 15,000 600 340 20,000 
GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF WATERS OF MISSOURI 

APPENDIX I.-Analyses of surface water from four geohydrologic units in Missouri-continued 

Variable 

Se (pg/L): 

F------------------------------

R------------------------------

As (~tg/L): 

F------------------------------

R------------------------------

Hg (~tg/L): 

F------------------------------

R------------------------------

Cd (pg/L): 

F------------------------------ R------------------------------

Vari ab 1 e 

Date sampled--------------------- Discharge (m3 /s)-----------------

Temperature (OC)----------------- Total dissolved solids (mg/L)---- Specific conductance 

(pmhos/cm at 25°C)-------------I 

pH-------------------------------

Oz (mg/L)------------------------ Oz (percent saturation)----------

NHs, as N (mg/L)----------------- Organic N, as N (mg/L)----------- NOz, as N (mg/L)----------------- NOs, as N (mg/L)----------------- Hroa· (mg/L) ---------------------- SiO~ (mg/L}, F-------------------

Gross alpha (as U natural pCi/L): 

F------------------------------ 5------------------------------ Gross beta (as Sr-90, pCi/L): 

F------------------------------ S------------------------------

P (mg/L): 

F------------------------------ R------------------------------

G 1 ac i a 1 deposits 

Shoal Creek near Braymer 

Low flow High flow 

a.m. p.m. 

8 8 2 

6 6 2 

<1 <1 <1 

<1 <1 8 

.3 .1 .2 

.4 .4 .2 

1 1 1 

<1 <73 2 

Mississippian strata 

Shoal Creek at Joplin 

Low flow High flow 

a.m. p.m. 

11-13-71 11-12-71 3-10-73 

2.1 2.2 85 

11.2 11.8 14.5 

256 220 105 

335 

8.19 

8.0 

73 

<.01 

.19 

.003 

.10 

182 

8.1 

<.7 

.2 

2.5 

.7 

.21 

.24 

327 

8.40 

10.5 

96 

<.01 

.14 

.003 

1.10 

170 

8.0 

1.4 

<.1 

2.8 

<.4 

.19 

.22 

150 

7. 50 

<.01 

1.7 

.01 

1.6 

71 

7.7 

<.5 

14 

3.1 

13 

.05 

.47 

Medicine Creek near Galt 

Low flow High flow 

a.m. p.m. 

8 8 4 

6 8 4 

<1 <1 <1 

<1 <1 10 

.1 .2 .2 

.2 .3 .2 

1 1 1 

<1 <1 2 

~pring River near La Russell 

Low flow High flow 

a.m. 

11-16-71 

1.3 

14.4 

268 

363 

7.88 

7.4 

72 

<.01 

.10 

.003 

1.60 

200 

8.3 

<.6 

<.1 

2.1 

<.4 

.15 

.18 

p.m. 

11-15-71 3-10-73 

1. 3 140 

16.5 14.2 

264 68 

359 

8.06 

9.8 

100 

<.01 

.09 

.003 

1.60 

196 

8.1 

1.3 

.<.1 

2.0 

.6 

.15 

.16 

110 

7.26 

<.01 

2.6 

.02 

1.1 

44 

5.1 

<.3 

33 

4.1 

30 

.08 

.73 

E73 
E74 GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF MISSOURI 

APPENDIX I.-Analyses of surface water {rom four geohydrologic units in Missouri-continued 

Mississippian strata 

Shoal Creek at Joplin Spring River near La Russell 

low flow High flow low flow High flow 

Variable 

a.m. p.m. a.m. p.m. 

Ca (mg/l): 

F------------------------------ 53 53 24 60 60 13 

R------------------------------ 54 54 25 60 60 17 

Mg (mg/L): 

F------------------------------ 3.5 3.5 1.7 3.9 4.1 1.4 

R------------------------------ 3.4 3.5 2 3.8 4.0 2 

Na (mg/L): 

F------------------------------ 10 7.3 2.0 6.6 6.7 1.1 

R------------------------------ 10 7.0 1.9 6.3 6.4 1.0 

K (mg/L): 

F------------------------------ 1.5 1.5 2.2 1.5 1.6 3.3 

R------------------------------ 1.9 1.7 2.5 1.7 4.3 

so. {mg/L): 

F------------------------------ 0.5 7.5 6.7 4.5 7.5 3.5 

R------------------------------ 1.0 7.3 7.2 8.8 8.8 6.3 

Cl {mg/L): 

F------------------------------ 8.0 7.6 3.4 10.0 9.9 2.4 

R------------------------------ 7.3 7.1 3.6 9.0 9.2 3.8 

Br {,.cg/L): 

F------------------------------ 40 60 20 100 90 10 

R------------------------------ 80 70 10 100 20 F {pg/L): 

F------------------------------ 100 100 100 100 <100 100 

R------------------------------ <100 <100 1,000 <100 <100 1,000 

I {pg/L): l 

:==============================! 

2 3 3 4 1 5 

7 2 <1 8 30 

·zr {pg/L): · 

~ ~---_ ~ ~ -~---_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ ~ -_ ~ ~ ~ -_ ~ ~ ~ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ ~ ~ ~' <10 <10 <4 <10 <10 <3 

<10 <10 230 <10 <10 260 

v {pg/L): 

F------------------------------ <3 <3 <2 <3 <3 <2 

R------------------------------ <3 <3 67 <3 <3 74 

Ti {pg/L): 

F--------------------------~--- <3 <3 <2 <3 <3 <2 

R------------------------------ 11 11 4,300 8 8 4,600 

Sn {pg/L): 

F------------------------------ <5 <5 <2 <5 <5 <2 

R------------------------------ <5 <5 <17 <5 <5 <16 

Sr {pg/L): 

F------------------------------ 42 47 26 55 56 25 

R------------------------------ 47 44 83 51 51 57 

Ag {pg/L): 

F------------------------------ <.3 <.3 <.2 <.3 <.3 <.2 

R------------------------------ <.3 <.3 <2 <.3 <.3 <2 

Ni {Pg/L): 

F------------------------------ 17 13 <2 <3 <3 <2 

R------------------------------ 33 22 78 <3 <3 55 

Mo {pg/L): 

F------------------------------ <2 <2 <.9 <2 <2 <.7 

R------------------------------ <2 <2 <9 <2 <2 <8 

Li {pg/L) : 

F------------------------------ 10 10 10 10 10 10 

R------------------------------ 10 10 10 10 
GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF WATERS OF MISSOURI E75 

APPENDIX I.-Analyses of surface water from four geohydrologic units in Missouri-continued 

Mississippian strata 

Shoal Creek at Joplin Spring River near La Russell 

Low flow High flow Low flow High flow 

Variable 

a.m. p.m. a.m. p.m. 

Pb (llg/L): 

F------------------------------ <3 <3 <2 <3 <3 <2 

R------------------------------ 3 3 200 <3 <3 33 

Ga (,.g/L): 

F------------------------------ <1 <1 <.9 <1 <1 <.7 

R------------------------------ <1 <1 14 <1 <1 14 

Cu (l'g/L): 

F------------------------------ 2 2 2 1 2 2 

R------------------------------ 2 1 28 1 1 28 

Co (,g/L): 

F------------------------------ <5 <5 <2 <5 <5 <2 

R---------------------------~-- <5 <5 <17 <5 <5 18 

Cr (,g/L): 

F------------------------------ 19 9 <2 <3 <3 <2 

R------------------------------ 26 12 64 <3 <3 54 

B (llg/L): 

F---------------------------~-- 22 19 10 12 12 8 

R------------------------------ 26 20 78 13 11 76 

Bi (,g/L): <3 <3 <2 <3 <3 <2 F------------------------------

R------------------------------ <3 <3 <17 <3 <3 <16 

Be (llg/L): 

F------------------------------ <1 <1 <.6 <1 <1 <.5 

R------------------------------ <1 <1 <6 <1 <1 <6 

Ba (llg/L): 

F------------------------------ 62 66 54 74 75 48 

R------------------------------ 69 67 620 79 78 690 

Al (llg/L): 

F------------------------------ 60 5 7 63 80 7 

R------------------------------ 200 250 60,000 230 .~ 150 55,000 

Zn (llg/L): 

F------------------------------ 70 30 90 20 30 30 

R------------------------------ 80 140 520 20 20 100 

Mn (llg/L) : 

F------------------------------ 22 20 20 18 17 20 

R------------------------------ 54 50 480 36 31 920 

Fe (llg/L): 

F------------------------------ 20 10 30 20 20 30 

R------------------------------ 100 120 5,300 70 70 12,000 

Se (l'g/L): 

F------------------------------ 4 6 5 7 2 5 

R------------------------------ 5 6 5 6 10 5 

As (llg/L): 

F------------------------------ <1 <1 2 <1 2 

R------------------------------ <1 <1 1 <1 <1 3 

Hg (llg/L) : 

F------------------------------ .3 <.1 .1 .6 .4 <.1 

R------------------------------ <.1 <.1 .1 .5 .1 

Cd (llg/L): 

F------------------------------ <1 <1 1 <1 <1 <1 

R------------------------------ <1 1 10 <1 <1 10 
E76 GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF MISSOURI 

APPENDIX I.-Analyses of surface w~ter {rom four geohydrologic units in Missouri-continued 

Cambrian and Ordovician strata (Southeast Missouri) 

Jacks Fork at Eminence Osage Fork near Dry Creek 

Variable Low flow 

a.m. 

Date sampled--------------------- 11-2-71 

Discharge (m3 /s)----------------- 3.1 

Temperature (OC)----------------- 15.0 

Total dissolved solids (mg/L)---- 214 

Specific conductance 

(~mhos/em at 250C)------------- 347 

pH------------------------------- 8.38 

02 (mg/L)------------------------ 6.9 

02 (percent saturation)---------- 68 

NH 3 , as N (mg/L)----------------- <.01 

Organic N, as N (mg/L)----------- .28 

N02, as N (mg/L)----------------- <.001 

NOs, as N (mg/L)----------------- .20 

HCOa (mg/L)---------------------- 228 

Si02 (mg/L), F------------------- 8.8 

Gross alpha (as U natural pCi/L): 

F ----------------------------- 1.2 

S------------------------------ <.1 

Gross beta (as Sr-90, pCi/L): 

F ----------------------------- 2.0 

S------------------------------ <.4 

P (mg/L): 

F------------------------------ .01 R------------------------------ .02 

Ca (mg/L): 

F------------------------------ 38 R-----------------------~------ 39 

Mg (mg/L): 

F------------------------------ 22 R------------------------------ 23 

Na (mg/L): 

F------------------------------ 1.5 

R------------------------------ 1.5 

K (mg/L): 

F------------------------------ 1.0 R------------------------------ 1.0 

so. (mg/L): 

F----------------------------- 2.3 R----------------------------- 2.5 

Cl (mg/L): 

F----------------------------- 2.1 R----------------------------- 1.6 

Br (llg/L): 

F----------------------------- 10 R----------------------------- 10 

F (llg/L): 

F----------------------------- 200 

R----------------------------- <100 

I (llg/L): 

F----------------------------- 3 R-----------~----------------- 3 

p.m. 

11-2-71 

3.1 

16.1 

210 

342 

8.39 

10.3 

104 

<.01 

.08 

<.001 

.20 

222 

8.9 

<.7 

<.1 

1.6 

<.4 

<.01 

<.01 

39 

37 

22 

23 

1.6 

1.5 

.9 

.9 

2.0 

2.8 

2.3 

2.1 

20 

30 

<100 

<100 

2 

2 

High flow 

4-16-72 

280 

17 

130 

145 

7.68 

.03 

.97 

.01 

.50 

85 

6.8 

.5 

6.9 

4.2 

9.9 

17 

15 

.04 

.09 

8.2 

8 

.7 

.6 

3.0 

2.3 

5.9 

7.2 

.9 

3.4 

30 

60 

300 

<1,000 

4 

5 

Low flow 

a.m. 

11-3-71 

2.1 

13.2 

236 

378 

7.75 

5.8 

55 

<.01 

.06 

<.001 

.30 

230 

10 

<.8 

<.2 

2.7 

1.2 

41 

41 

23 

23 

.02 

.06 

2.6 

2.5 

1.8 

1.9 

6.3 

4.9 

4.4 

40 

20 

100 

<100 

1 

3 

p.m. 

11-2-71 

2.3 

15.2 

238 

377 

8.20 

7.8 

77 

.01 

• 27 

<.001 

.30 

228 

10 

<.7 

<.2 

2.6 

1.1 

41 

41 

23 

24 

.02 

.06 

2.5 

2.5 

1.8 

1.9 

6.5 

5.8 

5.1 

4.6 

30 

40 

100 

<100 

2 

4 

High flow 

3-10-73 

110 

14.3 

140 

7.53 

<.01 

1.6 

.01 

.68 

74 

5.7 

<.43 

8 

2.8 

12 

14 

16 

.03 

.35 

7.4 

9 

1.3 

1.4 

2.0 

2.6 

5.7 

9.7 

3.1 

3.7 

30 

30 

100 

1,000 

20 

7 
GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF WATERS OF MISSOURI E77 

APPENDIX I.-Analyses of surface water from four geohydrologic units in Missouri-£ontinued 

Cambrian and Ordovician strata (Southeast Missouri) 

Jacks Fork at Eminence Osage Fork near Drl Creek 

Variable Low flow High flow Low flow High flow 

a.m. p.m. a.m. p.m. 

Zr (~g/L): 

F----------------------------- <11 <11 <5 <12 <12 <5 

R----------------------------- <11 <11 93 <13 <13 110 

v (~g/L): 

F----------------------------- <4 <4 <5 <3 <3 <2 

R----------------------------- <4 <4 22 <3 <3 33 

Ti (~g/L): 

F----------------------------- <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <2 

R----------------------------- 3 <3 1,900 26 32 1,800 

Sn (~g/L): 

F----------------------------- <5 <5 <3 <6 <6 <2 

R----------------------------- <5 <5 <6 <6 <6 <9 

Sr (~g/L): 

F----------------------------- 22 27 12 37 36 18 

R----------------------------- 23 20 13 45 38 29 

Ag (~g/L): 

F----------------------------- <.3 <.3 <.5 <.3 <.3 <.2 

R----------------------------- <.3 <.3 <2 <.4 <.4 <.9 

Ni (~g/L): 

F----------------------------- <5 <5 3 <6 <6 <2 

R----------------------------- <5 <5 39 <6 <6 25 

Mo (~g/L): 

F----------------------------- <3 <3 <.5 <2 <2 <1 

R----------------------------- <3 <3 <2 <2 <2 <4 

Li (llg/L): 

F----------------------------- <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 

R----------------------------- <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 

Pb (llg/L): 

F----------------------------- <5 <5 <3 <6 <6 <2 

R----------------------------- <5 <5 16 <6 <6 11 

Ga (~g/L): 

F----------------------------- <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 

R------------------~---------- <2 <2 15 <2 <2 6 

Cu (~g/L): 

F----------------------------- 2 3 3 2 2 2 

R----------------------------- <1 <1 19 2 2 12 

Co (llg/L): 

F----------------------------- <5 <5 <2 <4 <4 <2 

R----------------------------- <5 <5 16 <4 <4 <9 

Cr (~g/L): 

F----------------------------- <5 <5 <3 <4 <4 <2 

R----------------------------- <5 <5 18 <4 <4 23 

B (~.tg/L): 

F----------------------------- 7 8 17 11 12 9 

R----------------------------- 7 7 40 14 11 38 

Bi (~g/L): 

F----------------------------- <4 <4 <3 <4 <4 <2 

R----------------------------- <4 <4 <6 <4 <4 <9 

Be (~g/L): 

F----------------------------- <2 <2 <.5 <2 <2 <.7 

R----------------------------- <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <3 

Ba (.-.g/L): 

F----------------------------- 37 39 27 80 80 34 

R----------------------------- 27 34 110 100 90 260 
E78 GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF MISSOURI 

APPENDIX I.-Analyses of surface water from four geohydrologic units in Missouri-continued 

Cambrian and Ordovician strata (Southeast Missouri} 

Jacks Fork at Eminence Osage Fork near Drl Creek 

Variable Low flow High flow Low flow High flow 

a.m. p.m. a.m. p.m. 

Al ("g/L}: 

F------------------------------ 61 55 17 51 15 8 

R------------------------------ 120 94 13,000 490 600 25,000 

Zn ("g/L}: 

F------------------------------ 30 30 8 30 40 <1 

R------------------------------ 150 60 120 20 80 30 

Mn (,g/L): 

F------------------------------ 3 4 8 22 21 10 

R------------------------------ 12 7 320 100 90 490 

Fe ("g/L): 

F------------------------------ 10 20 30 10 10 40 

R--------------~--------------- 20 30 6,200 160 160 5,000 

Se ("g/L): 

F------------------------------ 20 6 4 8 1 5 

R------------------------------ 6 8 4 6 6 12 

As ("g/L}: 

F------------------------------ <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 2 

R------------------------------ <1 <1 5 <1 <1 2 

Hg ("g/L}: 

F------------------------------ <.1 <.1 .1 .1 <.1 <.1 

R------------------------------ <.1 <.1 .1 <.1 <.1 .2 

Cd ("g/L): 

F------------------------------ <1 <1 1 <1 <1 <1 

R------------------------------ 1 1 2 <1 1 10 

~"':,U.S. Government Printing Office: 1979-281-359/81