Element Concentrations in Soils and 

Other Surfici 1Materials of the 

Conterminous United Stat 
Element Concentrations in Soils and 

Other Surficial Materials of the 

Conterminous United States 

By HANSFORD T. SHACKLETTE and JOSEPHINE G. BOERNGEN 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1270 

An account of the concentrations of 

50 chemical elements in samples of 

soils and other regoliths 

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1984 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

WILLIAM P. CLARK, Secretary 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Dallas L. Peck, Director 

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data 

Shacklette, Hansford T. 

Element concentrations in soils and other surficial materialsof the conterminous United States. 

(Geological Survey professional paper ;1270) 

Bibliography: 105p. 

Supt. of Docs. No.: 1 19.16 

1. SoiiUnited StatesÃ‘Composition 

I. Boerngen, Josephine G. 11. Title. 111. Series 

S699.AlS6 681.4'7'73 82-600084 

AACR2 

For sale by the Distribution Branch, U.S. Geological Survey, 

604 South Pickett Street, Alexandria, VA 22304 
CONTENTS 

............................................ 
 Page 
Abstract 1 

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

Acknowledgments ....................................... 
 2 

Review of literature ...................................... 
 2 

Collection and analysis of geochemical data ........................ 
 Samplingplan ....................................... 
 3 

3 

Samplingmedia ...................................... 
 5 

Chemical-analysis procedures .............................. 
 5 

Datapresentation ....................................... 
 5 

Discussion of results ..................................... 
 7 

References cited ........................................ 
 9 

ILLUSTRATIONS 

FIGURE1. Map showing location of sampling sites in the conterminous United States 

where elements not commonly detected in surficial deposits were found. 

................ 2.47 	 . and the amounts of the elements present 

Maps showing element content of surficial materials in the conterminous 

United States: 

2. Aluminum ................................ 
 3. Antimony ................................ 
 4. Arsenic ................................. 
 5. Barium ................................. 
 6. Beryllium ................................ 
 7. Boron .................................. 
 8. Bromine ................................. 
 9. Calcium ................................. 
 10. Carbon (total) ............................. 
 11. Cerium ................................. 
 12. Chromium ................................ 
 13. Cobalt .................................. 
 14. Copper ................................. 
 15. ................................. 
 16. Fluorine 

Gallium ................................. 
 17. Germanium ............................... 
 18. Iodine .................................. 
 19. Iron ................................... 
 20. Lanthanum ............................... 
 21. Lead ................................... 
 22. Lithium ................................. 
 23. Magnesium ............................... 
 24. Manganese ............................... 
 25. Mercury ................................. 
 26. Molybdenum .............................. 
 27. Neodymium ............................... 
 28. .................................. 
 29. Nickel 

Niobium ................................. 
 30. Phosphorus ............................... 
 31. Potassium ................................ 
 32. Rubidium ................................ 
 33. Scandium ................................ 
 34. Selenium ................................. 
 36. Silicon .................................. 
 36. Sodium ................................. 

CONTENTS 

FIGURES37.47 . Maps showing element content of surficial materials in the conterminous 

United States: 

37. ................................ 
 38. Strontium 

Sulfur .................................. 
 39. Thorium ................................. 
 40. .................................... 
 41. Tin 

Titanium ................................ 
 42. ................................. 
 43. Uranium 

Vanadium ................................ 
 44. Ytterbium ................................ 
 45. Yttrium ................................. 
 46. Zinc ................................... 
 47. Zirconium ................................ 


TABLES 


Pw 


TABLE1. 

. Average or median contents. and range in contents. reported for elements in soils and other surficial materials . . 4 2 Mean concentrations. deviations. and ranges of elements in samples of soils and other surficial materials the conterminous 

Unitedstates .......................................................... in 

6 
ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS AND OTHER 


SURFICIAL MATERIALS OF THE 


CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES 


By HANSFORD T. SHACKLETTE and JOSEPHINE G. BOERNGEN

ABSTRACT 

Samples of soils or other regoliths, taken at a depth of approximately 20 cm from locations about 80 km apart throughout the conterminous United States, were analyzed for their content of elements. 

In this manner, 1,318 sampling sites were chosen, and the results 

of the sample analyses for 50 elements were plotted on maps. The 

arithmetic and geometric mean, the geometric deviation, and a histogram showing frequencies of analytical values are given for 47 elements. 

The lower concentrations of some elements (notably, aluminum, 

barium, calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, and strontium) in 

most samples of surficial materials from the Eastern United States, 

and the greater abundance of heavy metals in the same materials 

of the Western United States, indicates a regional geochemical pattern of the largest scale. The low concentrations of many elements 

in soils characterize the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Soils of the Pacific 

Northwest generally have high concentrations of aluminum, cobalt, 

iron, scandium, and vanadium, but are low in boron. Soils of the 

Rocky Mountain region tend to have high concentrations of copper, 

lead, and zinc. High mercury concentrations in surficial materials are 

characteristic of Gulf Coast sampling sites and the Atlantic coast sites 

of Connecticut, Massachuetts, and Maine. At the State level, Florida 

has the most striking geochemical pattern by having soils that are 

low in the concentrations of most elements considered in this study. 

Some smaller patterns of element abundance can be noted, but the 

degree of confidence in the validity of these patterns decreases as 

the patterns become less extensive. 

INTRODUCTION 


The abundance of certain elements in soils and other 

surficial materials is determined not only by the element content of the bedrock or other deposits from 

which the materials originated, but also by the effects 

of climatic and biological factors as well as by influences 

of agricultural and industrial operations that have acted 

on the materials for various periods of time. The diversity of these factors in a large area is expected to result 

in a corresponding diversity in the element contents 

of the surficial materials. 

At the beginning of this study (1961), few data were 

available on the abundance of elements in surficial materials of the United States as a whole. Most of the 

early reports discussed only the elements that were of 

economic importance to mining or agriculture in a 

metallogenic area or State; and the data, for the most 

part, cannot be evaluated with reference to average, 

or normal, amounts in undisturbed materials because 

they were based on samples of deposits expected to 

have anomalous amounts of certain elements, or were 

based only on samples from cultivated fields. 

We began a sampling program in 1961 that was designed to give estimates of the range of element abundance in surficial materials that were unaltered or very 

little altered from their natural condition, and in plants 

that grew on these deposits, throughout the conterminous United States. We believed that analyses of the 

surficial materials would provide a measure of the total 

concentrations of the elements that were present at the 

sampling sites, and that analysis of the plants would 

give an estimate of the relative concentrations among 

sites of the elements that existed in a chemical form 

that was available to plants. Because of the great 

amount of travel necessary to complete this sampling, 

we asked geologists and others of the U.S. Geological 

Survey to assist by collecting samples when traveling 

to and from their project areas and to contribute appropriate data they may have collected for other purposes. 

The reponse to this request, together with the samples 

and data that we had collected, resulted in our obtaining samples of surficial materials and plants from 863 

sites. The analyses of surficial materials sampled in this 

phase of the study were published for 35 elements by 

plotting element concentrations, in two to five frequency classes, on maps (Shacklette, Hamilton, and 

others, 1971). 

Soon after the publication of the results of this study, 

interest in environmental matters, particularly in the 

effects of contamination and industrial pollution, increased greatly. At the same time, technological advances in analytical methods and data processing facilitated measurements of geochemical and other parameters of the environment. In response to the need for 

background data for concentrations of certain elements 

of particular environmental concern, the samples of surficial materials that were collected for the first study 

(Shacklette, Hamilton, and others, 1971) (with some ad-
2 ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES 

ditional samples) were analyzed for other elements, and 

the results were published in U.S. Geological Survey 

Circulars: for mercury, Shacklette, Boerngen, and 

Turner (1971); for lithium and cadmium, by Shacklette, 

and others (1973); and for selenium, fluorine, and arsenic, Shacklette and others (1974). 

The collection of samples for this study continued, 

as opportunities arose, until autumn 1975, resulting in 

the sampling of an additional 355 sites that were 

selected to give a more uniform geographical coverage 

of the conterminous United States. This sampling continuation is referred to as phase two. These samples 

were analyzed, and the data were merged with those 

of the original samples to produce the results given in 

the present report. In addition, the availability of 

analytical methods for elements not included in the earlier reports permitted data to be given on these elements in the more recently collected samples. 

The collection localities and dates, sample descriptions, and analytical values for each sample in the present report were published by Boerngen and Shacklette 

(1981). The elemental compositions of only the surficial 

materials are given in this report; the data on analyses 

of the plant samples are held in files of the U.S. Geological Survey. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

This study was made possible by the cooperation of 

many persons in the U.S. Geological Survey. We thank 

D. F. Davidson, A. T. Miesch, J. J. Connor, R. J. 

Ebens, and A. T. Myers for their interest in, and continued support of, this study. The sampling plan was 

suggested by H. L. Cannon, who also contributed 

analytical data from her project areas and samples from 

her travel routes. Others of the Geological Survey who 

collected samples, and to whom we express gratitude, 

are: J. M. Bowles, F. A. Branson, R. A. Cadigan, F. 

C. Canney, F. W. Cater, Jr., M. A. ChafFey, Todd 

Church, J. J. Connor, Dwight Crowder, R. J. Ebens, 

J. A. Erdman, G. L. Feder, G. B. Gott, W. R. Griffitts, 

T. P. Hill, E. K. Jenne, M. I. Kaufman, J. R. Keith, 

Frank Kleinhampl, A. T. Miesch, R. F. Miller, R. C. 

Pearson, E. V. Post, Douglas Richman, R. C. Severson, James Scott, D. A. Seeland, M. H. Staatz, T. A. 

Steven, M. H. Strobell, V. E. Swanson, R. R. Tidball, 

H. A. Tourtelot, J. D. Vine, and R. W. White. We 

thank the following members of the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service for providing 

soil samples from areas in Minnesota: D. D. Barren, 

C. R. Carlson, D. E. DeMartelaire, R. R. Lewis, 

Charles Sutton, and Paul Nyberg. 

We acknowledge the analytical support provided by 

the following U.S. Geological Survey chemists: Lowell 

Artis, Philip Aruscavage, A. J. Bartel, S. D. Bott 

L. A. Bradley, J. W. Budinsky, Alice Caernmerer,, 

P. Cahill, E. Y. Campbell, G. W. Chloe, Don Col 

E. F. Cooley, N. M. Conklin, W. B. Crandell, Mauri 

Devalliere, P. L. D. Elmore, E. J. Finlay, Johm 

Gardner, J. L. Glenn, T. F. Harms, R. G. Haven 

R. H. Heidel, M. B. Hinkle, Claude Huffman, Jr., I 

B. Jenkins, R. J. Knight, B. W. Lanthorn, L. M. La 

K. W. Leong, J. B. McHugh, J. D. Mensik, V. M. Ma 

ritt, H. T. Millard, Jr., Wayne Mountjoy, H. 11 

Nakagawa, H. G. Neiman, Uteana Oda, C. S. E. Pap] 

R. L. Rahill, V. E. Shaw, G. D. Shipley, Hezeld 

Smith, A. J. Sutton, Jr., J. A. Thomas, Barbara Tobit 

J. E. Troxel, J. H. Turner, and G. H. Vansickle. 

We were assisted in computer programming for th 

data by the following persons of the US. Geologic! 

Survey: W. A. Buehrer, G. I. Evenden, J. B. Fifq 

Allen Popiel, M. R. Roberts, W. C. Schomburg, G. 1 ' 

Seiner, R. C. Terrazas, George VanTrurnp, Jr., ad 

R. R. Wahl. 

REVIEW OF LITERATURE 

The literature on the chemical analysis of soils ad 

other surficial materials in the United States is exteit 

sive and deals largely with specific agricultural prob 

lems of regional interest. Many of the papers were written by soil scientists and chemists associated with State 

agricultural experiment stations and colleges of agriculture, and most reports considered only elements that 

were known to be nutritive or toxic to plants or ani 

mals. 

Chemists with the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

prepared most early reports of element abundance in 

soils for large areas of the United States. (See Robinson, 1914; Robinson and others, 1917). The 1938 yearbook of agriculture was devoted to reports on soils of 

the United States; in this book, McMurtrey and Robinson (1938) discussed the importance and abundance of 

trace elements in soils. Amounts of the major elements 

in soil samples from a few soil profiles distributed 

throughout the United States were compiled by the soil 

scientist C. F. Marbut (1935) to illustrate characteristics of soil units. 

The use of soil analysis in geochemical prospecting 

began in this country in the 1940's, and many reports 

were published on the element amounts in soils from 

areas where mineral deposits were known or suspected 

to occur. Most of these reports included only a few elements in soils from small areas. This early geochemical 

work was discussed by Webb (1953) and by Hawkes 

(1957). In succeeding years, as soil analyses became an 

accepted method of prospecting and as analytical 
methods were improved, many elements in soils were 

analyzed; still, the areas studied were commonly small. 

An estimate of the amounts of elements in average, 

or normal, soils is useful in appraising the amounts of 

elements in a soil sample as related to agricultural, mineral prospecting, environmental quality, and health and 

disease investigations. Swaine (1955) gave an extensive 

bibliography of trace-element reports on soils of the 

world, and he also summarized reports of the average 

amounts of elements as given by several investigators. 

The most comprehensive list of average amounts of rare 

and dispersed elements in soils is that of Vinogradov 

(1959), who reported the analytical results of extensive 

studies of soils in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, as well as analyses of soils from other countries. 

He did not state the basis upon which he established 

the average values; however, these values are presumably the arithmetic means of element amounts in samples 

from throughout the world. In their discussions of the 

principles of geochemistry, Goldschmidt (1954) and 

Rankarna and Sahama (1955) reported the amounts of 

various elements present in soils and in other surficial 

materials, Hawks and Webb (1962) and, more recently, 

Brooks (1972), Siegal(1974), Levinson (1974), and Rose 

and others (1979) gave average amounts of certain elements in soils as useful guides in mineral exploration. 

A report on the chemical characteristics of soils was 

edited by Bear (1964). In this book, the chapter on 

chemical composition of soils by Jackson (1964) and the 

chapter on trace elements in soils by Mitchell (1964) 

gave the ranges in values or the average amounts of 

some soil elements. 

Regional geochemical studies conducted by scientists 

of the U.S. Geological Survey within the past two decades have been largely directed to the establishment 

of baseline abundances of elements in surficial materials, including soils. Most of the earlier work investigated these materials that occurred in their natural condition, having little or no alterations that related to 

human activities, with the objective of establishing nerma1 element concentrations in the materials by which 

anomalous concentrations, both natural or man induced, 

could be judged. Some of these studies were conducted 

in cooperation with medical investigators who were 

searching for possible relationships of epidemiological 

patterns to characteristics of the environment. In one 

study, the geochemical characteristics of both natural 

and cultivated soils were determined in two areas of 

Georgia that had contrasting rates of cardiovascular diseases (Shacklette and others, 1970). In an extensive 

geochemical study of Missouri, also conducted cooperatively with medical researchers, both cultivated and 

natural soils were sampled. The results were presented 

for the State as a whole, and for physiographic regions 

or other subdivisions and smaller areas, as follows: 

Erdman and others (1976a, 1976b); Tidball(1976, 1983a, 

1983b); and Ebens and others (1973). The results of 

these studies, and of other regional geochemical investigations, were summarized and tabulated by Connor and 

Shacklette (1975). 

Recent regional studies of soil geochemistry by the 

U.S. Geological Survey related to the development of 

energy resources in the western part of the United 

States, including North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico. 

These studies established regional geochemical 

baselines for soils, both in undisturbed areas and in 

areas that had been altered by mining and related activities. Some of these studies considered the elements 

in soils both as total concentrations and as concentra-, 

tions that were available to plants of the region. The 

results of these studies were published in annual progress reports (U.S. Geological Survey, 1974, 1975, 1976, 

1977, and 1978). The data on soils, as well as on other 

natural materials, in these reports were summarized 

and tabulated by Ebens and Shacklette (1981). In a 

study of the elements in fruits and vegetables from 11 

areas of commercial production in the United States, 

and in the soils on which this produce grew, soils were 

analyzed for 39 elements, as reported by Boerngen and 

Shacklette (1980) and Shacklette (1980). 

The average amounts of elements in soils and other 

surficial materials of the United States, as determined 

in the present study, are given in table 1, with the 

average values or ranges in values that were reported 

by Vinogradov (1959), Rose and others (1979), Jackson 

(1964), Mitchell (1964), and Brooks (1972). The averages 

from the present study given in table 1are the arithmetic means. Although the averages were computed by 

the methods described by Miesch (1967), the values obtained are directly comparable with the arithmetic 

means derived by common computational procedures. 

COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS OF GEOCHEMICAL DATA 3 

COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS OF 


GEOCHEMICAL DATA 


SAMPLING PLAN 

The sampling plan was designed with the emphasis 

on practicality, in keeping with the expenditures of time 

and funds available, and its variance from an ideal plan 

has been recognized from the beginning. Because the 

collection of most samples was, by necessity, incidental 

to other duties of the samplers, the instructions for 

sampling were simplified as much as possible, so that 

sampling methods would be consistent within the wide 

range of kinds of sites to be sampled. The samples were 
ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES 

collected by U.S. Geological Survey personnel along 

their routes of travel to areas of other types of field 

studies or within their project areas. 

The locations of the routes that were sampled depended on both the network of roads that existed and 

the destinations of the samplers. Sampling intensity 

was kept at a minimum by selecting only one sampling 

site every 80 krn (about 50 miles; selected for convenience because vehicle odometers were calibrated in 

miles) along the routes. The specific sampling sites 

were selected, insofar as possible, that had surficial materials that were very little altered from their natural 

condition and that supported native plants suitable for 

sampling. In practice, this site selection necessitated 

sampling away from roadcuts and fills. In some areas, 

only cultivated fields and plants were available for sampling. 

Contamination of the sampling sites by vehicular 

emissions was seemingly insignificant, even though 

many sites were within 100 m or less of the roads. ColTABLE1.-Average or median contents, and range in contents,reportedfor elementsin soils and other aurficial materials 

[DataÂ¥rin parta per million; each avenge representsarithmeticmean; leaden (4infigurecolumns indicate no data available. A,avenge; M,median. <, leuthan; 

>,greaterthan1 

This report Rose, and others 


(1979) (elements 


Vinogradov 


(1959) Jackson (1964) Mitchell (1964) Brooks (1972) 


useful in 
 (presumably, 


Element geochemical 
 averages from "Typical", Range in 


prospecting) 
 worldwide average, contents in 


Average Range 
 sampling) or range Scottish sur- Average or 


in values face soils range 


6.2 (M) 
 30 
 30 


320 (M) 


2.5 (A) 
 ....................... 


6,300 


850 


2 


6,300 


<6,000
 ------------------- 200 - 5,000 

<1 - 5 

850 

2.5 

15 (A) 
 15 

17 (M) 
 40 
 10 - 800 40 300 (M) 
 800 
 500 


17 (M) 
 <20 - 80 10 

100 - 2,000 850 


2 (A) 

7 
 <3 - 15 .5 
 - - - ------ - 0.31 (M) 
 -001 -5 


l~uthor's usage; generally used to indicate the most commonly occurring value. 

DATA PRESENTATION 5 

lecting samples at about 20 cm depth, rather than at 

the upper soil horizons, may have avoided the effects 

of surface contamination on the samples. However, we 

had no adequate way of measuring any contamination 

that may have occurred. (See Cannon and Bowles, 

1962.) Many of the sampled routes had only light vehicular traffic, and some were new interstate highways. 

Routes through congested areas generally were not 

sampled; therefore, no gross contamination of the samples was expected. 

The study areas that were sampled follow: Wisconsin 

and parts of contiguous States, southeastern Missouri, 

Georgia, and Kentucky, sampled by Shacklette; Kentucky, sampled by J. J. Connor and R. R. Tidball; 

Nevada, New Mexico, and Maryland, sampled by H. 

L. Cannon; various locations in Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, sampled by 

F. A. Branson and R. F. Miller; Missouri, sampled by 

Shacklette, J. A. Erdman, J. R. Keith, and R. R. Tidball; and various locations in Colorado, Idaho, Montana, 

South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming, sampled by A. T. 

Miesch and J. J. Connor. Sampling techniques used in 

these areas varied according to the primary objectives 

of the studies being conducted, but generally these 

techniques were closely similar to the methods used in 

sampling along the roads. 

In general, the sampling within study areas was more 

intensive than that along the travel routes. To make 

the sampling intensity of the two sampling programs 

more nearly equal, only the samples from selected sites 

in the study areas were used for this report. The 

selected sites were approximately 80 km apart. Where 

two or more samples were collected from one site, they 

were assigned numbers, and one of these samples was 

randomly chosen for evaluation in this study. 

SAMPLING MEDIA 

The material sampled at most sites could be termed 

"soil" because it was a mixture of comminuted rock and 

organic matter, it supported ordinary land plants, and 

it doubtless contained a rich microbiota. Some of the 

sampled deposits, however, were not soils as defined 

above, but were other kinds of regoliths. The regoliths 

included desert sands, sand dunes, some loess deposits, 

and beach and alluvial deposits that contained little or 

no visible organic matter. In some places the distinctions between soils and other regoliths are vague because the materials of the deposits are transitional between the two. Samples were collected from a few deposits consisting mostly of organic materials that would 

ordinarily be classified as peat, rather than soil. 

To unify sampling techniques, the samplers were 

asked to collect the samples at a depth of approximately 

20 cm below the surface of the deposits. This depth 

was chosen as our estimate of a depth below the plow 

zone that would include parts of the zone of illuviation 

in most welldeveloped zonal soils, and as a convenient 

depth for sampling other surficial materials. Where the 

thickness of the material was less than 20 cm, as in 

shallow soils over bedrock or in lithosols over large rock 

fragments, samples were taken of the material that lay 

iust above the rock deposits. About 0.25 liter of this 

material was collected, put in a kraft paper envelope, 

and shipped to the US. Geological Survey laboratories 

in Denver, Colo. 

CHEMICAL-ANALYSIS PROCEDURES 

The soil samples were oven dried in the laboratory 

and then sifted through a 2-mm sieve. If the soil material would not pass this sieve, the sample was pulverized in a ceramic mill before serving. Finally, the 

sifted, minus 2-mm fraction of the sample was used for 

analysis. 

The methods of analysis used for some elements were 

changed during the course of this study, as new techniques and instruments became available. For most elements, the results published in the first report 

(Shacklette, Hamilton, and others, 1971) were obtained 

by use of a semiquantitative six-step emission spectrographic method (Meyers and others, 1961). The 

methods used for other elements were: EDTA titration 

for calcium; colorimetric (Ward and others, 1963) for 

phosphorus and zinc; and flame photometry for potassium. Many of the elements analyzed in the 355 samples 

collected in phase two of the study were also analyzed 

by the emission spectrographic method (Neirnan, 1976). 

Other methods were used for the following elements: 

flame atomic absorption (Huffman and Dinnin, 1976) for 

mercury, lithium, magnesium, sodium, rubidium, and 

zinc; flameless atomic absorption (Vaughn, 1967) for 

mercury; X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (Wahlberg, 

1976) for calcium, germanium, iron, potassium, selenium, silver, sulfur, and titanium; combustion (Huffman 

and Dinnin, 1976) for total carbon; and neutron activation (Millard, 1975, 1976) for thorium and uranium. 

DATA PRESENTATION 

Summary data for 46 elements are reported in tables 

1 and 2. In table 1, the element concentrations found 

in samples of soil and other surficial materials of this 

study are compared with those in soils reported in other 

studies. Arithmetic means are used for the data of this 

study to make them more readily compared with the 

data generally reported in the literature. These arithmetic means were derived from the estimated geometric means by using a technique described by Miesch 

(1967), which is based on methods devised by Cohen 

(1959) and Sichel (1952). The arithmetic means in table 
6 ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES 

1, unlike the geometric means shown in table 2, are 

estimates of geochemical abundance (Miesch, 1967). 

Arithmetic means are always larger than corresponding 

geometric means (Miesch, 1967, p. Bl) and are estimates of the fractional part of a single specimen that 

consists of the element of concern rather than of the 

typical concentration of the element in a suite of samples. 

TABLE2.-Mean concentnaturns, deviations, and ranges of elements in samples of soils and other surficial materiala in the contermimnis 

United State8 

[Means and ranged we reported in parts per million Wg), and means and deviations we geometric except as indicated. Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found 


in measurable concentrationsto number of samplesanalyzed. <, leÃthan;>,greaterthan] 


- --- 

Conterminous Weatern United States Eastern United States 


United States (west of 96th meridian) (east of 96th meridian) 
 Element 


Estimated Estimated Estimated 


Devia- arithmetic Devia- Observed arithmetic Devia- Observed arithmetic 


Mean tion mean Ratio Mean tion range mean Ratio Mean tion range mean 


Al, percent As--------- 7.2 	

7.2 

7.4 


7.0 B----------

Ba--------- 33 

580 

29 

670 Be~------ .92 .97 

.85 	 .86 


2.5 	 2.5 


2.4 3.3 


7 5 7 5 


9.1 	 9.0 


cp-------- 54 56 
 cu--------- 25 27 
 F---------- 430 440 


Fe, percent Ga--------- 2.6 	

17 	

2.6 


19 

1.2 	 1.2 


.089 .065 


1.2 	 1.2 


None 	 None 


37 37 


Li-------- 24 2 5 

Mg, percent 

Up-------- .90 

550 

1.0 

480 
 MO--------- .97 1.1 


Na, percent 1.2 1.2 


11 10 


46 43 


19 19 


430 460 


19 20 


Re------ 67 74 


S, percent- Sb--------- .16 

.67 

.19 


.62 Sc---------

se--------- 8.9 

.39 

9.6 

.34 

None 	 None 


1.3 	 1.2 
 SF-------- 240 270 


Ti, percent Th--------- .29 

9.4 	

.26 


9.8 


2.7 2.7 


80 88 


25 25 


3.1 	 3.0 


60 65 


230 190 


%leans are arithmetic, deviations are standard. 


Concentrations of 46 elements in samples of this 

study are presented in table 2, which gives the determination ratios, geometric-mean concentrations and deviations, and observed ranges in concentrations. The 

analytical data for most elements as received from the 

laboratories were transformed into logarithms because 

of the tendency for elements in natural materials, particularly the trace elements, to have positively skewed 
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 
 7 

frequency distributions. For this reason, the geometric 

mean is the more proper measure of central tendency 

for these elements. The frequency distributions for potassium and silicon, on the other hand, are more nearly 

normal if the data are not transformed to logarithms 

and the mean is expressed as the arithmetic average. 

In geochemical background studies, the magnitude of 

scatter to be expected around the mean is as important 

as the mean. In lognormal distributions, the geometric 

deviation measures this scatter, and this deviation may 

be used to estimate the range of variation expected for 

an element in the material being studied. About 68 percent of the samples in a randomly selected suite should 

fall within the limits MID and M-D, where M represents the geometric mean and D the geometric deviation. About 95 percent should fall between MI# and 

M.D2, and about 99.7 percent between MID3 and Me@. 

The analytical data for some elements include values 

that are below, or above, the limits of numerical determination, and these values are expressed as less than 

(<) or greater than (>) a stated value. These data are 

said to be censored, and for these the mean was computed by using a technique described by Cohen (1959) 

and applied to geochemical studies by Miesch (1967). 

This technique requires an adjustment of the summary 

statistics computed for the noncensored part of the 

data. The censoring may be so severe in certain sets 

of data that a reliable adjustment cannot be made; with 

the data sets used in the present study, however, no 

such circumstances were encountered. The use of these 

procedures in censored data to quantify the central tendency may result in estimates of the mean that are 

lower than the limit of determination. For example, in 

table 2 the geometric-mean molybdenum concentration 

in soils from the Eastern United States is estimated 

to be 0.32 ppm, although the lower limit of determination of the analytical method that was used is 3 ppm. 

Use of this procedure permits inclusion of the censored 

values in the calculation of expected mean concentrations. 

The determination ratios in table %that is, the ratio 

of the number of samples in which the element was 

found in measurable concentrations to the total number 

of samples~permit the number of censored values, if 

any, to be found that were used in calculating the mean. 

This number is found by subtracting the left value in 

the ratio from the right. 

The distribution of the sampling sites and the concentrations of elements determined for samples from the 

sites are presented on maps of the conterminous United 

States (figs. 147). Figure 1shows the locations of sites 

where four elements, bismuth, cadmium, praseodymium, and silver, were found in the samples. These elements were determined too uncommonly for reliable 

mean concentrations to be calculated. Each of the remaining maps (figs. 247) gives the locations where an 

element was found in a sample from a site and the concentration of the element, shown by a symbol that represents a class of values. By examining the tables of 

frequency for concentration values of the elements, we 

were able to divide the ranges of reported values for 

many elements into five classes so that approximately 

20 percent of the values fell into each class. The limited 

range in values for some elements, however, prohibited 

the use of more than two or three classes to represent 

the total distribution. Symbols representing the classes 

were drawn on the maps by an automatic plotter that 

was guided by computer classification of the data, including the latitude and longitude of the sampling sites. 

A histogram on each map gives the frequency distribution of the analytical values, and the assignment of 

analytical values to each class as represented by symbols. 

We were able to obtain analyses of 11more elements 

for the 355 samples of phase two of this study than 

for the 963 samples of phase one because of improved 

analytical methods and services. These elements are antimony, bromine, carbon, germanium, iodine, rubidium, 

silicon, sulfur, thorium, tin, and uranium. The constraints of resources and time prohibited analysis of the 

963 samples of the first phase for these additional elements. Results of -analysis of the plant samples that 

were collected at all soil-sampling sites are not presented in this report. 

Some elements were looked for in all samples but 

were not found. These elements, analyzed by the 

semiquantitative spectrographic method, and their approximate lower detection limits, in parts per million, 

are as follows: gold, 20; hafnium, 100; indium, 10; platinum, 30; palladium, 1; rhenium, 30; tantalum, 200; tdurium, 2,000; and thallium, 50. If lanthanum or cerium 

were found in a sample, the following elements, with 

their stated lower detection limits, were looked for in 

the same sample but were not found: dysprosium, 50; 

erbium, 50; gadolinium, 50; holmium, 20; lutetium, 30; 

terbium, 300; and thulium, 20. 

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 


The data presented in this report may reveal evidence of regional variations in abundances of elements 

in soils or other regoliths; single values or small clusters 

of values on the maps may have little significance if 

considered alone. Apparent differences in values shown 

between certain sampling routes, such as some of those 

across the Great Plains and the North Central States 

where high values for cerium, cobalt, gallium, and lead 

predominate, suggest the possibility of systematic er- 
8 ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES 

rors in sampling or in laboratory analysis. Some gross 

patterns and some of lesser scale, nevertheless, are evident in the compositional variation of regoliths, as 

shown in figures 2-47. 

The lower abundances of some elements (notably aluminum, barium, calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, and strontium) in regoliths of the Eastern United 

States, and the greater abundances of the heavy metals 

in the same materials of the Western United States 

indicate a regional pattern of the largest scale. This 

visual observation of the maps can be substantiated by 

examining the mean concentrations for these two regions given in table 2. The abundances of these elements differ markedly on either side of a line extending 

from western Minnesota southward through east-centd Texas. This line is generally from the 96th to 97th 

meridian, and corresponds to the boundary proposed 

by Marbut (1935, p. 14), which divides soils of the 

United States into two major groups-the pedalfers 

that lie to the east, and the pedocals to the west. Marbut (1928) attributed the major differences in chemical 

and physical qualities of these two major groups to the 

effects of climate on soils. A line approximating the 96th 

meridian also separates the Orders, Suborders, and 

Great Groups of moist-to-wet soils in the Eastern 

United States from the same categories of dry soils that 

lie to the west, as mapped by the [U.S.] Soil Conservation Service (1969). As shown in table 2, soils of the 

Western United States have the highest mean values 

for all elements considered in this report except for antimony, boron, bromine, mercury, neodymium, selenium, titanium, and zirconium. The differences, however, 

probably are not significant for these latter elements, 

except for zirconium. 

Superimposed upon this large-scale compositional 

variation pattern are several features of intermediate 

scale. Perhaps the most notable of these are the low 

concentrations of many elements in soils of the Atlantic 

Coastal Plain. Soils of the Pacific Northwest are high 

in concentrations of aluminum, cobalt, iron, scandium, 

and vanadium, but low in boron, and soils of the Rocky 

Mountain region tend to be high in copper, lead, and 

zinc. 

Several small-scale patterns of compositional variation can be noted, among them the high mercury concentrations in surficial materials from the Gulf Coast 

of eastern Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and 

northwest Florida, and a similar pattern on the Atlantic 

Coast in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Maine. High 

phosphorus values occur in soils along a line extending 

west across Utah and Nevada to the coast of California, 

then south-east in California and Arizona. At the State 

level, Florida shows the most striking pattern by having low soil concentrations of most of the elements considered in this study. 

The concentrations of certain elements do not show 

well-defined patterns of distribution, and the regional 

concentrations of some other elements cannot be 

evaluated because they were not present in detectable 

amounts in most of the samples, or because the sampling density was insufficient. The degree of confidence 

in regional patterns of element abundance is expected 

to be in direct proportion to the number of samples 

analyzed from the region. As the observed patterns become smaller, the probability increases that the characteristics that form the patterns are the results of 

chance. 

Some features of element-abundance patterns probably reflect geologic characteristics of the areas that the 

soils overlie. Samples from most of the regoliths overlying basic volcanic rocks of Washington and Oregon contained higher than average concentrations of iron and 

other elements, as mentioned earlier. A few soil samples with high phosphorus content are associated with 

phosphate deposits in Florida, and a single sample in 

Michigan with high copper content is known to be of 

soil that occurs over a copper deposit. 

These data do not provide obvious evidences of northsouth trends in elemental compositions that might be 

expected to relate to differences in temperature regimes under which the surficial materials developed. 

There is, moreover, no consistent evidence of significant differences in element abundances between 

glaciated and nonglaciated areas (the general area of 

continental glaciation includes the northern tier of 

States from Montana to Maine and south in places to 

about lat 40Â°N. see fig. 1). 

The world averages of abundance for some elements 

in soils, as given by Vinogradov (1959) and by others 

(table I), do not correspond to the averages of abundance for these elements in the soils of the United 

States, according to the data presented in this report. 

The world averages are too low for the concentrations 

of boron, calcium, cerium, lead, magnesium, potassium, 

and sodium in United States soils and other surficial 

materials, and too high for beryllium, chromium, gallium, manganese, nickel, phosphorus, titanium, vanadium, and yttrium. 

The stability of values for concentrations of most elements seems to be satisfactory because the addition of 

analytical values for 355 samples of phase two of the 

study to values for 963 samples of the first phase did 

not significantly change the geometric means and deviations of element abundance that were reported earlier 

(Shacklette, Boerngen, and Turner, 1971; Shacklette, 

Hamilton, and others, 1971; Shacklette and others, 
REFERENCES CITED 9 

1973, 1974). Although additional sampling of the same 

type as reported here might give a clearer picture of 

small-to-intermediate element-abundance patterns, 

mean values reported herein most likely would not 

change significantly. 

REFERENCES CITED 

Bear, F. E., ed., 1964, Chemistry of the soil [2d ed.]: New York, 

Reinhold Publishing Corp., 515 p. 

Boerngen, J. G., and Shacklette, H. T., 1980, Chemical analyses of 

fruits, vegetables, and their associated soils from areas of commercial production in the conterminous United States: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 80-84,134 p. 

-1981, Chemical analysis of soils and other surficial materials 

of the conterminous United States: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 81-197, 143 p. 

Brooks, R. R., 1972, Geobotany and biogeochemistry in mineral exploration: New York, Harper and Row, 290 p. 

Cannon, H. L., and Bowles, J. M., 1962, Contamination of vegetation 

by tetraethyl lead: Science, v. 137, no. 3532, p. 765-766. 

Cohen, A. C., Jr., 1959, Simplified estimators for the normal distribution when samples are singly censored or truncated: Technometrics, v. 1, no. 3, p. 217-237. 

Connor, J. J., and Shacklette, H. T., 1975, Background geochemistry 

of some rocks, soils, plants, and vegetables in the conterminous 

United States, with sections an Field studies by R. J. Ebens, 

J. A. Erdman, A. T. Miesch, R. R. Tidball, and H. A. Tourtelot: 

US. Geological Survey Professional Paper 574-F, 168 p. 

Ebens, R. J., Erdman, J. A., Feder, G. L., Case, A. A., and Selby, 

L. A., 1973, Geochemical anomalies of a claypit area, Callaway 

County, Missouri, and related metabolic imbalance in beef cattle: 

US. Geological Survey Professional Paper 807,24 p. 

Ebens, R. J., 	and Shacklette, H. T., 1981, Geochemistry of some 

rocks, mine spoils, stream sediments, soils, plants, and waters 

in the western energy region of the conterminous United States, 

with sections on Field studies by B. M. Anderson, J. G. 

Boerngen, J. J. Connor, W. E. Dean, J. A. Erdman, G. L. 

Feder, L. P. Gough, J. R. Herring, T. K. Hinkley, J. R. Keith, 

R. W. Klusman, J. M. McNeal, C. D. Ringrose, R. C. Severson, 

and R. R. Tidball: US. Geological Suwey Professional Paper 

1237, 173 p. 

Erdman, J. A., Shacklette, H. T., and Keith, J. R., 1976a, Elemental 

composition of selected native plants and associated soils from 

major vegetation-type areas in Missouri: U.S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 954-C, p. C1-37. 

-1976b, Elemental composition of corn grains, soybean seeds, 

pasture grasses, and associated soils from selected areas in Missouri: US. Geological Suwey Professional Paper 9WD, p. DlD23. 

Goldschmidt, V. M., 1954, Geochemistry: Oxford, Clarendon Press, 

730 P. 

Hawkes, H. E., 1957, Principles of geochemical prospecting: US. 

Geological Suwey Bulletin 10WF, p. 225-355. 

Hawkes, H. E., and Webb, J. S., 1962, Geochemistry in mineral 

exploration: New York, N. Y., and Evanston, Ill., Harper and 

Row, 415 p. 

Huffman, Claude, Jr., and Dinnin, J. I., 1976, Analysis of rocks and 

soil by atomic absorption spectrometry and other methods, in 

Miesch, A. T., Geochemical survey of MissouriÃ‘Method of sampling, laboratory analysis, and statistical reduction of data: US. 

Geological Suwey Professional Paper 954-A, p. 12-14. 

Jackson, M. L., 1964, Chemical composition of soils, in Bear, F. E., 

ed., Chemistry of the soil [2d 4.1: New York, Reinhold Publishing Corp., p. 71-141. 

Levinson, A. A., 1974, Introduction to exploration geochemistry: Calgary,Applied Publishing, Ltd., 612 p. 

Marbut, C. F., 1928, Classification, nomenclature, and mapping of 

soils in the United States-The American point of view: Soil Science, v. 25, p. 61-70. 

-1935, Soils of the United States, pt. 3 of Atlas of American 

agriculture: Washington, D.C., US. Government Printing Office, 

98 PMcMurtrey, J. E., Jr., and Robinson, W. O., 1938, Neglected soil 

constituents that affect plant and animal development, in Soils 

and men-Yearbook of Agriculture 1938: Washington, D.C., U.S. 

Government Printing Office, p. 807-829. 

Miesch, A. T., 1967, Methods of computation for estimating geochemical abundance: US. Geological Survey Professional Paper 574-B, 

15 p. 

Millard, H. T., Jr., 1975, Determination of uranium and thorium in 

rocks and soils by the delayed neutron technique, in U.S. Geological Survey, Geochemical survey of the western coal region, seeond annual progress report, July 1975: US. Geological Suwey 

Open-File Report 75-436, p. 79-81. 

-1976, Determination of uranium and thorium in U.S.G.S. standard rocks by the delayed neutron technique, in Flanagan, F. 

J., ed. and compiler, Description and analyses of eight new 

U.S.G.S. rock standards: U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 840, p. 61-65. 

Mitchell, R. L., 1964, Trace elements in soils, in Bear, F. E., ed., 

Chemistry of the soil [2d ed.]: New York, Reinhold Publishing 

Corp., p. 320-368. 

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

minerals, and ores: US. Geological Suwey Bulletin 1084-1, p. 

207-229. 

Neiman, H. G., 1976, Analysis of rocks, soils, and plant ashes by 

emission spectroscopy, in Miesch, A. T., Geochemical survey of 

MissouriÃ‘Method of sampling, laboratory analysis, and statistical reduction of data: U.S. Geological Suwey Professional Paper 

594-A, p. 14-15. 

Rankama, K. K., and Sahama, T. G., 1956, Geochemistry: Chicago, 

Chicago University Press, 912 p. 

Robinson, W. O., 1914, The inorganic composition of some important 

American soils: U.S. Department of Agriculture Bulletin 122, 

27 p. 

Robinson, W. O., Steinkoenig, L. A., and Fry, W. H., 1917, Variation 

in the chemical composition of soils: U.S. Department of Agriculture Bulletin 551, 16 p. 

Rose, A. W., Hawkes, H. E., and Webb, J. S., 1979, Geochemistry 

in mineral exploration [2d 4.1: London, Academic Press, 

658 P. 

Shacklette, H. T., 1980, Elements in fruits and vegetables from areas 

of commercial production in the conterminous United States: 

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1178, 149 p. 

Shacklette, H. T., Boerngen, J. G., Cahill, J. P., and Rahill, R. L., 

1973, Lithium in surficial materials of the conterminous United 

States and partial data on cadmium: US. Geological Survey Circular 673,8 p. 

Shacklette, H. T., Boerngen, J. G., and Keith, J. R., 1974, Selenium, 

fluorine, and arsenic in surficial materials of the conterminous 

United States: US. Geological Suwey Circular 692, 14 p. 

Shacklette, H. T., Boerngen, J. G., and Turner, R. L., 1971, Mercury 

in the environmentÃ‘Surficia materials of the conterminous 
10 ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES 

United States: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 644,5 p. 

Shacklette, H. T., Hamilton, J. C., Boerngen, J. G., and Bowles, 

J. M., 1971, Elemental composition of surficial materials in the 

conterminous United States: U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 574-D, 71 p. 

Shacklette, H. T., Sauer, H. I., and Miesch, A. T., 1970, Geochemical 

environments and cardiovascular mortality rates in Georgia: U.S. 

Geological Survey Professional Paper 5744 39 p. 

Sichel, H. S., 1952, New methods in the statistical evaluation of mine 

sampling data: Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Transactions, 

V. 61, p. 261-288. 

Siegel, F. R., 1974, Applied geochemistry: New York, John Wiley 

and Sons, 353p. 

Swain, D. J., 1955, The trace-element content of soils: England Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau, Commonwealth Bureau of Soil 

Science Technical Communication 48, 157 p. 

Tidball, R. R., 1976, Chemical variation of soils in Missouri associated 

with selected levels of the Soil Classification System: U.S. 

Geological Survey Professional Paper 954-B, 16 p. 

-1983a, Geography of soil geochemistry of Missouri agricultural 

soils, in Geochemical survey of Missouri:U.S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 954-H, in press. 

-1983b, 	 Geochemical classification by factor analysis of Missouri 

agricultural soils, in Geochemical survey of Missouri: US. 

Geological Survey Professional Paper 954-1, in press. 

U.S. 	 Geological Survey, 1974, Geochemical survey of the western 

coal regions, first annual progress report, July 1974: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 74-250,38 p. 

-1975, 	 Geochemical survey of the western coal regions, second 

annual progress report, July 1975: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 7546,132 p. 

-1976, Geochemical survey of the western energy regions, third 

annual progress report, July 1976: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 76-729, 138 p. + appendix, 44 p. 

-1977, Geochemical Survey of the western energy regions, 

fourth annual progress report, July 1977: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 774'72,207 p. 

-1978, Geochemical survey of the western energy regions, fifth 

annual progress report, July 1978: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 78-1106, 194 p. 

[U.S.] Soil conservation Service, 1969, Distribution of principal kinds 

of soilsÃ‘Orders Suborders, and Great Groups, in National Atlas 

of the United States of America: US. Geological Survey, Sheet 

6,2 P. 

Vaughn, W. W., 1967, A simple mercury vapor detector for geochemical prospecting: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 540,8 p. 

Vinogradov, A. P., 1959, The geochemistry of rare and dispersed 

chemical elements in soils [2d ed., revised and enlarged]: New 

York, Consultants Bureau Enterprises, 209 p. 

Wahlberg, J. S., 1976, Analysis of rocks and soils by X-ray fluorescence, in Miesch, A. T., Geochemical survey of MissouriÃ 

Methods of sampling, laboratory analysis, and statistical reduction of data: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 954-A, 

p. 11-12. 

Ward, F. N., Lakin, H. W., Canney, F. C., and others, 1963, Analytical methods used in geochemical exploration by the U.S. Geological Survey: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1152, 100 p. 

Webb, J. S., 1963, A review of American progress in geochemical 

prospecting and recommendations for future British work in this 

field: Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Transactions, v. 62, pt. 

7, p. 321-348. 
ILLUSTRATIONS 

OKLAHOM/ 

TEXAS 

500 MILES 

FIGURE1.-Location of sampling sites in the conterminous United States where elements not commonly detected in surficial 

deposits were found, and the amounts of the elements present, in parts per million, in parentheses. 
ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS 

0 500 MILES 

AMOUNT. IN PERCENT 

I I I I I 1 1 \ \ \ \ 


, I I I I I I I I I 
 I I lo0 94O 92' 90' 88Â 86' 84' 82' 80Â 78Â 76' 74O 

1 106' 104' 102O 1 00Â 98' 118' 116' 114' llZO 108' 

FIGURE2.-Aluminum content of surficial materials. 
AMOUNT. IN PARTS PER MILLION 

I 1 I 1 \ \ I 	 I I I I - 1 \ \ \ 

I I I I 	 I I lo0 98' 94O 92Â 90' 88' 86' 84' 82' 80Â 78' 76' 74O 

118' 	 116' 114' 112O 1 108" 106O 1 04" 102O 1 OW 


FIGURE3.-Antimony content of surficial materials. 

ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS 

AMOUNT, IN PARTS PER MILLION 

FIGURE4.-Arsenic content of surficialmaterials. 
FIGURE 5.-Barium content of surficial materials. 
AMOUNT IN PARTS PER MILLION 22O I I I I 

- I I I I 1 1 1 \ 1 \ \ 

I I I I I I I 

98' 94O 92' 90' 88' 86" 84" 82' 80Â 78' 76' 74O 108' 118' 116' 114O llZO 110Â 
 106O
 1w 1 02O 1 OoO 

FIGURE6.-Beryllium content of surficial materials. 
ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS 

AMOUNT. IN PARTS PER MILLION I I I I I / I I I - I I I I A I 1 1 1 I \ 

1 102" 98' 94O 92' 90' 86' 84Â 82' 118' 116' 114' 112Â 110Â 108Â 106' M0 looÂ 88' \ 80Â 78' 76' 74O 

FIGURE7.-Boron content of surficial materials. 
I AMOUNT, IN PARTS PER MILLION 

FIGURE&-Bromine content of surficial materials. 
ILLUSTRATIONS ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES 

Geometric mean: 0.92 

Geometric deviation: 4.00 


1.29' 
 Number of samoles and an8lYSeS: 

FIGURE 9.Ã‘Calciu content of surficialmaterials.
ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS,CON'I'ERMINOUS UNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS 

I AMOUNT, IN PERCENT 

FIGURE10.4arbon (total)content of surlicial materials. 
AMOUNT, IN PARTS PER MILLION 

I I I I / I I I I I I I \ \ \ \ I I 1 I I I I I 

I OZO I 00Â 98' 92' 9P 88" 86' llZO 84O 82" 80Â 78' 76' 74O 118O 116' 114' 110Â 108' 106' No I 94' 

FIGUREll.-Cerium content of surficid materials. 
ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS 

Geometr~c mean 37 


Geametr'~dewat~on: 2.37 


Number of samples and analyses: 1,319 


1 1 I I I l l l l l -


118' 116' 114' 1lZ0 1 loo 108' 1 No 1 &I0 1 0Zo 1 00Â 9F 9P 86' 7r 760 740 


FIGUREl2.4hmmium content of surf~cialmaterials. 
ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UN- Sl'ATES ILLUSTRATIONS 

AMOUNT, IN PARTS PER MILLION 

2z0 I I I I \ \ \ \ \ \ 


I I I I I 
 1 I I 1 I [------A 

lo0 108' 106' 1 M0 1 OZO I @I098' W 9T 90' 8E0 86' 84' 82' 8P 78" 76" 74O 118' 11V 114' llzO 1 

FIGURElS.-Cobalt content of sur6d materials. 
AMOUNT, IN PARTS PER MILLION 

2P - I I I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 

1 I I I I I I I I I I N1Â 94O 92' 90' 8F 86' 84' 82' 80' 7F 76= 74O 

llp 116' 1 la0 l1Zo 110Â 1OF 106' 

1@lo 1 0Zo 

1 98' 

FIGURE14.40pper content of sufid materials. 
ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS 

FIGURE15.-Fluorine content of surfcialmaterials. 
ILLUSTRATIONS 

ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES 

aini^oazgze I I I 

AMOUNT. IN PARTS PER MILLION 

I I \ \ 1 1 I \ \ I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 

86' 84Â 82' 80Â 78' 76' 74O 118' 116' 114' llZO 110" 108' 106O 104O 1 02O 1 00Â 98' 94O 9Z0 90' 88' -

FIGURE 16.Ã‘Galliu content of surficial materials.
ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS 

SYMBOLS AND PERCENTAGE 

OF TOTAL SAMPLES 

I 

Â ¥ g 100 Geometric mean 1 2 

1 Geometric deviation 137 

1 Number of samples and analyses 355 

500 MILES 

1 -1 AMOUNT. IN PERCENT 

I 1 I / I I - I I I I -1 -..-.-..d-I I I I I 1 \ \ \ \ 118' 116' 114' 112O 110Â 1 08Â 106' 104' 102O 1 OoO 98O 94O 92' 90' 88Â 86Â 84' 82' 80Â 78' 76' 74O 

FIGURE17.Ã‘Germaniu content of surficial materials. 
ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS 

11E0 116Â 114' llZO 1 loÂ 108' 106Â 104' 1 0Z0 1 0O0 98Â 94O 92Â 90Â 8E0 86' 84' 82' 80Â 78Â 76' 74O 

FIGURE18.-Iodine content of surficial materials. 
ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS 

Geometric mean 1 8 

Geometric deviation 2.38 

Number of samples and analyses' 1,317 u 

u u LJU, 

LI U 

500 MILES 

L ,', 1 

oooooo--~n,',,. --CMnmt. ,', ,' ooooooOOOr- -1cimw00 

A AMOUNT. IN PERCENT 

1 1 I I I - I I I I l..-L I I I 1 I 1 \ 1 \ \ 

118' 116' 114' 11Z0 1 lo0 108' 106Â 104' 102" looÂ 98O 94O 92Â 90' 88Â 86Â 84Â 82' 80' 78' 76' 74O 

FIGURE19.-Iron content of surficial materials. 
ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS 

Number of samples and analyses 1.293 \ i , 

~4 

Li-,,U /; 

, 500 MILES I \)<,, ,A/ -L-.L <:." ,' ."' 

AMOUNT IN PARTS PER MILLION 

I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I \ \ \ \ \ 

118' 116' 114' llZO 1 lo0 1 08Â lEO 1 M0 102" 1 00Â 9E0 94O 92' 90Â 88Â 86Â 84' 82Â 80Â 78Â 76' 74Â 

FIGURE20.-Lanthanum content of surficial materials. 
ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS 

L

AMOUNT. IN PARTS PER MILLION 

\ \ 220 -U-l-L- \ 1 I I I I .-A I I I I 1 \ 1 2z0 

76' 74O 118' 116' 114' 112O 1 loÂ 108' 106' 104' 1OZO 1OF 98' 94O 92' 90' 88' 86Â 84' 82' 80' 78' 

FIGURE21.-Lead content of surficial materials. 
22O AMOUNT.IN PARTS PER MILLION I I 1 I I \ I I I \ \ \ \ 

I I I I I I 1 98Â 940 1 06' lMO OzO 1 OoO 92' 90Â 88' 86' 84' 82Â 80Â 78Â 76' 74' 108' 114' 112' 110Â 118" 116O 


FIGURE22.-Lithium content of suficial materials. 

ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS 

L",. L" 

8855SS3S-E~c-imt- L" ooooooo',oooooo~-~~L",.~', - 7 

A 

AMOUNT. IN PERCENT 

1 I I I I - I I 1 I I.---- I I I I 1 I \ \ \ \ 

118Â 116Â 114' 112" 1 1O0 108' 106' 104' 102O 1 OOo 98Â 94O 92' 90Â 88' 86Â 84' 82' 80' 78' 76Â 74O 

FIGURE23.-Magnesium content of surficial materials. 
ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS 

AMOUNT. IN PARTS PER MILLION \w 

FIGURE24.-Manganese content of surficial materials. 
ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS 

AMOUNT. IN PARTS PER MILLION I 


I 
 FIGURE%.-Mercury content of surficial materials. I 
ILLUSTRATIONS ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES 

6V 


128 12 40 12 20 1 1 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 1 0 1 0 1~0 1020 10~ 9~ 94' 92' I 90Â I E%O ffiO 84' 82' 80' 78' 7V 74' 72' 70' 6F 66" I I I 1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 

'.I 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 

Geometric deviation 2 72 

Number of samples and analyses 1.298 

. 

AMOUNT. IN PARTS PER MILLION 

I I I I I 1 \ \ \ \ \ 

I I I I I I I I I I 1 94O 92' 90Â 88O 86O 84' 82' 80' 78' 76' 74O 


118' 116' 114' 112Â 1 1O0 108' 106" 1 M0 102Â 1 00Â 9E0 

FIGURE%.-Molybdenum content of surficial materials. 
ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS 

y20 1- IN PARTS PER MILLIONAMOUNT, 

1 I I I I I I I ! --- u--1 I 

118Â 116Â 114' llZO 1 10Â 108'" 106" 104' 1OZO 100Â 98Â 94O 92' 90" 88' 86Â 84' 82' 80" 78Â 76' 74O 

FIGURE27.-Neodymium content of surficial materials. I 
ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS 

Geometric mean 13 


Geometric deviation 2 31 


Number of samples and analyses 1.318 


AMOUNT. IN PARTS PER MILLION 

/ I 1 I I I I 1 I I I A I I I I I I \ \ \ \ \ 


118' 116' 114' llZO 110Â 108' 1W 1W 102O 1 00Â 98Â 94O 92' 90' 88' 86Â 84Â 82' 80Â 78Â 76Â 74O 


FIGURE 28.-Nickel content of surficial materials.
SNoIJivaisnm 

NI SNOIiVaiLN3ONO3 lLN3W3T3 'STIOS SnONIira3iiNO3 a3JiINn S3JiViS 
ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS 

AMOUNT, IN PERCENT 

I I I I -

118' 116Â 114' 110" 1 08O 106Â 104' 1 02O 1 0O0 98Â 

FIGURE30.-Phosphorus content of surficial materials. 
ILLUSTRATIONS ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES 

12v 94' 92' 90' 88Â 86' 84' 82Â 80' 78' 76' 74' 72' 70Â 68O 66' 64' 1280 1240 1220 12~ 1180 1160 1140 1120 1 lor 104O 10zO low 98' ,p 

I I 4,-1 I I I I I I \ \ 1 / \ \ 1 I 1 i I I I I I \ I \ \ 

22O t-L. AMOUNT. IN PERCENT 

- I I I I I 1 I \ \ \ / I I i I I I I I 

1 0Z0 1OOo 92Â 90Â 88' 86Â 84' 82' 80Â 78O 76' 74O 118" 116Â 114' 1 1Z0 110Â 108' 106' 104' 

FIGURE31.-Potassium content of surficialmaterials. 
ILLUSTRATIONS 

ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES 

SYMBOLS AND PERCENTAGE 

OF TOTAL SAMPLES 

33 34 33 

L I B ! 

I I I

G 1 Geometric mean: 58 

LU 

3 1 Geometric deviation 1 72 

0 Number of samples and analyses. 355 a 

AMOUNT, IN PARTS PER MILLION 

FIGURE32.-Rubidium content of surficial materials. 
ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS 

Geometric deviation 1 82 

Number of samples and analyses 304 

u 

u u uu u a 

500 MILES 

-L--L-2 I I I I I I 1 2 --- I 1 I I I L\\ \ 

118Â 116Â 114' 11T 110Â 108Â 106' 104' 1OZo 100Â 98Â 92' 90" 88' 86' 84' 82' 80" 78' 76' 74O 

FIGURE33.Ã‘Scandiu content of surficial materials. 
ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS 

L" ---NmL"r. L" 


0000000'--~~L" 


"90 AMOUNT IN PARTS PER MILLION Li, 

I I I I I I I I I I 

1

I I I I I \ \ \ \ 

118O 116' 114' 11Z0 1 10Â 10F 106' 104" 1 0Z0 1 00Â 90' 88Â 86' 84' 82' 80Â 78' 76O 74Â 

FIGURE34.4elenium content of surficial materials. 
ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS 

SYMBOLS AND PERCENTAGE 

OF TOTAL SAMPLES 

15 18 2618 22 

I 

I 

1 Arithmetic mean, 31 

5 100 1 1 Standard deviation 6 48 0 

a Number of samples and analyses 406 UL. 

0 

AMOUNT. IN PERCENT 

! ! I ! -- I I I. 1 L -^-.-, I I I 1 \ \ \ \ \ 

118' 116' 114' 11Z0 110Â 108' 106Â 104' 102* 1 00Â 98Â 94O 92' 90Â 88' 86' 84' 82' 80Â 78Â 76' 74O 

FIGURE36.Ã‘Silico content of surficial materials. 
ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS 

SYMBOLS AND PERCENTAGE 

OF TOTAL SAMPLES 

17 14 24 21 25 

u 0 aa r A 

300 r "* I III 

AMOUNT, IN PERCENT I 

1 1 I 1 I I I I I I I -^__- I I I I I I \ \ \ \ 

118O 116O 114' 11Z0 1 lo0 1 0E0 106' 1 Ma 102O 1 00Â 98' 94O 92' 90Â 88" 86' 84' 82' 80Â 78Â 76' 74O 

FIGURE 36.Ã‘Sodiu content of surficial materials. 
ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES 

ILLUSTRATIONS 

Geometric deviation L! 3 30 LJ Number of samples and analyses 1 318 ^J J 

^ b 

LJ 

a 

500 MILES 

AMOUNT. IN PARTS PER MILLION 

FIGURE 37.Ã‘Strontiu content of surficial materials. 
AMOUNT IN PERCENT 

2z0. 

,2z0 

I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 \ \ \ \ 1 

118' 116Â 114' llZO 1 10Â 1 08Â 106Â 1W 102O 1 0O0 98Â 94O 92' 90' 88Â 86' 84' 82' 80Â 78' 76Â 74O 

FIGURE
 38.Ã‘Sulfu content of surficial materials. 
ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS 

SYMBOLS AND PERCENTAGE 

OF TOTAL SAMPLES 

"" & , 

5 I Geometric mean 8 6 

3 1 0 Geometric deviation 1 53 

Number of samples and analyses E 

c0iarnr.m 

rn0i-a-tornn~-a- - c.8 

AMOUNT, IN PARTS PER MILLION 

-LI I 1 I -- I I I I I 1 ---LI I I I 1 I I I I \ 118' 116' 114' 112O 11O0 108' 106" 104' 1OZO 1 OW 98' 94O 92' 1 90' 88Â 86Â 84' 82' 80" 78Â 76Â 74O 

FIGURE39.-Thorium content of surficid materials. 
ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS 

/ 

a 

< 

u 

-. 

'7, 

Oh \. 

SYMBOLS AND PERCENTAGE 

OF TOTAL SAMPLES a -? 

23 1724 21 16 a 1 

I Geometric mean 0 89 

\ 

Number of samples and analyses 355 \ Um 

,' 

500 MILES 21 

AMOUNT IN PARTS PER MILLION 

FIGURE 40.-Tin content of surficial materials. 
ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS 

FIGURE41.-Titanium content of surficial materials. 
ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS 

^. \ 

\ 

/-' ^ I -1 

B !Â¥ a 

SYMBOLS AND PERCENTAGE 

OF TOTAL SAMPLES 

Â£ 1 Geometric mean 2 3 w z 

3 100 I 0 Geometric deviation 1 73 

1 Number of samples and analyses 354 

E 

u LJ n lomom 

me r-ineo~~mmoo 00oo-t^o^Mlor- - - 1-1 / 

500 MILES 

d 

AMOUNT IN PARTS PER MILLION 

1 I I I I I I I I I 1 u I ,- I I 1 1 I \ \ \ \ 

118Â 116Â 114' llZO 1 loÂ 108' 106Â 104' 1 OZO 1 00Â 98Â 94O 92Â 90Â 88' 86' 84' 82' 80' 78Â 76' 74O 

FIGURE 42.-Uranium content of surficial materials. 
ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS 

OF TOTAL SAMPLES 

Geometric mean 58 


Geometric deviation 2 25 


Number of samples and analyses 1 319 


500 MILES 

.--

AMOUNT. IN PARTS PER MILLION 

L

I 


I I 1 I I I \ L-L- L-U--,A \ --,-.--- L - 92' 90' 88Â 86' 84O 82' 80' 78' u

76' 74O 118Â 116' 114' 11Z0 11O0 108' 106' 104' 1OZo 100 98" 94" 


FIGURE 43.-Vanadium content of surficial materials. 

 

ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUSUNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS 

OF TOTAL SAMPLES 

21 213615 8 

U DEa 

Geometric mean 2 6 

Geometric deviation 1 79 

Number of samples and analyses 

---CM",Lnr--oinoo' --CMmm 

AMOUNT, IN PARTS PER MILLION 

FIGURE44.-Ytterbium content of surficial materials. 
ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS 

Geometric mean 21 

Geometric deviation 1 78 

Number of samples and analyses 1 319 

500 MILES 

... I 

^

.-I 

" AMOUNT IN PARTS PER MILLION 1. - i I I ..--- A-- I \ 1 I \ \ I I \ \ 

-L I 1 OW 98Â 108" 106' 104' 1 94O 

-- 

9'2' 90Â 88Â 86' 84' 82' 80Â 78' lloO OZO 76Â 74O 118Â 116' 114Â llzO 

FIGURE 45.-yttrium content of surficial materials. 
ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS 

Geometric deviation 1 95 

Number of samples and analyses 1 248 

2z0L. AMOUNT, IN PARTS PER MILLION

LA-.

76' 74O 

FIGURE46.-Zinc content of surficial materials. 
ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES ILLUSTKATIONS 

AMOUNT, IN PARTS PER MILLION 

FIGURE 47.-Zirconium content of surficial materials.