A Preliminary Report to the U.S. Coast Guard

Reconnaissance of Macondo-1 Well Oil in Sediment 

and Tarballs from the Northern Gulf of Mexico 

Shoreline, Texas to Florida

By Robert J. Rosenbauer, Pamela L. Campbell, Angela Lam, Thomas D. Lorenson, Frances D. Hostettler,

Burt Thomas, and Florence L. Wong

Open-File Report 2010-1290

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 2010

For product and ordering information:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth,

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

Suggested citation:

Rosenbauer, R.J., Campbell, P.L., Lam, Angela, Lorenson, T.D., Hostettler, F.D., Thomas, Burt, and 

Wong, F.L., 2010, Reconnaissance of Macondo-1 well oil in sediment and tarballs from the northern Gulf 

of Mexico shoreline, Texas to Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1290, 22 p. 

[http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1290/].

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual 

copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report.

Cover photograph by Gerald Herbert/AP, used with permission
iii

Contents

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

Keywords.......................................................................................................................................................... 1 

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

Methods............................................................................................................................................................ 2 

 Sampling...................................................................................................................................................... 2 

 Analytical ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 

Results.............................................................................................................................................................. 3 

 Macondo-1 Well Oil ..................................................................................................................................... 3 

 Sediment ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 

 Tarballs........................................................................................................................................................ 4 

 Statistical Results ........................................................................................................................................ 4 

Conclusions...................................................................................................................................................... 5 

References Cited.............................................................................................................................................. 5 

Appendix 1. Definition of geochemical parameters used in petroleum correlation studies..............................19

Appendix 2. Geochemical parameters for oil, sediment, and tarball samples.................................................21

Figures

1. Location map of sediment and tarball samples collected for this study ........................................................ 8 

2. Chromatograms of M-1 well oil and sediment extracts (AL-8; MS-44).......................................................... 9 

3. Heirarchical cluster diagram of 59 sediment samples, 8 M-1 well oil splits, and 20 tarballs 

from the nortthern Gulf of Mexico coast ...................................................................................................10

4. Location map of sediment samples correlated with M-1 well oil ................................................................. 12

5. Location map of tarball samples correlated with M-1 well oil ......................................................................13

6. Three-dimensional depiction of a principal components analysis of the M-1 well oil, sediment, 

and tar samples........................................................................................................................................14

7. A composite map indicating the approximate geochemical composition of the extracted 

organic matter..........................................................................................................................................15

Tables

1. Gulf of Mexico post-oil spill sampling sites ................................................................................................. 16

2. Geochemical parameters derived for the Macondo-1 well oil ....................................................................18
Reconnaissance of Macondo-1 Well Oil in Sediment and Tarballs 

from the Northern Gulf of Mexico Shoreline, Texas to Florida

By Robert J. Rosenbauer, Pamela Campbell, Angela Lam, Thomas D. Lorenson, Frances D. Hostettler, Burt 

Thomas, and Florence L. Wong 

Abstract

Hydrocarbons were extracted and analyzed from sediment and tarballs collected from the 

northern Gulf of Mexico (nGOM) coast that is potentially impacted by Macondo-1 (M-1) well oil. The 

samples were analyzed for a suite of diagnostic geochemical biomarkers. Aided by multivariate 

statistical analysis, the M-1 well oil has been identified in sediment and tarballs collected from 

Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida. None of the sediment hydrocarbon extracts from Texas 

correlated with the M-1 well oil. Oil-impacted sediments are confined to the shoreline adjacent to the 

cumulative oil slick of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and no impact was observed outside of this 

area. 

Keywords

Deepwater Horizon, Gulf of Mexico, oil spill, oil fingerprinting, 

Introduction

From April 20 through July 15, 2010, an estimated 4.4 million barrels (1 barrel = 42 gallons) of 

crude oil spilled into the northern Gulf of Mexico (nGOM) from the ruptured British Petroleum (BP) 

Macondo-1 (BP M-1) well located in the Mississippi Canyon lease block 252 (Crone and Tolstoy, 

2010). In addition, ~1.84 million gallons of Corexit dispersants were applied to the oil both on and 

below the sea surface (British Petroleum, 2010). An estimate of the total extent of the surface oil slick, 

derived from wind, ocean currents, aerial photography, and satellite imagery, was 68,000 square miles 

(Amos, 2010) (fig. 1). Spilled oil from this event poses a potential threat to sensitive habitat along the 

shores of the nGOM. In response to this threat, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) collected nearsurface beach and coastal sediment and tarballs from 49 sites along the shores of the nGOM from Texas 

to Florida before and after oil made landfall. These sites included priority areas of the nGOM, such as 

coastal wetlands and Department of Interior (DOI) lands at highest risk for oil contamination, including 

wetlands, shorelines, and barrier islands that could suffer severe environmental damage if a significant 

amount of oil came ashore. The purpose of this effort was to document pre-impact conditions and postimpact conditions after oil made landfall at a site. The focus of this report is to characterize the postimpact environmental samples for the presence of BP M-1 well oil in a subset of samples where oil may 

have made landfall. 

Results from this report will be compared to similar analyses of the coupled pre-impact samples 

in a subsequent report. This report complements activities of other USGS scientists and USGS 

production and research laboratories who are analyzing aliquots of the same samples for volatile organic 

compounds and other hydrocarbons, oil and grease, trace metals, Corexit surfactants, total and dissolved 

organic carbon characterization, bacterial populations capable of degrading oils, nutrients such as 

nitrogen and phosphorus compounds related to oil releases, toxicity of pore water, and benthic 
2

macroinvertebrate indicators of shoreline habitat conditions. The USGS was requested to undertake this 

post-impact sampling and analytical study by the U.S. Coast Guard in New Orleans on September 24, 

2010. 

Methods

Sampling

Bottom sediment from a subset of 48 of the original 70 pre-impact sites distributed in Texas, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida affected or potentially affected by the 2010 Deepwater 

Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico were collected from October 5 to October 14, 2010. One 

additional sample was collected from Bay Jimmy near Lafitte, Louisiana (LA- 0 in table 1). Replicate 

samples were collected from 4 sites. In addition, 20 tarballs were collected from the same subset of 48 

sites (table 1). An aliquot of the Macondo-1 well oil was provided by B & B Laboratory, College 

Station, Texas. Well oil was obtained by BP from the riser insertion tube aboard the drillship Discoverer 

Enterprise on May 21, 2010, and was absent of any defoamer or dispersant. All samples were collected, 

processed, and shipped under standard chain of custody protocols according to methods listed in the 

USGS National Field Manual for the Collection of Water-Quality Data (NFM) 

(http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A/) as well as other USGS standard operation procedures (Wilde and 

others, 2010). This standard and documented set of protocols encompassing the entire data-collection 

process ensured the integrity, consistency, and comparability of the data from site to site and within

sites.

Analytical

All samples were extracted and processed in the USGS Pacific Coastal Marine Science Center 

(PCMSC) organic geochemistry lab located in Menlo Park, California. Samples were kept frozen before 

extraction, then thawed in their glass jars. Four of the sediment samples and 1 tarball were analyzed in 

duplicate. The well oil was analyzed with every batch of 10 extractions for a total of 8 separate analyses. 

Following homogenization of the sediment sample, ~ 100 g of wet sediment was weighed directly into a 

300-mL stoppered flask. Two hundred mL of dichloromethane (DCM) and 40 g of NaSO4 were added 

to the flasks, which were then placed in a sonicating water bath for 90 minutes at 30°C (after Bekins and 

others, 2005; Hostettler and others, 2007). The extract was filtered through a glass wool-lined 

champagne funnel containing 30 g NaSO4 into turbo-vap vessels. An additional 100 mL of DCM was 

added to the previously extracted sediment and the sample again sonicated for 60 minutes at 30°C. The 

extracts were combined in the turbo-vap vessels, blown down with N2

Three separate fractions were collected—saturate (hexane eluent), aromatic (30-percent DCM 

eluent), and polar. The saturate and aromatic fractions, blown down to 0.5 mL, were analyzed by gas 

chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). The gas chromatograph was maintained at 90°C for 2.0 

minutes and programmed at a 5°C/min ramp to 310°C. The capillary column (DB-5MS: 30 m, 0.25 mm

I.D. containing a 0.25-μm bonded phase) was directly interfaced to the ion source of the mass 

spectrometer. A separate analysis was carried out with the GC/MS in the single-ion monitoring mode 

 to near dryness, and transferred 

to 5.0-mL KD tubes. Final extract volume in hexane was 5.0 mL. For the tarball samples, ~15 mg were 

dissolved in DCM, filtered through glass wool to remove particulates, and air-dried to remove the 

DCM, then taken up in 5.0 mL of hexane. Both sediment and tarball extracts were then loaded onto a 

liquid chromatography column for compound class separation. Each column was layered at the bottom 

with about 5 mm of activated copper (to remove elemental sulfur), and with 2.5 g of 5-percent

deactivated neutral alumina and 2.5 g and 5.0 g of 62 and 923 silica gels, respectively. 
3

(SIM). Compound identifications were made either by comparison with known standards or with 

published reference spectra. Selected biomarker ratios, (appendix 1) were calculated from GC/MS/SIM 

chromatograms of m/z 191 (terpanes/hopanes) and 217 (steranes) using peak heights; other ratios were 

calculated from the chromatograms of the aromatic fraction using appropriate extracted ion (EI) values. 

Either summed areas or peak heights of the compounds were used to determine parameter ratios. 

Biomarker values were used to correlate the samples and group them according to their probable source 

locations (Peters and others, 2008; Lorenson and others, 2009). 

Results

Macondo-1 Well Oil

The M-1 well oil has been characterized as a light mature oil with an American Petroleum 

Institute (API) gravity of 38.8° (M. Lewan, USGS, written communication). We used standard oil 

biomarkers to document the composition of the M-1oil and compared that to unknown hydrocarbon 

extracts from potentially impacted sediments and oil residues found on the shoreline. Biomarkers are 

complex organic compounds that occur in petroleum, rocks, and sediments and show little change in 

structure from their parent organic molecules in living organisms (Peters and others, 2005). 

A suite of 19 biomarker parameters were identified from an analysis of the GC/MS spectra of the 

hexane and 30-percent DCM/hexane extracts of the BP M-1 well oil. These parameters defined a 

chemical signature (fingerprint) of the BP M-1 well (table 2; appendix 1). Ratios were obtained from an 

average of 8 separate analyses of the well oil. Similar ratios have been utilized in past studies to 

genetically relate environmental samples of oil, tar, and sediment to their sources (Hostettler and others, 

2004; Kvenvolden and others, 1995; Peters and others, 2008; Lorenson and others, 2009). Of these 

ratios, 13 were particularly diagnostic of the BP M-1 oil and identifiable in the sediment and tarball 

samples; these were utilized in this study. Specifically excluded from this set of ratios were pristane and 

phytane because of confounding environmental input in nature and losses in the oils due to 

environmental degradation. We defined one ratio for this set based on the dominant sterane 

composition: the βα C27 diasterane S epimer/ααα C29 sterane S epimer. Patterns from chromatograms 

of the tricyclic terpanes and hopanes in the 191 m/z traces and of the steranes in the 217 m/z traces 

obtained by the GC/MS in single ion monitoring (SIM) mode show several key visual relationships for 

the M-1 well oil (fig. 2). Particularly notable are the tricyclic terpanes that define the triplet, the C24-

tetracyclic terpane, and the C26-tricyclic terpane (S and R epimers) that were uniformly equal. Also of 

note is the prominence of the 18α(H)-30-norneohopane relative to the 17α,21β(H)-30-norhopane and 

C30

Sediment

 17α,21β(H)-hopane. The prominence of the diasterane epimer pair (βα C27 diasterane, S & R) is 

also characteristic of this oil.

Total extractable organic matter was low for all sediment samples, ranging from 1.2 to 650 

mg/kg and averaging 52.6 mg/kg (table 1). This extractable content often included some biogenic 

terrigenous material and in some cases a water-soluble precipitate. Replicate analyses of the same 

sediment yielded an average precision of 3.8 ± 0.6 relative percent for the biomarker parameters. None 

of the parameters exceeded 10 percent relative error. Average replicate analyses of sediment from the 

same site yielded a lower average precision of 7.9 ± 1.3 relative percent. Some parameters from this 

latter set, with low absolute values approached 15 percent relative error. The identification of M-1 well 

oil in the sediment samples was based on a combination of an interpretation of the compounds identified 
4

in the mass spectra of the sediment extracts and a multivariate statistical analysis of the biomarker ratios 

utilizing hierarchal cluster analyses (HCA) and principal component analyses (PCA). 

The extracted hydrocarbon composition of sediment ranged from mostly biogenic terrigenous 

material to oil or possibly a mixture of oils. There was no clear evidence of any oil present at eight sites, 

(16 percent). The remaining 41 sites had at least some trace amount of oil and many had distinct oil 

signatures. Other oil signatures could represent inputs from either natural oil seepage, prevalent in the 

nGOM (Sassen and others, 2001) or other previous oil spills. Biodegradation ranking of the extracted oil 

was considered moderate, ranging from 4 to 5, based on a standard ranking of oil biodegradation (Peters 

and Moldowan, 1993), allowing for robust comparison with M-1 oil. Five of the sites likely contain a 

mixture of one or more oils, probably derived from natural oil seeps, in addition to M-1 oil. 

Some GC/MS spectra obtained from the solvent extracts of the sediment samples were 

remarkably similar to the reference BP M-1 well oil (figs. 2C,D). Others were notably different (figs. 

2E,F). For example, note the lower Ts/Tm ratio and the higher αβ C29/αβ C30 ratio (fig 2E) and the 

lower βα27D/αααC29 (fig. 2F) in the sediment sample. A total of 13 individual biomarker parameters 

were calculated for each sediment sample from the saturate fraction (appendix 2). Biomarker parameters 

are listed in appendix 2 along with references to their use and other parameters such as age, thermal 

maturity, depositional environment, degree of biodegradation, and general character.

Tarballs

Nineteen biomarker parameters were determined for 20 tarballs, collected mostly from the 

Alabama and Mississippi coasts (appendix 2). Sixteen biomarker parameters were calculated from the 

saturates and three from the aromatics. Except for three samples, there was only minor variation in the 

geochemical parameters for the tarballs, implying a common source from the M-1 well oil or unknown 

natural seeps that tap the same oil source.

Statistical Results

Thirteen biomarker parameters common to the oil, sediment, and tarballs were utilized in the 

statistical analysis (appendix 2). For only one tarball and one sediment sample, a calculation could not 

be made for a parameter because of the absence of a particular biomarker compound, so an average of 

that parameter was used, a technique used in other chemometric biomarker analyses (Peters and others,

2008). Each individual chemical analysis was used in the statistical database, including duplicate 

sediment and tarball samples and multiple analyses of the M-1 well oil. The statistical database was

referenced to lab numbers appended with an “s,” “o,” or “t” to designate a sediment, oil, or tarball, 

respectively. Lab numbers were cross-referenced to site locations (table 1). Results of the two-way HCA 

show a cluster in red of the M-1 oil samples intermixed with 12 sediment samples (and 1 duplicate) and 

all but 3 tarballs (fig. 3). Five of the sediment samples were from the Alabama coast, three each from

the Mississippi and Louisiana coasts, and one from the Florida coast (fig. 3). These results show that oil 

in sediment from these 12 sites is genetically linked to the M-1 well oil. A separate cluster offset from 

the M-1 oil cluster includes six sediment samples (one duplicate) that might be a mixture of M-1 oil 

with another oil (fig. 3). These six samples occur within a distinct region located in Alabama and 

western Florida (fig. 4). The tarballs that correlate with the M-1 well oil group within a similar 

geographic area (fig. 5) The statistical results are consistent with interpretations based on mass spectra 

alone. Twenty-two percent of the sites surveyed contain oil related to the M-1 well oil. The two-way 

cluster analysis shows in map form by color intensity the variation in relative range of values for each 

variable (fig. 3). Dark red are the hghest values, dark blue are the lowest, and intermediate shades of 
5

color are intermediate values. A shift in the color pattern is evident between the samples related to M-1 

well oil and the other samples. 

The results of the PCA depicted in a three-dimensional plot show a tight cluster of the M-1 well 

oil, and related sediment and tarballs (fig. 6). The first, second, and third principal components are the x, 

y, and z axes, respectively. Six principal components combine for 80 percent of the total variance. The 

region encircled and labeled G1 indicates sediments and tarballs that group with M-1 well oil. The 

region encircled and labeled G2 represents sediments containing a likely mixture of oils, possibly but 

not verifiably including M-1 well oil. 

The extracted hydrocarbon composition of sediment ranged from mostly biogenic terrigenous 

material to oil or possibly a mixture of oils. A composite map shows the extracted hydrocarbon 

composition roughly classified by the presence or absence of oil, oil maturity, and correlation of oil with 

M-1 well oil (fig. 7). A blue pie marker indicates sediment containing oil that correlates with M-1 well 

oil; a white marker indicates sediment containg mature oil that does not correlate with M-1 well oil; a 

speckled-pattern marker indicates a possible oil mixture; a red marker indicates sediment containing 

immature oil or biogenic material that does not correlate with M-1 well oil; and a brown marker 

indicates terrigenous material only. Pie markers with a combination of colors indicate that the sediment 

contains a mixture of organic components. Results show that most of the M-1 well correlated oil is from 

Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, consistent with the spatial extent of the spill.

Conclusions

Hydrocarbons were extracted and analyzed from sediment and tarballs collected from the 

northern Gulf of Mexico (nGOM) coast that is potentially impacted by M-1 well oil. The identification 

of M-1 well oil in the sediment samples was based on a combination of an interpretation of the 

compounds identified in the mass spectra of the sediment extracts and a multivariate statistical analysis 

of the biomarker ratios utilizing hierarchal cluster analyses (HCA) and principal component analyses 

(PCA). The M-1 well oil has been identified in sediment and tarballs collected from Louisiana, 

Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida. None of the sediment hydrocarbon extracts from Texas correlated 

with the M-1 well oil. The M-1 well oil was genetically linked with 11 of 49 sediment samples and 17 

of 20 tarballs. Oil-impacted sediments are confined to the shoreline adjacent to the cumulative oil slick 

of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and no impact was observed outside of this area. Further studies on 

sediment both onshore and offshore are warranted to place this study into a larger context for the entire 

nGOM. Additional work is also required to determine the source of other oils found in this study. 

References Cited

Amos, J., 2010, SkyTruth: accessed November 10, 2010 online at 

http://mcbi.org/news/PR-Norse-Amos-2010.pdf. 

Bekins, B.A., Hostettler, F.D., Herkelrath, W.N., Delin, G.N., Warren, E., and Essaid, H.I., 2005, 

Progression of methanogenic degradation of crude oil: Environmental Geosciences, v. 12, no. 2, 

p. 139-152. 

Bence, A.E., Kvenvolden, K.A., Kennicutt, M.C., II, 1996, Organic geochemistry applied to 

environmental assessments of Prince William Sound, Alaska, after the Exxon Valdez oil spill—

A review: Organic Geochemistry, v. 24, p. 7-42. 

British Petroleum, 2010, Gulf of Mexico response; dispersant Information: accessed online at 

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9034409&contentId=7063742, 

BP Global.
6

Crone, T.J. and Tolstoy, M., 2010, Magnitude of the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil leak: Science, v. 330, p. 

634. 

Grantham, P.J. and Wakefield, L.L., 1988, Variations in the sterane carbon number distributions of 

marine source rock derived crude oils through geological time: Organic Geochemistry, v. 12, 

p. 61-73. 

Hostettler, F.D., R. J. Rosenbauer, R.J., and Kvenvolden, K.A., 1999, PAH refractory index as a source 

discriminant of hydrocarbon input from crude oil and coal in Prince William Sound, Alaska: 

Organic Geochemistry, v. 30, p. 873-879. 

Hostettler, F.D., Rosenbauer, R.J., Lorenson, T.L., and Dougherty, J.A., 2004, Santa Barbara Channel 

Islands, Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa and San Miguel: Organic Geochemistry, v. 35, no.. 6, p. 725-

746. 

Hostettler, F.D., Wang, Y., Huang, Y., Cao, W., Bekins, B.A., Rostad, C.E., Kulpa, C.F., and Laursen, 

A., 2007, Forensic fingerprinting of oil-spill hydrocarbons in a methanogenic environment—

Mandan, ND and Bemidji, MN: Environmental Forensics, v. 8, no. 1-2, p. 139-153. 

Kaplan, I.R., Galperin, Y., Lu, S.T., and Lee, R.P., 1997, Forensic environmental geochemistry; 

differentiation of fuel-types, their sources and release times: Organic Geochemistry, v. 27, p. 

289-317. 

Kvenvolden, K.A., Hostettler, F.D., Carlson, P.R., Rapp, J.B., Threlkeld, C., and Warden, A. 1995, 

Ubiquitous tar balls with a California source signature on the shorelines of Prince William 

Sound, Alaska: Environmental Science & Technology, v. 29, no. 10, p. 2684- 2694. 

Lorenson, T.D., Hostettler, F.D., Rosenbauer, R.J., Peters, K.E., Dougherty, J.A., Kvenvolden, K.A., 

Gutmacher, C.E., Wong, F.L., and Normark, W.R., 2009, Natural offshore oil seepage and 

related tarball accumulation on the California coastline—Santa Barbara Channel and the 

Southern Santa Maria Basin; source identification and inventory: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 2009-1225, 116 p. 

Palacas, J.G., Anders, D.E., and King, J.D., 1984, South Florida Basin—a prime example of carbonate 

source rocks of petroleum, in

Peters, K.E., and Moldowan, J.M., 1993, The biomarker guide: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, PrenticeHall, 363 p. 

 Palacas, J.G., ed., Petroleum geochemistry and source rock 

potential of carbonate rocks: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Studies in Geology 

No. 18, p. 71-96. 

Peters, K.E., Walters, C.C., and Moldowan, J.M., 2005, The biomarker guide. Volume 1, Biomarkers 

and isotopes in the environment and human history. Volume 2, Biomarkers and isotopes in 

petroleum exploration and Earth history (2d ed.; first edition published 1993 by Chevron 

Texaco): Cambridge University Press, 1132 p. ISBN 0 521 83763 4. 

Peters, K.E., Hostettler, F.D., Lorenson, T.L., and Rosenbauer, 2008, Families of Miocene Monterey

crude oil, seep, and tarball samples, coastal California: American Association of Petroleum 

Geologists Bulletin, v. 92, no. 9, p. 1131–1152 

Sassen, R., Sweet, S.T., DeFreitas, D.A., Morelos, J.A., and Milkov, A.V., 2001, Gas hydrate and crude 

oil from the Mississippi Fan Foldbelt, downdip Gulf of Mexico Salt Basin; significance to 

petroleum system: Organic Geochemistry, v. 32, p. 999–1008 

Seifert, W.K., and Moldowan, J.M., 1978, Application of steranes, terpanes, and monoaromatics to the 

maturation, migration and source of crude oils: Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 42, p. 77-

95. 
7

Waples, D.W., and Machihara, T., 1991, Biomarkers for geologists—a practical guide to the application 

of steranes and triterpanes in petroleum geology: American Association of Petroleum 

Geologists, Methods in Exploration, No. 9, 91 p. 

Wilde, F.D., Skrobialowski, S.C., and Hart, J.S., 2010, Sampling protocol for post-landfall Deepwater 

Horizon oil release, Gulf of Mexico, 2010: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-

1191, 155 p. [http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1191/]. 
8

Figure 1. Location map of sediment and tarball samples collected for this study. The blue shading depicts the cumulative areal coverage of the BP 

M-1 well oil spill derived from wind, ocean currents, aerial photography, and satellite imagery (Amos, 2010). Sample designations are abbreviated 

for clarity in location; complete sample numbers are listed in the tables and are prefaced by the two-letter state abbreviation. A "t" suffix indicates 

locations at which both sediment and tarball samples were collected. The location of the Macondo-1 well is also indicated.
9

Figure 2. Chromatograms of M-1 well oil and sediment extracts (AL-8; MS-44). Selected ion monitoring (SIM) 

chromatograms of m/z 191, Hopanes (A, C, E), and m/z 217, Steranes (B, D, F). Compounds identified in 

appendix 1. Legend : Steranes, C27 to C29 regular steranes; Hopanes, C29 to C35 regular hopanes; 23T, C23, 

C24, tricyclic terpanes; T, triplet, Ts and Tm, defined in appendix 1; αβ29, αβ30, αβ31 through αβ35 (S & R 

epimers), αβ-hopanes with carbon numbers; O, Oleanane; and G, Gammacerane.
10

Figure 3. Hierarchical cluster diagram of 59 sediment samples, 7 M-1 well oil splits, and 20 tarballs from the 

northern Gulf of Mexico coast. The cluster marked in red indicates sediments and tarballs that group with M-1 

well oil. The cluster of blue Xs represents a likely mixture of oils, possibly but not verifiably including M-1 well oil. 

The colored squares are a two-way cluster representing the range in values of each variable, dark red being 

highest, dark blue lowest, and intermediate shades color being intermediate values. 

 

Method = Ward

10-68s

10-69s

10-70s

10-76s

10-77s

10-78o

10-80s

10-86s

10-89o

10-91s

10-92s

10-93s

10-94s

10-95s

10-96s

10-97s

10-98s

10-99s

10-100o

10-101s

10-106s

10-108s

10-111o

10-112s

10-113s

10-116s

10-122o

10-125s

10-131s

10-133o

10-135t

10-137t

10-138t

10-139t

10-140t

10-141t

10-142t

10-143t

10-144t

10-146t

10-147t

10-148t

10-149t

10-150t

10-151t

10-152t

10-153t

10-155t

10-156o

10-189o

Dendrogram

Hierarchical Clust ering
11

Figure 3 (cont.) 

GOM paramet ers 3a: Hierarchical Clust er Page 2 of 2

10-69s

10-71s

10-72s

10-73s

10-74s

10-75s

10-79s

10-81s

10-82s

10-83s

10-84s

10-85s

10-87s

10-88s

10-90s

10-94s

10-97s

10-99s

10-101s

10-102s

10-103s

10-104s

10-106s

10-107s

10-108s

10-109s

10-110s

10-114s

10-115s

10-117s

10-118s

10-119s

10-120s

10-123s

10-124s

10-125s

10-126s

10-127s

10-128s

10-129s

10-130s

10-131s

10-134t

10-154t

10-155t

Ts/Tmtriplet20tri/23tri22tri/21tri24tri/23tri26tri/25tri28tri/29triC29/C3029D/29HC31S/C3035S/34SC28R/C28SC27DS/C29S

Dendrogram

Hierarchical Clust ering
12

Figure 4. Location map of sediment samples correlated with M-1 well oil. Correlated M-1 oil is indicated with a blue filled circle; uncorrelated oil 

with an open circle; and a likely mixture of oils, possibly but not verifiably including M-1 well oil, with a half-filled circle.

BP Macondo-1 (M-1)

Texas Louisiana Florida

Mississippi Alabama

Georgia

94°W 92°W 90°W 88°W 86°W 84°W 82°W

30°N

28°N

Explanation

sediments

BP M-1 oil absent

BP M-1 oil present

mix

BP Macondo-1 (M-1)

oil extent

0 100 200 50

Kilometers

Mississippi Alabama

Louisiana

Florida

89°W 88°30'W 88°W 87°30'W

30°30'N

30°15'N

30°N

0 20 40 10

Kilometers

UTM zone 15
13

Figure 5. Location map of tarball samples correlated with M-1 well oil. Correlated M-1 tarballs are indicated with a blue filled diamond; 

uncorrelated tarballs with an open diamond

BP Macondo-1 (M-1)

Texas Louisiana Florida

Mississippi Alabama

Georgia

94°W 92°W 90°W 88°W 86°W 84°W 82°W

30°N

28°N

Explanation

tarballs

BP M-1 oil absent

BP M-1 oil present

BP Macondo-1 (M-1)

oil extent

0 100 200 50

Kilometers

Mississippi Alabama

Louisiana

Florida

89°W 88°30'W 88°W 87°30'W

30°30'N

30°15'N

30°N

0 20 40 10

Kilometers

UTM zone 15
14

Figure 6. Three-dimensional depiction of a principal components analysis of the M-1 well oil, sediment, and tar 

samples. The x, y, z axes are the first three principal components PC1, PC2, and PC3 respectively. Variable 

eigenvectors are not shown for clarity. The region encircled and labeled G1 indicates sediments and tarballs that 

group with M-1 well oil. The region encircled and labeled G2 represents sediments containing a likely mixture of 

oils, possibly but not verifiably including M-1 well oil.

PC1

PC3

PC2
15

Figure 7. A composite map indicating the approximate geochemical composition of the extracted organic matter. Sample designations are 

abbreviated; complete sample numbers are listed in the tables and are prefaced by the two-letter state abbreviation. A blue pie marker indicates 

sediment containing oil that correlates with M-1 well oil; a white marker indicates sediment containing mature oil that does not correlate with M-1 

well oil; a red marker indicates sediment containing immature oil and(or) biogenic material that does not correlate with M-1 well oil; and a brown 

marker indicates terrigenous material. Pie markers with a combination of colors indicate that the sediment contains a mixture of components. The 

pie diagrams portray sample properties, not proportions. The pie diagrams are offset from the sample locations for clarity.

0

7

6 5

3 4

2

1

56 55

53

51

49

47

46

36 35

33 32

31

30

29

28

26

25

24

23

22

25

BP Macondo-1 (M-1)

Florida Texas Louisiana

Mississippi Alabama

Georgia

94°W 92°W 90°W 88°W 86°W 84°W 82°W

30°N

28°N

0 100 200 50

Kilometers

8 9

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

45

44

43

42 41 40 39

38

37

34

10

Mississippi Alabama

Louisiana

Florida

89°W 88°30'W 88°W 87°30'W

30°30'N

30°15'N

30°N

0 20 40 10

Kilometers

UTM zone 15

Explanation

properties

M-1 oil

not M-1, mature oil

oil mix, possibly with M-1

not M-1, immature oil

biogenic matter, not oil

BP Macondo-1 (M-1)

oil extent
16

Table 1. Gulf of Mexico Post-Oil Spill Sampling Sites

[Site: USGS designated number for site locality; Lab ID: Internal PCMSC reference number; * Likely mixture of oil with M1 well oil, but cannot be conclusively verified by these analyses; ** NC indicates no sample obtained]
17

Table 1 (cont.)
18

Table 2. Geochemical Parameters derived for Macondo-1 well oil

[parameters defined in appendix 1]

Parameter M-1 well oil std deviation

Ts/Tm 1.296 0.047

triplet 1.922 0.068

20Tri/23Tri 0.379 0.022

22Tri/21Tri 0.271 0.018

24Tri/23Tri 0.730 0.034

26Tri/25Tri 0.953 0.056

28Tri/29Tri 1.065 0.088

C29/C30 0.448 0.005

29D/29H 0.523 0.011

C31S/C30 0.388 0.009

35S/34S 0.738 0.015

C28R/C29R 0.483 0.002

C27d S/R 1.548 0.049

C27ds/C29s 2.789 0.110

OI 0.020 0.027

GI 0.045 0.009

PAH-RI 0.576 0.104

C2D/C2P 0.267 0.042

C3D/C3P 0.261 0.016
19

Appendix 1, Geochemical Parameters used in Tarball, Oil, Sediment Correlation Studies

Parameters used for the chemometric analysis described in text are indicated in red.

Saturate fraction: 

Triterpanes (hopanes), m/z 191 SIM chromatograms

1. Ts/Tm, 18α-22,29,30-trisnorneohopane/17α-22,29,30-trisnorhopane. This ratio is used as both a 

source and maturity parameter (Seifert and Moldowan, 1978). 

: 

2. Triplet, [C26-tricyclic terpane (S?) + C26-tricyclic terpane (R?)/C24-tetracyclic terpane]. This source 

parameter was used to distinguish coastal tar residues in Prince William Sound (Kvenvolden 

and others, 1995). Abundant C24 tetracyclic is cited (Peters and others, 2005) as indicating 

carbonate and evaporite source facies, therefore lower values of this ratio (since C24

3. 20Tri/23Tri, C

is the 

denominator) indicate this characteristic.

20 tricyclic terpane/C23

4. 22Tri/21Tri, C

tricyclic terpane. Source parameter.

22 tricyclic terpane/C21

5. 24Tri/23Tri, C

tricyclic terpane. Source parameter, used by Peters and 

others, 2005, to help distinguish lithofacies. 

24 tricyclic terpane/C23

6. 26Tri/25Tri, C

tricyclic terpane. Source parameter, used by Peters and 

others, 2005, to help distinguish lithofacies. 

26 tricyclic terpanes/C25

7. 28Tri/29Tri. C

tricyclic terpanes. peak areas. Source parameter; high values 

(>1) indicate a lacustrine depositional environment, whereas lower values indicate a marine 

source.

28 tricyclic terpanes/C29

8. C

tricyclic terpanes, peak areas. Source parameter.

29/C30

9. 29D/29H, 18α(H)-30-norneohopane/17α,21β(H)-30-norhopane. Source parameter. 

, 17α,21β(H)-30-norhopane/17α,21β(H)-hopane. This ratio is a source parameter adapted 

from Palacas and others (1984). 

10. C31S/C30

11. 35S/34S, 17α,21β(H)-29-pentakishomohopane (22S)/17α,21β(H)-29-tetrakishomohopane (22S). 

Higher C

, 17α,21β(H)-homohopane (22S)/ 17α,21β(H)-hopane. Source parameter. 

35 than C34

12 OI, Oleanane Index, 18α+β(H)-oleanane/17α,21β(H)-hopane. This commonly used source 

parameter indicates a contribution from Cretaceous and younger plant material (Peters and 

Moldowan, 1993). In the California coastal tars, oleanane is generally present, but in low 

amounts. 

 22S homohopanes is an indication of carbonate/evaporite facies or 

anoxic depositional environment. 

13 GI, Gammacerane Index, gammacerane/17α,21β(H)-hopane. This ratio is used as a source 

parameter; abundant gammacerane is a carbonate/evaporite facies indicator and a marker for 

highly reducing, hypersaline depositional environments (Peters and Moldowan, 1993). 

 

Steranes, m/z 217 SIM chromatograms

14. C

: 

28/C29

15. C27d S/R, βα27diasterane S/βα27diasterane R, source parameter

, 24-methyl-5α,14α,17α(H)-cholestane (20R)/ 24-ethyl-5α,14α,17α(H)-cholestane (20R). 

This source parameter has been modified from discussions in Grantham and Wakefield 

(1988) and Waples and Machihara (1991). 

16. C27ds/C29s, βα27diasterane S/24-ethyl-5α,14α,17α(H)-cholestane (20S)
20

17. PAH-RI, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon-Refractory Index. This index is a source parameter, the 

ratio of the second, usually major, peak containing the C

Aromatic fraction

26R and C27S members in the highly 

refractory C26 to C28 triaromatic sterane suite (TAS, m/z 231) to that of the first, usually 

dominant, peak in the monomethyl chrysenes (m/z 242) (Hostettler and others, 1999). In this 

very large data set it can be seen that this previously descriptive-only parameter does reflect 

a specific facies characteristic. PAH-RI goes from low values in shale, mid values in marl, 

and high values in carbonate (increasingly anoxic facies) environments. Since PAH-RI 

compares TAS to a typical petrogenic C1

18. ΣC2D/ΣC2P, dimethyl dibenzothiophenes (m/z 212)/dimethyl phenanthrenes (m/z 206). Source 

parameter indicating relative levels of sulfur-containing PAH to regular PAH (Kaplan and 

others, 1997; Bence and others, 1996). 

PAH, high values indicate higher levels of TAS. 

TAS are known to be a stable product of diagenesis of steranes in a reducing or anoxic 

environment. Therefore, PAH-RI is another indicator of the anoxic nature of the source 

environment. 

19. ΣC3D/ΣC3P, trimethyl dibenzothiophenes (m/z 226)/trimethyl phenanthrenes (m/z 220). Source 

parameter as #32.
21

Appendix 2, Geochemical parameters for oil, sediment and tarball samples

[Parameter definitions are in appendix 1; Lab ID: suffixes "s," "t,"and "o" are sediment, tarball, or oil respectively; * same font colors 

are site replicates; ** color codes are laboratory replicates; values in red font are column averaged (see text); Empty cells: no data] 

Lab ID Site Name* Ts/Tm Triplet 20Tri/23Tri 22Tri/21Tri 24Tri/23Tri 26Tri/25Tri 28Tri/29Tri C29/C30 29D/29H C31S/C30 35S/34S OI GI C28R/C29R c27d S/R C27ds/c29s PAH-RI C2D/C2PC3D/C3Pcolor code**

10-131s FL-1 1.09 1.56 0.270 0.348 0.697 0.756 1.02 0.512 0.38 0.38 0.785 0.042 0.054 0.511 1.62 1.63

10-79s FL-2 0.77 2.06 0.497 0.232 0.526 1.041 2.20 0.542 0.35 0.32 0.774 0.065 0.234 0.857 1.60 0.52

10-80s FL-3 1.00 1.97 0.423 0.257 0.569 0.992 1.02 0.486 0.39 0.33 0.791 0.045 0.136 0.662 1.62 1.69

10-81s FL-4 0.58 2.07 0.481 0.282 0.507 1.093 1.27 0.622 0.28 0.28 0.978 0.093 0.305 1.000 1.44 0.25

10-82s FL-5 0.63 2.04 0.494 0.286 0.528 0.918 1.42 0.576 0.28 0.26 0.929 0.109 0.307 0.681 1.00 0.27

10-83s FL-6 0.65 1.82 0.517 0.298 0.539 1.019 1.71 0.563 0.28 0.30 1.000 0.120 0.284 1.000 0.79 0.26

10-84s FL-7 0.59 0.68 0.259 0.481 0.691 0.596 0.68 0.932 0.20 0.64 1.080 0.031 0.078 0.240 1.59 0.16 0.513 0.294 0.254

10-85s FL-25 0.51 1.90 0.504 0.275 0.500 0.834 1.29 0.577 0.24 0.26 1.083 0.085 0.290 0.977 0.95 0.35 1

10-88s D: FL-25 0.51 1.82 0.485 0.285 0.508 0.899 1.24 0.591 0.23 0.24 0.970 0.083 0.246 1.130 0.95 0.32 1

10-86s AL-1 1.32 1.27 0.275 0.315 0.744 0.688 0.71 0.462 0.46 0.36 0.732 0.032 0.045 0.445 1.52 0.92

10-87s AL-2 0.69 1.88 0.506 0.274 0.506 0.994 1.52 0.619 0.26 0.32 0.903 0.074 0.249 1.060 1.17 0.29

10-90s AL-3 0.69 1.53 0.201 0.423 0.507 0.728 0.85 0.723 0.00 0.57 1.326 0.039 0.108 0.469 1.49 0.39

10-91s AL-4 1.37 1.77 0.148 0.326 0.770 0.904 1.00 0.453 0.51 0.40 0.772 0.029 0.035 0.465 1.60 2.64 0.317 0.258 0.303

10-92s AL-5 1.31 1.60 0.238 0.313 0.792 0.824 1.07 0.460 0.50 0.40 0.713 0.032 0.040 0.458 1.62 1.99 0.417 0.232 0.317

10-93s AL-6 1.38 1.31 0.238 0.282 0.828 0.704 0.87 0.448 0.50 0.39 0.730 0.028 0.026 0.431 1.51 1.51

10-94s AL-7 1.23 1.26 0.308 0.308 0.762 0.619 1.15 0.463 0.47 0.38 0.788 0.039 0.057 0.372 1.62 0.90

10-95s AL-8 1.42 1.83 0.174 0.324 0.802 0.932 1.04 0.428 0.53 0.40 0.735 0.028 0.036 0.478 1.44 2.40 0.316 0.287 0.326

10-96s AL-9 1.39 1.60 0.175 0.324 0.730 0.836 0.95 0.443 0.54 0.41 0.731 0.029 0.038 0.442 1.54 2.05 0.333 0.273 0.324

10-97s AL-10 1.33 1.45 0.229 0.292 0.829 0.691 1.03 0.447 0.51 0.40 0.737 0.030 0.032 0.414 1.55 1.84 0.562 0.316 0.326 2

10-99s D: AL-10 1.35 1.45 0.220 0.270 0.787 0.632 0.96 0.437 0.51 0.39 0.735 0.034 0.037 0.411 1.55 1.76 0.570 0.335 0.334 2

10-98s LA-0 1.21 1.84 0.225 0.285 0.733 0.702 1.15 0.429 0.51 0.40 0.752 0.033 0.039 0.518 1.60 2.37

10-69s LA-22 12:30 0.56 1.10 0.405 0.365 0.496 0.815 1.05 0.705 0.27 0.38 0.859 0.066 0.082 0.761 1.80 0.75 0.241 0.110 0.162

10-101s LA-22 12:31 0.62 1.11 0.322 0.292 0.526 0.915 1.05 0.721 0.26 0.39 0.963 0.068 0.099 0.611 1.48 0.65

10-102s LA-23 0.14 1.23 0.887 0.395 0.454 1.314 0.71 0.780 0.10 0.41 0.748 0.014 0.222 0.357 1.44 0.15

10-103s LA-24 0.34 1.58 0.476 0.274 0.502 0.874 1.27 0.581 0.21 0.32 1.000 0.059 0.204 1.222 1.50 0.31

10-104s LA-25 0.63 1.54 0.368 0.338 0.585 0.832 1.29 0.615 0.24 0.31 0.927 0.064 0.159 1.078 1.63 0.48

10-106s LA-28 0.48 0.96 0.665 0.231 0.630 0.783 0.95 0.698 0.15 0.31 1.143 0.039 0.158 0.514 1.45 0.12

10-72s LA-29 0.06 1.95 0.548 0.293 0.540 0.142 1.30 0.703 0.31 0.35 1.000 0.158 0.175 1.730 1.59 0.58

10-107s LA-30 0.53 2.04 0.414 0.252 0.498 1.009 1.36 0.587 0.26 0.30 1.229 0.832 0.251 1.189 1.50 0.54

10-68s LA-31 11:00 1.26 1.65 0.245 0.242 0.712 0.849 0.89 0.439 0.52 0.40 0.682 0.005 0.040 0.528 1.56 2.87 0.554 0.320 0.330

10-70s LA-31 11:02 1.27 1.84 0.291 0.295 0.765 0.915 1.02 0.447 0.50 0.42 0.798 0.036 0.045 0.463 1.56 2.80 0.455 0.299 0.327 3

10-77s D: LA-31 11:02 1.34 1.67 0.285 0.322 0.767 0.947 1.02 0.411 0.53 0.39 0.762 0.033 0.051 0.489 1.56 2.59 0.550 0.333 0.312 3

10-108s LA-32 0.83 1.11 0.315 0.327 0.533 0.566 0.95 0.637 0.32 0.39 0.920 0.059 0.087 0.690 1.53 0.54

10-71s LA-33 1.29 0.89 0.592 0.409 1.022 0.211 0.42 0.489 0.51 0.38 0.646 0.064 0.030 0.251 1.54 0.40 1.456 0.292 0.266

10-109s LA-34 0.40 2.02 0.420 0.285 0.522 0.837 1.65 0.547 0.23 0.25 1.184 0.051 0.278 1.720 1.33 0.22 4

10-110s D: LA-34 0.37 2.01 0.431 0.290 0.519 0.750 1.67 0.522 0.25 0.23 1.086 0.071 0.229 1.853 1.33 0.21 4

10-130s LA-35 0.55 1.47 0.188 0.462 0.568 0.812 0.91 0.303 1.36 0.35 0.816 0.087 0.070 0.793 1.57 1.45

10-112s LA-36 1.20 1.83 0.243 0.259 0.702 0.945 1.22 0.453 0.49 0.39 0.775 0.016 0.055 0.536 1.44 2.06

10-113s MS-37 1.09 2.06 0.399 0.269 0.646 0.936 1.22 0.467 0.45 0.36 0.749 0.050 0.095 0.612 1.56 1.98

10-114s MS-38 0.66 1.86 0.443 0.275 0.511 1.197 1.38 0.523 0.31 0.26 0.938 0.091 0.265 1.067 1.32 0.52

10-115s MS-39 1.05 2.12 0.541 0.368 0.607 1.124 1.97 0.561 0.44 0.44 1.105 0.143 0.245 1.000 1.50 0.75

10-116s MS-40 1.24 2.04 0.323 0.361 0.701 0.965 1.45 0.470 0.47 0.38 0.813 0.047 0.064 0.537 1.44 1.75

10-117s MS-41 1.12 1.67 0.714 0.340 0.633 1.135 0.99 0.627 0.46 0.51 1.080 0.271 0.407 0.909 1.11 0.77

10-76s MS-42 1.43 1.43 0.197 0.210 0.734 0.853 0.65 0.429 0.69 0.41 0.735 0.028 0.036 0.436 1.60 2.42 0.362 0.312 0.321

10-118s MS-43 0.85 1.14 2.859 0.386 0.646 1.175 1.23 0.832 0.27 0.48 1.044 0.081 0.121 0.711 1.68 1.18

10-119s MS-44 0.79 0.96 0.346 0.288 0.575 1.021 0.88 0.934 0.22 0.54 1.102 0.034 0.093 0.424 1.67 0.38

10-120s MS-45 0.84 1.25 0.447 0.393 0.670 0.987 0.92 0.708 0.34 0.35 1.107 0.111 0.116 0.625 1.52 1.30

10-123s TX-46 0.75 1.07 0.403 0.434 0.688 0.880 1.27 0.743 1.00 0.43 1.034 0.150 0.128 0.657 1.47 0.79

10-124s TX-47 0.75 0.49 0.317 0.487 0.956 0.524 1.02 0.862 0.32 0.34 0.816 0.189 0.086 0.160 2.45 0.07 0.013 0.102 0.084

10-125s TX-49 0.78 0.66 0.390 0.339 0.550 0.529 0.78 0.646 0.32 0.34 1.105 0.115 0.051 0.285 1.76 0.26

10-73s TX-51 11:00 0.65 1.45 0.320 0.314 0.598 0.762 1.18 0.771 0.25 0.23 1.078 0.065 0.115 0.735 1.55 0.53

10-74s TX-51 11:02 0.59 1.41 0.342 0.300 0.561 0.873 1.10 0.781 0.24 0.21 0.940 0.141 0.081 0.841 1.55 0.45
22

Appendix 2 (cont.)

Lab ID Site Name* Ts/Tm Triplet 20Tri/23Tri 22Tri/21Tri 24Tri/23Tri 26Tri/25Tri 28Tri/29Tri C29/C30 29D/29H C31S/C30 35S/34S OI GI C28R/C29R c27d S/R C27ds/c29s PAH-RI C2D/C2PC3D/C3Pcolor code**

10-126s TX-51 12:15 0.74 1.41 0.314 0.446 0.743 0.891 1.24 0.729 0.27 0.33 1.000 0.153 0.134 0.783 1.25 0.81

10-127s TX-53 0.74 0.60 0.348 0.484 0.814 0.491 1.00 0.915 0.29 0.36 0.966 0.233 0.146 0.352 1.37 0.43

10-75s TX-55 0.72 1.08 0.269 0.452 0.603 0.535 1.08 0.768 0.28 0.38 0.960 0.076 0.090 1.151 1.59 0.60 0.415 0.019

10-128s TX-55 11:10 0.75 0.90 0.280 0.450 0.604 0.542 1.22 0.782 0.30 0.36 1.036 0.085 0.088 1.389 1.49 0.71

10-129s TX-56 0.76 1.22 0.479 0.432 0.646 1.272 1.39 0.859 0.44 0.39 0.893 0.281 0.313 0.750 1.13 0.64

10-78o M1W 1.27 1.98 0.363 0.267 0.774 0.969 1.21 0.455 0.53 0.40 0.735 0.033 0.060 0.472 1.49 2.60 0.480 0.250 0.247 5

10-89o M1W 1.23 1.88 0.358 0.299 0.715 0.909 1.04 0.438 0.54 0.37 0.737 0.029 0.046 0.469 1.50 2.66 0.513 0.294 0.254 5

10-100o M1W 1.26 1.97 0.407 0.263 0.693 0.990 1.08 0.450 0.53 0.38 0.744 0.031 0.047 0.496 1.63 2.68 5

10-111o M1W 1.32 1.86 0.365 0.261 0.753 0.904 1.06 0.450 0.51 0.40 0.735 0.005 0.048 0.360 1.58 3.77 0.184 5

10-122o M1W 1.36 1.83 0.390 0.249 0.672 0.964 0.91 0.444 0.51 0.38 0.713 0.009 0.029 0.488 1.53 2.90 0.705 0.298 0.253 5

10-133o M1W 1.35 2.01 0.405 0.268 0.716 1.072 1.09 0.448 0.52 0.39 0.767 0.011 0.042 0.461 1.59 2.76 0.604 0.311 0.290 5

10-156o M1W 1.39 1.97 0.389 0.263 0.805 0.907 1.05 0.422 0.57 0.40 0.736 0.005 0.045 0.446 1.63 2.98 0.407 0.267 0.271 5

10-189o M1W 1.23 1.88 0.358 0.299 0.715 0.909 1.04 0.438 0.54 0.37 0.737 0.029 0.046 0.454 1.59 2.85 0.513 0.294 0.254 5

10-134t FL1T 1.48 1.02 0.152 0.474 0.973 1.088 1.08 0.582 0.51 0.46 1.036 0.036 0.053 0.447 1.47 2.76 2.560 0.798

10-135t FL2T 1.39 1.89 0.202 0.305 0.788 0.903 1.05 0.428 0.55 0.43 0.788 0.031 0.042 0.477 1.60 2.85 0.298 0.280 0.453

10-137t AL1T 1.44 1.93 0.162 0.327 0.788 0.985 1.07 0.448 0.52 0.40 0.734 0.009 0.045 0.477 1.55 2.66 0.252 0.282 0.451

10-138t AL4T 1.38 1.98 0.132 0.366 0.782 0.822 1.17 0.440 0.54 0.42 0.774 0.011 0.043 0.467 1.48 2.81 0.270 0.277 0.434

10-139t AL5T 1.39 1.91 0.217 0.286 0.834 0.928 0.97 0.430 0.55 0.42 0.792 0.008 0.044 0.486 1.65 2.61

10-140t AL6T 1.44 1.86 0.194 0.289 0.774 1.028 1.05 0.460 0.54 0.42 0.774 0.010 0.047 0.475 1.57 2.76 0.338 0.286 0.399

10-141t AL7T 1.45 1.85 0.237 0.293 0.718 0.815 0.92 0.420 0.57 0.42 0.693 0.007 0.043 0.436 1.53 2.62 0.330 0.291 0.417

10-142t AL8T 1.39 1.88 0.167 0.315 0.747 0.998 0.99 0.428 0.56 0.42 0.763 0.007 0.041 0.490 1.51 2.64 0.283 0.282 0.441

10-143t AL9T 1.42 1.77 0.175 0.351 0.774 0.929 0.99 0.455 0.52 0.44 0.759 0.007 0.044 0.474 1.58 2.77 0.258 0.285 0.437

10-144t AL10T 1.37 1.83 0.216 0.341 0.765 0.924 1.01 0.435 0.53 0.43 0.751 0.008 0.044 0.510 1.46 2.63 0.323 0.293 0.421

10-146t LA31T 1.34 1.85 0.243 0.314 0.745 0.927 1.00 0.437 0.56 0.43 0.739 0.007 0.046 0.494 1.50 2.69 0.324 0.297 0.402

10-147t LA31T 1.37 1.87 0.227 0.298 0.729 0.913 1.05 0.420 0.55 0.42 0.773 0.007 0.047 0.511 1.57 2.88 0.315 0.290 0.417

10-148t MS37T 1.35 2.01 0.154 0.338 0.837 0.953 1.03 0.429 0.54 0.41 0.704 0.008 0.046 0.487 1.61 1.71 0.272 0.259 0.418

10-149t MS39 1.39 1.98 0.157 0.351 0.780 0.999 1.07 0.424 0.53 0.40 0.719 0.008 0.045 0.529 1.46 2.62 0.253 0.278 0.430

10-150t MS40T 1.43 1.97 0.167 0.395 0.922 1.017 1.03 0.435 0.56 0.42 0.775 0.012 0.046 0.500 1.55 2.83 0.264 0.042 0.463

10-151t MS41T 1.32 1.92 0.230 0.349 0.838 0.970 1.06 0.420 0.56 0.40 0.723 0.007 0.049 0.530 1.62 2.85 0.287 0.294 0.400

10-152t MS42T 1.30 1.91 0.220 0.321 0.741 0.944 1.02 0.426 0.54 0.40 0.811 0.006 0.041 0.479 1.55 2.81 0.322 0.232 0.382

10-153t MS42T 1.36 1.93 0.199 0.289 0.796 0.896 1.22 0.448 0.52 0.42 0.774 0.006 0.046 0.489 1.67 2.91 0.296 0.239 0.398

10-154t MS-44T 0.91 1.90 0.194 0.325 0.758 0.750 1.08 0.905 0.26 0.73 1.636 0.007 0.061 0.113 1.41 0.03

10-155t MS-45T 1.45 1.79 0.129 0.329 0.778 0.006 1.07 0.426 0.54 0.39 0.074 0.007 0.041 0.490 1.58 3.01 0.274 0.239 0.345