Mineralogy and 

Cation-Exchange Capacity 

of Sediments from 

Selected Streams

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 433-D

Prepared in cooperation with the ' J, &^ 

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
Mineralogy and 

Cation-Exchange Capacity 

of Sediments from 

Selected Streams

By VANCE C. KENNEDY

TRANSPORT OF RADIONUCLIDES BY STREAMS

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 433-D

Prepared in cooperation with the 

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1965
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Thomas B. Nolan, Director

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

Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 25 cents (paper cover)
CONTENTS

Abstract _ _-------______--_______

Introduction. _____________________

Purpose and significance of study 

Plan of study_____ _ _________

Previous work _ __ _ __________

Acknowledgments __ --------_-

Methods of analysis __ -_-------_-__

Sample treatment __ _ __________

Exchange capacity. . ____________

Mineralogy ____________________

Silt.

Characteristics of the stream waters and stream basins 

studied__________________________________________

Mineralogy and exchange capacity of stream sediments. _ 

Discussion of data-_----_--_--_-____________________

Variation in composition and exchange capacity of 

stream sediments________________

Page

Dl

1

1

2

2

2

4

4

4

4

4

6

6

12

Discussion of data Continued

Variation in composition and exchange capacity of 

stream sediments Continued Page 

Clay. __--__ _______-_- __-_ - D12

Streams east of the Mississippi River. _ 12 

Streams west of the Mississippi River, exclusive of California and Oregon._______ 15

Streams in California and Oregon.___ __ 15 

Amorphous material.____________------_ 16

Organic carbon_______--_-_-----_--_--_- 16

Silt. ____________--_-------_-------------- 16

Sand_______-_--__ -_- --_------_-- 19

Exchange-capacity variation with grain size within

the silt-sand range____________ _____ ___ 22

Effect of dispersing agents on exchange capacity of

sand and silt_____--_---_-_----__------------- 22

Effect of exchange capacity of sediments on composition of stream water_______ _____________ 22

Suspended sediment-_________-__------_-_-_- 23

Bed sediment________-____-_--_----__------ 25

Conclusions..-_---------------------_-------------- 26

References cited_____-________-_--__-_-----___------ 27

ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURES 1-3. Maps of the conterminous United States 

showing:

1. Sediment-sampling sites__

2. Mineralogy of stream clays._______

Page

D3 

10

Page

3. Cation-exchange capacity of stream

sand, silt, and clay_.__ __ Dll

4. Graph showing cation-exchange 

capacity of magnetic fractions of 

stream sand________________-__ 19

TABLES

rr, ^

TABLE 1. Climate of stream basins studied.. __ ___ __ __ _ _ __ _ ____ _ _____ ___ ___ _ ______________ ___ D6

2. Physical and chemical quality of water in streams studied___ __ _ _ ____ ________ _ ... ___ __-__ __ --_ 6

3. Drainage area and discharge of streams studied... ____ __ __ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ ___ _ __ _ _ ___ 7

4. Geology and topography of stream basins studied____________ __ _______ _ _..__ ___ ._ __ ----- _ ----- 7

5. Soils within the stream basins studied _ __-___________________.._..________________-___---------_------ 9

6. Mineralogy and cation-exchange capacity of stream clays __ __ _ ____ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _______ ___ -- 13

7. Mineralogy and cation-exchange capacity of stream silts ___ _______ __ ____ _ __ _ _______ _ __.- _ _ _ 17

8. Comparison of clay minerals in silt fraction as estimated from X-ray and exchange-capacity data ___ _____._-_ 19

9. Mineralogy and cation-exchange capacity of stream sands __ _ _____-_- _ ______ _ _ __ __ _ ----- _ --- 20

10. Variation of exchange capacity with grain size in some samples of bed sand and silt __ _____ ___ ----- _ 22

1 1 . Exchange capacities of sand and silt before and after chemical an d mechanical dispersion ___________ 23

12. Ratio of cations adsorbed on suspended sediment to cations dissolved in a unit volume of solution __ _ -_._-___ 24

13. Thickness of bed sand, silt, or clay required to make adsorbed cations equal to cations dissolved in water above

the streambed __ -----------_-_________._________ _ _ ___ _ __________________---------_ 26

ill

TRANSPORT OF RADIONUCLIDES BY STREAMS

MINERALOGY AND CATION-EXCHANGE CAPACITY OF SEDIMENTS FROM SELECTED

STREAMS

By VANCE C. KENNEDY

ABSTRACT

The mineralogy and cation-exchange capacity (CEC) of sediments from 21 streams were determined as part of a continuing 

investigation of the effect of sediments on the chemical composition of stream water. The sediments studied were taken from 

streams throughout the United States, and represent a great 

variety of geologic and climatic environments.

Illite, kaolinite, vermiculite, aluminum-interlay ere d clay 

minerals, and quartz comprise most of the clay-size fraction 

(<0.004 mm) from five streams in the eastern United States. 

In streams of central and west-central United States, the claysize fraction consists mainly of montmorillonite, vermiculite, and 

mixed-layer clay along with some illite, kaolinite, quartz, feldspars, and carbonates but little, if any, aluminum-inter layered 

clay minerals. The mineralogy of stream clay in California and 

Oregon varies widely, probably because of the great range in 

geologic and climatic conditions.

Sand and silt reflect the lithology of the rocks, as modified 

by weathering, in each drainage basin. Rock fragments are 

thoroughly broken down in areas of intense weathering, and 

stream sand tends to be relatively free of fine-grained rock fragments. In areas where rocks are fine grained and weathering 

is less intense, fine-grained rock fragments are important 

constituents of the stream silt and sand.

The cation-exchange capacity of clay-size fractions in the 

streams studied ranged from 14 to 28 meq per 100 g in the 

eastern United States, 25 to 65 meq per 100 g in the central 

and west-central United States, and 18 to 65 meq per 100 g in 

California and Oregon. The higher exchange capacities are 

characteristic of samples containing high proportions of 

montmorillonite and (or) vermiculite.

Clay minerals as part of multimineralic grains apparently are 

responsible for most of the exchange capacity of sand and silt. 

The CEC of sand ranges from about 0.3 to 13 meq per 100 g, 

and of silt from about 4 to 30 meq per 100 g.

Cation-exchange capacity commonly increases as grain size 

decreases, but this relation is not true for many stream sands 

and silts that contain important percentages of rock fragments. 

Instead, a minimum CEC is measured in the fine-sand to coarsesilt range where the fewest clay aggregates occur.

The ratio of cations adsorbed on suspended sediment to cations 

in solution is usually greatest when the concentration of suspended sediment is highest. This ratio reaches a maximum of 

0.8 in the eastern streams studied but may be 3 or more in some

western streams. Under such conditions, the adsorbed cations 

help stabilize the chemical composition of the water and also 

constitute a significant part of the cations in transport.

Cations adsorbed on bed sediments may equal or exceed 

cations in solution above the bed in streams which are less than 

about 1 foot in depth. In such streams, the exchange capacity 

of bed sediments also may be an important factor in stabilizing 

the chemical composition of stream water.

INTRODUCTION 

PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY

Sediment is known to affect the chemical composition 

of stream waters in various ways. Some minerals will 

dissolve, some may cause precipitation of certain 

dissolved ions, and others, because of their exchange 

capacity, may help stabilize the composition of stream 

water. In 1959 the U.S. Geological Survey, on behalf 

of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, began a reconnaissance study of the mineralogy and exchange 

capacity of modern stream sediments in the United 

States. The purpose of the investigation was to learn 

something about the range of mineralogy and exchange 

capacity and to obtain a better understanding of why 

mineralogy and exchange capacity vary as they do. 

Such information permits prediction of conditions in 

streams not examined and an intelligent selection of 

factors to be studied first in any investigation of a 

new area.

Information on range of mineralogy and exchange 

capacity can be used in estimating the possible uptake 

by sediments of radioactive ions dissolved in stream 

water. For example, stream sediments having a high 

exchange capacity can generally be expected to remove 

more radioactive ions (such as those discharged as 

low-level waste from atomic power plants) than those 

having a low exchange capacity. Some minerals tend 

to be selective in the ions which they adsorb from 

solution. The clay mineral illite is an example; it is 

highly selective for cesium (Tamura and Jacobs, 1960).

Dl
D2 TRANSPORT OF RADIONUCLIDES BY STREAMS

Thus, with a knowledge of mineralogy and exchange 

capacity of stream sediments, the probable affinity of 

the sediments for some radionuclides may be predicted. 

However, much additional work must be done before 

the selectivity of any particular mineral for certain ions 

will be thoroughly understood.

Another use for information on mineralogy and 

exchange capacity is in estimating the proportion of 

industrial waste which may be carried adsorbed on 

stream sediment instead of in solution in the stream. 

This use is of particular significance when the stream 

water is used as a source of drinking water.

In areas where pollution is not a problem, knowledge 

of the proportion of ions carried adsorbed on sediment, 

as compared to that in solution, helps in understanding 

the geochemical cycle of various elements. Such information will be increasingly important as more is learned 

about the selectivity of various minerals for particular 

ions.

PLAN OF STUDY

The sampling sites chosen for this investigation 

represent a wide range of climatic, geologic, and hydrologic conditions. An effort was made to obtain five 

sets of samples of both suspended sediment and bed 

material from 21 sites on streams in various parts of 

the United States (fig. 1; see table 1, p. D6 for site 

descriptions). One set was to be taken during low 

flow, one near median flow, and three during different 

periods of high flow; however, not all the planned 

samples were obtained because the desired flow conditions did not occur.

When possible, both the suspended-sediment and the 

bed-material samples were prepared by compositing 

sediment from at least five centroids of discharge, that 

is, from five points in a cross section representing equal 

parts of the stream discharge. Sampling sites were 

restricted to locations where sediment investigations 

were already being made by the Geological Survey, to 

simplify the sampling process and also to make the 

results more useful.

Both suspended and bed samples were divided into 

day «0.004 mm), silt (0.004-0.061 mm), sand (0.061- 

1.0 mm), and, if necessary, gravel (>1 mm) sizes. 

Mineralogical analyses and exchange-capacity determinations were made for the three finer size fractions, 

and variations with time and discharge were noted for 

each stream. The mineralogy and exchange capacity 

of sediments from various streams were compared and 

an attempt made to explain differences on the basis of 

geology and climate.

The importance of the exchange capacity of stream 

sediments in stabilizing water quality was evaluated

by comparing the amount of dissolved cations (in 

milliequivalents) with those adsorbed on bed or suspended sediment.

PREVIOUS WORK

Other investigators have studied the mineralogy of 

sediments in various modern streams (for example, 

Holmes and Hearn, 1942; Powers, 1953; Nelson, 1960; 

Taggart and Kaiser, 1960; and Griffin, 1962), but 

relatively few data are available concerning the exchange capacities of the sediments examined. Nielsen 

and Perkins (1962), Nielsen (1963), Blanco and Struxness (1961), Carrit and Goodgal (1953), and Simpson 

and others (1959) have demonstrated the effectiveness 

of stream sediment in removing some cations from 

solution. A major part of the cations so removed may 

be held in exchange positions on the stream sediment.

Although information on mineralogy and exchange 

capacity of modern stream sediments is somewhat 

limited, there is a considerable amount of data on the 

mineralogy and exchange capacity of soils (Kelley, 

1948). Inasmuch as most of the sediment load in 

streams is derived from surface soils by erosion, knowledge of soils in various parts of the country can be very 

helpful in predicting and understanding the characteristics of stream sediments. Griffin (1962) presented a 

map of the Mississippi River, Mobile River, and Appalachicola River basins together with the mineral composition of samples of soil clay from numerous localities 

in the basins. He demonstrated that mineralogy of 

stream sediments correlated well with mineralogy of the 

soil clay within the drainage area.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Most of the sediment samples were collected by personnel from Geological Survey Quality of Water Branch 

district offices in various parts of the United States. 

Sample preparation was done mainly by J. R. Mason, 

Jr., and E. C. Mallory, Jr. Mineralogical analyses of 

the <0.004 mm fraction were made by J. R. Mason, Jr., 

T. E. Brown, and the writer in consultation with L. G. 

Schultz. The 0.004-0.061 mm fraction was analyzed 

by W. N. Lockwood, P. J. Dunton, and the writer.

Exchange-capacity determinations were made by 

J. R. Mason, Jr., and Edward Villasanna under the supervision of V. J. Janzer.

Work on this project was begun under the supervision of J. D. Hem in 1959 and continued by the 

author beginning in 1960. Grateful acknowledgment 

is made for the technical help provided by Hem during 

the period 1960-63.
MINERALOGY AND CATION-EXCHANGE CAPACITY OF SEDIMENTS D3
D4 TRANSPORT OF RADIONUCLIDES BY STREAMS

METHODS OF ANALYSIS

SAMPLE TREATMENT

Suspended and bed samples were divided into clay, 

silt, sand, and gravel fractions. With few exceptions, 

the sediment was kept wet from the time of collection 

until separated into various size fractions. If size 

separations could not be made shortly after receipt in 

the laboratory, the sediment was stored at about 

 15°C. The separation into gravel, sand, and siltplus-clay fractions was made by wet sieving in tap 

water. After filtering, the moist silt-plus-clay fraction 

was placed in distilled water and the mixture was shaken 

violently by hand. This mixture was then centrifuged 

to settle the >0.004 mm material. Suspended material was siphoned off and the procedure repeated until 

virtually all material finer than 0.004 mm had been 

removed. Each size fraction was air dried and stored 

until mineralogical analyses and exchange-capacity 

determinations could be made.

EXCHANGE CAPACITY

Exchange-capacity determinations were made by 

using a slightly modified version of the radioactivecesium method described by Beetem and others (1962). 

In essence, the method consists of shaking the sample 

three times for at least 4 hours in successive aliquots 

of a 0.5^ solution of cesium chloride, which contains 

radioactive cesium. This treatment is presumed to 

saturate the cation-exchange sites with cesium. The 

sample is washed repeatedly with ethyl alcohol until 

the washings give no visible precipitate when silver 

nitrate is added. The radioactivity of the salt-free 

sample is measured in a well-type gamma scintillation 

counter, and the amount of cesium adsorbed on the 

sample is calculated.

Because a part of the cesium may become fixed by 

illite or vermiculite present in the sample (Barshad, 

1950; Tamura and Jacobs, 1960), the cation-exchange 

capacity measured by the radioactive-cesium method 

may differ somewhat from that determined by using 

other cations. Comparison of the cesium method with 

the ammonium and manganese methods (Beetem and 

others, 1962) suggests that the cesium-exchange capacities may be a few percent higher than those measured 

by the other two methods.

Many of the samples available for exchange-capacity 

determinations were less than the optimum amount. 

As a result, the precision of the analyses was approximately ±10 percent.

MINERALOGY

CLAY

The mineralogy of the clay-size fraction was determined by X-ray diffraction methods. A Norelco widerange goniometer and nickel-filtered copper radiation 

were used at a scanning speed of 2° per minute. Fluorite was used as an internal standard in a randomly 

oriented powder to determine the quartz content. Oriented mounts were prepared on porous tiles which were 

X-rayed after air drying, after glycollation, after heating to 300°C, and after heating to 550°C.

The following criteria were used in identifying the 

clay minerals present on the oriented mounts. A peak 

on the diffractometer pattern at about 10 A, which 

remained after air drying, glycollation, and heating, 

was considered evidence of the presence of illite. A 

peak near 14 A in the air-dried sample which moved 

to about 17 A on glycollation and collapsed to 10 A on 

heating to 300°C indicated montmorillonite. A peak 

near 14 A in the air-dried sample which did not move 

on glycollation but collapsed on heating indicated vermiculite. A peak near 14 A after heating to 550°C 

was considered indicative of chlorite. A peak at 7 A 

which collapsed on heating at 550°C indicated kaolinite, unless chlorite was present; the 002 reflection of 

chlorite can also give a 7-A peak which disappears at 

550°C. If chlorite was present, the sample was warmed 

in QN HC1 at 60°C overnight to remove it (Schultz, 

1964, p. 8), and any residual 7-A peak was interpreted 

as kaolinite. The removal of chlorite by acid treatment was shown by the absence of a 14-A peak on 

heating at 550°C.

Mixed layering is indicated by intermediate spacing 

of the peaks on the diffractometer patterns. Thus, 

montmorillonite-illite interlayering may produce a 

separate peak between 10 and 14 A which shifts toward 

a greater interlayer spacing on glycollation. Commonly, in stream sediments, mixed layering causes a 

broadening of the 14-A peak for the air-dried sample, 

and of the 17-A peak on glycollation. Chlorite-illite 

interlayering can cause a peak between 10 and 14 A or 

broaden the 10-A or 14-A peaks, but the peaks do not 

shift appreciably on glycollation or heating.

Aluminum-interlayered clays, or "dioctahedral vermiculite" (described by Brown, 1953; Kich and Obenshain, 1955; and Tamura, 1958), occur in many streams 

in the eastern United States and can be distinguished 

from the minerals discussed above. The rather broad 

peak produced on the X-ray diffraction pattern by the 

oriented and air-dried mineral indicates an interlayer 

spacing of approximately 14 A. This peak does not 

move on glycollation, but on heating it gradually 

shifts toward 10 A. Complete collapse to 10 A may 

not occur, even at 550°C.
MINERALOGY AND CATION-EXCHANGE CAPACITY OF SEDIMENTS D5

Available evidence indicates that the aluminuminterlayered clays may consist of either montmorillonite 

or vermiculite (Rich, 1960; Sawhney, 1960; Tamura, 

1957; Dixon and Jackson, 1959) which has aluminum 

precipitated in variable quantities in the interlayer 

space.

Although many of the samples of stream clay were 

rather poorly crystallized (as indicated by the X-ray 

diffraction patterns) and commonly contained three to 

four different clay minerals, an effort was made to 

estimate the proportion of each clay mineral present. 

The area of the 10-A peak after glycollation was taken 

as a reference and was assumed to represent the amount 

of illite present. The area of the 7-A peak was divided 

by a factor which ranged from 1 to 2 depending upon 

the ratio of height to area of the 7-A peak. This 

ratio is taken as a measure of the degree of crystallinity 

of the kaolinite (Schultz, 1960, p. 221). When the 

7-A peak area was thus corrected, the following equation was used to determine the ratio of kaolmite-pluschlorite to illite:

7-A peak area

10-A peak area (glycollated)

Kaolinite -f- chlorite 

= illite

The relative amounts of chlorite and kaolinite contributing to the 7-A peak were calculated by using the 

following equation:

[

7-A peak height (air dried) 

_____^ 2/3X14-Apeak height (550°C) 

Chlorite ~~ 2/3X 14-A peak height (550°C)

The ratio of the 001 peak height to the 002 peak 

height of chlorite varies depending upon the composition of the chlorite. However, for simplicity, the 002 

peak height of air-dried chlorite has been considered to 

be two-thirds the 001 peak height after heating to 

550°C.

The proportion of combined montmorillonite, vermiculite, and mixed-layer clay not containing chlorite was 

estimated by noting the increase in the 10-A peak area 

when the oriented clay was heated from the glycollated 

condition to 300°C. Most montmorillonitic stream 

clays appeared to contain a significant amount of 

mixed-layered material, as indicated by the absence of 

higher order peaks and by the broadening of both the 

14-A peak in the air-dried material and the 17-A peak 

after glycollation.

The proportions of montmorillonite, vermiculite, and 

mixed-layer clays, excluding chlorite, were estimated on 

the assumption that the 17-A peak of an oriented, 

glycol-treated montmorillonite sample is 4-5 times as 

high as the 10-A peak of the montmorillonite in the 

same slide after heat treatment (Schultz, 1964, p. 8).

773-593^-65 2

If the 10-A peak after heat treatment increased by 

more than the height of the 17-A peak divided by 4.5, 

mixed-layer clay was assumed to be present. The 

amount of mixed-layer clay was obtained by subtracting the estimated montmorillonite from the proportion 

of combined montmorillonite, vermiculite, and mixedlayer clay, exclusive of chlorite, determined as described 

above. Any vermiculite would, thus, be labeled 

"mixed-layer" clay.

The content of aluminum-interlayered clays was 

determined by using the diffraction pattern obtained 

after heating the oriented specimen to 300°C. The 

area under the curve in the 11- to 12-A region which 

did not appear to be a part of the 10-A peak was 

measured and assumed to represent the proportion of 

the aluminum-interlayered clays. Any mixed-layer 

chlorite-illite in this region would be classified as 

aluminum-interlayered clay. No correction factor was 

used in comparing this 11- to 12-A area with the 10-A 

illite peak.

The proportion of vermiculite in the clay-size fraction 

was difficult to estimate by the method described above 

because of the presence of aluminum-interlayered clay 

and (or) mixed-layer clay. After completion of most of 

the mineralogic analyses, an attempt was made to 

evaluate the amount of vermiculite present by using 

other techniques. One sample from each stream was 

soaked in IN MgCl2 for at least 2 hours and then exposed to glycerol vapor at 70 °C for at least 4 hours. 

A separate aliquot of the clay was soaked in IN KC1 

solution for at least 2 hours. The K-saturated clays 

and the glycerolated Mg-saturated clays were then 

mounted on glass slides for X-ray analysis. The 

vermiculite present was evaluated on the assumption 

that Mg-saturated vermiculite should not expand 

beyond about 14.5 A when treated with glycerol and 

should collapse to about 10.3 A on potassium saturation 

(Brown, 1961, p. 315-316; Barshad, 1948; Walker, 

1958). Aluminum-interlayered clays should retain an 

interlayer spacing of about 14-A under potassium 

saturation (Hathaway, 1955).

The composition of the total clay-size sample was 

calculated by subtracting the percentage of quartz, 

feldspar, carbonates, organic matter (estimated by 

doubling the organic carbon), amorphous material, and 

other nonclay minerals from 100 percent and then dividing the remaining percentage among the various 

clay minerals as described above. Even though an 

effort was made to correct for some variations in the 

diffracting characteristics of different clay minerals, the 

results are still only semiquantitative. The data for 

the nonclay minerals are more precise and are considered 

more accurate than those for the clay minerals. This
D6 TRANSPORT OF RADIONUCLIDES BY STREAMS

conclusion is reflected in the manner in which the data 

are presented.

The percentage of quartz, feldspar, carbonates, and 

other nonclay minerals was estimated by using synthetic 

standards. Organic carbon was determined as the 

difference between total carbon and carbonate carbon. 

Total carbon was determined by pyrometric combustion 

in an induction-type furnace, and carbonate carbon by 

the gas evolution method described by Kader and Grimaldi (1961). Analyses for amorphous silica and 

alumina were made by the method of Hashimoto and 

Jackson (1960), as modified by E. C. Mallory, Jr. 

(written commun.). The "amorphous silica and alumina" determined may include solution products of 

very fine-grained clay and poorly crystalline material as 

well as amorphous alumino-silicate, free silica, free 

alumina, and gibbsite. Hence, the figure given can be 

considered as an upper limit on the truly amorphous

material present.

SII/T

A representative portion weighing about 1 g was 

ground mechanically for one-half hour under alcohol. 

Approximately 450 mg of the ground material was mixed 

in exactly a 9:1 ratio with about 50 mg of fine-grained 

synthetic anhydrite, which formed the internal standard 

during X-ray diffraction analysis. Curves showing the 

intensity of the major anhydrite peak versus peak intensities of various common minerals present in known 

standards were used in determining the mineral composition of the stream silts.

SAND

Stream sand was separated from gravel and silt by 

wet sieving and then stored dry. A representative split 

was mounted in plastic and a thin section prepared. 

After staining potassium-bearing minerals with sodium 

cobaltinitrite (Gabriel and Cox, 1929; Kosenblum, 

1956), the area of the slide occupied by each mineral 

species was determined petrographically by using a 

click counter. The volume percentage so determined 

was corrected to weight percentage by using appropriate 

specific gravities of each sediment constituent.

TABLE 1. Climate of stream basins studied 

[Range is given if precipitation or temperature varies widely within the basin. 

Weather information is from U.S. Weather Bureau data (1960; 1962) unless otherwise indicated]

Stream

No.

(fig. 

1)

Name

Sampling location

Approximate 

average 

annual 

precipitation 

within the 

basin 

(inches)

Approximate 

mean annual 

temperature 

within the 

basin (°F)

Eastern United States

1

2 

3

4

5

Brandywine 

Creek.

Yadkin River. .

Licking River ......

At Wilmington, Del. .....

At Yadkin College, N.C.. 

At McKinneysburg, Ky. .

144

41

47->55 

46 

47

53

50 

50-58 

57 

57

Central United States

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17

Colorado River ....

Rio Grande RiverSan Juan River .... 

Animas River ...... 

San Juan River __ 

Colorado River. ... 

Cheyenne River ... 

Big Horn River. 

At St. Louis, Mo. .........

At Wamego, Kans. ___

At Santa Rosa, N. Mex _ 

At Otowi Bridge near San 

Ildefonso, N. Mex. 

At Bloomfield, N. Mex... 

At Fannington, N. Mex.. 

At Shiprock, N. Mex.....

Near Hot Springs, S. Dak.

<10->40 

15-30 

25 

16-40 

14 

<8->28

<10->28 

<10->28 

<8->28 

<8->40 

<16-24 

<8->48

36->55 

54 

61 

60-70 

50-58 

35-57

36-50 

36-50 

36-50 

34-55 

46 

40-47

Western United States

18 

19 

20 

21

Cosumnes River ...

Crooked River .. ...

At McConnel, Calif ....... 

At Yolo, Calif.. _____

16->56 

16->32 

40-64 8-12

48-62 

59 

52 

46

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STREAM WATERS 

STREAM BASINS STUDIED

AND

Considerable knowledge of geology, topography, soil 

development, climate, vegetation, streamflow variation, 

and man's activities in a stream basin is needed to 

understand why sediment carried by the stream is composed of particular minerals, or why the sediment has 

a certain exchange capacity. Some of the available 

information about the streams investigated in this study 

is summarized in tables 1-5.

i Olmsted and Hely, 1962, p. A-2.

TABLE 2. Physical and chemical quality of water in streams

studied

tAll published water-quality data were obtained from "Quality of surface waters 

of the United States," a series of U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Papers. Range 

of dissolved cations was calculated from chemical analyses of water, or estimated 

from specific-conductance measurements]

Stream

No. 

(fig. 

1)

Name

Range of 

mean daily 

suspended 

sediment 

concentration (ppm)

Period of 

suspended sediment record 

considered

Range of 

dissolved 

cations 

(meq per 1)

Eastern United States

1 

2 

3 

4 

5

Yadkin River... __ __

1-1,550 

1-1,130 

1-2,970 

1-4,230 

i 1-3, 180

1946-58 

1944-53; 1953-58 

1951-58 

1952-58 _ _ ..

1951-59. _ ........

0.70-2.2 

.75-4.7 

.25-1.3 

.90-3.9 

* . 58-51

Central United States

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12

13

14 

15 

16 

17

Colorado River, Tex ......

San Juan River, Bloomfield.

San Juan River, Shiprock 

Colorado River, Utah .....

35-6, 420 

87-8, 660 

15-8,080 

12-11,600 

13-13,800 

18-42, 600 

58-101, 000

1-36, 100 

8-86,000 

13-66, 300 

<10-55, 000 

<5-33,000

1948-57 

1956-58 __ . .......

1958-61 _____ 

1957-63. ______

1959-60. __ . ......

1948-57. ...........

1955-57 ............

1950-57- _____ .

1950-57 ____ .

1930-52; 1953-57. 

1946-58- - .._

1946-58 

2. 2-18. 5 

11.5-41 

* 1.5-7. 6 

1 2. 3-20 

1.7-14 

1. 1-27

1.7-22.5 

2.0-40+ 

3.0-49 

7.8-45 

4.6-21

Western United States

18 

19 

20 

21

1 8-1, 310 

i 7-6, 130 

U-4,560 

12-1,020

1956-60- _ ... _ .

Jan.-Mar. 1959 .... 

1957-60 

1959-60 _ . ...

10.57-1.2 

»2.3-7 

1.97-3.3 

1.90-2.0

1 Wholly or in part from unpublished data supplied by U.S. Geol. Survey Quality 

of Water Branch oflices.

2 Oil-field brines flowing into the river beginning in August 1958 greatly increased 

the concentration of dissolved cations above the normal maximum of about 5.2 meq 

per 1 (Krieger and Hendrickson, 1960).

> Chemical quality of water at Columbus has been assumed to be similar to that 

at Wharton, Tex., for which numerous chemical analyses are available.
MINERALOGY AND CATION-EXCHANGE CAPACITY OF SEDIMENTS D7

TABLE 3. Drainage area and discharge of streams studied 

[Hydrologic data were obtained from "Surface Water Supply of the United States," a series of U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Papers]

Stream

No. 

(flg.l)

Name

Drainage 

area 

(sq mi)

Average discharge 

(cfs)

Range of 

discharge 

(cfs)

Average 

runoff 

(inches)

Period of record 

prior to 1960 Reservoirs and diversions upstream at time of sampling

Eastern United States

1

2 

3 

4 

5

Juniata River _________

Yadkin River. 

Green River __________

314 

3,354

2,280 

2,326 

1,673

466 

4,320 

2,896 

2,972 

2,581

30-17,800 

241-209,000 

177-94, 300 

3. 8-54, 100 

39-87, 000

20.2 

17.5 

20.3 

17.4 

21

1946-60 

1899-1960 _

1924-25; 1938-60 

1915-22; 1927-31; 

1937-60.

Central United States

6

7

8 

9

10 

11

12

13

14 

15 

16 

17

Elk Creek __________

Colorado River, Tex _____

Rio Grande River ______

San Juan River, Bloomfield 

Animas River ___ ___

San Juan River, Shiprock. .... 

Colorado River, Utah .. _....

701,000 

55,240

549 

41,070

2,650 

14, 300

5,410

1,360 

12,900 

24,100 

8,710 

15, 765

174,700 

4,785

66.5 

3,410

153 

1,596

1,645

968 

2,403 

8,057 

273 

2,255

18,000-1,019,000 

73-400,000

0-22,400 

93-190, 000

2.7-55,200 

60-24, 400

50-20,500

2. 4-25, 000 

8-80, 000 

558-76,800 

2.8-114,000 

28-2, 890

3.4

1.2

1.6 

1.1

.78 

1.82

4.12

9.6

2.53 

4.54 

.42 

1.94

1904-08; 1949-60. 

1916-60 

1912-24; 1928-60 

1895-1905; 1909-60 

1910-11; 1927-31; 

1956-60. 

1904-05; 1912-60 

1926-60- _

1911-60 __ 

1946-58 

1Q98_fifl

Numerous reservoirs in the Missouri River basin. 

Many small diversions; Kirwin, Kanopolis, Webster, and 

Cedar Bluffs Reservoirs.

Many diversions above dam for irrigation. Flow largely 

regulated by Lake Travis and Buchanan Reservoir 

above Austin.

Diversions upstream for irrigating about 12,000 acres. 

Flow partly regulated by El Vado, Reservoir on Rio Chama 

which contributes about 40 percent of flow. Diversions 

to irrigate 694,000 acres. 

Diversions for irrigation of about 52,000 acres above station.

Diversions for irrigation of about 30,000 acres upstream. 

Many diversions for irrigation. 

Numerous low dams upstream. 

Some diversion for irrigation. 

Boysen Reservoir on Wind River affects flow.

Western United States

18 

19

20 

21

730 

1,137

485 

2,160

580 

518

1,574 

330

0-54, 000 

0-41,400

16-77, 800 

4-7, 550

10.8 

6.2

44 

2.14

1941-60- _ ....

1903-60 . __

1940-60 

Diversions for irrigation of about 2,100 acres upstream. 

Flow controlled by Clear Lake and by diversions for irrigation of 30,000 acres. 

Diversion for city of Eureka. 

Many diversions for irrigation.

TABLE 4. Geology and topography of stream basins studied 

[Most topographic information from Fenneman (1946)]

Stream

No. 

(flg.D

Name

Geology Topographic province and section Topography

Eastern United States

1 

2

4

5

Brandywine Creek. ...

Yadkin River..... ....

Mainly schist and gneiss and lesser quartzite, 

phyltite, limestone, dolomite, gabbro, anorthosite, and quartz monzonite (Wolman, 1955). 

Folded limestone, dolomite, quartzite, sandstone, 

and shale. 

Mica gneiss, granite, diorite, gabbro, mica schist, 

and lesser areas of hornblende gneiss and schist, 

quartzite, marble, claystone, sandstone and 

conglomerate (North Carolina Dept. Conserv. 

Devel., 1961). Mostly shale, limestone, and limy shale; some 

sandstone, siltstone, and conglomerate (Hall 

and Palmquist, 1960a, 1960b; Kentucky Geol. 

Survey, 1954). Mostly siltstone, shale, limestone; a little sandstone (Kentucky Geol. Survey, 1954).

Upland section of the Piedmont provinceMiddle section of the Valley and Ridge 

province. 

River heads in the southern section of the 

Blue Ridge province, but much of the 

basin lies in the upland section of the 

Piedmont province.

River rises in Kanawha section of Appalachian Plateau province and flows 

through Lexington plain of Interior Low 

Plateaus. 

Highland Rim section of Interior Low 

Plateaus.

Dissected upland of mature topography 

and moderate relief.

Even-crested ridges predominate over 

valleys, Drainage pattern is trellislike. 

Subdued mountains.

Mature plateau of strong relief.

Young to mature plateau of moderate 

relief. Karst topography in lower part 

of drainage basin.

Central United States

Mississippi River__

Kansas River. 

Elk Creek__.

Various types of igneous and metamorphic rocks 

near the headwaters. Widespread limestone, 

shale, and sandstone in the main part of the 

basin (U.S. Geol. Survey, 1932).

Shale and sandstone and lesser areas of calcareous 

deposits (Kansas State Geol. Survey, 1937).

Shale, sandstone, gypsum, and a little dolomite 

(Miser, 1954).

Mostly in Central Lowlands and Great 

Plains provinces, but the Missouri 

River heads in the Rocky Mountains.

High Plains and Plains Border sections of 

Great Plains province.

Osage Plains section of the Central Lowlands.

Ranges from mountainous near the headwaters of the Missouri River to plains in 

various stages of erosion.

Submature to mature plateau and ate

mature to old plains. 

Old scarped plains beveling faintly inclined

strata. Main streams are entrenched.
D8 TRANSPORT OF RADIONUCLIDES BY STREAMS 

TABLE 4. Geology and topography of stream basins studied Continued

Stream

No.

(fig.l)

Name

Geology Topographic province and section Topography

Central United States Continued

9 Colorado River, Tex_

10

12

13

14

16

17

Pecos River.

Rio Grande River.....

San Juan River, 

Bloomfleld.

Animas River.

San Juan Eiver, 

Shiprock.

Colorado River, UtahCheyenne RiverBig Horn River -

Above Austin, Tex., rocks are mainly limestone 

and dolomite and some granite, gneiss, schist, 

sandstone, and shale. Below Austin, sandstone, greensand, lignitic beds, shale, and marl 

containing tuff occur (U.S. Geol. Survey, 1937; 

Folk and others, 1961).

Shale, sandstone, and some limestone, gypsum, 

granite, schist, and quartzite (U.S. Geol. Survey, 1928).

Rhyolite, andesite, basalt, quartz latite, tufl, 

alluvium, and small areas of limestone, sandstone, shale, and gypsum (U.S. Geol. Survey, 

1928, 1935).

Mainly shale and sandstone; smaller areas of conglomerate, coaly beds, tuff, andesite, rhyolite, 

and quartz latite (U.S. Geol. Survey, 1928, 

1935).

Sandstone and shale in lower basin but granite, 

schist, gneiss, slate, quartzite, limestone, dolomite, sandstone, and shale in upper basin (U.S. 

Geol. Survey, 1928,1935).

Includes Animas Eiver drainage, San Juan River 

drainage above Bloomfleld, and additional large 

areas of shale and sandstone (U.S. Geol. Survey, 

1928,1935).

Large areas of sandstone and shale; some andesite, 

basalt, latite, tuff, rhyolite, gneiss, greenstone, 

schist, granite, and a little limestone and dolomite (U.S. Geol. Survey, 1935).

Mainly shale and sandstone; smaller areas of conglomerate and limestone. Much of the shale 

is carbonaceous and some is bentonitic (U.S. 

Geol. Survey, 1951; Love and others, 1955).

Mostly shale, sandstone, siltstone, and lesser 

dolomite, limestone, conglomerate, pyroclastics, 

granite, and inetasediments. Some shale is 

bentonitic; other is phosphatic (Love and 

others, 1955).

Upper drainage is in Edwards Plateau and 

Central Texas section of Great Plains 

province. Lower drainage is in Coastal 

Plain.

River heads in Southern Rocky Mountains province but lies mostly in Pecos 

section of Great Plains province.

Mainly in Southern Rocky Mountains 

province. Lower pa~t in Navajosection 

of Colorado Plateaus province.

River heads in Southern Rocky Mountains province with most of the area in 

the Navajo section of the Colorado 

Plateaus province.

Similar to San Juan River at Bloomfleld.

Mainly in Navajo section of Colorado 

Plateaus province but heads in the 

Southern Rocky Mountains province.

River heads in Southern Rocky Mountains province, but part of the drainage 

is in the Uinta Basin and Canyon Lands 

section of the Colorado Plateaus province.

Missouri Plateau section of Central Lowlands province. Part of area is hi Black 

Hills section.

Mainly Middle Rocky Mountains province, but partly in the Wyoming Basin 

province.

Upper drainage ranges from young to old 

plateaus having various amounts of 

relief. Streams are entrenched in the 

rolling to level Coastal Plain.

Mostly late mature to old plains heading 

in complex mountains and mature block 

mountains of gently tilted strata.

Complex mountains and intermontane 

basins. Smaller area of young plateaus.

Largely young plateaus.

Do.

Do.

Complex mountains of great relief and 

young to mature plateaus.

Old plateau, terrace lands, local badlands, 

isolated mountains, few maturely dissected domed mountains.

Complex mountains, intennontane basins; 

some low mountains and elevated plains.

Western United States

19

20

21

Cosumnes River.

Cache CreekMad River.

Crooked River.

Granite, andesite, metasediments; lesser areas of 

basic metaigneous rocks and ultramafic intrusives. Lower basin contains sedimentary rocks, 

mainly sandstone and shale (Jenkins, 1938).

Silty and feldspathic sandstone, shale, altered 

lava, serpentine, tuff, mafic and ultramafic 

rocks; some limestone and conglomerate (Jenkins, 1938; Anderson, 1936; Kirby, 1943).

Information sparse. .Arkosic sandstone and inter bedded volcanics, shale, conglomerate, chert; 

some schist, slate, and mafic and ultramafic intrusives. Chlorite is common constituent in the 

rocks (Manning and Ogle, 1950).

Largely basalt, andesite and lesser tuff, and rhyolite flows (Wilkinson and Alien, 1939).

Stream heads in the Sierra Nevada section of Cascade-Sierra Mountains province and flows into the California 

Trough section of the Pacific Border 

province.

California Coast Ranges section of 

Pacific Border province.

.doWalla Walla Plateau section of Columbia 

Plateaus province.

Alpine peaks, great relief, grading into 

fluviatile plain.

Parallel ranges and valleys on folded and 

faulted sedimentary, metamorphic, and 

igneous rocks.

Do.

Rolling plateau having young incised 

valleys.

In table 1 the approximate average annual precipitation and approximate mean annual temperature are 

given for each basin. In areas which are both warm 

and moist, such as the Yadkin River basin, weathering 

is relatively rapid. Where either precipitation or temperatures are low, chemical reactions are slowed and 

weathering rates are also slow. Inasmuch as weathering intensity helps determine the mineralogy of soils, 

one must know something about the climate of an 

area if he is to understand why certain minerals are 

found in the soil-erosion products carried by streams.

The concentration of suspended sediment and of dissolved solids tends to be rather low in areas of high rainfall and high in areas of low rainfall. This can be seen

from examination of table 2, and by reference to a report 

by Rainwater (1962). In the eastern United States, 

the moisture encourages vegetative cover, and the soil 

is thus protected from erosion. More water is available 

than necessary to leach out easily soluble salts from the 

soil; therefore, the concentration of dissolved solids in 

stream waters is low. In the arid Southwest, vegetative 

cover is sparse and occasional intense thunderstorms 

erode large amounts of soil. This erosion results in 

high suspended-sediment concentrations. Salts in soil 

solutions are concentrated by evaporation during the 

long dry periods and are later leached by rainwater to 

give large concentrations of dissolved salts.
MINERALOGY AND CATION-EXCHANGE CAPACITY OF SEDIMENTS D9

TABLE 5. Soils within the stream basins studied 

[Clay minerals reported are those found in soils within a stream basin or in soils outside the basin but representing a soil series present in the basin]

Stream

No. 

(iig.D

Name

Soil description Clay minerals reported

Brandywine Creek. 

Juniata River__. 

Yadkin River___ 

Licking River______

Green River.._____

Mississippi River. 

Kansas River.....

Elk Creek............

Colorado River, Tex.

Pecos River________. 

Rio Grande River____. 

San Juan River, Bloomfield. 

Animas River_______. 

San Juan River, Shiprock.. 

Colorado River, Utah__. 

Cheyenne River._____.

Big Horn River .

Cosumnes River. 

Cache Creek. _.

Mad River_____ 

Crooked River.

Mostly deep, well-drained silt loam and lesser areas of shallow to deep

gravelly silt loam (Olmsted and Hely, 1962). 

Thin and poorly developed on steep slopes and ridge crest's, but moderately

well developed in the broader valleys. 

Deep to moderately deep, well-drained clay loam to sandy loam and lesser

areas of stony and shallow loam and clay loam (Lee, 1955). Well drained and medium textured (Winsor and Bailey, 1960)______.

Mostly fine textured and well drained (Winsor and Bailey, 1960)_____.

Wide variety of soil types and drainage conditions. ____________. 

Wide range in soil type, drainage, and development. Deep, well-drained

soils formed on loess are common in the western part of the basin (McBee

and others, 1961). 

Shallow to moderately deep soil ranging from silt loam to fine sand (Goke

and others, 1941; Goke and Hollopeter, 1931). Wide range in soil type and drainage development..____________.

Data not available.

Wide range in soil types. Detailed information not available. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do.

Large areas of well-drained loam and clay loam and smaller areas of rough, 

stony badlands (R. C. Kronenberger, U.S. Dept. Agriculture, written 

commun., 1963).

Surface is largely rough, stony, broken land. Desert, sierozem, and arid 

brown soils are common at lower elevations (R. C. Kronenberger, U.S. 

Dept. Agriculture, written commun., 1963). 

Well-drained, shallow to deep soils ranging from loamy sands to clay loam

(W. M. Johnson, U.S. Dept. Apiculture, written commun., 1963). 

Well-drained, shallow to deep soils ranging from clay loam to gravelly 

loam (W. M. Johnson, U.S. Dept. Agriculture, written commun., 1963).

Well-drained soils ranging from shallow, gravelly loam to deep, silty, clay

loam. 

Soils data not available.

Kaolinite, illite, chlorite, vermiculite (Kunkle, 1963).

Kaolinite abundant; some vermiculite (M. J. Edwards, 

U.S. Dept. Agriculture, written commun., 1963).

Kaolinite (M. J. Edwards, U.S. Dept. Agriculture, written 

commun., 1963).

Kaolinite, vermiculite, mica, and slight montmorillonite 

(M. J. Edwards, U.S. Dept. Agriculture, written commun., 1963).

Montmorillonite, illite, kaolinite (Griffin, 1962).

Illite, kaolinite, and montmorillonite (Badgleyand Crumpton, 1964; Griffin, 1962).

Montmorillonite and illite (J. R. Coover, U.S. Dept. 

Agriculture, written commun., 1963).

Kaolinite, mica, montmorillonite, and vermiculite (Isaac

Barshad and Esther Perry, written commun., 1959). 

Vermiculite, montmorillonite, kaolinite, and lesser mica

(Isaac Barshad and Esther Perry, written commun.,

1959). 

Chlorite, vermiculite, kaolinite, mica (Isaac Barshad and

Esther Perry, written commun., 1959).

Table 3 shows the great range in area of the stream 

basins studied and also indicates runoff characteristics. 

Information regarding reservoirs and diversions are 

given because they affect both the discharge ancl chemical nature of the streams. Reservoirs tend to reduce 

variations in discharge and chemical composition of 

stream water, whereas diversions for irrigation commonly result in reduced flow and increased dissolved 

salt concentrations.

Comparison of average runoff from table 3 with average precipitation (table 1) is helpful in indicating the 

percentage of precipitation available for removing dissolved salts and sediment from a basin.

The geology and topography of the stream basins 

studied is described in table 4. The information is 

necessary in understanding what type of material is 

being weathered and in estimating the potential energy 

available for mechanical weathering and transportation 

of sediment.

Because soils are the source of almost all of the sediment transported by streams, an understanding of their 

characteristics is necessary in predicting the mineralogy 

and size distribution in stream sediments. Table 5 

summarizes some of the available data on soil development and mineralogy for the basins which were studied.

MINERALOGY AND EXCHANGE CAPACITY OF 

STREAM SEDIMENTS

The data on the mineral constituents and exchange 

capacity of sediments from the 21 streams studied are 

summarized in tables 6-8. To better visualize the geographic distribution of clay minerals in the sediments, 

a map showing sampling locations and proportions of 

various constituents of the clay fraction is presented in 

figure 2. Similarly, the exchange capacities of the sand, 

silt, and clay fractions are shown as bar graphs on 

figure 3.

DISCUSSION OF DATA

Surface soil is the source of much of the material 

transported in solid form by a stream. However, where 

gullying is prevalent, appreciable amounts of the subsoil may be eroded.

Jackson (1959, p. 133) pointed out that the relative 

abundance of minerals in soils varies with five principal 

factors: (1) The characteristics of the minerals in the 

parent material, (2) the time of weathering, (3) the 

climate, (4) the relief, and (5) the biota. The first 

three factors are completely independent, but the relief 

will be determined largely by the first three factors. 

The biotic factor, in turn, will be significantly affected 

by the other four factors.
Kaolinite

llljte

clays Aluminum-interlayered 

clays Expanding 

oia J-HOdSJSCVHI, iO JL3 SHV3HJLS 
MILLIEQUIVALENTS IN CAPACITY, EXCHANGE 

GRAMS HUNDRED ONE PER 

lid

QNV aoKVHOxa-NOii-vo iuovavo £0 
D12 TRANSPORT OF RADIONUCLIDES BY STREAMS

Fine-grained minerals in the soil profile have large 

surface areas per unit weight and, hence, are more 

likely to approach equilibrium with their environment 

than are coarse-grained minerals.

Keller (1956, p. 2695-2704) pointed out that each of 

the major clay minerals tends to be stable in a characteristic environment. Thus, kaolin minerals are relatively stable under the oxidizing and acidic leaching 

conditions of the warm, humid southeastern United 

States (Ross, 1943), but montmorillonite is stable in 

the arid western United States where the soil solutions 

are alkaline and have a high concentration of salts. 

It is not surprising, therefore, that high exchangecapacity clay minerals are more common in soils of the 

West than in the Southeast (Keller, 1955, p. 71; 

Albrecht, 1947).

Walker (1949) has shown that mica in the soil is 

leached during weathering to yield an altered mineral 

having an interlayer spacing of about 10A. In claysize material, such a mineral would probably be 

considered illite. Inasmuch as Van Houton (1953) 

found illite in soils from many parts of the United 

States, it is at least moderately stable in several 

different soil environments.

VARIATION IN COMPOSITION AND EXCHANGE 

CAPACITY OP STREAM SEDIMENTS

Because the streams sampled were so selected that 

a wide range in the factors influencing soil mineralogy 

would be represented, considerable variation in mineralogy can be expected. When only a limited amount 

of sample was available, either mineralogy or exchange 

capacity was determined first and other tests were 

performed if material remained.

C:LAY

Information about the composition and exchange 

capacity of the clay fraction is summarized in table 6. 

The data are reported according to the expected 

precision of the results.

STREAMS EAST OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER

Samples of clay carried by five streams east of the 

Mississippi River contain kaolinite, illite, and aluminum-interlayered clay as the main clay minerals. 

The Yadkin River clay contains more kaolinite and 

less illite than the others and has a significantly lower 

exchange capacity.

Some data are available regarding the clay mineralogy of soils within the drainage basins studied. 

KunHe (1963, p. 108-111) reported widely varying 

amounts of kaolinite, illite, and chlorite or chloritelike 

clays, and low concentrations of vermiculite in a few

surface soils in the Brandywine Creek drainage. It 

seems probable that Kunkle's "chloritelike" clays 

include those referred to as aluminum-interlayered clay 

in this report.

Recent studies of soils in several eastern Pennsylvania 

counties (Johnson and others, 1963) have shown that 

illite, kaolinite, vermiculite, and "dioctahedral chlorite" 

(includes the aluminum-interlayered clay of this report) 

commonly occur in surface soils there. Although none 

of the counties studied are within the Juniata River 

basin, the studies may indicate the general suite of 

clay minerals to be expected in Juniata River sediments.

The clay mineralogy of soils in the North Carolina 

Piedmont has been studied by several investigators. 

Coleman and others (1950) reported that kaolinite was 

the dominant clay mineral and vermiculite, illite, 

gibbsite, poorly crystalline material, and hematite 

occurred in subordinate amounts. Weed and Nelson 

(1962) found kaolinite and an aluminum-interlayered 

clay mineral as dominant constituents in some representative North Carolina soils. M. J. Edwards (U.S. 

Dept. of Agriculture, written commun., 1963) reported 

kaolinite as the dominant clay mineral in surface soils 

of the type found in the Yadkin River drainage basin. 

Vermiculite is a minor constituent.

Some soils in the Licking River basin contain abundant kaolinite. Vermiculite, kaolinite, illite, and a 

little montmorillonite are found in soils of the Green 

River basin (M. J. Edwards, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 

written commun., 1963). Griffin (1962, p. 743) found 

kaolinite and illite to be important clay minerals in 

the Ohio River drainage. Johns and Grim (1958, p. 

198;) reported that illitic and chloritic sediments weather 

to form "vermiculitic and montmorillonitic (at least, 

expanding) minerals" in areas drained by the Ohio 

River.

The data in table 6 (p. Dl3) show that the clay mineralogy of stream sediments studied from the eastern 

United States agrees rather well with what is known 

about the clay mineralogy of the surface soils. The 

method of analysis used in this study for most of the 

clay samples makes detection of small to moderate 

amounts of vermiculite difficult when significant 

amounts of aluminum-interlayered clay, mixed-layer 

montmorillonite-illite, or chlorite are also present. 

However, specific tests for vermiculite were performed 

on one sample from each stream in this area. They 

indicate that the 14-A clay mineral (exclusive of 

chlorite) in Brandywine Creek and the Yadkin River 

is almost entirely an aluminum-interlayered clay, 

whereas that in the Juniata, Licking, and Green Rivers 

is one-third to one-half vermiculite and the rest aluminum-interlayered clay.
MINERALOGY AND CATION-EXCHANGE CAPACITY OF SEDIMENTS D13

TABLE 6. Mineralogy and cation-exchange capacity of stream clays

Tr, 0-3 percent; Sp, 4-10 percent; C, 11-25 

Mallory, Jr.; carbon analyses were made by

Stream

No. 

(flg.D

1

2

3

4 

5

6

7

8 

9

Name

Brandywine 

Creek.

Juniata River..

Yadkin River..

Licking River.. 

Green River _

Mississippi 

River.

Kansas River..

Elk Creek __

Colorado 

River, Tex.

Date of 

sample collection

4-2-60 

4- 4-60 

2-21-61 

2-26-61 

2-26-61 

11-16-61

8-31-60 

2-21-61 

2-21-61 

2-27-61 

2-27-61 

3-10-61 

3-10-61 

4-14-61 

11-14-61

2- 1-60 

2- 1-60 

3-30-60 

3-30-60 

5-18-61 

6-22-61 

6-22-61 

11-19-61

6- 6-60 

9- 7-60 

1-18-61

1-18-61 

2-27-61 

2-27-61 

11- 7-61

11- 3-60 1-13-61 

2-28-61 

2-28-61 

3- 7-61 

3- 7-61 

5-10-61 

11- 6-61

10-11-60 

10-11-60 3- 9-61 

3- 9-61 

4- 6-61 

5-16-61 

5-18-61 

6-7-61 

6-8-61

9- 7-60 

9- 7-60 

11- 1-60 

11- 1-60 

1-11-61 

1-11-61 

5- 8-61 

5-8-61 

5-24-61 

5-24-61 

10-30-61 

10-30-61

8-26-60 

8-26-60 

10-13-60 

10-13-60 

10-19-60 

10-19-60 6-8-61 

6- 8-61 

10-12-61 

10-12-61

10-31-60 6-20-61 

6-20-61 

9-12-61 

9-15-61 

9-15-61 

10_14_61

Ratio of 

discharge 

when 

sampled 

to average discharge

1.2 

9.2 

2.7 

8.1 

8.1 

.4

.15 

5.1 

5.1 

12 

12 

4.6 

4.6 

5.7 

.1

7.7 

7.7 

5.1 

5.1 

1.1 

4.6 

4.6 

.6

.1

.03 

4.7 

4.7 

5.2 

5.2 

.03

.07 

.4 

5.9 

5.9 

6.7 

6.7 

5.3 

.2

.5 

.5 

1.4 

1.4 

1.8 

2.4 

2 

1 

1

1 

1 

.6 

.6 

.4 

.4 

3.9 

3.9 

14 

14 

1 

1

.7 

.7 

18 

18 

54 

54 

42 

42 

.5 

.5

17 

16 

16 

15 

3.9 

3.9 

.4

Sample 

type

Bed -

Bed .. 

Bed ..

BedBed 

Bed... ..

Bed ..

Bed 

Bed 

Bed - 

Bed.....

BedBed . 

Bed 

Sus. _ .

BedBed 

Bed 

BedBed-... 

BedBed 

BedBed 

BedBed 

BedBed 

Bed -

Bed 

Bed -

Bed Sus __ .

BedBed 

Sus.....

BedBed 

Bed 

Bed. _ .

Bed 

Sus .....

BedBed _ ..

Bed _ - 

Sus .....

BedBed. __

Constituents

Weight percent

1 

1

!< }

4.8

5.5 

5.3

7.0

5.7 

4.3 

5.2 

2.1 

2.8 

3.8

3.4 

8.9

4.2

4.8 

3.7 

5.0 

3.7

2.2 

2.4

2.0

2.2 

2.7

3.4

3.5

2.7

4.1 

3.6

2 A

4.1 

4.1

3 Q

1.0 

3.4

4.2

3.5

4.3

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.4 

4.2

2.6

3.8 

3.2

2.5 

3.2 

3.5

5.3

** S

§ 3 

<

2.5

3.0 

2.9

3.1

1.3 

1.1 

1.4 

1.3 

1.3 

1.2

1.0 

.9

4.7

5.9 

5.3

7.0 

4.6

1.3 

1.4

1.3

1.2 

1.7

1.4

1.5 

1.5

1.3

1.4

.8

1.0 

1.1 

1.5

1.3 

1.3

1.7

1.3

1.6

1.5

1.5

1.2

1.0 

1.5

.8

1.7 

1.2

.8 

.6 

.6

.9

a

s

4.8

4.1 

2.1

2.1

1.5

 

§

,0

1 

%

<0.02

<.02

.15 

<.01

.05

.03

........

§

,0

 a

1

>5.2 

4.9 

4.8 

4.7 

2.6

4.2

1.88 

3.64

4.3 

2.1 

3.6

>2

2.1 

2.3

2.1

1.8

1.4

1.6

2.2 

2

1.5

2 

2.3

4.6 

1.9

4.6

S

!M

M 

C 

M 

C 

C 

M

C 

C 

C 

C 

C 

C

c 

c 

c

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M

C 

C 

C 

C 

C 

C 

C

C

Scp

8fi

lp lpSp

ip lp

Spip lp*&

SP

Sp

lp !p

lp SPip

lp SPIPIP SPlpSp

lp

lp SPi

f?

Tr

I? 

sc-

£p lp

SpSp

So

1 

P

C 

M 

C 

C 

C 

C

M 

C 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M

C 

C 

C 

C 

C 

C 

C 

C

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M

C 

C 

C 

M 

C 

C 

M 

C 

C

C 

C 

C 

M 

C 

C 

M 

C 

C

c 

c 

c

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M

C 

C

lp lp

Splp

So

g|

p^r-

£t

3 *

i! " =

'S1

 0

£

CD 

%

M 

C 

M 

M 

C 

C

C 

C 

C 

C

c 

c 

c 

c 

c

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c

s« SJ 

ss

Sp

c

cs«

c 

c 

c

Sp 

Tr

P

? 

? 

P 

P 

P 

? 

P

s?

P 

P 

P

lp 

lp

lp

Sp 

Splp lp

Splp

Sp

p 

p 

p

"Sp"

:-- pS 

1

1

S

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

C 

M 

C

C 

C 

C 

C 

C 

C 

C 

C 

M 

C 

C 

C

SPlp SP

Splp

lp SPlp lpSp

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M

-S 

I

1

Tr 

Tr 

Tr

1?

Tr

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Tr 

Tr

0 

0 

Tr 

0 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

0

Tr 

Tr 

0 

0 

Tr 

0 

Tr

0 

Tr 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Tr 

0 

Tr

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

1? 

1?

1? 

1? 

IS

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

c?

t.

1 o

s

IPSp

c

IP ScpIPSpo

IP lp

IPSp

lpSp

c

SP SPIP

Sp 

Sp

SP SPIP§pSp 

Sp 

Sp

IP1?

T? ipSp

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c

M 

M 

M 

C 

M 

C 

Sp 

M 

C 

M 

M 

M

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M

C 

M 

M 

C 

C 

C 

C

« 

&

1 

1

1 

1 

1.5 

1

2 

2 

2 

1.5 

2 

2 

2.5 

2 

1.5

1 

.5 

1 

.5 

1 

1 

1 

1

2 

1.5 

2 

2 

2 

2 

0

2.5 

3.5 

3.5 

3.5 

3 

3.5 

3 

3.5

2 

2 

2 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1 

1 

1.5

1

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1.5 

1.5

.5 

1 

.5 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1

1 

1

Tr 

0 

Tr 

Tr

Sp 

Sp

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr

0 

0 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr

Tr 

Tr 

0 

0 

Tr 

0 

0 

0

8§ 

i?

Tr 

Tr 

0 

Tr

Sp

Tr 

0

!?

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr

0 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr

Tr

8?

0 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr

1

O

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Tr

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

Tr 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

Tr 

Tr 

0 

0 

0 

Tr 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Tr

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

Tr 

Tr

lp 

Sp

0 

Sp 

C

f"3 

fi

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

-S 

%,0'6

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

03 *-H

8£& ill III

18 

30 

22 

23 

13 

26

19 

23

17 

22 

17 

22 

16 

22 

24

12 

12 

19 

22 

12 

11 

16

21 

29

20 

28 

20 

26

25 

18 

21 

21 

21 

19 

21 

24

52 

54 

38 

53 

50 

49 

36 

41 

43

56

55 

56 

58 

54 

56 

59 

58 

42 

55 

46 

56

48 

42 

47 

47 

45 

47 

41 

45 

47 

47

48 

53 

64 

65 

61 

64 

49
D14 TRANSPORT OF RADIONUCLIDES BY STREAMS 

TABLE 6. Mineralogy and cation-exchange capacity of stream clays Continued

Stream

No. 

(flg.D

10

11 

12

13

14 

15

16 

17

18

19 

20

21

Name

Pecoa Kiver __

Kio Grande 

Kiver.

San Juan 

Eiver, 

Bloomfield.

Animas River..

San Juan 

Eiver, Shiprock.

Colorado 

River, Utah.

Cheyenne 

Eiver.

Big Horn 

River.

Cosumnes 

Eiver.

Cache Creek. .. 

Mad River .....

Crooked River.

Date of 

sample collection

10-12-60 5-29-61 

8-11-61 

8-12-61 

9-19-61 

9-19-61 

10-11-61

4-25-61 

6-21-61

12-10-59 4-9-61 

7-12-61

7-12-61 

10-10-61 10-10-61

5-26-61 

6-8-61 

10-10-61 

10-10-61 10-10-61

6-8-61 

10-10-61 10-10-61

11-3-60 

5-26-61 

5-26-61 

6-2-61 

6- 6-61 

6-6-61 

6-18-61 

6-18-61 

4-10-62

8-31-60

9- 1-60 

9-12-61 

9-12-61

12-14-60 3-7-62 

4-12-62

12-27-60 4-14-62

10-19-60 

12- 2-60 

12- 2-60 6-8-61 

6-8-61 

4-16-62

11-16-60 3-29-61 

5- 1-61 

5-3-61 

4-18-62

Ratio of 

discharge 

when 

sampled 

to average discharge

.2 

1.2 

.3 

.3

7.8 

7.8 

.7

1.8 

.6

.2 

2.3 

.4 

.4 

1.8 

1.8

3.5 

2.3

.8 

.8 

.8

1.9 

1.4 

1.4

.3 

2.2 

2.2 

2.5 

1.4 

1.4 

1.3 

1.3 

.9

.05

.3 

1.1 

1.1

.05 

6.9 

1.6

.01 

<.01

.02 

5.5 

5.5 

.3 

.3 

1

.2 

1.7 

.9 

.9 

6

Sample 

type

Bed.....

Bed 

Bed 

Bed 

Sus......

Bed 

Bed.... .

Bed.... .

Bed 

Bed 

Bed 

Sus .....

Bed.....

BedBed.....

Bed.. ...

Bed 

Bed 

Bed 

BedBed.....

Bed 

Bed.. ...

Bed--

Bed.. 

Bed 

Sus _ ..

Bed.. ...

BedBed _ -

Bed 

Bed -

Bed __

Constituents

Weight percent

8

i

!

2.6

1.8

2.6

2.5 

2.9

2.2

.8

1.9

2.2

1.9

1.6

1.8

2.0

1.8

2.0

1.4

1.8

1.7

1.8

1.0

3.7

2.0

5.4

1.1

10.2 

19.2

18.2

 i-9

11 a'3

1.1

.7

.8

1.0 

1.0

.8

1.3

.7

.5

.8

.6

.7

.7

.5

.7

.5

.6

.5

.7

.4

2.0

.7

.7

1.3

1.6 

1.4

1.1

I 

_o

!

.86

1.0

2.7

2.8

| 

 3

1

 

.07

<.02

<.02

<.02

|

 3 

1

>lt

1.6

1.1 

1.3

.5 

.7

2.3 

3.1

2.7

1.1

2.5

.7 

.7

.93

1 

1.7

2.4 

2.7

2.8

3

C

Scp

§p lpip1

Sc88 

gpScp 

c

gp §p lp lpSp

c

lpSp

c 

c8«

8S

c 

c

Sp

c

c 

c 

c

M 

M 

M

88

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

I

M 

C 

C 

C

c 

c 

c

Scp

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c

c

88

c

Sp

c

Tr 

Sp

M 

C 

C 

M 

M 

M 

C 

M 

C

C 

C

c 

c

c

8S

c 

c

M 

M 

C 

C 

M 

M

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

i!< %£ a-?!

a>a5 ^ g O

S-TJ 03 

<D w» i 

>

% 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c

p 

p

p 

p 

c

p 

p 

p 

p

p 

p

Sp

p 

p 

p 

p 

p 

p 

c 

p 

p

0

p 

p 

p

p 

c 

p

p

Sp

 

""Sp"

Tr 

P 

P 

0 

P

1

1 

S

Sp§p gp lp lpSp 

Sp

M 

M

C

Scc 

c

Sp

c

M 

C

c

M

M 

M 

M

C 

C 

M 

C 

C 

C

c 

c 

c

Sp

c 

c 

c

c

Tr 

C

C 

C

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

M 

M 

M 

M 

M

1O

!?

??

Sp 

1?

0

Tr

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr

Tr 

0 

0

gp 

lp 

lp

SP

lp

P

I?

Tr

0 

Tr 

Tr

0 

0 

0

C 

C

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M

Tr 

Tr 

0 

0 

0

1

1

|

8S

C 

C

c 

c 

c

c 

c

c

M 

M 

M 

M 

C

C 

C

M 

M 

C

C

M 

M

C 

C

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c

M

M 

M

M

C 

C 

C

c 

c

cs«

c 

c 

c

M 

M 

M 

M 

M

« 

0?

1.5

2 

1.5 

1 

1.5

1 

1

1 

1.5

1.5 

1.5 

1.6 

2 

1.5 

1.5

1 

2 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5

1.5 

1.5 

1

1.5 

2 

2 

1.5 

1.5 

2 

1.5 

1.5 

1

3

1.5 

2 

1.5

.5 

.5 

.5

1.5 

.5

1

1 

1 

2 

1 

1

.5 

.5 

.5 

.5 

.5

I

% <o 

to

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr

i?

0

Tr 

Tr

gp 

lp 

T?

T?

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

0 

Tr

0 

Tr 

Tr

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

0 

Tr 

0 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr

Tr

Tr 

0 

Tr

Tr 

0 

Tr

f,p Sp

Sp8S

"Sp"

Sp 

Sp§p1?

1

o

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Tr

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

Tr 

0

0 

0 

0

S

0 8fi

Tr

ip

lp Sp

Tr

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

1

"3 

ft

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0

0 

0

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

0

f?

Tr

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

3 

ft'6

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

!.£&

oa$

sSS 

o

23 

42 

39 

34 

40 

45 

43

46 

49

45 

36 

42 

34 

40 

40

24 

23 

37 

37 

61

37

58 

61

32

32 

36 

30 

27 

27 

35 

26 

32

25

41 

43 

40

39 

44 

28

32 

36

28 

13 

17 

15 

18 

22

69 

66

"59 

65

The exchange capacities of clays from four of the five 

eastern streams are similar. Only the exchange 

capacity of the Yadkin River clay differs in being 

appreciably lower than the rest, and this difference may 

be due to the greater content of relatively low-exchangecapacity kaolinite. Rich and Obenshain (1955) estimated the exchange capacity of "dioctahedral vermiculite" in a surface soil as about 50 meq per 100 g. 

Considering the exchange capacity of the kaolinite,

illite, and organic matter (about 5 percent) in Yadkin 

River clay and the fact that the total exchange capacity 

is only 14 meq per 100 g, it is apparent that the exchange 

capacity of the "dioctahedral vermiculite" cannot 

greatly exceed 50 meq per 100 g and may be significantly 

less. Similar reasoning indicates that very little normal 

vermiculite (110-180 meq per 100 g exchange capacity, 

Brown, 1961, p. 299) can be present.
MINERALOGY AND CATION-EXCHANGE CAPACITY OF SEDIMENTS D15

STREAMS WEST OF THE MISSISSIFPI RIVER, EXCLUSIVE OF CALIFORNIA 

AND OREGON

Keller (1955, p. 68-71) points out that the soils at the 

longitude of Utah-Nevada are largely lithosols high in 

partially weathered rock fragments. As one goes 

eastward, the rate of soil formation increases, and in the 

central United States, for example, from Kansas to the 

Mississippi River, large amounts of three-layer highcation-exchange types of clay are present.

In the Rocky Mountain States and High Plains region 

the climate commonly is cool and arid, warm and arid, 

or, at the higher elevations, cool and moderately 

humid. In this area, chemical weathering is less important than in warm moist areas, and mechanical 

weathering is more important.

There is little detailed information available concerning the clay mineralogy of surface soils in the particular 

drainage basins studied within this area. However, 

montmorillonite and illite are important constituents 

of soils in the Colorado River basin above Columbus, 

Tex. (J. R. Coover, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, written 

commun., 1963.) Kunze and others (1955) reported 

the presence of illite and kaolinite in two soil profiles in 

the upper part of the Colorado River basin in Texas. 

They found that montmorillonite dominates the <C2/i 

fraction of a soil from the lower Colorado River basin 

upstream from Columbus. Fagg (1957) found abundant montmorillonite and lesser amounts of illite and 

kaolinite in Recent sediments of Matagorda Bay. An 

important part of the sediments in Matagorda Bay are 

probably carried in by the Colorado River.

In the Kansas River basin, two soil profiles were 

examined by W. A. Badgley and C. F. Crumpton 

(1964, p. 71-73) and found to contain montmorillonite, 

illite, and kaolinite.

Griffin (1962, p. 743) reported that the montmorillonite and illite groups of clays were dominant in the 

Mississippi River basin above St. Louis, Mo. Johns and 

Grim (1958, p. 198) also point out that soils of the 

Missouri River basin contain much montmorillonite.

Specific tests indicate that little, if any, aluminuminterlayered clay is present in sediments from streams 

west of the Mississippi River and east of California and 

Oregon. Some vermiculite is apparently present either 

as a separate component or in mixed-layer clay containing illite or montmorillonite,

The exchange capacities of stream clays in this area 

are distinctly higher than those of stream clays east of 

the Mississippi River. This difference apparently is a 

result of the presence of significant percentages of 

montmorillonite, mixed-layer clay and some vermiculite.

STREAMS IN CALIFORNIA AND OREGON

Climate and geology vary greatly in the stream basins 

studied in California and Oregon. Barshad and Perry 

(written commun., 1959) determined the mineralogy of 

clays in soils from various parts of California. If one 

assumes their data can be used for a particular soil series 

beyond the immediate area of sampling, then, on the 

basis of soils series distribution described by W. M. 

Johnson, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (written commun., 

1963), some statements can be made regarding the clay 

mineralogy of soils within the stream basins studied.

Kaolinite, lesser quantities of montmorillonite and 

mica, and some vermiculite are probably present in 

soils of the Cosumnes River basin. In the Cache 

Creek basin above Yolo, major amounts of vermiculite, 

moderate amounts of kaolinite, and moderate to negligible amounts of mica and montmorillonite may occur. 

Little is known about the clay mineralogy of the soils in 

the Mad River basin, but plentiful chlorite is known to 

be present in at least some of the soils there.

Very little, if any, amminum-interlayered clay appears to be present in these streams, although the 

presence of chlorite in clays from Cache Creek and the 

Mad River make determinations of aluminum-interlayered clay difficult.

The average exchange capacity of 37 meq per 100 g 

for clay from the Cosumnes River reflects the presence 

of low-exchange-capacity kaolinite mixed with vermiculite and vermiculite-illite mixed-layer clays. The exchange capacity of clay from Cache Creek is similar to 

that of Cosumnes River clay but results mainly from a 

mixture of chlorite and illite with montmorillonite, 

vermiculite, and mixed-layer clays. Vermiculite cannot be a large proportion of the clay minerals in either 

stream, for its high exchange capacity (110-180 meq 

per 100 g, Brown, 1961, p. 299) would cause the overall 

exchange capacity to be greater than that observed.

Because chlorite and illite comprise most of the clay 

minerals in the Mad River, the average exchange 

capacity is only about 18 meq per 100 g.

In the Crooked River of Oregon, the stream clay 

appears to be mainly montmorillonite and mixedlayered material, which is probably montmorilloniteillite. The high exchange capacity, 60-70 meq per 

100 g, indicates that the mixed-layer clays contain a 

large proportion of montmorillonite. The fact that the 

clay-size fraction contains a high amount of amorphous 

silica but relatively little amorphous alumina shows that 

the amorphous silica determined was not obtained from 

solution of fine-grained or poorly crystalline clay 

minerals, for then both amorphous alumina and silica 

would have been above average.
D16 TRANSPORT OF RADIONUCLIDES BY STREAMS

AMORPHOUS MATERIAL

The truly amorphous material in stream clay is 

difficult to evaluate, especially when it is present as 

only a few percent of a sample. The method of analysis 

used may result in solution of gibbsite, some poorly 

crystalline material, and a little of the very fine grained 

clay minerals as well as truly amorphous alumina, 

silica, and alumino-silicates.

The weighted average of "amorphous silica" was 

about 3.6 percent, and of "amorphous alumina" about 

1.3 percent. The above-average amount of silica 

in the Crooked River in Oregon may be related to the 

weathering of volcanic tuff and basaltic rocks. The 

alumina reported for Yadkin River clay is probably 

due, in part, to the presence of gibbsite. In general, 

there appears to be a tendency for the amount of 

"amorphous material" determined by this method to 

increase with increased weathering intensity (E. C. 

Mallory, Jr., written commun.).

ORGANIC CARBON

The organic material in stream sediments may be 

important in the removal of certain elements from solution, and may explain a significant proportion of 

the exchange capacity. A measure of the organic 

material present can be obtained from an organiccarbon analysis, although the ratio of organic material 

to organic carbon is not known accurately for modern 

stream sediments. If the ratio of organic material to 

organic carbon in surface soils reported by Broadbent 

(1953, p. 175-176) can be extrapolated to stream sediments, a value of 1.9 may be suitable.

In the present study, organic carbon was determined 

by difference between total carbon and mineral carbon. 

Sufficient sample often was not available for both 

analyses, and only total carbon was then determined. 

X-ray data were then used to indicate the amount of 

carbonate present; however, 1-2 percent carbonate 

could easily be missed by X-ray techniques.

The weighted-average organic-carbon content of the 

stream clays was about 2.2 percent; this value corresponds to about 4.2 percent organic matter. Streams 

east of the Mississippi River carried sediment containing 

significantly more organic carbon than the average for 

all streams studied.

SILT

The silt fraction of stream sediments may contain 

both shale fragments and clay-mineral aggregates 

formed by flocculation of clay-size particles. The 

repeated violent shaking of the silt-clay mixture in 

distilled water prior to separation of the <0.004-mm 

fraction was intended to disperse the flocculated aggregates but not to break down well-cemented rock fragments. As a result, many of the silt fractions still contained significant amounts of clay after size separation. This clay was reflected in the X-ray analyses 

as well as in the exchange capacities determined.

The mineral composition and exchange capacity of 

stream silt are summarized in table 7. The total 

amount of clay minerals in a sample was obtained by 

subtracting from 100 percent the amount of nonclay 

material estimated from X-ray data to be present.

An approximate check on the clay content can be 

obtained if three assumptions are made: (1) that the 

exchange capacity of the nonclay minerals in the silt 

and clay sizes is very small compared to that of the 

clay minerals, (2) that the exchange capacity of clay 

minerals in the clay fraction is the same per unit 

weight as that of clay minerals in the silt fraction, and 

(3) that virtually all the nonclay minerals were detected 

by X-ray methods. The calculation is made by using 

the following equation:

where

E.

£'s=exchange capacity of silt fraction, 

£'c=exchange capacity of clay fraction, 

a=fraction of silt fraction composed of clay 

minerals,

and

6=fraction of clay-size material composed of clay 

minerals.

A few such calculations were made and the results 

are shown in table 8 (p. D19).

In general, the data show fairly good agreement 

between the percentage of clay minerals estimated from 

X-ray analyses of silt and the percentage of clay minerals 

calculated from exchange-capacity information. The 

notable exceptions are the samples from the Crooked 

River. The anomalous data from the Crooked River 

may be due mainly to the presence of amorphous 

material. The Crooked River sand contains 10-15 

percent volcanic glass and the clay 10-20 percent 

amorphous silica and alumina. It seems reasonable to 

assume that there may be 10-20 percent amorphous 

material in the silt fractions also. Because clay 

minerals in the silt are estimated by subtracting 

quartz, feldspar, and organic material from 100 percent, 

any amorphous material will be called "clay." If 20 

percent amorphous material were assumed to be present 

in the Crooked River silts, much of the discrepancy 

between the estimates of clay minerals in silt made by 

X-ray methods and those made from exchange-capacity 

data would be removed.
MINERALOGY AND CATION-EXCHANGE CAPACITY OF SEDIMENTS D17

TABLE 7. Mineralogy and cation-exchange capacity of stream silt

[Carbon analyses, made by I. C. Frost, were rounded to the nearest 0.1 percent. Estimates of clay minerals were made by X-ray from reference curves of 001 peak intensities 

prepared by using moderately well crystallized kaolinite, finely ground muscovite, and finely ground chlorite. Although the amount of a particular clay mineral reported 

may be inaccurate, the relative amounts, in comparing one sample with another, are probably correct. Tr, 0-3 percent; Sp, 4-10 percent; C, 11-25 percent; M, 26-50 

percent; Sus, suspended. Mixed-layer clay minerals are not easily detected to X-ray patterns of randomly oriented silt but are probably present in some samples, for many 

stream clays contain significant proportions of such clay minerals]

Stream

No. 

(fig.

1 

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 

9

Name

Yadldn River.. ..

TTlTr r't.ooV

Colorado River, 

Columbus, Tex.

collection Dae ofsample 

4- 2-60 

4-4-60 

2-21-61 

2-26-61 

2-26-611 

11-16-61

8-31-61 

2-21-61 

2-21-61

2-27-61 

3-10-61 

3-10-61 

4-14-61 

4-14-61 

11-14-61

2- 1-60 

2- 1-60 

3-30-60

3-30-60 

5-18-61 

6-22-61 

6-22-61 

11-19-61

9-7-60 

1-18-61 

1-18-61 

2-27-61 

2-27-61 

11-8-61

11-3-60 

1-13-61 

1-13-61 

2-28-61 

2-28-61 

3- 7-61 

3- 7-61 

5-10-61 

5-10-61 

11-6-61

10-11-60 3-9-61 

3-9-61 

4-6-61 

5-16-61 

5-18-61 

6- 7-61 

6-8-61

9- 7-60 

9- 7-60 

11- 1-60 11- 1-60

1-11-61

1-11-61 

5- 8-61 

5-8-61 

5-24-61 

5-24-61 

10-30-61 10-30-61

8-26-60 

8-26-60 

10-13-60 

10-13-60 

10-19-60 

10-19-60 

6- 8-61 

6-8-61 

10-12-61 10-12-61

10-31-60 6-20-61 

6-20-61

discharge when Ratioof sampled to average 

discharge

1.2 

9 2 

2.7 

8.1 

8.1 

.4

.15 

5.1 

5.1 

12 

12 

4.6 

4.6 

5.7 

5.7 

.1

7.7 

7.7 

5.1

5.1 

1.1 

4.6 

4.6 

.6

.03 

4.7 

4.7 

5.2 

5.2 

.03

.07 

.4 

.4 

5.9 

5.9 

6.7 

6.7 

5.3 

5.3 

.2

.5 

1.4 

1.4 

1.8 

2.4 

2 

1 

1

1 

1 

.6 

.6 

.4 

.4 

3.9 

3.9 

14 

14 

1 

1

.7 

.7 

18 

18 

54 

54 

42 

42 

.5 

.5

17 

16 

16

5 

a,

o

EH

Bed 

Sus .....

Bed 

Bed 

Sus. ....

Bed 

BedBed 

Sus.....

Bed 

Bed 

Sus- ...

Bed. .

BedBedBed--

Bed 

Bed Sus- .

Bed--

Bed. ....

Bed 

Bed -

Sus. ....

Rod

BedBed 

Bed 

Bed.....

Bed _ 

"Rarfl

Bed _ 

BedBed. 

BedBed.. ...

BedBed 

Bed 

"RaH

"RaH

Bed. ....

Bed....

Bed 

Sus.. 

Bed

Bed Sus _ -

Bed. ....

Bed

Sus.. ...

Constituents

Percent

§ 

1

0

1M

O

1.4

1.2

2.4

1.2

.1

.7

.2

1.1

ao

,0

§

3

<0.02

<.02

<.01

.07

.2

.01

.3

2.4

ao

,0 

"3

"o 

EH

1.4 

2.2 

2 

1.8 

2.6 

2.4

4.5

1.2

4

2.4 

1.2 

1

1.3

1.1 

1.5

1.1 

1.6

1.7

.3

2.3

.7 

.5

.5 

1.3

1.1

1.6 

1

3.3 

2.6

Parts in ten

SI

i 

£

5.5 

3.5 

4.5 

4.5 

4 

4.5

5.5 

7 

6 

6.5 

6 

6.5 

4.5 

6.5 

6.5 

5

4.5 

3

4

2.5 

4.5 

4.5 

2.5 

5

6 

6.5

6.5 

5.5 

6

6.5

6 

6 

6.5 

6 

6.5

6.5 

6 

5.5 

6 

5.5 

5.5 

4.5 

5

6 

4.5 

5 

4.5 

5 

2.5 

5.5 

5 

5 

6 

6 

5

5 

2.5 

6.5 

4.5 

6 

4.5 

4.5 

6 

6 

3

4 

5 

5.5

T3"3 

f*«

1.5 

1 

1.5 

1.5 

1 

2

.5 

Tr 

.5 

1 

.5 

1 

.5 

.5 

Tr 

Tr

2 

.5 

1.5

.5 

1.5 

1 

1

2

1 

1

1 

1

1.5

1

.5 

1 

1 

.5 

.5

2 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5

2.5 

1 

2 

1 

1.5 

.5 

2.5 

2 

2.5 

2.5 

2.5 

1.5

2 

.5 

2 

1 

2.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

2 

1

1

.5 

1

S

1 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

Tr 

0

0 

0 

0

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

Tr 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

Tr 

.5 

Tr 

0 

Tr 

1 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

0 

Tr 

Sp

.5 

0 

Tr 

0 

Tr 

0 

Tr 

0 

Tr 

0

1 

1 

1

.2

_0"o 

Q

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0

0 

0 

0

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

Tr 

Tr 

0 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Tr 

0 

Tr 

0 

Tr 

0 

Tr

.5 

0

9

.5 

Tr

.5 

.5 

.5 

Tr

Tr 

0 

0

Clays

 < 

t~

*

Sp 

C

c 

c

c

Sp

c ScTr 

C

§P Sp

0

c

M 

C

M 

C 

C 

M 

C

Sp 

Sp

c 

c

Sp

0

0

Spo

0 

0

0 

Sp 

Sp 

Sp 

Tr 

Tr 

C 

Tr

0 

0 

0 

Tr 

Sp 

Sp 

0 

Tr 

Tr 

0 

Tr 

Sp

Sp 

Sp 

Tr 

Sp

|P 

|P

lp 

Sp

0

Sp

Tr 

Tr 

0

 <

0

Sp 

M

ScP

M 

C

C 

C

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c

c

M

C

c 

c 

c

M

C

C 

C

C

c 

c

Tr

Tr 

Sp 

Sp 

Sp 

Sp

|PScp 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c

S8 

8«

Sp

csfi

SpIP IP

Sp

c

M

s«

C

c 

c 

css

Tr 

Tr 

Tr

 <

S

Sp 

Sp

1? 

Tr 

Sp

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Tr 

0 

0 

Sp

Tr 

Tr 

0

Tr 

0 

Tr 

0 

0

0 

0

0 

0 

Tr

0

0 

Tr 

0 

Tr 

0

Tr 

0 

Tr 

0 

Tr 

0 

0 

Tr

0 

Tr 

0 

Tr 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Tr 

0

0 

0 

Tr 

Tr 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Tr 

0

Tr 

0 

Tr

1

S 

a 

a

S

Tr

Sp 

0 

Tr

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

1?

Tr

0 

Tr 

Tr 

0 

0

0 

0

0 

0 

0

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

Tr 

Tr 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

Tr 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Sp 

0 

0 

0 

Sp 

Tr

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0

Other 

minerals

Tr ilmenite, zircon.. ..

Tr magnetite, ilmenite.

Tr magnetite . 

IX" Si§ 2 °S

"§ § a 

0

4.3 

11 

9.5 

8 

8.1 

11.5

7.6 

8 

17 

5 

17 

9 ill 

7.7 

14 

6.1

3.7

8.2 

5.4

13

4.5 

4.8 

5.3 

4

6.8 

6.9 

13 

8.3 

8.8 

7.6

5 

6.7 

10.5 

6.5 

12 

6.9 

9.2 

9.7 

14 

9

7.4

7.2 

20 

11 

17 

11 

26 

17

7 

25 

13 

30 

13 

28 

7.5 

20 

13 

8 

8 

15

13 

32 

7.1 

21 

8.3 

21 

14

10 

30

23 

20 

20

See footnote at end of table.
D18 TRANSPORT OF RADIONUCLIDES BY STREAMS

TABLE 7. Mineralogy and cation-exchange capacity of stream silt Continued

Stream

No. 

(J.

9 

10

11

12

13

14 

15

17

18

19 

20

21

Name

Colorado Eiver, 

Columbus, Tex.

Peeos Eiver_ _____

San Juan River at 

Bloomfield.

Animas River. .........

San Juan River at 

Shiprock.

Colorado River. Cisco, 

Utah.

Big Horn River .........

Cosumnes River ........

Cache Creek. _____

Mad River .___. __

Crooked River near 

Post, Oreg.

collection of sample Date 

9-12-61 

9-15-61 

9-15-61 

10-14-61

10-12-60 5-29-61 

8-11-61 

8-12-61 

9-19-61 

9-19-61 

10-11-61

4-25-61 

6-21-61

12-10-59 4- 9-61 

5-24-61 

5-24-61 

7-12-61 

7-12-61 

10-10-61 10-10-61

5-26-61 

6- 8-61 

10-10-61 10-10-61

6-8-61 

10-10-61 10-10-61

11-3-60 

5-26-61 

5-26-61 

6-2-61 

6-6-61 

6- 6-61 

6-18-61 

6-18-61 

4-10-62 

4-10-62

9- 1-60 

9-12-61 

9-12-61

12-14-60 3-7-62 

3-7-62 

4-12-62

12-27-60 4-14-62

10-19-60 

12- 2-60 

12- 2-60 6-8-61 

4-16-62

11-16-60 3-29-61 

5- 1-61 

5-3-61 

4-18-62

discharge when Ratio ofsampled to average 

discharge

15 

3.9 

3.9

.4

2 

l!2 

.3 

.3

7.8 

7.8 

.7

1.8 

.6

2 

2! 3 

3.1 

3.1

.4 

.4 

1.8 

1.8

3.5 

2.3

.8 

.8

1.9 

1.4 

1.4

.3

2.2 

2.2 

2.5 

1.4 

1.4 

1.3 

1.3 

.9 

.9

.3

1.1 

1.1

.05 

6.9 

6.9 

1.6

.01 

.01

.02 

5.5 

5.5 

.3 

1

.2 

1.7 

.9 

.9 

6

ID "ft

"3

Sus. ....

Bed 

Bed.....

Bed ..

Sus. ....

Sus .....

Bed 

Bed. ....

Sus. ....

Bed.....

Sus. ....

Sus .....

Sus.. 

Sus. ....

Bed 

Sus.. ...

Bed 

Sus .....

Bed.....

Sus. ....

Sus. ....

Sus .....

Bed _ ..

Sus. ....

Bed 

Sus. ....

Bed.....

Bed 

Sus.._ 

Sus._ 

Bed. ....

Sus. ....

Bed.....

Sus. ....

Bed.. ...

Sus. ....

Bed.....

Bed 

Sus. ....

BedBed.....

Sus __ .

BedBed. .

Bed-...

BedBed.-...

BedBed 

Bed.....

Bed. .

BedBed 

Bed 

Constituents

Percent

g xs

o

0

1.1

.4 

.6

1.2

.6

.3

.5

1.2

§

1 o

0.5

<.01

.01 

<.01

1.2

.3

<.02

<.02

<.02

§ 

xs

"o

H

3.7

.8 

1.1 

1

.9 

1.1

.4 

.6

2.4

1.9 

2

1

.9 

.6

.3

1.1

.6 

.5

.8

.5 

1

1.2

Parts in ten

0"

4.5 

5.5 

4 

0

4.5 

5 

4 

5 

5.5 

6 

6

4.5 

2.5

3.5 

5.5

5 

4.5 

5 

5

4 

5.5 

5.5 

5

5.5 

5 

5.5

6 

5 

4.5 

5.5 

5 

5.5 

4.5 

6 

5.5

5.5 

5.5

2.5 

2.5

3

3.5

4

3.5

3

4.5 

4

1 

.5 

.5 

.5 

.5

2

«3 

fr

1

1.5 

1 

0

1

1 

1 

2.5 

2 

2 

2

1

.5

1 

1

2 

1 

1.5 

1.5

1 

1.5 

1.5 

1

1.5 

1.5 

1.5

1 

1 

.5 

1 

.5 

1.5 

1 

1 

1

1.5 

1

1

2

1.5

2 

2

1

1 

1.5 

1

2.5 

2.5 

2 

3 

2.5

 I"c3

O

1.5

1

1 

0

.5 

Tr 

Tr 

.5 

Tr 

Tr 

.5

0 

Tr

Tr 

0

6 

0 

0 

Tr

Tr 

Tr 

0 

0

0 

0 

Tr

.5 

Tr 

.5 

.5 

.5 

.5 

.5 

.5 

.5

0 

Tr

0 

0

0

0 

0

0

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

s

I"3 

P

Tr 

Tr 

0 

0

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

0 

Tr

0 

Tr

Tr 

0

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0

.5 

.5 

.5 

.5 

Tr 

.5 

Tr 

.5 

.5

.5 

.5

0 

Tr

0

0 

0

0

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

Clays

 < 

tTr 

0 

Sp 

0

Sp 

Sp§p £pSpi

8«

c 

c

c 

c 

c 

c

c 

c 

c 

c

c 

c 

c

s«

c 

c

c

Sp

c

Sp

c

c 

c

c 

c

c

c 

c

c

c 

c

c

Tr 

0 

0 

0 

0

 < 

s

Tr

1? 

0

Sp 

Sp§pSp 

Sp 

Sp 

Sp

Sp 

Sp

c 

c

s«

c 

c

c 

c 

c 

c

SpScP

c 

c 

c 

c

£pSp

c

£pSp

c 

c

c 

c

c

gpSp

Sp

c

Sp

Sp

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

 < 

s

c

0 

Sp 

0

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

Tr 

0 

Tr 

Tr

Tr 

C

Sp 

0

1? i

0

gp £pSp

Tr 

Sp 

Sp

0 

Sp

1?

T? 

Sp 

0 

0

0 

Sp

c 

c

c

Sp 

Sp

Sp

Sp 

Sp 

Sp

Tr 

Sp

§P Sp

Sp

.a

o fi

1 

1

0 

0 

0 

0

Tr 

Tr 

0 

Tr 

0 

0 

0

0

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0

Sp

Sp

Sp

0 

0

0

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

Other 

minerals

Tr hematite. ..........

Tr hematite ____ .

I* 

1*-S5 

IP

III 

O

28 

9.5 

31 

16

7.6 

15 

17 

8 

6.8 

14 

7.4

27 

30

26 

17 

13 

18 

17 

19 

16 

16

18 

18 

20 

18

14 

19 

24

8.2 

7.3 

17 

17 

9.6 

16 

6.7 

15 

7 

14

11 

16 

14

22 

18 

15 

15

14 

13

10

6.7 

7 

7 

9

34 

33 

29 

34

28

i Sample was very small and the value reported is less reliable than other data.

Because the sensitivity of the X-ray method for many 

minerals is about 1-5 percent, a few percent of one or 

more minerals could be present in a sample and not be 

detected. Such minerals would be called "clay" in the 

X-ray analysis of the silt fractions when the clay is 

estimated by difference. Therefore, one would expect 

the X-ray estimates of clay minerals in the silt to run 

several percent higher than those estimated from

exchange-capacity data. The data in table 8 show 

this assumption to be generally valid.

X-ray analyses of silt were made on randomly 

oriented samples, and the clay minerals detected in the 

silt are listed in table 7 as 7-, 10-, or 14-A minerals. 

The 7-A minerals include kaolinite and chlorite, 10 -A 

indicates illite, and 14 -A includes chlorite, montmorillonite, vermiculite, and aluminum-interlayered clays.
MINERALOGY AND CATION-EXCHANGE CAPACITY OF SEDIMENTS D19

TABLE 8. Comparison of the content of clay minerals in the silt 

fraction as estimated from X-ray and exchange-capacity data

Stream

Elk Creek . 

Date of 

sample collection

4-2-60 

2-21-61 

2-21-61 

2-27-61 

9-7-60 

11- 1-60 

10-13-60 6-8-61 

10-19-60 6-8-61 

11-16-60 3-29-61

Clay minerals in silt 

fraction (percent)

Calculated 

from X-ray 

data

20 

35 

20 

23 

14 

27 

15 

35 

63 

40 

63 

68

Calculated 

from 

exchangecapacity 

data

17 

33 

25 

16 

10 

18 

13 

27 

48 

37 

37 

34

References to analyses of the clay fractions will indicate 

the clay minerals probably present.

The weighted-average organic-carbon content of 

stream silt was 1.1 percent, corresponding to about 2.1 

percent organic material.

Mineralogical and exchange-capacity data for stream 

sands are given in table 9. The amount of sand in 

suspended-sediment samples was commonly too small 

for use in making detailed mineral analyses; however, 

the suspended sand was generally finer grained, higher 

in content of organic material, and contained greater 

amounts of platy minerals than the bed sand. By 

using a strongly radioactive cesium chloride solution it 

was possible to determine exchange capacities on 

samples of less than 0.1 g. The precision of such data is 

less, of course, than that attained using the normal 

sample weighing 2 g.

The variation in the exchange capacity of sand from 

stream to stream is greater percentagewise than is that 

of clay or silt because the mineral content of sand can 

range from rather clean quartz and feldspar to 70 

percent or more rock fragments. Such rock fragments 

may be composed mainly of clay minerals, of silt-size 

quartz and feldspar cemented by iron compounds and 

clay minerals, of coarse-silt- or fine-sand-size quartz 

and feldspar cemented by silica or carbonates, or of 

igneous rock fragments. The latter two types of rock 

fragment will usually have low exchange capacities, 

perhaps about 0.1 meq per 100 g.

The significance of rock fragments as a cause of 

exchange capacity in stream sand is demonstrated in 

figure 4. Samples of sand from four streams were 

separated into three fractions by using a hand magnet 

and the Frantz magnetic separator. The highly magnetic fraction was composed of magnetite, ilmenite, and 

rock fragments containing appreciable amounts of these 

or other highly magnetic minerals. The moderately 

magnetic fraction consisted mainly of rock fragments 

containing, or cemented by, iron minerals or ironstained clay. Minerals such as biotite, amphiboles, 

pyroxenes, and garnet are also in the moderately 

magnetic fraction. Quartz, feldspar, carbonates, and 

other minerals of very low magnetic susceptibility 

comprise the bulk of the "nonmagnetic" fraction. 

These grains may have very thin partial coatings of 

iron minerals. In figure 4, two columns are shown for 

sand from each of the four sampled streams. The 

column on the left shows the proportion by weight of 

each magnetic fraction, and the right column indicates 

the proportion of the total exchange capacity due to 

each magnetic fraction. It is apparent that the moderJuniata River 

Pa.

Licking River 

Ky.

Kansas River 

Kans.

Strongly magnetic

Moderately magnetic

Nonmagnetic

WEIGHT EXCHANGE 

CAPACITY

WEIGHT EXCHANGE 

CAPACITY

WEIGHT EXCHANGE 

CAPACITY

WEIGHT EXCHANGE 

CAPACITY

FIGUEE 4. Cation-exchange capacity of magnetic ractions of stream sand.
D20 TRANSPORT OF RADIONUCLIDES BY STREAMS

TABLE 9. Mineralogy and cation-exchange capacity of stream sands 

[Sus, Suspended]]

Stream

No. 

(fig. 

1)

1

2

3

4 

5

6

7

8

9 

10

11 

S«

Name

Brandywine 

Creek.

Juniata River..

Yadkin RiverLicking RiverGreen River _

Mississippi 

River.

Kansas River.. 

Elk Creek ......

Colorado 

River, Tex.

Pecos River ....

Rio Grande 

River.

>e footnote at er

Date of 

sampling

4-2-60 

4- 4-60 

2-21-61 

2-26-61 

2-26-61 

11-16-61

8-31-60 

2-21-61 

2-21-61 

2-27-61 

2-27-61 

3-10-61 

3-10-61 

4-14-61 

4-14-61 

11-14-61

2- 1-60 

3-30-60 

5-18-61 

6-22-61 

6-22-61 

11-19-61

9-7-60 

1-18-61 

2-27-61 

11- 8-61

11-3-60 

1-13-61 

2-28-61 

3- 7-61 

5-10-61 

11- 6-61

10-11-60

3 ft. fll

3-9-61 

4-6-61 

4- 7-61 

5-16-61 

5-18-61 

6- 8-61

9-7-60 

9- 7-60 

11- 1-60 1-11-61 

1-11-61 

5-8-61 

5-24-61 

5-24-61 

10-30-61 10-30-61

8-26-60 

10-13-60 

10-13-60 

10-19-60 

10-19-60 6-8-61 

6-8-61 

10-12-61 10-12-61

10-31-60 6-20-61 

6-20-61 

9-12-61 

9-15-61 

10-14-61

10-12-60 5-29-61 

8-11-61 

8-12-61 

9-19-61 

9-19-31 

10-11-61

4-25-61 

4-25-61 

6-21-61 

6-21-61 

id of table

Ratio 

of 

discharge 

when 

sampled 

to 

average 

discharge

1.2 

9.2 

2.7 

8.1 

8.1 

.4

.15 

5.1 

5.1 

12 

12 

4.6 

4.6 

5.7 

5.7 

.1

7.7 

5.1 

1.1 

4.6 

46 

.6

.03 

4.7 

5.2 

.03

.07 

.4 

5.9 

6.7 

5.3 

.2

.5 

1.4 

1.4 

1.8 

1.8 

2.4 

2 

1

1 

1

.6 

.4 

.4 

3.9 

14 

14 

1 

1

.7 

18 

18 

54 

54 

42 

42 

.5 

.5

17 

16 

16 

15 

3.9 

.4

.2 

1.2 

.3 

.3

7.8 

7.8 

.7

1.8 

1.8 

.6 

.6

.

Type of 

sample

Bed--

Bed.. 

BedBed 

Bed 

BedBed 

SusBed 

Sus-...

Bed 

Sus---

Bed- _

Bed. ....

Bed 

Bed 

Bed. ....

Sus ~

Bed 

Bed 

Bed.. ... 

BedBed. 

Bed ..

Bed. ....

BedBed. .... 

BedBed.. 

BedBed 

Sus 

Bed 

Sus 

BedBed.. _

Bed ,

Sus 

BedBed .

Sus. ....

BedBed 

Bed. _ .

Sus .

Bed .

Bed 

SusBed 

Sus. ....

Bed 

Sus.. 

Bed 

Sus 

BedBed 

Sus-. 

Sus... .

BedBed 

Bed .

Sus. ....

SusBedBed 

Sus.- 

BedBed 

SusBed.. ...

Sus. ....

Constituents (weight percent)

!o 

o

0

0.68

<.02

2.99 

1.59

.65

.12

.07

.08

.07

.11

.06

.21

g &

1 

1

<0.02

.03

.11 

.23

.05

.02

<.01

.01

.60

.55

.45

.69

.51

§

J3

 a

"o

EH

1.24

.68 

.52

.49 

.70

2.27

.04 

.09

3.10 

1.82

.70

.14

.23 

.60

.08

.68

.62

.56

.75

.72

« 

<§

47

36 

44

41

72 

60

59

64

71

64

60 

63 

62 

69

62

44 

37 

26 

36

82 

76 

82 

79 

81 

86

56

57

58

57 

60

65

61 

62 

54 

70 

55 

51 

70

74 

72 

63 

73 

68 

68

73

69 

71 

69

77 

70

60

60 

60

62

53 

54 

62 

54

tf

£

0

0

0 

0

0

1

5

3

1

1

<1

0 

0 

0 

0

0

5 

6 

5 

5

7 

8 

7 

4 

8 

4

5 

4

4

5 

6

0

<1 

<1

4 

1 

0 

0 

2

1 

1 

1 

<1

1 

1

<1

3 

3

2

4 

3

<1

1

2

<1

3 

2 

3

2

£ 

1

3

M

4

6 

5

7

<1

0

<1

0

0

<1

12 

5 

10 

9

11

<1 

2 

<1 

<1

0 

1 

<1

0

<1 <1

10 

12

7

11 

10

20

20 

18 

7 

14 

22 

16 

16

7 

12 

11 

7 

9 

3

5

8 

7 

5

7 

8

7

5

7

6

9

7 

7 

7

-1

2

PH

8

14 

10

6

0 

0

0

<1

0

0

3 

1 

2 

3

2

1 

<1

1 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

9 

10

12

9 

5

5

8 

8 

10 

6 

5 

23 

6

2 

3 

4 

2 

4 

3

2

4 

5 

6

2 

3

8

6 

6

9

6

7 

3

7

!«

10

5 

5

2

0 

0

0

0

0

0

3

2 

3 

2

2

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

1 

0

0

0 

0

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0

0 

0 

0

0 

0

0

0 

0

0

0 

0 

0 

0

3 > 

s

3

s

1

1

2

<1

0 

0

0

0

0

0

0 

0 

0 

0

0

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0

0

0 

0

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0

0 

0 

0

0 

0

0

0

<1

0

0 

0 

0 

0

m

31

a <<

3

6 

8

5

0 

0

0

0

0

0

3

2 

2

1

1

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0

<1

0

<1

0

0 

0

1

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0

0 

0 

0

0 

0

2

1 1

1

0 

0 

0 

0

a

I

fc

PH

2

1

2

2

0 

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0 

0

0

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

1

0

1

1 <1

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0

0 

0 

0

0 

0

<1

0

<1

0

0 

0

1

0

1

o

,0£

o

0

0 

0

0

0 

0

0

0

0

0

0 

0 

0 

0

0

3 

3

8 

2

0

<1

0

1 <1

0

3

2

<1

1 <1

<1

<1 <1

5

1 <1

2 

0

5 

2 

5 

5 

2 

7

9

5 

5 

8

3

5

4

7 

6

3

2 

<1 

2 

<1

"M 

o

1 

0

0 

0

0

0 

0

0

0

0

0

0 

0 

0 

0

0

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0

0

0 

0

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0

1 <1

0

0

<1

0

0 

0

0

0 

0 

0 

0

I"5

§<o DQ

0

0 

0

0

0 

0

0

0

0

0

0 

0 

0 

0

0

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0

0

0 

0

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0

0 

0 

0

0 

0

0

0 

0

0

0 

0 

0 

0

01

!ft

o

6

6 

6

2

0 

14

10

13

10

12

1

2

<11

0

<1 <1

0

2

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0

1

1

2

<1

1 <1

2 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0

0

0 

0 

0

0 

0

1

1

3

<1

2

<1

0 

0

1

_o

s>

0

3

1 1

<1

0 

3

2

9

3

2

<1 

<1

<1 

<1

<1

<1

4 

2

1 

1 

<1 

4 

<1 

<1

0 

<1

<1

0

<1

0

0 

0 

3 

0 

0 

<1 

0

<1

0 

2 

<1

2 

0

0

0 

0 

<1

0

<1

0

0 

0

0

<1<1

0 

0

Rock fragments

 o 

ft

2

1

2

2

9

7

11

7

5

9

1 

1 

1 

1

1

32 

33 

32 

31

8 

7 

9 

9

7 

7

4 

4

6

5 

5

2

4 

3 

9 

1 

<1 

1 

1

2 

3

7 

2 

8 

5

2

3

2 

2

2 

4

2

1

2

3

16 

9 

5 

9

Coarse grained

-)-« ^ "H

It<y

5

8 

4

12

4 

0

0

0

0

2

10 

10 

12 

8

12

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

3

2

4

3 

3

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

7 

5 

3 

8 

4 

9

7

4 

3

2

3 

3

3

5 

5

5

5 

0 

3 

4

« &

Isc?

0

0 

0

0

0 

0

0

0

0

0

2 

2 

1 

1

2

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

2

3

3

4

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

1 1

1

2 

1

0

0

1 

1

2

1 

1

4

5 

3

2

4 

0 

6 

4

i

S3 § §

Su®*- 

ft

0

0 

0

0

0 

0

0

0

0

0

0 

0

0 

0

0

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0

1

2 

0

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0

<1 1 <1

0

<1 

<1

<11

<1

<1

0

1 <1

 "& IH to si 3SPi 0

p

6

10 

10

19

14 

10

15

5

9

11

2 

12

7 

4

6

13 

14

17 

25

2 

7 

2 

3 

4 

3

5 

9

3

1

4

7

6

8 

2 

7 

18 

4 

5

1 

1 

1 

0 

1 

4

2

2 

2 

<1

1

2

8

7 

4

8

8 

0 

6 

10

1

lH

1

O

3

5 

5

2

0 

0

0

0

0

1

2 

1 

1 

1

1

2 

1 

<1 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

1

0

0

1 1

1

0

1

3 

<1

0

1

0

0 

0 

0

1

0

<1

0

<1 <1

0

<1 1

1

1 <1

1 

<1

0

<1

2

Cation-exchange capacity 

(meq g) 100 per 

2.8 

7.8 

3.4 

2.4 

8.7 

2.2

1.5 

4.7 

5.9 

5.7 

4.8 

3.3 

11 

3.0 

9.3 

.8

.4 

.2 

.4 

.3 

4.8 

.3

49

7.3

4.9

1.3 

1.1

.4 

.5 

.5 

1.2

.9 

1.4 

41 

1.9 

1.1 

4.3 

.9 

.9

.7 

1.4 

.7 

.7 

1.6 

.7 

.5 

.8 

.5 

3.3

.4 

.8 

4.0 

.9 

43 

.5 

.6 

.6 

44

.5 

.3 

.6 

1.8 

.4 

1.8

1.0 

3.2 

7.0 

.9 

.7 

4.0 

1.4

1.2 

3.8 

1.3 

2.3
MINERALOGY AND CATION-EXCHANGE CAPACITY OF SEDIMENTS 

TABLE 9. Mineralogy and cation-exchange capacity of stream sands Continued

D21

Stream

No. 

(fig. 

1)

12

13 

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

Name

San Juan 

Eiver 

Bloomfield.

Animas Eiver..

San Juan 

River Shiprock.

Colorado 

Eiver, Utah.

Cheyenne 

Eiver.

Big Horn 

Eiver.

Cosumnes 

Eiver.

Cache Creek. _. 

Mad Eiver.....

Crooked Eiver .

Date of 

sampling

12-10-59 

4-9-61 

5-24-61 

5-24-61 

6-8-61 

7-12-61 

10-10-61 

10-10-61

5-26-61 

6- 8-61 

10-10-61 

10-10-61 

10-10-61

5-26-61 

6-8-61 

6-8-61 

10-10-61 

10-10-61

11- 3-60 

5-26-61 

5-26-61 

6- 2-61 

6-2-61 

6- 6-61 

6- 6-61 

6-18-61 

6-18-61 

4-10-62 

4-10-62

8-31-60

9- 1-60 

9-12-61 

9-12-61

12-14-60 

3-7-62 

3-7-62 

4-12-62

12-27-60 

4-14-62

10-19-60 

12-2-60 

12-2-60 

6-8-61 

4-16-62

11-16-60 

3-29-61 

5- 1-61 

5- 3-61 

4-18-32 

4-18-62

Ratio 

of 

discharge 

when 

sampled 

to 

average 

discharge

.2 

2.3 

3.1 

3.1

1.7 

.4 

1.8 

1.8

3.5

2.3 

.8 

.8 

.8

2.8 

1.9 

1.9 

1.4 

1.4

.3

2.2 

2.2 

2.5 

2.5 

1.4 

1.4 

1.3 

1.3 

.9 

.9

.05

.3 

1.1 

1.1

.05 

6.9 

6.9 

1.6

.01 

<01

.02 

5.5 

5.5 

.3 

1

.2 

1.7 

.9 

.9 

6 

6

Type of 

sample

Sus __

Sus. _ .

Bed. ....

Bed __ .

Bed. ....

Bed 

Sus. __

Sus.....

Bed. _ .

Sus. ....

Bed 

Sus. ....

Bed.....

Bed..... 

Bed 

Bed.....

Sus.. 

Bed.....

Bed 

Sus.. 

Bed. ....

Sus .....

Bed 

BedBed 

Sus 

BedBed 

Bed -

Bed _ 

BedBed - 

BedBed 

Bed 

BedBed 

BedBed 

BedConstituents (weight percent)

1

.2

O

.16

.09

.64 

.11

.11

.08 

.17

.12

.10 

.07

.22

.24 

.25

.35

Mineral carbon

.02

.01

.60 

.36

.12

.13

.06

<.01

<.01 

.05

.01

.03 

.01

.01

Total carbon

.18

.10 

.98

1.24 

.47

.23

.21 

.23

.12

.10 

.12

.23

.27 

.26

.36

SJ

<§

41

32 

34

38 

49

42 

47

48

51

58 

49

38

48

56

52

48

46 

44

37 

43

35

15 

6

9

4

1 

1

1 

<1

 B 

£ 

o

i

<i

i i

i i

i

i

<i

8

3

3

2

2

5

5 

5

0 

0

<1

1 

2

5

3

1

2

1 

1

K-feldspar

16

16 

20 

17 

12

12 

9

15

16

7 

6

10

7

9

4

18

8 

9

9 

4

7

2 

<1

0

0

<1

0

0

1

P-feldspar

7

6 

6 

9 

23

8 

15

6

7

6 

3

11

5

5

2

7

11 

14

12 

11

16

6 

2

8

3

33

29

24 

21

!

«

0

0

<1<1

0

1 1

0

0

<1 <1

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

4 

4

3

<1 

<1

<1

<1

<1

0

0 

0

Muscovite

0

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0

0

0

0 

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 

0

0 

0

<1

0 

0

0

0

0 

0

0 

0

Ampbiboles

0

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0

0

0

0 

0

<1

0

0

<1

>1

<1

0

1 1

1

0 

0

0

0

3

2

2 

1

i 

s

&PM

0

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

<1

<1

0

<1 <1

<1

0

1

0 

0

1

3

4 

3

4 

1

Carbonates

0

0 

0 

1 

0

<1 

<1

<1

1

7 

1

2

2

3

4

1

2 

2

0 

0

0

0 

0

<1

1

0

1

1

0

"So 

_o

"o 

>

0

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0

0

0

0 

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 

0

0 

0

0

0 

0

2

3

10 

15

8 

13

"8

at 02

0

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0

0

0

0 

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 

0

0 

0

0

5 

9

0

0

0 

0

0 

0

o>

O1 

C3 ft

o

0

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0

0

0

2

1

<1

1

2

1

0

<1

0

2 

0

0

1

2

0

0

7 

2

1 

<1

Ui 5

ts 

0 

_o

0

<1

<1

0 

0

1

<1

8

0

<1

2 

<1

<1

<1

2

<1

0

0 

0

0 

0

<1

0 

0

<1

0

1 <1

0

1

Eock fragments

 a

£

2

3

6 

9 

4

10

8

3

2

5 

8

7

10

7

9

5

7 

8

5 

9

9

24 

25

23

25

19 

18

17 

38

Coarse grained

**

ll13 &

15

22 

14 

9 

1

10 

1

10

8

1 

3

2

3

1

3

7

2 

4

5

4

3

9 

6

4

6

0 

0

0 

0

Quart z+

feldspar

9

11 

11 

8 

3

8 

1

8

7

0

7

10

4

1

2

3

3 

3

3

7

6

<1 

<1

2

2

0 

0

0 

0

Feldspar+ feldspar

1

3 

1 

2 

<1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

0

<1

2

0 

0

2 

3

3

0 

0

0

0

0 

0

0 

0

Undiffer- entiated

8

6 

6 

6 

6

6 

6

7

5

9 

12

15

16

11

18

4

15 

10

16 

13

15

35

47

41

45

21

27

41

22

I 

0

O

0

1

2 

0 

0

1

2

<1

1

0 

0

0

1

1

1

<1

<1 <1

4 

1

1

2 

1

4

5

0 

0

0 

0

Cation-exchange capacity 

(meq g) 100 per 

2.2 

1.2 

1.1 

2.3 

.9 

1.4 

1.3 

3.4

4.9 

5.6 

3.5 

9.4

8.2

4.0 

.9 

1.6 

1.4 

3.1

4.2 

1.2 

2.5 

1.2 

2.0 

1.3 

4.1 

2.4 

5.3 

2.9 

5.4

1.5

2.2 

1.3 

3.6

2.1 

3.7 

7.9 

2.9

2.9 

4.5

6.0 

5.8 

7.0 

4.8 

7.7

9.1 

12.0 

17.0 

12.0 

15.0 

18.4

1 Pumice fragments are common in coarse sand from the Eio Grande Eiver. Most of the pumice is at least partly devitrifled, and it has been counted as fine-grained 

rock fragments.

ately magnetic, or rock-fragment fraction, is responsible 

for much of the exchange capacity of the stream sand. 

Table 9 shows that the exchange capacity of sand is 

related to the content of fine-grained rock fragments. 

The coarse-grained fragments contain relatively little 

clay. When consideration is also given to the kinds of 

clay minerals present (table 6, p. D13), the variation in 

exchange capacity of the sands is largely explained. 

For example, Yadkin River bed sand contains 4-5 

percent fine-grained rock fragments, and any clay 

minerals present are likely to have rather low exchange

capacities. Hence, the overall exchange capacity of 

Yadkin River sand is about 0.3 meq per 100 g.

The Kansas River bed sand contains about 2 percent 

fine-grained rock fragments, but the clay present probably is montmorillonitic in part. Therefore, the exchange capacity of the sand is higher than the Yadkin 

River sand, about 0.7 meq per 100 g.

Crooked River bed sand contains 40-60 percent rock 

fragments (many of which are somewhat argillized or 

weathered igneous rocks), and 10-15 percent volcanic
D22 TRANSPORT OF RADIONUCLIDES BY ST'REAMS

glass which is commonly partly devitrified. Crooked 

River clay contains even more montmorillonite than 

the Kansas River clay. Thus, the exchange capacity 

of Crooked River bed sand is 9-17 meq per 100 g.

Mad River sand contains 70-80 percent rock fragments, but the clay minerals in the Mad River are 

mainly chlorite and illite and lesser amounts of expanding clay. Thus, the clay in the rock fragments 

can be expected to have only moderate exchange 

capacity. The overall exchange capacity of the Mad 

River sand, as a result, is 5-8 meq per 100 g.

EXCHANGE-CAPACITY VARIATION WITH GRAIN 

SIZE WITHIN THE SILT-SAND RANGE

Sand and silt from five streams and sand from six 

streams were separated into various size fractions as 

shown in table 10. The exchange capacity of each 

fraction was determined in order to establish the 

variation of exchange capacity with grain size.

In most of the streams the CEC (cation-exchange 

capacity) is low in the medium and coarse sizes but 

increases in the finer sizes. In 5 of the 14 streams, the 

CEC of the medium and coarse sand is higher than 

that of the fine sand and coarse silt because of the 

presence of numerous fine-grained rock fragments. In 

three of the streams, the CEC does not change appreciably with increasing grain size in the medium and 

coarse sand sizes. This lack of change is believed due 

to an increase in rock fragments with increasing grain 

size, which compensates for the normal decrease in 

surface area and CEC with increasing grain size.

EFFECT OF DISPERSING AGENTS ON EXCHANGE 

CAPACITY OF SAND AND SILT

The method of size separation used in this study 

was intended to preserve the size distribution found in 

the streams as much as practicable. The intent was 

to separate only those grains which had flocculated

either in the stream or while in storage. A comparison 

was made, however, between the exchange capacity of 

sand and silt treated as described above and that of 

separate fractions of sand and silt which stood overnight in a sodium hexametaphosphate dispersing solution, and then were agitated for 10 minutes by an air 

jet (Chu and Davidson, 1953). The dispersed silt and 

clay were removed from the sand and the dispersed 

clay from the silt prior to measuring the CEC. Results 

of the comparison are presented in table 11.

It should be noted that many published size analyses 

represent chemically and mechanically dispersed 

material.

The exchange capacity of both sand and silt decreases significantly as a result of the dispersion, but 

the percentage change varies greatly. In 4 of the 53 

samples, an apparent increase in exchange capacity 

occurred; the reason for this is not known. The 

average decrease in exchange capacity of the sand is 

approximately 25 percent and of the silt about 40 

percent. These percentages are probably an indication 

of the amount of high-exchange-capacity material removed by the dispersing agent from the mineral-grain 

surfaces.

EFFECT OF EXCHANGE CAPACITY OF SEDIMENTS 

ON COMPOSITION OF STREAM WATER

Cations held adsorbed on stream sediments form a 

reservoir which helps stabilize the chemical composition 

of stream water. The effectiveness of this stabilizing 

action will depend on many factors, some of which are: 

(1) the ratio of adsorbed to dissolved cations in a 

sediment-water system, (2) the selectivity of the sediment for specifications, (3) the degree of "fixation" of 

cations, (4) the time of sediment-water contact, and (5) 

the opportunity for thorough mixing of sediment and 

water.

TABLE 10. Variation of exchange capacity with grain size in some samples of bed sand and silt

Stream

Brandywine Creek __________ _ _

Junlata River ____________

Yadkin River _ . ________ . ...

Licking River _______ ...

Mississippi River __________ .

Kansas River ____________ _ ..

Elk Creek ____ . ____ ........

Colorado River, Tex ________ ...

San Juan River, Shiprock ...........

Colorado River, Utah _______ . . . .

Cosumnes River __________ . . ...

Cache Creek ___________ .

Mad River .. ____________ ...

Crooked River _____________ ..

Date of 

sample collection

2-26-61 

4-14-61 

6-22-61 

2-27-61 

10-11-60 5-8-61 

10-13-60 6-20-61 

10-10-61 5-26-61 

12-14-60 4-14-62 

10-19-60 3-29-61

Exchange capacity (meq per 100 g)

Size range (mm)

1-0.5

2.4 

8.0 

.8 

10.2 

.8 

.7 

1.3 

.4 

.9 

1.8 

1.9 

2.7 

6.3 iai

0.5-0.25

2.4 

6.5 

.4 

8.6 

1.0 

.8 

.7 

.4 

1.4 

1.7 

2.9 

4.4 

7.5 

12.6

0.25-0.125

2.2 

2.2 

.8 

7.6 

3.2 

1.2 

.6 

.9 

2.7 

1.8 

3.7 

7.9 

8.1 

11.3

0.125-0.062

2.6 

2.9 

1.6 

9.3

2.7 

1.9 

2.0 

2.2 

5.4 

5.9 

6.5 

10.4 

7.7 

17.3

0.062-0.031

4.7 

2.3

8.6

4.7

20.1

0.031-0.0155

5.7 

10.7

6.5

8.6

37.8

0.0155-0.0078

10.4 

12.6

10.4

21.3

42.2

0.0078-0.004

14.1 

10.8

14.6

27.6

48.1
MINERALOGY AND CATION-EXCHANGE CAPACITY OF SEDIMENTS D23

TABLE 11. Exchange capacities of sand and silt before and after chemical and mechanical dispersion 

[Bed sand and silt were used unless otherwise indicated. Sus, suspended]

Stream

No. 

(fig. 

1)

1

2 

3

4 

5

6

7 

8

11 

12

13

14

15

17

18

19 

20 

21

Name

Juniata River. ______ ______ ____________ _

YadkinRlver _-- _______ ________

Kansas River ____ _______ _____ _. . _________

Elk Creek-.. __ .. _ __ __ ... __ _____ . _ ___ _ __ ..

Colorado River, Utah. _________ _________ _______

Big Horn River.. ___ - _ _______ ___ _ _ _. - - _ ___

Crooked River ___________ __________________

Date

4-2-60 

2-21-61 

2-26-61 

2-27-61 

4-14-61 

2- 1-60 

5-18-61 

6-22-61 

2-27-61 

2-28-61 

3- 7-61 

3- 9-61 

4- 7-61 

5-8-61 

10-30-61 8-26-60 

10-19-60 

10-12-61 4-25-61 

5-24-61 

6-8-61 

10-10-61 

10-10-61 

6- 8-61 

10-10-61 

11- 3-60 

6- 6-61 

9-12-61 

12-14-60 3-7-62 

12-27-60 4-14-61 

10-19-60 

12- 2-60 

11-16-60 3-29-61

Exchange capacity of sand 

(meq per 100 g)

Before dispersion

2.8 

3.4 

2.4 

5.7 

3.0 

.4

.3 

7.3 

.4 

.5 

1.4 

1.1 

.7 

.5 

.4 

.9 

.6 

1.2 

1.1 

.9 

3. 4 (sus) 

3.5 

.9 

3.1 (sus) 

4.2 

1.3 

1.3 

2.1 

3.7 

2.9 

4.5 

6.0 

5.8 

9.1 

12

After dispersion

2.4 

1.6 

1.4 

2.5 

2.0 

.2

.3

5.2 

.3 

1.4 

1.0 

.8 

.6 

.5 

.3 

.4 

.4 

1.2 

.7 

.7 

1.9 

3.3 

.9 

2.6 

2.9 

1.5 

1.3 

1.6 

3.0 

2.7 

4.1 

5.9 

6.2 

7.1 

9.5

Percent 

change

-14 

-53 

-42 

-56 

-33 

-50

 0 -29 

-25 

+180 

-29 

-27 

-14 

0 -25 

-55 

-33 

0 -27 

-22 

_ 44

-6 

0 -16 

-31

+15o

-24 

-19 

-7 

-9 

-2 

+7 -22 

-21

Exchange capacity of silt 

(meq per 100 g)

Before dispersion

4.3

5.0

4.5 

4.8 

8.3

6 9 

20(sus)

20(sus)

13

16 

20

24(sus) 

8.2

16

22

13 

10

34

After dispersion

6.1

4.3

2.6 

4.2 

5.5

3.3 

4.1

6.3

5.6

11 

12.6

15.5 

6.8

5.9 

10.7

10.9 

9

20.8

Percent 

change

+42

-14

-42 

-12 

-34

-52 

-79

-68

-57

-31 

-37

-35

-29

-63

-51

-16 

-10

-39

This particular study has been concerned with the 

estimation, for various flow conditions, of both the 

ratio of dissolved cations to cations held adsorbed on 

suspended sediment, and the ratio of cations adsorbed 

on bed sediment to cations in solution above the streambed. Such information should give a first approximation of the importance of exchange capacity of stream 

sediments in controlling the composition of stream 

waters. Much more work will be required before the 

other factors mentioned above can be evaluated.

SUSPENDED SEDIMENT

An estimate of the ratio of adsorbed to dissolved 

cations in a sediment-water mixture can be made if a 

chamical analysis of the water is available and the 

exchange capacity of suspended sediment per unit 

volume of water-sediment mixture is known. Such 

data are available for several different flow conditions 

for many of the streams included in this study.

It should be understood that sediments tend to 

stabilize the ratio of elements in solution rather than to 

alter the total concentration of cations. If two dissolved cations, A and B, are in equilibrium with sediment holding some of each cation in an adsorbed 

condition and if an additional amount of A is added to 

the solution, the total milliequivalents of adsorbed 

cations will not change but the ratio of adsorbed A to B 

will increase. Thus, some of the added cation A will be

removed from solution by adsorption and some of the 

adsorbed cation B will be returned to solution. The 

net effect of the addition of A will be to increase both 

A and B in solution, but because of sediment exchange 

capacity, the ratio of A to B may not change greatly.

It should also be noted that addition of suspended 

sediment holding exchangeable cations to a stream 

constitutes an increase in the total transported load of 

cations. This effect is shown in table 12, although in a 

rather gross fashion. More refined data might show 

the percentage of each cation which is transported 

adsorbed or in solution.

Information on exchange capacity of sediment and 

chemical composition of stream water during periods of 

very high sediment concentration was obtained for very 

few of the streams studied because suitable conditions 

for obtaining such data did not occur during the short 

period of sample collection. However, reasonable estimates can be made from past records of chemical 

quality, sediment concentration, and particle-size distribution. By combining these past records with data 

on exchange capacity of various size fractions of sediment obtained in this study, estimates of the ratio of 

adsorbed to dissolved cations were made for a period of 

very high suspended-sediment concentration. These 

estimates, as well as ratios calculated from samples 

collected during this study, are summarized in table 12.
D24 TRANSPORT OF RADIONUCLIDES BY STREAMS

TABLE 12. Ratio of cations adsorbed on suspended sediment to cations dissolved in a unit volume of solution

Stream

No. 

(fig.l)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Name

Brandywine Creek ....

Yadkin River--

Green River. __ ..

Mississippi River. 

Kansas River __ .

Elk Creek ____ ....

Date 

sampled

4- 4-60 

2-21-61 

2-26-61

11-16-61

2-28-58'

2-21-61

2-27-61 

4-14-61 

3-2-54'

3-30-60 

5-18-61 

6-22-61 

11-19-61

5-26-52 1

6-6-60 

9- 7-60 

1-18-61 

2-27-61

2-25-56 1

2-28-61

3- 7-61 

5-10-61

6-14-52

3- 9-61 

4- 6-61 

5-16-61

6- 7-51

11- 1-60 

1-11-61 

5- 8-61 

5-24-61 

10-30-61

7-12-58

8-26-60 

10-13-60

§£f

atio discha ofwhen sample disch average 

«

9.2 

2.7 

8.1

.4 

12

5.1

12 

5.7 

10

5.1 

1.1 

4.6 

.6

1.6

.1 

.03 

4.7 

5.2

5.2

5.9

6.7 

5.3

1.5

1.4 

1.8 

2.4

2

.6 

.4 

3.9 

14 

1

6.1

.7 

18

Suspended

sediment

oncentration 

(ppm)

0

684 

49 

531

18 

2 1, 550

326

299 

117 

2 1, 130

672 

108 

1,330 

36

2 2, 970

16 

32 

369 

319

2 4, 230

160

600 

173

2 3, 180

907 

928 

740

2 6, 420

749 

86 

4,470 

2,700 

1,660

8,650

908 

3,340

£"56

xchangecapac (meq 100 per 

H

13.5 

17.0

8.7

20.3

811.0

11.1

11.2 

11.4

810.0

13.9 

9.0

7.8 

18.0

311.0

17.2 

25.1 

14.7 

12.4

314.0

14.2

13.4 

16.6

»15.0

27.3

24.5 

28.9

825.0

46.5 

23.8 

34.2 

30.0 

30.6

30.0

37.7 

34.0

.S3 ^

oncentration solved cation (meq litpr

0

1.12 

1.19 

1.07

1.85

1.49

1.11 

1.21 

U

.42 

.45 

.44 

.52

4.40

2.15 

2.47 

1.29 

2.08

41.2

1.49

2.21 

2.33

42

4.32 

3.85 

3.24

43.2

14.1 

14.43 

4 

2.73 

7.2

3

18.6 

2.5

a ® »

i M

atio catiofsorbed onsusediment toc

in solution

M

0.09 

.007 

.04

.002 

.2

.02

.03 

.01 

.1

.2 

.02 

.2 

.01

.8

.001 

.003 

.04 

.02

.5

.02

.04 

.01

.2

.06 

.06 

.07

.5

.02 

.001 

.4 

.3 

.07

.9

.02 

.5

Stream

No.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

17

18

20

Name

Elk Creek Continued

Colorado River, Tex..

Rio Grande River....

San Juan River,

Bloomfleld.

San Juan River,

Shiprock.

Date 

sampled

10-19-60 

10-12-61 9-25-595

6-20-61 

9-15-61

4-29-605

8-11-61 

9-19-61 

5-25-59

4-25-61 

6-21-61 

8-21-55 1

4-9-61

5-24-61 

6- 8-61 

10-10-61 

3- 9-605

5-26-61

6-8-61 

10-10-61

7-25-545

5-26-61

6-8-61 

10-10-61 

3-8-60

9-12-61

1-12-60 

3- 7-62 

4-12-62 

4-3-58

12- 2-60

6-8-61 

4-16-62 

2- 8-60

oSS 

Sf«8

atio dischaof sample when disci: average 

M

54 

.5 

39

16 

3.9

4.1

.3

7.8 

6.9

1.8 

.6 

1.3

2.3

3.1

1.7 

1.8 

3.7

3.5

2.3

2.9

2.8

1.9 

1.4 

2.9

1.1

.05 

6.9 

1.6 

44

5.5

.3

1 

23

Suspended

sediment

oncentration 

(ppm)

O

1,090 

450 

« 9, 230

1,970 

757

«11,600

1,350 

9,390 

13, 800

1,350 

284 

242,600

4,270

818 

103 

18, 900 

90, 900

579

239

634,000

1,060

672

65, 800

27, 800

131 

287 

79 

1,310

1,110

6 

139 

6 5, 440

>S8

xchangecapac (meq 100 per 

H

33.3 

37.0 

834.0

36.2 

47.4

40.0

28.5 

22.1 

22.0

16.8 

10.4 

325.0

16.9

11.5 

17.0 

22.0 

820.0

9 2

12.6

322.0

8.3

13.7

323.0

33.8

27.8 

12.2 

11.6 

815.0

9.1

17.0 

5.6 

312.0

I M ~

oncentration cation solvedlite (mq per

O

1.65 

8.13 

'2.3

1.79 

2.26

2.3

6.21 

2.32 

6

2.31 

3.43 

13.2

2.79

1.41 

1.7 

3.51 

'10.6

2.2

2.66

9.5

2.14

2.32

12.2

12.4

.89 

.9 

.45 

1

.9

1.42 

1.14 

'.9

01 '"' S

atio ofcatisorbedn susediment to<

solution in 

«

.2 

.02 

1.4

.4 

.02

2

.06 

.9 

.5

.1

.009 

.8

.3

.07 

.01 

1.1 

1.7

.02

.01

.7

.04

.04

1.2

.8

.04 

.04 

.02 

.2

.1

.0007 

.007

.7

1 Date of maximum daily mean concentration of record, from published U.S. 

Geol. Survey water-supply papers.

2 Daily mean concentration.

3 Estimated from sediment records and exchange-capacity data for various size 

fractions.

4 Estimated from discharge-conductivity relations.

s Unpublished data from U.S. Geol. Survey Quality of Water Branch district

« Suspended-sediment concentration from past records; concentration given is that 

of the time of sampling. 

' Estimated from specific-conductivity data.

The exchange capacity of suspended sediment can 

vary appreciably from time to time owing to changes 

in size distribution of the sediment, organic content, 

and clay mineralogy. The San Juan River at Bloomfield and the Animas River at Farmington, N. Mex., 

are examples in which the exchange capacity of suspended sediment varies widely. The percent of <C0.004 

mm material in suspension ranges from a few percent 

to more than 60 percent in both streams. The proportion of expanding clays in the <0.004 mm material 

also varies significantly (thus changing the exchange 

capacity), depending upon the part of the stream 

basin which supplied the sediment. The mountain 

areas apparently yield low-exchange-capacity clay 

minerals while the arid areas yield clay of high-exchange 

capacity.

When the suspended-sediment concentration is high, 

the ratio of adsorbed to dissolved cations may approach

one in some eastern streams, and exceed one in many 

streams of the West and Southwest. There is a pronounced tendency for the maximum ratio of adsorbed 

to dissolved cations to remain fairly constant regardless 

of great variations in concentration of dissolved salts, 

concentration of suspended sediment, and exchange 

capacity of suspended sediment from one stream to 

another. The reason for this fairly constant value is 

evident if the equation used in calculating this ratio is 

examined:

Cations adsorbed on suspended sediment (meq) 

Cations in solution (meq)

["Concentration of sus-~

pended sediment 

L (ppm)XlO-5

"Exchange capacity of suspended sediment 

(meq per 1 OOg)

Dissolved cations per liter (meq)
MINERALOGY AND CATION-EXCHANGE CAPACITY OF SEDIMENTS D25

In more humid areas both the concentration and 

exchange capacity of suspended sediment are relatively 

low, but the concentration of dissolved cations is also 

low. In arid regions, the concentration and exchange 

capacity of suspended sediment and the concentration 

of dissolved cations are all greater than in humid areas. 

Thus, the ratio of adsorbed to dissolved cations tends 

to remain constant across climatic zones.

The importance of the adsorbed load in transporting 

specific elements in streams is difficult to evaluate at 

present. Tamura and Jacobs (1960) have demonstrated 

that illite is much more selective than montmorillonite 

or vermiculite in removing cesium from solutions 

containing high concentrations of aluminum or sodium. 

Tiller and Hodgson (1962, p. 393) found selective 

uptake of cobalt and zinc by various clay minerals in 

the presence of a large excess of calcium. Much of 

this cobalt and zinc can be removed by exchange with 

other heavy metals, but a small portion appears to be 

fixed. It seems possible that a major fraction of some 

trace elements transported by streams may be carried 

as cations adsorbed on stream sediments.

In the southwestern United States, some streams 

carry high sediment concentrations almost any time 

that they flow and, hence, must have large adsorbed 

loads. The Rio Puerco near Bernardo, N. Mex., may 

represent an extreme example. The concentration of 

suspended sediment in the Rio Puerco almost always 

exceeds 10,000 ppm (parts per million) and commonly 

exceeds 100,000 ppm. The maximum daily concentration in published records is 230,000 ppm (U.S. Geol. 

Survey, 1963, p. 516). A high percentage of this 

sediment is of clay size.

BED SEDIMENT

During periods of low to moderate flow, most streams 

contain rather low concentrations of suspended sediment. Under these conditions, bed sediment becomes 

more important than suspended material in stabilizing 

the chemical composition of stream water. One measure of the effect of bed material on the composition of 

stream water is the ratio of adsorbed cations in the 

bed to dissolved cations in the water above the bed. 

Calculation of such a ratio for many streams is virtually 

impossible because information on size distribution or 

exchange capacity of bed material over a representative 

reach of stream, under specified flow conditions, is 

very seldom available.

An alternative approach is to estimate what thickness 

of clay, silt, or sand on the bed would be required to 

provide a quantity of adsorbed cations on the bed 

equal to those in solution above the bed. Although 

the bed material is virtually stationary and the stream 

water is in motion, this amount of exchangeable cations 

would be expected to be sufficient to exert some control

in stabilizing the ratio of cations in solution. It is 

then a matter of determining whether such thicknesses 

of sediment are probable from a general knowledge of 

the stream or from available information on size 

distribution of bed material.

The depth of a stream, for a specified discharge, can 

vary greatly from pool to riffle and from midstream to 

nearshore location. Thus, the average depth of a cross 

section may or may not be representative of a reach of 

stream. However, to compute the average amount of 

cations in solution above the streambed for a particular 

discharge one must multiply the concentration of 

cations in solution by the average depth of the water. 

For the purposes of this study, the average depth of 

the stream for a particular discharge is assumed to 

be that determined during the regular discharge measurements made by the U.S. Geological Survey. It 

should be realized that such depths will commonly be 

slightly less than the true average for the stream because 

of the method of selecting gaging sites, but, in some 

places, they may be significantly greater.

The thickness of bed clay, silt, or sand required to 

hold adsorbed an amount of cations equivalent to those 

in solution above the bed, under various flow conditions, 

is given in table 13. The exchange capacity used for 

each size fraction is the average of the values determined 

from bed samples, and a porosity of 50 percent is 

assumed for the sediment.

As streamflow decreases, water depths decrease and 

concentration of dissolved ions increases. There is a 

distinct tendency, then, for the amount of dissolved 

cations above a streambed to remain constant as 

stream discharge varies. This tendency is illustrated 

in the Juniata River (table 13) where the dissolved 

cations above the bed increase by about 30 percent 

while the depth of the water increases by 130 percent. 

Although the amount of dissolved cations above the 

bed generally decreases somewhat with decreasing 

water depth, the reverse situation also occurs. In the 

Colorado River near Cisco, Utah, the dissolved cation 

concentration apparently increases so rapidly with 

decreasing discharge that the amount of dissolved 

cations above the bed increases with decreasing water depth.

If we assume that stream water can effectively 

interact with 0.5 cm of bed clay, 2 cm of bed silt, or 

10 cm of bed sand, then one-fourth to one-half of the 

streams listed in table 13 will have as many cations 

adsorbed on bed sediments as are in solution above the 

bed during about 75 percent of the time. The streams 

which appear to require the thinnest bed sediments 

to make the adsorbed equal the dissolved cations are, 

in general, the small ones. This is not surprising, for 

within a given region the small, or tributary, streams 

will be shallower than the main streams and will have
D26 TRANSPORT OF RADIONUCLIDES BY STREAMS

TABLE 13. Thickness of bed sand, silt, or clay required to make adsorbed cations equal to cations dissolved in water above the streambed 

[Streams listed are those for which the required data are available or can be estimated with some confidence]

Stream

No. 

(flg.l)

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

7 

8 

9 

10 

14 

15 

18 

19 

20 

21

Name

Elk Creek __ ....... ..... .

Colorado River, Utah.. ____ _

Flow conditions

Discharge exceeded less than 25 percent 

of time

Average 

depth 

(feet)

7 

4.8 

6.6 

5 

6.5 

3.1 

.8 

18.4 

.81 

3.7 

5.3 

2.4 

1.6 

3.8 

2.6

Thickness (cm)

Sand

9.5 

5.9 

22 

4.2 

44 

89 

36 

160 

14 

51 

46 

1 

4.2 

2.1 

1.1

Silt

2.9 

2.7 

1.5 

3.3 

4.7 

5.3 

2.2 

3.7 

1.9 

2.9 

13 

.2 

1.1 

1.4 

.4

Clay

1.1 

.8 

.5 

.9 

1.6 

1 

.5 

1.2 

.4 

1.3 

3.2 

.1 

.4 

.6 

.2

Median discharge

Average 

depth 

(feet)

6.2 

3.2 

5.6 

3.5 

3.5 

1.8 

.5

.75 

2 

3.4 

1.4 (4) 

1.6 

1.8

Thickness (cm)

Sand

8.8 

5.6 

20 

3.3 

27 

60 

29

22 

31 

63 

1

1.3

1

Silt

2.7 

2.6 

1.3 

2.7 

2.8 

3.6 

1.8

3 

1.7 

18 

.2

.8 

.4

Clay

1.0

.7 

.4

.7 

1 

.7 

.4

.6 

.8 

4.3 

.1

.3 

.2

Discharge exceeded more than 75 percent 

of time

Average 

depth 

(feet)

5.9 

2.1 

4.7 

2 

2 

1.2 

.15

.75 

1.4 

3 

.55 "..

1.5

Thickness (cm)

Sand

8.5 

4.5 

19 

2.1 

19 

52 

14

29 

35 

62 

.5

1 

.9

Silt

2.6 

2.1 

1.3 

1.7 

2.0 

3.1 

.9

4.0 

1.9 

18 

.1

.6 

.4

Clay

1 

.6

.4 

.4 

.7 

.6 

.2

.8 

.9 

4.3 

.04

.3 

.2

1 Data given are for average discharge conditions, however it is probable that average discharge will not difler greatly from the discharge which is exceeded less than 25 

percent of the time.

* Information for sediments from the San Juan River at Shiprock.N. Mex., is limited, and estimates of exchange capacity of bed sediments are based, in part, also on information collected for the Animas River and San Juan River at Bloomfleld.

3 Because the flow of Cache Creek at Yolo is controlled by release of water from Clear Lake, there is little relation between discharge and concentration of dissolved cations. 

An average concentration of 4 epm dissolved cations was assumed.

4 Discharge is 0.1 cfs or less and average depth of flow is not known.

approximately the same concentration of dissolved 

cations. Thus, the thickness of bed sediment of a 

particular grain size required to make adsorbed equal 

to dissolved cations will be less in small streams. Near 

the headwaters of a stream the bed sediment may contain several times as many adsorbed cations as there 

are in solution above the streambed, and the stabilizing 

action of the bed sediment will then be quite important 

in reducing variation in chemical composition of the 

stream water.

The thickness of bed sediment capable of affecting 

the chemical quality of stream water depends upon 

grain size and water movement within the bed. If 

bed sediments are of clay size, water movement through 

the bed will be slow and interaction of stream water 

with sediment more than a few millimeters below the 

surface of the streambed will be greatly hindered. The 

exchange capacity of such fine-grained material is relatively great, however, and only slight thicknesses are 

required to provide appreciable exchange capacity. If 

the bed material is of sand size, its exchange capacity 

per unit volume will be less than that of clay, but its 

permeability will be much greater. Thus, stream 

water can contact and react with a greater thickness of 

bed sand. Therefore, the effective exchange capacity 

of bed material may not change greatly from one point 

to another in a stream even though grain size changes.

Cations introduced into a stream which are capable 

of strong adsorption would be expected to be rapidly 

removed from solution and be retained by adsorption 

on bed material, especially where exchange capacity 

is high. As equilibrium is reached by the cation with 

bed material near the point of introduction, the cation 

will travel farther and farther downstream before being

removed from solution. When introduction of the 

cation stops, most of the adsorbed material may be 

released, will travel downstream, be readsorbed, and 

again be released. Thus, the bed sediments can produce 

a chromatographic effect.

Commonly, a stream is either gaining water or losing 

it because of its relation to the local water table. Such 

water moving vertically through the bed sediments 

will tend to reduce the interaction between stream 

water and bed sediments. The importance of groundwater movement in affecting the interaction of bed 

material and stream water depends on the relative 

rate of cation diffusion as compared to the rate of the 

vertical movement of ground water. Such information 

is not presently available for natural streams.

CONCLUSIONS

The exchange capacity of stream sediments acts as a 

stabilizing influence on the chemical composition of 

stream water and may, under suitable circumstances, 

be an important factor in the fluvial transport of 

cations. In shallow streams, cations adsorbed on bed 

sediments may equal or exceed those in solution above 

the bed, whereas in deeper streams the ratio of adsorbed 

to dissolved ions will be much less.

When suspended-sediment concentrations are high 

the adsorbed cations may equal or exceed the dissolved 

cations. In areas where much of the annual water 

discharge occurs during periods of high sediment 

concentration, the load of adsorbed cations can be of 

considerable geochemical importance.

The particular cation species occupying exchange 

positions cannot be predicted accurately from presently 

available knowledge, because of the selectivity displayed by some minerals present in stream sediments.
MINERALOGY AND CATION-EXCHANGE CAPACITY OF SEDIMENTS D27

Much of the information regarding the fraction of a 

specific cation held adsorbed or in solution must be 

obtained from experimental work.

Cesium is an element that is known to be selectively 

sorbed by illite. Inasmuch as illite is present in 

many of the streams studied, it is probable that most 

cesium entering a stream will be removed from solution 

by the sediments.

Amorphous alumina and silica usually comprise not 

more than a few percent and organic material commonly 2-8 percent of the stream clays. If stream 

organic matter is similar to soil organic matter in 

chemical reactivity, it may be highly selective in 

removing elements from solution. The effect of the 

amorphous material on dissolved cations is not known.

In summary, results of this study have shown that 

the mineralogy and exchange capacity of stream sediments must be considered in understanding the chemistry of stream waters. Much work remains, however, 

before accurate predictions can be made regarding the 

fraction of a particular cation which is in solution or adsorbed.

REFERENCES CITED

Albrecht, W. A., 1947, Our teeth and our soils: Annals of Dentistry, v. 6, p. 199-213. 

Anderson, C. A., 1936, Volcanic history of the Clear Lake area:

Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 47, p. 629-664. 

Badgley, W. A., and Crumpton, C. F., 1964, Clay mineralogy, 

in Bell, E. L., and others, Soil survey of Logan County, 

Kansas: U.S. Dept. Agriculture, Dec. 1959, no. 35, p. 71-73. 

Barshad, Isaac, 1948, Vermiculite and its relation to biotite as 

revealed by base exchange reactions, X-ray analyses, differential thermal curves, and water content: Am. Mineralogist, 

v. 33, no. 11-12, p. 655-678.

 1950, The effect of interlayer cations on the expansion of

the mica type of crystal lattice: Am. Mineralogist, v. 35,

p. 225-238. 

Beetem, W. A., Janzer, V. J., and Wahlberg, J. S., 1962, Use of

cesium-137 in the determination of cation exchange capacity:

U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1140-B, p. 1-8. 

Blanco, R. E., and Struxness, E. G., 1961, Waste treatment and

disposal progress report for April and May 1961: U.S.

Atomic Energy Comm. Kept. CF-61-7-3, Oak Ridge, Tenn.,

Oak Ridge Natl. Lab. 

Broadbent, F. E., 1953, The soil organic fraction, in Norman,

A. G., Advances in Agronomy: New York, v. 5, p. 175-176. 

Brown, G., 1953, The dioctahedral analogue of vermiculite: Clay

Minerals Bull., v. 2, p. 54-70.

 1961, The X-ray identification and crystal structures of 

clay minerals: Mineralog. Soc., London, 544 p.

Burbank, W. S., Levering, T. S., Goddard, E. N., and Eckel, 

E. B., 1935, Geologic map of Colorado: U.S. Geol. Survey, 

scale, 1:500,000.

Carrit, D. E., and Goodgal, S. H., 1953, The sorptive and zeolitic 

properties of natural water-borne silts, with relation to their 

capacities to remove, transport, concentrate, and regenerate 

radioactive waste components in natural waters: U.S. 

Atomic Energy Comm. NYO-4591, 97 p.

Chu, T. Y., and Davidson, D. T., 1953, Simplified air-jet dispersion apparatus for mechanical analysis of soils: Highway 

Research Board Proc., v. 32, p. 541-547.

Coleman, N. T., Jackson, M. L., and Mehlich, A., 1950, Mineral 

composition of the clay fraction II, of several coastal plain, 

piedmont, and mountain soils of North Carolina: Soil Sci. 

Soc. America Proc., v. 14, p. 81-85.

Darton, N. H., 1928, Geologic map of New Mexico: U.S. Geol. 

Survey, scale 1:2,500,000.

 1951, Geologic map of South Dakota: U.S. Geol. Survey,

scale, 1:500,000. 

Darton, N. H., Stephenson, L. W., and Gardner, J. A., 1937,

Geologic map of Texas: U.S. Geol. Survey, scale 1:500,000. 

Dixon, J. B. and Jackson, M. L., 1959, Dissolution of interlayers

from intergradient soil clays after preheating at 400°C:

Science, v. 129, p. 1616-17. 

Fagg, D. B., 1957, A geologic study of Matagorda Bay, Texas:

Texas Agr. Mech. College, M. S. thesis, 170 p. 

Fenneman, N. M., and Johnson, D. W., 1946, Physical divisions

of the United States: U.S. Geol. Survey map. 

Folk, R. L., Hayes, M. O., Brown, T. E., Eargle, D. H., Weeks,

A. D., Barnes, V. E., and Claybaugh, S. E., 1961, Field

excursion Central Texas: Austin, Texas Univ. Bur. Econ.

Geology, Guidebook 3. 

Gabriel, A., and Cox, E. P., 1929, A staining method for the

quantitative determination of certain rock minerals: Am.

Mineralogist, v. 14, no. 8, p. 290-292. 

Goke, A. W., and Hollopeter, C. A., 1931, Soil survey of Kiowa

County, Oklahoma: U.S. Dept. Agriculture, ser. 1931, no. 14,39 p. 

Goke, A. W., Hollopeter, C. A., and Fisher, C. F., 1941, Soil

survey of Washita County, Oklahoma: U.S. Dept. Agriculture, ser. 1935, no. 17, 44 p. 

Griffin, G. M., 1962, Regional clay-mineral facies Products

of weathering intensity and current distribution in the

northeastern Gulf of Mexico: Geol. Soc. America Bull.,

v. 73, no. 6, p. 737-768. 

Hall, F. R., and Palmquist, W. N., Jr., 1960a, Availability

of ground water in Boone, Campbell, Grant, Kenton, and

Pendleton Counties, Ky.: U.S. Geol Survey Hydrol. Inv.

Atlas HA-15.

 1960b, Availability of ground water in Bath, Fleming, 

and Montgomery Counties, Ky.: U.S. Geol. Survey Hydrol. 

Inv. Atlas HA-18.

Hashimoto, I., and Jackson, M. L., 1960, Rapid dissolution of 

allophane and kaolinite-halloysite after dehydration, in 

Clays and clay minerals: 7th Natl. Conf. Clays and Clay 

Minerals, 1958, Proc.; New York, Pergamon Press, p. 102-113.

Hathaway, J. C., 1955, Studies of some vermiculite-type clay 

minerals, in Clays and clay minerals: Natl. Acad. Sci.- 

Natl. Research Council Pub. 395, p. 74-86.

Holmes, R. S., and Hearn, W. E., 1942, Chemical and physical 

properties of some of the important alluvial soils of the 

Mississippi drainage basin: U.S. Dept. Agriculture Tech. 

833, p. 70-71.

Jackson, M. L., 1959, Frequency distribution of clay minerals 

in major great soil groups as related to factors of soil formation, in Clays and clay minerals: 6th Natl. Conf. Clays 

and Clay Minerals, 1957, Proc.; New York, Pergamon 

Press, p. 133-143.

Jenkins, O. P., 1938, Geologic map of California: California 

Dept. Natural Resources, Div. Geology, San Francisco, Calif.

Johns, W. D., and Grim, R. E., 1958, Clay mineral composition 

of recent sediments from the Mississippi River delta: 

Jour. Sed. Petrology, v. 28, p. 186-199.

Johnson, L. J., Matelski, R. P., and Engle, C. F., 1963, Clay 

mineral characterization of modal soil profiles in several 

Pennsylvania counties: Soil Sci. Soc. America Proc., v. 27, 

p. 568-572.
D28 TRANSPORT OF RADIONUCLIDES BY STREAMS

Kansas State Geological Survey, 1937, Geologic map of Kansas:

Lawrence, Kansas Univ. 

Keller, W. D., 1955, The principles of weathering: Columbia,

Mo., Lucas Bros., 88 p. 

 1956, Clay minerals as influenced by environments of

their formation: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull.,

v. 40, p. 2689-2710. 

Kelley, W. P., 1948, Cation exchange in soils: New York,

Reinhold Publishing Corp., 144 p. 

Kentucky Geological Survey, 1954, Geologic map of Kentucky:

Lexington, Ky. 

Kirby, J. M., 1943, Rumsey Hills area, in Geologic formations

and economic development of the oil and gas fields of

California: California Div. Mines Bull. 118, p. 6\)1. 

Krieger, R. A., and Hendrickson, G. E., 1960, Effects of

Greensburg oilfield brines on the streams, wells, and springs

of the upper Green River basin, Kentucky: Kentucky Geol.

Survey Rept. Inv. 2, 36 p. 

Kunkle, W. M., 1963, Soil survey of Chester and Delaware

Counties, Pennsylvania: U.S. Dept. Agriculture, ser. 1959,

no. 19, p. 109-113. 

Kunze, G. W., Templin, E. H., and Page, J. B., 1955, The clay

mineral composition of representative soils from five geological regions of Texas, in Clays and clay minerals: Natl.

Acad. Sci.-Natl. Research Council Pub. 395, p. 373-383. 

North Carolina Department of Conservation and Development,

1961, Geologic map of North Carolina: Scale 1:500,000. 

Olmsted, F. H., and Hely, A. G., 1962, Relation between ground

water and surface water in Brandy wine Creek basin, Pa.:

U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 417-A, p. 1-21. 

Powers, M. C., 1953, Clay diagenesis in the Chesapeake Bay

area, in Clays and clay minerals: Natl. Acad. Sci.-Natl.

Research Council, Pub. 327, p. 68-80. 

Rader, L. F., Jr., and Grimaldi, F. S., 1961, Chemical analyses

for selected minor elements in Pierre shale: U.S. Geol.

Survey Prof. Paper 391-A, p. 33-37.

Rainwater, F. H., 1962, Composition of rivers of the conterminous United States: U.S. Geol. Survey Hydrol. Inv. Atlas

HA-61, 3 pis. 

Rich, C. I. and Obenshain, S. S., 1955, Chemical and clay

mineral properties of a red-yellow podzolic soil derived from

muscovite schist: Soil Sci. Soc. America Proc., v. 19, p.

334-339. 

Rich, C. I., 1960, Aluminum in interlayers of vermiculite: Soil

Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc., v. 24, p. 26-32. 

Rosenblum, S., 1956, Improved techniques for staining potash

feldspars: Am. Mineralogist, v. 41, nos. 7 and 8, p. 662-664. 

Ross, C. S., 1943, Clays and soils in relation to geologic processes:

Wash. Acad. Sci. Jour., v. 33, p. 225-235. 

Lee, W. D., 1955, The soils of North Carolina: Raleigh, North

Carolina Agriculture Expt. Sta. Tech. Bull. 115, 187 p. 

Love, J. D., Weitz, J. L., and Hose, R. K., 1955, Geologic map of

Wyoming: U.S. Geol. Survey, scale 1:500,000. 

Manning, G. A., and Ogle, B. A., 1950, Geology of the Blue Lake

quadrangle: California Div. Mines Bull. 148, pi. 1, 1:62,500. 

McBee, C, W., Fleming, E. L., Sallee, K. H., and Hamilton,

V. L., 1961, Soil survey of Greeley County, Kansas: U.S.

Dept. Agriculture Soil Cons. Service, ser. 1958, no. 12, p. 3-8,

23-26.

Miser, H. D., 1954, Geologic map of Oklahoma: Norman, Oklahoma Geol. Survey. 

Nelson, B. W., 1960, Clay mineralogy of the bottom sediments,

Rappahannock River, Virginia, in Clays and clay minerals:

7th Natl. Conf. Clays and Clay Minerals, 1958, Proc.: New

York, Pergamon Press, p. 135-147.

Nielsen, J. M., 1963, Behavior of radionuclides in the Columbia 

River, in Transport of radionuclides in fresh water systems: 

U.S. Atomic Energy Comm. Rept. TID-7664, p. 91-112, 

Office Tech. Services, Dept. Commerce, Washington, D.C., 

20242.

Nielsen, J. M., and Perkins, R. W., 1962, The removal of radioisotopes from the Columbia River by natural processes 

[abs.]: Jour. Geophys. Research, v. 67, no. 9, p. 3584.

Sawhney, B. L., 1960, Weathering and aluminum interlayers in 

a soil catena: Hollis-Charlton-Sutton-Leicester: Soil Sci. 

Soc. Amer. Proc., v. 24, p. 221-226.

Schultz, L. G. 1960, Quantitative X-ray determinations of some 

aluminous clay minerals in rocks, in Clays and clay minerals: 

7th Natl. Conf. Clays and Clay Minerals, 1958, Proc.: New 

York, Pergamon Press, p. 210-224.

 1964, Quantitative interpretation of mineralogical composition from X-ray and chemical data for the Pierre shale: 

U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 391-C, p. 1-31.

Simpson, E. S., Beetem, W. A., Ruggles, F. H., Jr., and others, 

1959, Hydrologic and tracer studies in Mohawk River at 

Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory: U.S. Atomic Energy 

Comm. Research and Devel. Rept. SO-45, Washington 

Office Tech. Services, Dept. Commerce.

Stose, G. W., and Ljungstedt, O. A., compilers, 1932, Geologic 

map of the United States: U.S. Geol. Survey, scale, 1:2,- 

500,000.

Taggart, M. S., Jr., and Kaiser, A. D., Jr., 1960, Clay mineralogy 

of Mississippi River deltaic sediments: Geol. Soc. America 

Bull., v. 71, no. 5, p. 521-530.

Tamura, Tsuneo, 1957, Identification of the 14 A clay mineral 

component: Am. Mineralogist, v. 42, p. 107-110.

 1958, Identification of clay minerals from acid soils: 

Jour. Soil Sci., v. 9, no. 1, p. 141-147.

Tamura, Tsuneo, and Jacobs, D. G., 1960, Structural implications in cesium sorption: Health Physics, v. 2 p. 391-398.

Tiller, K. G., and Hodgson, J. F., 1962, The specific sorption of 

cobalt and zinc by layer silicates, in Clays and clay minerals: 

9th Natl. Conf. Clays and Clay Minerals, 1960, Proc.: New 

York, Pergamon Press, p. 393-403.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1963, Quality of surface waters of the 

United States, 1958, pts. 7 and 8: U.S. Geol. Survey WaterSupply Paper 1573, p. 516.

U.S. Weather Bureau, 1960, Mean annual total precipitation: 

Natl. Atlas United States, 1 map sheet, scale 1 :10,000,000.

 1962, Decennial census of United States climate: Climatology of the United States, no. 81-4 to 81-42.

Van Houton, F. B., 1953, Clay minerals in sedimentary rocks 

and derived soils: Am. Jour. Sci., v. 251, p. 61-82.

Walker, G. F., 1949, The decomposition of biotite in the soil: 

Mineralog. Mag., v. 28, p. 693-703.

 1958, Reactions of expanding-lattice minerals with

glycerol and ethylene glycol: Clay Minerals Bull. 3, p.

302-313. 

Weed, S. B., and Nelson, L, A., 1962, Occurrence of chlorite-like

intergrade clay minerals in coastal plain, piedmont, and

mountain soils of North Carolina: Soil Sci. Soc. America

Proc., v. 26, p. 393-398. 

Wilkinson, W. D., and Alien, J. E., 1939, Geologic map of Round

Mountain quadrangle: Oregon Dept. Geology and Mineral

Industries, scale 1 : 96,000. 

Winsor, J. H., and Bailey, H. H., 1960, A key to Kentucky

soils: Kentucky Univ. Agr. Expt. Sta., Misc. Pub. 204, 35 p. 

Wolman, M. G., 1955, The natural channel of Brandywine

Creek, Pennsylvania: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 271,

56 p.