Background Concentrations of Metals in Soils 

from Selected Regions in the State of Washington

By Kenneth C. Ames and Edmund A. Prych

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4018

Prepared in cooperation with

STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

Tacoma, Washington 

1995
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Gordon P. Eaton, Director

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

U.S. Geological Survey.

For additional information write to: Copies of this report may be purchased from:

District Chief U.S. Geological Survey 

U.S. Geological Survey Earth Science Information Center 

1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 600 Open-File Reports Section 

Tacoma, Washington 98402 Box 25286, MS 517

Denver Federal Center 

Denver, CO 80225
CONTENTS

Abstract 1

Introduction 1

Background 1

Purpose and scope 4

Acknowledgments 4

Study area and soil regions 4

Sampling design 4

Description of soils 10

-rV A ... ..........-......................................................................*..............--_ «» »«» » » »»» ........... £^j 1O

\^ i\J

Region D - 11 

jxG&ion s? j^ j^

Region G 11

P JXwglUli per inn J T ______________________________________________________________________ _ » ».»» _ _.» _ 11^ ^

Region L 11 

Region M 11 

Region O ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 11

Region P - - 12 

J\.egion K. -- -- - i ^

Region U - 12 

Methods------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12

Sample collection and processing 12

Laboratory methods 13

Analytical precision 14

Determination of background metals concentrations 14

Summary statistics 16

Frequency distributions of metals concentrations 17

Comparison of metal concentrations among regions 49

Kraskal-Wallistest - 49

Fisher's least significant difference test 50

Cluster analysis 50

Relations among metal concentrations 50

Relations among leachate 53

Relations between metal concentrations and other chemical and physical soil characteristics 53

Summary and conclusions 54

References cited 56

Appendix A. Data tables 59

in
FIGURES

1. Map showing counties and major rivers of Washington State 3

2. Map showing location of sampled sites in selected soil regions of Washington State 5

3. Boxplots of concentrations of metals in soils of Washington State, determined by five

laboratory methods 24

4-23. Maps showing the State of Washington, county boundaries, and:

4. Concentrations of silver determined by 5 analytical methods for 12 soil regions 28

5. Concentrations of aluminum determined by 5 analytical methods for 12 soil regions 29

6. Concentrations of arsenic determined by 5 analytical methods for 12 soil regions 30

7. Concentrations of barium determined by 5 analytical methods for 12 soil regions 31

8. Concentrations of beryllium determined by 5 analytical methods for 12 soil regions 32

9. Concentrations of cadmium determined by 5 analytical methods for 12 soil regions 33

10. Concentrations of chromium determined by 5 analytical methods for 12 soil regions 34

11. Concentrations of copper determined by 5 analytical methods for 12 soil regions 35

12. Concentrations of iron determined by 5 analytical methods for 12 soil regions 36

13. Concentrations of mercury determined by 5 analytical methods for 12 soil regions 37

14. Concentrations of manganese determined by 5 analytical methods for 12 soil regions 38

15. Concentrations of nickel determined by 5 analytical methods for 12 soil regions 39

16. Concentrations of lead determined by 5 analytical methods for 12 soil regions 40

17. Concentrations of antimony determined by 5 analytical methods for 12 soil regions 41

18. Concentrations of selenium determined by 5 analytical methods for 12 soil regions 42

19. Concentrations of thallium determined by 5 analytical methods for 12 soil regions 43

20. Concentrations of zinc determined by 5 analytical methods for 12 soil regions 44

21. Particle-size distributions determined for 12 soil regions 45

22. Soil-solution pH determined by 2 analytical methods for 12 soil regions 46

23. Carbon content determined for 12 soil regions 47

TABLES

1. Sampling locations and physical descriptions of soils in Washington 6

2. Reporting levels for metals in soils in Washington analyzed by different methods 9

3. Average differences between metals concentrations determined in duplicate soil samples 15

4. Summary statistics for concentrations of metals in soils in Washington as determined

by the total method 18

5. Summary statistics for concentrations of metals in soils in Washington as determined

by the total-recoverable method 20

6. Summary statistics for concentrations of metals in soils in Washington as determined

by the American Society for Testing and Materials method D3987-85 21

IV
TABLES-Continued

7. Summary statistics for concentrations of metals in soils in Washington as determined

by the Extraction Procedure Toxicity method 22

8. Summary statistics for concentrations of metals in soils in Washington as determined

by the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure 23

9. Frequency distributions of metals concentrations in soils in Washington determined

by the total and total-recoverable methods 48

10. Mean ranks of total and total-recoverable concentrations of selected metals in different

soil regions in Washington 51

11. Correlation coefficients and regression statistics between total-recoverable concentrations

and total concentrations of selected metals in soils in Washington 52

12. Correlation coefficients between concentrations of selected metals determined by the total

method and organic carbon concentration and amount of silt and clay in soils in Washington 54

Al. Concentrations of metals in soils in Washington determined by the total method 60 

A2. Concentrations of metals in soils in Washington determined by different laboratory methods 66 

A3. Particle-size distribution of soil samples in Washington 100 

A4. Miscellaneous characteristics of soil samples in Washington 102

CONVERSION FACTORS AND VERTICAL DATUM

Multiply By To obtain

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter

acre 0.4047 hectare

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer

Sea Level: In this report "sea level" refers to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD of I929)~a 

geodetic datum derived from a general adjustment of the first-order level nets of both the United States and Canada, 

formerly called Sea Level Datum of 1929.
Background Concentrations of Metals in Soils from 

Selected Regions in the State of Washington

By Kenneth C. Ames and Edmund A. Prych

ABSTRACT

Soil samples from 60 sites in the State of Washington 

were collected and analyzed to determine the magnitude 

and variability of background concentrations of metals in 

soils of the State. This study, done in cooperation with the 

Washington State Department of Ecology, was conducted 

because the data are needed to determine if, and to what 

degree, soils are contaminated at sites where contamination is suspected and to enable the application of consistent clean-up guidelines that accurately reflect specific soil 

environments. Samples were collected from the predominant taxonomic soil series in 12 different regions that are 

representative of large areas of Washington. Individual 

sites were chosen in areas that were relatively undisturbed 

by human activities.

Concentrations of metals were determined by five 

different laboratory methods that used different extraction 

procedures to recover metals from samples for analysis. 

Concentrations of 43 metals were determined by a total 

method that uses strong acids to extract at least 95 percent 

of each metal from the sample. Concentrations of 16 metals were determined by a total-recoverable method that 

also uses strong acids but that extracts less of a metal than 

does the total method. Concentrations of 17 metals were 

also determined by 3 methods that used distilled water or a 

weak acid to leach metals that are bound to the soil. These 

methods are the American Society for Testing and Materials method D3987-85, the Extraction Procedure Toxicity 

test, and the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure. 

Concentrations of metals determined by these methods 

were typically less than 1 percent of the concentrations

determined by the total method, and concentrations of 

most metals determined by these methods were less than 

the laboratory's minimum reporting levels.

The concentrations of metals in uncontaminated soils 

collected in Washington State varied by as much as 

62-fold. However, concentrations of metals determined 

by the total method generally displayed less variability 

than values determined by the other laboratory methods. 

Concentrations of mercury determined by the total method 

and nickel determined by both the total and total-recoverable methods displayed the greatest variability, followed 

by chromium and copper determined by the total-recoverable method; all have arithmetic standard deviations 

greater than two-thirds of their respective arithmetic 

means. Concentrations of other metals, such as aluminum 

and barium determined by the total method, varied less; 

both have arithmetic standard deviations less than 

one-third of their respective means.

Most metals concentrations determined by either the 

total or the total-recoverable methods were found to be 

from log-normally distributed populations or were more 

nearly log-normally than normally distributed. However, 

concentrations of four metals determined by the total 

method and three metals determined by the total-recoverable method were found to have been sampled from 

populations that were normally distributed.

The Kruskal-Wallis test indicated that metals concentrations determined by either the total or the totalrecoverable methods were significantly different among 

the 12 regions, with the exceptions of total copper and 

total manganese concentrations. However, the Fisher's
Least Significant Difference test, used to locate differences 

among the 12 population means for each metal, indicated 

that total metals concentrations between many regions 

were not statistically distinct. In contrast, metals concentrations determined by the total-recoverable method were 

not as similar among different regions, and only totalrecoverable concentrations of arsenic and lead were statistically similar (at a 95 percent confidence level) among the 

different regions. Cluster analysis revealed that sampling 

sites in three regions encompassing the Puget Sound could 

be regrouped to form two new regions. One group consists of sites located in an inner ring encompassing Puget 

Sound, and the other group forms an outer ring in the 

Puget Sound uplands. Sites in three regions in southcentral and southeastern Washington State could also be 

regrouped into two new regions.

For 7 of 11 metals tested, concentrations of metals 

determined by the total method correlated with concentrations of metals determined by the total-recoverable 

method at a 95 percent confidence level. For 6 of 18 metals tested, concentrations of metals determined by the total 

method also correlated positively with organic carbon concentrations. Concentrations of metals determined by the 

total-recoverable method did not correlate at a 95 percent 

confidence level with either organic carbon concentrations 

or the amounts of fines, suggesting that concentrations of 

metals determined by this method are primarily dependent 

upon the partial digestion of the various mineral phases 

within each sample. Concentrations of most metals determined by the leaching methods did not correlate with concentrations of metals determined by either the total or the 

total-recoverable methods and did not correlate with the 

amount of carbon or silt- and clay-sized particles. Therefore, the concentrations of metals in the leachates are 

probably independent of the exchange capacity in the 

soils. The analytical method for total concentrations was 

typically about twice as precise as was the total-recoverable method, and the leaching methods were much less 

precise than either the total or total-recoverable method.

INTRODUCTION

In 1987 the Washington State Department of 

Ecology (Ecology) and the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) began a series of cooperative studies to obtain 

information on the magnitude and variability of background metals concentrations in soils. This information 

was needed to determine if, and to what degree, soils were 

contaminated at sites where contamination is suspected 

and to enable the application of consistent clean-up guidelines that accurately reflected specific soil environments.

Background

The first of these studies was a pilot investigation of 

a part of the Big Soos Creek drainage basin in King 

County. In that study (Prych and others, 1995) 27 soil 

samples were collected from 9 sites over an area of about 

30 mi2 at depths up to 5 feet (fig. 1). The samples were 

analyzed for 17 to 44 different elements by 4 different 

laboratory methods. The U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency's priority pollutants of primary interest included 

antimony (Sb), arsenic (As), beryllium (Be), cadmium 

(Cd), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), lead (Pb), mercury 

(Hg), nickel (Ni), selenium (Se), silver (Ag), thallium (Tl), 

and zinc (Zn) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

1988). (For convenience, all elements will hereafter be 

referred to as metals.)

The method used to extract metals from a soil sample 

in the laboratory can strongly influence the reported concentrations of metals in the soil. Although several different methods are commonly used in environmental 

investigations, four of the most common methods were 

used in the Soos Creek study. Two of them were a total 

and a total-recoverable method. The total method 

involved complete digestion of the solid material, whereas 

the total-recoverable method removed less than 95 percent 

of the solid material (Fishman and Friedman, 1985). Metals concentrations determined by the two methods were 

found to differ by as much as an order of magnitude. 

Metal concentrations were also determined from leachates 

produced by two different methods used to simulate leaching processes in soils under extreme conditions: ASTM 

(method D3987-85, American Society for Testing and 

Materials, 1985) and EP-TOX (Extraction Procedure Toxicity Test; method 1310, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1986). Because the distribution of metals in soil 

and the extractability of metals from soil samples are influenced by such soil characteristics as particle-size distribution, pH, and content of organic matter, the Soos Creek 

study determined these characteristics for each of the 

samples collected.

The Big Soos Creek drainage basin study provided 

both a foundation of information and a model from which 

future study designs could be formulated. However, the' 

knowledge about background metals concentrations in 

soils was limited by the relatively small study area and 

small number of samples, and the transferability of the 

results of the Soos Creek study to areas outside of its 

drainage basin was unknown. This present study was 

designed to cover a much larger area of the State so that 

the distribution and variability of metals in soils in
124° 

49°

46°

WHATCOM 

COUNTY

OKANOGAN 

COUNTY

Puget Sound,

CLALLAM 

COUNTY

SNOHOMISH _

COUNTY <

CC CHELAN 

COUNTY

DOUGLAS 

COUNTY

JEFFERSON KITSAP 

COUNTY COUNTY

GRAYS MASON 

HARBOR COUNTY 

COUNTY

Pacific 

Ocean

PIERCE 

COUNTY

iTHURSTON 

COUNTY

PACIFIC 

COUNTY

YAKIMA 

COUNTY

W

COWUTZ 

COUNTY BENTON 

COUNTY WAHKIAKUM 

COUNTY SKAMANIA 

COUNTY

KUCKITAT 

COUNTY

Coiumb/a 

OREGON

Figure 1.-Counties and major rivers of Washington State.
representative regions in the State could be assessed and 

the qualitative and quantitative differences between these 

regions could be compared.

Purpose and Scope

This report presents data on the magnitude and variability of background concentrations of metals in soils in 

selected regions throughout the State of Washington and 

the determinations of differences among selected regions. 

The report presents, in tabular form, all the data collected 

for this study and summary statistics for all metals determined by the five laboratory methods. The frequency distributions of the data are discussed, and analyses of the 

variability of concentrations of metals determined by the 

total and total-recoverable methods among regions are 

presented, as are the matrices of correlation coefficients 

between total and total-recoverable metals concentrations 

and between metals concentrations and other soil 

characteristics.

Acknowledgments

Appreciation is expressed to Ward Staubitz and 

Laura Forsman for their extraordinary contributions to this 

report and to Charles San Juan of the Washington State 

Department of Ecology, whose cooperation was essential 

to the study.

STUDY AREA AND SOIL REGIONS

Samples were collected from regions A, C, D, F, G, 

J, L, M, O, P, R, and U (fig. 2). Even though a region contains a number of different soil series, the number of soil 

series sampled within a single region depended on the 

original sampling design. Certain regions were chosen to 

have multiple samples retrieved from a single soil series at 

different locations, while other regions had samples 

collected from five different soil series. Table 1 lists the 

locations and physical descriptions of the soils sampled 

from every region, and the Description of Soils section 

lists the characteristics of soils common within a region 

and of the series sampled for each region.

Sampling Design

A stratified sampling design, described by Bennett 

and Franklin (1954) and Iman and Conover (1983), was 

used to incorporate the areal differences among soils in 

Washington State. The State was divided into 24 different 

regions (fig. 2), which were adapted from the general soil 

groups of Washington (Chapin, 1968), the physiographic 

regions presented by Livingston (1969) and Lasmanis 

(1991), and the major geologic units that compose the 

State (Hunting and others, 1961). Twelve of these regions, 

which compose the majority of land most affected by 

urban, agricultural, and industrial development, were sampled in this study. Samples were collected from the predominant taxonomic soil series in each region. In most 

regions, soils from three or more different soil series were 

collected; however, in some regions, one or two soil series 

were so extensive that samples were collected only from 

those series. Soil samples were collected at 5 sites in each 

region (for a total of 60 samples). The locations of individual collection sites within a specified soil series were 

chosen at random in areas that were relatively undisturbed 

by man (that is, away from major roads or highways, 

housing developments, farming or cultivated areas, and so 

on).

For this report, the term sampling site, or site, refers 

specifically to an area of approximately 1 acre, from which 

a composite was made from five samples collected at shallow depth (less than 38 inches) and thoroughly mixed to 

produce one representative sample to reduce the effect of 

local variability. Samples are designated by region and 

site (for example, sample A2 denotes a sample collected in 

region A at site 2). Duplicate samples are always designated as site location 6, and a duplicate designation immediately follows the designation of the sample from which a 

duplicate was made. For example, sample F6 is the 

duplicate of sample F2 (see table 1).

Five samples from each of the 12 regions were 

collected and analyzed for 16 metals by the total-recoverable method, for PCB's, for TPH, and for particle-size distribution. Three samples from each region were analyzed 

for 43 metals by the total method and for organic and inorganic carbon. One sample from each region was analyzed 

for 17 metals by the ASTM, EP-TOX, and TCLP methods. 

Table 2 lists the individual metals determined by each laboratory method and their respective laboratory minimum 

reporting levels. Explanations of each of the different analytical methods are presented in the "Laboratory Methods" 

section.
49°

46°

Soils developed in:

 

P

40

I J____|____L

40

r

80 KILOMETERS

80 MILES

_J

A - Continental and marine sediments

along the Pacific Coast 

C - Beach sands 

D - Sedimentary rocks on the west

slope of the North Cascades 

F - Glacial deposits in the Puget Sound

Trough 

G - Alluvium along the Columbia River

J - Unconsolidated sediments in the

Okanogan River Valley 

L - Older sedimentary rocks in the

Wenatchee River Valley 

M - Unconsolidated sediments in the

Ellensburg Basin 

O - Fine-grained Unconsolidated sedim

in the Yakima River Valley

Figure 2.--Location of sampled sites in selected soil regions of Washington State (adapted from Ame
Table I.-Sampling locations and physical descriptions of soils in Washington

[Soil description abbreviations of colors and qualifiers: brn, brown; ol, olive; It, light; dk, dark; pi, pale; yl 

(preceding color), yellowish; brn (preceding color), brownish; gry (preceding color), grayish; ext, extremely; 

grv, gravelly; fn, fine]

Sam- Land 

pie surface 

num- Lat- Long- elevation 

ber itude itude (feet)

Soil samples from Region A:

Al 46 39 37 123 45 36

A2 46 59 52 123 35 42

A3 46 31 10 123 33 52

A4 46 41 20 122 55 27

A5 46 33 37 123 06 23

A6 (duplicate of sample A5)

Soil samples from Region C:

Cl 46 55 53 124 09 57

C2 465125 1240634

C3 46 36 28 124 02 32

C4 46 26 02 124 03 17

C5 46 21 16 124 01 57

Soil samples from Region D:

Dl 48 39 04 122 29 30

D2 48 39 08 122 29 26

D3 48 41 52 122 29 29

D4 48 48 09 122 10 33

D5 48 43 32 122 05 27

Soil samples from Region F:

Fl 47 03 53 122 18 24

F2 46 55 01 122 33 33

F6 (duplicate of sample F2)

F3 46 57 28 122 39 04

F4 475451 1221040

F5 482413 1221025

280

160

360

480

520

10

2

20

5

20

340

70

250

310

1,150

540

380

370

120

800

Soil 

series1

Willapa

Zenker

Zenker

Melbourne

Melbourne

Dune land

Dune land

Netarts

Dune land

Yaquina

Cathcart

Cathcart

Cathcart

Schnorbush

Heisler

Everett

Spanaway

Everett

Everett

Everett

Soil description2

yl. brn. silty clay loam

dk. brn. loam

dk. brn. loam

dk. brn. silty clay

dk. brn. silty clay

gray sand

gray sand

It. brn. gray fine sand

gray sand

ol. brn. fine sand

It. brn. sandy loam

It. brn. sandy loam

It. brn. sandy loam

It. brn. clay loam

brn. clay loam

brn. sandy loam

It. brn. gray loamy sand

ol. brn. loamy sand

brn. sandy loam

brn. sandy clay loam

Soil 

horizon3

B2

B2

B2

B21

B21

--

C

~

C

B2

B2

B2

B3

B2

C

C

C

C

C

Sample depth 

finches')

top

24

24

24

24

24

26

25

25

26

24

22

22

25

26

24

26

24

24

24

26

bottom

30

30

30

27

27

30

31

31

30

30

28

28

31

32

30

32

30

30

30

32
Table 1. Sampling locations and physical descriptions of soils in Washington Continued

Sam- Land 

pie surface 

num- Lat- Long- elevation 

her itude itude (feet)

Soil samples from Region G:

Gl 45 41 59 122 30 43

G2 45 40 14 122 40 57

G3 45 40 50 122 44 24

G4 45 46 53 122 35 58

G5 454742 1224135

Soil samples from Region J:

Jl 484833 1192416

J2 483446 1192836

J3 480522 1194153

J4 482415 1192705

J5 484313 1192153

Soil samples from Region L:

LI 473642 1204021

L2 473251 1203128

L3 47 37 40 120 38 24

L4 472924 1202000

L6 (duplicate of sample L4)

L5 47 29 43 120 21 17

Soil samples from Region M:

Ml 47 04 33 120 22 47

M2 46 58 46 120 39 19

M3 465114 1201724

M4 46512 1201624

M5 47 00 58 120 38 55

Soil samples from Region O:

Ol 461432 1191954

O2 461727 1194435

O3 46 25 22 120 45 26

O4 461843 1202937

O5 464114 1203916

267

50

10

215

175

255

950

770

1,200

1,480

1,600

1,200

1,500

1,250

1,280

2,320

1,900

2,140

2,215

1,760

1,300

1,180

1,120

1,000

1,335

Soil 

series 1

Lauren

Wind River

Sauvie

Dollar

Gee

Colville

Pouge

Pouge

Pouge

Cashmere

Burch

Burch

Burch

Burch

Burch

Wenas

Naches

Renslow

Selah

Reeser

Shano

Warden

Shano

Warden

Weirman

Soil description2

brn. loam

dk. gry. brn. loamy sand

dk. gr. brn. clay loam

brn. loam

dk. brn. silty clay loam

It. gray silty clay loam

brn. sandy loam

brn. sandy loam

brn. sandy loam

pi. brn. sandy loam

yl. brn. sandy loam

yl. brn. sandy loam

yl. brn. sandy loam

yl. brn. sandy loam

yl. brn. sandy loam

dk. gry. brn. sandy loam

dk. yl. brn. clay loam

brn. loam

It. brn. gray clay

brn. silt loam

pi. brn. silt loam

pi. brn. silt loam

pi. brn. silt loam

pi. brn. silt loam

gry. brn. ext. grv. sand

Soil 

horizon3

B2

Cl

B2

B2

B

B2

IIC

IIC

IIC

Cl

Cl

Cl

Cl

Cl

Cl

B2

B3

B2t

B22

B2

B3

B2

B3

B2

IIC2

Sample depth 

finches')

top

24

24

24

24

24

26

30

28

32

30

26

26

26

26

25

24

25

25

25

24

24

24

24

24

20

bottom

30

30

30

30

30

32

36

34

38

36

32

32

32

32

31

30

31

31

31

27

30

30

30

27

26
Table 1. Sampling locations and physical descriptions of soils in Washington Continued

Sample

num

her

Latitude

Longitude

Land

surface

elevation Soil

(feet) series 1 Soil description2

Soil

horizon3

Sample depth

(inches')

top bottom

Soil samples from Region P:

PI 470608 1175445 1,710

P2 465848 1174302 470

P3 462437 1180414 1,680

P6 (duplicate of sample P3)

P4 461153 1180928 1,770

P5 461307 1181528 1,230

Walla Walla dk. bra. silt loam

Athena bra. silt loam

Athena brn. silt loam

Athena 

Walla Walla

bra. silt loam 

dk. bra. silt loam

B3

B22

B22

B22 

B3

28

30

30

30

32

34

36

36

36

38

Soil samples from Region R:

Rl 

R2 

R3 

R4 

R6 

R5

470446 1191953 1,060 

470053 1194611 1,150 

464554 1184944 1,000 

465250 1194216 1,110 

(duplicate of sample R4) 

46 25 24 1 19 04 52 900

Quincy 

Quincy 

Shano 

Taunton

Taunton

bra. fn. sand 

bra. fn. sand 

pi. bra. silt loam 

pi. bra. silt loam

pi. bra. silt loam

C2 

C2

Cl 

B2

B2

24

24

24

24

24

30

32

30

30

27

Soil samples from Region U:

Ul 473743 1171000 2,220

U2 474313 1173053 1,710

U3 475037 1175147 1,430

U6 (duplicate of sample U3)

U4 475002 1175805 1,300

U5 475232 1180911 1,480

Reference soil samples:

Marble dk. bra. loamy sand Cl 22 28

Springdale It. bra. sand C3 24 30

Ewall pi. bra. sand C2 28 34

Spens brn. loamy sand C2 25 31

Ewall pi. brn. sand C2 25 31

mixture of soils collected within the Soos Creek Basin, Washington 

(duplicate of sample RS1) _______________________

RS1 

RS2

1 Soil series names from Soil Conservation Service publications; note that names of soils in regions D and M 

may change in the future because surveys for Whatcom and Kittitas Counties are being updated.

2 U.S. Department of Agriculture (1962) soil textural classes determined; samples were sieved in the field to 

remove material larger than 19 millimeters; as a result, qualifiers for coarse gravel or cobble, which would otherwise 

be included, may not be included in the soil description. Note that soils from the following series commonly contain 

gravel or cobbles at the sampled horizon level: Everett, Spanaway, Lauren, Pouge, Springdale, and Spens.

3 Soil horizons determined in office using sample depth and physical soil characteristics. Horizons are relatively 

parallel layers of soil that have distinct characteristics which represent departures from the parent material. 

Typically the A horizon overlies the B horizon, together composing the solum. The C horizon overlies the parent 

material and is beneath the solum. For additional information see U.S. Department of Agriculture (1962).
Table 2.-Reporting levels for metals in soils in Washington analyzed by different methods

[Values in parentheses are given in milligrams per liter of leachate; level of detection may exceed minimum reporting 

level; , lack of a reporting level indicates that analysis was not performed; ASTM, American Society for Testing and 

Materials method D3987-85; EP-TOX, Extraction Procedure Toxicity Test, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

method 1310; TCLP, Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency method 1311]

Metal

Symbol

Ag

Al

As

Au

Ba

Be

Bi

Ca

Cd

Ce

Co

Cr

Cu

Eu

Fe

Ga

Ho

Hg

K

La

Li

Mg

Mn

Mo

Na

Nb

Nd

Ni

P

Pb

Minimum laboratory reporting levels, by analytical method, 

in milligrams oer kilosram of drv soil

Name

Silver

Aluminum

Arsenic

Gold

Barium

Beryllium

Bismuth

Calcium

Cadmium

Cerium

Cobalt

Chromium

Copper

Europium

Iron

Gallium

Holmium

Mercury

Potassium

Lanthanum

Lithium

Magnesium

Manganese

Molybdenum

Sodium

Niobium

Neodymium

Nickel

Phosphorus

Lead

Total

2

500

10

8

1

1

10

500

2

4

1

1

1

2

500

4

4

.02

500

2

2

50

4

2

50

4

4

2

50

4

Total 

recoverable ASTM, EP-TOX, and TCLP

0.2

7.0

.5

~

--

.5

~

.2

~

_

1.5

1.0

--

2.0

.004

-

--

_

~

1.0

--

~

_

--

7

--

10

0.04

1.0

.6

~

.1

.4

~

~

.04

_

.1

.4

--

.4

~

.0008

~

~

_

--

.4

--

~

_

--

.4

--

.4

(0.002)

(.1)

(.03)

--

(.01)

(.02)

-

~

(.002)

~

_

(.01)

(.02)

--

(.02)

~

a(.00004)

--

~

--

(.02)

--

~

_

--

(.02)

-

(-02)
Table 2.~Reporting levels for metals in soils in Washington analyzed by different methods Continued

Metal

Minimum laboratory reporting levels, by analytical method, 

in milligrams per kilogram of dry soil

Symbol

Sb

Sc

Se

Sn

Sr

Ta

Th

Ti

Tl

U

V

Y

Yb

Zn

Name

Antimony

Scandium

Selenium

Tin

Strontium

Tantalum

Thorium

Titanium

Thallium

Uranium

Vanadium

Yttrium

Ytterbium

Zinc

Total

0.1

2

.1

10

2

40

4

50

~

100

2

2

1

4

Total 

recoverable

3.0

~

.5

~

--

_

1.5

5.0

__

2.0

ASTM, EP-TOX, and TCLP

0.4 (0.02)

__

1.0 (.1)

--

_

__

.4 b(.02)

--

__

__

_.

.4 (.02)

a Minimum reporting level for TCLP mercury is 0.001 milligram per kilogram of dry soil or 0.0001 milligram per liter 

of leachate.

b Minimum reporting level for TCLP thallium is 2.0 milligrams per kilogram of dry soil or 0.1 milligram per liter of 

leachate.

Duplicates of samples A5, F2, L4, P3, R4, and U3 

were obtained from sample splits. For quality assurance, 

these duplicates were submitted to the laboratories without 

the laboratories being informed that the samples were 

duplicates (so-called blind samples). A reference sample 

(RS1) constructed during the Soos Creek study from many 

different sites (Prych and others, 1995) was also submitted 

to the laboratories. A duplicate of RS1 was also submitted 

to various laboratories blind with the other duplicates.

Description of Soils

The soils in the State of Washington are diverse. 

They have developed over different lengths of time, in a 

great variety of parent materials, upon diverse terrains, 

with highly contrasting climates. In fact, they range from 

highly developed soils formed in marine volcanoclastic 

sediments to soils with little profile development formed 

in recently deposited glacial sediments. Twelve of the 24 

regions were chosen for this study (fig. 2).

Region A

Soils in region A developed mainly in continental 

and marine sedimentary beds deposited in southwestern 

Washington (Pringle, 1986), and all soils sampled in this 

region developed on upland marine sediments. Samples 

were collected from the Willapa, Zenker, and Melbourne 

series. Willapa soils developed on marine terraces that 

were cut into marine sediments and bedrock following 

changes in sea level (Pringle, 1986). Zenker soils formed 

in material weathered from sandstones derived from a volcanic range to the east of the present Washington coast. 

Melbourne soils formed in material weathered from 

marine deposited siltstone, shale, and fine-grained 

sandstone.

Region C

All soils in region C formed in beach sands located 

along the southwestern Washington coast. Three of the 

five samples were collected from "dune lands," which consist of excessively drained ridges formed in fine beach

10
sand, and the other two were collected from the Netarts 

and Yaquina series. Soils from the Netarts series formed 

in upland areas, and soils from the Yaquina series formed 

in basin-like areas between sand dunes (Pringle, 1986).

Region D

Soils in region D typically developed in older sedimentary rocks on the northwestern side of the Cascade 

Range (Poulson, 1953). Samples were collected from the 

Cathcart, Heisler, and Schnorbrush series. Soils from the 

Cathcart series formed in sandstones and shales developed 

from glacially scoured consolidated sandstone. Soils from 

the Heisler series commonly occur in high mountain valleys west of Mt. Baker and formed in glacial moraines 

developed from argillite, schist, and shale, which apparently accumulated from alpine and continental glaciations 

(Poulson, 1953). Schnorbrush soils are confined to the 

valley of the Nooksack River and were derived from arkosic sandstone and drift material that border the mountain 

sides. Talus rubble from alpine glaciers may also have 

contributed to the parent material.

Region F

Most soils in region F formed in glacial deposits in 

the Puget Sound lowlands of western Washington (Zulauf, 

1979). Samples were collected from both the Everett and 

Spanaway soil series. Soils from the Everett series formed 

on gravelly glacial outwash located on terraces and terrace 

breaks. Spanaway soils, which also formed in glacial outwash, commonly contain volcanic ash in the upper solum 

and are the "most extensive soil on the outwash plain of 

the last continental, or Vashon, glaciation period" 

(Ness, 1958, p. 54).

Region G

Soils in region G along the lower Columbia River 

commonly are derived from alluvium deposited from 

vastly different sources (McGee, 1972). Soils were collected from the Lauren, Wind River, Sauvie, Dollar, and 

Gee series. Lauren soils developed on Columbia River 

terraces 50 to 300 feet above the present level of the river 

in mixed alluvium that contains some volcanic ash. Wind 

River soils also developed in Columbia River mixedalluvium deposits 150 to 500 feet above the present river 

level. Soils of the Sauvie series formed in alluvial bottom 

lands along the river. Soils from both the Dollar and Gee

series formed in older Columbia River alluvium. Dollar 

soils developed on low nearly level terraces, whereas Gee 

soils are found in rolling hills on eroded terraces.

Region J

Soils in region J commonly developed in unconsolidated deposits in the Okanogan River Valley located in 

north-central Washington, and samples were collected 

from the Colville, Pouge, and Cashmere series. Soils from 

the Colville series formed in mixed alluvium derived from 

acidic igneous rocks and volcanic ash. Pouge soils developed on terraces and terrace breaks and are underlain by 

gravelly sandstones deposited as glacial outwash. Cashmere soils also formed in glacial outwash and more recent 

alluvium (Lenfesty, 1980).

Region L

Region L is located in the northeastern foothills of 

the Cascade Range. Soils in this region developed primarily on older sedimentary rocks in the Wenatchee River 

Valley. All samples collected from this region were from 

the Burch soil series. Burch soils specifically formed on 

terraces composed of old alluvium derived from sandstone 

(Beieler, 1972).

Region M

Soils in region M commonly formed in unconsolidated loess and alluvium deposits in the Ellensburg Basin 

located in central Washington. Samples were collected 

from the soils of the Renslow, Selah, Naches, Reeser, and 

Wenas series. Renslow and Selah soils formed in loess; 

Selah soils may also contain a sub-layer of caliche and are 

commonly underlain by gravelly old valley fill. Soils in 

the Naches series also developed in old valley fill. Reeser 

soils formed over cemented gravels, and soils from the 

Wenas series developed in stream bottom material 

composed chiefly of weathered basalt (Smith and others, 

1945).

Region O

Region O is located immediately south of the 

Ellensburg basin. The soils sampled in this region developed in fine-grained sediments deposited in the Yakima 

River Valley. Soils were collected from the Shano, 

Warden, and Weirman series. Shano soils formed in loess,

11
whereas Warden soils formed in a "thin mantle of loess" 

underlain by glaciolacustrine sediments (commonly 

referred to as Touchet beds) (Lenfesty and Reedy, 1985; 

and Rasmussen, 1971). Weirman soils formed in mixed 

alluvium located in flood plains or low terraces.

Region P

Region P extends throughout much of southeastern 

Washington, and soils in this area formed in thick deposits 

of loess (Harrison and others, 1964; Harrison and others, 

1973; and Donaldson, 1980). Samples were collected 

from both the Walla Walla and Athena series. Both the 

Walla Walla and Athena soils formed in loess interstratified with volcanic ash (Donaldson, 1980), and at some 

localized depressions, deposits of ash may be from 1 to 

6 feet thick. Athena soils, however, are commonly located 

in higher elevations, whereas Walla Walla soils are 

commonly found at elevations below 2,000 feet.

Region R

Soil samples collected in this region commonly 

formed in unconsolidated wind-blown and alluvial sediments in the central Columbia Basin located in southeastern Washington. The Quincy, Shano, and Taunton series 

were sampled. Quincy soils are located on terraces or 

active sand dunes and were formed in eolian sands (Gentry, 1984; Lenfesty, 1967; and Van Duyne and others, 

1917). Shano soils formed in thick deposits of loess interstratified with volcanic ash. Taunton soils developed in 

wind-worked alluvium and are commonly underlain by 

lime- and silica-cemented hardpans at shallow depth 

(Gentry, 1984).

Region U

All samples in this region were from soils that developed in unconsolidated deposits in the Spokane River 

Valley located in northeastern Washington. Samples of 

Marble, Springdale, Ewall, and Spens soils were collected. 

Marble soils formed on terraces in wind-worked mixed 

sandy outwash (Donaldson and others, 1982; and Donaldson and Giese, 1968). Springdale soils developed in outwash mantled with volcanic ash and loess (Donaldson and 

others, 1982; Donaldson and others, 1968; and Stockman, 

1981). Ewall and Spens soils also formed in glacial outwash. Ewall soils typically are located on terraces, 

whereas Spens soils are located on terrace breaks 

(Stockman, 1981).

METHODS

This chapter presents the procedures used to collect 

and process soil samples and the individual laboratory 

methods used to determine metals concentrations and 

other chemical and physical soil characteristics. The 

analytical precision of laboratory determinations are presented, and the ranges of precision among the total, totalrecoverable, ASTM, EP-TOX, and TCLP methods are 

discussed.

Sample Collection and Processing

Samples were collected during July, August, and 

September of 1990. In the earlier Big Soos Creek pilot 

study, samples collected closer to the surface displayed a 

greater variability in metals concentrations than those 

samples collected at greater depths (Prych and others, 

1995). For the current study, soil samples were collected 

from a depth of at least 20 inches below ground surface 

and were located within either the B or C horizon to (1) 

decrease variability and (2) minimize contamination from 

possible surface pollutants. A shovel was used to dig a 

hole from 12 to 24 inches in diameter by 24 inches deep at 

the center and at each corner of a 1-acre plot. A stainless-steel soil auger was used to collect 1 to 2 liters of 

material from approximately a 6-inch layer below the bottom of the hole. The material from each hole was sieved 

in the field through a 19.0 mm stainless-steel crimped 

sieve and was placed in a 20-liter plastic bucket. The five 

samples in the bucket were mixed thoroughly to form one 

representative composite sample to reduce the effect of 

areal variability. A subsample (approximately 3 to 4 liters 

in volume) of the composite sample was placed in a 4-liter 

plastic container for further sieving and sample splitting in 

the laboratory. A second subsample, approximately 

0.3 liter in volume, was sieved through a 2.0-mm stainless-steel crimped sieve in the field and was placed in a 

cleaned glass jar and stored on ice for later analysis for 

PCB's and TPH. After all the soil samples at a site had 

been collected, all sampling and processing equipment 

was washed with tap water and detergent (Alconox), 

then rinsed sequentially with tap water, with a 60/40 

acetone/hexane solution, and finally with deionized water.

The primary subsample was further divided into representative sample splits at the USGS field services unit in 

Tacoma, Wash. The sample splits were produced by flattening, mixing, and quartering the soil as described by the 

ASTM method D3987-85 (American Society for Testing 

and Materials, 1985). The sample splits were used as 

allotments for the various analyses and duplicates.

12
Sample splits for determining particle-size distribution and 

soil-solution pH were analyzed without further treatment. 

Splits that were to be analyzed by the total-recoverable, 

ASTM, EP-TOX, and TCLP methods were dry sieved to 

remove particles larger than 2.0 mm (millimeters). All 

sample splits to be analyzed by the total method were 

additionally wet sieved using a polypropylene sieve to 

obtain only material less than 63 |im (micrometers) in size 

for analyses, because trace metals tend to concentrate in 

finer sized (silt- and clay-sized) particles (Kabata-Pendias 

and Pendias, 1984).

Laboratory Methods

Five different laboratory methods were used to determine metal concentrations in the soil samples. Each 

method produced a liquid extract that was analyzed either 

by atomic-absorption or by inductively-coupled plasma 

emission spectrometry. Differences among solvents and 

extractive processes have the most significant effect on the 

metal concentrations in the resulting liquid extracts; differences in the methods for determining metals concentrations in the extracts are not expected to affect the results 

greatly.

For all metals except mercury, the total method 

determined total metal concentrations in the soil by nearly 

complete digestion of the solid phase of soil samples. At 

least 95 percent of the solid material was digested by 

hydrochloric, nitric, hydrofluoric, and perchloric acids 

(Fishman andFriedman, 1985; and Briggs, 1990). The 

digested material was then analyzed by inductivelycoupled plasma emission spectrometry (ICPES). Samples 

were also analyzed by hydride-generation atomic-absorption spectrometry (HGAAS) to determine total arsenic, 

antimony, and selenium concentrations (Welsch and others, 1990). Total mercury concentrations in the soil were 

determined from a partial digestion of the solid phase. 

Samples were digested with nitric acid and sodium dichromate, and the mercury in solution was reduced and vaporized and then analyzed by cold-vapor atomic-absorption 

spectrometry (CVAAS) (O'Leary and others, 1990). These 

analyses were performed by the Geologic Division 

Laboratory of the USGS in Arvada, Colo.

The total-recoverable method used a digestion procedure involving a mixture of nitric and hydrochloric acids 

that removes most material bound by surficial coatings on 

soil particles but removes less than 95 percent of the 

metals from the mineral matrix (method 3050; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986). This method is 

commonly used by regulatory agencies to determine the

amount of material that ultimately may be bioavailable. 

Concentrations of arsenic in the extracts were determined 

by graphite-furnace atomic-absorption spectrometry 

(GFAAS), and concentrations of mercury were determined 

by CVAAS. The remaining metals were determined by 

ICPES. Determinations of total-recoverable selenium for 

selected samples used HGAAS to obtain a lower reporting 

limit (Randy Knox, Washington State Department of Ecology, oral commun., 1993). Analysis by this method and 

the leaching methods described in the following paragraphs was performed by Ecology's Manchester 

Environmental Laboratory in Manchester, Wash.

Metal concentrations were also determined by three 

different leaching methods. Each method was designed to 

estimate the solubility and mobility of organic and inorganic components in contaminated soils. The ASTM 

method used was D3987-85 (American Society for Testing 

and Materials, 1985), in which distilled water was mixed 

with the soil (solution ratio: 70 grams of soil to 1.4 liters 

of water) and shaken for approximately 18 hours, and then 

the solution was extracted, filtered, preserved overnight 

with nitric acid, and analyzed the next day. The EP-TOX 

method (method 1310; U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1986), which was also used, was the same as the 

ASTM leaching procedure, except that it used a 0.5 normal acetic acid solution rather than distilled water as the 

solvent and it maintained the pH of the solution at 5. The 

TCLP method (method 1311; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990a, b) used in this study, like the EP-TOX 

method, used an acetic acid solution rather than distilled 

water and maintained the solution pH at 5. In addition, the 

TCLP method involved a stronger acetic acid solution and 

sodium hydroxide, which allowed for greater control of 

the solution pH. As a result, the TCLP method achieved a 

solution pH of 5 more consistently than in the EP-TOX 

method. Concentrations of mercury in the leachate sample 

were determined by CVAAS, and the remaining metals in 

the leachate were determined by ICPES.

Particle-size distributions of the soils were determined for grains between 63 |im and 19 mm by the USGS 

Cascades Volcano Observatory sediment laboratory in 

Vancouver, Wash. Samples were dried and then sieved 

through screens with mesh openings of 16, 8, 4,2, I, 0.5, 

0.25, 0.125, and 0.063 mm (described by Guy, 1977).

Total carbon concentrations were determined by 

measuring the amount of material volatilized from a complete combustion of a sample split. Concentrations of 

inorganic carbon were determined by measuring the 

amount of material dissolved from applications of hydrochloric acid to a sample, and organic carbon was

13
calculated as the difference between total and inorganic 

carbon (Wershaw and others, 1987). The determinations 

were performed by the USGS National Water Quality 

Laboratory in Arvada, Colo.

Soil-solution pH was determined by project personnel using two different methods. A 1:1 solution by weight 

of soil to deionized water (10 grams soil, 10 mL, milliliters, of water) was made from a sample split and was 

allowed to equilibrate for 30 minutes, after which the solution was mixed and the pH measured. The second method 

used the same solution. After the first pH measurement, 

1 mL of 1 molar calcium chloride was added to the solution. The sample was then mixed and allowed to equilibrate for an additional 30 minutes, after which the solution 

was mixed again and the second pH measurement was 

made.

Analytical Precision

The analytical precision of laboratory determinations 

was calculated from differences between laboratory results 

for duplicate samples (table 3). The percent difference 

between a sample value and its duplicate was calculated 

by dividing the absolute difference between the sample 

and duplicate by the mean value for the duplicate pair and 

multiplying by 100. An average difference for a metal 

was not calculated if the concentration in one or more 

duplicates was less than the laboratory minimum reporting 

level.

The ranges of precision for the total and totalrecoverable methods were similar, about 0 to 20 percent; 

however, the precision of the total method was typically 

about twice as good as of the total-recoverable method. 

The precision for the ASTM, EP-TOX, and TCLP methods was typically much less than for either the total or 

total-recoverable methods and ranged from 0 to 179 percent from metal to metal. The large variance observed in 

analytical precision for the three leaching methods could, 

in part, be due to the fact that only one duplicate pair was 

used to test precision for these methods. Regardless, for 

this study, determinations of background concentrations of 

metals in soils based on leaching procedures have a much 

larger uncertainty than background concentrations of metals determined by the total and total-recoverable methods.

DETERMINATION OF BACKGROUND 

METALS CONCENTRATIONS

All data from this study are presented in tables Al to 

A4 at the end of this report. Summary statistics of the data 

are presented to illustrate the magnitude and variability of 

the concentrations of specific metals on a statewide basis 

as determined by the five laboratory methods. The data 

for each metal were tested to determine if they are 

normally or log-normally distributed, and other statistical 

methods were used to demonstrate differences in the concentrations of metals within or among regions. Relations 

between the concentrations of metals determined by the 

total and total-recoverable methods are also presented, and 

relations between metals and other soil characteristics are 

discussed. Finally, the results from the leaching procedures are compared and the analytical precision of the 

various methods are discussed.

Differences among the population means of metals 

concentrations among the 12 regions suggest that sample 

variance may be minimized by dividing the State into 

various regions or groups of regions. Minimizing sample 

variance would in turn minimize the number of samples 

required to determine accurate baseline metals concentrations. Although concentrations of some metals may differ 

significantly among regions, summary statistics for individual or groups of regions were not given in this report 

because of the small number of samples and because these 

regions may be the focus of future investigations. The 

data in table A2 are given in a format so that summary statistics of metals concentrations for individual or groups of 

regions may be calculated if needed. For the purpose of 

this report, summary statistics that include all data were 

calculated to provide an initial assessment of the magnitude and variability of metals concentrations for the entire 

State.

Strong associations between or among individual 

regions may provide useful information. If sample variance remains relatively low and sampling size increases, 

the accuracy of the estimated baseline metals concentrations will increase. Therefore grouping data, for example 

from regions A and F, that demonstrate a strong association may provide more accurate information than data 

generated for an individual region. However, other 

considerations, such as location, soils, parent material, and 

climate, should also be made when data from different 

groups are combined.

14
Table 3. Average differences between metals concentrations determined in duplicate soil samples

["a" denotes that concentrations in one or more duplicates are less than laboratory minimum reporting level and 

differences were not computed; ~ indicates no data; statistics for the total, total-recoverable, ASTM (American 

Society for Testing and Materials), EP-TOX (Extraction Procedure Toxicity Test), and TCLP (Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure) methods were determined using 4, 7, 1, 1, and 1 pairs of duplicates, respectively]

Average difference, in percent1 , for indicated method of analysis

Metal

Silver

Aluminum

Arsenic

Gold

Barium

Beryllium

Bismuth

Calcium

Cadmium

Cerium

Cobalt

Chromium

Copper

Europium

Iron

Gallium

Holmium

Mercury

Potassium

Lanthanum

Lithium

Magnesium

Manganese

Molybdenum

Sodium

Niobium

Neodymium

Nickel

Phosphorus

Lead

Antimony

Scandium

Selenium

Tin

Strontium

Total

a

2

9

a

1

0

a

4

a

5

1

6

8

a

5

3

a

20

4

3

4

2

2

a

8

17

6

7

2

8

12

4

12

a

3

Total 

recoverable

a

6

13

--

13

~

~

a

~

_

10

7

~

6

~

a

~

~

__

~

8

~

~

__

~

15

--

18

a

~

a

~

ASTM

a

45

a

179

a

~

~

a

~

a

a

~

a

~

120

~

~

-

a

~

~

~

a

~

a

a

~

a

~

~

EP-TOX

a

a

a

40

a

~

~

a

~

a

a

~

40

~

a

-

~

~

a

--

~

a

~

a

a

~

a

~

~

TCLP

a

a

a

~

2

a

~

a

~

a

a

~

67

~

a

-

~

~

0

~

~

~

a

~

a

a

~

a

-

~

15
Table 3.--Average differences between metals concentrations determined in duplicate soil samples-Continued

Average difference, in percent1 , for indicated method of analysis

Metal

Tantalum

Thorium

Titanium

Thallium

Uranium

Vanadium

Yttrium

Ytterbium

Zinc

Total 

Total recoverable ASTM EP-TOX

a

o

3

 a a a

a

5

1

o

27 a a

TCLP

_

a

~

_

-

18

Average of absolute values of differences, in percent, between concentrations in duplicate samples.

Regions A and F are located adjacent to each other 

and lie primarily within or adjacent to the Puget Sound 

Lowland (fig. 2). Soils in region A formed primarily in 

marine sediments, which were derived from a volcanic 

range to the east of the present Washington coast (Pringle, 

1986). Similar marine sediments are also exposed in the 

northern part of the Cascade Range of Washington and 

British Columbia and on Vancouver Island (Wolfe and 

McKee, 1972). During the Vashon stage of the upper 

Pleistocene Fraser Glaciation, a lobe of the Cordilleran ice 

sheet extended into the Puget Lowland, which resulted in 

deposits of till and various outwash sediments that are 

found in region F today. The glacial sediments were 

derived from material originally located in the northern 

part of the Cascade Range and Western British Columbia, 

which indicates that the soils in regions A and F developed 

in parent material derived from similar sources.

Based on this information and the results of the 

Fisher's Least Significant Difference test and the Cluster 

analyses, further investigation could provide more definitive relations between regions such as A and F and among 

O, P, and R, which were shown to be associated and similarly could test whether regions that were not associated 

with other regions can be characterized individually. 

These investigations could continue to include determinations of other soil characteristics (for example, particle 

size, organic carbon) as well as additional analyses, such 

as cation-exchange capacity so that mechanisms controlling the chemistry and the associated distribution of metals 

in the soil may be better understood.

Summary Statistics

Summary statistics of metals concentrations in soils 

measured in this study are listed in tables 4 through 8. 

Each table gives the summary statistics of unadjusted and 

log-transformed values of the data for all metals determined by one of the laboratory methods. When the concentration of a metal in a sample was smaller than the 

laboratory's minimum reporting level, the minimum 

reporting level was used for calculating statistics, and the 

statistics were qualified as less than or greater than the 

value given.

The concentrations of metals in uncontaminated soils 

in Washington State varied by as much as 62-fold. However, concentrations of metals determined by the total 

method were consistently greater and varied less than 

values for metals determined by the total-recoverable, 

ASTM, EP-TOX, or TCLP methods (see fig. 3). Mean 

concentrations of individual metals determined by the 

total-recoverable method ranged from 7 to 56 percent of 

mean concentrations determined by the total method, and 

detectable concentrations of metals determined by the 

ASTM or TCLP methods were typically less than 1 percent of the concentrations determined by the total method. 

Total concentrations of mercury and nickel and totalrecoverable concentrations of nickel, chromium, and 

copper displayed the greatest variability, and all have 

arithmetic standard deviations greater than two-thirds of 

their respective arithmetic means (tables 4 and 5). Concentrations of other metals, such as aluminum and barium

16
determined by the total method, varied less; both have 

arithmetic standard deviations less than one-third of their 

respective means (table 4). The box plots of figure 3 demonstrate the variability for the entire data set but do not 

illustrate how the concentrations of metals differ among 

regions and how values for a specific region may influence 

the variability observed for all the data. Figures 4 to 20 

show variations of concentration within and among 

regions. For example, concentrations of mercury, chromium, copper, and iron vary greatly among regions, 

whereas concentrations of other metals, such as zinc, lead, 

or arsenic, vary less, although arsenic concentrations 

within a given region may be fairly variable. Other metals, such as aluminum, exhibit consistent concentrations 

when analyzed by the total method but greater variability 

when analyzed by the other four methods. Particle size, 

carbon content, and soil-solution pH are also highly variable throughout the State. For example, region C is composed almost entirely of sand, whereas regions O and P 

contain greater amounts of silt and clay than other regions 

(see fig. 21). Carbon concentrations generally are greater 

in samples collected in the regions west of the Cascade 

Range than those collected in the east, and the soilsolution pH is also more acidic west of the Cascade Range 

and more alkaline east of the Cascade Range (see figs. 22 

and 23). The variability of TPH and PCB's in soils could 

not be determined because the concentrations of each were 

always less than the laboratory's minimum reporting level.

Frequency Distributions of Metals 

Concentrations

Understanding the nature of the data and applying 

the proper statistical analyses requires knowing whether 

the sampled data came from a population that follows a 

normal distribution. The probability plot correlation coefficient test (Looney and Gulledge, 1985a, b) was used to 

test whether the metals concentrations determined by the 

total and total-recoverable methods are from populations 

that are normally or log-normally distributed. The probability plot correlation coefficient test was used to test two 

null hypotheses: (1) that the data were sampled from populations that are normally distributed and (2) that the data 

were sampled from populations that are log-normally distributed. Correlation coefficients between the data and 

their respective normal quantiles (the x axis on a probability plot) were determined and compared to that of a normal 

distribution, in which the coefficient would be 1.0 (Looney 

and Gulledge, 1985a, b). A null hypothesis was rejected 

when the correlation coefficient was sufficiently small 

such that there was less than a 5-percent chance of rejecting the null hypothesis when it should not be rejected.

When one or more concentrations were below the 

laboratory minimum reporting level, normal quantiles 

were computed using all the data; however, data for samples with concentrations less than the minimum reporting 

level were not included in computations of the correlation 

coefficients.

Concentrations of 13 metals determined by the total 

method and of 5 metals determined by the total-recoverable method in this study were determined to have been 

sampled from populations that were distributed log-normally (at a 95 percent confidence level) (table 9). Concentrations of four metals determined by the total method 

and three total-recoverable metals were found to have 

been sampled from populations that were distributed normally. The concentrations of three metals determined by 

the total method were determined to have been sampled 

from populations that were neither normally nor lognormally distributed, and the population distributions for 

concentrations of three other metals could not be determined because all values were less than laboratory reporting limits. Concentrations of 12 metals determined by the 

total method and of 3 metals determined by the totalrecoverable method were apparently more nearly 

log-normally than normally distributed.

Metals concentrations in various igneous rocks, sampled from different locations, have been shown to be sampled from populations that are not normally distributed 

(Ahrens, 1954). Furthermore, Ahrens (1954) found that 

the sample distributions became normal (or nearly normal) 

when the data were log-transformed (that is, log-normally 

distributed). Kulp and others (1952) and David (1977) 

observed similar sample frequency distributions for metals 

concentrations in marine and other sediments as well as 

various igneous rocks. Therefore, it is not surprising that 

concentrations of various metals in soils are likewise lognormally distributed, as observed in this study. This distribution would especially be true for those metals, specifically transition metals, that are primarily contained within 

the mineral matrices. In this study, all transition metals, 

with the exceptions of gallium determined by the total 

method and lead and manganese determined by the totalrecoverable method, are more nearly log-normally than 

normally distributed. The same is true for most alkali and 

alkali earths, with the exceptions of barium, potassium, 

and strontium determined by the total method and of 

beryllium determined by the total-recoverable method. 

The statistical tests presented in the following sections are 

non-parametric because the majority of metals concentrations were either sampled from populations that are decidedly log-normally distributed or more nearly log-normally 

than normally distributed.

17
Table 4.--Summary statistics for concentrations of metals in soils in Washington as determined by the total method

[Concentrations are in milligrams per kilogram of dry soil (except values for Al, Ca, Fe, K, Mg, Na, P, and Ti, 

which are given in percent); ~ indicates statistic not computed because concentrations in all samples were less than 

laboratory's minimum reporting value; <, less than]

Metal

Silver

Aluminum

Arsenic

Gold

Barium

Beryllium 

Bismuth

Calcium

Cadmium

Cerium

Cobalt

Chromium

Copper 

Europium 

Iron

Gallium

Mercury 

Holmium

Potassium

Lanthanum

Lithium

Magnesium 

Manganese 

Molybdinum 

Sodium

Niobium

Total 

number of 

samples/ 

detects 1

37/0

37/37

37/37

37/0

37/37

37/34 

37/0

37/37

37/4

37/37

37/37

37/37

37/37 

37/3 

37/37

37/37

37/37 

37/0

37/37

37/37

37/37

37/37 

37/37 

37/7 

37/37

37/36

Arithmetic 

mean

<2.0

8.1

6.6

<8

600

<1.5 

<10

2.0

<2.2

64

20

100

36

<2 

5.0

20

.4 

<4

1.5

35

34

1.3 

790

<2 

1.8

<9

Geometric 

mean

<2.0

8.0

5.3

<8

580

<1.5 

<10

1.8

<2.2

61

18

82

32 

<2 

4.7

19

.09 

<4

1.4

33

32

1.1

750 

<2 

1.7

<9

Median

<2.0

7.9

5.5

<8

650

2.0 

<10

1.8

<2.0

64

17

69

29 

<2 

4.6

20

.06 

<4

1.6

33

29

1.1 

690

<2 

1.7

9

Arithmetic 

standard 

deviation

1.1

4.2

140

>.5

1.0

>.9

17

10

97

20 

>.3 

1.8

4

1.3

.5

10

13

.6 

280 

>.4 

.9

>3

Geometric 

deviation 

factor2

1.1

2.0

-

1.3

>1.4

1.7

>1.3

1.3

1.6

1.9

1.5 

>1.1 

1.4

1.2

3.4

1.5

1.3

1.4

1.5 

1.4 

>1.1

1.4

>1.4

Minimum

<2.0

6.7

.8

<8

300

<1.0 

<10

.4

<2.0

26

8

28

13

<2 

2.5

10

.04 

<4

.5

15

20

.6

410 

<2 

.9

<4

Maximum

<2.0

11.0

20.0

<20

920

2.0 

<20

5.5

6.0

110

48

540

120 

<4 

9.3

28

6.0 

<4

2.3

61

89

3.5 

1,600 

<4 

6.2

14

90th 

percentile

<2.0

10.0

13.0

<8

760

2.0 

<10

3.7

<2.3

86

36

190

56

<2 

7.9

24

.4

<4

2.2

48

50

2.0 

1,320

<2 

2.3

13

18
Table 4.--Summary statistics for concentrations of metals in soils in Washington as determined by the total 

method Continued

Total 

number of Arithsamples/ metic 

Metal detects 1 mean

Neodymium

Nickel

Phosphorus

Lead

Antimony

Selenium

Scandinum

Tin

Strontium

Tantalum

Thorium

Titanium

Uranium

Vanadium

Yttrium

Ytterbium

Zinc

37/37

37/37

37/37

37/37

37/36

37/29

37/37

37/0

37/37

37/0

37/36

37/37

37/0

37/37

37/37

37/37

37/37

32

46

.1

13

<1.4

<.3

19

<5

290

<41

<9

.7

<100

140

23

2

100

Geometric 

mean

32

31

.1

12

<1.3

<.2

17

<5

260

<41

<9

.6

<100

130

22

2

95

Arithmetic Geometric 

standard deviation MiniMedian deviation factor2 mum

33 8

27 75

.1 .1

12 5

1.3 >.7

.1 >.3

16 8

<5

290 86

<40

9 <3

.6 .3

<100

130 69

23 7

2 1

89 41

1.3

2.1

1.7

1.5

>1.5

>2.3

1.5

~

1.4

-

>1.4

1.4

~

1.6

1.4

1.5

1.4

16

11

.02

4

<.6

<.l

9

<5

92

<40

<5

.3

<100

57

10

1

61

Maximum

55

470

.5

36

3.8

1.2

38

<10

460

<80

17

1.3

<200

370

44

4

280

90th 

percentile

43

74

.2

18

3.8

1.0

34

<5

370

<40

14

1.2

<100

254

36

4

140

1 Detects are the number of samples with concentrations greater than the laboratory reporting limit.

2 To obtain concentration at n geometric deviations above and below the geometric mean, multiply and divide the 

geometric mean by the geometric deviation factor to the n* power. For example, barium concentrations at two 

geometric deviations above and below the geometric mean are

580 X (1.3)2 = 980 mg/kg, and 580/(1.3)2 = 340 mg/kg, respectively.

19
Table 5.~Summary statistics for concentrations of metals in soils in Washington as determined by the total-recoverable 

method

[Concentrations are in milligrams per kilogram of dry soil (except Al and Fe, which are in percent); ~ indicates statistic not 

computed because concentrations in most samples were less than laboratory's minimum reporting value]

Metal

Silver

Aluminum

Arsenic

Beryllium 

Cadmium

Chromium

Copper 

Iron

Mercury 

Manganese

Nickel

Lead

Antimony 

Selenium 

Thallium3

Total 

number of 

samples/ 

detects 1

60/12

60/60

60/59

60/60 

60/0

60/60

60/60 

60/60

60/52 

60/60

60/60

60/60

60/0 

60/0 

60/21

Arithmetic 

mean

<0.2

2.1

<3.4

.6

30

20 

2.5

<.027 

420

25

7

<3.0

Geometric 

mean

<0.2

1.8

<2.8

.5

21

17 

2.3

<.016 

370

17

7

<3.0

Median

<0.2

1.7

2.8

.5

18

19

2.3

.013 

380

16

7

<3.0 

<5.0

Arithmetic 

standard 

deviation

>0.1

1.2

>2.2

.3

44

14 

1.1

<.032 

190

46

3

-

Geometric 

deviation 

factor2

>1.3

1.8

>2.0

1.9

2.1

1.8 

1.5

>2.7 

1.7

2.0

1.6

-

Minimum

<0.2

.6

<.5 :i

5

4 

.9

<.004 

78

6

2

<3.0 

<5.0

Maximum

0.6

5.4

9.4

1.4

310

99 

6.3

.19 

930

360

14

<3.0 

<5.4 

>14.0

90th 

percentile

0.3

4.0

6.8

.9

51

31 

4.2

.06 

680

34

12

<3.0 

<5.0 

>9.0

Zinc 60/60 50 47 45 19 1.4 21 116 80

1 Detects are the number of samples with concentrations greater than the laboratory reporting limit.

2 To obtain concentrations at n geometric deviations above and below the geometric mean, multiply and divide the 

geometric mean by the geometric deviation factor to the n* power. For example, nickel concentrations at two geometric 

deviations above and below the geometric mean are

17 X (2.0)2 = 68 mg/kg, and 17/(2.0)2 = 4.3 mg/kg, respectively.

3 All detected thallium values were estimated to be greater than those values given.

20
Table ^.--Summary statistics for concentrations of metals in soils in Washington as determined by the American Society 

for Testing and Materials method D3987-85

[Concentrations are in milligrams per kilogram of dry soil; to convert to values in milligrams per liter of leachate, divide 

values given by 20; ~ indicates statistic not computed because concentrations in most samples were less than laboratory's 

minimum reporting value]

Metal

Silver

Aluminum

Arsenic

Barium

Beryllium

Cadmium

Chromium

Copper 

Iron

Mercury

Manganese 

Nickel

Lead

Antimony 

Selenium

Thallium

Zinc

Total 

number of 

samples/ 

detects 1

12/0

12/9

12/1

12/12

12/0

12/3

12/0

12/1 

12/10

12/12

12/1 

12/0

12/0

12/0 

12/0

12/0

12/4

Arithmetic 

mean

<0.04

<2.0

<.7

.7

<A

<.04

<.l

<A

.003

<A

<A

<A

<A

<A

<.5

Geometric 

mean

<0.04

<1.8

<.7

.5

<A

<.04

<.l

<.4

.003

<A 

<A

<A

<A

<A

<5

Median

<0.04

1.8

<.6

.4

<A

<.04

<.l

<A 

.9

.003

<4

<A

<A

<A

<A

<A

Arithmetic Geometric 

standard deviation Minideviation factor2 mum

<0.04

>0.9 >1.6 <1

>.3 >1.3 <6

.6 2.2 .1

<A

>.003 >1.1 <.04

<.l

>.l >1.2 <A 

>2.0 >2.6 <A

.001 1.3 .002

>.l >1.2 <A 

<A

<A

<A

<A

>A >1.3 <A

Maximum

<0.04

3.6

1.6

2.4

<A

<.05

<.l

.7 

6.3

.004

.7 

<A

<A

<A

<A

.8

90th 

percentile

<0.04

3.5

<1.2

2.0

<A

.05

<.l

6.0

.004

<A

<A

<A

<A

.7

1 Detects are the number of samples with concentrations greater than the laboratory reporting limit.

2 To obtain concentrations at n geometric deviations above and below the geometric mean, multiply and divide the 

geometric mean by the geometric deviation factor to the nth power. For example, barium concentrations at two geometric 

deviations above and below the geometric mean are

0.5 X (2.2)z = 2 mg/kg, and 0.5/(2.2)2 = 0.1 mg/kg, respectively.

21
Table 7.--Summary statistics for concentrations of metals in soils in Washington as determined by the Extraction 

Procedure Toxicity method

[Concentrations are in milligrams per kilogram of dry soil; to convert to values in milligrams per liter of leachate, divide 

values given by 20; ~ indicates statistic not computed because concentrations in most samples were less than laboratory's 

minimum reporting value]

Metal

Silver

Aluminum

Arsenic

Barium

Beryllium

Cadmium

Chromium

Copper 

Iron

Mercury

Manganese 

Nickel

Lead

Antimony 

Selenium

Thallium

Zinc

Total 

number of Arith- Geo- Arithmetic 

samples/ metic metric standard 

detects 1 mean mean Median deviation

12/0 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04

12/2 <2.9 <1.3 <1 >6.6

12/1 <.7 <.7 <.6 >.3

12/12 2.9 1.7 1.5 4.8

12/0 <A <A <A

12/0 <.04 <.04 <.04

12/0 <.l <.l <.l

12/0 <.4 <.4 <.4 

12/10 <.8 <.7 .7 >.5

12/0 <.0008 <.0008 <.0008

12/3 <.8 <.5 <.4 >1.1 

12/0 <.4 <.4 <.4

12/0 <.4 <.4 <.4

12/0 <.4 <.4 <.4 

12/0 <1 <1 <1

12/0 <.4 <.4 <.4

12/11 <.6 <.6 .6 >.2

Geometric 

deviation Mini- Maxifactor2 mum mum

<0.04 <0.04

>2.5 <1 24

>1.3 <.6 1.6

2.4 .8 18

<.4 <.4

<.04 <.04

<.l <.l

>1.6 <.4 1.9

<.0008 <.0008

>2.0 <.4 4.4

__ ^ 4 ^ 4

 ^ 4 ^ 4

~~ ^ 4 ^ 4

 ^ 4 ^ 4

>1.4 <.4 1.1

90th 

percentile

<0.04

10.4

<1.2

10.5

<.4

<.04

<.l

1.8

<.0008

2.7 

^ 4

^ 4

^ 4

^ 4

1.1

1 Detects are the number of samples with concentrations greater than the laboratory reporting limit.

2 To obtain concentrations at n geometric deviations above and below the geometric mean, multiply and divide 

the geometric mean by the geometric deviation factor to the n* power. For example, barium concentrations at two 

geometric deviations above and below the geometric mean are

1.7 X (2.4)2 = 9.8 mg/kg, and 1.7/(2.4)2 = 0.3 mg/kg, respectively.

22
Table 8.-Summary statistics for concentrations of metals in soils in Washington as determined by the Toxicity 

Characteristic Leaching Procedure

[Concentrations are in milligrams per kilogram of dry soil; to convert to values in milligrams per liter of leachate, divide 

values given by 20; -- indicates statistic not computed because concentrations in most samples were less than laboratory's 

minimum reporting value]

Metal

Total

number of Arith- Geosamples/ metic metric 

detects 1 mean mean Median

Arithmetic Geometric 90th

standard deviation Mini- Maxi- percendeviation factor2 mum mum tile

Silver 12/0

Aluminum 12/11

Arsenic 12/1

Barium 12/12

Beryllium 12/0

<0.04 <0.04 <0.04 

<12.7 <7.1 8.6 >13.2

11.1 9.9 11.1 5.0

>3.4 

1.7

<0.04 <0.04 

47 

2.3 

19.1

<0.04

37.7

18.9

Cadmium 12/0

Chromium 12/0

Copper 12/0

Iron 12/11

Mercury 12/0

<.04 <.04 <.04

<2.8 <1.4 1.2 >4.8 

<.001 <.001 <.001

<.04 <.04 <.04

>2.8 <.4 17.5 12.1

<.001 <.001 <.001

Manganese

Nickel

Lead

Antimony

Selenium

Thallium

Zinc

12/10 <2.0 <1.3 1.3 >1.8 >2.5

12/0 <.4 <.4 <.4

12/0 <.4 <.4 <.4

12/3 <.4 <.4 <.4 >.02 >1.1

12/0 <1 <1 <1

12/0 <.5 <.5 <.4

12/12 1.6 1.5 1.7 .4 1.4

<.4 6.5

<.4 <.4

<.4 <.4

<.4 .5

<1 <1

<.4 <2.0

.7 2.1

5.5

<.4

<.4

.5

<l

<1.2

2.1

1 Detects are the number of samples with concentrations greater than the laboratory reporting limit.

2 To obtain concentrations at n geometric deviations above and below the geometric mean, multiply and divide the 

geometric mean by the geometric deviation factor to the nth power. For example, barium concentrations at two geometric 

deviations above and below the geometric mean are

9.9 X (1.7)2 = 29 mg/kg, and 9.9/(1.7)2 = 3.4 mg/kg, respectively.

23
10

Z 

O

Z 

Ul 

O

O 0.1 

O

0.01

SILVER :

-36

- 12 - 12 - 12

1234 

ANALYTICAL METHOD

100

10

0.1

0.01

ALUMINUM

3 -10

2345 

ANALYTICAL METHOD

EXPLANATION

ANALYTICAL METHOD

O Individual value, greater 

than 90th percentile

i

T

90th percentile

75th percentile

50th percentile

25th percentile

10th percentile

1 Total method: 37 samples, all units in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg): except Aluminum 

and Iron, which are in percent

2 Total recoverable method: 60 samples, all units 

in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg): except 

Aluminum and Iron, which are in percent

3 ASTM (American Society for Testing Materials, 

leaching test): 12 samples, all units in 

milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)

4 EP-TOX (Extraction Procedure Toxicity Test): 

12 samples, all units in milligrams per kilogram 

(mg/kg)

5 TCLP (Toxicity Characteristic Leaching 

Procedure): 12 samples, units in milligrams 

per kilogram (mg/kg)

O individual value, less than 10th percentile

36 Horizontal bar denotes (laboratory 

reporting limit). Number of samples 

with concentrations less than values 

shown

Figure 3.-Concentrations of metals in soils of Washington State, determined by five 

laboratory methods.

24
IUU

10

1

0.1

10

z 

0 1

CONCENTRAl 

p

L*

0.01

1,000

100

10

1

0.1

001

: ARSENIC :

o

; A i ]

: v n :

! v . . i

: o ° :

: A1 11 11 11 :

: BERYLLIUM 

: n; i :

\ 6 i

U - 12 - 12 - 12

o

- o -

1 1 1 1

CHROMIUM

I

[ °

o 1 '

T :

o 

- 12 ~ 12 - 12

l.UUU

100

10

0

0.1

10

1

0.1

0.01

1,000

100

10

1

A 4

; 1 ' ' ' ' ; 

: 9 BARIUM ;

o -

: -

o 9

: H :

: T :

0

1 p

1 p 

o

1 ' 1 ' '

1 1 1 1 1 .

: o CADMIUM 

o

- 1

-32

-60

: -Lg -12 -12

: COPPER :

0

o 

: o :

0

: 1 :

: ? A :

r ' T

: 8 :

; o ;

; 11 12 12 :

234 

ANALYTICAL METHOD

234 

ANALYTICAL METHOD

Rgure 3.~Continued

25
<

DC

UJ 

O z. 

o 

o

TOO

10

1

0.1 

10,000

1,000

100

10

1

0.1 

100

10

1

n 1

 IRON :

o

: 8 "

: M I :

' I I R

 ' ' - 1 u T 

I 2 I 2 -i- 1

1 I 1 1 1

: 1 I i i I :

= MANGANESE '-

i * $ !

8 

_ 0 .

-

i o :

8

:

i

2 :

: LEAD '.

o

8

h i

: T 6

: . d

0

8

-12 -12 -12

i i i i i

10

1

0.1

0.01

0.001

0.0001 

1,000

100

10

1

0.1 

10

1

0 1

I MERCURY :

; O |

' 1 '

 ft 

.

; 8 i :

r - 12 - 12 i

i i i i i

j o NICKEL ;

o

o

 IS ;

: A : PM

i 8 i

: -12 -12 -12 ;

i i i i i

; ANTIMONY ;

o

-60

,

n

8

- 12 - 12 ^- 0

i i i i i

234 

ANALYTICAL METHOD

1234 

ANALYTICAL METHOD

Figure 3.~Continued

26
CONCENTRATION

c

I!

(O

§

o >

o z

5' ^ 

1 g

F co

2 

m

o

01

> o "c

L _L O O C

o oQJ-oo o

- EH>

00

KTZh

o Q]c N -

0

1

O

*

m

O 

o

> c 

5 £

c

ro

CO

"*

01

\ 

* 

i. 

1

ro

1

I

-* 

-1 
124° 122° 120° 

to

oo

49'

46'

12345 

^ ANALYTICAL METHOD

12345 

, ANALYJ1CAL, METHOD

\r" 1

EXPLANATI

12345 

ANALYTICAL METHOD

12345 

-ANALYTJC.AL METHOD- 

40

I i i

80 MILES

I

40 80 KILOMETERS

CONCENTRATION, 

IN MILLIGRAMS PER KILOGRAM

Soil region

1 Number of analysis below reporting level 

3 Number of analysis at reporting level

1 T

2 T

3 A

M

le

4 U

m

5 U

m

Figure 4.-State of Washington, county boundaries, and concentrations of silver determined by 5 an

soil regions.
o

i

CO

3; 3'

(Q

or 

o

c

3 

Q. 

0> 

3. 

CD 

0)

0>

3 

Q.

O 

O

3 

O 

CD

i-»

5

O 

0)

3

Q.

CD » » 

CD

CD 

Q.

cr

«<

01 

0>

Jtt

O

9L

CD

E? 

o

Q. 

0)

o*

CONCENTRATION

CONCENTRATION

TRATION 'CONGE!* 

CONCENTRATION

CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION

CONCENTRATION

CONCENTRATION

_^ > ONCENTRATION 

3 8 3 - 

-10 i *!- 2 

m 

*«"

L

o 

o 

 I/""" - CONCENTRATION 

_ \ g _» > 

/^ -.08 

CONCENTRATION ^ 1 "" ~l" O 

8 o ^'~>- . i 2*. ^, -T. - p 

\ 

CONCENTRATION
32!

(Q«O '

o> ~r

CO1 *

05

I *

<D Oi

co

i * 

(QO

C7 OC3

Q. 

0)

2. 

<D 

0)

0)

3 

Q.

O O

3 

O 

<Do

^ 

co

o^

0)

53

<D

2 o'

Q. 

<Di *

<D

13 

<D 

Q.

CT

»<

O1 

0) o

o?_

<Df*3- o

Q. 

CO

Q"

ro 

co o

_ CONCENTRATION 8 o 
I! 3 

(Q(Q

O

COr-f

S

CD 

O

01 

(0

5'

(Or-f

O 

3

O 

O

oO

C 

3 

Q. 

01 

3. 

CD 

CO

01

3 

Q.

O 

O

O 

CD

I6'

CO

o0}

3. 

C

a 

CD

CD

3 

CD

a.

01

QJ

3

O

tt.

CD

1 3

O 

Q. 

CO

-* 

O

to

CO 

O

O" 

00

o

I

m 

Rl

<Q. S S 

i a a 

so sa 

.=-.= 

22.

w w 

cr B> « * 

So

"2 5" 

I. - 

« 01 

3C 3C 

2.CO 2.CO =r- =rm o m o 

Q.3 Q.3 

S S 3 5 

^ O ^ .i, 

?§ ! 1 O

O O £B 

5"® Q.<D 

Sa »S. 

S-o 2o 

3 Q) 3 (D 

O"^ ^ 3 ®«| !<! 

(DO f^ O 

>

p 

bo

9fe

m

Z CO 

d -0 

5 m 

2 3J 

d 

O

ro co 

2. 3 M S 

^ ?§§. 
of andconcentrations for12soil 8.--State determined 5methods boundaries, county Washington, beryllium byanalytical Figure

regions.

o>

CONCENTRATION

o - 2 i o-r-o 

* "* " 5 

f - oo 10 d 

' i £" "" *. 

- i S*- °~ o - g 

I 01 £ 

9 .u - 

 ^<1_ -- - o 

CONCENT?

2 i - P 

 ii o 

*~-{£^ / - 2 

5 V / m 

« o N> d i -J 

o oo m 

i £w ' 0 3) 

2 } * V> 

' ' * m / 2 

- 1 "'I" \ £ 

,,,, ,, , § * CO 

V-T--J

* CONCENTRATION 

8 - 2 1 

........ ........ ......... | , 0 

. £- - » 

u o. 10 5 d 

S«- z g> § ? 

- . m- 1 a 1 1 

- ° 7 S«n. Eo <§. 5 3 

1 - O O O 2 o o 

io § § 

\ wS 1- 1- 

» d TJ » " 

4 ^ rn o> o> 

V So 35" 

\ z 5- * ? 

) 0 3 a 

* 33 "2 3 

i s « 

f'~ ( f - 

^\ V rn i. 

r\ i 

> ^ -* ro w *. 01 

5; s; § |£ £w |W 

- r 3 n |s-J a? 1 as

co o ^ | 1 33^ »| a| 

b f §. « gfflg 0| -= ^ 

~* ^. ' F '!!5S'S5!¥3'S-Si 

^^ i . ^ "1<Dm<D-'QCOO^ 

f ' 3 5" &oL>? 753 O3 

" " C O 3 ^03- ^.» r^SL 

10 ""i ^ I SH §J S3 

w Ijfe 2 g^ 7^8 ffS H-ffl 

i- S M II 11 

rn ^ 1 O SO> 3 0) 3 (D 

I" o §a fi- l-s1 "- L- O gJ ffl JJ.O 

|< * 1 S

CONCENTRATION

s - p wi ,

2; a r"^' - ___ __. 

- 1 - - p < =«-;; 3-- \' vl " -' 

j: ; i 

i.. J _ i 0

 1,o -1 J 

j - ____ J NATION 

C h A, o 

^^-^-.'1 

t^&>^ 

Ur 

:>*r 

 vr\»r 

.:- s 

« - 2 1 

 ,,00 r dlO

^ U ^-£

' i* 

*- 7 i-. 

/ J H

* ' 

u ^ ( 

^~4

1* V 01 S \ 

8 CONCENTRAl / _/'VIs. 1 

1~-

j^ J>w ^ 

1 ' * m 1 "/ 

So- ) 

..-.. ......... o -L~4 

NCENTRATION

' " ~ _! O 

O -» i* 

"u * 

 

1

"0 -» 

1

a

**

*A 

 J

""" 12345 r^ §/-I^V

«ANALYTICAL METHOD x/ |\nnl /'( 

»

MB

-1

^"V; » ^ 

!!-- ^Lv.^r 

CONCENTF " 

S 1 

a o 

1 

^

-UrCENTRATIO 

p

I)

i

i

i- * 

i

ION

c

10

JJ

"s

~~l " 

< ^ 

__ I i

CD

'/'

» 1 

^ ^WT^^/I

* ^ ' "5l<K 1ATION 

CONCENTRATION 

. -op 

' o - 2 ^2 '""" "" 

1 -" " ' "" | - ^o 

 « §- - 

... . 10 d 

O 

I (Sw . 

~* f ~n 

o i Sn*' - 

i '; JvX \

\ CONCENTRATION 

s . 2 « 

^, !- - 

- . «. /^3^ S 

i jfew / 

_ .- i |- : 

i - 01 5 v 

, -,--,.. . 8 -V w i . 

1 -, K 

1 

' CONCENTRATION 

8 - 2 1 - 

'" '" ' - 

_ - - 10 d 

| - j^ w jfe 

' " c ^ §*" 

- 1 o"

ro 

^

ro 

ro

ro 

o

00
124° 122° 120° 

u> 

u>

49°

46*

12345 

ANALYTICAL METHOD

12345 

ANALYTICAL METHOD 

12345 

ANALYTICAL METHOD

12345 

ANALYTICAL METHOD

12345 

ANALYTICAL METHOD

12345 

ANALYTICAL METHOD

12345 

ANALYTICAL METHOD

12345 

ANALYTICAL METHOD

40

i i i I

80 MILES

i 4 5

ANALYTICAL METHOD

CONCENTRATION. 

IN MILLIGRAMS PER KILOGRAM

T 

40

EXPLANA

1 

2 

3 

80 KILOMETERS P Soil region

- 1 Number of analysis below reporting level

0 3 Number of analysis at reporting level

4 

5 

Figure 9.-State of Washington, county boundaries, and concentrations of cadmium determined by 

regions.
33

(Qua

"ip 

GO«-*

0} «-* 

CD

*» O 

0)

o>

(Q«-*

O

CT 

O

C

Q. 

0>

13. 

CD 

CO

0)

3 

Q.

O 

O

O 

CD

«-*

3

o'

«^

0>

3- o

3

E'

3

Q.

CD«-* 

CD

3 

CD 

Q.

CT

*<

<Jt

0>

3

3

CD

IT 

O 

Q. 

CO

o"

^

lo

CO

o

\ ^r\^r.- CONCENTRATION 

"-'^',-^ .1 i X 5 _L ° b 

g o _ L. 2 

j' b^ -I « -I- _£ 

CONCENTRATION, CONCENTRATION^ ( ^ J O A , 

5 _. go g g g _ S S > CONCENTRATION , ,, ,, , , , , . ,, . O 

Q o .^ ^ ^ .^ inim i inim i Muni i MIN^ i iiim i i *^ I 

° I 

o - P b . t^-. 

o^^ o - - - - 

. 00 

O uu ^ " _ ^ CONCENTRATION^ 

__;____ HO 2*1-' 

o _ 

CONCENTRATION^ ^ ""'" "'""' '""" l- "" | O u 2 

I 8 o - - I > 

| / CONCENTRATION^ I I - O ^ . x 

r- -- . o r~ ,,,,.. ......^ .,,,,^ ....^ ,, .. O g _ p 0 1 -^ . I ""'"' '""" """' """ ""'" ' o 

ooo vro- o o o _L _L _L ^ 

V coo t\3l- 3 V \ 

' ~ L' 

T

\ r " x 

CONCENTRATION^ 

o o -i P b 

O O O -L _L -L > 

CONCENTRATION J o»- \!^_- _i_id' 

- o C^, \5 ( ' o 2 a 

g S - P b ^ - «* ' M 5 ) Z g £ 

J^-i-i-iOO ^J»- t' _ l 

r ] S3 

_ . CONCENTRATION "" " 

____ 1 ' w x -o _ o i 

> \ ...,J ,,,,,y ,,,,ud .....I ....... -»ogO i2° ^ cr 

^ ^^ _ , ,-, _ 

S L' m 

i

I OlU ' 
Z! cB 

CQ<Q

CO« *

2.

CD 

O^

0)

CQ 3"

ao

c 

is

Q. 

0)

U. 

CD

QL 

O 

O

3 

O 

CD

o 

o

T3 

T3 

CD i

a. 

CD

CD

CD 

Q.

O"

Ul 

0)

2L 

 S 

O

3

CD

O 

Q.

ro 

w 

o

o~-

CO

= 33 

3 X X 

3C

S. -i 

ESS

ol

3C

2.05

1 Is

23 

Tnai

5" g; 

3 (D 

-' " 

cFici 

!>

3?

O (D 

m

CO

F 3 

O

w" 

a-<

jfJ(Q 

>£D

^2

S 

CT

(D

3

(D

CONCENTRATION
 «>. -ti. 

CO O) 

(32!

(Q

5CQ '5

J 3 CO 

ro

0) I

-*o

(u

(0

3; 3'

(Q 

.-* 

O 3Ooc

a- oc

3 

Q. 

ff) 

3. 

(D 

OT

Q. 

O O

3 

O 

CD

.-*

53

o' ^

3 

COOI

Q. 

CD.-*

(D

3 

(D 

Q.

CT

 <

cn

ff) 3o o

go.

CD

:? o

Q. 

CO

-+l o

JO 

COo

CONCENTRATION^O O * * > -

CONCENTRATION

' o P o o -» -» > 

CONCENTRATION

Oo o -> 
-M CD 

(Q<Q

= O 

Pi

CO

CD 

CD 

O

i

CO

(Q 

O

CT 

O

c

13 

Q. 

0) 

3. 

CD 

CO

0)

13 

Q.

O 

O

13 

O 

CD

13

I 

O

=3 

CO

Q. 

CDS"

13 

CD 

Q.

CT

»<

Ol

0)

3

o 

9L

3

CDc i 

IT 

O 

Q. 

CO

1 3

ro

CO

o

00om

m 

33

CO

m

CO

I I I 

III. 

i 9. 2. 

Q) Q) 

3 3 

E. E. 

6" 3 

I 1 -a 5' 

O (Q 

.*>. C71 

3C 3C 

2cn Sen 

3" 3" 

m 2 m 2 

0.3 0.3 

£. -j. £. -.. 

"3 "3 

3 O _i= 

^3 3 

ma> HO) 

§1 II 3-0 So 

3 Q] 3 <D 

S> > 3 

coco to 2 

to ^ 2.tD 

33 3-3 

o to o o 3^ * 1 a

	o

z

Eo

O Q 

33 

O > 

-

Q 

3D

>

2 to 

3 m tu 

^?§

8-»§'

= 01 oT

g3W 

I|8

Us
124° 122° 120° 

49°

46'

12345 

ANALYTICAL METHOD

z 10,000 

p 1,000 

"~ 100

12345 

ANALYTICAL METHOD

40 80 MILES

CONCENTRATION. 

IN MILLIGRAMS PER KILOGRAM

EXPLANA

3 

40 80 KILOMETERS p 

-1

°3

Soil region

Number of analysis below reporting level

Number of analysis at reporting level

__________I____________

Figure 14.-State of Washington, county boundaries, and concentrations of manganese determined 

soil regions.
Z! cB 

(Q(Q 

C O 

*i

O1

0) 

CO 

IT3'

CQ«-* 

O 

3

O 

O

C

CT 

O

C 

3 

Q. 

0) 

a. 

0 

w

0) 

3 

Q. 

O 

O 

3 

O 

CD

Q.

CD«-* 

CD

3 

CD 

Q.

CT

»<

OI

0)

3

o

i

CD

5 

O 

Q. 

CO

S'

IV) 

CO 

O
.S~Z.

_ > / CONCENTRATION 

 * 'I 
(Q(Q

5 O 

=>

CD

a

0) 

CO 

D' 

17

CQ

O

O 

O

c

13 »<"

CT 

O

c 

D

Q.

Q. 

O 

O

D 

O 

CD

D

o' I

3' 

o

D *<

Q. 

CD

CD

CD 

Q.

CT

*<

Oi

o

SL

CD

5 

o

Q.

(fl

 t*

o

ro 

u> 

o
(Q(O

l|

oo 

COftSi

CD

CQ*-* 

o p

o oc

13

or o

c 

13

Q. 

03 

=!. 

CD W

Q.

O O

3 

O 

(D

C/)

5L 

CD

:3_ c3

Q. 

CD*-* 

CD

13 

CD 

Q.

cr

 <

01o

w_

ro 

E? o

Q. 

0)1 o

ro

C/) o

...H, ,.,..,.. '"".HI I 5 ' \ 

 I - TRATION 
(Q(O 

= O 

(Q^-* 

O

3

O 

O

c

CT 

O

c 

3

Q. 

0) 

13.

CD W

Q. 

O 

O

3 

O 

(D

3

Q.

CDt » 

(D

(D 

Q.

CT 

*<

01

0)

3

o

BL

3

(Di 

O 

Q. 

CO

O*

. _. CONCENTRATION 

* <£ 

° *" -i. / -1 , I- - 

___________ ~" ^ o 

O " "- "- ."-. O I I > Z CO z z 

^ H , i: io "' 3 3 

CONCENTRATION y- I i ^ 9 ° 

/ /'^^,. I ' o L " 3 S > * 05 

\ / . | . 01 H m m 

CONCENTRATION A I S Z CO j- ^- 

L. =,,,,-,,,,o,.,8^ t .^^- . , - a? » ': 

'""TV o~T N ) o" 3 

3D D 

____ > o 

o < . -, i i / ^ a- 

\° ^ T 4 

___§ _ L_ i x\ v m 

CONCENTRATION " "° 

c K > 

Z -^ ro w *. 

>

CONCENTRATION "^"^ M 3 I *) O I I §|| |S ^. 

° -J ' - omom?=.S-A= 

-> I 8 

\ ___! §?1 ^3co »3 "3 

^ ' ^ °" 3 

O CONCENTRATION , ^ a; ?oO) m<D 

d 3 

m -s CO -n {J -n _ 

c ^ m ...... S^ - b <D^'v4'«5_i*'F

O SB 

m - ia «« osr 

5 ?<Q O 

O

^"- 0)(Q 

l^«

o

D
12 20.--State andzinc determined 5ofconcentrations ofmethods forsoil boundaries, Figurecounty by Washington, analytical 

regions.

i

P Soil 80 04KILOMETERS region 

- Number of1 analysis 0 Number of3 analysis

> below levereporting at > level reporting 

4 U.S.Environmental Protection Agency

1310 methodleachable (EP-TOX method) 

5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1311 method leachable (TCLP method)

I

- ]""'//

/ , CONCENTRATION^ : , CONCENTRATION 

' .,- s s - P ]^\. ; ; =-* -ox .t 

. ' ° ° ° ~* -* > } '; 7.*. '<&^, -too P 

/ , I.HIIII, i.iim i 1.1111, i.,,., i | ? ' ' / ,', 0 0 0 -t -t > 

. > X i ' - 11 " " "" ' ' ' "' M1 z 

/ ' (D - * r~ "to 

/; ; . . i- ' °°:n . §:: 

/ r . . « £ ' " M 2 * 

r'\ - - l w ? o 

V '"' - ° ' * m "'"" - o - * S 

\ . 

;» - 

o 

0 ' 1

oi H 

-I" - 

0 Q] 

Hoi-o 

/ K^...-*A 'u - - - § . ,. .... ........ ........ ...... 0 

/^'^ .^~^~^^XV.,. x >? v-^§/ "^*\? " ' >./-- ^^^/-"J i CONCENTRATION^ 1 m 

'"' 1 ^ ^^^^.^^-^^^Y^^'''"^-- [y ,r,,,,,,?,M,,°,,,,,° 11 , 1 - > ^ 2 

" "" : y: "'' /' ; : ." ^~l;: S 

oo-ce* -. :°S CONCEN = 'coHC» L . 1 S^'

8 s ^ --o^--S88o 0 D U {2

.I.M...I . MI., .in" """i i g ^--ooof fn 

>^ " °° '-. , ,«. ,,, ,, , ., £ MU..J -il"*' ^ "" 1 WO 

i " W * . S^.'o' ^co-i CONCENTRATION^ 

-nS*.-o rn ~^ ^ -to 

Q .rn -Hoi-o SA-O -too P 

^ioi-o i s m oo 0 _t_t

' 0 ''g .............................. P - n _ O] H , ,., ., ,,,, . ,,, > 

v ....... .., ., ,,.. ., ......^ O 'o 5 >_, 

~^ " Si^/" J5~^ - ( "_j . 3ro. ^ 

CONCENTRATION^ i ^ . o . co > F 

^P-S'o' { , 082*0 

o o o - - O*. . ' o m Z 33 

' '""" ' """" """" ' """"' z / CONCENTRATION^ - ° - 1 i" ^O 

°° 5 o S _ ° r~ " "'"' """ "" "' " ' ' § Z W 

coo ^ivj- lt-tooo . » ^*»^ ^ \ H -0 

ooo-\^-t r-_t. i i H 

i - *. 2 » ^ v k 0 ^ 

-, m. -' p- V \ z 6-

,......,. . . ,.r -^o.. l -« > f S 

S 0 - o * 2 . ___ ''U v > 

~7 f" 3 1 / , s 

^ - o - 01 3 ' - / / 

^; .............................. o i / ( 

^' /- , u 1 ' < x \ m 

,__ _ _ l~ \ Nx 

(f CONCENTRATION^ - ^ 

-to o ^~~x ? -t IV) W 

CONCENTRATION >--ooo{' %l 1 H

.^ ........................... ^ (1 ' 0 2* 2* S^f 

^ o o 3 ^ ^ ^^ - .0 [^- 1 ) Z B B OJCD 

,,, ^, ....-.."«... ., z / - . . M 3 a_^ ., ^ 

" " " ^ C - , >oo- \ ' , > | 8 5-5TS 

o \ - ^ . A 2 CONCENTRATION^^- 1 o ^ flo 

- *"- "-"V - 5- -o-§ p 5 | f|i 

S^*.. L^-tooog d g.o.x:eD 

L s , , __ o , , , ,, z 3Q -Off 

1 n - - en. £ . . >^. ^ CD W-, 

.... ..,..,,.,.,..,.,. .., . O 3 2- ? °Re? 

""""' """"' D <w»- O T^SlQ-m 

1 > i =? 00 

° W * 1 2 ^J(Q 

_____ _ - o *. S 1 O ">0) 

0 O! ^ d 

'""" ' """* ' """ ' '"""' ' O 

i

A 

i 

i

J

i 

i
(

c3

IS)

COOp

O O

CTo

Q. 

0>

3. 

CD W

0>

D 

Q.

 O 

0>

3.

o]

CD

N 

CD 

Q. co'

=T. 

CT"

D 

en

Q.

CD

CD

CD 

Q.

ro 

c/> oS

o'

COD

CO
124° 122° 120° 

46° -

Figure 22.-State of Washington, county boundaries, and soil-solution pH determined by 2 analytica
*.

(O

3

<Q

C

10

w

U)

r-+

Q)

r-+

CD 

O

to

3;

3'

(Q^*

O

3

O

o

c

CT 

O

C 

3 

O. 

Q) 

=3. 

CD 

0)

0) 

3 

O.

O 

Q> 3- 

o

3 

O

o

3r-+

CD

r+

a. 

r-+CD

CD

3 

CD 

O.

cB

o'

CQ

3 

O)

CONCENl

Q P O-r-0 

P b 8 

' z 

o^" S-" 

- M ^ .. 

. i »- nj ^ - 

ro T O _ 

I ,.,.LI. n.Nil § 00 

- o 

Ti.

1 B 

" > / - 2 

,O 21 g-- , L§ 5 

S* / 2 w s r

u m N m 

0 \ 

V

CONCENTR

. 2 1 1 

?

io

ox> . to > 

Z 

ooo - o> m 

I TJ 1 o 

i , ° 1 - 10 

i 

\ CO Z Z 

\ 

\

S cr 

ill 

cr 

\ o <S ? ? 

, § o o o 

EXPUNATION 

ANALYTICAL METHOD NCENTRATION. 

IN PERCENT 

1 Total carbon 

2 carbon level belowOrganic analysis reporting carbon 3 at level Inorganic analysis reporting 

I

 RATION 

CONCENTRATK 

o P -38 

3 - 2 1 § , :: _ t -., 

111 " 1| l « |1|| " "" i ! » Ml|l > -^ I / ' ;-;.:; --;; 

... u vl y- ( - 

-5 /n - - 

ooo - to > ,1 

2 I '/ 0 j ,.. . w m __ _ / 

3 mi - JL 

'"""' ' ' 1 .'.. "'' " ' """" , ^ ^CONCENTRATION 

F'^t- ^ \, o 

1 p ^ ^, : ^% 8 3 - 2 2 

^"fti^Je j < - 

fS^, if - - 

CONC - i' ; ° j, o y / 

P b / / ,,, IIIIIILI ,i,,i ,. 2 2 < / 

 > <, 

> CONCENTRATION 

-L 5 o ATION 

3" * ^ 0 bP _. 

22iL^o8Q ^ 

- ro ^ n in'.niiiinnii, I'M, > 08 

^^ 5 m I 

^00 |«- , - ^-^ 

§ 0 

Mh IN 0 -| o. . tO ffc 

/ «' |-i o- 

/ ,.,! ml I, ii.il ,.,nl . ,r,,,l 2 

. Mini , < CONCEN

S S i , 

j^_,^_|

O \ 

tol- ^ l 

2 \ 

i - o> ni ____ /j^ ^ 

O 1 / ^ - 

CONCENTRATION , /\ V 

n ° r~^\ 

§12-38 V \ 

1

- ooo 5-- ' 

« \ ( ooo - ro f£ J ) 

1 <-^ J-- 

" B ° _J ' w \H CONCENTRATION 

o o . 

'- i|J " '-' ' " IL1 J|J " Li " S -^ P x I 

° o ^ P o § i 

0 0 -x - - - 1 

-" -. I I 

i J - g 

0 

- - >ro12

_ J T, ^ _,W 

MHM.irt,,,, UUIJ M,,l g 

-' ]"""//

/

;... MI'11 II J 

7; ! : 

i

/ N^-/A \ I 

i ENTRATION 

CONCENTRATION 

o P 8 o - ° 

§22-38 

;,; ,, ,., ! mr, ,, ! n-i,,,, > 

: .. §-, ' °° 0 

: 1 -1 

o. >ror 

! , 2 - n 

M i° AH"; ,,.- . 

- * 'Hii'l mnl ';,i| 1 g V

' CONCENTRATION 

o p 

1 8 o -* 2 2 2 TRATION 

| "'""i '"" ' "" "'"" "" i ,z - 

1 /£ -38 

o

^ 2 

- «- ' "^ (~'H - ooo 

« w x| 

1 ° ' - r- 

\ , , n,

^'

~~T H" r~~ 

CONCENTRATION J 

0 ° 

,-^~- o - P b 8 

^_. O O -^ "* ""*" "* « ;- ; 

0^ ....., _ 

. ro > v

r-, " '"" 

"L-i -1 » 5 '-15 

'- -I c i - 

o

1

A 

1 

1

,j

I 

1

fo

^

ro 

ro

ro 

o

CO
Table 9.-Frequency distributions of metals concentrations in soils in Washington determined by the total and 

total-recoverable methods

[N and L indicate that the null hypotheses that the data are distributed normally or log-normally could not be rejected at a 

95 percent confidence level; (L) indicates that the null hypothesis could be rejected but the correlation coefficients and 

graphical inspection of the plots demonstrate that the distributions are more nearly log-normal than normal; O indicates 

that both null hypotheses could be rejected; signifies that hypothesis was not tested because concentrations were not 

determined or too many were less than the laboratory's minimum reporting level]

Total method

Metal

Ag

Al

As

Au

Ba

Be

Bi

Ca

Cd

Ce

Co

Cr

Cu

Eu

Fe

Ga

Hg

Ho

K

La

Li

Mg

Mn

Mo

Na

Nb

Nd

Ni

P

Pb

Distribution

L

L

N

__

L

0

L

(L)

(L)

~

L

N

(L)

~

N

L

(L)

L

L

(L)

O

L

(L)

(L)

(L)

Total 

number of 

samples/ 

detects1

37/0

37/37

37/37

37/0

37/37

37/34

37/0

37/37

37/4

37/37

37/37

37/37

37/37

37/3

37/37

37/37

37/37

37/0

37/37

37/37

37/37

37/37

37/37

37/7

37/37

37/36

37/37

37/37

37/37

37/37

Total-recoverable method

Distribution

L

L

«

N

--

~

~

--

_

(L)

(L)

~

L

_

L

__

~

N

~

__

~

(L)

~

N

Total 

number of 

samples/ 

detects 1

60/12

60/60

60/59

0/0

0/0

60/60

0/0

0/0

60/0

0/0

0/0

60/60

60/60

0/0

60/60

0/0

60/52

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

60/60

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

60/60

0/0

60/60

48
Table 9.--Frequency distributions of metals concentrations in soils in Washington determined by the total and 

total-recoverable methods-Continued

Metal

Sb

Se

Sc

Sn

Sr

Ta

Th

Tl

Ti

U

V

Y

Yb

Zn

Total method

Distribution

(L)

(L)

L

N

O

L

--

L

L

(L)

(L)

Total

number of

samples/ 

detects 1

37/36

37/29

37/37

37/0

37/37

37/0

37/36

0/0

37/37

37/0

37/37

37/37

37/37

37/37

Total-recoverable method

Total

number of

samples/ 

Distribution detects 1

60/0

60/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

60/21

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

L 60/60

1 Detects are the number of samples with concentrations greater than laboratory minimum reporting level.

Comparison of Metal Concentrations Among 

Regions

Concentrations of metals in the various regions were 

compared to determine whether the regions are different 

from one another or whether data in individual regions are 

sufficiently similar so that regions can be grouped. If the 

metals concentrations in the individual regions are statistically different from one another, then sets of data should 

probably be developed and statistically analyzed separately for each region to define baseline concentrations. If 

not, then data sets from different regions could be grouped 

and statistically analyzed to define baseline concentrations, if geology and pedology support making such 

groups.

Kruskal-Wallis Test

The Kruskal-Wallis test, which is a non-parametric 

one-way analysis of variance (see, for example, Iman and 

Conover, 1983), was used to compare the mean ranks of 

metal concentrations determined by the total and totalrecoverable methods in a region with the corresponding 

mean ranks in other regions (at a 95 percent confidence 

level). The test was performed separately for each metal. 

The null hypothesis, that the population means of metals 

concentrations in each of the 12 regions were equal with 

one another, was rejected for all metals tested, except total 

copper and manganese. However, this does not imply that 

the population means of all metals tested for each region 

are different from one another, nor does it indicate where 

differences are located.

49
Fisher's Least Significant Difference Test Cluster Analysis

To determine where differences are located among 

the 12 population means for each metal, the Fisher's Least 

Significant Difference test was used (Iman and Conover, 

1983). A test statistic was calculated for each metal from 

the values generated by the analysis of variance of the 

ranks. The mean ranks of the 12 regions were then compared, and the test statistic was used to determine whether 

the mean ranks, and therefore the concentrations of metals 

in the regions, were similar (at a 95 percent confidence 

level) (table 10). For illustrative purposes, table 10 shows 

a comparison of concentrations of metals in region A with 

those in the other regions, in which concentrations of metals are not significantly different from those in region A 

(underlined values). The concentrations of metals determined by the total method in region A are similar to concentrations in all other regions, with the possible exception 

of regions J and U, where 4 of 11 metals did not compare 

well, and region P, where 7 of 11 metals did not compare 

well. Concentrations of arsenic, copper, and manganese 

for region A are similar to concentrations in each of the 11 

other regions, and concentrations of lead and zinc are 

similar to concentrations in 9 of the 11 other regions.

The total-recoverable metals concentrations are not 

as similar among regions as the total metals concentrations 

(table 10). Only concentrations of total-recoverable 

arsenic and lead in region A are similar to concentrations 

among other regions. The concentrations of total-recoverable arsenic and lead for region A compare well with 

concentrations from 10 of the 11 other regions. Concentrations of all metals in region A are similar to concentrations in region F and to concentrations of 8 of 11 metals in 

regions G and L. The association between regions A and 

F is particularly strong and may result from the similar 

nature of the parent material from which these soils were 

derived and the similar climatic environment in which 

these soils were developed.

A comparison of differences between the mean ranks 

of metals for regions O, P, and R with the test statistic indicates that concentrations of metals in these regions are 

similar at least to one other. For example, the rank means 

for total-recoverable beryllium of region O and region P 

are not statistically different; likewise, the rank means 

between region O and region R are not statistically different; however, the rank means between regions P and R are 

statistically different. The three regions are located adjacent to one another and are composed primarily of soils 

that developed in fine wind blown sediments under fairly 

similar climatic conditions.

Cluster analyses (see, for example, Kaufman and 

Rousseeuw, 1990; and Romesburg, 1984) of total and 

total-recoverable metals concentrations were also performed so that data could be placed into distinct groups 

without presupposition of existent regions. This analysis 

was also performed with ranks of the data. Cluster analysis is designed to classify data by assigning observations 

into more or less homogeneous groups that are distinct 

from other groups. Well-separated cases of the data were 

chosen as cluster centers to which individual sites were 

assigned to form distinct cluster groups.

Cluster analyses indicate that samples collected from 

regions A and F and sites 4 and 5 from region D may be 

combined into two distinct groups. One group consists of 

sites that are located in an inner ring encompassing Puget 

Sound (sites F3, F5, A2, A4, and D4). The remaining 

sites, of regions A and F and site 5 from region D, compose the other cluster group, which forms an outer ring in 

the Puget Sound uplands.

Cluster analyses also indicate that samples from 

regions O, P, and R may be placed into two distinct 

groups. One cluster group consists of sites located in the 

southern extent of region R and the southwestern extent of 

region P (sites Rl, R3, R4, R5, P4, and P5). The other 

cluster group consists of all sites located in region O and 

the remaining sites in regions P and R (sites 01,02,03,04, 

05,Pl,P2,P3,andR2).

Relations Among Metal Concentrations

Correlation coefficients and regression statistics 

between total-recoverable and total metal concentrations 

were calculated for those metals for which concentrations 

were determined by both methods and for which concentrations were greater than the laboratory's minimum 

reporting level. The Spearman ranked correlation coefficients for 11 metals ranged from 4 to 70 percent (table 11). 

For 7 of the 11 metals tested, total-recoverable metals concentrations correlated with the total metal concentrations 

in the soil at a 95 percent confidence level. For the 

remaining metals, the total and total-recoverable concentrations were statistically independent of one another. 

Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated from 

non-transformed data for the seven metals that displayed 

significant Spearman ranked correlation coefficients. The 

Pearson correlation coefficients ranged from 41 to 98 percent and confirmed that for all of the seven metals tested, 

including aluminum, arsenic, copper, chromium, iron,

50
Table IQ.-Mean ranks of total and total-recoverable concentrations of selected metals in different soil regions in 

Washington

[Values in parentheses are test statistics determined from an analysis of variance of the ranks, and underlined ranks are not 

statistically different at the 95 percent confidence level from mean ranks for region A; n, number of samples used for 

statistical calculation]

Mean ranks of concentrations from total method bv soil reeion. n = 37

Metal

Al

As

Be

Cr

Cu

Fe

Hg

Mn

Ni

Pb

Zn

(13.2)

(15.1)

(12.5)

(12.5)

(18.3) 1

(14.2)

(11.8)

(16.5) 1

(12.0)

(14.4)

(14.1)

A

25.8

19.0

£Q

28.0

24.2

24.5

30.5

18.0

25.3

11.3

20.0

C

14.7

34.0

152

31.2

111

30.3

34.5

29.0

29.0

26.2

34.3

D

30.8

24.5

m

32.3

17.2

15.8

26.3

10.2

34.0

8.0

26.0

F

21.8

16.7

112

23.2

25.7

16.2

24.8

26.2

26.5

11.0

117

G

27.3

23.5

21.3

17.0

23.8

29.0

19.7

24.7

14.7

25.0

27.5

J

12.2

&Q

21.3

10.8

24.3

6.2

10.5

16.7

11.5

21.0

£3

L

30.5

16.3

27.5

27.0

25.3

18.5

7.0

21.3

27.5

25.2

25.7

M

23.5

4.8

m

18.3

20.7

28.8

21.8

26.5

13J

10.8

21.7

O

11.8

21.5

27.5

173

18.0

17.7

14.0

16.5

19.8

23.3

12.3

P

8.8

14.8

22.9

5.4

12

8.0

7.0

11.0

3.6

12.0

5.5

Mean ranks of concentrations from total-recoverable method bv soil reeion

Metal

Al

As2

Be

Cr

Cu

Fe

Hg3

Mn

Ni

Pb

Zn

(9.8)

(19.2)

(15.4)

(11.6)

(15.9)

(15.2)

(13.2)

(16.8)

(14.4)

(17.4)

(16.3)

A

554

34.4

36.5

50.6

49.3

51.7

54.4

38.4

39.6

33.5

45.1

C

4.0

23.3

3.0

14.9

3.0

5.7

22.2

3.0

8.3

3.0

3.2

D

38.4

35.9

22.0

48.7

22.0

25.9

46.0

19.8

50.2

23.2

34.3

F

49.0

27.5

33.0

47.1

47.0

37.2

49.0

39.2

53.0

25.5

38.0

G

45.0

36.2

411

36.7

43.3

51.0

40.7

50.3

37.1

39.5

49.5

J

16.6

20.3

17.6

26.1

26.8

14.4

26.4

21.0

23.7

23.0

21.2

L

40.9

22.6

4L5_

48.0

34.7

29.4

19.9

26.2

38.7

29.1

44.2

M

38.3

16.2

52.4

35.2

4L8

47.0

33.6

47.4

36.5

34.8

33.2

O

17.4

42.2

32.0

19.9

32.9

31.3

37.3

33.0

31.4

39J.

25.1

P

28.8

25.7

39.3

13.9

24.3

26.8

26.5

34.8

16.1

37.5

23.4

R

4.7

18.2

21.3

10.0

16.3

25.2

16.3

23.7

15.5

22.0

18.7

.n = 60

R

8.0

31.0

14.8

4.7

14.5

22.6

22.0

21.4

11.2

22.8

15.0

U

19.5

28.2

27.5

12.0

13.7

11.5

19.5

1Q

12.0

34.5

15.8

U

24.2

55.0

28.8

20.2

26.4

23.0

16.9

3L5_

20.2

51Q

33.8

Test statistic probability of error greater than 10 percent.

0

n = 59; values below reporting limit not used in calculations of mean rank or test statistic. 

3 n = 52; values below reporting limit not used in calculations of mean rank or test statistic.

51
Table 11. --Correlation coefficients and regression statistics between total-recoverable concentrations and total 

concentrations of selected metals in soils in Washington

[Rs, Spearman ranked correlation coefficient; RP, Pearson correlation coefficient for goodness of fit for the regression 

equations; a, regression coefficient (slope); b, regression coefficient (intercept); total-recoverable concentration = a x (total 

concentration) + b; ratio, total:total-recoverable; underlined values demonstrate a significant correlation at a 95 percent 

confidence level; ~ indicates no value calculated]

Ratio

Element

Ag

Al

As

Be

Ce

Cu

Cr

Fe

Hg1

Mn

Ni

Pb

Sb

Se

Zn

RS

68

56

4

58

70

51

58

27

65

23

~

29

RP

II

46

77

M

61

41

98

-

~

-

a b

__

0.87 -4.9

.27 2

__

__

.62 -.8

.53 -22

.47 .4

.12 2

..

.76 -7

-.

__

-.

Mean

0.27

.59

.42

.60

.28

.53

.32

.58

.58

.66

~

.55

Standard 

deviation

0.14

.25

.29

.21

.11

.17

.23

.23

.22

.31

.19

Example: If total aluminum = 7.3 percent, then the estimated total-recoverable aluminum concentration equals 

(0.87 X 7.3 percent) - 4.9 percent = 1.5 percent.

1 Values for mercury do not include data for samples collected from region C.

mercury, and nickel, total-recoverable concentrations correlated with total metal concentrations at a 95 percent confidence level. Therefore, the amount of these metals that 

may ultimately be bioavailable is dependent upon total 

concentrations in the silt and clay fractions of the soil. A 

poor correlation between the total-recoverable and total 

metals concentrations of beryllium, manganese, lead, and 

zinc suggests that the form in which the metal was held 

within the mineral matrices, on various exchanger sites, or 

in poorly crystalline to amorphous compounds varied 

among samples.

A dilution factor for silt- and clay-sized particles in 

streambed sediments, described by Horowitz (1991), was 

used to correct for particle-size differences between the 

metals concentrations determined by the total method and 

those determined by the total-recoverable method.

Spearman ranked correlation coefficients were calculated 

for the corrected total metals concentrations and the totalrecoverable metals concentrations (not shown). For all 11 

metals tested, the correlation coefficients calculated for 

the corrected total metals concentrations were less than 

those calculated for the non-corrected total metals concentrations. This suggests that the bioavailability of metals in 

soils does not depend upon the total metals concentrations 

in coarser (sand) sized particles.

Table 11 also lists regression equation constants for 

the same seven metals, as well as means and standard 

deviations of the total-recoverable to total ratios for each 

metal. The mean ratios range from 0.27 to 0.66, and there 

are apparently no relations between the correlation coefficients and the mean ratios. The ratios between totalrecoverable and total values (not shown) also vary from

52
region to region. For example, in region C, the ratios for 

both manganese and zinc approach 0, whereas in region F, 

ratio values more nearly approach 1.0. Low total-recoverable to total ratios suggest that most of the metal is held 

within the mineral matrix and is only removed when 

hydrofluoric acid is used during the total extraction processes. Conversely, high total-recoverable to total ratios 

suggest that a larger fraction of the metal is held on 

exchanger sites or within poorly crystalline to amorphous 

compounds and thus can be removed more readily by 

weaker extraction procedures. Therefore, in region C, 

most of the manganese and zinc are held within the mineral matrices, whereas in region F, where higher amounts 

of organic carbon are available to adsorb the manganese or 

zinc, more of these metals may be found sorbed as organic 

chelates.

Relations Among Leachate

The ASTM, EP-TOX, and TCLP methods simulate 

leaching processes in soils under extreme conditions. 

Even though most metal concentrations in the leachates of 

soil samples from this study were below laboratory minimum reporting levels for all three methods, barium, and 

less commonly aluminum, iron, mercury, and zinc, were 

detected, and concentrations of these metals in the 

leachate were always a factor of 100 or more less than 

corresponding total or total-recoverable concentrations.

Spearman ranked correlation coefficients were calculated for barium, aluminum, iron, mercury, and zinc concentrations determined by the total or total-recoverable 

methods and by the ASTM, EP-TOX, and TCLP methods 

from 12 or fewer samples (results not shown). The only 

significant correlation at a 95 percent confidence level was 

for aluminum determined by the total-recoverable and 

TCLP methods. Therefore, for those metals tested, the 

readily soluble metals concentrations in these soils were 

apparently not dependent upon metals concentrations in 

the soil matrices.

Spearman ranked correlation coefficients were also 

calculated for barium, aluminum, iron, mercury, and zinc 

concentrations determined by the ASTM, EP-TOX, and 

TCLP methods, and particle size and organic carbon, from 

12 or fewer samples (results not shown). The concentrations of most metals in the leachate did not significantly 

correlate with particle size or organic carbon either. Only 

concentrations of barium in the EP-TOX leachate significantly correlated with the amount of fine particles in the 

soil, and only concentrations of aluminum in the ASTM 

leachate significantly correlated with the amount of

organic carbon in the soil at a 95 percent confidence level. 

Therefore, for those metals tested, concentrations in the 

leachates are apparently not only independent of the concentrations of metals in the soil matrices, but also appear 

to be independent of the exchange capacity of the soils 

because the exchange capacity usually depends in part on 

the amount of organic material and fine particles in the 

soil.

Relations Between Metal Concentrations and 

Other Chemical and Physical Soil 

Characteristics

To gain further insight into factors that may affect the 

distribution of metals in the soils, Spearman ranked correlation coefficients between total or total-recoverable 

metals concentrations and between organic carbon concentrations or size fractions of soil particles were computed, and those pairs for which there is a 95 percent 

confidence that a correlation exists are identified 

(table 12).

Concentrations of most transition metals (specifically cobalt, copper, mercury, manganese, nickel, and 

zinc) determined by the total method correlate with 

organic carbon concentrations in the soil. Concentrations 

of other metals determined by the total method, such as 

aluminum, gallium, and phosphorus, likewise correlate 

with the content of organic carbon. Bohn and others 

(1985, p. 37) state, "Soil organic matter strongly adsorbs 

Cu2+, Zn2+, Fe (II and III), and other transition metal ions, 

probably as chelates." Therefore, it is likely that most 

metals listed in table 12 that demonstrate positive correlations with organic carbon are bound in part by organic 

chelates.

Trace metals may be adsorbed to exchanger sites on 

clays more preferentially than other cations (KabataPendias and Pendias, 1984). Therefore metals concentrations will typically increase as the amount of material in 

the fine (silt and clay) fraction of the soil sample increases. 

In this study, total metals concentrations were determined 

only in the fine fraction; therefore, this concept could not 

be tested.

Unlike metals concentrations determined by the total 

method, those determined by the total-recoverable method 

for this study do not correlate with either organic carbon 

content or the fraction of fines in a sample (results not 

shown). Although organic carbon concentrations were 

only determined for fine fractions of soil, these results are 

surprising. They suggest that the metals concentrations

53
Table 12.--Correlation coefficients between concentrations of selected metals determined by the total 

method and organic carbon concentration and amount 

of silt and clay in soils in Washington

[Underlined values demonstrate a significant 

correlation at a 95 percent confidence level]

Spearman ranked correlation 

coefficients, in percent

Metal Organic carbon Silt and clay

Al

As

Ba

Co

Cr

Cu

Fe

Ga

Hg

K

Mn

Ni

P

Sc

Sr

Ti

V

Zn

32

-6

-36

31

24

44

28

40

40

-42

11

28

55

28

-20

20

25

45

-47

-37

41

-41

-41

-33

-54

-51

-77

38

-37

-41

-22

-53

36

-47

-49

-70

determined by the total-recoverable method are not simply 

dependent upon exchangeable metals concentrations, but 

also depend on the partial digestion of the various mineral 

phases present in the soils. Therefore, total-recoverable 

metals concentrations will vary between samples collected 

from soils that developed in different parent materials and 

in turn will depend on more subtle differences among 

different parent materials than metals concentrations 

determined by the total method.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The objective of this study was to obtain data on the 

magnitude and variability of background concentrations of 

metals in soils in selected regions throughout the State of

Washington and then to determine whether differences 

exist within or among selected regions. The State was initially divided into 24 regions, each with relatively uniform 

soils. Five samples were collected from 5 sites in each of 

12 of the regions (for a total of 60 samples). A sample collected from a site consisted of a composite of five samples 

collected within an area of 1 acre. Samples were primarily 

taken from the B horizon at depths of 20 to 38 inches. The 

soil samples were then analyzed to determine metal 

concentrations as well as other chemical and physical 

properties.

Concentrations of various metals in the soil samples 

were determined by 5 different methods, a total (36 samples), a total-recoverable (60 samples), and 3 leaching 

methods (12 samples). In each method, a liquid was 

extracted from soil samples and was analyzed by atomic 

absorption or inductively-coupled plasma spectrometry to 

determine concentrations of metals. The differences 

among the methods were primarily in the extraction procedures and solvents used and secondly in the size of the 

particles analyzed; differences in the methods for determining metals concentrations in the extracts are not 

expected to affect the results greatly. The total method, 

which uses strong acids that digest nearly all the solid 

material, was used to determine 43 different metals in 3 

samples from each region. The total-recoverable method, 

which consists of a partial extraction of the solid material 

by a mixture of strong acids, was used to determine concentrations of 16 different metals for all samples. One 

sample from each region was also analyzed by three methods, ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials, 

method D3987-85), EP-TOX (method 1310; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986), and TCLP (method 

1311; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990a, b), 

which simulated leaching conditions in soils. These methods were used to determine concentrations of 17 different 

metals. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's inorganic priority pollutants are of primary interest and, as a 

result, were among the metals analyzed by every 

laboratory method.

Concentrations of metals determined by the total 

method are consistently greater and display less variability 

than values determined by the four other methods. Concentrations of mercury and nickel determined by the total 

method and of nickel, chromium, and copper determined 

by the total-recoverable method have the greatest variability statewide. Concentrations of zinc, lead, and arsenic 

determined by the total and total-recoverable methods 

vary the least. Particle-size distribution, carbon content, 

and soil-solution pH are also highly variable. For example, soils in regions O and P in the south-central and

54
southeastern parts of the State contain large amounts of silt 

and clay-size particles, whereas samples collected in 

region C on the west coast are primarily sand. Samples 

collected west of the Cascade Range also commonly contain greater amounts of organic carbon and are more acidic 

than samples collected in eastern Washington.

Most metals concentrations determined by either the 

total or total-recoverable method were sampled from populations that are either log-normally distributed or more 

nearly log-normally than normally distributed. Exceptions 

were concentrations of barium, gallium, potassium, and 

strontium determined by the total method, and concentrations of beryllium, manganese, and lead determined by the 

total-recoverable method that were sampled from 

populations that are normally distributed.

Results of the Kruskal-Wallis test show that, with the 

exceptions of copper and manganese concentrations determined by the total method, metals concentrations determined by either the total or the total-recoverable methods 

were significantly different among the different regions. 

However, this does not imply that the population means of 

all metals tested for each region are unique, nor does this 

statistical method indicate where differences of metals 

concentrations among the 12 regions are located.

The Fisher's Least Significant Difference test, used 

to distinguish differences among the 12 population means 

for each metal, showed that metals concentrations determined by the total method between many regions were not 

statistically distinct. Yet significant differences, such as 

those between region A and regions J and U, for which 4 

of 11 metals tested were not statistically similar, do exist. 

Concentrations of metals determined by the total-recoverable method were not as similar among different regions 

as total metals concentrations. However, strong similarities exist between concentrations of total-recoverable metals in regions A and F and among concentrations of metals 

in regions O, P, and R. Furthermore, cluster analysis suggests that regions A, F, and part of D could be combined 

into two distinct groups, which would form an inner and 

outer ring of regions encircling Puget Sound. Cluster 

analysis also showed that regions O, P, and R could be 

combined to create two distinct regions in south-central 

and southeastern Washington. Based on this information 

and the results of the Kruskal-Wallis and Fisher's Least 

Significant Difference tests, further investigation could be 

conducted to provide more definitive relations between 

regions A and F and among regions O, P, and R.

Total and total-recoverable concentrations of seven 

metals (aluminum, arsenic, copper, chromium, iron, mercury, and nickel) were significantly correlated at a 95 percent confidence level. For these metals, Spearman ranked 

correlation coefficients ranged from 51 to 70 percent, and 

Pearson correlation coefficients ranged from 41 to 98 

percent. Therefore, the bioavailability of these metals 

depended on the total concentrations in the fine-sized fractions of the soil. However, the form in which beryllium, 

manganese, lead, and zinc were held within the soil apparently varied too greatly to reach the same conclusion for 

these metals.

Concentrations of six metals determined by the total 

method correlated positively with organic carbon concentrations in the soil; a comparison between total metals 

concentrations and the amount of fines could not be determined. Total-recoverable metal concentrations did not 

correlate with either organic carbon content or amount of 

fines, which suggests that total-recoverable concentrations 

depend strongly upon the degree of partial digestion of 

various mineral phases. Therefore, total-recoverable 

metals concentrations reflect more subtle differences 

among different parent materials than total metals 

concentrations do.

Although the concentrations of most metals determined by the ASTM, EP-TOX, and TCLP methods were 

below laboratory minimum reporting levels, concentrations of barium, and less commonly aluminum, iron, 

mercury, and zinc, were detected in the leachate. These 

concentrations were always a factor of 100 or more less 

than concentrations determined by the total or total-recoverable methods. Readily soluble metals concentrations in 

the soils were apparently not dependent upon metals 

concentrations in the soils matrices or on the amount of 

organic material and fine particles in the soil. However, 

the analytical precision of these methods is poor, and the 

concentrations did not correlate well with concentrations 

determined by the total or total-recoverable method or 

with the amount of fines or organic carbon in the soil. As 

a result, estimations of baseline concentrations of metals 

determined by the ASTM, EP-TOX, and TCLP methods 

for this study are much less accurate than estimations of 

baseline concentrations of metals determined by the total 

and total-recoverable methods.

Finally, this study provides a good foundation from 

which future studies may develop. Benefits of regionalized studies, as well as benefits from the implementation 

of additional analytical tools, more complete inferences 

may be made from the various mechanisms driving the 

chemistry in the soils.

55
REFERENCES CITED

Ahrens, L.H., 1954, The lognormal distribution of the 

elements: Geochimica et Cosmochimica acta, v. 5, 

p. 49-73.

American Society for Testing and Materials, 1985, 1985 

Annual book of ASTM standards; section 11, water 

and environmental technology: American Society of 

Testing and Materials, v. 11.04, p. 33-38.

Ames, Kenneth C., 1994, Washington State metals in 

soils program preliminary results: Hydrological 

Science and Technology, vol. 10, no. 1-4, 1994, 

ISSN 0887-686X, p. 15-30.

Beieler, V.E., 1972, Soil survey of Chelan area,

Washington-parts of Chelan and Kittitas Counties: 

Washington D.C., U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Soil Conservation Service, 104 p.

Bennett, C.A., and Franklin, N.L., 1954, Statistical 

analysis in chemistry and the chemical industry: 

New York, J. Wiley and Sons, p. 61-65.

Bonn, H.L., McNeal, B.L., and O'Connor, G.A., 1985, 

Soil chemistry (2nd ed.): New York, NY, J. Wiley 

and Sons, 341 p.

Briggs, P., 1990, Elemental analysis of geological material 

by inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission 

spectrometry, in Arbogast, B.F., ed., Quality 

Assurance Manual for the Branch of Geochemistry, 

U.S. Geological Survey: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open File Report 90-668, p. 83-91.

Chapin, R.W., 1968, General soil map Washington:

Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Soil Conservation Service.

David, M., 1977, Geostatistical ore reserve estimation: 

New York, Elsevier Scientific Publications, 364 p.

Donaldson, N.C., 1980, Soil survey of Whitman County, 

Washington: Washington D.C., U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, 185 p.

Donaldson, N.C., DeFrancesco, J.T., and Barron, D.W, 

1982, Soil survey of Stevens County, Washington: 

Washington D.C., U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Soil Conservation Service, 459 p.

Donaldson, N.C., and Giese, L.D., 1968, Soil survey of 

Spokane County, Washington: Washington D.C., 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation 

Service, 143 p.

Fishman, M.J., and Friedman, L.F, 1985, Methods for 

determinations of inorganic substances in water and 

fluvial sediments: U.S. Geological Survey 

Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, 

bookS, chap. Al, 709 p.

Gentry, H.R., 1984, Soil survey of Grant County,

Washington: Washington D.C., U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, 329 p.

Guy, H.P., 1977, Laboratory theory and methods for 

sediment analysis: U.S. Geological Survey 

Techniques of Water-Resources Investions, book 5, 

chap. C 1,58 p.

Harrison, E.T., Donaldson, N.C., McCreary, F.R., Ness, 

A.O., and Krasheuski, S., 1964, Soil survey of Walla 

Walla County, Washington: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, Washington 

D.C., 138 p.

Harrison, E.T., McCreary, F.R., and Nelson, F.L., 1973, 

Soil survey of the Columbia County area, 

Washington: Washington D.C., U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, 88 p.

Horowitz, A.J., 1991, A primer on sediment-trace element 

chemistry: Chelsea, Michigan, Lewis Publishers 

Inc., 136 p.

Hunting, M.T., Bennett, W.A.G., Livingston, V.E., Jr., and 

Moen, W.S., 1961, Geologic map of Washington: 

State of Washington Department of Natural 

Resources, Division of Mines and Geology, 2 sheets.

Iman, R.L., and Conover, W.J., 1983, A modern approach 

to statistics: New York, J. Wiley and Sons, 

497 p.

Kabata-Pendias, Alina, and Pendias, Henryk, 1984, Trace 

elements in soils and plants: Boca Raton, Florida, 

CRC Press, p. 27-30.

Kaufman, Leonard, and Rousseeuw, P.J., 1990, Finding 

groups in data an introduction to cluster analysis: 

New York, J. Wiley and Sons, 342 p.

56
Kulp, J.L., Turekian, K., and Boyd, D.W., 1952, Strontium 

content of limestones and fossils: Geological 

Society of America Bulletin, v. 63, p. 701-716.

Lasmanis, R., 1991, The geology of Washington: Rocks 

and Minerals, v. 66, no. 4, p. 262-277.

Lenfesty, C.D., 1967, Soil survey of Adams County,

Washington: Washington D.C., U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, 110 p.

___1980, Soil survey of Okanogan County area,

Washington: Washington D.C., U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, 153 p.

Lenfesty, C.D., and Reedy, T.E., 1985, Soil survey of

Yakima County area, Washington: Washington D.C., 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation 

Service, 345 p.

Livingston, V.E., Jr., 1969, Geo ogic history and rocks and 

minerals of Washington: State of Washington 

Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mines 

and Geology, Information Circular no. 45,

42 p.

Looney, S.W, and Gulledge Jr., T.R., 1985a, Use of the 

correlation coefficient with normal probability 

plots: The American Statistician, v. 39, no. 1, 

p. 75-79.

___1985b, Probability plotting positions and goodness

of fit for the normal distribution: The Statistician, 

v. 34, no. 3, p. 297-303.

McGee, D.A., 1972, Soil survey of Clark County,

Washington: Washington D.C., U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, 113 p.

Ness, A.O., 1958, Soil survey of Thurston County,

Washington: Washington D.C., U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, 79 p.

O'Leary, R.M., Crock, J.G., and Kennedy, K.R., 1990, 

Determination of mercury in geological materials by 

continuous flow-cold vapor atomic absorption 

spectrophotometry, in Arbogast, B.F., ed., Quality 

Assurance Manual for the Branch of Geochemistry, 

U.S. Geological Survey: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open File Report 90-688, p. 60-67.

Poulson, E.N., 1953, Soil survey of Whatcom County, 

Washington: Washington D.C., U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, 153 p.

Pringle, R.F., 1986, Soil survey of Grays Harbor County 

area, Pacific County, and Wahkiakum County, 

Washington: Washington D.C., U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, 296 p.

Prych, E.A., Kresch, D.L., Ebbert, J.C., and Turney, G.L., 

1995, Data and statistical summaries of background 

concentrations of metals in soils and streambed 

sediments in part of Big Soos Creek drainage basin, 

King County, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 94-4047, 

81 p.

Rasmussen, J.J., 1971, Soil survey of Benton County area, 

Washington: Washington D.C., U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, 72 p.

Romesburg, B.C., 1984, Cluster analysis for researchers: 

Belmont, Calif., Lifetime Learning Publications, 

334 p.

Smith, L.H., Dwyer, C.H., and Schafer, George, 1945, Soil 

survey of Kittitas County, Washington: Washington 

D.C., U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil 

Conservation Service, 69 p.

Stockman, D.D., 1981, Soil survey of Lincoln County, 

Washington: Washington D.C., U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, 167 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1962, Soil survey

manual, Agricultural Handbook no. 18: Washington 

D.C.,p. 174-188.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986, Test

methods for evaluating solid wastes: SW-846, v. 4, 

unpaged.

_1988, Code of Federal regulations: Federal 

Register, v. 40, part 401, p. 7-8.

_1990a, Code of Federal regulations hazardous 

waste management system; identification and listing 

of hazardous waste; toxicity characteristics revisions; 

final rule: Federal Register, v. 55, no. 61, part II, 

p. 11,798-11,877.

57
_1990b, Code of Federal regulations: hazardous 

waste management system; identification and listing 

of hazardous waste; toxicity characteristics revisions; 

final rule: Federal Register, v. 55, no. 126, part V, 

p. 26,986-26,998.

Van Duyne, Cornelius, Agee, J.H., and Ashton, F.W., 

1917, Soil survey of Franklin County, Washington: 

Washington D.C., U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Soil Conservation Service, 101 p.

Welsch, E.P., Crock, J.G., and Sanzolone, R., 1990,

Trace-level determinations of arsenic and selenium 

using continuous-flow hydride generation atomic 

absorption spectrophotometry (HG-AAS), in 

Arbogast, B.F., ed., Quality Assurance Manual for 

the Branch of Geochemistry, U.S. Geological 

Survey: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 

90-688, p. 38-45.

Wershaw, R.J., Fishman, M.J., Grabbe, R.R., and Lowe, 

L.E., 1987, Methods for the determination of organic 

substances in water and fluvial sediments: U.S. 

Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources 

Investigations, book 5, chap. A3, 80 p.

Wolfe, E.W, and McKee, E.H., 1972, Sedimentary and 

igneous rocks of the Grays River quadrangle, 

Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 

no. 1335, 70 p.

Zulauf, A.S., 1979, Soil survey of Pierce County area, 

Washington: Washington D.C., U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, 131 p.

58
APPENDIX A.--DATA TABLES

59
Table Al. Concentrations of metals in soils in Washington determined by the total method

[Concentrations are in milligrams per kilogram (except values for Al, Ca, Fe, K, Mg, Na, P, and Ti, which are given 

in percent); <, less than; (dup), duplicate of preceding sample]

Sample 

number 

(fig- 2)

A2

A3

A5

A6(dup)

Cl

C3

C4

Dl

D4

D5

Fl

F2

F6(dup)

F5

Gl

G4

G5

J2

J3

J5

LI

L2

L4

L6(dup)

Ml

M2

M4

02

03

O4

P2

P3

P6(dup)

P4

P5

Ag

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<4

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

Al

10.0

9.0

7.5

8.9

6.7

8.1

8.0

8.3

9.3

10.0

11.0

8.2

8.1

7.0

10.0

9.2

7.7

7.1

7.8

7.3

9.9

9.2

8.8

8.7

8.3

8.3

7.9

7.0

7.7

7.5

7.0

7.5

7.5

7.3

7.0

As

6.4

3.8

7.6

11.

9.1

13.

20.

3.9

8.2

13.

5.4

4.9

4.7

6.

5.5

8.5

6.5

1.5

5.3

2.2

.8

13.

5.

5.3

1.9

2.4

2.1

7.2

5.1

6.6

4.8

3.9

3.9

10.

2.1

Au

<8

<8

<8

<8

<8

<8

<8

<8

<8

<8

<8

<8

<8

<8

<8

<8

<8

<8

<8

<20

<8

<8

<8

<8

<8

<8

<8

<8

<8

<8

<8

<8

<8

<8

<8

Ba

330

340

540

530

360

510

480

580

700

670

570

330

330

300

670

590

690

750

920

870

550

630

710

690

520

470

510

660

610

650

650

670

670

700

680

Be Bi

<1 <10

1 <10

1 <10

1 <10

1 <10

1 <10

2 <10

1 <10

1 <10

1 <10

2 <10

1 <10

1 <10

<1 <10

2 <10

1 <10

2 <10

1 <10

2 <10

<2 <20

2 <10

2 <10

2 <10

2 <10

1 <10

1 <10

1 <10

2 <10

2 <10

2 <10

2 <10

2 <10

2 <10

2 <10

1 <10

Ca

0.4

1.6

.7

.6

2.3

2.8

3.3

1.5

1.6

.8

1.8

1.1

1.1

1.8

1.0

.9

.8

1.8

2.0

2.0

2.3

1.7

2.0

2.0

2.7

2.1

2.6

5.5

3.7

3.9

1.9

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.7

Cd

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

6

<2

<2

<2

<4

<2

<2

5

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

Ce

20

65

54

62

49

63

81

70

52

64

67

42

41

26

65

59

73

50

100

69

40

52

57

55

41

40

45

82

57

72

71

64

65

49

52

Co

8

48

14

13

35

28

33

17

19

21

19

12

12

47

27

24

16

8

16

10

26

18

14

14

23

26

18

16

16

23

15

14

14

10

10

60
Table ^..-Concentrations of metals in soils in Washington determined by the total method-Continued

Sample

number

Rl

R3

R4

Ul

U2

U5

RS1

RS(dup)

Sample 

number

A2

A3

A5

A6(dup)

Cl

C3

C4

Dl

D4

D5

Fl

F2

F6(dup)

F5

Gl

G4

G5

J2

J3

J5

LI

L2

L4

L6(dup)

Ag

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

Cr

100

170

83

79

160

120

150

140

130

340

99

50

51

540

81

59

64

42

84

49

260

96

78

67

Al

6.9

7.2

6.8

7.9

8.3

7.5

7.7

7.8

Cu

29

120

28

32

42

23

27

13

28

68

53

30

31

29

39

49

27

30

31

30

53

33

28

30

As

8.1

3.4

5.5

16.

6.6

7.1

4.3

4.3

Eu

<2

2

<2

<2

<2

<2

2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<4

<2

<2

<2

<2

Au

<8

<8

<8

<8

<8

<8

<8

<8

Fe

5.2

8.8

4.1

5.2

6.1

5.9

6.9

3.4

3.9

6.0

5.2

3.0

3.0

4.9

8.8

5.8

5.4

2.5

4.1

2.5

5.4

4.1

4.1

4.1

Ba Be

Ga

23

23

18

21

16

20

23

21

23

23

28

18

18

12

27

21

20

17

20

10

26

24

21

21

710 2

660 2

580 1

670 2

650 2

780 2

480 <1

490 <1

Hg

0.16

.22

.20

.14

5.9

6.

.20

.06

.10

.38

.26

.08

.10

.06

.06

.08

.06

.06

.04

.04

.04

.04

.04

.06

«

«

«

«

<

<

<

«

Ho

<4

<4

<4

<4

<4

<4

<4

<4

<4

<4

<4

<4

<4

<4

<4

<4

<4

<4

<4

<4

<4

<4

<4

<4

Bi

clO

clO

clO

clO

clO

clO

clO

clO

K

0.9

.6

1.1

1.0

1.1

1.4

1.0

1.0

1.7

1.4

1.1

.5

.5

.6

.9

1.2

1.7

1.8

2.2

1.8

1.8

2.3

1.8

1.7

Ca

3.0

1.9

3.7

1.3

1.3

1.5

1.8

1.8

La

28

27

28

28

24

33

42

40

29

28

27

20

20

15

35

29

39

30

60

41

26

31

35

33

Cd

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

Li

40

25

31

34

43

37

25

36

36

62

52

20

19

29

24

25

24

27

31

24

89

49

38

39

Ce

93

72

110

64

69

84

40

40

Mg

0.7

2.0

.6

.7

2.3

1.6

1.6

.9

1.4

2.0

1.2

.6

.6

3.5

.9

.8

.8

.6

1.1

.6

2.1

1.2

1.1

1.1

Co

41

12

22

13

12

11

13

13

Mn

410

1,500

680

650

1,300

820

800

550

580

690

740

1,400

1,400

750

1,100

970

620

630

780

670

910

720

670

680

61
Table Al.~ Concentrations of metals in soils in Washington determined by the total method-Continued

Sample

number

(fig. 2)

Ml

M2

M4

02

03

O4

P2

P3

P6(dup)

P4

P5

Rl

R3

R4

Ul

U2

U5

RS1

RS2

Sample 

number 

(fig. 2)

A2

A3

A5

A6(dup)

Cl

C3

C4

Dl

D4

D5

Fl

F2

F6(dup)

F5

Cr

61

120

57

77

68

61

53

56

54

28

34

55

42

68

56

50

69

120

110

Mo

2

2

<2

<2

<2

<2

2

<2

<2

<2

<3

<2

<2

<2

Cu

28

44

28

27

30

29

28

27

25

22

23

85

26

24

26

37

24

21

19

Na

6.2

1.0

1.0

.8

2.0

2.2

2.0

2.3

1.8

1.2

2.2

.9

.9

2.2

Eu

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

Nb

10

13

13

16

10

12

10

7

7

5

10

6

5

<4

Fe

7.7

7.4

4.6

3.8

4.3

5.7

4.0

4.0

4.0

2.8

2.8

9.3

3.8

6.0

4.6

3.8

3.3

3.2

3.2

Nd

23

33

22

21

28

37

48

34

25

28

24

19

19

16

Ga

21

21

19

17

19

20

17

18

18

18

16

20

16

18

20

19

17

16

16

Hg

0.08

.08

.06

.04

.06

.06

.04

.04

.04

.04

.04

.68

.04

.04

.10

.08

.04

.12

.12

Ni

33

76

24

24

62

55

34

66

73

120

49

23

21

470

Ho

<4

<4

<4

<4

<4

<4

<4

<4

<4

<4

<4

<4

<4

<4

<4

<4

<4

<4

<4

P

0.04

.17

.08

.08

.10

.12

.17

.06

.09

.17

.13

.47

.47

.02

K

1.1

1.0

1.2

1.7

1.6

1.6

1.7

1.6

1.7

1.6

1.7

1.6

1.7

1.4

2.2

1.8

2.3

.9

.9

Pb

13

4

10

11

12

15

15

11

9

7

14

8

8

5

La

26

26

28

47

35

40

40

36

39

27

29

44

42

61

39

40

50

19

19

Sb

1.3

1.0

1.4

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.9

1.3

1.7

3.8

1.4

1.2

1.0

1.1

Li

27

30

22

33

31

29

26

28

27

27

26

26

27

22

36

49

35

17

17

Se

1.2

1.2

.2

.3

.3

.4

.3

.2

.1

.7

.4

.5

.4

.1

Mg

1.1

1.2

1.0

1.5

1.2

1.6

.8

.8

.8

.6

.7

2.0

1.0

1.6

1.0

1.5

1.0

.8

.8

Sc

18

34

14

17

23

21

34

11

15

24

18

11

11

18

Mn

750

1,000

790

640

600

860

690

670

670

560

550

1,600

550

940

560

640

540

560

570

Sn

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5

62
Table ^..--Concentrations of metals in soils in Washington determined by the total method Continued

Sample

number

(fig. 2)

Gl

G4

G5

J2

J3

J5

LI

L2

L4

L6(dup)

Ml

M2

M4

02

O3

O4

P2

P3

P6(dup)

P4

P5

Rl

R3

R4

Ul

U2

U5

RS1

RS(dup)

Sample 

number 

(fig. 2)

A2

A3

A5

A6(dup)

Mo

2

2

<2

<2

<2

<4

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

2

<2

<2

2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

Sr

92

180

150

130

Na

0.9

1.1

1.2

2.3

2.1

2.3

1.7

1.6

2.0

1.9

1.5

1.2

2.0

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.8

1.7

1.7

2.2

2.2

1.3

2.0

1.8

1.3

1.3

1.7

2.0

2.1

Ta

<40

<40

<40

<40

Nb

13

10

12

7

14

10

4

9

7

8

8

8

7

9

7

10

6

8

9

7

6

14

8

11

10

8

12

4

5

Th

11

5

9

9

Nd

42

25

35

25

47

35

27

29

30

32

27

28

29

41

33

39

36

33

36

26

27

42

37

55

36

36

38

18

20

Ti

0.68

1.20

.77

.84

Ni

27

22

23

12

30

20

70

36

30

32

15

48

20

28

28

27

18

16

16

11

11

32

18

24

20

24

21

45

44

P

0.18

.19

.11

.10

.14

.10

.11

.13

.10

.10

.14

.14

.11

.10

.09

.13

.14

.12

.13

.12

.10

.21

.08

.13

.08

.05

.08

.11

.11

U

<100

<100

<100

<100

Pb

12

14

15

12

17

10

13

16

12

11

10

7

12

15

11

14

11

10

11

11

10

36

10

12

20

21

16

8

7

V

150

270

130

160

Sb

1.3

1.5

1.6

.7

1.7

1.2

.6

1.6

1.0

1.1

.8

.8

.8

1.6

1.2

1.7

1.2

1.1

1.2

.7

1.0

3.8

.8

1.5

1.9

1.3

1.2

1.2

1.3

Y

12

35

10

10

Se

0.3

.2

.3

1.0

.1

<.l

.1

.2

.1

.1

.1

.2

<.l

<.l

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

<.l

<.l

<.l

<.l

.1

.1

.1

<.l

.3

.3

Sc

34

18

18

10

14

9

24

15

16

16

38

34

17

13

16

20

14

14

14

11

10

27

13

20

16

14

12

13

13

Yb

1

3

1

1

Sn

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5

<10

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5

Zn

80

100

95

96

63
Table ML. Concentrations of metals in soils in Washington determined by the total method Continued

Sample 

number 

(fig. 2)

Cl

C3

C4

Dl

D4

D5

Fl

F2

F6(dup)

F5

Gl

G4

G5

J2

J3

J5

LI

L2

L4

L6(dup)

Ml

M2

M4

02

O3

O4

P2

P3

P6(dup)

P4

P5

Rl

R3

R4

Sr

230

320

300

310

350

120

280

170

170

150

170

180

190

350

450

460

320

360

390

380

270

200

330

330

300

300

270

280

280

290

290

240

300

330

Ta

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<80

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

Th

6

7

8

10

9

10

7

6

6

5

11

8

12

8

16

8

7

9

10

10

5

7

6

13

9

10

10

10

10

7

7

12

10

17

Ti

0.68

.72

1.20

.51

.43

.67

.72

.34

.35

.46

1.30

.90

.87

.33

.49

.34

.53

.48

.51

.50

.92

.78

.66

.48

.53

.86

.57

.57

.59

.42

.42

1.20

.53

.89

U

<100

<100

<100

<100

<100

<100

<100

<100

<100

<100

<100

<100

<100

<100

<100

<200

<100

<100

<100

<100

<100

<100

<100

<100

<100

<100

<100

<100

<100

<100

<100

<100

<100

<100

V

170

160

370

99

120

210

140

71

73

130

270

180

170

57

110

60

170

100

110

110

210

210

130

110

110

190

100

100

100

66

69

250

98

190

Y

23

27

44

14

14

27

19

16

16

13

36

17

18

22

24

21

22

21

22

22

30

36

21

21

22

25

23

23

23

23

20

38

23

25

Yb

2

3

4

1

1

3

2

2

2

1

4

2

2

2

3

2

2

2

2

2

3

4

2

2

2

3

2

2

2

3

2

4

2

3

Zn

280

140

130

110

89

130

120

76

77

69

130

120

94

67

93

65

160

110

82

82

97

110

81

70

76

88

73

72

69

63

61

180

66

84

64
Table Al.-- Concentrations of metals in soils in Washington determined by the total method Continued

Sample 

number

(fig- 2)

Ul

U2

U5

RS1

RS(dup)

Sr

230

220

350

270

270

Ta

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

Th

14

11

14

5

5

Ti

0.60

.49

.39

.45

.45

U

<100

<100

<100

<100

<100

V

110

81

77

98

99

Y

23

26

23

15

16

Yb

2

3

2

2

2

Zn

96

86

70

53

54

65
Table A2.~ Concentrations of metals in soils in Washington determined by different laboratory methods

[Concentrations are in milligrams per kilogram of dry soil, except total and total- recoverable values for iron and aluminum, 

which are given in percent, and values in parentheses, which are given in milligrams per liter of leachate; <, less than; >, greater 

than; --, no data; *, estimated value; +, detected in blank; (dup), duplicate of preceding sample; ASTM, American Society for 

Testing Materials method D3987-85; EP-TOX, Extraction Procedure-Toxicity test; TCLP, Toxicity Characteristic Leaching 

Procedure]

Sample 

number

Al

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6(dup)

Cl

C2

C3

C4

C5

Dl

D2

D3

D4

D5

Fl

F2

F6(dup)

F3

F4

F5

Gl

G2

G3

G4

G5

Jl

J2

J3

J4

J5

LI

L2

L3

L4

L6(dup)

L5

Total

_

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

-

<2

~

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

~

<2

<2

<2

<2

_

<2

<2

<4

<2

<2

<2

<2

Silver

Total 

recoverable ASTM EP-TOX

<0.2

<.2 <0.04 (<0.002) <0.04 (<0.002)

<.2

<.2

<.2

<>2

<.2

<.2

<.2

<.2

<.2 <.04 (<.002) <.04 (<.002)

<.2 <.04 (<.002) <.04 (<.002)

<.2

< 2

<.2

.34*

<.2 <.04 (<.002) <.04 (<.002)

<.2

<.2

<.2

<.2

<2

<2

<.2

<.2

<.2

<.2 <.04 (<.002) <.04 (<.002)

.31*

<.2

<.2 <.04 (<.002) <.04 (<.002)

<.2

<.2

0.29*

<.2

<.2

<.2 <.04 (<.002) <.04 (<.002)

<.2 <.04 (<.002) <.04 (<.002)

<.2

TCLP

<0.04 (<0.002)

..

--

_

..

..

<.04 (<.002)

<.04 (<.002)

..

..

..

~

<.04 (<.002)

~

..

..

--

..

_.

..

<.04 (<.002)

__

<.04 (<.002)

..

-

..

..

<.04 (<.002)

<.04 (<.002)

66
Table A2. Concentrations of metals in soils in Washington determined by different laboratory methods Continued

Sample 

number

Ml

M2

M3

M4

M5

Ol

O2

O3

O4

O5

PI

P2

P3

P6(dup)

P4

P5

Rl

R2

R3

R4

R6(dup)

R5

Ul

U2

U3

U6(dup)

U4

U5

RS1

RS(dup)

Total

<2

<2

<2

~

__

<2

<2

<2

--

__

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

--

<2

<2

~

<2

<2

<2

Silver

Total 

recoverable ASTM EP-TOX

0.58*

.58*

.24*

.35* <0.04 (<0.002) <0.04 (<0.002)

.39*

< 2

<.2 <.04 (<.002) <.04 (<.002)

<.2

25*

<2

.41*

<.2

.32*

<2

<.2 <.04 (<.002) <.04 (<.002)

<.2

<.2 <.04 (<.002) <.04 (<.002)

9S* ,^,j - ~ «

<.2

<.2

^,.2* " " *~ ""*

< 2

<.2 <.04 (<.002) <.04 (<.002)

<.2

<2

<2

<.2

<.2

<.2 <.04 (<.002) <.04 (<.002)

<2

TCLP

__

<0.04 (<0.002)

-.

<.04 (<.002)

..

..

-

..

..

<.04 (<002)

..

<.04 <.002)

..

..

..

--

--

<.04 (<.002)

--

_.

--

<.04 (<.002)

--

67
Table A2. Concentrations of metals in soils in Washington determined by different laboratory methods Continued

Sample 

number

Al

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6(dup)

Cl

C2

C3

C4

C5

Dl

D2

D3

D4

D5

Fl

F2

F6(dup)

F3

F4

F5

Gl

G2

G3

G4

G5

Jl

J2

J3

34

J5

LI

L2

L3

L4

L6(dup)

L5

Ml

M2

M3

M4

M5

Total

__

10.0

9.0

7.5

8.9

6.7

8.1

8.0

--

8.3

~

9.3

10.0

11.0

8.2

8.1

7.0

10.0

9.2

7.7

_

7.1

7.8

7.3

9.9

9.2

8.8

8.7

~

8.3

8.3

7.9

~

Aluminum

Total 

recoverable ASTM EP-TOX

5.4

5.1 2.2 (0.11) <1.0 (<0.05)

s i Jt+*

2.9

3.8

43

.7

.7

.6

.6

.7 1.8 (.09) <1.0 (<.05)

2.2 2.4 (.12) 1.5 (.08)

1.7

1.6

2.5

4.6

3.8 3.6 (.18) <1.0 (<.05)

4.0

3.7

2.9

3.0

2.4

4.7

1.8

1.9

4.0

3.4 <1.0 (<.05) <1.0 (<.05)

2.0

1.3

.9 1.5 (.08) <1.0 (<-05)

.8

1.0

2.6

2.6

2.9

1.7 1.9 (.10) <1.0 (<.05)

1.7 1.2 (.06) <1.0 (<.05)

2.1

2.8

2.6

1.6

2.0 <1.0 (<.05) <1.0 (<.05)

2.6

TCLP

__

47.0 (2.35)

._

~

__

..

..

20.6 (1.03)

14.3 (.72)

..

__

..

--

23.2 (1.16)

..

--

~

..

~

_.

..

..

6.4 (.32)

__

._

1.4 (.07)

..

~

--

<1.0 (<.05)

1.1 (.06)

~

..

-

3.0 (.15)

-

68
Table A2. Concentrations of metals in soils in Washington determined by different laboratory methods Continued

Sample 

number

Ol

O2

O3

O4

O5

PI

P2

P3

P6(dup)

P4

P5

Rl

R2

R3

R4

R6(dup)

R5

Ul

U2

U3

U6(dup)

U4

U5

RS1

RS(dup)

Total

»_

7.0

7.7

7.5

--

7.0

7.5

7.5

7.3

7.0

6.9

7.2

6.8

-

7.9

8.3

-

7.5

7.7

7.8

Aluminum

Total 

recoverable ASTM EP-TOX

1.1

1.4 <1.0 (<0.05) 23.8 (0.119)

1.5

1.2

1.2

1.9

1.5

2.3

2.0

1.5 3.1 (.15) <1.0 «05)

1.5

.6 3.3 (.17) <1.0 (<.05)

.7

1.0

Q

9

 O»

1.3 1.1 (.05) <1.0 (<.05)

21

1 .0 *"*" """ """" "**"

17

1.3

1.4

1.6 <1.0 (<.05) 1.2 (.06)

1.6

TCLP

~

16.4 (0.82)

..

..

--

~

__

..

2.1 (.11)

11.5 (.58)

..

..

..

5.3 (.27)

..

..

..

..

-

11.4 (.52)

-

69
Table A2. --Concentrations of metals in soils in Washington determined by different laboratory methods Continued

Sample 

number

Al

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6(dup)

Cl

C2

C3

C4

C5

Dl

D2

D3

D4

D5

Fl

F2

F6(dup)

F3

F4

F5

Gl

G2

G3

G4

G5

Jl

J2

J3

J4

J5

LI

L2

L3

L4

L6(dup)

L5

Total

__

6.4

3.8

7.6

11

9.1

13

20

--

3.9

8.2

13

5.4

4.9

4.7

6

5.5

8.5

6.5

1.5

5.3

«

2.2

.8

13

5

5.3

Arsenic

Total 

recoverable ASTM EP-TOX

4.6

3.5 <0.6 (<0.03) <0.6 (<0.03)

1.9

1.8

8.1

8.4

2.9

2.8

1.8

171 /

2.3 <.6 (<.03) <.6 (<.03)

2.8 <.6 (<.03) <.6 (<.03)

1.9

2.6

4.7

9

1.2 <.6 «.03) <.6 «.03)

2

3.3

2

49

4.2

2.9

1.5

2.8

5.5

6.9 <.6 «.03) <.6 «.03)

5.3

1.1

2.9 <.6 (<.03) <.6 (<.03)

11

1.4

<.5

7.2

1.4

2.3 <.6 (<.03) <.6 (<.03)

2.1 <.6 (<.03) <.6 (<.03)

>.5

TCLP

 -. 

<0.6 (<0.03)

..

..

..

~

..

_.

._

<.6 (<.03)

<.6 (<.03)

..

..

-

<.6 (<.03)

..

..

..

__

..

..

..

<.6 «.03)

_.

..

<.6 (<-03)

--

_

..

__

<.6 (<.03)

<.6 (<.03)

..

70
Table \2.-Concentrations of metals in soils in Washington determined by different laboratory methods Continued

Sample 

number

Ml

M2

M3

M4

M5

Ol

O2

O3

O4

05

PI

P2

P3

P6(dup)

P4

P5

Rl

R2

R3

R4

R6(dup)

R5

Ul

U2

U3

U6(dup)

U4

U5

RS1

RS(dup)

Total

1.9

2.4

2.1

7.2

5.1

6.6

--

__

4.8

3.9

3.9

10

2.1

8.1

3.4

5.5

~

~

16

6.6

~

~

7.1

4.3

4.3

Arsenic

Total 

recoverable ASTM EP-TOX TCLP

1

1.1

3

2.1 <0.6 (<0.03) <0.6 (<0.03) <0.6 (<0.03)

1.8

38

5.5 1.6 (.08) 1.6 (.08) 2.3 (.12)

36

5

37

41

37

2.6

2.3

1.2 <.6 (<.03) <.6 (<.03) <.6 (<.03)

15 i .j -- - - - -

1.4 <.6 «.03) <.6 «.03) <.6 «.03)

37

2.6

2.5

2.5

6.1

9.4 <.6 (<.03) <.6 (<.03) <.6 «.03)

J.O5 R

57

6.1

8.8

6.2

2.5 <.6 «.03) <.6 «.03) <.6 (<.03)

27

71
Table A2.--Concentrations of metals in soils in Washington determined by different laboratory methods Continued

Sample 

number

Al

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6(dup)

Cl

C2

C3

C4

C5

Dl

D2

D3

D4

D5

Fl

F2

F6(dup)

F3

F4

F5

Gl

G2

G3

G4

G5

Jl

J2

J3

J4

J5

LI

L2

L3

L4

L6(dup)

L5

M2

M3

M4

M5

Barium

Total 

Total recoverable ASTM EP-TOX

__

330 -- 0.2 (0.01) 0.8 (0.04)

340

..

*/*tv 540 

530

360

510

480

.3 (.02) .8 (.04)

580 -- .4 (.02) 1.8 (.09)

..

700

670

570 -- .2 (.01) 1.5 (.08)

330

330

..

..

300

670

_.

..

590

690 - .7 (.03) 1.4 (.07)

..

750

920 - 1.2 (.06) 2.0 (.10)

..

870

550

630

..

710 - .1 (.01) .9 (.05)

690 -- 1.8 (.09) .6 (.03)

470

_.

510 -- .4 (.02) 2.6 (.13)

..

TCLP

..

7.0 (0.35)

..

..

..

_.

..

..

3.0 (.15)

7.9 (.39)

..

..

..

-

12.3 (.62)

..

..

-

..

..

..

..

..

19.1 (.96)

..

..

8.3 (.41)

..

-

..

..

..

10.1 (.51)

10.3 (.51)

..

..

12.1 (.60)

..

72
Table ^.-Concentrations of metals in soils in Washington determined by different laboratory methods Continued

Sample 

number

Ol

O2

O3

O4

O5

PI

P2

P3

P6(dup)

P4

P5

Rl

R2

R3

R4

R6(dup)

R5

Ul

U2

U3

U6(dup)

U4

U5

RS1

RS(dup)

Barium

Total 

Total recoverable ASTM EP-TOX

__

660 -- 0.8 (0.04) 18.1 (0.91)

610

650

--

__

650

670

670

700 -- 2.4 (.12) 3.0 (.15)

680

710 - .3 (.02) 1.0 (.05)

..

660

580

--

670 -- .7 (.04) .8 (.04)

650

_.

_.

780

480 -- .6 (.03) 1.0 (.05)

490

TCLP

._

18.3 (0.91)

-

--

_

..

..

14.6 (.73)

..

5.9 (.29)

..

~

--

14.5 (.72)

..

..

--

..

-

15.6 (.78)

-

73
Table A2. Concentrations of metals in soils in Washington determined by different laboratory methods Continued

Sample 

number

Al

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6(dup)

Cl

C2

C3

C4

C5

Dl

D2

D3

D4

D5

Fl

F2

F6(dup)

F3

F4

F5

Gl

G2

G3

G4

G5

Jl

J2

J3

J4

J5

LI

L2

L3

L4

L6(dup)

L5

Ml

M2

M3

M4

M5

Total

__

<1

1

1

1

1

--

1

2

--

1

1

1

2

1

1

-

~

<!

2

~

~

1

2

__

1

2

<2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

..

Beryllium

Total 

recoverable ASTM EP-TOX

0.5

.4 <0.4 (<0.02) <0.4 (<0.02)

7

7

9

9

1

1

.1

i

.1 <4 «.02) <4 «.02)

.3 <4 «.02) <4 «.02)

.4

.3

.6

.6

.8 <4 «.02) <.4 «.02)

 y

7

5

.0

.2

i

.4

.8

.7

.9 <.4 «.02) <4 «.02)

.7

a

.3 <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

.3

2

.8

8

1.1

.4 <.4 (<-02) <.4 (<.02)

.5 <.4 (<-02) <.4 (<.02)

.6

1.4

1.1

7

.8 <0.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

0

TCLP

__

<0.4 (<0.02)

..

..

~

..

__

..

_.

<4 «.02)

<4 «.02)

_.

..

..

~

<4 (<.02)

._

--

-

..

--

..

_.

._

<.4 (<-02)

..

<.4 (<-02)

..

_.

--

_.

<.4 (<-02)

<.4 (<-02)

--

..

._

._

<.4 (<-02)

._

74
Table A2. Concentrations of metals in soils in Washington determined by different laboratory methods Continued

Sample 

number

Ol

O2

O3

O4

O5

PI

P2

P3

P6(dup)

P4

P5

Rl

R2

R3

R4

R6(dup)

R5

Ul

U2

U3

U6(dup)

U4

U5

RS1

RS(dup)

Total

2

2

2

--

_

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

1

~

~

2

2

«

2

<1

<1

Beryllium

Total 

recoverable ASTM EP-TOX

05

.6 <0.4 (<0.02) <0.4 (<0.02)

.0 ~"* "*"* *"* 

7

4

g

5

8 _

7 

 /

.6 <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

5

.3 <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

4

5

3

 9**

-1 

. J

.5 <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

.6

« j

.0 ~ *~

5

5

.1 <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

1 

 1

TCLP

_.

<0.4 (<0.02)

..

..

-

_

..

~

..

<.4 (<.02)

--

<.4 (<.02)

..

..

~

<.4 (<.02)

..

..

<.4 (<.02)

-

75
Table A2.-Concentrations of metals in soils in Washington determined by different laboratory methods-Continued

Sample 

number

Al

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6(dup)

Cl

C2

C3

C4

C5

Dl

D2

D3

D4

D5

Fl

F2

F6(dup)

F3

F4

F5

Gl

G2

G3

G4

G5

Jl

J2

J3

J4

J5

LI

L2

L3

L4

L6(dup)

L5

Ml

M2

M3

M4

M5

Total

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

~

<2

2

--

2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

<2

~

6

<2

_

<2

<2

<4

<2

<2

5

<2

~

<2

<2

..

<2

Cadmium

Total 

recoverable ASTM EP-TOX

<0.2*

<.2* 0.05* (0.003) <0.04 (<0.002)

<.2*

<.2*

<.2*

<.2*

<.2*

<.2*

<.2*

<.2*

<.2* <.04 (<.002) <.04 (<.002)

<.2* <.04 (<.002) <.04 (<.002)

<.2*

<.2*

<.2*

<.2*

<.2* <.04 (<.002) <.04 (<.002)

<.2*

<.2*

<.2*

<.2*

<.2*

<.2*

< 2*

< 2*

<.2*

<.2* <.04 (<.002) <.04 (<.002)

<2*

<.2*

<.2* <.04 (<.002) <.04 (<.002)

<.2*

<,2*

<.2*

<2*

<.2*

<.2* .04* (.002) <.04 (<.002)

<.2* <.04 (<.002) <.04 (<.002)

<.2*

<.2*

<.2*

<.2*

<.2* .05* (.003) <.04 (<.002)

<.2*

TCLP

..

<0.04 (<0.002)

..

._

._

-

_.

_.

<.04 (<.002)

<.04 (<.002)

._

__

-

<.04 (<.002)

-

__

--

..

..

._

__

<.04 (<.002)

-_

__

<.04 (<.002)

--

._

..

<.04 (<.002)

<.04 (<.002)

~

__

_.

<.04 (<.002)

_.

76
Table \2.-Concentrations of metals in soils in Washington determined by different laboratory methods-Continued

Sample 

number

PI

P2

P3

P6(dup)

P4

P5

Rl

R2

R3

R4

R6(dup)

R5

Ul

U2

U3

U6(dup)

U4

U5

RS1 

RS(dup)

Cadmium

Total

Total 

recoverable ASTM EP-TOX TCLP

Ol

02

O3

O4

O5

--

<2

<2

<2

<0.2*

<.2* <0.04 (<0.002) <0.04 (<0.002)

< 2*

<4 2*

<.2*

._

<0.04 (<0.002)

..

..

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2 

<2

<2

<2 

<2

<2 

<2

<2

<2 

<2

<.2* 

<.2* 

<.2* 

<.2* 

<.2* 

<.2*

<.2* 

<.2* 

<.2*

<.04

<.04

(<.002) 

(<.002)

<.04

<.04

(<.002) 

(<.002)

<.04

<.04

(<.002) 

(<.002)

<.04 (<.002) <.04 (<.002) <.04 (<.002)

<.04 (<.002) <.04 (<.002) <.04 (<.002)

77
Table ^..-Concentrations of metals in soils in Washington determined by different laboratory methods-Continued

Sample 

number

Al

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6(dup)

Cl

C2

C3

C4

C5

Dl

D2

D3

D4

D5

Fl

F2

F6(dup)

F3

F4

F5

Gl

G2

G3

G4

G5

Jl

J2

J3

J4

J5

LI

L2

L3

L4

L6(dup)

L5

Ml

M2

M3

M4

M5

Total

__

100

170

83

79

160

120

150

-

140

130

340

99

50

51

~

~

540

81

..

59

64

42

84

~

49

260

96

78

67

61

120

57

Chromium

Total 

recoverable ASTM EP-TOX

51.5

41.2 <0.1 (<0.005) <0.1 (<0.005)

56.7

26.0

34.2

35.5

16.0

14.8

12.2+

10.1+

11.4+ <.l (<.005) <.l (<.005)

32.0 <.l (<.005) <.l (<.005)

26.7

25.1

45.2

163

22.8 <.l (<.005) <.l (<.005)

25.1

19.9

26.6

59.7

313

27.5

17.9

24.8

19.5

24.5 <.l (<.005) <.l (<.005)

35.9

10.8+

17.9 <.l (<.005) <.l (<.005)

18.3

11.4+

71.3

36.9

29.3

20 <.l (<.005) <.l (<005)

20.6 <.l (<.005) <.l (<.005)

38.4

21.5

37.3

17.1

15 <.l (<.005) <.l (<.005)

26.1

TCLP

« 

<0.1 (<0.005)

..

..

..

~

__

..

..

..

<.l (<.005)

<.l (<.005)

..

..

..

-

<.l (<.005)

..

-

..

..

--

_.

..

..

<.l (<.005)

..

<.l «.005)

..

--

..

..

..

<.l (<.005)

<.l (<.005)

__

..

..

<.l (<.005)

..

78
Table A2.--Concentrations of metals in soils in Washington determined by different laboratory methods Continued

Sample 

number

Ol

02

O3

O4

O5

PI

P2

P3

P6(dup)

P4

P5

Rl

R2

R3

R4

R6(dup)

R5

Ul

U2

U3

U6(dup)

U4

U5

RS1

RS(dup)

Total

77

68

61

--

53

56

54

28

34

55

42

68

~

-

56

50

-

69

120

110

Chromium

Total 

recoverable ASTM EP-TOX

11.8

17.3 <0.1 (<0.005) <0.1 (<0.005)

15.9

12.9

14.7

15.4

12.6

16.1

13.4

6.1+ <.l (<.005) <.l (<.005)

7.6+

5.0+ <.l (<.005) <.l (<.005)

6.6+

10.8

8.8

9.4

9.1

12.4 <.l (<.005) <.l (<.005)

16.1

15.7

17.9

12.9

15.1

20.3 <.l (<.005) <.l (<.005)

20.1

TCLP

..

<0.1 (<0.005)

_.

..

-

..

..

..

..

<.l (<.005)

<.l (<.005)

..

..

..

..

--

<.l (<.005)

..

..

..

--

<.l (<.005)

--

79
Table ^.-Concentrations of metals in soils in Washington determined by different laboratory methods Continued

Sample 

number

Al

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6(dup)

Cl

C2

C3

C4

C5

Dl

D2

D3

D4

D5

Fl

F2

F6(dup)

F3

F4

F5

Gl

G2

G3

G4

G5

Jl

J2

J3

J4

J5

LI

L2

L3

L4

L6(dup)

L5

Ml

M2

M3

M4

M5

Total

29

120

28

32

42

23

27

-

13

«

28

68

53

30

31

 .

29

39

~

49

27

__

30

31

30

53

33

_.

28

30

28

44

28

Copper

Total 

recoverable ASTM EP-TOX

33.9

22.5 <0.4 «0.02) <0.4 (<0.02)

99.4

23.2

24.4

25.4

5.2+

J.^+ - - - -

4.3+

4 4+

5.0+ <.4 (<02) <.4 (<.02)

7.2+ <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

6.2+

8.1+

18 7

50.9

28.9 <.4 «.02) <.4 (<.02)

24.9

23.5

18.3

31.1

26.5

26.2

15.4

23.2

31.7

23.9 <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

53.0

20.2

11.6+ <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

13.4+

11.9+

27.3

08 £rO. 71

14.8+

14.7+ <.4 «.02) <.4 (<.02)

16.9+ <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

16.0+

21.6

26.9

25.9+

20.0+ <.4 (<.02) <4 (<.02)

20.7+

TCLP

__

<0.4 (<0.02)

..

..

-

__

..

_.

_.

<.4 (<.02)

<.4 (<.02)

..

_.

-

<.4 (<.02)

..

-

-

~

__

..

__

<.4 (<.02)

._

..

<.4 (<.02)

..

_.

..

<.4 (<.02)

<.4 (<.02)

..

..

..

<.4 (<.02)

..

80
Table A2. Concentrations of metals in soils in Washington determined by different laboratory methods Continued

Sample 

number

Ol

O2

O3

CM

O5

PI

P2

P3

P6(dup)

P4

P5

Rl

R2

R3

R4

R6(dup)

R5

Ul

U2

U3

U6(dup)

U4

U5

RS1

RS(dup)

Total

__

27

30

29

--

_

28

27

25

22

23

85

26

24

-

26

37

--

24

21

19

Copper

Total 

recoverable ASTM EP-TOX

17.8+

19.2+ 0.66 (0.033) <0.4 (<0.02)

18.4+

21.5+

20.3+

21.9+

16.0+

18.9+

16.8+

11.1+ <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

12.9+

9.1+ <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

13.2+

14.6+

12.7+

11.7+

13.2+

14.6+ <4 (<.02) <4 (<.02)

23.5+

17.8+

17.1+

14.1+

15.0+

11.0+ <.4 (<02) <.4 (<.02)

11.1+

TCLP

__

<0.4 (<0.02)

..

..

--

..

..

..

..

<.4 (<.02)

<.4 (<.02)

..

..

..

--

<.4 (<.02)

..

..

..

--

<.4 (<.02)

--

81
Table A2. Concentrations of metals in soils in Washington determined by different laboratory methods Continued

Sample 

number

Al

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6(dup)

Cl

C2

C3

C4

C5

Dl

D2

D3

D4

D5

Fl

F2

F6(dup)

F3

F4

F5

Gl

G2

G3

G4

G5

Jl

J2

J3

J4

J5

LI

L2

L3

L4

L6(dup)

L5

Ml

M2

M3

M4

M5

Total

 »

5.2

8.8

4.1

5.2

6.1

«

5.9

6.9

--

3.4

3.9

6.0

5.2

3.0

3.0

«

4.9

8.8

5.8

5.4

2.5

4.1

2.5

5.4

4.1

4.1

4.1

--

7.7

7.4

4.6

Iron

Total 

recoverable ASTM EP-TOX

4.2

3.3 0.5 (0.03) <0.4 (<0.02)

6.3

2.6

3.8

4.0

1.3

1.4

1.1

1.1

.9 5.3 (.27) 1.9 (.10)

1.7 1.2 (.06) 1.5 (.08)

1.4

1.8

2.3

5.0

2.5 1.9 (.10) <.4 (<.02)

2.2

2.2

2.1

3.2

3.2

5.6

3.0

2.7

3.4

4.0 <.4 (<.02) .9 (.05)

2.8

1.3

1.6 .6 (.03) .7 (.03)

1.2

i.o

2.6

2.5

2.0

1.9 2.0 (.1) .9 (.04)

2.0 <.4 (<.02) .6 (.03)

2.3

5.2

4.3

2.3

3.3 <.4 (<.02) .6 (.03)

2.7

TCLP

» ..

<0.4 (<0.02)

..

..

..

~

..

..

..

..

1.5 (.08)

1.6 (.08)

..

..

..

-

1.4 (.07)

..

--

--

..

-

..

..

..

..

.9 (.05)

..

..

1.1 (.06)

..

-

..

..

..

.4 (.02)

.6 (.03)

..

..

..

2.0 (.10)

..

82
Table ^.-Concentrations of metals in soils in Washington determined by different laboratory methods-Continued

Sample 

number

01

O2 

03

O4

05

PI

P2

P3

P6(dup) 

P4 

P5

Rl 

R2

R3

R4

R6(dup) 

R5

Ul

U2

U3

U6(dup) 

U4

U5

RS1

RS(dup)

Total

_

3.8 

3.4

5.7

--

_

4.0

4.0

4.0 

2.8 

2.8

9.3

3.8

6.0

4.6 

3.8

3.3

3.2

3.2

Iron

Total 

recoverable ASTM EP-TOX

2.2

2.1 <0.7 (<0.04) 0.7 (0.04) 

2.3

2.8

2.4

3.0

2.5

2.6

2.3 

1.1 .6 (.03) .4 (.02) 

1.3

2.1 6.3 (.3) .9 (.05) 

2.4

1.7

1.6

1.7 

2.2

2.3 1.2 (.06) .6 (.03) 

2.1

2.1

2.3 

2.0

1.9

1.3 <.4 «.02) <.4 «.02)

1.4

TCLP

_

0.9 (0.04)

--

_

-

.8 (.04)

17.5 (.90)

__

--

5.2 (.30)

..

<.4 «.02)

--

83
Table A2.-Concentrations of metals in soils in Washington determined by different laboratory methods-Continued

Mercury

Sample 

number

Al

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6(dup)

Cl

C2

C3

C4

C5

Dl

D2

D3

D4

D5

Fl

F2

F6(dup)

F3

F4

F5

Gl

G2

G3

G4

G5

Jl

J2

J3

J4

J5

LI

L2

L3

L4

L6(dup)

L5

Ml

M2

M3

M4

M5

Total

_

0.16

.22

.20

.14

5.9

6

.20

-

.06

~

.10

.38

.26

.08

.10

.06

.06

.08

.06

..

.06

.04

.04

.04

.04

.04

.06

-

.08

.08

.06

Total 

recoverable ASTM

0.119

.093 0.003 (0.0002)

.055

.042*

.061

.056

.009*

.01*

.011*

.011*

.009* .003 (.0002)

.021 .002 (.0001)

.038*

.031*

.045*

.185

.065 .003 (.0002)

.03*

.03*

.039*

.047*

.058

.019*

.018*

.025*

.042*

.05* .003 (.0002)

.025*

.01*

<.004 .003 (.0001)

.007*

.013*

.005*

.015*

.01*

.013* .004 (.0002)

.007* .001 (.0001)

.004*

.01*

.01*

.05

.01* .003 (.0001)

.05

EP-TOX TCLP

_

<0.0008 (<0.00004) <0.001 (<0.0001)

-

--

__

..

..

<.0008 (<.00004) <.001 (<.0001)

<.0008 (<.00004) <.001 (<.0001)

..

-

<.0008 (<.00004) <.001 (<.0001)

..

--

..

..

--

..

..

..

<.0008 (<.00004) <.001 (<.0001)

._

..

<.0008 (<.00004) <.001 (<.0001)

..

..

..

<.0008 (<.00004) <.001 (<.0001)

<.0008 (<.00004) <.001 (<.0001)

~

__

..

..

<.0008 (<.00004) .001 (.0001)

..

84
Table A2. -Concentrations of metals in soils in Washington determined by different laboratory methods Continued

Sample 

number

Ol

O2

03

O4

O5

PI

P2

P3

P6(dup)

P4

P5

Rl

R2

R3

R4

R6(dup)

R5

Ul

U2

U3

U6(dup)

U4

U5

RS1

RS(dup)

Total

_

0.04

.06

.06

--

_

.04

.04

.04

.04

.04

.68

.04

.04

--

.10

.08

--

--

.04

.12

.12

Mercurv

Total 

recoverable ASTM EP-TOX

0.006*

.019* 0.004 (0.0002) <0.0008 (<0.00004)

.031*

.037*

.061

.021

.008*

<.004

.006*

.011* .002 (.0001) <.0008 (<.00004)

<.004

<.004 .002 (.0001) <.0008 (<.00004)

<.004

<.004

<.004

<.004

.01*

.006* .002 (.0001) <.0008 (<.00004)

.012*

<.004

.021*

.007*

.006*

.062 .002 (.0001) <.0008 (<.00004)

.04*

TCLP

_

<0.001 (<0.0001)

-

--

_

_-

--

<.001 (<.0001)

~

<.001 (<.0001)

_-

-.

--

~

<.001 (<.0001)

--

--

-

-

--

<.001 (<.0001)

--

85
Table A2. Concentrations of metals in soils in Washington determined by different laboratory methods Continued

Sample 

number

Al

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6(dup)

Cl

C2

C3

C4

C5

Dl

D2

D3

D4

D5

Fl

F2

F6(dup)

F3

F4

F5

Gl

G2

G3

G4

G5

Jl

J2

J3

J4

J5

LI

L2

L3

L4

L6(dup)

L5

Ml

M2

M3

M4

M5

Total

_

410

1,500

680

650

1,300

820

800

--

550

580

690

740

1,400

1,400

750

1,100

970

620

_

630

780

670

910

720

670

680

--

750

1,000

-

790

-

Manganese

Total 

recoverable ASTM EP-TOX

537

303 0.7 (0.04) 0.9 (0.04)

930

277

633

698

159

149

107

112

78 <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

229 <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

197

231

366

631

339 <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

783

696

344

757

478

825

478

494

686

644 <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

571

345

256 <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

234

233

363

430

294

340 <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

359 <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

372

485 - - - -

680 - -

453 - - - -

814 <.4 (<.02) .7 (.03)

486 - - -

TCLP

_

3.5 (0.18)

-

..

..

<.4 (<.02)

1.4 (.07)

..

..

.-

~

1.2 (.06)

--

--

-

..

--

__

_.

..

..

3.6 (.18)

.7 (.04)

--

_.

--

_.

.6 (.03)

.6 (.03)

--

.

-

-

6.5 (.33)

-

86
Table A2.~ Concentrations of metals in soils in Washington determined by different laboratory methods-Continued

Sample 

number

01

O2

03

O4

05

PI

P2

P3

P6(dup)

P4

P5

Rl

R2

R3

R4

R6(dup)

R5

Ul

U2

U3

U6(dup)

U4

U5

RS1

RS(dup)

Total

_

640

600

, 860

-

_

690

670

670

560

550

1,600

--

550

940

--

560

640

-

540

560

570

Manganese

Total 

recoverable ASTM EP-TOX

389

361 <0.4 (<0.02) 4.4 (0.2)

465

480

361

652

516

523

499

252 <.4 (<-02) <.4 (<.02)

279

245 <.4 «.02) <.4 «.02)

378

325

268

265

377

390 <.4 «.02) <.4 «.02)

428

450

450

371

344

210 <.4 «.02) <.4 «.02)

260

TCLP

_

3.1 (0.15)

-

--

__

..

..

--

<.4 (<-02)

--

1.3 (.06)

..

..

--

--

.8 (.04)

..

--

~

.6 (.03)

--

87
Table A2.- Concentrations of metals in soils in Washington determined by different laboratory methods Continued

Sample 

number

Al

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6(dup)

Cl

C2

C3

C4

C5

Dl

D2

D3

D4

D5

Fl

F2

F6(dup)

F3

F4

F5

Gl

G2

G3

G4

G5

Jl

J2

J3

J4

J5

LI

L2

L3

L4

L6(dup)

L5

Ml

M2

M3

M4

M5

Total

_

33

76

-

24

29

62

55

34

--

66

73

120

49

23

21

470

27

22

23

_

12

30

20

70

36

30

32

15

48

20

Nickel

Total 

recoverable ASTM EP-TOX

26.8

19.6 <0.4 (<0.02) <0.4 (<0.02)

63.2

11.9

14.2

15.6

10.3

10.0

9.0

8.7

7.6 <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

22.3 <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

31.3

19.1

39.8

91.1

25.6 <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

31.5

20.1

23.1

56.2

358

20.4

19.4

20.6

13.3

17.5 <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

24.6

7.8

12.3 <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

17.0

9.5

34.1

20.8

16.7

12.2 <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

14.9 <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

19.4

9.7

29.9

26.6

11.8 <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

27.6

TCLP

_

<0.4 (<0.02)

._

._

..

._

._

<.4 (<.02)

<.4 (<.02)

-

__

..

<.4 (<.02)

_.

--

~

..

~

._

--

..

<.4 (<.02)

_.

..

<.4 (<.02)

_.

--

<.4 (<.02)

<.4 (<.02)

~

_.

--

..

<.4 (<.02)

--

88
Table ML Concentrations of metals in soils in Washington determined by different laboratory methods Continued

Sample 

number

Ol

O2

O3

O4

O5

PI

P2

P3

P6(dup)

P4

P5

Rl

R2

R3

R4

R6(dup)

R5

Ul

U2

U3

U6(dup)

U4

U5

RS1

RS(dup)

Total

28

28

27

--

18

16

16

11

11

32

~

18

24

--

~

20

24

--

~

21

45

44

Nickel

Total 

recoverable ASTM EP-TOX

12.8

16.5 <0.4 (<0.02) <0.4 (<0.02)

17.0

18.9

15.7

16.5

10.7

14.0

11.3

7.7 <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

7.1

6.4 <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

9.2

11.2

9.7

9.9

11.7

10.3 <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

14.6

13.9

14 2

10.5

U ? .^

22.4 <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

^ 7 **j* 1 * *

TCLP

__

<0.4 (<0.02)

..

--

..

..

..

..

<.4 (<.02)

~

<.4 (<.02)

..

..

..

--

<.4 (<.02)

..

..

-

-

<.4 (<.02)

--

89
Table A.2. Concentrations of metals in soils in Washington determined by different laboratory methods Continued

Sample 

number

Al

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6(dup)

Cl

C2

C3

C4

C5

Dl

D2

D3

D4

D5

Fl

F2

F6(dup)

F3

F4

F5

Gl

G2

G3

G4

G5

Jl

J2

J3

J4

J5

LI

L2

L3

L4

L6(dup)

L5

Ml

M2

M3

M4

M5

Total

__

13

4

10

11

12

15

15

--

11

9

7

14

8

8

--

5

12

14

15

__

12

17

10

13

16

~

12

11

--

10

7

12

._

Lead

Total 

recoverable ASTM EP-TOX

12

9.7* <0.4 (<0.02) <0.4 (<0.02)

4.0*

4.0*

10 *

10 *

3.2*

2.3*

2.1*

3.1*

2.3* <.4 (<-02) <.4 (<.02)

5.2* <.4 (<-02) <.4 (<-02)

6.1*

3.8*

4.7*

12.0

10 * <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

5.4*

7.4*

6.0*

7.3*

3.6*

9.9*

5.0*

8.6*

8.7*

13 <.4 «.02) <.4 (<.02)

9.9*

5.4*

6.6* <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<-02)

4.8*

4.2*

5.0*

9.5*

8.8*

6.4* <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

3.6* <.4 (<-02) <.4 (<.02)

5.9*

9.4*

9.2*

6.6*

7.9* <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

6.8*

TCLP

__

<0.4 (<0.02)

..

..

-

_

..

..

..

<.4 «.02)

<.4 (<.02)

..

..

-

<.4 «.02)

..

..

..

..

--

__

..

..

..

<.4 (<-02)

_

..

<.4 (<-02)

..

-

_

..

..

<.4 (<-02)

<.4 (<-02)

_.

..

<.4 (<-02)

90
Table A2. Concentrations of metals in soils in Washington determined by different laboratory methods Continued

Lead

Sample 

number

PI

P2

P3

P6(dup)

P4

P5

Rl

R2

R3

R4

R6(dup)

R5

Ul

U2

U3

U6(dup)

U4

U5

RS1 

RS(dup)

Total

Total 

recoverable ASTM EP-TOX TCLP

Ol

02

O3

O4

O5

__

15

11

14

8.2*

8.7* <0.4 (<0.02) <0.4 (<0.02)

8.2*

10.9

7 0* / .\/

..

<0.4 (<0.02)

_.

__

11

10

11

11

10

36

10

12

20

21

16

8

7

11.7 

8.0*

10.4 

9.8* 

6.7* 

5.8*

4.2* 

8.0* 

6.8* 

6.0* 

5.4* 

5.3*

13.6

12.0

11.0

11.9

11.2

10.5

4.7* 

5.5*

<4

<4

<.4 «.02) 

<4 (<.02)

«.02) 

«.02)

«.02)

91
Table XL-Concentrations of metals in soils in Washington determined by different laboratory methods-Continued

Sample 

number

Al

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6(dup)

Cl

C2

C3

C4

C5

Dl

D2

D3

D4

D5

Fl

F2

F6(dup)

F3

F4

F5

Gl

G2

G3

G4

G5

Jl

J2

J3

J4

J5

LI

L2

L3

L4

L6(dup)

L5

Ml

M2

M3

M4

M5

Total

._

1.3

1.0

1.4

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.9

-

1.3

«

1.7

3.8

1.4

1.2

1.0

1.1

1.3

~

1.5

1.6

.7

1.7

1.2

.6

1.6

1.0

1.1

--

0.8

.8

.

.8

-

Antimony

Total 

recoverable ASTM EP-TOX

<3

<3 <0.4 (<0.02) <0.4 (<0.02)

<3

<3

<3

<3

<3

<3

<3

<3

<3 <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

<3 <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

<3

<3

<3

<3

<3 <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

<3

<3

<3

<3

<3

<3

<3

<3

<3

<3 <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

<3

<3

<3 <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

<3

<3

<3

<3

<3

<3 <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

<3 <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

<3

<3 - - - -

<3 - - - -

<3 - - -

<3 <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

<3 - - - -

TCLP

__

<0.4 (<0.02)

..

..

..

--

_

..

..

..

<.4 (<.02)

<.4 (<.02)

._

..

--

<.4 (<.02)

..

--

..

..

-

__

_.

._

<.4 (<.02)

..

<.4 (<.02)

..

~

_

..

..

.4 (.02)

<.4 (<.02)

--

_

-

-

<.4 (<.02)

-

92
Table ^. Concentrations of metals in soils in Washington determined by different laboratory methods Continued

Sample 

number

01

O2 

03

04

05

PI

P2

P3

P6(dup) 

P4

P5

Rl

R2

R3

R4

R6(dup) 

R5

Ul 

U2

U3

U6(dup) 

U4

U5

RS1

RS(dup)

Total

_

1.6 

1.2

1.7

--

_

1.2

1.1

1.2

1.0

3.8

.8

1.5

--

1.9 

1.3

1.2

1.2

1.3

Antimonv

Total 

recoverable ASTM EP-TOX

<3

<3 <0.4 (<0.02) <0.4 (<0.02)

<3

<3

<3

<3

<3

<3

<3

<3

<3 <.4 «.02) <.4 (<.02)

<3

<3

<3

<3 

<3

<3 <.4 (<-02) <.4 (<-02)

<3

<3

<3 

<3

<3

<3 <.4 «.02) <.4 «.02)

<3

TCLP

__

0.4 (0.02)

..

~

_.

..

..

<.4 (<.02)

-

<.4 (<-02)

..

~" "~

.4 (.02)

..

-

<.4 «.02)

--

93
Table XL Concentrations of metals in soils in Washington determined by different laboratory methods Continued

Sample 

number

Al

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6(dup)

Cl

C2

C3

C4

C5

Dl

D2

D3

D4

D5

Fl

F2

F6(dup)

F3

F4

F5

Gl

G2

G3

G4

G5

Jl

J2

J3

J4

J5

LI

L2

L3

L4

L6(dup)

L5

Ml

M2

M3

M4

M5

Selenium

Total 

Total recoverable ASTM EP-TOX

<0.5

1.2 <.5 <1 (<0.05) <1 (<0.05)

1.2 <.5

<.5

.2 <.5

.3 <.5

3

^ C ^.J " "~

<.5

4 < 5

.3 <.5

<.5 <1 «.05) <1 «.05)

.2 <.5 <1 (<.05) <1 (<.05)

<.5

< 5

.1 <.5

.7 <.5

.4 <.5 <1 (<.05) <1 (<.05)

 J ^»O *"" ~ """ **"'

A ^ S " ~* *

<.5

<.5

1 ^ C ^ 

.3 <.5

<.5

< 5

.3 <.5

.2 <.5 <1 (<.05) <1 (<.05)

< 5

1.0 <.5

.1 <.5 <1 (<.05) <1 (<.05)

<5

<.l <5

.1 <.5

.2 <.5

<.5

.1 <5 <1 (<.05) <1 (<.05)

.1 <5 <1 (<.05) <1 (<.05)

<.5

.1 <.5

O ^ C mff ^m _^ ^.

<.5

<.l <.5 <1 (<.05) <1 (<.05)

<.5

TCLP

..

<1 (<0.05)

..

~

..

-

..

<1 (<.05)

<1 (<.05)

..

..

..

-

<1 (<.05)

..

..

..

..

--

..

..

..

..

<1 (<.05)

..

..

<1 (<.05)

..

~

..

..

..

<1 (<.05)

<1 (<.05)

..

..

..

<1 (<.05)

94
Table \2.-Concentrations of metals in soils in Washington determined by different laboratory methods-Continued

Selenium

Sample Total 

number Total recoverable ASTM EP-TOX

Ol - <0.5

O2 <0.1 <.5 <1 (<0.05) <1 (<0.05)

O3 .1 <.5

O4 .1 <.5

O5 - <.5

PI i 1 ^ J ^ 5

P2 .1 <5

P3 .1 <5

P6(dup) .1 <.5 

P4 <.l <.5 <1 «.05) <1 «.05)

P5 <.l <.5

Rl <.l <5.4 <1 (<05) <1 (<.05)

R2 - <.5

R3 <.l <.5

R4 .1 <.5

R6(dup) - <.5 

R5 -- <.5

Ul <.l <.5 <1 «.05) <1 «.05)

U2 1.0 <5

U3 -- <5

U6(dup) - <.5 

U4 - <.5

U5 <.l <.5

RS1 .3 <5 <1 (<.05) <1 (<.05)

RS(dup) .3 <.5

TCLP

__

<1 (<0.05)

..

--

<1 (<.05)

~

<1 (<.05)

..

..

..

:: :

<1 «.05)

..

..

: :

-

<1 «.05)

-

95
Table A2. Concentrations of metals in soils in Washington determined by different laboratory methods Continued

Sample 

number

Al

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6(dup)

Cl

C2

C3

C4

C5

Dl

D2

D3

D4

D5

Fl

F2

F6(dup)

F3

F4

F5

Gl

G2

G3

G4

G5

Jl

J2

J3

J4

J5

LI

L2

L3

L4

L6(dup)

L5

Ml

M2

M3

M4

M5

Thallium

Total 

Total recoverable ASTM EP-TOX

<5

<5 <0.4 (<0.02) <0.4 (<0.02)

<5

""* ^J ~ ~~ "

<5

<7.1

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5 <.4 (<02) <.4 (<.02)

<5 <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

<5

<5

~" ^J " * ~ "

<5

<5 <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

<5

<? <; "" ^^/ » "

<5

<5

>5.4*

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5 <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

>9.2*

<5

<5 <.4 (<02) <.4 (<.02)

<5

<5

>14 *

>5.1*

<5

<5 <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

<5 <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

>7 *

>7.9*

>6.2*

>9.3*

>6.3* <.4 (<.02) <.4 (<.02)

>9.2*

TCLP

--

<0.4 (<0.02)

..

..

--

_

..

<.4 (<.02)

<.4 (<.02)

..

..

..

-

<.4 (<.02)

..

..

..

..

--

_.

..

..

..

<A (<.02)

..

..

<.4 (<.02)

..

_

-

<.4 (<.02)

<A (<.02)

..

..

..

<.4 (<02)

..

96
Table A2. Concentrations of metals in soils in Washington determined by different laboratory methods Continued

Sample 

number

Thallium

Total

Total 

recoverable ASTM EP-TOX TCLP

01

02

03

04

05

PI

P2

P3

P6(dup)

P4

P5

Rl

R2

R3

R4

R6(dup)

R5

Ul

U2

U3

U6(dup)

U4

U5

RS1 

RS(dup)

>6.5* 

>7.6* 

>8.9* 

>6.2* 

>5

>10 * 

<5

>8.5* 

>6.9* 

<5 

>9 *

<5

>7.3*

<5

>5.4*

<5

<5

<5

>5.8*

<5

<5

>5.3* 

<5

<5

<5.7

<0.4 (<0.02) <0.4 (<0.02) <0.4 (<0.02)

<4

<A <2.0

97
Table ^.-Concentrations of metals in soils in Washington determined by different laboratory methods-Continued

Sample 

number

Al

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6(dup)

Cl

C2

C3

C4

C5

Dl

D2

D3

D4

D5

Fl

F2

F6(dup)

F3

F4

F5

Gl

G2

G3

G4

G5

Jl

J2

J3

J4

J5

LI

L2

L3

L4

L6(dup)

L5

Ml

M2

M3

M4

M5

Total

_

80

100

95

96

280

140

130

--

110

89

130

120

76

77

69

130

120

94

_

67

93

65

160

110

..

82

82

~

97

110

81

Zinc

Total 

recoverable ASTM EP-TOX

63.1

53.8 <0.4 (<0.02) 0.6 (0.03)

86.0

44.5

63.0

68.0

24.4

27.5

21.1

24.6

24.1 <.4 (<.02) .6 (.03)

36.7 <A (<.02) 1.1 (.6)

42.4

45.0

54.0

116

46.5 <.4 (<.02) .5 (.2)

62.7

59.5

37.9

90.7

47.9

82.1

50.8

63.0

75.3

74.0 <.4 (<.02) .6 (.03)

77.9*

39.4

39.6 .4 (.02) .9 (.5)

31.4*+

30.7+

82.3*

75.4*

58.3*

41.0 <.4 (<.02) .4 (.02)

46.9 .4 (.02) <.4 (<.02)

56.4*

70.5*

80.7*

37.0*

45.2* <.4 (<.02) 1.0 (.05)

38.8*

TCLP

1.8 (0.09)

--

._

1.2 (.06)

1.3 (.07)

..

..

._

--

1.2 (.06)

--

..

_.

~

..

1.3 (.06)

__

2.0 (.10)

..

--

..

1.8 (.09)

1.5 (.08)

..

1.8 (.09)

..

98
Table \2. Concentrations of metals in soils in Washington determined by different laboratory methods Continued

Sample 

number

Ol

O2

03

O4

O5

PI

P2

P3

P6(dup)

P4

P5

Rl

R2

R3

R4

R6(dup)

R5

Ul

U2

U3

U6(dup)

U4

U5

RS1

RS(dup)

Total

70

76

88

-

73

72

69

63

61

180

66

84

--

-

96

86

~

-

70

53

54

Zinc

Total 

recoverable ASTM EP-TOX

41.5*

40.5* 0.6 (0.03) 0.4 (0.02)

40.5*

47.4*

42.4*

49.4*

43.8*

47.1*

44.1*

26.3* .5 (.03) .7 (.4)

31.5*

37.4* <4 (<.02) .5 (.3)

42.2*

32.4*

30.3*

31.6*

39.7*

49.6* .8 (.04) <.4 (<.02)

46.8*

48.2*

51.6*

44.6*

42.9*

23.7* <.4 (<02) .4 (.02)

25.4*

TCLP

0.7 (0.03)

..

..

--

._

..

..

-

1.5 (.08)

2.1 (.11)

..

..

--

1.9 (.10)

..

..

--

..

..

1.2 (.06)

--

99
Table A3. Particle-size distribution of soil samples in Washington

[(dup), indicates duplicate of preceding sample; all samples were sieved prior to determination of distribution to 

remove particles greater than 19 millimeters]

Sample 

number

Al

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6(dup)

Cl

C2

C3

C4

C5

Dl

D2

D3

D4

D5

Fl

F2

F6(dup)

F3

F4

F5

Gl

G2

G3

G4

G5

Jl

J2

J3

J4

J5

LI

L2

L3

L4

L6(dup)

L5

Percent of particles finer than indicated size, in millimeters

16.0

100.0

89.1

97.4

99.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

98.5

97.6

100.0

98.4

98.2

84.4

93.1

91.2

97.7

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

98.2

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

97.8

8.0

85.9

73.2

91.8

85.7

95.9

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

82.1

78.5

89.4

87.1

83.5

44.7

66.2

62.9

90.9

99.0

97.2

98.3

99.5

83.9

89.1

100.0

100.0

100.0

95.2

99.0

94.5

100.0

98.7

95.7

100.0

100.0

93.4

4.0

68.4

58.4

82.1

69.1

74.2

89.2

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

72.0

65.8

79.6

74.3

67.5

26.3

51.1

49.3

84.1

91.4

87.4

95.5

99.2

70.6

75.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

91.1

98.6

90.5

100.0

91.9

89.4

99.7

100.0

86.0

2.0

57.7

48.5

80.2

55.7

59.7

71.8

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

67.5

59.7

76.2

68.2

56.9

20.7

43.0

40.9

80.5

77.3

80.2

93.0

98.0

60.8

64.1

87.5

100.0

100.0

89.4

98.0

87.4

100.0

81.8

82.6

98.5

98.7

80.4

1.0

41.3

33.3

72.7

40.8

42.7

52.0

100.0

99.9

100.0

99.9

99.9

61.6

55.3

71.0

60.8

42.4

16.9

36.8

34.9

75.1

58.0

67.4

81.6

92.9

48.4

48.8

65.9

96.8

96.5

85.5

96.0

81.7

81.3

63.1

67.3

92.0

93.0

67.4

0.5

28.4

22.5

61.6

31.0

27.3

35.8

98.9

99.9

99.9

99.9

99.8

50.3

47.8

61.5

52.2

30.8

14.7

29.9

28.3

67.0

40.8

56.3

63.8

76.5

39.2

36.6

50.5

77.5

91.5

76.8

89.0

73.4

60.6

44.9

47.3

77.3

79.4

51.5

0.25

17.8

15.0

46.3

22.9

15.6

23.6

59.0

97.4

96.1

89.4

97.3

30.1

28.5

38.2

37.3

20.6

11.9

22.2

21.1

50.1

26.4

43.9

44.5

39.0

32.8

24.7

40.3

57.2

85.9

61.0

76.0

62.7

44.5

30.7

29.4

54.4

54.9

36.7

0.125

9.8

8.6

26.5

13.1

8.8

15.9

2.3

6.3

3.9

3.9

4.8

18.7

19.0

23.1

23.9

12.2

6.6

15.7

15.0

33.7

17.5

30.1

24.7

20.8

23.8

16.0

33.3

40.8

76.3

31.8

56.1

49.0

28.2

19.7

18.0

33.9

34.1

22.4

0.063

4.1

3.0

11.5

5.8

4.2

8.7

.1

.2

.4

.7

1.5

11.1

12.7

14.6

13.2

5.8

2.7

10.0

9.6

20.1

11.9

16.7

10.5

10.8

8.8

9.2

23.0

27.5

53.3

10.2

27.8

30.5

16.5

11.1

9.1

20.5

20.7

10.6

100
Table A3. Particle-size distribution of soil samples in Washington Continued

Sample 

number

Ml

M2

M3

M4

M5

Ol

O2

O3

O4

O5

PI

P2

P3

P6(dup)

P4

P5

Rl

R2

R3

R4

R6(dup)

R5

Ul

U2

U3

U6(dup)

U4

U5

Percent of particles finer than indicated size, in millimeters

16.0

95.6

96.9

98.9

97.2

96.3

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

95.4

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

98.7

100.0

96.7

98.2

100.0

99.2

100.0

100.0

8.0

74.3

81.3

92.7

83.0

83.7

100.0

100.0

96.9

100.0

79.6

98.5

99.2

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

95.7

94.7

100.0

83.9

73.3

90.3

88.6

98.5

93.6

4.0

58.1

65.6

85.8

68.2

67.5

100.0

100.0

92.7

99.7

68.9

97.5

97.1

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

99.9

100.0

94.2

93.1

100.0

75.4

48.4

84.5

81.1

96.7

85.7

2.0

48.1

58.3

82.4

56.3

59.4

99.8

100.0

87.0

95.6

59.9

94.9

95.8

98.1

99.9

99.9

100.0

100.0

99.8

99.8

93.7

92.6

99.8

67.7

29.0

82.2

78.1

94.5

76.2

1.0

37.9

42.2

76.4

42.0

49.8

99.6

99.7

78.7

90.5

48.0

88.9

91.9

94.0

97.7

99.7

99.9

99.9

99.7

99.1

93.3

92.2

99.2

49.8

16.4

78.4

73.0

91.9

61.0

0.5

30.2

24.4

70.6

33.3

39.3

99.4

98.9

70.2

85.1

30.8

80.3

88.2

88.7

92.0

99.5

99.8

97.6

99.3

97.3

92.7

91.6

97.1

33.4

10.9

68.7

62.9

58.2

44.5

0.25

21.6

11.1

61.8

24.5

27.6

98.7

96.8

57.0

79.4

16.3

67.1

83.6

81.1

83.2

97.6

98.4

76.5

96.5

94.9

87.9

87.1

82.6

18.4

8.5

53.5

49.3

13.7

29.9

0.125

13.1

5.2

49.9

14.1

18.0

93.5

90.9

44.6

74.1

8.6

50.5

75.7

72.6

74.0

86.4

89.1

21.6

61.8

89.8

68.0

67.1

39.7

8.2

6.9

41.4

38.2

9.1

21.3

0.063

6.3

2.6

31.7

7.4

9.5

54.4

70.5

32.2

62.1

3.9

27.4

55.9

52.4

53.0

55.6

64.2

.7

11.0

70.9

23.3

22.5

13.8

3.5

5.1

28.3

25.7

5.6

12.1

RS1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 94.3 81.4 55.2 31.5 15.1

101
Table A4. Miscellaneous characteristics of soil samples in Washington

[Concentrations of carbon are in percent of dry soil; concentrations of TPH (Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons) and 

PCB's (Polychlonnated Biphenyls) are in milligrams per kilogram of dry soil; 1:1, pH values determined using 1:1 

mixture by weight of soil and deionized water; CaCl2, pH values determined after the addition of CaCl2 to me soilwater mixture; --, no data; (dup), indicates duplicate of preceding sample]

Sample 

number

Al

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6(dup)

Cl

C2

C3

C4

C5

Dl

D2

D3

D4

D5

Fl

F2

F6(dup)

F3

F4

F5

Gl

G2

G3

G4

G5

Jl

J2

J3

J4

J5

Carbon

Organic Inorganic

__ __

1.9 0.02

4.6 .04

__

.6 <.01

.6 <.01

3.6 <.01

__

1.0 <.01

3.9 .03

-

2.6 .03

__

__

1.4 <.01

3.0 .03

3.1 .04

11.9 .02

12.2 .01

__

.4 <.01

.9 <.01

__

_.

1.8 <.01

.7 <.01

.. ..

1.6 <.01

.7 <.01

__

1.5 <.01

1:1

5.4

5.1

5.7

5.3

5.7

5.6

7.5

6.7

6.4

7.0

5.3

4.8

5.9

5.3

5.0

5.2

5.8

6.0

5.9

5.5

6.6

6.3

6.0

5.9

6.0

6.0

5.2

7.9

7.3

7.3

8.0

6.8

pH

CaCl2

4.5

4.2

4.7

4.2

4.6

4.5

6.0

5.8

5.2

5.8

4.2

4.4

4.9

4.3

4.3

4.5

5.0

4.9

5.0

4.5

5.2

5.0

5.1

5.0

5.3

4.7

4.4

7.3

6.2

6.5

6.6

5.7

TPH PCB's

<40 <27

<40 <21

<40 <22*

<40 <19

<40 <19

<40 <19

<40 <10

<40 <10

<40 <10

<40 <10

<40 <20

<40 <17

<40 <17

<40 <17

<40 <18

<40 <22

<40 <12

<40 <10

<40 <10

<40 <10

<40 <18

<40 <17

<40 <17

<40 <17

<40 <18

<40 <18

<40 <18

<40 <21

<43 <18

<40 <16

<40 <16

<40 <16

102
Table A4. Miscellaneous characteristics of soil samples in Washington -Continued

Sample 

number

LI

L2

L3

L4

L6(dup)

L5

Ml

M2

M3

M4

M5

Ol

02

O3

O4

O5

PI

P2

P3

P6(dup)

P4

P5

Rl

R2

R3

R4

R6(dup)

R5

Ul

U2

U3

U6(dup)

U4

U5

RS1

RS(dup)

Carbon

Organic Inorganic

1.7 <.01

3.1 <.01

.8 <.01

.8 <.01

1.8 <0.01

2.2 <.01

__

1.3 <.01

--

__ _

.4 1.1

.8 .5

.5 .4

--

_

2.3 <.01

1.4 <.01

1.6 <.01

_.

1.7 <.01

2.9 .01

__

.4 <.01

.8 .2

..

.5 <.01

.6 <.01

__

--

.5 <.01

1.5 .02

1.5 .01

1:1

6.8

7.5

6.1

6.9

6.9

7.6

7.3

7.0

8.6

6.7

7.0

8.2

8.9

8.4

8.4

7.7

7.8

7.3

6.8

6.7

6.8

7.0

7.5

8.5

7.9

8.1

8.4

8.7

6.4

6.5

6.9

6.9

7.8

7.2

5.5

5.5

pH

CaCl2

5.5

6.6

5.3

6.2

6.2

7.4

6.5

7.0

8.2

6.1

5.9

7.4

7.6

7.6

7.7

6.7

7.2

6.4

5.9

5.9

5.9

6.0

6.6

8.1

7.0

8.1

7.9

7.7

5.6

5.6

6.3

5.6

6.5

6.1

5.0

5.1

TPH

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

_

PCB's

<20*

<22

<22

<19*

<22

<21*

<18*

<20*

<16*

<17*

<18

<17*

<17*

<17*

<17

<16

^ 1 0

<17

<17

<17

^ 1 0

<17

<16

^ 1 Q

<17

<16

<16

<16

<17*

<16*

<17*

<17*

<16*

<16

_

* Estimated; holding time prior to laboratory determinations exceeded.

103