# Element Concentrations in Soils and Other Surfici 

# 1Materials of the Conterminous United Stat

# Element Concentrations in Soils and Other Surficial Materials of the Conterminous United States
By HANSFORD T.

### SHACKLETTEand

### JOSEPHINE G. BOERNGEN

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 

### 1270
An account ofthe concentrationsof 

### 50chemical elements insamples of soils and otherregoliths

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1984

### UNITED STATES DEPARTMENTOFTHE INTERIOR WILLIAM P. CLARK, Secretary



### GEOLOGICALSURVEY 

### Dallas L. 

### Peck,

### Director

LibraryofCongress CataloginginPublicationData Shacklette,HansfordT. Element concentrationsinsoilsandother surficialmaterialsoftheconterminousUnitedStates. (GeologicalSurveyprofessionalpaper ;1270) Bibliography: 105p. Supt.ofDocs. No.: 1 19.16 1. SoiiUnited StatesÃ‘Composition I. Boerngen, JosephineG. 11. Title. 111. Series S699.AlS6 681.4'7'73 82-600084 AACR2

For sale by the Distribution Branch, U.S. Geological Survey, 604 South Pickett Street, Alexandria, VA 22304

## CONTENTS



## ............................................ Page Abstract 1 Introduction 

## .......................................... 1 Acknowledgments 

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

## ...................................... 2 Collection and analysis of geochemical data 

## ........................ Samplingplan 

## ....................................... 3 3 Samplingmedia 

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

## .............................. 5 Datapresentation 

## ....................................... 5 Discussion of results 

## ..................................... 7 References cited 

## ........................................ 9 

## ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURE1

## . Map showing location of sampling sites in the conterminous United States where elements not commonly detected in surficial deposits were found.



## ................ 2.47 

# . and the amounts of the elements present Maps showing element content of surficial materials in the conterminous

United States: 2

## . Aluminum 

## ................................ 3

## . Antimony 

## ................................ 4

## . Arsenic 

## ................................. 5

## . Barium 

## ................................. 6

## . Beryllium 

## ................................ 7

## . Boron 

## .................................. 8

## . Bromine 

## ................................. 9

## . Calcium 

## ................................. 10

## . Carbon (total) 

## ............................. 11

## . Cerium 

## ................................. 12

## . Chromium 

## ................................ 13

## . Cobalt 

## .................................. 14

## . Copper 

## ................................. 15

## . 

## ................................. 16

# . Fluorine Gallium 

## ................................. 17

## . Germanium 

## ............................... 18

## . Iodine 

## .................................. 19

## . Iron 

## ................................... 20

## . Lanthanum 

## ............................... 21

## . Lead 

## ................................... 22

## . Lithium 

## ................................. 23

## . Magnesium 

## ............................... 24

## . Manganese 

## ............................... 25

## . Mercury 

## ................................. 26

# . Molybdenum 

## .............................. 27

## . Neodymium 

## ............................... 28

## . .................................. 29

# . Nickel Niobium 

## ................................. 30

# . Phosphorus 

## ............................... 31

## . Potassium 

## ................................ 32

## . Rubidium 

## ................................ 33

## . Scandium 

## ................................ 34

## . Selenium 

## ................................. 36

## . Silicon 

## .................................. 36

## . Sodium 

## .................................CONTENTS
FIGURES 37.47 

## . Maps showing element content of surficial materials in the conterminous United States: 37

## . 

## ................................ 38

# . Strontium Sulfur 

## .................................. 39

## . Thorium 

## ................................. 40

## . 

## .................................... 41

# . Tin Titanium 

## ................................ 42

## . 

## ................................. 43

# . Uranium Vanadium 

## ................................ 44

## . Ytterbium 

## ................................ 45

## . Yttrium 

## ................................. 46

## . Zinc 

## ................................... 47

## . Zirconium 

## ................................

TABLES

Pw TABLE 1

## .



# . Average or median contents. and range in contents. reported for elements in soils and other surficial materials 

## . 

# . 4 2 Mean concentrations. deviations. and ranges of elements in samples of soilsand other surficialmaterials theconterminous Unitedstates 

## .......................................................... in 6

## ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILSAND OTHER SURFICIALMATERIALS OF THE CONTERMINOUSUNITED STATES By HANSFORD 

### T. SHACKLETTE 

### andJOSEPHINE

### G. 

### BOERNGEN

ABSTRACT Samples of soils or other regoliths, taken at a depth of approximately 20 cm from locationsabout 80km apart throughout the conterminous United States, were analyzed for their content of elements. In this manner, 1,318 sampling sites were chosen, and the results of the sample analyses for 50 elements were plotted on maps. The arithmetic and geometric mean, the geometric deviation, and a histogram showing frequencies of analytical values are given for 47 elements.

The lower concentrations of some elements (notably, aluminum, barium, calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, and strontium) in most samples of surficial materials from the Eastern United States, and the greater abundance of heavy metals in the same materials of the Western United States, indicates a regional geochemical pattern of the largest scale. The low concentrations of many elements in soils characterize the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Soils of the Pacific Northwest generally have high concentrations of aluminum, cobalt, iron, scandium, and vanadium, but are low in boron. Soils of the Rocky Mountain region tend to have high concentrations of copper, lead, and zinc. High mercury concentrations in surficialmaterials are characteristic of Gulf Coast sampling sites and the Atlantic coast sites of Connecticut, Massachuetts, and Maine. At the Statelevel, Florida has the most striking geochemical pattern by having soils that are low in the concentrations of most elements considered in this study. Some smaller patterns of element abundance can be noted, but the degree of confidence in the validity of these patterns decreases as the patterns becomeless extensive.


## INTRODUCTION The abundance of certain elements in soils and other surficial materials is determined not only by the element content of the bedrock or other deposits from which the materials originated, but also by the effects of climatic and biological factors aswell asby influences of agricultural and industrial operationsthat have acted on the materials for various periods of time. The diversity ofthese factors in a large areais expectedto result in a corresponding diversity in the element contents ofthe surficialmaterials.

At the beginning of this study (1961), few data were available on the abundance of elements in surficialmaterials of the United States as a whole. Most of the early reports discussed only the elements that were of economic importance to mining or agriculture in a metallogenic area or State; and the data, for the most part, cannot be evaluated with reference to average, or normal, amounts in undisturbed materials because they were based on samples of deposits expected to have anomalous amounts of certain elements, or were based only on samples fromcultivatedfields.

We began a sampling program in 1961that was designed to give estimates of the range of element abundance in surficial materials that were unaltered or very little altered from their natural condition, and in plants that grew on these deposits, throughout the conterminous United States. We believed that analyses of the surficial materials would provide a measure of the total concentrations of the elements that were present at the sampling sites, and that analysis of the plants would give an estimate of the relative concentrations among sites of the elements that existed in a chemical form that was available to plants. Because of the great amount of travel necessary to complete this sampling, we asked geologists and others of the U.S. Geological Survey to assist by collecting samples when traveling to and from their project areas and to contribute appropriate data they may have collected for other purposes. The reponse to this request, together with the samples and data that we had collected, resulted in our obtaining samples of surficial materials and plants from 863 sites. The analyses of surficialmaterials sampled in this phase of the study were published for 35 elements by plotting element concentrations, in two to five frequency classes, on maps (Shacklette, Hamilton, and others, 1971). Soon afterthe publication of the results ofthis study, interest in environmental matters, particularly in the effects of contamination and industrial pollution, increased greatly. At the same time, technological advances in analytical methods and data processing facilitated measurements of geochemical and other parameters of the environment. In response to the need for background data for concentrationsof certain elements ofparticular environmentalconcern, the samples of surficial materials that were collected for the first study (Shacklette,Hamilton, and others, 1971)(with some 

### ad-2 ELEMENTCONCENTRATIONSINSOILS, CONTERMINOUSUNITEDSTATES 

### ditional samples) were analyzed for other elements, and the results were published in U.S. Geological Survey Circulars: for mercury, Shacklette, Boerngen, and Turner (1971); for lithium and cadmium, by Shacklette, and others (1973); and for selenium, fluorine, and arsenic, Shacklette and others (1974).

The collection of samples for this study continued, as opportunities arose, until autumn 1975, resulting in the sampling of an additional 355 sites that were selected to give a more uniform geographical coverage of the conterminous United States. This sampling continuation is referred to as phase two. These samples were analyzed, and the data were merged with those of the original samples to produce the results given in the present report. In addition, the availability of analytical methods for elementsnot includedin the earlier reports permitted data to be given on these elementsin themorerecently collected samples.

The collection localities and dates, sample descriptions, and analytical values for each sample in the presentreport were published by Boerngen and Shacklette (1981). The elemental compositions of only the surficial materials are given in this report; the data on analyses oftheplant samples areheld in files ofthe U.S. Geological Survey.


### ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was made possible by the cooperation of many persons in the U.S. Geological Survey. We thank D. 

### F. Davidson, A. T. Miesch, J. 

### J. Connor, R. J. Ebens, and A. T. Myers for their interest in, 

### and continued support of, this study. The sampling plan was suggested by H. L. Cannon, who also contributed analytical datafrom herproject areasand samplesfrom her travel routes. Others of the Geological Survey who collected samples, and to whom we express gratitude, are: 

### J. M. Bowles, 

### F. A. Branson, R. A. Cadigan, F. 

### C. Canney, 

### F. W. Cater, Jr., M. A. ChafFey, Todd Church, J. 

### J. Connor, Dwight Crowder, R. 

### J. Ebens, 

### J. A. Erdman, G. L. Feder, G. B. Gott,W. R. Griffitts, T. P. Hill, E. K. Jenne, M. 

### I. Kaufman, J. R. Keith, Frank Kleinhampl, A. T. Miesch, 

### R. F. 

### Miller, R. C. Pearson, E. V. Post, Douglas Richman, R. C. Severson, James Scott, D. A. Seeland, 

### M. H. Staatz, T. A. Steven, M. H. Strobell, V. E. Swanson, R. R. Tidball, H. A. Tourtelot, 

### J. D. Vine, and R. W. White. We thank the following members of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service for providing soil samples from areas in Minnesota: D. D. Barren, C. R. Carlson, D. 

### E. DeMartelaire, R. R. Lewis, Charles Sutton, and Paul Nyberg.

We acknowledge the analytical support provided by the following U.S. Geological Survey chemists: Lowell Artis, Philip Aruscavage, 

### A. J. Bartel, S. 

### D. Bott L. A. Bradley, 

### J. W. Budinsky, Alice Caernmerer,, P. Cahill, E. 

### Y. Campbell, G. W. Chloe, Don Col E. 

### F. Cooley, N. M. Conklin, W. B. Crandell, Mauri Devalliere, 

### P. 

### L. D. Elmore, 

### E. 

### J. Finlay, Johm Gardner, 

### J. L. Glenn, T. 

### F. Harms, R. G. Haven R. 

### H. Heidel, M. B. Hinkle, Claude Huffman, Jr., 

### I B. Jenkins, R. 

### J. Knight, B. W. Lanthorn, L. 

### M. La K. W. Leong, J. B. McHugh, 

### J. D. Mensik, V. 

### M. Ma ritt, H. 

### T. Millard, Jr., Wayne Mountjoy, H. 

### 11 Nakagawa, H. G. Neiman, Uteana Oda, C. S. E. Pap] R. L. Rahill, V. E. Shaw, G. D. Shipley, Hezeld Smith, A. 

### J. Sutton, 

### Jr., 

### J. A. Thomas, Barbara Tobit 

### J.E. Troxel,

### J. H. Turner, and G. H. Vansickle.

We were assisted in computer programming for 

### th data by the following persons of the US. Geologic! Survey: W. A. Buehrer, G. 

### I. Evenden, 

### J. B. Fifq Allen Popiel, M. R. Roberts, W. C. Schomburg, G. 

### 1 ' 

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

### ad R. R. Wahl.



### REVIEW OFLITERATURE The literature on the chemical analysis of soils 

### ad other surficial materials in the United States is exteit sive and deals largely with specific agricultural prob lemsofregional interest. Many ofthepapers were writ

### ten by soil scientistsand chemists associated with State agricultural experiment stations and colleges of agriculture, and most reports considered only elements 

### that were known to be nutritive or toxic to plants or ani 

### mals.

Chemists with the U.S. Department of Agriculture prepared most early reports of element abundance in 

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

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

### trace elements in soils. Amounts of the major elements in soil samples from a few soil profiles distributed throughout the United Stateswere compiled by the soil scientist C. 

### F. Marbut (1935) to illustrate characteristics of soilunits.

The use of soil analysis in geochemical prospecting began in this country in the 1940's, and many reports were published on the element amounts in soils from areas where mineral deposits were known or suspected to occur. Most of these reportsincluded only a few elements in soils from small areas. This early geochemical work was discussed by Webb (1953) and by Hawkes (1957). In succeeding years, as soil analyses became an accepted method of prospecting and as 

### analyticalmethods were improved, many elements in soils were analyzed; still, theareas studied were commonly small.

An estimate of the amounts of elements in average, or normal, soils is useful in appraising the amounts of elementsin a soil sample asrelated toagricultural, mineralprospecting, environmental quality, and health and disease investigations. Swaine (1955) gave an extensive bibliography of trace-element reports on soils of the world, and he also summarized reports of the average amounts of elements as given by several investigators. The most comprehensive list of average amounts ofrare and dispersed elements in soils is that of Vinogradov (1959), who reported the analytical results of extensive studies of soils in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, as well as analyses of soils from other countries. He did not state the basis upon which he established the average values; however, these values arepresumably the arithmeticmeans of element amounts in samples from throughout the world. In their discussions of the principles of geochemistry, Goldschmidt (1954) and Rankarna and Sahama (1955) reported the amounts of various elements present in soils and in other surficial materials, Hawks and Webb (1962) and, more recently, Brooks (1972), Siegal(1974), Levinson (1974), and Rose and others (1979) gave average amounts of certain elements in soils asuseful guidesin mineral exploration.

A report on the chemical characteristics of soils was edited by Bear (1964). In this book, the chapter on chemical composition of soils by Jackson (1964) and the chapter on trace elements in soils by Mitchell (1964) gave the ranges in values or the average amounts of some soilelements.

Regional geochemical studies conducted by scientists of the U.S. Geological Survey within the past two decades have been largely directed to the establishment of baseline abundances of elements in surficial materials, including soils. Most of the earlier work investigated these materials that occurred in their natural condition, having little or no alterations that related to human activities, with the objective of establishing nerma1 element concentrations in the materials by which anomalousconcentrations, both natural orman induced, could bejudged. Some of these studies were conducted in cooperation with medical investigators who were searching for possible relationships of epidemiological patterns to characteristics of the environment. In one study, the geochemical characteristics of both natural and cultivated soils were determined in two areas of Georgiathathad contrastingrates ofcardiovascular diseases (Shacklette and others, 1970). In an extensive geochemical study of Missouri, also conducted cooperatively with medical researchers, both cultivated and natural soils were sampled. The results were presented for the State as a whole, and for physiographic regions or other subdivisions and smaller areas, as follows: Erdman and others (1976a, 1976b);Tidball(1976, 1983a, 1983b); and Ebens and others (1973). The results of these studies, and of otherregional geochemicalinvestigations, were summarized and tabulated by Connor and Shacklette (1975).

Recent regional studies of soil geochemistry by the U.S. Geological Survey related to the development of energy resources in the western part of the United States, including North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico. These studies established regional geochemical baselines for soils, both in undisturbed areas and in areas that had been altered by mining and related activities. Some of these studies considered the elements in soils both as total concentrations and as concentra-, tions that were available to plants of the region. The results of these studies were published in annual progress reports (U.S. Geological Survey, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, and 1978). The data on soils, as well as on other natural materials, in these reports were summarized and tabulated by Ebens and Shacklette (1981). In a study of the elements in fruits and vegetables from 11 areas of commercial production in the United States, and in the soils on which this produce grew, soils were analyzed for 39 elements, asreported by Boerngen and Shacklette (1980) and Shacklette(1980).

The average amounts of elements in soils and other surficial materials of the United States, as determined in the present study, are given in table 1, with the average values or ranges in values that were reported by Vinogradov (1959), Rose and others (1979), Jackson (1964), Mitchell (1964), and Brooks (1972). The averages from thepresent studygiven in table 1arethe arithmetic means. Although the averages were computed by the methods described by Miesch (1967), the values obtained are directly comparable with the arithmetic means derived by common computational procedures. 

### 3 COLLECTIONANDANALYSISOF GEOCHEMICAL DATA



### COLLECTIONANDANALYSIS OF GEOCHEMICALDATA
SAMPLINGPLAN The sampling plan was designed with the emphasis on practicality, in keepingwith theexpendituresoftime and funds available, and its variance from an ideal plan has been recognized from the beginning. Because the collection of most samples was, by necessity, incidental to other duties of the samplers, the instructions for sampling were simplified as much as possible, so that sampling methods would be consistent within the wide range of kinds of sitestobe sampled. The sampleswereELEMENTCONCENTRATIONSIN SOILS, CONTERMINOUSUNITEDSTATES



### collected by U.S. Geological Survey personnel along their routes of travel 

### to areas of other types of field studiesorwithintheir project areas.

The locations of the routes that were sampled depended on both the network of roads that existed and the destinations of the samplers. Sampling intensity was kept at a 

### minimum by selecting only one sampling site every 80 

### krn (about 50 

### miles; selected for convenience because vehicle odometers were calibrated in miles) along the routes. The specific sampling sites were selected,insofaras 

### possible, that had 

### surficialmaterials that were very little altered from their natural condition and that supported native plants suitable for sampling. In practice, this site selection necessitated sampling away 

### from roadcuts and fills. 

### In some areas, 

### only cultivatedfieldsand plants were availablefor sampling. Contamination of the sampling sites by vehicular emissions was seemingly insignificant, even though many siteswere within 100

### m or less of theroads. ColTABLE 1.-Average ormediancontents,and range in contents,reportedfor elementsinsoils andotheraurficial materials [DataÂ¥rinpartapermillion;eachavengerepresentsarithmeticmean;leaden (4 infigurecolumnsindicatenodataavailable.A, avenge;M,median. <, leuthan; >, greaterthan1

This report Rose, and others (1979) (elements Vinogradov (1959) Jackson (1964) Mitchell (1964) Brooks (1972) useful in (presumably, Element geochemical averages from "Typical", Range in prospecting) worldwide average, contents in Average Range sampling) or range Scottish sur- Average or in values face soils range

6.2 (M) 30 30
320 (M) 2.5 (A)



### ....................... 6,300 8 50

2 6,300 <6,000



### ------------------- 200 

### - 5,000 <1 

### - 5 850 2.5

15 (A) 15
17 (M) 40 10 

### - 800 40 300 (M) 800 500 17 (M) <20 

### - 80 10

100 

### - 2,000 850

2 (A) 7 <3 

### - 15 .5 

### --------- - 0.31 (M) -001 -5

l~uthor's usage; generally used to indicate the most commonly occurring value.5 DATAPRESENTATION lecting samples at about 20 cm depth, rather than at the upper soil horizons, may have avoided the effects of surface contamination on the samples. However, we had no adequate way of measuring any contamination that may have occurred. (See Cannon and Bowles, 1962.) Many of the sampled routes had only light vehicular traffic, and some were new interstate highways. Routes through congested areas generally were not sampled; therefore, no gross contamination of the samples was expected. The study areasthat were sampled follow: Wisconsin and parts of contiguous States, southeastern Missouri, Georgia, and Kentucky, sampled by Shacklette; Kentucky, sampled by 

### J. J. Connor and R. R. Tidball; Nevada, New Mexico, and Maryland, sampled by 

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

### F. A. Branson and R. 

### F. Miller; Missouri, sampled by Shacklette, 

### J. A. Erdman, 

### J. R. Keith, and R. R. Tidball; and various locations in Colorado, Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming, sampled by A. T. Miesch and 

### J. J. Connor. Sampling techniques used in these areas varied according to the primary objectives of the studies being conducted, but generally these techniques were closely similar to the methods used in sampling alongtheroads.

Ingeneral, the sampling within study areaswas more intensive than that along the travel routes. To make the sampling intensity of the two sampling programs more nearly equal, only the samples from selected sites in the study areas were used for this report. The selected sites were approximately 80 

### km apart. Where two ormore samples were collected from one site, they were assigned numbers, and one of these samples was randomlychosen for evaluationin this study.
SAMPLINGMEDIA The material sampled at most sites could be termed "soil" because it was a mixture of comminuted rock and organic matter, it supported ordinary land plants, and it doubtless contained a rich microbiota. Some of the sampled deposits, however, were not soils as defined above, but were other kinds of regoliths. The regoliths included desert sands, sand dunes, some loess deposits, and beach and alluvial deposits that contained little or no visible organic matter. In some places the distinctions between soils and other regoliths are vague because the materials of the deposits are transitional between the two. Samples were collected from a few deposits consisting mostly of organicmaterials that would ordinarily be classified aspeat, ratherthan soil.

To unify sampling techniques, the samplers were asked tocollectthe samples ata depth of approximately 20 cm below the surface of the deposits. This depth was chosen as our estimate of a depth below the plow zone that would include parts of the zone of illuviation 

### in most welldeveloped zonal soils, and as a convenient depth for sampling other surficial materials. Where the thickness of the material was less than 20 cm, as in shallowsoilsoverbedrock orin lithosols overlarge 

### rock fragments, samples were taken of the material that lay iust above the rock deposits. About 0.25 liter of this material was collected, put in a 

### kraft paper envelope, and shipped to the US. Geological Survey laboratories in Denver, Colo. CHEMICAL-ANALYSIS PROCEDURES The soil samples were oven dried in the laboratory and then sifted through a 2-mm sieve. If the soil material would not pass this sieve, the sample was pulverized in a ceramic mill before serving. Finally, the sifted, minus 2-mm fraction of the sample was used for analysis.

The methods of analysisused for some elementswere changed during the course of this study, as new techniques and instrumentsbecame available. For most elements, the results published in the first report (Shacklette, Hamilton, and others, 1971)were obtained by use of a semiquantitative six-step emission spectrographic method (Meyers and others, 1961). The methods used for other elements were: EDTA titration for calcium; colorimetric (Ward and others, 1963) for phosphorus and zinc; and flame photometry for potassium. Many of the elements analyzed in the 355 samples collected in phase two of the study were also analyzed by the emission spectrographic method (Neirnan, 1976). Other methods were used for the following elements: flame atomic absorption (Huffman and Dinnin, 1976)for mercury, lithium, magnesium, sodium, rubidium, and zinc; flameless atomic absorption (Vaughn, 1967) for mercury; X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (Wahlberg, 1976) for calcium, germanium, iron, potassium, selenium, silver, sulfur, and titanium; combustion (Huffman and Dinnin, 1976)for total carbon; and neutron activation (Millard, 1975, 1976)forthorium and uranium. 

### DATA PRESENTATION Summary data for 46 elements are reported in tables 1and 2. In table 1, the element concentrations found in samples of soil and other surficial materials of this study arecompared with those in soilsreported in other studies. Arithmetic means are used for the data of this study to make them more readily compared with the data generally reported in the literature. These arithmetic means were derived from the estimated geometric means by using a technique described by Miesch (1967), which is based on methods devised by Cohen (1959) and Sichel (1952). The arithmetic means in table6 ELEMENTCONCENTRATIONSINSOILS, CONTERMINOUSUNITED STATES 

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

### are estimates of geochemical abundance (Miesch, 1967). Arithmetic means arealwayslargerthan corresponding geometric means (Miesch, 1967, p. Bl) and are estimates of the fractional part of a single specimen that 

### consists of the element of concern rather than of the typical concentration of the element in a 

### suite of 

### samples.

TABLE 2.-Mean concentnaturns, deviations, and ranges of elements in samples of soils and other surficial materiala in the contermimnis UnitedState8 [Means and ranged we reported in parts per million Wg),and means and deviationswe geometric except as indicated. Ratio, number of samples in which the element was found inmeasurableconcentrationstonumberofsamplesanalyzed. <, leÃthan;>, greaterthan]

- --- Conterminous Weatern United States Eastern United States United States (west of 96th meridian) (east of 96th meridian) Element Estimated Estimated Estimated Devia- arithmetic Devia- Observed arithmetic Devia- Observed arithmetic Mean tion mean Ratio Mean tion range mean Ratio Mean tion range mean
Al, percent As--------- 7.2 7.2 7.4 7.0 B---------- Ba

### --------- 33 580 29 670 Be~------ .92 .97
.85 .86 2.5 2.5 2.4 3.3 75 75 9.1 9.0 cp-------- 54 56 cu--------- 25 27 F---------- 430 440 Fe, percent Ga

### --------- 2.6 17 2.6 19
1.2 1.2

.089 .065 1.2 1.2 None None

37 37 Li-

### ------- 24 25 Mg, percent Up-------- .90 550 1.0 480 MO--------- .97 1.1 Na, percent 1.2 1.2
11 10 46 43 19 19 430 460 19 20
Re------ 67 74 S, percent- Sb--------- .16 .67 .19 .62 Sc--------- se--

### ------- 8.9 .39 9.6 .34
None None

1.3 1.2 SF-------- 240 270 Ti, percent Th--------- .29 9.4 .26 9.8
2.7 2.7 80 88 25 25 3.1 3.0 60 65 230 190

%leans are arithmetic, deviations are standard. 

### Concentrations of 46 

### elements in samples of this studyarepresented in 

### table2, 

### which givesthedetermination ratios, geometric-meanconcentrations and deviations, and observed ranges in 

### concentrations. The analytical data for most elements 

### as received from the laboratories were transformed into logarithms because of the tendency for elements in 

### natural materials, particularly the trace elements, to have positively skewed7 DISCUSSIONOF RESULTS frequency distributions. For this reason, the geometric mean is the more proper measure of central tendency for these elements. The frequency distributions for potassium and silicon, on the other hand, are more nearly normal if the data are not transformed to logarithms and the mean isexpressed as the arithmeticaverage.

In geochemical background studies, the magnitude of scatter tobe expected around the mean is asimportant as the mean. In lognormal distributions, the geometric deviation measures this scatter, and this deviation may be used to estimate the range of variation expected for an element in the material being studied. About 68 percent of the samples in a randomly selected suite should fall within the limits MID and M-D, where M represents the geometric mean and D the geometric deviation. About 95 percent should fall between 

### MI# and M.D2, and about 99.7 percent betweenMID3andMe@.

The analytical data for some elements include values that are below, or above, the limits of numerical determination, and these values are expressed as less than (<) or greater than (>) a stated value. These data are said to be censored, and for these the mean was computed by using a technique described by Cohen (1959) and applied to geochemical studies by Miesch (1967). This technique requires an adjustment of the summary statistics computed for the noncensored part of the data. The censoring may be so severe in certain sets of data that a reliable adjustment cannot be made; with the data sets used in the present study, however, no such circumstanceswere encountered. The use of these procedures in censored datato quantify the central tendency may result in estimates of the mean that are lower than the limit of determination. For example, in table 2 the geometric-mean molybdenum concentration in soils from the Eastern United States is estimated to be 0.32 ppm, although the lower limit of determination of the analytical method that was used is 3 ppm. Use of this procedure permits inclusion of the censored values in the calculation of expected mean concentrations.

The determination ratios in table %that is, the ratio of the number of samples in which the element was found in measurable concentrations to the total number of samples~permit the number of censored values, if any, tobe found thatwere used in calculating themean. This number is found by subtracting the left value in theratio from theright.

The distribution of the sampling sites and the concentrations of elements determined for samples from the sites arepresented on maps oftheconterminous United States (figs. 147).Figure 1 showsthe locations of sites where four elements, bismuth, cadmium, praseodymium, and silver, were found in the samples. These elements were determined too uncommonly for reliable mean concentrations to be calculated. Each of the remaining maps (figs. 247)gives the locations where an element was found in a sample from a site and the concentration of the element, shown by a symbol that represents a class of values. By examining the tables of frequency for concentration values of the elements, we were able to divide the ranges of reported values for many elements into five classes so that approximately 20 percent of the values fell into each class. The limited range in values for some elements, however, prohibited the use of more than two or three classes to represent the total distribution. Symbols representing the classes were drawn on the maps by an automatic plotter that was guided by computer classification of the data, includingthe latitude and longitude of the sampling sites. A histogram on each map gives the frequency distribution of the analytical values, and the assignment of analytical values to each class as represented by symbols.

We were able to obtain analyses of 11more elements for the 355 samples of phase two of this study than for the 963 samples of phase one because of improved analytical methods and services. These elements areantimony, bromine, carbon, germanium, iodine, rubidium, silicon, sulfur, thorium, tin, and uranium. The constraintsof resources and time prohibited analysis of the 963 samples of the first phase for these additional elements. Results of -analysis of the plant samples that were collected at all soil-sampling sites are not presented in thisreport.

Some elements were looked for in all samples but were not found. These elements, analyzed by the semiquantitative spectrographic method, and their approximate lower detection limits, in parts per million, are as follows: gold, 20; hafnium, 100;indium, 10; platinum, 30;palladium, 1;rhenium, 30; tantalum, 200;tdurium, 2,000; and thallium, 50. If lanthanum or cerium were found in a sample, the following elements, with their stated lower detection limits, were looked for in the same sample but were not found: dysprosium, 50; erbium, 50; gadolinium, 

### 50; holmium, 20; lutetium, 30; terbium, 300; andthulium, 20.



## DISCUSSIONOF RESULTS The data presented in this report may reveal evidence of regional variations in abundances of elements in soilsorotherregoliths; single values or smallclusters of values on the maps may have little significance if considered alone. Apparent differences in values shown between certain sampling routes, such as some of those across the Great Plains and the North Central States where high values for cerium, cobalt, gallium, and lead predominate, suggest the possibility of systematic er-

### 8 ELEMENTCONCENTRATIONSIN SOILS, CONTERMINOUSUNITED STATES

rors in sampling or in laboratory analysis. Some gross patterns and some of lesser scale, nevertheless, are evident in the compositional variation of regoliths, as showninfigures2-47. The lower abundancesof some elements (notably aluminum, barium, calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, and strontium) in regoliths of the Eastern United States, and the greater abundances oftheheavy metals in the same materials of the Western United States indicate a regional pattern of the largest scale. This visual observation of the maps can be substantiated by examining the mean concentrations for these two regions given in table 

### 2. The abundances of these elements differ markedlyon either sideof a line extending from western Minnesota southward through east-cen

### td Texas. This line is generally from the 96th to 97th meridian, and corresponds to the boundary proposed by Marbut (1935, p. 14), which divides soils of the United States into two major groups-the pedalfers that lie to the east, and the pedocals to the west. Marbut (1928) attributed the major differences in chemical and physical qualities of these two major groups to the effectsof climateon soils. A line approximatingthe 96th meridian also separates the Orders, Suborders, and Great Groups of moist-to-wet soils in the Eastern United Statesfrom the samecategoriesofdry soilsthat lie to the west, asmapped by the [U.S.] Soil Conservation Service (1969). As shown in table 2, soils of the Western United States have the highest mean values for 

### all elements considered in this report except for antimony, boron, bromine, mercury, neodymium, seleni

### um, titanium, and zirconium. The differences, however, probably are not significant for these latter elements, exceptforzirconium. Superimposed upon this large-scale compositional variation pattern are several features of intermediate scale. Perhaps the most notable of these are the low concentrations of many elements in soils of the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Soils of the Pacific Northwest are high in concentrationsof aluminum, cobalt, iron, scandium, and vanadium, but low in boron, and soils of the Rocky Mountain region tend 

### to be high in copper, lead, and zinc.

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

### Gulf Coast of eastern Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and northwest Florida, and a similarpattern on theAtlantic Coast in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Maine. High phosphorus values occur in soils along a line extending west across

### Utah and Nevada to the coast of California, then south-east in Californiaand Arizona. At the State level, Florida shows the most striking pattern by having low soil concentrationsof most of the elements consideredin this study.

The concentrations of certain elements do not show well-defined patterns of distribution, and the regional concentrations of some other elements cannot 

### be evaluated because they were not present in detectable amounts in most of the samples, or because the sampling density was insufficient. The degree of confidence in regional patterns of element abundance is expected to be in direct proportion 

### to the number of samples analyzed from the region. As the observedpatterns 

### become smaller, the probabilityincreases that the characteristics that form the patterns are the results of chance. Some features of element-abundance patterns probably reflect geologic characteristics of the areas that the soils overlie. Samplesfrommost oftheregoliths overlying basic volcanic rocks of Washington and Oregon contained higher than average concentrations of iron and other elements, as mentioned earlier. A few soil samples with high phosphorus content are associated with phosphate deposits in Florida, and a single sample in Michigan with high copper content is known to be of soilthat occursover a copper deposit.

These datadonot provide obviousevidencesofnorthsouth trends in elemental compositions that might be expected to relate to differences in temperature regimes under which the surficial materials developed. There is, moreover, no consistent evidence of significant differences in element abundances between glaciated and nonglaciated areas (the general area of continental glaciation includes the northern tier of States from Montana to Maine and south in places to aboutlat 40Â°N. seefig. 1). The world averages of abundance for some elements in soils, as given by Vinogradov (1959) and by others (table I), do not correspond to the averages of abundance for these elements in the soils of the United States, according 

### to the data presented in this report. The world averages are too low for the concentrations of boron, calcium, cerium, lead, magnesium, potassium, and sodium in United States soils and other surficial materials, and too high for beryllium, chromium, gallium, manganese, nickel, phosphorus, titanium, vanadium, and yttrium.

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

### 355 samples of phase two of the study to values for 963 samples of the first phase did not significantlychangethegeometricmeans and deviations of element abundance that were reported earlier (Shacklette, Boerngen, and Turner, 1971; Shacklette, Hamilton, and others, 1971; Shacklette and others,9 REFERENCESCITED 1973, 1974). Although additional sampling of the same 

### type 

### as reported here might give a clearer picture of small-to-intermediate element-abundance patterns, mean values reported herein most likely would not change significantly. 

### REFERENCES CITED Bear, F. E., ed., 1964, Chemistry of the soil [2d ed.]: New York, Reinhold Publishing Corp., 515p. Boerngen, J. G., and Shacklette, H. T., 1980, Chemical analyses of fruits, vegetables, and their associated soils from areas of commercial production in the conterminous United States: U.S. GeologicalSurvey Open-File Report 80-84,134 p. -1981, Chemical analysis of soils and other surficial materials ofthe conterminousUnited States: U.S. Geological SurveyOpenFile Report 81-197, 143p. Brooks, R. R., 1972, Geobotany and biogeochemistry in mineral exploration: New York, Harper and Row, 290p. Cannon, H. L., and Bowles, J. M., 1962, Contaminationofvegetation by tetraethyl lead: Science, v. 137,no. 3532, p. 765-766. Cohen,A. C., Jr., 1959, Simplified estimators forthe normaldistribution when samples are singly censored or truncated: Technometrics, v. 1,no. 3, p. 217-237. Connor,J. J., and Shacklette, H. T., 1975, Background geochemistry of some rocks, soils, plants, and vegetables in the conterminous United States, with sections an Field studies by R. J. Ebens, J. A. Erdman, A. T. Miesch, R. R. Tidball, and H. A. Tourtelot: US. Geological SurveyProfessionalPaper 574-F, 168p. Ebens, R. J., Erdman, J. A., Feder, G. L., Case, A. A., and Selby, L. A., 1973, Geochemical anomalies of a claypit area, Callaway County, Missouri, and related metabolic imbalance in beef cattle: US. Geological Survey ProfessionalPaper 807,24p. Ebens, R. J., and Shacklette, H. T., 1981, Geochemistry of some rocks, mine spoils, stream sediments, soils, plants, and waters in the western energy region of the conterminous United States, with sections on Field studies by B. M. Anderson, J. G. Boerngen, J. J. Connor, W. E. Dean, J. A. Erdman, G. L. Feder, L. P. Gough, J. R. Herring, T. K. Hinkley, J. R. Keith, R. W. Klusman,J. M. McNeal, C. D. Ringrose, R. C. Severson, and R. R. Tidball: US. Geological Suwey Professional Paper 1237, 173p. Erdman,J. A., Shacklette, H. T., and Keith, J. R., 1976a, Elemental composition of selected native plants and associated soils from major vegetation-type areas in Missouri: U.S. Geological Survey ProfessionalPaper 954-C, p. C1-37. -1976b, Elemental composition of corn grains, soybean seeds, pasture grasses, and associated soils from selected areas in Missouri: US. Geological Suwey Professional Paper 9WD, p. DlD23. Goldschmidt, V. M., 1954, Geochemistry: Oxford, Clarendon Press, 730P. Hawkes, H. E., 1957, Principles of geochemical prospecting: US. GeologicalSuweyBulletin 10WF,p. 225-355. Hawkes, H. E., and Webb, J. S., 1962, Geochemistry in mineral exploration: New York, N. Y., and Evanston, Ill., Harper and Row, 415 p. Huffman, Claude, Jr., and Dinnin, J. I., 1976, Analysis of rocks and soil by atomic absorption spectrometry and other methods, in Miesch, A. T., Geochemicalsurvey of MissouriÃ‘Method of sampling, laboratory analysis, and statistical reduction of data: US. GeologicalSuweyProfessionalPaper 954-A, p. 12-14. Jackson, M. L., 1964, Chemical composition of soils, in Bear, F. E., ed., Chemistry of the soil [2d 4.1: New York, Reinhold Publishing Corp., p. 71-141. Levinson, A. A., 1974, Introduction toexploration geochemistry: Calgary, Applied Publishing, Ltd., 612p. Marbut, C. F., 1928, Classification, nomenclature, and mapping of soilsin the United States-The Americanpoint of view: Soil Science, v. 25, p. 61-70. -1935, Soils of the United States, pt. 3 of Atlas of American agriculture: Washington, D.C., US. Government Printing Office, 98PMcMurtrey, J. E., Jr., and Robinson, W. O., 1938, Neglected soil constituents that affect plant and animal development, in Soils and men-Yearbook ofAgriculture 1938:Washington, D.C., U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office,p. 807-829. Miesch, A. T., 1967, Methods ofcomputationfor estimating geochemical abundance: US. Geological Survey ProfessionalPaper 574-B, 15p. Millard, H. T., Jr., 1975, Determination of uranium and thorium in rocks and soilsby the delayed neutrontechnique, in U.S. Geological Survey, Geochemical survey of the western coal region, seeond annual progress report, July 1975: US. Geological Suwey Open-FileReport 75-436, p. 79-81. -1976, Determination ofuranium and thorium in U.S.G.S. standard rocks by the delayed neutron technique, in Flanagan, F. J., ed. and compiler, Description and analyses of eight new U.S.G.S. rock standards: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 840,p. 61-65. Mitchell, R. L., 1964, Trace elements in soils, in Bear, F. E., ed., Chemistry of the soil [2d ed.]: New York, Reinhold Publishing Corp., p. 320-368. Myers, A. T., Havens, R. G., and Dunton, P. J., 1961, A spectrochemical method for the semiquantitative analysis of rocks, minerals, and ores: US. Geological Suwey Bulletin 1084-1, p. 207-229. Neiman, H. G., 1976, Analysis of rocks, soils, and plant ashes by emission spectroscopy, in Miesch, A. T., Geochemical survey of MissouriÃ‘Method of sampling, laboratory analysis, and statistical reduction of data: U.S. Geological SuweyProfessional Paper 594-A,p. 14-15. Rankama, K. K., and Sahama, T. G., 1956, Geochemistry: Chicago, ChicagoUniversityPress, 912p. Robinson, W. O., 1914, The inorganic composition of some important American soils: U.S. Department of Agriculture Bulletin 122, 27 p. Robinson, W. O.,Steinkoenig, L. A., and Fry, W. H., 1917,Variation in the chemical composition of soils: U.S. Department of Agriculture Bulletin551, 16p. Rose, A. W., Hawkes, H. E., and Webb, J. S., 1979, Geochemistry in mineral exploration [2d 4.1: London, Academic Press, 658P. Shacklette, H. T., 1980, Elements in fruits and vegetables from areas of commercial production in the conterminous United States: U.S. Geological Survey ProfessionalPaper 1178, 149p. Shacklette, H. T., Boerngen, J. G., Cahill, J. P., and Rahill, R. L., 1973, Lithium in surficial materials of the conterminous United States and partial data on cadmium: US. Geological Survey Circular 673,8p. Shacklette, H. T., Boerngen, J. G., and Keith, J. R., 1974, Selenium, fluorine, and arsenic in surficial materials of the conterminous United States: US. Geological Suwey Circular 692, 14p. Shacklette, H. T., Boerngen, J. G., and Turner, R. L., 1971,Mercury in the environmentÃ‘Surficia materials of the conterminous10 ELEMENTCONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUS UNITEDSTATES United States: U.S. GeologicalSurveyCircular 644,5p. Shacklette, H. T., Hamilton, J. C., Boerngen, J. G., and Bowles, J. M., 1971, Elemental composition of surficial materials in the conterminous United States: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 574-D, 71p. Shacklette, H. T., Sauer, H. I., and Miesch, A. T., 1970, Geochemical environments and cardiovascularmortalityratesin Georgia: U.S. GeologicalSurvey ProfessionalPaper 574439p. Sichel, H. S., 1952,New methods in the statistical evaluation of mine sampling data: Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Transactions, V. 61, p. 261-288. Siegel, F. R., 1974, Applied geochemistry: New York, John Wiley and Sons, 353p. Swain, D. J., 1955, The trace-element content of soils: England Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau, Commonwealth Bureau of Soil ScienceTechnicalCommunication48, 157p. Tidball, R. R., 1976, Chemicalvariation of soilsin Missouri associated with selected levels of the Soil Classification System: U.S. GeologicalSurvey ProfessionalPaper 954-B, 16p. -1983a, Geography of soil geochemistry of Missouri agricultural soils, in Geochemicalsurvey of Missouri: U.S. Geological Survey ProfessionalPaper 954-H, inpress. -1983b, Geochemicalclassificationby factor analysis of Missouri agricultural soils, in Geochemical survey of Missouri: US. GeologicalSurvey ProfessionalPaper 954-1, inpress. U.S. Geological Survey, 1974, Geochemical survey of the western coalregions, firstannualprogress report,July 1974:U.S. GeologicalSurveyOpen-File Report 74-250,38 p. -1975, Geochemical survey of the western coal regions, second annualprogress report, July 1975: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 7546,132p. -1976, Geochemicalsurveyof thewestern energy regions, third annualprogress report, July 1976: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 76-729, 138p. 

### + appendix, 44p. -1977, Geochemical Survey of the western energy regions, fourth annual progress report, July 1977: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 774'72,207 p. -1978, Geochemicalsurvey of the western energy regions, fifth annual progress report, July 1978: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 78-1106, 194p. [U.S.] Soil conservation Service, 1969, Distribution of principal kinds of soilsÃ‘Orders Suborders, and Great Groups, inNationalAtlas of the United States of America: US. Geological Survey, Sheet 6,2 P. Vaughn, W. W., 1967,A simplemercuryvapor detector for geochemicalprospecting: U.S. GeologicalSurvey Circular 540,8p. Vinogradov, A. P., 1959, The geochemistry of rare and dispersed chemical elements in soils [2d ed., revised and enlarged]: New York, Consultants Bureau Enterprises, 209 p. Wahlberg, J. S., 1976, Analysis of rocks and soils by X-ray fluorescence, in Miesch, A. T., Geochemical survey of MissouriÃ Methods of sampling, laboratory analysis, and statistical reduction of data: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 954-A, p. 11-12. Ward, F. N., Lakin, H. W., Canney, F. C., and others, 1963,Analytical methods used in geochemical exploration by the U.S. Geological Survey: U.S. Geological SurveyBulletin 1152, 100p. Webb, J. S., 1963, A review of American progress in geochemical prospecting and recommendations for future British work in this field: Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Transactions, v. 62, pt. 7, p. 321-348.

## ILLUSTRATIONSOKLAHOM/

TEXAS

500 MILES

FIGURE 1.-Location of sampling sites in the conterminous United States where elements not commonly detected in surficial deposits werefound, andthe amountsofthe elements present,in partspermillion,in parentheses.ELEMENTCONCENTRATIONSIN SOILS,CONTERMINOUSUNITEDSTATES ILLUSTRATIONS

0 500 MILES

AMOUNT. IN PERCENT I I I I I 1 1 \ \ \ \

, I I I I I I I I I I I 

### lo0 94O 92' 90' 88Â 86' 84' 82' 80Â 78Â 76' 74O 104' 102O 1 100Â 106' 98' 118' 116' 114' llZO 108' FIGURE 2.-Aluminum contentofsurficialmaterials.AMOUNT. IN PARTS PER MILLION

I 1 I 1 \ \ I I I I I 

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

### lo0 98' 94O 92Â 90' 88' 86' 84' 82' 80Â 78' 76' 74O 118' 116' 114' 112O 1 108" 106O 104" 102O 1OW FIGURE 3.-Antimony contentofsurficialmaterials.ELEMENTCONCENTRATIONSIN SOILS, CONTERMINOUSUNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS

AMOUNT, IN PARTSPER MILLION

FIGURE 4.-Arsenic contentofsurficialmaterials.FIGURE 5.-Barium contentofsurficialmaterials.AMOUNT IN PARTS PER MILLION 22O I I I I 

# - I I I I 1 1 1 \ 1 \ \ I I I I I I I 98' 94O 92' 90' 88' 86" 84" 82' 80Â 78' 76' 74O 108' 118' 116' 114O llZO 110Â 106O 

## 1w 102O 1OoO
FIGURE 6.-Beryllium contentofsurficialmaterials.ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONSIN SOILS, CONTERMINOUSUNITEDSTATES ILLUSTRATIONS

AMOUNT. IN PARTS PER MILLION I I I I I / I I I - I I I I A I 1 1 1 I \ 1 102" 98' 94O 92' 90' 86' 84Â 82' 118' 116' 114' 112Â 110Â 108Â 106' M0 looÂ 88' \ 80Â 78' 76' 74O FIGURE 7.-Boron contentofsurficialmaterials.

# I AMOUNT, IN PARTS PER MILLION

FIGURE &-Bromine contentofsurficialmaterials.ILLUSTRATIONS ELEMENTCONCENTRATIONSIN SOILS, CONTERMINOUSUNITEDSTATES

Geometric mean: 0.92 Geometric deviation: 4.00 1.29' Number of samoles and an8lYSeS:

FIGURE 9.Ã‘Calciu contentofsurficialmaterials.ELEMENTCONCENTRATIONSIN SOILS,CON'I'ERMINOUS UNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS



# I AMOUNT, IN PERCENT

FIGURE 10.4arbon(total)content ofsurlicial materials.AMOUNT, IN PARTS PER MILLION

I I I I / I I I I I I I \ \ \ \ I I 1 I I I I I I OZO 98' 92' 00Â I 9P 88" 86' llZO 84O 82" 80Â 78' 76' 74O 118O 116' 114' 110Â 108' 106' No I 94'
FIGURE ll.-Cerium contentofsurficidmaterials.ELEMENTCONCENTRATIONSIN SOILS, CONTERMINOUSUNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS

Geometr~c mean 37 Geametr'~ dewat~on: 2.37 Number of samplesand analyses: 1,319

1 1 I I I l l l l l - 118' 116' 114' 1lZ0 1

### loo 108' 1No 1&I0 10Zo 100Â 9F 9P 86' 7r 760 740 FIGURE l2.4hmmiumcontent ofsurf~cial materials.ELEMENTCONCENTRATIONSIN SOILS,CONTERMINOUSUN- Sl'ATES ILLUSTRATIONS

AMOUNT, IN PARTS PER MILLION 2z0 I I I I \ \ \ \ \ \ I I I I I 1 I I 1 I [------A 

### lo0 108' 106' 1M0 1OZO I @I098' W 9T 90' 8E0 86' 84' 82' 8P 78" 76" 74O 118' 11V 114' llzO 1 FIGURE lS.-Cobaltcontentofsur6d materials.AMOUNT, IN PARTS PER MILLION 2P

# - I I I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 I I I I I I I I I I N1Â 94O 92' 90' 8F 86' 84' 82' 80' 7F 76= 74O llp 116' 1la0 l1Zo 110Â 1OF 106' 1@lo 1 0Zo 1 98'

FIGURE 14.40ppercontent ofsufid materials.ELEMENTCONCENTRATIONSIN SOILS,CONTERMINOUSUNITEDSTATES ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURE 15.-Fluorine contentofsurfcialmaterials.ILLUSTRATIONS ELEMENTCONCENTRATIONSINSOILS, CONTERMINOUSUNITEDSTATES

aini^oazgze I I I AMOUNT. IN PARTS PER MILLION

I I \ \ 1 1 I \ \ I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 86' 84Â 82' 80Â 78' 76' 74O 118' 116' 114' llZO 110" 108' 106O 104O 102O 100Â 98' 94O 9Z0 90' 88' 

# -
FIGURE 16.Ã‘Galliu contentofsurficialmaterials.ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONSIN SOILS, CONTERMINOUSUNITEDSTATES ILLUSTRATIONS

SYMBOLS AND PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL SAMPLES 

### I Â ¥ 

# g 100 Geometric mean 1 2 1 Geometric deviation 1 37 1 Numberof samplesand analyses 355

500 MILES 

### 1 -1 AMOUNT. IN PERCENT

I 1 I / I I 

### - I I I I -1 -..-.-.. d- I I I I I 1 \ \ \ \ 118' 116' 114' 112O 110Â 108Â 106' 104' 102O 1OoO 98O 94O 92' 90' 88Â 86Â 84' 82' 80Â 78' 76' 74O FIGURE 17.Ã‘Germaniu contentofsurficial materials.ELEMENTCONCENTRATIONSIN SOILS, CONTERMINOUSUNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS

11E0 116Â 114' llZO 1loÂ 108' 106Â 104' 10Z0 10O0 98Â 94O 92Â 90Â 8E0 86' 84' 82' 80Â 78Â 76' 74O FIGURE 18.-Iodine contentofsurficialmaterials.ELEMENTCONCENTRATIONSINSOILS, CONTERMINOUSUNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS

Geometric mean 1 8 Geometric deviation 2.38 Number of samples and analyses' 1,317 u u u LJU, LI U 500 MILES L ,', 

### 1 oooooo--~n,',,. --CMnmt. ,', ,'
ooooooOOOr- -1cimw00 A AMOUNT. IN PERCENT 1 1 I I I

- I I I I l..-L I I I 1 I 1 \ 1 \ \ 118' 116' 114' 11Z0 1lo0 108' 106Â 104' 102" looÂ 98O 94O 92Â 90' 88Â 86Â 84Â 82' 80' 78' 76' 74O FIGURE 19.-Iron contentofsurficialmaterials.ELEMENTCONCENTRATIONSIN SOILS, CONTERMINOUSUNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS

Number of samples and analyses 1.293 

# \ i

, 

## ~4 Li- ,,U /;



## , 500 MILES 

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

AMOUNT IN PARTS PER MILLION I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I \ \ \ \ \ 118' 116' 114' llZO 1

### lo0 108Â lEO 1M0 102" 100Â 9E0 94O 92' 90Â 88Â 86Â 84' 82Â 80Â 78Â 76' 74Â

FIGURE 20.-Lanthanum contentofsurficialmaterials.ELEMENTCONCENTRATIONSIN SOILS, CONTERMINOUSUNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS



# L AMOUNT. IN PARTS PER MILLION \ \ 220 -U-l-L- \ 1 I I I I .- A I I I I 1 \ 1 2z0 76' 74O 118' 116' 114' 112O 1loÂ 108' 106' 104' 1OZO 1OF 98' 94O 92' 90' 88' 86Â 84' 82' 80' 78'
FIGURE 21.-Lead contentofsurficialmaterials.22O AMOUNT. IN PARTS PER MILLION I I 1 I I \ I I I \ \ \ \ I I I I I I 1 98Â 940 106' lMO OzO 1OoO 92' 90Â 88' 86' 84' 82Â 80Â 78Â 76' 74' 108' 114' 112' 110Â 118" 116O FIGURE 22.-Lithium contentofsuficialmaterials.ELEMENTCONCENTRATIONSIN SOILS, CONTERMINOUSUNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS

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

# -
7

A AMOUNT. IN PERCENT 1 I I I I - I I 1 I I.---- I I I I 1 I \ \ \ \ 118Â 116Â 114' 112" 1 1O0 108' 106' 104' 102O 1OOo 98Â 94O 92' 90Â 88' 86Â 84' 82' 80' 78' 76Â 74O
FIGURE 23.-Magnesium contentof surficialmaterials.ELEMENTCONCENTRATIONSIN SOILS, CONTERMINOUSUNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS

AMOUNT. IN PARTS PER MILLION 

# \w

FIGURE 24.-Manganese contentofsurficialmaterials.ELEMENTCONCENTRATIONSINSOILS, CONTERMINOUSUNITEDSTATES ILLUSTRATIONS

AMOUNT. IN PARTS PER MILLION 

## I

I FIGURE %.-Mercury contentofsurficialmaterials. IILLUSTRATIONS ELEMENTCONCENTRATIONSIN SOILS, CONTERMINOUSUNITED STATES 6V 128 12 40 12 20 1 1 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 1 0 1 0 1~0 1020 10~9~ 94' 92' I 90Â I E%O ffiO 84' 82' 80' 78' 7V 74' 72' 70' 6F 66" I I I 1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ '.I 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I

Geometric deviation 2 72 Number of samples and analyses 1.298



## . AMOUNT. IN PARTS PER MILLION I I I I I 1 \ \ \ \ \ I I I I I I I I I I 1 94O 92' 90Â 88O 86O 84' 82' 80' 78' 76' 74O 118' 116' 114' 112Â 11O0 108' 106" 1M0 102Â 100Â 9E0
FIGURE %.-Molybdenum contentofsurficialmaterials.ELEMENTCONCENTRATIONSIN SOILS, CONTERMINOUSUNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS

y20

# 1- IN PARTS PER MILLION AMOUNT, 1 I I I I I I I ! --- 

### u-- 1 I 118Â 116Â 114' llZO 110Â 108'" 106" 104' 1OZO 100Â 98Â 94O 92' 90" 88' 86Â 84' 82' 80" 78Â 76' 74O FIGURE 27.-Neodymium content ofsurficialmaterials. IELEMENTCONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUSUNITEDSTATES ILLUSTRATIONS

Geometric mean 13 Geometric deviation 2 31 Number of samples and analyses 1.318

AMOUNT. IN PARTS PER MILLION / I 1 I I I I 1 I I I A I I I I I I \ \ \ \ \ 118' 116' 114' llZO 110Â 108' 1W 1W 102O 100Â 98Â 94O 92' 90' 88' 86Â 84Â 82' 80Â 78Â 76Â 74O
FIGURE 28.-Nickel contentofsurficialmaterials.SNoIJivaisnm S3JiViSa3JiINnSnONIira3iiNO3 'STIOSNI SNOIiVaiLN3ONO3 lLN3W3T3ELEMENTCONCENTRATIONSIN SOILS, CONTERMINOUSUNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS

AMOUNT, IN PERCENT I I I I - 118' 116Â 114' 110" 1 08O 106Â 104' 1 02O 1 0O0 98Â
FIGURE 30.-Phosphorus content ofsurficial materials.ILLUSTRATIONS ELEMENTCONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUSUNITED STATES 

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

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

22O t-L. AMOUNT. IN PERCENT

- I I I I I 1 I \ \ \ / I I i I I I I I 1 0Z0 1OOo 92Â 90Â 88' 86Â 84' 82' 80Â 78O 76' 74O 118" 116Â 114' 11Z0 110Â 108' 106' 104' FIGURE 31.-Potassium contentofsurficialmaterials.ILLUSTRATIONS ELEMENTCONCENTRATIONSIN SOILS, CONTERMINOUSUNITED STATES

SYMBOLS AND PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL SAMPLES 33 34 33 L I B ! I I I G 1 Geometric mean: 58 LU 3 1 Geometric deviation 1 72 0 Number of samples and analyses. 355 a

AMOUNT, IN PARTS PER MILLION

FIGURE 32.-Rubidium contentofsurficialmaterials.ELEMENTCONCENTRATIONSIN SOILS, CONTERMINOUSUNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS

Geometric deviation 1 82 Number of samples and analyses 304
u u u uu u a 500 MILES

-L--L-2 I I I I I I 1 2 --- I 1 I I I L\ \ \ 118Â 116Â 114' 11T 110Â 108Â 106' 104' 1OZo 100Â 98Â 92' 90" 88' 86' 84' 82' 80" 78' 76' 74O FIGURE 33.Ã‘Scandiu contentofsurficial materials.ELEMENTCONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUSUNITEDSTATES ILLUSTRATIONS

L" ---NmL"r. L" 0000000'--~~L"

"90 AMOUNT IN PARTS PER MILLION Li, I I I I I I I I I I 

# 1

I I I I I \ \ \ \ 118O 116' 114' 11Z0 110Â 10F 106' 104" 1 0Z0 1 00Â 90' 88Â 86' 84' 82' 80Â 78' 76O 74Â
FIGURE 34.4eleniumcontent ofsurficialmaterials.ELEMENTCONCENTRATIONSIN SOILS, CONTERMINOUSUNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS

SYMBOLS AND PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL SAMPLES

15 18 2618 22

I I 1 Arithmetic mean, 31 5 100 1 

## 1 Standard deviation 6 48

Number of 0 samples and analyses a 406 UL.

0

AMOUNT. IN PERCENT

! ! I ! -- I I I. 1

L -^-.- , I I I 1 \ \ \ \ \ 118' 116' 114' 11Z0 110Â 108' 106Â 104' 102* 100Â 98Â 94O 92' 90Â 88' 86' 84' 82' 80Â 78Â 76' 74O FIGURE 36.Ã‘Silico contentofsurficialmaterials.ELEMENTCONCENTRATIONSIN SOILS, CONTERMINOUSUNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS

SYMBOLSAND PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL SAMPLES 17 14 24 21 25 u 0 aa r A 300 r 

## "*
I III

AMOUNT, IN PERCENT 

### I 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I I 

### -^__- I I I I I I \ \ \ \ 118O 116O 114' 11Z0 1 lo0 1 0E0 106' 1 Ma 102O 1 00Â 98' 94O 92' 90Â 88" 86' 84' 82' 80Â 78Â 76' 74O
FIGURE 36.Ã‘Sodiu contentofsurficial materials.ELEMENTCONCENTRATIONSIN SOILS, CONTERMINOUSUNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS

Geometric deviation L! 3 30 LJ Number of samples and analyses 1318 ^J J ^ b LJ a 500 MILES

AMOUNT. IN PARTS PER MILLION

FIGURE 37.Ã‘Strontiu contentofsurficialmaterials.AMOUNT IN PERCENT 2z0. , 2z0 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 \ \ \ \ 1 118' 116Â 114' llZO 110Â 108Â 106Â 1W 102O 10O0 98Â 94O 92' 90' 88Â 86' 84' 82' 80Â 78' 76Â 74O
FIGURE 38.Ã‘Sulfu contentofsurficialmaterials.ELEMENTCONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS, CONTERMINOUSUNITEDSTATES ILLUSTRATIONS

SYMBOLS AND PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL SAMPLES

"" & , 5 I Geometric mean 8 6 3 1 0 Geometric deviation 153 Number of samples and analyses E c0iarnr.m rn0i-a-tornn~-a- 

# - c.8 AMOUNT, IN PARTS PER MILLION

-L I I 1 I -- I I I I I 1 ---L I I I I 1 I I I I \ 118' 116' 114' 112O 11O0 108' 106" 104' 1OZO 1 OW 98' 94O 92' 1 90' 88Â 86Â 84' 82' 80" 78Â 76Â 74O FIGURE 39.-Thorium contentofsurficidmaterials.ELEMENTCONCENTRATIONSIN SOILS, CONTERMINOUSUNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS

/ a < u



### -.'7, Oh\.

SYMBOLSAND PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL SAMPLES a -? 23 1724 21 16 

### a 1

I Geometric mean 089
\

Numberof samples and analyses 355 \ Um ,' 500 MILES 21 AMOUNT IN PARTS PER MILLION

FIGURE 40.-Tin content ofsurficialmaterials.ELEMENTCONCENTRATIONSIN SOILS, CONTERMINOUSUNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURE 41.-Titanium contentofsurficialmaterials.ELEMENTCONCENTRATIONSIN SOILS, CONTERMINOUSUNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS

^. \ 

## \ /-'

^ I -1

B !Â¥ a

SYMBOLS AND PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL SAMPLES

Â£ 1 Geometric mean 2 3 w z 3 100 I 0 Geometric deviation 1 73 1 Numberof samples and analyses 354 E

u LJ n lomom

mer-ineo~~mmoo 00oo-t^o^Mlor- 

# - - 1-1 / 500 MILES d AMOUNT IN PARTS PER MILLION

1 I I I I I I I I I 1 

### u I

,- I I 1 1 I \ \ \ \ 118Â 116Â 114' llZO 1loÂ 108' 106Â 104' 1OZO 100Â 98Â 94O 92Â 90Â 88' 86' 84' 82' 80' 78Â 76' 74O
FIGURE 42.-Uranium contentofsurficial materials.ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONSINSOILS, CONTERMINOUSUNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS

OF TOTAL SAMPLES

Geometric mean 58 Geometric deviation 2 25 Number of samples and analyses 1 319

500 MILES

. --

AMOUNT. IN PARTS PER MILLION 

## I 

## L I I 1 I I I \ L-L- \ L-U--,A --,-.--- L

- 

### u 92' 90' 88Â 86' 84O 82' 80' 78' 76' 74O 118Â 116' 114' 11Z0 11O0 108' 106' 104' 1OZo 100 98" 94"
FIGURE 43.-Vanadium contentofsurficialmaterials.ELEMENTCONCENTRATIONSIN SOILS, CONTERMINOUSUNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS

OF TOTAL SAMPLES 21 213615 8 U DEa

Geometric mean 2 6 Geometric deviation 1 79 Number of samples and analyses

---CM",Lnr--oinoo' --CMmm AMOUNT, IN PARTS PER MILLION

FIGURE 44.-Ytterbium contentofsurficialmaterials.ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONSIN SOILS, CONTERMINOUSUNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS

Geometric mean 21 Geometric deviation 1 78 Number of samples and analyses 1319

500 MILES

.. . I



### ^

.-I 

### " AMOUNT IN PARTS PER MILLION 1.



### - i I I ..--- A-- I \ 1 I \ \ I I \ \ -L I 1 OW 98Â 108" 106' 104' 1 94O 

# --
9'2' 90Â 88Â 86' 84' 82' 80Â 78' lloO OZO 76Â 74O 118Â 116' 114Â llzO FIGURE 45.-yttrium contentofsurficialmaterials.ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONSINSOILS, CONTERMINOUSUNITED STATES ILLUSTRATIONS

Geometric deviation 1 95 Number of samples and analyses 1 248

2z0

## L. AMOUNT, IN PARTS PER MILLION LA-. 76' 74O FIGURE 46.-Zinc contentof surficial materials.ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONSINSOILS, CONTERMINOUSUNITED STATES ILLUSTKATIONS

AMOUNT, IN PARTS PER MILLION

FIGURE 47.-Zirconium contentofsurficialmaterials.