Trace Element Concentrations of Three Soils in Central Appalachia
Abstract
Background concentrations of trace elements in soils are important due to recent interest in contamination potential and the toxic effect of these elements on humans and the environment. We assessed the trace element content of three major soil series in Major Land Resource Area (MLRA) 126 of the Appalachian region of the USA by two extraction techniques. Three pedons each of Upshur and Vandalia (both Typic Hapludalfs), and Gilpin (Typic Hapludults) soil series in three distinct areas of this region were described and sampled. Bulk density, texture, pH, cation exchange capacity (CEC), base saturation, and total C were determined for each described horizon. For the A, Bt, and C horizons of each soil series, concentrations of 10 trace elements (As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Cu, Mn, Ni, Pb, Se, Zn) were determined by ICP‐AES after microwave digestion by USEPA Method 3051 and an HF method. Trace element concentrations using USEPA 3051 were about 1.5 to 5 times lower than the amounts extracted by the HF method, except for Mn. Copper, Mn, and Ni were significantly higher in the Alfisols (Upshur and Vandalia) compared with the Ultisol (Gilpin) when extracted by the 3051 method, but only Ni was significantly higher in Alfisols with the HF method. No differences were found among soils for As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Pb, Se, and Zn using either extraction method. Average concentrations (mg kg−1) in A horizons of these soils for both Method 3051 and HF digestion were: As, below detection limits (BDL); Ba, 120, 255; Cd, 1.5, 3.0; Cr, 17, 22; Cu, 16, 31; Mn, 1470, 1360; Ni, 11, 19; Pb, BDL, 8; Se, BDL, BDL; and Zn, 65, 87. Based on the HF method, no elements exceeded the cumulative loading rate concentrations allowed by the USEPA 503 regulations. However, Cd concentrations were up to 10 times higher in these soils compared with similar soils in nearby areas, and exceeded the Northeastern U.S. Regional Research recommended values for waste material application.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Native forest soil pH at Pre-mining Birch River and Pre-mining Catenary varied from 4.1 to 5.2, a common range for Appalachian forest soils.
“Table 3 lists the pH of native forest soils at Pre-mining Birch River (P-BR) and Pre-mining Catenary (P-CY), which varied from 4.1 to 5.2 [36], a common range for soils in Appalachian forests [21,38-40].”
From Early Tree Growth in Reclaimed Mine Soils in Appalachia USA (2019) · cites this paper as [40]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 13 · Cited by 15
- Authors
- Slagle, A., Skousen, J., Bhumbla, D., Sencindiver, J., & McDonald, L.
- Affiliations
- Oakland MD
- West Virginia University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Sencindiver, J.
- Venue
- Soil Survey Horizons
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-09
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 73-85
- ISSN
- 0584-0554 (ISSN-L)
- 2689-713X
- OpenAlex
- W2336676761
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 13
- Citations by year
- 2022: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Soil Survey Horizons (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Heavy metals in environment
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Environmental and Analytical Chemistry Studies
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Geochemistry and Petrology › Coal and Its By-products
- Keywords
- trace elements, soil contamination, heavy metals, cadmium, lead, arsenic, copper, manganese, nickel, zinc, soil extraction methods, microwave digestion, soil series, Alfisol, Ultisol, soil horizons, Central Appalachia
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review