Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to site content

HEALTH CONSULTATION

FORD ROAD INDUSTRIAL LANDFILL
ELYRIA, LORAIN COUNTY, OHIO


STATEMENT OF ISSUES

The Health Assessment Section (HAS) of the Ohio Department of Health was asked by the United States Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate site conditions and available sampling results at the closed Ford Road Landfill in Lorain County to determine if there are contaminants present at the site that may pose a health threat to residents and visitors living in the vicinity of the landfill. Specifically, HAS was asked to review the Expanded Site Inspection Report prepared for U.S. EPA on January 10, 1994, by PRC Environmental Management, Inc. This health consultation documents the review of the Expanded Site Inspection Report along with providing conclusions and recommendations for future activities at the site.


SITE DESCRIPTION

The Ford Road Landfill is an inactive 15-acre landfill located on Ford Road in Elyria, Lorain County, Ohio. The site is located on the northern edge of Elyria about 1.5 miles northeast of Interchange 8 of the Ohio Turnpike (Figure 1). The site is bordered by Ford Road and the Black River Preserve on the west, the Black River on the east, an intermittent stream and sewer main that is covered with riprap on the north, and a ravine and rural land to the south (Figure 2). The site is not fenced and is accessible from all sides. Several residences are located within one mile of the site with the nearest being about 200 feet northwest of the site.

There are currently no permanent structures on the Ford Road Landfill site; however, three monitoring wells, installed in 1983 by E&E, and a drainage pipe are located along the west bank of the Black River on landfill property (E&E 1983a; PRC 1993). The landfill was originally a ravine located along the east side of Ford Road but has since been filled by waste disposal activities. As a result of waste disposal and capping activities, the surface of the landfill is now at the same elevation as Ford Road, which is approximately 50 to 75 feet above the Black River (PRC 1993).

Surface water at the site currently drains in three directions. Drainage on the north side of the landfill flows into an intermittent stream that drains into the Black River. Surface water runoff from the east side of the site drains directly into the Black River. The south side of the site drains into a ravine that was created by the land filling operation. Runoff from this ravine crosses a former access road and enters a wetland that drains into the Black River.

The Black River is used for recreational fishing in the Elyria area; however, it is unknown if there is any fishing in the immediate vicinity of the Ford Road Landfill.

The Ford Road Landfill site is underlain by clayey silts, silty clays, sandy silts, silt, and clayey sands. The bedrock in the area consists of shales at depths ranging from 9 to 50 feet below ground surface (Herron Consultants, Inc. 1981; E&E 1981). The surface of the landfill is covered with 5 to 8 feet of cover material, including clean fill and clay (PRC 1993). The cover on the landfill was not an EPA approved engineered cap. According to previous consultants, groundwater flow is expected to be east-northeast toward the Black River (E&E 1981). In order to obtain accurate groundwater flow, additional soil borings or groundwater wells need to be installed.

HAS staff conducted a site visit to the Ford Road Landfill on November 14, 2001. HAS was accompanied by members of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Elyria City Health Department, Elyria City Law Office, and Haley & Aldrich, the consultant hired by the potentially responsible parties (PRP) at the site. During the site visit, several characteristics of the landfill were noticed. As part of site modifications conducted at the landfill in the mid 1990s, a surface water divide was placed across the center of the landfill. This divide is a large earthen dike that was designed to divert surface water that would naturally enter the Black River from the eastern edge of the landfill to a small tributary on the northern edge of the landfill. It was also apparent that there were some surface modifications made along the eastern edge of the site due to the young age of the trees on the eastern slope of the landfill. Several areas along the slope appear to have settled leaving collapsed pits on the slope. Ash from on-site burning of wastes is visible on the eastern and southern banks of the landfill. While walking on the northern edge of the landfill, several crushed drums were observed protruding from the slope of the ravine. A number of drums, a variety of solid waste - rubber, glass, porcelain, plastic, and solidified paint wastes were exposed at the surface along the southern edge of the landfill. A strong, unpleasant sewer gas smell was noticed while standing near a drainage pipe opening to the Black River at the northern edge of the landfill. No study of landfill gas has been conducted at the landfill to determine if there are high levels of methane or other volatile chemicals in the landfill.


SITE OPERATIONS AND HISTORY

The Ford Road Landfill is currently owned by the Lorain County Metropolitan Parks Department and was formerly operated by BFI (E&E 1980). BFI completed closing activities of the landfill in the mid 1990s. Clean fill material from a local construction site was used for cover material and grading at the site. The closure of the landfill was not completed under EPA supervision or guidelines.

The landfill encompasses approximately 15 acres and was used for the disposal of industrial wastes from the 1950s until 1974. The site was owned by Brotherton Disposal, Inc. (Brotherton), from 1963 until BFI bought all the Brotherton Landfills, including the Ford Road Landfill (BFI 1993).

Several local industries disposed waste in the landfill. The usual procedure was for trucks to back up to the steep banks of the landfill and simply dump their contents over the bank. Wastes were brought to the landfill 24 hours a day, seven days per week (Brotherton 1971). Waste dumped were usually then burned. At least four local industries are known to have disposed of hazardous wastes in the Ford Road Landfill.

BFI disposed of organics, inorganics, heavy metals, sanitary sewage sludges, paint sludges, latex sludges, and small quantities of unknown hazardous wastes. The wastes were generated from construction, paper and printing companies, iron and steel foundries, general chemical, plating and polishing facilities, sanitary and refuse companies, and laboratory and hospital operations (BFI 1981).

Harshaw Chemicals, a subsidiary of Gulf Oil Company, sent more than 700 tons of hazardous materials to the Ford Road Landfill from 1950 until 1974. Materials sent included heavy metals, other inorganic substances, and miscellaneous catalysts and insecticides (OEPA 1980).

The Elyria General Motors facility disposed of unidentified sludges at the Ford Road Landfill between 1963 and 1970. The company dumped an estimated 32,000 gallons of sludge per day, 5 days per week. The sludges contained 5 percent solids and were disposed of in lagoons that contained ash. The type and origin of that ash have not been identified, but are believed to have resulted from the burning of wastes. During the HAS site visit on November 14, 2001, several areas of exposed ash were visible along the eastern and southern edge of the landfill. It is unknown if this ash is part of the former on-site lagoons. The sludge operation accounted for 50 percent of the Ford Road Landfill operations from 1963 until 1970 (Brotherton 1971).


DISCUSSION

Previous Site Investigations

Prior investigations at the Ford Road Landfill site have been conducted by U.S. EPA, Ohio EPA, E&E, and the Elyria City Health Department. The most recent site investigation was completed by PRC in 1993. During the investigation, PRC collected three groundwater samples, two surface water samples, six sediment samples, and two soil samples (PRC, 1994).

Groundwater Sampling & Results

The groundwater wells sampled are located in the ravine along the eastern edge of the landfill adjacent to the Black River (Figure 2). The data is shown in Table D-1 in the back of this document. In the October 14, 2001 site visit conducted by HAS, it was noted that two of the three monitoring wells appear to have been compromised and would no longer be useful for further investigation. Sampling of the monitoring wells in 1993 showed elevated levels of 1,1 dichloroethene and arsenic (PRC 1994). It is unknown whether any of these elevated levels are associated with the landfill. The location of the current monitoring wells is inappropriate to characterize the contamination in the landfill. The landfill is unlined which increases the potential for contaminants to leach into the groundwater or to the surface water of the Black River. Flocculate iron-stained precipitate was observed during the November 14, 2001 site visit at the base of the landfill on the west bank of the Black River and may be leachate derived from the landfill. Additional investigation of the landfill's constituents is necessary to determine the possibility of contaminants reaching a population of concern.

Surface Water Samples

No elevated contaminants were detected in the 1993 surface water sampling event. The data is shown in Table D-2 in the back of this document.

Soil Sampling

Soil samples did not contain contaminants at levels of concern. The data is shown in Table D-3 in the back of this document.

Sediment Sampling

Sediment samples were collected from an intermittent stream located at the northern edge of the landfill, a wetland area at the southeastern edge of the landfill, and from the Black River. The data is shown in Table D-3 in the back of this document. Sediment samples revealed elevated levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Lead and arsenic were also at elevated levels in the river (PRC 1994). Additional sediment sampling is necessary to determine if contaminants are leaching from the landfill into the Black River.

Pathways of Concern

At this time it appears that the main pathway of concern is contact or ingestion of surface water or sediments in the intermittent tributaries on site or from the Black River. The Black River in the vicinity of the site would appear to support a viable fish population and may be regularly fished by area residents. Eating contaminated fish from the Black River may also be a pathway of concern depending on the current level of contamination in the river and the kinds of chemicals present. Environmental data for the site is extremely limited with the most recent sampling coming in 1993. To adequately assess the threat to human health, it will be necessary to conduct a more thorough investigation of the site to characterize the potential for site contaminants to migrate to the Black River.

Other potential hazards at the site include the physical hazards present along the flanks of the former landfill. The site is unfenced and provides easy access to children or others who may want to have access to the site. Crushed drums and exposed waste were present at the northern and southern edges of the landfill that could pose a physical threat to children playing on the sides of the landfill. Also there were several areas of exposed ash that is of unknown origin that could possibly contain hazardous constituents that may pose a health threat to those who come into contact with it.


CONCLUSIONS

  1. Previous environmental investigations indicate that the landfill has impacted sediments in the Black River and an intermittent tributary that leads to the Black River. The site currently poses an indeterminate public health hazard because of the lack of current environmental data and the fact that the available data does not provide a complete picture of the extent of the contamination at the site.

  2. Exposed drums and waste on the northern and southern banks of the landfill may pose a physical threat to visitors to the landfill.

  3. Visible ash on the northern and southern edge of the landfill may contain hazardous constituents based on prior anecdotal evidence of waste burning at the site.

  4. The landfill was not covered with an EPA-approved cap. There are several areas where the landfill surface has settled which may pose a threat for release of contaminants if wastes were to become exposed.

RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. A thorough environmental investigation of the site, including surface soil, groundwater, sediment, and landfill gas should be completed at the site to better characterize the levels of hazardous waste in the landfill and the extent of impact on the surrounding environment.

  2. Access to the site should be restricted so as to reduce the possibility that children or others could injure themselves on the exposed drums and waste that are present at the landfill.

  3. Since contamination is present in the sediments or surface water of the river, OEPA may need to sample fish tissue in the Black River adjacent to the site for site related contaminants, including PCBs.

PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION PLAN

HAS will review any additional data collected at the Ford Road site as it becomes available.


PREPARERS OF REPORT

Eric Yates - Environmental Specialist
Robert Frey Ph. D. - Principal Investigator


REFERENCES

Brotherton Disposal, Inc. (Brotherton). 1971. Letter Regarding Plan for Dumping of Solid Waste from George C. Brotherton to Gordon Bell, Elyria Health Department. August 9, 1971.

Browning-Ferris Industries (BFI). 1981. Letter regarding Notification of Hazardous Waste Site Form, from Stephen L. Thomas, Vice President, to U.S. EPA. June 9, 1981.

BFI. 1993. Record of Telephone Conversation between Dave Matthews, BFI, and Alicia Schultz, Biologist, PRC Environmental Management, Inc. (PRC). April 21, 1993.

Ecology and Environment, Inc. (E&E). 1980. Letter Regarding Cleveland Sites with Potential Hazardous Waste, Site Inspection Report. From R. Bartholomew to Bill Goode. September 30, 1980.

E&E. 1981. Letter Regarding Potential for Possible Groundwater Contamination. From Ron St. John to Rene Van Someren. October 16, 1981.

E&E. 1983. Preliminary Assessment, Ford Road Dump (Landfill), EPA Form 2070-12. January 5, 1983.

Herron Consultants, Inc. 1981. Subsoil Investigation and Water Quality Evaluation, Northside Water Main, Elyria, Ohio. September 14, 1981.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). 1980. Identification and Preliminary Assessment, EPA Form T2070-2. June 30, 1980.

PRC Environmental Management Inc. (PRC). 1993. Expanded Site Inspection Reconnaissance and Sampling Visits at Ford Road Landfill. March 8 and May 18, 1993.

PRC. 1994. Expanded Site Inspection Report. Ford Road Landfill. Elyria, Ohio. January 10, 1994.


CERTIFICATION

This Ford Road Landfill Health Consultation was prepared by the Ohio Department of Health under a cooperative agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). It is in accordance with approved methodology and procedures existing at the time the health consultation was begun.

Alan W. Yarbrough
Technical Project Officer, SPS, SSAB, DHAC, ATSDR


The Division of Health Assessment and Consultation, ATSDR, has reviewed this public health consultation and concurs with the findings.

Roberta Erlwein
for Chief, Superfund Site Assessment Branch, DHAC, ATSDR


FIGURES

Site Location
Figure 1. Site Location

Site Features
Figure 2. Site Features


TABLES

TABLE D-1. SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL SAMPLE ANALYSES

Sampling Location MW-01 MW-02 MW-03 MW-3D MW-B01 MW-TB-01
Date 05/18/93 05/18/93 05/18/93 05/18/93 05/18/93 05/18/93
Time 1745 1915 1517 1517 1615 1615
Organic Traffic Report No.
Inorganic Traffic Report No.
93ZF53S11
93ZF53S11
93ZF53S12
93ZF53S12
93ZF53S13
93ZF53S13
93ZF53D13
93ZF53D13
93ZF53R03
93ZF53R03
93ZF53R04
93ZF53R04
Sample Type Environmental Groundwater Environmental Groundwater Environmental Groundwater Field Duplicate Field Blank Trip Blank
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS CRQL  
methylene chloride 10 3 2U 2 2U 3 2 J?
acetone 10 23 10 U 12 BU 2U 190 B 64 BU
1,1-dichloroethane 10 21 2U 2U 2U 2U 2U
cis-1,2-dichloroethene 10 2U 1 J? 2U 2U 2U 2U
1,1,1-trichloroethane 10 4 J? 2U 2U 2U 2U 2U
benzene 10 1 J? 2U 2U 2U 2U 2U
Tentatively Identified Compounds (Total) N/A 5 J? 16 J? ND ND ND ND
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS CRQL  
di-n-butylphthalate 10 2 U 2 U 2 2 U 2 U
bis-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 10 5 BU 17 BJH 5 BU 5 BU 1 JBU
Tentatively Identified Compounds (Total) N/A 12 J? ND 16 J? ND 5 J?
PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS CRQL  
No pesticide/PCB compounds detected              
ANALYTE DETECTED CRDL  
antimony 60 6 5 2U 5 10
arsenic 10 10 24 3 2 2U
barium 200 52.9 112 28.7 28.3 7.0 U
cadmium 5 0.2U 0.6 0.2U 0.2 0.2U
calcium 5,000 163,000 117,000 83,500 83,300 610 U
cobalt 50 44.2 7.0 U 7.0 U 7.0 U 7.0 U
iron 100 23,600 3,840 1,710 1,760 98.0 U
magnesium 5,000 65,200 182,000 57,900 57,500 122 U
manganese 15 4,550 1,720 639 634 6.0 U
nickel 40 85.9 60.9 24.0 U 24.0 U 24.0 U
potassium 5,000 6,100 U 155,000 19,900 19,700 6,100 U
selenium 5 3 10U 2U 2U 2U
sodium 5,000 169,000 511,000 47,500 47,300 1,200 U

Notes:

    All concentrations are in micrograms per liter (µg/L) unless otherwise noted.
    CRQL = Contract-required quantitation limit
    CRDL = Contract-required detection limit
    ND = Not detected
    N/A = Not applicable
    — = Not analyzed
GENERAL QUALIFIERS DEFINITION
U The compound or analyte was analyzed for but not detected. Associated value is the sample quantitation limit (SQL).
H Analytical bias is high.
? Analytical bias is unknown.
COMPOUND QUALIFIERS DEFINITION
B Compound was detected in an associated laboratory blank.


TABLE D-2: SUMMARY OF SURFACE WATER SAMPLE ANALYSES

Sampling Location SW-05 SW-02 SW-2D SW-B01 SW-TB
Date 05/18/93 05/18/93 05/18/93 05/18/93 05/18/93
Time 1700 1320 1320 0800 0800
Organic Traffic Report No.
Inorganic Traffic Report No.
93ZF53S03
93ZF53S03
93ZF53S02
93ZF53S02
93ZF53D02
93ZF53D02
93ZF53R01
93ZF53R01
93ZF53R02
93ZF53R02
Sample Type Background
Black River
Environmental
Black River
Field Duplicate Field Rinsate Blank Trip Blank
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS CRQL  
methylene chloride 10 2 2U 2U 2 1 J?
acetone 10 10 U 9 BUJ? 23 J? 65 BU 140 B
Tentatively Identified Compounds (Total) N/A ND ND ND ND ND
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS CRQL  
bis-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 10 2 BU 6 BU 9 BU 5 BU
Tentatively Identified Compounds (Total) N/A ND ND ND ND
PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS CRQL  
No pesticide/PCB compounds detected            
ANALYTE DETECTED CRDL  
aluminum 200 172 112 98.0 U 98.0 U
barium 200 41.5 41.6 41.4 7.0 U
cadmium 5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.2U
calcium 5,000 72,500 71,300 72,600 610U
iron 100 424 344 356 98.0 U
lead 3 3 2U 2 2U
magnesium 5,000 22,400 22,400 22,600 122 U
manganese 15 124 105 107 6.0 U
sodium 5,000 35,700 38,100 38,200 1,200 U

Notes:

    All concentrations are in micrograms per liter (µg/L) unless otherwise noted.
    CRQL = Contract-required quantitation limit
    CRDL = Contract-required detection limit
    ND = Not detected
    N/A = Not applicable
    — = Not analyzed
GENERAL QUALIFIERS DEFINITION
J Value is estimated (also indicates a compound that is detected below the CRQL).
? Analytical bias is unknown.
U The compound or analyte was analyzed for but not detected. Associated value is the sample quantitation limit (SQL).
COMPOUND QUALIFIERS DEFINITION
B Compound was detected in an associated laboratory blank.


TABLE D-3: SUMMARY OF SOIL AND SEDIMENT SAMPLE ANALYSES

Sampling Location SD-07 SD-01 SD-05 SD-02 SD-03 SD-04 SD-06 SD-08
Date 05/18/93 05/18/93 05/18/93 05/18/93 05/18/93 05/18/93 05/18/93 05/18/93
Time 2005 1425 1715 1330 1560 1640 1500 1400
Organic Traffic Report No.
Inorganic Traffic Report No.
EWG91
METW91
EWG85
METW85
EWG89
METW89
EWG86
METW86
EWG87
METW87
EWG88
METW88
EWG90
METW90
EWG92
METW92
Sample Type Background
Int. Stream
Environmental
Int. Stream
Background
Black River
Environmental
Black River
Environmental
Black River
Environmental
Black River
Environmental
Wetland
Environmental
Black River
Appearance Med. Brown Orange Med. Brown Med. Brown Med. Brown Med. Brown Dk. Brown Orange
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS CRQL  
acetone 10 11 U 16 JBU 44 B 14 U 12 JBU 17 U 17 U 20 JBU
2-butanone 10 11 U 16 U 12 J? 14 U 15 U 17 U 17 U 20 U
toluene 10 1 J? 16 U 18 U 14 U 15 U 17 U 17 U 20 U
Tentatively Identified Compounds (Total) N/A ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS CRQL  
naphthalene 330 380 U 520 U 560 U 100 J? 40 J? 28 J? 140 J? 41 J?
2-methylnaphthalene 330 380 U 520 U 42 J? 250 J? 41 J? 40 J? 61 J? 40 J?
acenaphthalene 330 380 U 520 U 560 U 420 U 500 U 560 U 600 U 27 J?
acenaphthene 330 380 U 520 U 560 U 420 U 500 U 27 J? 100 J? 37 J?
dibenzofuran 330 380 U 520 U 560 U 420 U 500 U 560 U 78 J? 28 J?
fluorene 330 380 U 520 U 560 U 420 U 25 J? 30 J? 110 J? 45 J?
phenanthrene 330 380 U 110 J? 150 J? 200 J? 310 J? 310 J? 1,000 600
anthracene 330 380 U 26 J? 41 J? 29 J? 85 J? 76 J? 200 J? 140 J?
carbozole 330 380 U 520 U 560 U 420 U 42 J? 560 U 160 J? 72 J?
di-n-butylphthalate 330 380 U 520 U 53 J? 420 U 500 U 40 J? 600 U 560 U
fluoranthene 330 380 U 400 J? 270 J? 270 J? 740 490 J? 1,200 1,200
pyrene 330 380 U 360 J? 210 J? 280 J? 910 J? 340 J? 920 J? 920 J?
butylbenzylphthalate 330 380 U 520 U 560 U 420 U 500 U 560 U 600 U 39 J?
benzo(a)anthracene 330 380 U 180 J? 120 J? 130 J? 550 220 J? 530 J? 420 J?
chrysene 330 380 U 220 J? 160 J? 200 J? 720 260 J? 610 570
bis-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 330 380 U 140 J? 560 U 160 J? 500 U 560 U 340 J? 240 J?
benzo(b)fluoranthene 330 380 U 180 J? 120 J? 170 J? 870 220 J? 440 J? 490 J?
benzo(k)fluoranthene 330 380 U 200 J? 120 J? 210 J? 770 220 J? 430 J? 500 J?
benzo(a)pyrene 330 380 U 170 J? 120 J? 150 J? 640 240 J? 530 J? 500 J?
indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 330 380 U 120 J? 91 J? 61 J? 470 J? 180 J? 380 J? 390 J?
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 330 380 U 520 U 560 U 420 U 500 U 560 U 100 J? 560 U
benzo(g,h,i)perylene 330 380 U 76 J? 66 J? 84 J? 240 J? 120 J? 170 J? 200 J?
Tentatively Identified Compounds (Total) N/A 2,150 J? 12,720 J? 13,500 J? 20,100 J? 13,700 J? 8,760 J? 14,760 J? 14,800 J?
PESTICIDES/PCB COMPOUNDS CRQL  
delta-BHC 1.7 2.0 U 2.7 U 2.9 U 1.2 JPX? 1.4 JPX? 2.9 U 6.1 U 110 PJ?
endosulfan I 1.7 2.0 U 4.5 ZXJ? 2.9 U 3.3 ZJ? 4.6 ZXJ? 5.0 ZJ? 6.1 U 29 U
dieldrin 3.3 3.8 U 5.2 U 5.6 U 4.2 U 5.0 U 5.6 U 6.3 JPX? 56 U
4,4'-DDE 3.3 3.8 U 5.2 U 5.6 U 4.2 U 5.0 U 5.6 U 17 PXJ? 56 U
endrin 3.3 3.8 U 5.2 U 5.6 U 4.2 U 5.0 U 5.6 U 32 PZJ? 56 U
4,4'-DDD 3.3 3.8 U 2.9 JPXZ? 5.6 U 4.2 U 5.0 U 5.6 U 12 U 56 U
endosulfan sulfate 3.3 3.8 U 5.2 U 5.6 U 4.2 U 4.3 PJ? 5.6 U 12 U 56 U
4,4'-DDT 3.3 3.8 U 5.8 PXJH 5.6 U 2.0 PJH 3.2 XJH 5.6 U 12 U 56 U
endrin aldehyde 3.3 3.8 U 5.2 U 5.6 U 4.2 U 5.0 U 5.6 U 12 PXJ? 56 U
alpha-chlordane 1.7 2.0 U 2.7 U 2.9 U 2.1 U 2.6 U 2.9 U 5.4 JPX? 100 PJ?
gamma-chlordane 1.7 2.0 U 2.7 U 2.9 U 2.1 U 2.6 U 2.9 U 6.1 JPX? 29 U
Aroclor-1242 33.0 38 U 45 J? 56 U 26 PJ? 50 U 56 U 120 U 560 U
Aroclor-1254 33.0 38 U 50 J? 56 U 38 PJ? 50 U 56 U 1,100 560 U
Aroclor-1260 33.0 38 U 52 U 56 U 42 U 41 J? 56 U 120 U 560 U
ANALYTE DETECTED (mg/kg) CRDL  
aluminum 40 16,400 8,350 11,800 5,880 6,690 10,300 11,300 8,120
antimony 12 4.1 UNJL 5.4 UNJL 5.6 UNJL 4.3 UNJL 18.8 NJL 19.8 NJL 6.6 UNJL 6.5 UNJL
arsenic 2 7.5 10.0 8.5 9.1 45.4 6.9 8.8 6.8
barium 40 58.9 91.4 96.3 39.6 B 159 88.8 701 64.7 B
beryllium 1 0.65 B 0.72 B 0.69 B 0.58 B 0.54 B 0.67 B 0.59 B 0.64 B
cadmium 1 0.31 U 2.5 57.5 3.0 32.6 10.8 2.1 4.6
calcium 1,000 1,520 14,800 2,220 3,530 2,570 2,500 66,800 8,610
chromium 2 21.5 NJL 207 NJL 96.4 NJL 56.3 NJL 57.4 NJL 134 NJL 137 NJL 197 NJL
cobalt 10 6.9 B 15.4 10.9 B 11.6 10.4 B 9.1 B 10.4 B 8.1 B
copper 5 25.0 *J+ 148 *J? 43.2 *J? 58.0 *J? 75.2 *J? 81.7 *J? 72.4 *J? 137 *J?
iron 20 31,900 25,600 29,000 18,100 37,900 25,400 31,700 23,400
lead 0.6 14.8 * 62.6 * 58.2 * 27.2 * 52.9 * 78.5 * 298 S* 54.4 S*
magnesium 1,000 3,440 4,710 3,750 2,310 2,360 3,130 6,920 4,170
manganese 3 195 1,430 153 193 134 126 862 217
mercury 0.1 0.06 U 0.10 B 0.34 0.09 B 0.14 0.69 0.15 B 0.17
nickel 8 21.7 135 40.7 61.1 28.1 44.3 111 112
potassium 1,000 1,240 1,470 1,640 1,500 987 B 1,370 B 2,150 1,430 B
selenium 1 0.63 UNJL 0.87 UN 0.91 UN 2.2 NJL 2.8 NJL 4.9 NJL 1.2 BWNJL 1.0 BN
silver 2 2.7 2.4 B 3.5 1.9 B 3.6 3.1 B 2.4 B 2.0 B
sodium 1,000 92.3 NJ+ 478 B 154 BNJ+ 149 B 161 BJ+ 204 B 976 B 325 B
thallium 2 0.29 B 0.60 B 0.84 B 0.76 B 0.41 B 0.49 B 0.43 U 0.40 U
vanadium 10 29.8 18.9 26.2 31.7 18.1 26.6 23.0 22.8
zinc 4 61.4 196 293 141 290 295 1,120 251
cyanide 10 0.57 U* 0.92 * 0.79 U* 0.57 U* 0.74 U* 0.86 U* 0.96 U* 0.87 U*

Notes:

    All concentrations are in micrograms per kilogram (µg/kg) unless otherwise noted.
    CRQL = Contract-required quantitation limit
    CRDL = Contract-required detection limit
    ND = Not detected
    N/A = Not applicable
    — = Not analyzed
GENERAL QUALIFIERS DEFINITION
J Value is estimated (also indicates a compound that is detected below the CRQL).
H Analytical bias is high.
L Analytical bias is low.
? Analytical bias is unknown
U The compound or analyte was analyzed for but not detected. Associated value is the sample quantitation limit (SQL).
COMPOUND QUALIFIERS DEFINITION
P Variance between GC columns was greater than 25 percent in pesticide or Aroclor (PCB) analyses. The lower value is reported.
B Compound was detected in an associated laboratory blank.
X Reported compound coelutes with PCB Aroclor peaks on one or both analytical columns.
Z Confirmation of this compound is questionable.
ANALYTE QUALIFIERS DEFINITION
B Value is below the CRDL.
N Matrix spike percent recovery values were outside of control limits.
W Furnace AA post-digestion spike recovery values were outside of control limits.
* Duplicate relative percent difference values were outside of control limits.
S Analyte concentration was determined by Method of Standard Additions (MSA).
+ Correlation coefficient for MSA was less than 0.995.


Table of Contents

  
 
USA.gov: The U.S. Government's Official Web PortalDepartment of Health and Human Services
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 4770 Buford Hwy NE, Atlanta, GA 30341
Contact CDC: 800-232-4636 / TTY: 888-232-6348

A-Z Index

  1. A
  2. B
  3. C
  4. D
  5. E
  6. F
  7. G
  8. H
  9. I
  10. J
  11. K
  12. L
  13. M
  14. N
  15. O
  16. P
  17. Q
  18. R
  19. S
  20. T
  21. U
  22. V
  23. W
  24. X
  25. Y
  26. Z
  27. #