Mercury distribution in ancient and modern sediment of northeastern Bering Sea
<p>A reconnaissance of surface and subsurface sediments to a maximum depth of 244 feet below the sea floor shows that natural mercury anomalies from 0.2 to…
Public-domain full text preserved in the Mountain Man Mining Library. Original source: pubs.usgs.gov.
S Li 1-;
118 110!00i7M,4111,411
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MERCURY DISTRIBUTION IN ANCIENT AND MODERN SEDIMENT OF NORTHEASTERN BERING SEA By C. Hans Nelson, David E. Pierce, Kam W. Leong, and Frank F. H. Wang x Is , !U suir, c3.,f,51-.0,Nf.: JUL 1 19 / Open-file report This report is preliminary and has not been edited or reviewed for conformity with Geological Survey standards. (200) P.9343 no.1751
Contents Page Abstract Introduction Methods of Investigation Mercury Distribution Discussion Summary of Sedimentary Processes Affecting Mercury Distribution Illustrations Figure 1. Location of sediment samples and their mercury content Figure 2. Distribution of surface sediment types and gold anomalies in northeastern Bering Sea Figure 3. Frequency distribution of mercury values from northeastern Bering Sea sediments Figure 4. Concentration of mercury in surface and subsurface sediments of different regions in northeastern Bering Sea Tables Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Mercury values in replicate splits of different sample types Comparative values of mercury content in surface and subsurface sediments of different Bering Sea regions Mercury content (ppm) of source rocks and unconsolidated sediments in Bering Sea other areas Appendix Appendix 1. Sample location and mercury values of Bering Sea sediments References Cited
MERCURY DISTRIBUTION IN ANCIENT AND MODERN SEDIMENT OF NORTHEASTERN BERING SEA By C. Hans Nelson, David E. Pierce, Kam W. Leong, & Frank F. H. Wang Abstract A reconnaissance of surface and subsurface sediments to a maximum depth of 244 feet below the sea floor shows that natural mercury anomalies from 0.2 to 1.3 ppm have been present in northeastern Bering Sea since early Pliocene. The anomalies and mean values are highest in modern beach (maximum 1.3 and mean 0.22 ppm Hg) and nearshore sub surface gravels (maximum 0.6 and mean .06 ppm Hg) along the highly mineralized Seward Peninsula and in organic rich silt (maximum 0.16 and mean 0.10 ppm Hg) throughout the region; the mean values are lowest in offshore sands (0.03 ppm Hg). Although gold mining may be partially responsible for high mercury levels in the beaches near Nome, Alaska, equally high or greater concentrations of mercury occur in ancient glacial sediments immediately offshore (0.6 ppm) and in modern unpolluted beach sediments at Bluff (0.45 - 1.3 ppm); this indicates that the contamina tion effects of mining may be no greater than natural concentration processes in the Seward Peninsula region. The background content of mercury (0.03) throughout the central area of northeastern Bering Sea is similar to that elsewhere in the world. The low mean values (0.04 ppm) even immediately offshore from mercury-rich beaches, suggests that in the surface sediments of northeastern Bering Sea, the highest concentrations are limited to the beaches near mercury sources; occasionally, however, low mercury anomalies occur offshore in glacial drift derived from mercury source regions of Chukotka and Seward Peninsula and reworked by Pleistocene
shoreline processes. The minimal values offshore may be attributable to beach entrapment of heavy minerals containing mercury and/or dilution effects of modern sedimentation. Introduction Recent recognition that inorganic mercury in aquatic environments may enter the food chain (Wood and others, 1968) and may eventually concentrate in human tissue (Ackefors, 1971) makes it important to evaluate the concentrations of mercury contained in the sediments of the continental shelves. The distribution of mercury in marine sediments is not well known (Klein and Goldberg, 1971; U.S. Geological Survey, 1970) nor are the processes or rates of removal from the sediment. A first step in evaluating this potential hazard to man is to establish the level of mercury deposited in sediment by natural processes as opposed to artificial. Defining these concentrations in an area of low population density and minimal industrial activity provides a reference point for studies in developed areas where mercury pollution already exists in rivers (de Groot and others, 1971), lakes (Kennedy and others, 1971), and estuaries (McCulloch and others, 1971). This report presents data on mercury in surface and subsurface sediment of a large area of shelf (fig. 1). Natural mercury deposits occur locally in this region (Herreid, 1965; Cobb, 1970; Sainsbury, 1970) and mercury was also introduced by mining activities; therefore, the amount of mercury distributed by natural processes can be compared to that introduced by man. By analyzing ancient sediments as old as Pliocene that lie 244 feet below the sea floor off Nome, the mercury
distribution can be established over a period of several million years and the relative effects of recent mining contamination can be evaluated. We would like to acknowledge the beneficial manuscript review and discussions with Peter Barnes, David Peterson and H. Edward Clifton. We also thank H. Gary Greene, David M. Hopkins, Robert R. Rowland, A. Richard Tagg, and Richard M. Pratt of the U.S. Geological Survey for assistance with sample collection. We also wish to credit the help of the scientists and crews of the following ships which were involved: R/V THOMPSON (University of Washington), R/V VIRGINIA CITY (NOAA), OSS OCEANOGRAPHER (NOAA), OSS SURVEYOR (NOAA), and OSS RAINIER (NOAA). Methods of Investigation Samples of varying sediments (fig. 2) were collected on the Bering shelf by Van Veen grab samplers, box corers, and placer drills; in selected locations modern beach sediments were channel sampled in the swash, foreshore, and backshore zones (Appendix I). The grab and box corer devices both sampled an area approximately 20 by 30 cm; the grab sampler usually penetrated about 10 cm and the box corer about 30 cm. Box cores were divided into surface 1 mm, surface 0-10 cm, and subsurface 10-45 cm samples. Some of the box cores penetrated older glacial or shoreline deposits. Certain drill holes extended through the Pleistocene deposits and into marine sediments that ranged to early Pliocene age at 244 feet below the sea floor (Nelson and Hopkins, 1972). Subsamples of consolidated cuttings from each six foot increment of the three inch diameter drill holes were analyzed.
The sediment was air dried and gently ground by a hand mortar and pestle in order to volatilize mercury as little as possible. Mercury content was then determined (Appendix I) by an atomic absorption technique, a method in which the precision is + 5% or better (Vaughn and McCarthy, 1964). The limit of detection was 0.01 ppm using 0.2 gram samples. The average mercury concentrations are reported for samples with more than one analysis. Two factors were found that affected the accuracy of measurement of the mercury content; these were particle sparsity effect and combustion of large fragments of organic matter during analysis. Smoke from the burning of a large quantity of organic debris generally deflects the meter off scale on the mercury detector and of course gives erroneously high readings; in three cases it appears that less conspicuous meter deflections from this cause were not detected. Particle sparsity effect results when the analysis for a component such as cinnabar, based on a small split of unprocessed sample, depends more upon the chance occurrence of particles in the analytical portion than upon the actual concentration within the sample (Clifton and others, 1969). To test for the aforementioned inaccuracies, duplicate splits were run on 30 samples and five splits were analyzed for each of five sample stations where duplicate splits indicated a significant difference. All replicate splits of samples greater than 40 kilometers from the coast and eighty percent of those within 40 kilometers of the shoreline deviate no more than 0.02 ppm mercury from sample mean values ranging from 0.01 to
0.08 ppm. From samples taken less than 40 kilometers from the shore, the greatest variance in replicate splits is 0.27 ppm mercury for a sample with a mean of 0.09 ppm; this and two other stations with maximum deviations of 0.2 ppm Hg from means of 0.08 ppm (see 252HI in Table 1) are the only instances where split values deviated more than 0.10 ppm from the mean value of a sample. Sample 252HI in Table 1 is typical of the three samples with maximum deviations; all show inconsistent and markedly decreasing mercury values with increasing time between date of analysis. This differing and declining mercury content with time, in addition to smoke detected in later analyses, suggests that abnormally large contents of organic material affected the original analyses of the three samples. Sample 235T in Table 1 is representative of the maximum differences attributable to particle sparsity effects from particulate mineral grains of non-organic origin. This and the few other such samples with deviations as much as 0.10 ppm generally occur in nearshore ancient and modern beach sands and gravels, particularly near Nome. It is concluded that no particle sparsity effects are indicated for samples greater than 40 kilometers from shore. Particle sparsity effects are progressively greater toward the shoreline of Seward Peninsula; however, because values generally range from 0.1 to 1.3 ppm mercury in these beaches (fig. 1) and deviation from particle sparsity is 0.10 ppm or less, the relative percent of inaccuracy of analyses is low. Consequently, the patterns of similar values (fig. 1) do appear to be representative
even though particle sparsity is a minor sampling problem and large organic fragments apparently disrupted analyses of three sample splits. Table 1.--Mercury values in replicate splits of different sample types. (Sample 252HI, a limnetic peaty clay, exemplifies organic disruption of the analytical instrument, sample 235T, a relict gravel shows particle sparsity of a nearshore sample; and sample 2418, a silty sand, shows variability of a typical sample.) Number of Sample and Mercury Value in ppm Split Analysis Date 252HI 235T 241B A 4/6/71 B 9/10/71 4/29/72 D 4/29/72 E 4/29/72 F 4/29/72 Mean Value Maximum Deviation From Mean Average Deviation From Mean Mercury Distribution The median, mean, and mode values all equal 0.03 ppm mercury for the 237 samples from the northeastern Bering Sea (fig. 3, Table 2). These average values from Bering Sea are comparable to those for unconsolidated and presumably uncontaminated aquatic sediments in the few, but widely ranging locations elsewhere that have been investigated
(Table 3). Nearly 90 percent of the values are less than 0.10 ppm mercury and the range from less than 0.01 to 0.1 ppm mercury appears to represent normal values for this region. With few exceptions, intermediate values between 0.11 and 0.2 ppm mercury occur in either fine-grained sediments with a relatively high organic content or in buried subaerial sediments that often contain peat from relict soils. These values lie well within the expected range of Hg content associated with fine grained sediments (de Groot, 1971), modern soils (Shacklette and others, 1971), and organic rich sediments (Kennedy and others, 1971). Values greater than 0.2 ppm mercury from any sediment and greater than 0.1 ppm mercury from sediments low in organic content probably result from concentrations of particulate minerals containing mercury, such as cinnabar. An analysis by the U.S. Bureau of Mines (1967) of a heavy mineral concentrate from Bluff Beach shows 4 percent cinnabar and confirms the presence of such minerals. All values greater than 0.2 ppm mercury occur within 40 kilometers of the shoreline and the highest contents (0.45 to 1.3 ppm) occur in the modern beach sediments along southern Seward Peninsula (Table 2). Although mean values (0.04 ppm) of nearshore sediments within 20 km of the shoreline of Seward Peninsula (fig. 4) are slightly higher than values (0.02 ppm) greater than 20 kilometers from the shoreline, all offshore values beyond the shoreline are nearly a factor of ten lower than the Seward Peninsula beaches. Generally high, but normal mean
Table 2.--Comparative values of mercury content in surface and subsurface sediments of different regions in northeastern Bering Sea. Value in ppm Number of Range of Total Range Sample Group Samples Mean Median 70% Values Max. Min. Beaches C. P. Wales Nome Bluff Seward Peninsula 0.07-0.14 0.04-0.14 0.25-0.45 Stuart Island 0.05-0.07 St. Matthew Island St. Lawrence Island 0.06-0.08 Surface Sediment Offshore Beyond the Shoreline All areas surface 1 mm 0.02-0.14 Surface 0-10 cm <40 km from shoreline 0.01-0.08 0.23 <0.01 >40 km from shoreline 0.01-0.06 0.07 <0.01 <20 km Wales shoreline <20 km Nome shoreline 0.01-0.06 0.15 <0.01 <20 km Bluff shoreline 0.02-0.04 <40 km from shoreline of St. Lawrence Island 0.01-0.07 0.23 <0.01 <20 km from shoreline of St. Matthew Island 0.01-0.05 0.07 <0.01 Subsurface Sediment Offshore Beyond the Shoreline Box Cores -10 to 30 CM <40 km shoreline 24 0.01-0.09 0.16 <0.01 -10 to 30 CM >40 km shoreline -10 to 30 CM <20 km Nome " 0.01-0.03 Nome Drill Holes 0.02-0.06 Sediment Type (Surface Sediments) Beach sand and gravel 0.05-0.45 Relict offshore gravel 0.01-0.06 0.25 <0.01 Relict offshore pebbly sand 0.01-0.06 0.11 <0.01 Relict offshore fine sand 0.01-0.06 0.07 <0.01 Modern or Holocene silt 0.02-0.09 0.16 <0.01 Organic rich clayey silt 0.05-0.16 0.16 <0.01 Submerged Beaches off Seward Peninsula -11 to -13 m <0.01-0.03 0.07 <0.01 -16 to -18 m 0.02-0.04 -20 to -22 m 0.01-0.03 0.15 <0.01 -36 to -40 m 0.03-0.08 Total NE Bering Sea Samples 0.01-0.08 1.30 <0.01
values of mercury (0.03 to 0.08, Table 2, fig. 4) are found in the beach and nearshore sediments of Stuart, St. Matthew, and St. Lawrence Islands which contain no known mercury deposits. Like surface sediments, the mercury content in subsurface sediments suggests that average values (0.04 ppm) are slightly higher less than 40 kilometers from the shoreline than are average values (0.025 ppm) more than 40 kilometers from the shoreline (Table 2). The highest mean values occur in the nearshore subsurface sediments off Seward Peninsula, particularly in drill holes (fig. 4) off Nome (0.06 ppm). Drill holes within 3 miles of Nome penetrated Illinoian glacial drift (Nelson and Hopkins, 1972) that contained up to 0.6 ppm mercury and Pliocene marine silts more than 200 feet below the sea floor that contained up to 0.15 ppm mercury. Discussion Mercury is consistently abundant in altered zones of Seward Peninsula metamorphic rocks (Sainsbury and others, 1970). For example, rocks from the many fault zones of Seward Peninsula commonly contain up to several parts per million mercury (Table 3). One such fault zone occurs several miles east of the beach on Cape Prince of Wales (Sainsbury, oral commun., 1971) where a high level (0.96 ppm) of mercury was found. Elsewhere, local cinnabar deposits constitute potential sources (Cobb, 1970) for mercury (fig. 2). One of these is located in the present beach cliff several miles east of the location of high mercury levels (1.3 - 0.45 ppm Hg) on Bluff Beach. The high values
Table 3.--Mercury content (ppm) of source rocks and unconsolidated sediments in Bering Sea other areas. Average Range Background Representative Areas Reference Source Max Min Level Average Sedimentary Vinogradov, 1959 Rock U.S. Soils Shacklette & others, 1971 Lake Michigan Kennedy & others, 1971 .03 - .06 Rhine River De Groot & others, 1971 Em River De Groot & others, 1971 San Francisco Bay McCulloch & others, 1971 Gulf of California Bischoff, oral comm., 1972 Pacific Manganese Mero, 1965, p. 181 Nodules Bering Sea Area Seward Peninsula Sainsbury & others, 1970 Unaltered Rocks Altered Rocks Streams Southwest Alaska Clark & others, 1970a, Streams 1970b, 1971 Goodnews Bay Barnes, oral comm., 1972 Northern Bering This report Shelf Central Bering This report Shelf Chukchi Sea Barnes & Leong, 1971
(0.2 - 0.6 ppm) found in Illinoian glacial drift, buried offshore from Nome, apparently were derived from material that was eroded from mineralized zones (Sainsbury and others, 1970) inland from the Nome beaches. Similarly, the area of high mercury content (0.10 - 0.25 ppm) that is found about 40 km west from St. Lawrence Island (figs. 1 and 2) occurs in relict gravels of glacial drift derived from mineralized areas in Chukotka (USSR Metalliferous Zones Map, 1967). The high level of mercury (0.14 - 0.45 ppm) in the modern Nome beach sand may originate either from glacial drift sources or from the extensive gold mining in the early 1900's. Metallic mercury was used for amalgamating the gold from the beach placers and it can still be panned out of the present beach sediments. The content of mercury (0.6 ppm) in subsurface Neogene sediments off Nome (Table 2) indicates that the present beach anomalies cannot definitely be attributed to mining. Several factors may contribute to the decrease in mercury values of offshore sediment adjacent to beaches. The most likely explanation, particularly along Seward Peninsula, is dilution by the great quantities of Yukon River silt and fine sand that are transported along this coastline (fig. 1; Nelson and others, 1972; McManus and Smyth, 1970). The modern Yukon sediment blankets the entire area off Bluff, covers the local depressions off Nome and Wales, and often is intermixed in the relict sands and gravels of the nearshore zone (Nelson and Hopkins, 1972).
Normal surf-zone processes tend to concentrate heavy minerals on beaches; light minerals are preferentially winnowed and transported into the nearshore belt of fine sand (Swift and others, 1971). This basic mechanism may increase beach content and dilute nearshore content of the particulate mercury bearing minerals like cinnabar which has a relatively high specific gravity. Entrapment of mercury on the beach may be enhanced because the cinnabar may be disseminated in coarser quartz particles (Allen Clark, personal commun., 1972, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park CA) as it is elsewhere in Alaska (Clark and others, 1971). Such mineral grains containing mercury would be more resistant to breakdown into smaller particles and thus would tend to be concentrated on beaches. Summary of Sedimentary Processes Affecting Mercury Distribution Glacial transport may provide a means of carrying mercury-bearing minerals en masse from onshore sources to offshore areas. For example, the glacial debris sampled by drill holes off Nome (Table 2) and located off Northwest Cape of St. Lawrence Island both contain high mercury values (fig. 2). Similar concentrations of other particulate heavy metals are also found in glacial moraines off Nome (see gold, fig. 2) and St. Lawrence Island (see copper, Nelson and Hopkins, 1972). Although the glacial processes would tend to disperse these particulate minerals as they transport them from their bedrock sources, secondary enrichment processes occur. Processes of shoreline transgression and regression during the Pleistocene reworked the glacial debris through high energy
of beach and stream action (Nelson and Hopkins, 1972). Consequently, placer concentrations can be expected in specific localities of these complex, older sediments in offshore areas; the most likely occurrence of such anomalous concentrations would be in buried ancient beaches derived from mercury-bearing glacial drift. The drill holes off Nome appear to have penetrated such deposits. The distribution of mercury values in the Seward Peninsula region may serve as a preliminary model for dispersal of mercury from natural deposits through the present system of surficial sediments. The average values of mercury in the soils and offshore surface sediments of the southern Seward Peninsula area are comparable to normal values elsewhere in the world (Table 3). This distribution of mercury in surficial sedi ments suggests that particulate minerals bearing mercury have not been widely dispersed from Seward Peninsula in quantities sufficient to increase offshore mercury levels above normal. The major contamination of present surficial sediment from natural mercury deposits of Seward Peninsula takes place where high energy processes, such as on the beach, can concentrate particulate heavy minerals from sources of local lode or alteration zones in bedrock or from displaced glacial debris exposed in shorelines and stream valleys. The apparent shoreline entrapment and concentration of mercury source minerals and/or dilution from recent sediment deposition result in normal mercury values even immediately offshore from mercury rich beaches. Importance of the dilution factor offshore is emphasized by the observation that both mercury (Table 2) and gold (Nelson and Hopkins, 1972) values are nearly normal in the mixed modern and ancient surficial sediments of the submerged Quaternary beaches off Seward Peninsula.
REFERENCES CITED Ackefors, H., 1971, Mercury pollution in Sweden with special reference to conditions in the water habitat: Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B. V. 177, p. 365-387. Clark, A. L., Condon, W. H., Hoare, J. M., and Sorg, D. H., 1970, Analyses of rock and stream-sediment samples from the Taylor Mountains A-6 and southern part of Taylor Mountains B-6 quadrangles, Alaska: U. S. Geological Survey Open-file report, 94 p. , 1970, Analyses of rock and stream-sediment samples from the Taylor Mountains C-8 quadrangle, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Open-file report, 110 p. , 1971, Analyses of stream-sediment samples from the Taylor Mountains D-8 quadrangle, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Open-file report, 60 p. Clifton, H. E., Hunter, R. E., Swanson, F. J., and Phillips, R. L., 1969, Sample size and meaningful gold analysis: U.S. Geological Survey Prof. Paper 625-C, p. Cl-C170. Cobb, E. H., 1970, Mercury Occurrences in Alaska, Mineral Investigations Resources Map MR-54: U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., 1 p. Cobb, E. H., and Richter, D. H., 1967, Metallic mineral resources map of the Seward and Blying Sound quadrangles, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey open-file map. Cobb, E. H., and Sainsbury, C. L., 1968, Metallic mineral resources map of the Teller quadrangle, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey open-file map.
De Groot, A. J., De Goeij, J. J. M., and Zegers, C., 1971, Contents and behavior of mercury as compared with other heavy metals in sediments from the rivers Rhine and Ems: Geologie En Mjnbouw, v. 50, p. 393-398. Durovic, S., 1959, Contribution to the log-normal distribution of elements: Geochimical et cosmochimical Acta, v. 15, p. 330-336. Durum, W. H., Hem, J. D., and Heidel, S. G., 1971, Reconnaissance of selected minor elements in surface waters of the United States, October 1970: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 643, p. 1-49. Herreid, G., 1965, Geology of the Bluff Area, Solomon quadrangle, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, Division of Mines and Minerals, Department of Natural Resources, State of Alaska, Geologic Report No. 10, 21 p. Kennedy, E. J., Ruch, R. R., and Shimp, N. F., 1971, Distribution of mercury in unconsolidated sediments from southern Lake Michigan: Illinois Geological Survey Environmental Geology Note 7, 18 p. Klein, D. H., and Goldberg, E. D., 1970, Mercury in the marine environment: Environmental Science and Tech., v. 4, no. 9, p. 765-967. McCulloch, D. S., Peterson, D. H., Conomos, T. J., Leong, K. W., and Carlson, P. R., 1971, Mercury distribution in surface sediments, San Francisco Bay Estuary: Transactions, American Geophysical Union, v. 52, no. 4, p. 361. McManus, D. A., and Smyth, C. S., 1970, Turbid bottom water on the continental shelf of the northern Bering Sea: Jour. of Sed. Petrology, v. 40, p. 869-887. Mero, J. L., 1965, The mineral resources of the sea: Elsevier Publishing Co., New York, 312 p.
Nelson, C. H., and Hopkins, D. M., 1972, Sedimentary processes and distribution of particulate gold in northern Bering Sea: U.S. Geological Survey Prof. Paper 689, 27 p. Nelson, C. H., 1971, Trace metal content of surface relict sediments and displacement of northern Bering Sea Holocene sediments: Abstracts, Second Coastal and Shallow Water Research Conference, p. 269. Nelson, C. H., Hopkins, D. M., and Scholl, D. W., 1972, Cenozoic sedimentary and tectonic history of the Bering Sea: in Hood, D. W., and Sharma, G. D. Eds., Proceedings of International Symposium for Bering Sea study, 34 p, 13 figs., in press. Sainsbury, C. L., and MacKevett, E. M., Jr., 1965, Quicksilver deposits of southwestern Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Bull. 1187, 89 p. Sainsbury, C. L., Hudson, Travis, Kachadoorian, Reuben, and Richards, Thomas, 1970, Geology, mineral deposits, and geochemical and radiometric anomalies, Serpentine Hot Springs Area, Seward Peninsula, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Bull. 1312-H, p. Hl-H19. Shacklette, H. T., Boerngen, J. G., and Turner, R. L., 1971, Mercury in the environment - surficial materials of the conterminous United States: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 644, 5 p. Swift, D. J. P., Dill, C. E., Jr., and McHone, John, 1971, Hydraulic fractionation of heavy mineral suites on an unconsolidated retreating coast: Jour. of Sed. Petrology, v. 41, p. 683-690. U. S. Bureau of Mines, 1967, Confidential report - Program Data, Joint USBMUSGS Offshore Heavy Metals Project, southern Seward Peninsula, Alaska: Marine Mineral Technology Center (NOAA), Tiburon, CA., 33 p.
U. S. Geological Survey, 1970, Mercury in the environment: U.S. Geological Survey Prof. Paper 713, 67 p. U. S. S. R., Map of basic metalliferous zones in the USSR territory, scale 1:7,500,000, 1967: Union Scientific Research Institute of Geology (VESGEI), Ministry of Geology USSR (in Russian). Vaughn, W. W., 1967, A simple mercury vapor detector for geochemical prospecting: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 540, 8 p. Vaughn, W. W., and McCarthy, J. H., Jr., 1964, An instrumental technique for the determination of submicrogram concentrations of mercury in soils, rocks and gas: U.S. Geological Survey Prof. Paper 501-D, p. D123-D127. Vinogradov, A. P., 1959, The geochemistry of rare and dispersed chemical elements in soils: 2nd Edition, New York, Consultants Bureau, 209 p. Wedepohl, K. H. [ed.], 1970, Handbook of geochemistry: v. 2, no. 2, Springer-Verlag, New York, p. 80-E-1. Wood, J. M., Scott, K. F., and Rosen, C. G., 1968, Synthesis of methylmercury compounds by extracts of a metanogenic bacterium: Nature, v. 220, p. 172-174.
APPENDIX I SAMPLE NUMBER 68 ANC 3B 68 ANC 8B 68 ANC 6 68 ANC 13 68 ANC 15 68 ANC 17 68 ANC 23 68 PR 20 68 PR 21 68 PR 22 68 PR 23 G17-2b-c G25-4 G35 G35-6b G35-1c G43-lb G43-3c G49-1c G49-3c 69 ANC 127A 69 ANC 127C 69 ANC 130A 69 ANC 130C LATITUDE 65°32'53" 65°33'12" 65°32'54" 65°36'43" 65°37' 6" 65°37'42" 65°42'54" 65°33'54" 65°33'36" 65°33'42" 65°33'30" 64°32'12" 64°31'12" u u u u 64°30'19" 64°29'54" 64°29' u 64°29'29" LONGITUDE 167°52'39" 167°54'19" 167°53'30" 168° 5'39" 168° 6'30" 168° 7' 168° 1' 167°57'20" 167°58'48" 167°58' 167°57'30" 165°42'36" 165°35' 4" u u u u 165°28'41" 165°24'45" 165°18'10" u u 165°21'43" WATER DEPTH VALUE PPM HG REMARKS Cape Prince of Wales Beach Area Nome Beach Area
SAMPLE NUMBER LATITUDE LONGITUDE WATER DEPTH VALUE PPM HG REMARKS 69 ANC 145A 64°26' 8" 165° 30" Nome Beach Area n n n n n n 69 ANC 145C 69 ANC 147A 64°27'36" 165° 8'50" n n n n n 69 ANC 147C 68 AWF 801A 64°34'40" 163°46' 7" Bluff Beach Area 68 AWF 802 64°34'39" 163°45'30" 68 AWF 807 64°34'51" 163°49'27" 68 AWF 827 64°34'39" 163°46'52" n 69 ANC 85 64°37'26" 162°27'44" Stuart Island Beach - North Side 69 ANC 86 64°37'26" 162°27'44" 69 ANC 95 63°37'25" 162°31'10" " " H qo 69 ANC 97 63°37'48" 162°32'20" 71ADE 3 St. Matthew Island Beach 71ADE 7 n n USBM 6-1 64°28'54" 165°25'26" rk,40' Offshore Drill Hole 0'- 6' Depth USBM 6-2 n n n 6'- 18' n USBM 6-4 n n n n 24'- 30' " USBM 6-6 n n /I 36'- 42' n USBM 12-7 64°28'13" 165°33' 2" ' 1,58' n 34'- 40' n USBM 12-9 46'- 52' n USBM 12-11 n 58'- 64' n USBM 12-13 n n 76'- 82' n USBM 12-14 " " 82'- 88' USBM 12-16 n n 94'-100'
SAMPLE NUMBER LATITUDE LONGITUDE WATER DEPTH VALUE PPM HG REMARKS USBM 17-1 64°30'47" 165040'53" Offshore Drill Hole 0'- 3' Depth USBM 17-3 9'- 21' USBM 17-5 29'- 33' USBM 17-9 39'- 45' USBM 24-5A 64°24'58" 165°12'31" 42'- 53' USBM 24-5B 42'-53' USBM 24-15 151'-162' USBM 24-20 206'-217' USBM 24-23 238'-244' USBM 28-11 64°26' 165° 6'58" "47' 63'- 69' USBM 28-15 87'- 93' rr USBM 28-17 100'-107' USBM 47-2 64°29'39" 165030'56" q,35' 7'- 13' USBM 47-4 19'- 25' USBM 47-6 31'- 37' rr USBM 47-8 43'-49' USBM 47-10 64°29'39" 165°30'56" 55'- 61' USBM 47-12 67'- 73' rr USBM 47-14 79'- 85' 67 ANC 30 64°27'35" 165°19'48" 45' Offshore Surface 68 AWF 310 64°28' 8" 164°41'58" 31' 68 AWF 327 64°32'12" 164°25'12" 68 AWF 338 64°32'41" 163°59'50" 46' 68 AWF 343 64°32'48" 163054'18" 14'
SAMPLE NUMBER 68 AWF 344 68 AWF 345 68 AWF 346 68 AWF 350 68 AWF 354 68 AWF 355 68 AWF 357 68 AWF 410 68 AWF 430 68 AWF 440 68 AWF 505 68 ANC 30B 68 ANC 61B 68 ANC 70B 68 ANC 95B 68 ANC 105B 68 ANC 112B 68 ANC 115B 68 ANC 118A 68 ANC 118G 68 ANC 120B 68 ANC 126B 68 ANC 140B 68 ANC 1548 LATITUDE 64°33'24" 64°33'24" 64033'24" 64°32' 64°33' 63°33' 64°30'48" 64°30'10" 64°28'26" 64°23'40" 64°32'48" 65°42'16" 65°25' 65°32' 6" 63°49' 63°37' 63°42' 63°44' 63°41' 63°39'48" 63°32' 63°22'30" 63°50' LONGITUDE 163°50'42" 163°48' 163°45'24" 163°50'42" 163°43'30" 163°41' 6" 163°41' 6" 164°11'50" 164°26'30" 164°46'31" 166°15' 168° 7'37" 167°36'54" 168° 2'18" 171°40' 171°10'48" 170°38' 170°25'12" 170°11' 170° 1'30" 169°44'36" 168°56' 169°47' WATER DEPTH 20' 22' 18' 47' 24' 20' 50' 64' 71' 84' 40' 25' 49' 87' 121' 49' 117' 143' 142' 143' 121' 87' 104' VALUE PPM HG REMARKS Offshore Surface Offshore Subsurface Offshore Surface
SAMPLE NUMBER 68 ANC 166B 68 ANC 179T 68 ANC 179B 68 ANC 181B 68 ANC 182B 68 ANC 187B 68 ANC 190B 68 ANC 2008 68 ANC 212T 68 ANC 212B 68 ANC 215E N.) tv 68 ANC 216A 68 ANC 216B 68 ANC 231B 68 ANC 233B 68 ANC 234B 68 ANC 235T 68 ANC 235T 68 ANC 235T 68 ANC 235T 68 ANC 235T 68 ANC 235B 68 ANC 235B 68 ANC 235B LATITUDE 64°57' 65°16'12" 65°13' 65010'36" 65° 2' 6" 64°58' 64°39'42" 64°37'32" If 64°26' 64°18'30" u 64°20'48" 64°26'30" 64°29'54" 64°29'30" " LONGITUDE 167°49' 166°57'12" 167°26'48" 167°23'24" 167°21' 5" 167°10'30" 166°36'30" 167°14'26" 168° 4'36" 168°20'48" 166° 8'24" 166° 4'30" 166° 2'18" 165°45'54" u u If WATER DEPTH 136' 50' 69' 63' 76' 45' 72' 96' 119' 130' 135' 106' 67' 66' u VALUE PPM HG REMARKS Offshore Surface Offshore Subsurface Offshore Surface u Offshore Subsurface Offshore Surface Offshore Subsurface Offshore Surface u Offshore Surface, 1st Trial 2nd Trial 3rd Trial 4th Trial 5th Trial Offshore Subsurface, 1st Trial 2nd Trial 3rd Trial
SAMPLE NUMBER LATITUDE LONGITUDE WATER DEPTH VALUE PPM HG REMARKS 68 ANC 235B 64°29'30" 165°45'54" 66' Offshore Subsurface, 4th Trial is 68 ANC 235B 5th Trial 68 ANC 240B 64°18'12" 165°40'12" 69' Offshore Surface 68 ANC 241T 68 ANC 241T 68 ANC 241T 68 ANC 241T 64°24' si 165°35' si 102' Offshore Surface, 1st Trial 2nd Trial 3rd Trial 4th Trial 68 ANC 241T 5th Trial 68 ANC 241B 68 ANC 241B u u H u Offshore Subsurface, 1st Trial 2nd Trial w 68 ANC 241B 68 ANC 241B u " is u u 3rd Trial 4th Trial 68 ANC 241B n tit n H 5th Trial 68 ANC 244T 64°27'24" 165°24'42" 69' Offshore Surface 68 ANC 244B Offshore Subsurface 68 ANC 248B 64°10'12" 165°24' 65' Offshore Surface 68 ANC 251B 64°25' 165°14'24" 71' 69 ANC 100S 69 ANC 100S 69 ANC 100S 63°39'12" is 162°29' 6" 53' Offshore Surface, 1st Trial 2nd Trial is 3rd Trial 69 ANC 100S 69 ANC 100S u is u n 4th Trial 5th Trial 69 ANC 100BUH 69 ANC 100BUH Offshore Upper Subsurface, 1st Trial " 2nd Trial
SAMPLE NUMBER LATITUDE LONGITUDE WATER DEPTH VALUE PPM HG REMARKS 69 ANC 100BUH 63°39'12" 162°29' 6" 53' Offshore Upper Subsurface, 3rd Trial ,, ,, I, ,, 69 ANC 100BUH 4th Trial 69 ANC 100BUH ,, ,, in ,, n ,, 5th Trial 69 ANC 100BLH Offshore Lower Subsurface, 1st Trial 69 ANC 100BLH ,, ,, n ,, 2nd Trial 69 ANC 100BLH ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, 3rd Trial 69 ANC 100BLH ,, ,, ,, ,, I/ 4th Trial 69 ANC 100BLH ,, 5th Trial 69 ANC 101B 64° 9'42" 164° 7'36" 74' Offshore Surface 69 ANC 105B 64°10'36" 166°33'42" 95' ,, 69 ANC 107B 63°52' 167°18'48" 110' K) ,I. 69 ANC 114 62°31'24" 165°57'30" 44' ,, 69 ANC 116 63°12'30" 165°19'42" 42' 69 ANC 118 63°45'36" 166° 0'42" 88' 69 ANC 120S 63°39'30" 164°37' 42' 69 ANC 120B Offshore Subsurface 69 ANC 121 63°35'30" 163°59' 47' Offshore Surface 69 ANC 122S 64°22'30" 165°44'48" 88' 69 ANC 122U ,, ,, ,, ,, 69 ANC 122L ,, ,, n ,, ,, Offshore Subsurface 69 ANC 155B 63°52' 165°44'20" 110' Offshore Surface 69 ANC 200B 64°25'48" 165°25'16" 39' ,, 69 ANC 204H III 63°46'36" 170° 1'30" 141' ,, 69 ANC 204H I ,, ,, ,, ,, Offshore Subsurface
SAMPLE NUMBER 69 ANC 206S 69 ANC 206B 69 ANC 207 69 ANC 207 69 ANC 207 69 ANC 208B 69 ANC 209B 69 ANC 215 69 ANC 215 69 ANC 216 69 ANC 220B N 69 ANC 2218 69 ANC 222H II 69 ANC 222H I 69 ANC 223 69 ANC 223 69 ANC 224A 69 ANC 224B 69 ANC 227B 69 ANC 229 69 ANC 230 69 ANC 230 69 ANC 232 69 ANC 235 LATITUDE 63°41' 63°43'42" 63°42'36" 63°53'24" 63°54' 64° 0'54" 63°51'18" 63°52'18" 63°56'48" 64° 0'54" 63°58'18" 64° 8'12" 64° 8' 6" 64°13' 64°15'30" 64°29'54" LONGITUDE 170° 0' 169°54'12" 169°36'36" 169°29'48" 170°48'30" 170°49'30" 171°59'24" 172°18' 172°31' 172°25' 6" 172°12'48" 171°47'18" 171°13' 7" 170°52' 7" 170°18' 169°39'42" WATER DEPTH 144' 138' 125' 105' 93' 89' 125' 177' 180' 184' 177' 159' 118' 118' 125' 121' VALUE PPM HG REMARKS Offshore Surface Offshore Subsurface Offshore Surface Offshore Subsurface Offshore Surface Offshore Subsurface Offshore Surface " Offshore Subsurface Offshore Surface Offshore Subsurface Offshore Surface Offshore Subsurface Offshore Surface
SAMPLE NUMBER 69 ANC 237 69 ANC 237 69 ANC 245H II 69 ANC 245H I 69 ANC 247H VII 69 ANC 250B 69 ANC 251S 69 ANC 251T 69 ANC 251B 69 ANC 252H IV 69 ANC 252H IV 69 ANC 252H IV 69 ANC 252H IV 69 ANC 252H IV 69 ANC 252H IV 69 ANC 252H II 69 ANC 252H II 69 ANC 252H II 69 ANC 252H II 69 ANC 252H II 69 ANC 252H I 69 ANC 252H I 69 ANC 252H I 69 ANC 252H I LATITUDE 65° 4'30" 65°11'12" 65°13'54" 65° 7'24" 65° 6'18" 65° 5' 6" It ►1 'I LONGITUDE 169014'42" 167°53'12" 1► 167°39'30" 167°30' 167°37'12" It 167°43'24" t It tl tl /I WATER DEPTH 164' 102' 118' 56' 69' 120' VALUE PPM HG REMARKS Offshore Surface Offshore Subsurface Offshore Surface Offshore Subsurface Offshore Surface Offshore Subsurface Offshore Surface I/ Offshore Subsurface Offshore Surface, 1st Trial 2nd Trial 3rd Trial 4th Trial ► 5th Trial 6th Trial Offshore Upper Subsurface, 1st Trial 2nd Trial ► 3rd Trial 4th Trial 5th Trial Offshore Lower Subsurface, 1st Trial 2nd Trial 3rd Trial 4th Trial
SAMPLE NUMBER LATITUDE LONGITUDE WATER DEPTH VALUE PPM HG REMARKS 69 ANC 252H I 65° 5' 6" 167°43'24" 120' Offshore Lower Subsurface, 5th Trial 69 ANC 252H I n n n n n 6th Trial 69 ANC 253S 65° 5'24" 167°47' 102' Offshore Surface 69 ANC 253B Offshore Subsurface 69 ANC 253BC n n n Offshore 69 ANC 253BB It Offshore 69 ANC 254B 65° 1'36" 168° 5'30" 112' Offshore Surface 69 ANC 255UH 64°57' 168°15' 134' n 69 ANC 255LH n n n Offshore Subsurface 70 ANC 7B 63°17'30" 172°18' 202' Offshore Surface, 1st Trial 70 ANC 7B n n n n n 2nd Trial tv 70 ANC 7B It 3rd Trial 70 ANC 7B n n n n n 4th Trial 70 ANC 7B n 5th Trial 70 ANC 11B 63°18'30" 170°55'54" 88' Offshore Surface 70 ANC 13B 63° 8'12" 170°28' 124' to 70 ANC 14B 62°54'48" 170°36'48" 139' n 70 ANC 15S 62°57'42" 170°27'24" 147' n 70 ANC 15B It Offshore Subsurface 70 ANC 16S 62°54' 169°58' 137' Offshore Surface 70 ANC 20S 62°37'18" 169°24' 115' 70 ANC 24S 63°10' 168°38' 88' n 70 ANC 27B 63° 9'36" 167°56'54" 77' n 70 ANC 29S 62°52' 167° 4' 91' n
SAMPLE NUMBER 70 ANC 32B 70 ANC 35S 70 ANC 40B 70 ANC 45S 70 ANC 47B 70 ANC 48B 70 ANC 53S 70 ANC 54S 70 ANC 56B 70 ANC 58S 70 ANC 58H III tv oo 70 ANC 59T 70 ANC 59C 70 ANC 61S 70 ANC 61T 70 ANC 61B 71 ADE 3 71 ADE 6 71 ADE 10 71 ADE 13 71 ADE 15 71 ADE 16T 71 ADE 16B 71 ADE 17 LATITUDE 64°26'42" 64°28'36" 64°23'18" 64°23'48" 64°31'42" 64°30'18" 64° 64° 1'30" 63°41'24" 63°45'30" 63°53' 6" 63°26' 6" 60°32'24" 60°30' 6" 60°25'18" 60°28'36" 60°30'36" 60°32'18" 60°33' 6" LONGITUDE 163°51'18" 163°25'30" 163° 2'30" 162°32'48" 162°14' 161°56'36" 162° 1'30" 161°16'36" 161°11'36" 162° 2'30" 163° 5'36" 163°27'12" 172°53'12" 172°50'42" 172°26'48" 172°22' 172°29'30" 172°32'42" 172°34'54" WATER DEPTH 58' 53' 39' 61' 42' 43' 60' 51' 42' 52' 61' 36' 95' 76' 135' 192' 175' 168' 163' VALUE PPM HG REMARKS Offshore Surface Offshore Subsurface Offshore Surface Offshore Subsurface Offshore Surface Offshore Subsurface Offshore Surface Offshore Subsurface Offshore Surface
SAMPLE NUMBER 71 ADE 19 71 ADE 20 71 ADE 22 71 ADE 26 71 ADE 30 71 ADE 32 71 ADE 35 71 ADE 36 71 ADE 38 LATITUDE 60°35'54" 60°32'30" 60029 1 24" 60°24'42" 60°20'12" 60°23'30" 60°36'12" 60037 1 48" 60°38'54" LONGITUDE 172°42'42" 172°47'36" 172°41'24" 172°34'12" 172°25'30" 172°48' 172°53'54" 172°58' 6" 173° 3'42" WATER DEPTH 146' 132' 92' 93' 42' 42' 117' 120' 50' VALUE PPM HG REMARKS Offshore Surface /I
MERCURY SAMPLES IN THE NORTHERN BERING SEA tf O o 0 00 088o
.20 PPM Hg
.10- 20 PPM Hg .10 PPM Hg
CINNABAR DEPOSIT --SURFACE 0-10 CM SUBSURFACE 10-30 CM 60 KILOMETERS O NOME 0 44 m000
O O
Stuort Island O ST. MATTHEW ISLAND 00° A o 1 ' D E4.
Sample 50% Gravel 0%-50% Gravel Yukon Silt X High Au
Seward Penninsula
Sand Cnirikov 9. 4S'* (Sand)
/; / /N /z // NORTON ,SOUptD/ z/(5/7 ,y , / / V / // / /S TUAR:T/I,,
20 40 60 Km
Yukon River
H3 VALUE DISTRIBUTION INTER— LOW MEDIATE HIGH 3oto ul CO E
z I I 1 I1 lk I I .1; .2..13 .05 .06 .07 .0g.01.11.11 .4g .60 PPM 1-1 3 OF SA MPLES
MERCURY CONCENTRATION (PPM OF DRY SAMPLE WT.) O O A 4z SEWARD PENINSULA OTHER BERING SEA a. ISLANDS (STIR ART ST. MATTHE,Al, LAWRENCE) CA) 1-tO KM FROM ALL (n0 11 SHORELINES 3 tn/ -o r- x 40 KM FROM ALL rn ° SHORELINES O v) 2.0 KM FROM SEWARD PENINSULA <10 KM FROM BERINGoa SEA ISLANDS (STUART 3 m ST MATTHEWS , ST. LAWRENCE) O ),) -n 40 KM FROM ALL SHORELINES r- 40 KM FROM ALL rn to 7J SHORELINES in cn 20 KM FROM r-7) 0'11 1 SEWARD PENINSULA O cn <20 KM FROM BERING ft 111111111111011111.1111.11011.11=1111M= SEA ISLANDS (STUART, ST LAWRENcE-, ST MATHEW) DRILL HOLES 0-244( TOTAL RANGE OF VALUES F-1 z 7.1 0 CO EAN VALUE r- LRANGE OF 70 4e) OF VALUES NOLLYNVIdX3
I BOOKBI I I 'C i .MIODLFT N. PA . Iii \lr'rl' alz;t_Bound : ·
--
· ·--
13111111J1 11u81 1110'1 IIIIIIIIIIIII 14 II