STUDY OF LEAD, COPPER, ZINC AND CADMIUM
  CONTAMINATION OF FOOD CHAINS OF MAN
   C.  Richard Dorn; Project Director
 James 0.  Pierce, II; Co-investigator
   Gerald  R.  Chase; Co-investigator
Patrick E.  Phillips;  Research Associate
         University of Missouri
        Columbia, Missouri   65201
       Contract Number 68-02-0092
       Date:   6/26/71  to 12/26/72
            Final  Report
Prepared for the Environmental  Protection  Agency
         Durham, North  Carolina
             December 1972

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I . INTRODUCTION 	
II. SUMMARY 	
III. RECOMMENDATIONS 	
IV. MATERIALS AND METHODS 	
A. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA 	
B. SELECTION OF THE TEST FARM 	
C. SELECTION OF THE CONTROL FARM 	
D. DESCRIPTION OF THE TEST AND CONTROL COWS 	
E. SAMPLE COLLECTION AND PREPARATION 	
F. ATOMIC ABSORPTION SPECTROPHOTOMETRY
PROCEDURES 	
6. STATISTICAL PROCEDURES 	
V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 	
A. DUSTFALL 	
B. SOIL 	
C. VEGETATION - ROOTS 	
D. VEGETATION - TOPS 	
E. CATTLE HAIR 	
F. CATTLE BLOOD 	
G. MILK FROM COWS 	
H. CATTLE TISSUES 	
I. HUMAN CONSUMPTION OF MEAT AND MILK FROM COWS
EXPOSED TO PRODUCTION SOURCES OF HEAVY METALS ..
J. GARDEN CROPS 	
K. LEAD TRANSLOCATION 	
PAGE
2
5
8
11
	 11
.... 13
14
	 17
19

25
26
33
33
34
35
35
37
38
39
76

	 76
80
80

-------
                                                                PAGE
      L.  INTAKE AND ASSIMILATION OF LEAD  BY  CATTLE 	      87
      M.  METEOROLOGICAL EFFECTS AND SOURCES  OF
          CONTAMINATION ON THE TEST FARM 	      94
  VI. REFERENCES 	     103
 VII. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 	     108
VIII. APPENDIX TABLES 	     110

-------
      I.
INTRODUCTION

-------
                        I.   INTRODUCTION

        Environmental contamination by cadmium (Cd),  copper (Cu),
lead (Pb) and zinc (Zn) involves several trophic levels of the
ecosystem.  It is well  documented that airborne lead  is translo-
cated through food chains of soil, roots, foliage and domestic
animals to man.   Lead  is present in varying amounts  in all
natural foods.  Cadmium is  usually present in the environment in
small amounts, but serious  illnesses in human and domestic animal
populations have been observed following ingestion of food and
                                                       2
water contaminated by cadmium containing mining wastes.   Copper
and zinc are considered essential elements for mammals and are
                                                   3
translocated from the soil  via various food chains.
        Under normal  circumstances, the levels of these elements
in the environment are  determined by the geochemical  composition
of the region, and they are not high enough to adversely affect
the health of indigenous animal or human populations.  For example,
the current soil lead concentrations in most rural areas are
usually similar to the  average content in the earth's crust,
            a
10-15 ug/gm.   There  is, however, evidence that there have been
localized increases in  lead concentrations in soil,  and this is
thought to be associated with an increased body burden of lead
among certain population groups.
        Lead ore mining and lead production results  in the addition
of Cd, Cu, Pb and Zn  to the levels naturally present  in the soil.
The extent of this contamination depends upon the amounts contribu-
ted by various sources.  In turn, the level of contamination will

-------
affect the quantities of these elements translocated in various
food chains.  Some of the food chains involve human foods, and
environmental contaminants may be transported long distances in
food products.  Thus, remote human populations may be exposed via
food products to contaminants originating in a mining area.
        The primary purpose of this study was to investigate
production sources of heavy metal contamination of food supplies.
The objectives were:
        1.  estimation of annual  contamination of soil  in a  lead
mining area by Cd, Cu, Pb and Zn,
        2.  quantisation of these metals on vegetation,
        3.  estimation of intake  by animals grazing on  contaminated
vegetation,
        4.  determination of levels of contamination of meat and
milk produced by cattle grazing on contaminated pasture.

-------
  II.
SUMMARY

-------
                          II.  SUMMARY

        A statistically designed study was conducted In the new
lead producing region of southeastern Missouri to estimate the
amount of soil, vegetation, meat and milk contamination by Cd, Cu,
Pb and Zn.   Dustfall, soil, root and vegetation tops were collected
4 times during a one year period at varying distances from the
highway on  a test farm exposed to lead production sources of heavy
                                                                  /
metal contamination and on a control farm outside the lead production
area.  Hair, blood, milk, liver, kidney cortex, diaphragm muscle
and bone samples were collected for analysis by atomic absorption
spectrophotometry from cows.on the test and control  farms.  Between
the first and last sampling, the lead concentration  In soil at the
60 ft (18,3 m), 140 ft (42,7 m) and 220 ft (67.1 m)  sites on the
test farm Increased 219%, 257% and 284%, respectively.  The main
sources of  heavy metals at the test farm were stack  emissions from
a lead smelter, lead ore concentrate spillage from trucks, and dust
from stockpiled ore at the smelter.  High lead and cadmium dustfall
and air filter samples at the test farm corresponded to wind con-
ditions that would carry the smelter plume In the direction of the
test farm,  located approximately 800 meters from the stack.  The re-
sults of analyses of dustfall and soil samples from  the 3 sites at
varying distances from the highway indicated that copper was a
highway contaminant on the test farm but not on the  control farm.
The highest airborne, suspended Cd, Cu, Pb and Zn concentrations
were observed in winter on the test farm.  This corresponded with
high dustfall, soil and vegetation levels and the time of greatest

-------
increase in lead assimilation by a project owned test cow.
There was a general  dilution in the lead concentrations at  each
step of the food chain from soil to cattle tissues on the control
farm, while on the test farm bio-magnification of lead in the
grass roots was observed.   This was attributed to higher airborne
lead levels on the test farm, foliar absorption and deposition
in the roots.  On an equivalent basis, the test cow's blood Pb
concentration at the end of the study period  was 1/246 the  test
farm soil concentration and the control  cow's blood Pb was  1/187
the control farm soil  concentration.  Analysis of cattle hair was
a sensitive indicator of lead contamination;  however, it had
limited use in determining the body burden of lead because  washed
hair contains both exogenous and endogenous components.  The liver,
kidney, muscle and milk of the test cow contained very small
amounts of cadmium,  and the lead levels  were  2.35 ug/gm, 3.75 ug/gm,
0.19 ug/gm and 13 ug/100 ml, respectively.  The test cow milk Pb
concentrations were  1.9 times that of the control cow, and  Pb
concentrations in milk from another cow exposed to only lead ore
concentrate spillage from trucks and background sources was
intermediate to those for the test and control cows.

-------
     nr.
RECOMMENDATIONS

-------
                      III.   RECOMMENDATIONS

        The following recommendations  are based on the results
of this study:
        1.  Lead ore concentrate should not be hauled by trucks
            on public highways or property in open hoppers, or
            without enough  moisture to prevent escape of dust
            in transit.
        2.  Dust from stockpiled lead  ore concentrate and
            metallurgical  fumes in smelter emissions should be
            controlled to  as small amounts as possible.
        3.  Tolerances should be determined for lead and cadmium
            in ambient air  and continuous air sampling in lead
            production areas should be conducted using standard
            criteria.
        4.  It should be determined if slag, the end by-product
            resulting from  the smelting process, contains lead
            which is available to plants and animals.
        5.  The use of slag in road maintenance should be dis-
            couraged because feasible  environmental  monitoring
            usually relies  on testing  soil or other  environmental
            samples, and current analytical methods  can  not
            determine with  reliability that portion  of the total
            lead that is taken up by plants.
        6.  Tolerances and/or guidelines should be developed for
            permissible  levels of lead and cadmium in meat and
            milk products  in the United States.
                                8

-------
7.  A long term surveillance program should be developed
    to monitor for build up of lead and cadmium In the
    environment and possible harmful botanical and health
    effects using soil, cattle hair and other biological
    samples as markers.
8.  Systems to identify sources of lead contamination
    using lead isotopic ratios of selected food chains  ,
    involving domestic animals and wildlife in south-
    eastern Missouri should be developed.
9.  Long range plans for uses of National  Forests, National
    Parks and other public lands that involve industrial
    leasing and development should include specific
    tolerances and guidelines that will prevent the
    occurrence of ecological imbalances.

-------
         IV.
MATERIALS AND METHODS

-------
                   IV.   MATERIALS AND METHODS

A.  Description of Study Area
        The area chosen for study was Iron and Reynolds  Counties
    in southeastern Missouri  (Figure 1).   Geological  exploration
    of this part of the State in the 1950's and early 1960's
    indicated that major deposits of lead, zinc, copper  and  silver
    were present.  Since then extensive industrial  development has
    occurred, and it has become the world's largest lead-producing
    district.  In 1970  the production was 432,576 tons of lead
    or 74.431 of the entire U.S. lead production.   The location
    of this new mining  district has been  named the  "Viburnum  Trend"
    or "New Lead Belt"  to distinguish it  from the older  lead
    producing areas that are  now inactive.
        The development of new mines has  been accompanied by  the
    building of two new lead  smelters which became  operational
    in 1968.  One smelter was built at a  mining site  in  the
    Clark National Forest,  and the other was built on privately
    owned land at Glover, Missouri.  Following milling and con-
    centration, lead ore is hauled by truck via State Highway
    72/21 to the smelter at Glover from the mining  sites in  the
    Clark National Forest to  the west (Figure 1).  This  part  of
    the highway traverses wooded and agricultural land.   The
    deforested areas are used as pasture  for livestock.   The  chief
    agricultural products are hay, beef cattle and  hogs.  Dairy
    cattle, horses and  garden crops are also raised on a more
    limited basis.
                               11

-------
FIGURE 1.   A MAP OF IRON AND REYNOLDS COUNTIES IN SOUTHEASTERN MISSOURI
           SHOWING ROADS, TEST AND CONTROL FARMS, VIBURNUM TREND, LEAD
           MINES, AND SHELTERS,  (MODIFIED FROM HAYES AND SEARIGHT, 1969)
                                                       +
                           VIBURNUM TREND
                           LEAD SMELTERS
                           LEAD MINES
                   o
                   L
10
20
 '
                                                        30
                                    MILES
                                      12

-------
        There are several  ways  in which  heavy metals  from the
    lead producing operations  enter the  environment.   The galena
    (PbS) deposits are approximately 700-1200 feet deep so the
    metallurgical dusts associated with  removal  of the ore and
    milling are limited to the  shaft sites.   Excess water from
    the mines and waste water  containing tailings  are directed
    to settling and treatment  lagoons which  have varying effi-
    ciencies in removal of heavy metals  before discharge into
    receiving streams in the area.     Spillage  of lead ore
    concentrate, which is  comprised of approximately  70.0% Pb,
    1.5% Zn, 0.5% Cu and 0.2%  Cd, from the trucks  enroute to  the
    Glover smelter adds to the  background levels along the
    roadsides from automobile  emissions  and  other  sources.   In '
    the Glover area, especially downwind from the  smelter, emissions
    from the smelter stack and  dust from stockpiled ore are
    sources of contamination.   Slag from the smelter, containing
    approximately 2.5% Pb, is  used as road resurfacing material
    and, also, for road clearing in the  winter.
B.   Selection of the Test  Farm
        The selection of the test farm was based upon the
    availability of cattle for  testing and exposure to contamina-
    tion from production sources of heavy metals.   The farm chosen
    was on the ore trucking highway (72/21)  near Glover in Iron
    County, approximately  800  meters (0.5 mile)  north of the
    smelter stack (Figure  1).   During 1970,  horses on this farm
    and a farm on the opposite  side of the highway developed  signs
    of lead poisoning and  died.
                               13

-------
Selection of the Control Farm
    The control farm was selected from the same geographical
region, with as many of the characteristics of the test farm
as possible except exposure to lead production sources of
contamination.  Both the test and control  farms have soil of
the Clarksville stony loam type, and they have similar topo-
graphic features.   Results of macroelement, pH and organic
matter analyses of soil samples from each farm are presented
in Table 1.  There was considerable variation between measure-
ments at the beginning and those at the end of the study.
This variation, partially due to variation 1n sample collection
and to crop depletion, was approximately as great as the
variation between  farms.  Therefore, the farms were relatively
similar in respect to macroelements, pH and organic matter.
The depletion of macroelements and  organic matter and the
decline 1n pH from the beginning to the end of the study on
both farms is understandable in view of the absence of
fertilizer applications since 1970, absence of lime applica-
tions since 1969 (test farm) and 1966 (control farm), and
very little manure application.
    Similar grasses were identified (Table 2) and the top
growth during 1972 was approximately 1.1 meters on both farms.
The amount of rainfall was approximately the same on both
farms during the study period (Table 3).  The test and control
farms were also similar in regard to proximity of pastures to
the highway and farming practices.  There was a negative
                            14

-------
Table  1.   History of  Fertilizer and Lime Applications and Results of Analyses of
           Soil  Samples from Test and Control Farms
N
P2°5
K
Ca
Mg
CaC03
pH
Organic matter
(percent)
 Test  Farm
 Last  fertilizer       116     116    116
   application
   (12-12-12  in 1970)
 Last  lime  application
   (red  lime  in 1969)
 Soil  test, Sep.,  1971       58.0    380
 Soil  test, Oct.,  1972       69.0    210
 Control  Farm
 Last  fertilizer       100     100    100
   application
   (12-12-12  in 1970)
 Last  lime  application
   (red  lime  in 1966)
 Soil  test, Sep.,  1971        8.0     95
 Soil  test, Oct.,  1972       50.0    480
3500
2200
600
420
5100   800
2700   460
               8,000
               6,000
6.2
4.9
               6.3
               5.8
5.1
4.5
            6.5
            4.1

-------
Table 2.  Listing of Grasses In Pastures on Test and Control
          Farms
Species
Poa annua
Tridens flavus
Lespedeza virginica
Trifollum repens
Trifolium pratense
Common
Name
Blue grass
Purple Top
Bush Clover
White Clover
Red Clover
Test
Farm
X
X
X
X
X
Control
Farm
X
X
X
Table 3.  Rainfall Recorded on Test and Control Farms during
          Study Period


                                Inches of Rainfall
Time
Total
Sep
Oct.
Jan .
Apr.
Jul.
Period
(Oct.
. 1972;
- Dec.
- Mar.
- Jun.
- Sep.

1
)
1
1
1
1

971 -
971
972
972
972
Test
33.
7.
4.
9.
12.
Farm
27
11
31
15
70
Contro
37.
9.
3.
12.
11.
1 Farm
33
07
45
96
85
                              16

-------
slope away from the roadway:  approximately 1.5 meters per
50 on the test farm and approximately 6 meters per 50 on
the control  farm.
    A Highway Commission Survey conducted in 1970-71, indica-
ted that the traffic passing near the test farm was less than
that passing a point near the control farm (Table 4).  Because
of the location of the counters and higher traffic volume near
town, the count near the test farm is probably an under-
estimate and the count near the control farm is probably an
overestimate of the volumes that actually pass the test and
control farms.
Description of the Test and Control Cows
    The cows selected for study on the control farm will
be described first.  The owner-operator of the control farm
had a 6 cow dairy herd which provided milk for the family's
use and for sale to the local neighbors.  The cow that the
owner was willing to sell to the project (for slaughter at
the end of the study) was a purebred Holstein, 10 years of
age.  A 10 year old half-sister of this cow, originally from
this herd, was purchased from a neighbor and used as a
genetically matched comparison cow on the test farm.  The
youngest of the other cows in the control farm were chosen
as the remaining 3 of the required 4 cows to be studied.
They were a 3 year old Holstein, a 3 year old Guernsey and a
6 year old Guernsey-milking shorthorn crossbred cow.  None of
these cows had been moved from the farms so they had never
been exposed to lead mining sources of heavy metals.
                           17

-------
Table 4.   Vehicular Traffic by Season Near Test and Control
          Farms
                                                 *
                               Number of Vehicles
Months
Oct.
Jan.
Apr.
Jul.
- Dec.
- Mar.
- Jun.
- Sep.
Test Farm
76077
58706
85107
96196
Control Farm
136260
114425
157202
177654
 Factored average traffic volume for 1970-1971  from Missouri
 State Highway Commission data.

 Counter located on Route 21, .3 miles north of test farm.

+Counter located on Route 106, .3 miles west of Ellington
 and 3.7 miles east of the control  farm.
                              18

-------
        The test farm was  primarily a  cow-calf operation  with  a
    few pleasure horses for riding. At the  initiation of the
    study,  the owner of the farm acquired  2  Hereford-dairy
    crossbred cows with young  calves and a Jersey cow with a
    young calf.   The crossbred cows were 3 years  and  5 years of
    age and the  Jersey was approximately 7 years  of age.   The
    fourth  cow for study on the test farm  was  the half-sister
    of the  10 year old Holstein on  the control  farmi   The mean
    ages were:  6.25 years for the  test cows and  5.5  years for the
    control cows.   All of  the  cows  studied on  the test farm   '
    originally came from locations  outside the new lead-belt area,
    and they were placed on the test farm   1-2 weeks  before the
    first sample collection, October 2, 1971.
E.   Sample  Collection and  Preparation
        The main sampling  was  performed on a seasonal basis:
    fall (Oct.-Dec.), winter (Jan.-Mar.),  spring  (Apr.-Jun.),
    and summer (Jul.-Sep.).  This sampling was performed  in the
    same manner  on each farm on the same day or on contiguous
    days.  For dustfall, soil, roots and washed and unwashed
    vegetation tops, 3 distances from  the  highway were used:
    60 ft (18.3  m), 140 ft (42.7 m), and 220 ft (67.1 m).  Two
    rows of 3 sites each were  established  on each farm as shown
    in the  following site  diagram:
                               19

-------
   >*:
   XI
   u-
   I-H!
   aci
  i   i
              Distance from highway
            60  ft
140 ft
                         2
220 ft
                                        Dustfall
                                        buckets
1.   Dustfall
        Settleable particulates were collected In 5.6 liter
                           TM
    polyethylene Tupperware   canisters.   These containers
    were chosen because they are the standard equipment used
    by the Missouri  Air Conservation Commission and other
    official  agencies.   The area of the mouth of the container
    was 0.0284 square meters.
        Paired dustfall containers were placed in a holder
    approximately 1.7 meters above the ground at each of the
    6 sampling sites on each farm.  Use of both containers was
    alternated between  rows each sampling period to accomplish
    50% duplicate sampling.  In other words, at each sampling,
                           20

-------
    9 dustfall  containers were collected on each farm
    (6 from one row and 3 from the other).
        Each container was washed with 1% nitric acid and
    deionized-distilled water 3 times in the field at the
    time of placement at the site.  The dustfall containers
    were left at each site for approximately 3 months during
    each sampling period.  Ethylene glycol  was added to the
    containers  during the winter months to  avoid freezing
    of contents and subsequent cracking of  the container.
        The contents of each container were emptied into
    600 ml  Pyrex beakers and, when required, reduced in
    volume  to about 150 ml by boiling.  Each container was
    scrubbed and rinsed with deionized-distilled water to
    ensure  complete removal  of contents.  Deionized-distilled
    water was added to make  250 ml total;  25 ml  were then
    transferred to Kjeldahl  flasks for wet  ashing using a
    hot acid mixture (5 parts nitric acid  : 1  part perchloric
    acid).   The ash was then diluted to 25  ml  with 1% nitric
    acid and stored to await analysis by atomic  absorption
    spectrophotometry (AAS).
2. .  Air filters
        Suspended particles  were collected  on  2  inch diameter
    glass fiber filters, Gelman Type E, with efficiency greater
    than 985K for particles 0.05 microns or  larger and a flow
    rate of approximately 0.025 cubic meter per  minute.
    Collections were made for approximately one  month during
    each of the 4 sampling period at a single  site on each farm,
                           21

-------
Each pump was calibrated before each new collection,
and the air flow during the collection period was
calculated.  The filters were placed approximately
1.7 meters above the ground with an Inverted plastic
container mounted over the filter to protect against
rain and to avoid collecting large particles that would
fall directly on the filter,  Clocks were wired into the
                                  t
electrical supply for the air pumps and corrections were
made for periods that the electric power was off.
    The exposed filter samples were leached using successive
amounts of hot acid mixture.  Thirty ml of the acid mixture
was placed with the filter in a 250 ml beaker with a watch
glass cover and boiled for 2 hours.  After cooling, the acid
was poured off and 30 ml of the acid mixture was added,
and the boiling was repeated.  The supernatant was again
poured off, added to the original supernatant and reduced
to ash by heating in Kjeldahl flasks.  The ash was then
diluted to 25 ml with 1% nitric acid and stored.
Soil
    Four core samples of the top 15 cm of soil were
collected with a soil probe at locations A, B, C and D
shown in the site diagram.  They were placed in a new
polyethylene bag, mixed and then passed through a 12 mesh
sieve to remove rocks.  At each sampling, one or the other
row was alternately duplicated.  After drying in an oven
at 105° C, a 3 gm portion was refluxed with 20 ml concen-
trated nitric acid in a 250 ml Pyrex beaker with a watch
                       22

-------
    glass cover.   The sample was then passed through a
    Watman #42 filter and diluted to 100 ml  with deionized-
    distilled water after proper washing.
4.  Vegetation-roots
        Vegetation roots in 4 locations shown in the site
    diagram (A, B, C and D) were exposed by  a shovel, shaken
    to remove excess dirt, scrubbed with a polyethylene brush
    and water, and rinsed with deionized-distilied water.
    The sample was then placed in tared polyethylene bags and
    oven dried at 105° C.  The dried sample  in  the bag was
    then weighed; the weight of the bag was  subtracted to
    obtain the dried sample weight.  The sample was then
    placed in Kjeldahl flasks for wet ashing.
5.  Vegetation -  tops
        Clump-size grass tops were cut 5 cm  above the soil
    at 4 locations (A, B, C and D) shown in  the site diagram
    and composited as one sample in polyethylene canisters
    containing 200 ml deionized-disti1 led  water.  At each
    sampling, one row or the other was alternately duplicated.
    The tops were washed in the canisters, transferred to
    polyethylene  bags, oven-dried, weighed as for root samples,
    and wet ashed.  The washings were acidified to 1 N with
    nitric acid,  stored for 1-2 days, and  filtered through
    Watman #42 filter paper.  The filtered samples were then
    analyzed for  the specific element.  For  unwashed vegetation
    values, the washings and corresponding washed vegetation
    values were added together.
                           23

-------
           In addition,  green bean,  tomatoe  and  bell  pepper
       samples were collected from home  gardens  in the vicinity
       of the test and control  farms.   They  were washed,  dried,
       weighed and wet ashed as for  the  foliage.  Their washings
       were not analyzed.
       Cattle hair
           Approximately 10 gm of hair was clipped in equal amounts
       from 4 different  areas of the cow's body  and then  split
       into duplicate samples in polyethylene bags.  Each sample
       was washed with 12  Snoop  solution, a low trace metal
       containing soap.   The hair was  then rinsed twice with
       deionized-distilled water, air  dried, and wet  ashed.
       Cattle blood and  milk
           Two 5 ml blood  samples were collected by jugular
       venipuncture in heparinized blood vials from each  cow.
       The samples were  mixed gently to  prevent  clotting  and
       stored at 4° C.
           Prior to collecting milk  samples, the udder of the
       cow was brushed to  remove loose debris and the teats were
       washed with water.   The first milk (approximately  100-200  ml)
       was discarded.  Duplicate milk  samples, consisting of
       milk from each quarter, were  collected in 100  ml glass
       bottles and stored  at 4° C.
Applied Laboratories, Inc.
                              24

-------
        The 5 ml  samples of blood and milk were added to 30
    ml of acid mixture in Kjeldahl  flasks for wet ashing.
    Following cooling the sample was diluted with 1% nitric
    acid to a final volume of 50 ml.
        All of the blood and milk samples were extracted by
                                                             g
    the following procedure, modified from Pierce and Cholak.
    One-half ml perchloric acid and 2.0 ml ammonium citrate
    solution were added to the samples.  Ammonium hydroxide
    or nitric acid was used to adjust the pH to 4.5.  After
    transfer to a 50 ml volumetric  flask, 2.0 ml ammonium
    pyrrolidine dithiocarbamate and 4.0 ml methyl isobutyl
    ketone, were added to the flask.  The organic layer which
    forms is used for the atomic absorption analysis.
8.  Cattle tissues
        Five gm specimens of diaphragm muscle, bone, liver
    and kidney cortex were collected at slaughter of one
    cow from the test farm and one  cow from the control
    farm.  These samples were stored at 4° C and then wet
    ashed as previously described.
Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry Procedures
    The operation of the AAS followed previously described
procedures.       All determinations were made by direct
aspiration of the sample solution or the extract into the
flame of the atomic absorption unit.  Analysis of standards,
made according to sample concentration ranges, accompanied
each group of samples tested.  The  concentrations of elements
                           25

-------
under study were determined in blood vial, ethylene glycol  and
glass fiber filter blanks (Table 5).  All  of the measurements
were low except for the zinc content in the glass fiber filters.
The mean filter blank zinc concentration (581  ug/gm) was
subtracted from the sample measurements to obtain corrected
values which were used in reporting the results.  All values
are expressed on a dry weight basis except for blood, milk,
muscle, liver, kidney corte* and bone which are on a fresh
weight basis.  The minimum detectable limits for specific
types of samples and elements are presented in Table 6.
Statistical Procedures
    All samples were coded prior to submitting them to the
laboratory so that the laboratory personnel had no knowledge
of the study design considerations in the  sampling.  The
identifying information for each sample and the concentration
values were coded and placed on punch cards for statistical
analysis.  All data were normalized by log transformation to
satisfy necessary assumptions for analysis of variance (ANOVA).
ANOVA was performed to determine the effect of farm location,
season and sampling site upon the concentrations of Cd, Cu,
Pb and Zn in the various components of the food chain under
study.
    The ANOVA model for dustfall, soil and vegetation was:
Mijkl ' u + Ti + Pj + TPij + Dk + DTik + DPjk + DTPijk + Mijkl
where:
u represents some overall element measurement in ug/gm
   •epresents the
    ment:  i =1,4
T. represents the effect of the i    time period on the measure-
                           26

-------
Table 5.  Concentrations of Cd, Cu, Pb and Zn in Blood Vials,
          Ethylene Glycol  and Glass Fiber Filters
                                  Element (ug/gm)
Blanks	Cd         Cu           Pb          Zn
Blood vials        <.01       <.01         <.01        1.04
Ethylene glycol    <.10       <.10         <.08        <.10
Glass fiber filters<.25        .65        <2.50         581
                              27

-------
Table  6.  MINIMUM DETECTABLE LIMITS BY TYPE OF SAMPLE AND ELEMENT
Code No.
Type of
Sample
Element
    Minimum
Detectable Limit
    1         Air Sample Filter	Cd	0.50 ug
    4         Dustfall	Cd	2.5 ug
    5         Soil	Cd	0.35 ug/gm
    6         Roots (washed)	Cd	0.50 ug/gm
                                            Pb	5.0 ug/gm
    7         Tops (washed)	Cd	0.50 ug/gm
                                            Pb	5.0 ug/gm
                                                                        *
    8         Tops (unwashed)	Cd	1.5 ug/gm
                                                                        *
                                            Cu	1.0 ug/gm
                                                                         *
                                            Pb	15.0 ug/gm
    9         Blood	Cd	0.2 ug/100 ml
                                            Pb	2'.0 ug/100 ml
   10         Milk	Cd	0.2 ug/100 ml
                                            Cu	7.0 ug/100 ml
                                            Pb	2.0 ug/100 ml
   11         Hair	Cd	0.01 ug/gm
   12         Muscle	Cd	0.10 ug/gm
   13         Bone	Cd	0.05 ug/gm
   17         Water	Cd	0.01 mg/1
                                            Cu	0.01 mg/1
                                            Pb	0.005 mg/1
                                            Zn	0.01 mg/1
   18         Grain Feed	Cd	0.50 ug/gm
                                            Pb	5.0 ug/gm
   19         Hay or Silage	Cd	0.50 ug/gm
                                            Pb	5.0 ug/gm
   21         Home-grown Vegetables. ...   Cd	0.50 ug/gm
                                            Pb	5.0 ug/gm
*If both washed tops and washings were below minimum detectable limits.
                                     28

-------
P. represents the effect of the J   farm on the measurement:
 j
    J - 1. 2
TP.. represents the effect on the ij   time period-farm
  • J
    combination on the measurement
D.  represents the effect of k   distance (site) from the
    highway: k = 1 , 3
DTik represents the effect of the ik   time period-distance
    combination on the measurement
DP.,  represents the effect of the jk   farm-distance combination
    on the measurement
DTP...  represents the effect of the ijk   time period-farm-
   1 J K
    distance combination on the measurement
Miikl rePresents tne err°r term:  1=1,3
W'ikl rePresents ug/gm of a specific element in dustfall, soil,
    roots, unwashed vegetation tops and washed vegetation tops
    The conventional 5% level  (p=0.05) significance was used
in interpreting the results.   The p values are expressed to
the fourth decimal, although  an individual value may have
little meaning beyond the second  decimal  because of the
approximations involved in the statistical analysis.  Because
of the large number of comparisons and statistical  tests per-
formed, it should also be recognized that even if no effects
were present, some differences may be statistically significant
due to chance alone.
    The ANOVA model for hair,  blood, milk, muscle and bone was:
Xijkl ' u + Ti + Pj + TPij +  Ck(j) + CTik(j) + M
where:
                           29

-------
u represents some overall  element measurement in ug/gm
T. represents the effect of the i   time period  on the
    measurement:  i = 1 ,  4
P. represents the effect of the j   farm on  the  measurement:
    j = 1, 2
TP.. represents the effect of the ij   time  period-farm
  ' J
    combination on the  measurement
Ck/.\ represents  the effect of the k   cow on the j    farm
    on the measurement  k = 1 , 4
CT.. /.\ represents the  effect of the ik   time period-cow
    combination of the  j   farm on the measurement
Mik(i)l rePresents tne error term:  1=1,2
Xiikl rePresents u9/9m of a specific element in  blood,  hair
    milk, muscle or bone.
    For the tabular presentations of mean concentrations of
a specific element, individual  values below  the  lower detectable
limit for that element and type of sample (Table 6)  were
excluded, except for unwashed samples of vegetation  tops.   In
the analysis of variance calculations, the maximum values  were
used for samples that contained a smaller concentration than
the lower detectable limit.  For example, the cadmium value of
0.35 ug/gm was used for soil samples containing  less than  the
lower detectable limit.  This has the result of  avoiding assump-
tions of the exact values for those lower than the detection
limit.  The control farm samples were more often below lower
detection limits than test farm samples; therefore,  some
                           30

-------
comparisons between test and control  farm samples are
conservative.
                           31

-------
           V.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

-------
                    V.   RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

        A summary of variables with significant effects  on heavy
metal concentration in  the various food chain components studied
is presented in Table 7.  Results of analyses of each  component
will first be reported  and then inter-relationships  will be
considered.
A.  Dustfall
        The  dustfall concentrations of all  4 elements  (Cd, Cu,  Pb
    and Zn)  were significantly different on the test and control
    farms (Tables 8-11).  The test farm to  control  farm  ratios  for
    each element were:   cadmium 11.9, copper 5.9, lead 12.9,  and
    zinc 6.8.  Cadmium  and zinc concentrations in dustfall varied
    significantly between seasons.  The winter season  dustfall
    samples  from the test farm had the highest levels  of Cd,  Cu
    and Pb;  Zn was highest in the summer.   The results indicated
    that distance from  the highway was a significant effect in  the
    Cu and Zn analyses.  Copper was in highest concentration  at
    the 140  ft site on  the control farm during all  seasons, while
    on the test farm there was a gradient  of copper  levels from
    a high at the 60 ft site to a low at the 220 ft  site in all
    seasons  except fall (Appendix Tables 1-8).  An  extremely  high
                                            2
    lead dustfall measurement (170.3140 mg/m /mo) was  obtained
    at the 60 ft site on the test farm in  the winter (Appendix
    Table 3).  There was a significant interaction  of  farm and
    season in the cadmium analysis.
                               33

-------
B.   Soil
        The soils of the test farm and  of the  control  farm
    significantly differed  in their concentrations  of  each of
    the elements studied:   Cd,  Cu, Pb  and Zn  (Tables  12-15).
    In each comparison,  the concentration was  greater  on  the
    test farm than on the  control  farm.   This  was  found  for
    Zn even though the fall Zn  concentration  on  the control farm
    was much higher than that on  the test farm.   From  these fall
    data (Appendix Tables  1-2)  it  was  apparent that an aberrant
    source of Zn was present and  further  examination  of  the data
    revealed that a 60 ft  site  near a  galvanized fence yielded
    high Zn levels in soil, as  well as  in roots  and vegetation
    tops.   All  subsequent  samples  were  collected at distances
    greater than 6 feet  from the  fence.
        There was significant seasonal  variability  in  the concen-
    trations of Cd, Cu and  Pb in  soil.   The  soil lead  concentra-
    tions  increased over 2  fold during  the study period  on the
    test farm.
        The distance from  the highway  also had a significant
    effect on the soil concentration of  all  4  elements.   For  each
    element, there was a gradient  from  high  values  at  the 60  ft
    site to lower values at the 220 ft  site,  except for  unexplained
    high levels of copper  at the  140 ft  site  on  the control farm
    in all  4 seasonal  samples (Appendix  Tables 2,  4,  6 and 8).
    These  differences in copper levels  in soil  corresponded to  the
    copper levels in dustfall and  indicated  that copper was a
                               34

-------
    highway contaminant on the test farm but not on the control
    farm.
        There were significant farm-season interactions for Cd,
    Pb and Zn measurements which may reflect in part the seasonally
    determined meterological  effects on the distribution of smelter
    stack emissions at the test farm.   Farm and site interactions
    were significant in Cd, Cu and Pb  analyses.  This was expected
    in view of the multiple sources of highway contamination on
    the test farm compared with only vehicular exhaust emissions
    as a main source on the control farm.
C.  Vegetation - roots
        The Cd, Cu, Pb and Zn concentrations in roots all differed
    significantly on the test and control  farms (Tables 16-19).
    There was also a significant effect of season on the concen-
    trations of all 4 elements.  Only  Pb and Zn were significantly
    affected by distance from the highway.  An extremely high mean
    zinc concentration (259.33 ug/gm)  in 3 root samples from the
    60 ft site at the control farm in  the  fall, was attributed to
    the galvanized fence (Appendix Table 2).  While the cadmium  in
    soil ratio on test and control farms was approximately 1:1,  the
    comparable cadmium in root ratio was approximately 3:1.  The
    lead in soil ratio was similarly smaller than the lead in root
    ratio on test and control farms (5:1 vs. 12:1).
D.  Vegetation - tops
        The differences between the test and control farms'concen-
    trations of all 4 elements, Cd, Cu, Pb and Zn, in unwashed
    vegetation tops were significant (Tables 20-23).  The largest
    differences were for Cd and Pb.  Lead  in unwashed tops on
                               35

-------
the test farm was approximately 19.6 times higher than on the
control farm and cadmium was approximately 3.6 times higher
than on the control farm.  All  4 elements also differed
significantly from season to season.  The zinc variability
in unwashed tops is again probably due to sample collection
near the galvanized fence, as the extremely high mean value
of 337.37 ug/gm was obtained in the fall  on the control farm
(Appendix Table 2).  On the test farm, winter and spring were
consistently higher than summer and fall.  High concentrations
of heavy metals in foliage during winter  periods when plants
                                                        13-14
are dormant have been observed  in several other studies.
The spring sample was collected on April  1 when the grass was
growing again, but before the extensive growth and grazing
which followed.  In general, the pasture  was grazed so that
most grasses did not grow higher than 60  cm, except where the
cattle were restricted and the  grass grew to 1.1 meters.
    Only zinc concentrations in unwashed  tops were significantly
different on test and control farms.  An  inspection of the
data again implicated the samples, collected near the fence, that
contributed the high values.  Farm-season interaction was sig-
nificant for all 4 elements.  The higher  contamination from
multiple sources at the test farm, linked with the seasonal
effect of dormant plants having higher concentrations than
rapidly growing plants, could explain this interaction.
    The levels of all 4 elements in washed tops varied sig-
nificantly between test and control farms (Tables 24-27).  All
elements except zinc were found in much higher amounts on the

                           36

-------
test farm than on the control  farm.   The high zinc levels
along the fence on the control  farm  again appeared to affect
the levels in the washed vegetation.   Also, the significant
farm-site interaction reflects  this  unique exposure on the
control  farm.  The elemental  concentrations in washed tops
were uniformly affected by seasons.   Most of this effect was
present  on the test farm where  all 4  elements were highest
in tops  during the winter and  spring  test periods.  The site
variable was not significant  for any  element tested in washed
tops.  The only significant interaction, farm and season,
could be explained by the unique exposure to smelter and
trucking contamination by Cd,  Cu and  Pb on the test farm and
to galvanized fence contamination by  Zn on the control farm.
Cattle Hair
    The  concentrations of Cd  and Pb  in the washed hair of the
4 cows on the test farm were  significantly different than the
concentrations in hair of the  4 control cows (Tables 28 and 30).
At the summer sampling the Cd  concentration in the project
owned test cow's hair was approximately 10 times higher than
that of  the project owned control cow's hair, and the Pb
concentration in the test cow's hair  was approximately 115 times
higher than that of the control cow's hair (Appendix Tables
7-8).
    The  hair concentrations of  three  elements, Cd, Pb and Zn,
were significantly affected by  season (Tables 28, 30-31).  Only
Cu and Zn hair concentrations  varied  significantly among the
                           37

-------
    cows on each farm (Tables 29 and 31).
        Even though the hair was washed, apparently It is possible
    that cadmium and lead adsorbed by hair remains in hair after
    the washing process.  Nishujama reported that cadmium and lead
    adsorbed on human and mouse hair was incompletely removed by
    different treatments.    The most complete removal of cadmium
    was by using a sufficiently strong solution of an acid; however,
    the different treatments were not effective for separate
    analysis of exogenous and endogenous cadmium in hair.
        Therefore, analysis of hair concentrations of cadmium and
    lead may not truly represent body accumulation, depending upon
    the amount of airborne exposure.  In the present study
    airborne exposure was negligible on the control farm and
    uniformly high on the test farm.  The  higher hair cadmium and
    lead concentrations on the test farm than those on the control
    farm, therefore, may  reflect both the  increased lead and
    cadmium assimilation  by the cattle and the adsorption of
    airborne cadmium and  lead on the hair.  In any event, the high
    hair concentrations of both elements truly reflected high
    airborne concentrations on the test farm.  That hair lead
    concentrations were higher than the concentrations of any of
    the other biological  samples tested (Figure 4), supports the  use
    of cattle hair as a sensitive indicator of airborne lead
    contamination.
p.   Cattle Blood
        The cows'  blood Pb and Cu concentrations were both
    significantly different on the test and control farms (Tables
                               38

-------
33-34).  The mean of the blood lead concentrations of the
test cows was approximately 4 times greater than the cor-
responding mean value for the control  cows.  The difference
between blood copper concentrations of test and control  cows
was in the opposite direction, i.e. the control cows were
higher than the test cows.
    Blood concentrations of Cd, Cu and Pb for test and      (
control cows were significantly affected by season (Tables
32-34).  The only significant variability detected among
cows, within farm, was detected for blood zinc concentrations
(Table 35).
    The highest concentration of blood lead was a mean of
87 ug/100 ml for 2 duplicate analyses  of a spring blood  sample
collected from the youngest (3 year old) cow on the test farm
(Appendix Table 5).  The relationship  between blood lead and
hair lead for the test cows is shown in Figure 2.
Milk from Cows
    Lead was the only element studied  that was significantly
affected by season and the only one present in significantly
different concentrations in milk from  test and control cows
(Tables 36-39).  The lead concentration was over 5 times
higher in milk from the project owned  test cow than milk from
the project owned control cow.  The highest concentration of
milk Pb was a mean of 35 ug/100 ml for 2 duplicate analyses
performed on a sample collected April  1 (spring) from the 7
year old cow on the test farm.  As found for hair and blood,
                           39

-------
the concentrations of cadmium varied significantly among cows
on each farm.
    There was  significant interaction between farm and season
variables in the lead analysis.   The winter and spring milk
lead concentrations were over 5  times the fall  and summer
concentrations on the test farm  only.  The relationship
between milk Pb and blood Pb for the test cows  is shown in
Figure 3.
                           40

-------
Table  7.  Summary of Farm Location (F), Season (S), Gradient
           Distance from Highway (D) and Cow Within Farm (C)
           Variables With Significant  Effect on Heavy Metal
           Concentrations in Each Type of Environmental Sample
Type of Sample
Dustfall
Soil

Roots
Unwashed tops
Washed tops
Hair
Blood
Milk
Cadmium
F,
F,

F,
F,
F,
F,
S

S
S, D

S
S
S
S


Copper
F,
F,

F,
F.
F,
C
F,
C
D
S, D

S
S
S

S

Lead
F
F,

F,
F,
F,
F,
F,
F,

S, D

S, D
S
S
S
S
S
Zinc
F,
F,

F,
F,
F,
S,
C

S, D
D
i
S, D
S, D
S
C


 Statistically significant at the 5% level
                            41

-------
 Table  8.  Summary of Data and Analysis of Variance  for  Cadmium In  Dustfall

                       Test Farm                   Control  Farm
No. of nean No. of
** , 2 **
Season Samples (mg/m /mo) Samples
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
8 0.7484 7
9 1.6617 1
8+ 0.5439 9
9 1.3913 2
Mean
2
(mg/m /mo)
0.2427
0.0386
0.0528
0.0322
Analysis of Variance
Source
Farm
Season
Site
Farm*Season
Farm*Site
Season*Site
Farm*Season*Site
Residual (error)
Sum of
d.f. Squares F
1 452.619 107.981
3 41.481 3.299
2 1.207 0.144
2 60.868 7.261
2 1.900 0.227
6 24.044 0.956
4 10.728 0.640
50 209.583
P
.0001
.0272
.8665
.0021
.8005
.5346
.6395

**
  Samples below lower detectable limit (2.5 ug)  excluded;  analysis  of
  variance based on maximum values for sample tests  that were  below
  lower detectable limit.

 *0ne sample lost in laboratory preparation.
                                     42

-------
Table 9.   Summary of Data and Analysis of Variance for Copper in Dustfall
                      Test Farm                    Control Farm
No. of Mean No. of
Season Samples (mg/m2/mo) Samples
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
9 2.2155 9
9 2.7543 9
8** 2.2300 9
9 1.9682 9
Mean
(mg/m2/mo)
0.7602
0.1983
0.3332
0.2515
Analysis of Variance
Source
Farm
Season
Site
Farm*Season
Farm*Site
Season*Site
Farm*Season*Site
Residual (error)
Sum of
d.f. Squares F
1 75.003 216.688
3 0.817 0.787
2 2.408 3.479
2 0.212 0.306
2 0.960 1.387
6 1.834 0.883
4 0.625 0.452
50 17.307
P
.0001
.5097
.0374
.7419
.2582
.5152
.7730

**
  One sample lost in laboratory preparation.
                                    43

-------
Table 10.  Summary of Data and Analysis of Variance for Lead in Dustfall
                      Test Farm                    Control  Farm
No. of Mean No. of Mean
Season Samples (mq/mz/mo) Samples (mg/mz/mo)
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
9 97.6796
9 141.4106
8** 86.0278
9 96.4958
9 25.9181
9 2.1435
9 2.8856
9 1.7206
Analysis of Variance
Source
Farm
Season
Site
Farm*Season
Farm*Site
Season*Site
Farm*Season*Site
Residual (error)
Sum of
d.f. Squares
1 218.296
3 7.701
2 0.668
2 0.538
2 1 .026
6 5.558
4 0.725
50 67.398
' F p
161.944 .0001
1.904 .1396
0.248 .7844
0.200 .8214
0.381 .6908
0.687 .6628
0.135 .9661

**
  One sample lost in laboratory preparation.
                                       44

-------
Table  11.  Summary of Data and Analysis of Variance for Zinc in Dustfall
                       Test Farm
Control Farm
No. of Mean No. of
Season Samples (mg/m'/mo) Samples
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
9
9
**
8
9
1.4479 9
14.4001 9
12.3750 9
16.2486 9
Mean
(mg/mz/mo)
1.8170
1.2800
1.8486
1.5559
Analysis of Variance
Source
Farm
Season
Site
Farm*Season
Farm*Site
Season*Site
Farm*Season*Site
Residual (error)
d.f.
1
3
2
2
2
6
4
50
Sum of
Squares F
47.299 444.499
36.504 114.349
0.975 4.582
0.497 2.335
0.240 1.130
0.622 0.974
0.100 0.234
5.321
P
.0001
.0001
.0147
.1053
.3316
.5464
.9164

**
  One sample lost in laboratory preparation.
                                   45

-------
Table 12.  Summary of Data and Analysis of Variance  for Cadmium In  Soil
                      Test Farm
Control Farm
No. of Mean No. of **
Season Samples ( (ug/gm) Samples
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer

Source
Farm
Season
Site
Farm* Sea son
Farm*S1te
Sea son* Site
Farm*Season*S1te
Residual (error)
9
9
9
9
Analysi
d.f.
1
3
2
3
2
6
6
48
.56 9
.91 9
.70 1
.83 1
s of Variance
Sum of
Squares F
5.399 342.001
2.039 43.055
0.126 4.006
0.745 15.721
0.118 3.736
0.105 1.109
0.093 0.982
0.758
Mean
(ug/gm)
.40
.60
.57
.37

P
..0001
.0001
.0240
.0001
.0302
.3711
.5511

**
  Samples below lower detectable limit (0.35  ug/gm)  excluded; analysis of
  variance based on maximum values (0.35  ug/gm)  for  sample  tests that
  were below lower detectable limit.
                                   46

-------
Table 13.   Summary of Data and Analysis of Variance for Copper In  Soil
                      Test Farm
Control Farm
No. of
Season Samples
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
9
9
9
9
Mean No. of
(ug/gm) Samples
9.86 9
12.01 9
12.76 9
12.26 9
Mean
(ug/gm)
5.71
7.58
7.82
6.50
Analysis of Variance
Source
Farm
Season
Site
Farm*Season
Farm*Site
Season*Site
Farm*Season*Site
Residual (error)
Sum of
d.f. Squares F
1
3
2
3
2
6
6
48
5.039 273.746
0.837 15.160
0.334 9.071
0.088 1.599
0.376 10.204
0.034 0.310
0.171 1.545
0.884
P
.0001
.0001
.0007
.2008
.0004
.9282
.1836

                                    47

-------
Table
Summary of Data and Analysis of Variance for Lead In Soil
           Test Farm
                                                   Control Farm
Season
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
No. of
Samples
9
9
9
9
Mean
(ug/gm)
52.00
77.83
88.62
128.28
No. of
Samples
9
9
9
9
Mean
(ug/gm)
13.00
15.13
18.87.
15.93
Analysis of Variance
' Source
Farm
Season
Site
Farm*Season
Farm*Site
Season*Site
Farm*Season*Site
Residual (error)
Sum of
d.f. Squares
1
3
2
3
2
6
6
48
45.205
3.743
1.291
1.551
0.681
0.337
0.435
55.426
F
836.47
23.09
11.95
9.57
6.300
1.040
1.342

P
.0001
.0001
.0002
.0001
.0040
.4120
.2570

                         48

-------
Table 15.  Summary of Data and Analysis of Variance for Zinc in Soil
                      Test Farm
Control Farm
Samples
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
No. of
Samples
9
9
9
9
Mean
(ug/gm)
24.11
30.24
33.16
33.24
No. of
Samples
9
9
9
9
Mean
(ug/gm)
30.56
22.16
23.89
15.69
Analysis of Variance
Source
Farm
Season
Site
Farm*Season
Farm*Site
Season*Site
Farm*Season*Site
Residual (error)
d.f.
1
3
2
3
2
6
6
48
Sum of
Squares
1.727
0.447
1.319
1.605
0.221
0.299
0.961
3.053
F
27.153
2.344
10.368
8.410
1.740
0.784
2.518

P
.0001
.0836
.0004
.0003
.1848
.5884
.0333

                                     49

-------
Table 16.  Summary of Data and Analysis of Variance for Cadmium In  Roots
                      Test Farm
Control Farm
No. of Mean No. of **
Season Samples (ug/gm) Samples
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
9 1.54 8
9 3.13 9
9 2.87 8
9 1.60 8
Mean
(ug/gm)
.92
.65
.69
.72
Analysis of Variance
Source
Farm
Season
Site
Farm*Season
Farm*Site
Season*Site
Farm*Season*Site
Residual (error)
Sum of
d.f. Squares F
1 20.742 198.650
3 1.301 4.155
2 0.056 0.267
3 3.224 10.293
2 0.221 1.059
6 0.859 1.371
6 0.785 1.254
48 5.012
P
.0001
.0108
.7699
.0001
.3559
.2447
.2958

**
  Sample below lower detectable limit (0.50 ug/gm)  excluded; analysis of
  variance based on maximum values (0.50 ug/gm)  for sample  tests that
  were below lower detectable limit.
                                    50

-------
Table 17.  Summary of Data and Analysis of Variance for Copper In Roots
                      Test Farm
Control Farm
No. of
Season Samples
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
9
9
9
9
Mean No. of
(uq/qm) Samples
21.89 9
33.88 9
24.28 9
17.49 9
Mean
(uq/qm)
11.32
20.69
15.71
11.62
Analysis of Variance
Source
Farm
Season
Site
Farm*Season
Farm*Site
Season*Site
Farm*Season*Site
Residual (error)
Sum of
d.f. Squares F
1
3
2
3
2
6
6
48
4.325 84.378
4.197 27.291
0.057 0.559
0.163 1.063
0.387 3.779
0.105 0.340
0.580 1.886
2.460
P
.0001
.0001
.5808
.3745
.0291
.9117
.1021

                                    51

-------
Table 18.  Summary of Data and Analysis  of Variance  for Lead  in Roots
                      Test Farm
Control Farm
No. of Mean No. of **
Season Samples (ug/gm) Samples
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
9 208.22 9
9 238.67 8
9 309.00 9
9 132.11 8
Mean
(ug/gm)
12.73
8.74
22.33
10.53
Analysis of Variance
Source
Farm
Season
Site
Farm*Season
Farm*Site
Season*Site
Farm*Season*Site
Residual (error)
Sum of
d.f. Squares F
1 139.849 606.494
3 6.091 8.805
2 1.594 3.456
3 1.886 2.726
2 1.632 3.539
6 1.628 1.177
6 1.877 1.356
48 11.068
P
.0001
.0002
.0385
.0534
.0358
.3341
.2507

**
  Sample below lower detectable limit (5.0 ug/gm)  excluded; analysis of
  variance based on maximum values (5.0 ug/gm)  for sample  tests that
  were below lower detectable limit.
                                    52

-------
Table 19.  Summary of Data and Analysis of Variance for Zinc in Roots
                      Test Farm
Control Farm
No. of
Season Samples
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
9
9
9
9
Mean No. of
(ug/gm) Samples
79.89 9
100.78 9
84.44 9
57.89 9
Mean
(ug/gm)
124.56
45.56
38.17
54.61
Analysis of Variance
Source
Farm
Season
Site
Farm*Season
Farm*Site
Season*Site
Farm*Season*S1te
Residual (error)
Sum of
d.f. Squares F
1
3
2
3
2
6
6
48
2.583 15.332
1.940 3.839
4.318 12.817
2.518 4.983
0.310 0.921
2.504 2.478
1.795 1.776
8.085
P
.0005
.0151
.0001
.0046
.5924
.0357
.1236

                                    53

-------
  Table 20.   Summary of Data and Analysis of Variance for Cadmium in
             Vegetation (unwashed)
                       Test Farm
                  No. of **      Mean
    Control Farm
No.  of **       Mean
Season
Fa\l
Winter
Spring
Summer
Samples (ug/gm) Samples
9 3.60 9
9 8.41 9
9 8.72 9
8* 2.03 9
(ug/qm)
1.74
1.55
1.50
1.52
Analysis of Variance
Source
Farm
Season
Site
Farm*Season
Farm*Site
Season*Site
Farm*Season*Site
Residual (error)
Sum of
d.f. Sguares F
1 21.238 311.081
3 5.816 28.396
2 0.121 0.885
3 6.494 31.708
2 0.091 0.664
6 0.488 1.192
6 0.303 0.739
47 3.209
P
.0001
.0001
.5777
.0001
.5239
.3265
.6227

**
  For calculation of means and analysis of variance, minimum detectable
  limit values (0.50 ug/gm for washed vegetation; 1.00 ug/gm for washings)
  were used for measurements below these limits.

  ''One sample lost.
                                      54

-------
 Table 21
Summary of Data and Analysis of Variance for Copper In
Vegetation (unwashed)
                       Test Farm
                                        Control  Farm
No. of ** Mean No. of **
Season Samples (ug/qm) Samples
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
9 12.63
9 19.67
9 17.84
8+ 6.71
9
9
9
9
Mean
(ug/gm)
11.85
9.42
7.08
5.78
Analysis of Variance
Source
Farm
Season
Site
Farm*Season
Farm*Site
Season*S1te
Farm*Season*Site
Residual (error)
Sum of
d.f. Squares
1 4.116
3 5.684
2 0.123
3 2.154
2 0.316
6 0.116
6 0.215
47 2.553
F
75.783
34.886
1.129
13.221
2.906
0.357
0.659

P
.0001
.0001
.3326
.0001
.0630
.9021
.6845

**
  For calculation  of means  and  analysis of  variance the minimum detec-
  table limit value  for washings  (1.00 ug/gm)  was used  for sample
  measurements below this limit.

  One sample lost.
                                     55

-------
 Table 22.  Summary of Data and Analysis of Variance for Lead In
            Vegetation (unwashed)
                       Test Farm
Control Farm
No. of** Mean No. of**
Season Samples (ug/gm) Samples
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
9 326.00 9
9 979.44 9
9 823.00 9
8+ 118.15 9
Mean
(ug/gm)
25.74
41.13
37.64
15.44
Analysis of Variance
Source
Farm
Season
Site
Farm*Season
Farm*Site
Season*Site
Farm*Season*Site
Residual (error)
Sum of
d.f. Squares F
1 141.262 726.288
3 23.928 41.009
2 0.645 1.657
3 4.336 7.431
2 0.235 0.604
6 0.697 0.597
6 0.454 0.389
47 9.141
P
.0001
.0001
.2000
.0006
.5558
.7330
.8826

**
  For calculation of means and analysis of variance,  minimum detectable
  limit values (5.00 ug/gm for washed vegetation;  1.00 ug/gm for washings)
  were used for sample measurement below these limits.
  One sample lost.
                                      56

-------
Table 23.  Summary of Data and Analysis of Variance for Zinc in
           Vegetation (unwashed)
                      Test Farm
Control Farm
No. of Mean No. of
Season Samples (ug/gm) Samples
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
9 60.20 9
9 82.18 9
9 102.88 9
**
8 36.11 9
Mean
(ug/gm)
157.62
78.40
32.39
31.16
Analysis of Variance
Source
Farm
Season
Site
Farm*Season
Farm*Site
Season*Site
Farm*Season*Site
Residual (error)
Sum of
d.f. Squares F
1 1.107 5.416
3 7.362 12.007
2 2.442 5.975
3 6.272 10.230
2 0.593 1.451
6 0.831 0.678
6 1.134 0.924
47 9.605
P
.0229
.0001
.0051
.0001
.2435
.6702
.5127

**
  One sample lost.
                                     57

-------
Table 24.  Summary of Data and Analysis of Variance for  Cadmium In
           Washed Vegetation
                      Test Farm
Control Farm
No. of ** Mean No. of **
Season Samples (ug/gm) Samples
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
9 2.53 8
9 6.98 2
9 7.29 0
7 1.11 1
Mean
(ug/gm)
.83
.73
—
.70
Analysis of Variance
Source
Farm
Season
Site
Farm*Season
Farm*Site
Season*Site
Farm*Season*Site
Residual (error)
Sum of
d.f. Squares F
1 53.420 479.563
3 10.450 31.271
2 0.075 0.336
3 13.122 39.266
2 0.220 0.987
6 0.476 0.712
6 0.682 1.020
47 5.236
P
.0001
.0001
.7209
.0001
.6179
.6438
.4248

**
  Samples below lower detectable limit (0.50 ug/gm)  excluded;  analysis  of
  variance based on maximum values (0.50 ug/gm)  for  sample tests  that
  were below lower detectable limit.


 One value missing.
                                    58

-------
  Table 25.   Summary of Data  and Analysis of Variance for Copper in
             Mashed Vegetation
                        Test  Farm
Control Farm
No. of Mean No. of
Season Samples (ug/gm) Samples
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
9 11.13 9
9 14.63 9
9 16.11 9
8** 5.34 9
Mean
(ug/gm)
8.72
6.24
6.06
4.64
Analysis of Variance
Source
Farm
Season
Site
Farm*Season
Farm*Si te
Season*Site
Farm*Season*Site
Residual (errotf)
Sum of
d.f. Squares F
1 5.377 119.268
3 5.478 40.504
2 0.192 2.131
3 2.463 18.208
2 0.112 1.243
6 0.076 0.282
6 0.256 0.948
47 2.119
P
.0001
.0001
.1282
.0001
.2976
.9421
.5286

**0ne  value missing.
                                      59

-------
Table 26.  Summary of Data and Analysis of Variance for Lead in
           Mashed Vegetation
                      Test Farm
Control Farm
No. of Mean No. of **
Season Samples (ug/gm) Samples
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
9 267.56 9
9 771.67 9
9 711.67 9
8+ 87.54 5
Mean
(ug/gm)
13.19
19.36
24.50
5.80
Analysis of Variance
Source
Farm
Season
Site
Farm*Season
Farm*Site
Season*Site
Farm*Season*Site
Residual (error)
Sum of
d.f. Squares F
1 187.765 985.125
3 33.455 58.509
2 0.378 0.991
3 2.749 4.808
2 0.004 0.011
6 0.626 0.547
6 0.499 0.436
47 8.958
P
.0001
.0001
.6194
.0056
.9902
.7712
.8516

**
  Samples below lower detectable limit (5.0 ug/gm)  excluded;  analysis  of
  variance based on maximum values (5.0 ug/gm)  for  sample  tests  that
  were below lower detectable limit.

 One value missing.
                                    60

-------
  Table 27.  Summary of Data and Analysis of Variance for Zinc in
             Washed Vegetation
                        Test Farm
Control Farm
No. of Mean No. of
Season Samples (ug/gm) Samples
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
9 55.11 9
9 61.70 9
9 85.67 9
8** 29.36 9
Mean
(ug/gm)
141.33
48.10
26.56
26.51
Analysis of Variance
Source
Farm
Season
Site
Farm*Season
Farm*Site
Season*Site
Farm*Season*Site
Residual (error)
Sum of
d.f. Squares F
1 1.156 5.358
3 7.264 11.218
2 ' 1.247 2.889
3 6.012 9.285
2 1.270 2.943
6 1.545 1.193
6 1.611 1.244
47 10.144
P
.0236
.0001
.0640
.0002
.0609
.3260
.3010

**
 m
  One  value missing.
                                      61

-------
Table 28.
Summary of Data and Analysis of Variance for Cadmium
in Hair
                   Test Farm
                                Control  Farm
Season
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
No. of
Samples
8
8
8
8
Mean
(ug/gm)
1.29
1.74
2.80
0.67
No. of
Samoles
8
8
8
**
Mean
(ug/gm)
.06
.13
.05
.04
                      Analysis of Variance
Source
Farm
Season
Cow within farm
Farm*Season '
Season*Cow within farm
Duplicate analysis error
d.f .
1
3
6
3
18
32
Sum of
Squares
163.190
11.334
1.578
3.211
6.934
3.003
F P
423.630 0.0000
9.807 0.0005
0.683 0.6658
2.779 0.0710


**0ne sample below lower detectable limit excluded;  analysis of
  variance based on maximum value (i.e.   0.01 uq/qm) for the
  sample test that was below lower detectable limit.
                               62

-------
Table 29.
Summary of Data and Analysis of Variance for Copper
in Hair
                   Test Farm
                                Control  Farm
No. of
Season Samoles
Fall 8
Winter 8
Spring 8
Summer 8

Source
Farm
Season
Cow within farm
Farm*Season
Season*Cow within farm
Mean
(ug/gm)
8.26
7.76
6.94
7.99
Analysis of
d.f.
1
3
6
3
18
Duplicate analysis error 32
No. of
Samples
8
8
8
8
Variance
Sum of
Squares F
0.047 2.226
0.179 2.802
0.536 4.196
0.041 0.642
0.383
0.356
Mean
(ug/gm)
7.25
7.84
6.81
7.41


0.
0.
0.
0.








p
1530
0694
0082
5979


                               63

-------
Table 30.  Summary of Data and Analysis of Variance for Lead
           in Hair
                   Test Farm
Control Farm
No. Of
Season Samples
Fall 8
Winter 8
Spring 8
Summer 8
Ana
Source
Farm
Season
Cow within farm
Farm*Season
Season*Cow within farm
Duplicate analysis error
Mean
(ug/gm)
94.13
87.50
96.50
66.00
lysis of
d.f.
1
3
6
3
18
32
NO. Of
Samples
8
8
8
8
Variance
Sum of
Squares
233.536
7.414
4.317
2.790
5.374
6.272
Mean
(ug/gm)
2.19
3.92
2.13
0.88

F
782.272 0.
8.278 0.
2.410 0.
3.115 0.








p
0000
0011
0691
0521


                               64

-------
Table 31,
Summary of Data and Analysis of Variance for Zinc
in Hair
                   Test Farm
                                Control Farm
No. of
Season Samples
Fall 8
Winter 8
Spring 8
Summer 8

Source
Farm
Season
Cow within farm
Farm*Season
Season*Cow within farm
Mean
(ug/gm)
104.50
134.88
130.50
93.30
Analysis of
d.f.
1
3
6
3
18
Duplicate analysis error 32
No. of
Samples
8
8
8
8
Variance
Sum of
Squares
0.096 3
1.694 20
0.641 3
0.021 0
0.493
2.019
Mean
(ug/gm)
93.75
115.88
101.88
82.59

F
.514 0.
.619 0.
.901 0.
.252 0.








p
0772
0000
0114
8588


                               65

-------
Table 32.
Summary of Data and Analysis of Variance for Cadmium
in Blood
                   Test Farm
                                Control  Farm
No. of
Season Samples
Fall 8
Winter 6
Spring 6
Summer 7

Source
Farm
Season
Cow within farm
Farm*Season
Season*Cow within farm
,+ Mean
(ug/100
1.74
0.38
0.60
0.76
Analysis of
d.f.
1
3
6
3
18
Duplicate analysis error 32
No. of **
ml) Samples
8
4
6
8
Variance
Sum of
Squares F
0.249 0.437
29.366 17.195
2.537 0.743
0.678 0.397
10.247
6.270
Mean
(ug/100 ml)
2.16
0.38
0.80
0.36

P
0.5167
0.0000
0.6226
0.7568


**
 i
  Samples below lower detectable limit excluded;  analysis of
  variance based on maximum values (i.e.  0.02 ug/100 ml) for
  sample tests that were below detectable limits.
                               66

-------
Table 33.
Summary of Data and Analysis of Variance for Copper
in Blood
                   Test Farm
                                Control Farm
Season
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer

Source
Farm
Season
Cow within
Farm*Season
Season*Cow
No. of Mean
Samples (ug/100 ml
8 85.88
8 97.13
8 63.48
8 76.13
Analysis of
d.f.
1
3
farm 6
3
within farm 18
Duplicate analysis error 32
No. of
) Samples
8
8
8
8
Variance
Sum of
Squares
1.117 42
0.448 5
0.306 1
0.455 5
0.468
0.241
Mean
(ug/100 ml)
97.25
111.00
109.75
98.13

F P
.966 0.0000
.748 0.0061
.960 0.1254
.839 0.0057


                               67

-------
Table 34.  Summary of Data and Analysis of Variance for Lead
           in Blood
                   Test Farm
Control Farm
No. of Mean No. of Mean
Season Samples (ug/100 ml) Samples (ug/100 ml)
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
•
Source
Farm
Season
Cow within farm
Farm*Season
Season*Cow withi
Duplicate analys
8 34.00
8 46.50
8 58.75
8 28.13
Analysis of
d.f.
1
3
6
3
n farm 18
is error 32
8
8
8
8
Variance
Sum of
Squares F
30.168 233.265
4.071 10.497
0.655 0.845
3.438 8.864
2.327
1.399
18.
8.
10.
6.


0.
0.
0.
0.


88
75
38
63

P
0000
0003
5523
0008


                               68

-------
Table 35.
Summary of Data and Analysis of Variance for Zinc
in Blood
                   Test Farm
                                Control Farm
No. of Mean No. of Mean
Season Samples (ug/100 ml) Samnles (ug/ 100 ml)
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer


Source
Farm
Season
Cow within farm
'Farm*Season
Season*Cow withi
Duplicate Analys
8 389.75 8 495.25
8 391.50 8 376.88
8 425.25 8 379.13
8 402.50 8 372.50
i
Analysis of Variance
Sum of
d.f. Squares F p
1 0.000 0.024 0.8776
3 0.178 3.367 0.4116
6 0.565 5.339 0.0025
3 0.297 5.615 0.0068
n farm 18 0.318
is error 32 0.588
                                69

-------
Table 36.  Summary of Data and Analysis of Variance for Cadmium
           in Milk
                   Test Farm
Control  Farm
No. of ^ Mean No. of Mean
Season Samples (ug/100 ml) Samples** (ug/100 ml)
Fall 3 .30 4
Winter 6 .42 4
Spring 2 .30 1
Summer 1 .20 5
.43
.40
.30
.34
Analysis of Variance
Sum of
Source d.f. Squares F
Farm 1 0.036 0.180
Season 3 0.973 1.607
Cow within farm 6 1.068 0.882
Farm*Season 3 0.602 0.994
Season*Cow within farm 18 3.632
Duplicate analysis error 32 2.093
P
0.6764
0.2228
0.5278
0.4181

*x
**
  Samples below lower detectable limit excluded;  analysis  of
  variance based on maximum values  (i.e.  0.2  ug/100 ml)  for
  sample tests that were below lower detectable  limits.
                               70

-------
Table 37.
Summary of Data and Analysis of Variance for Copper
in Milk
                   Test Farm
                                Control  Farm
Season
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
No. of ^
Samples
4
3
8
1
Mean
(ug/100 ml)
13.50
6.43
8.48
9.00
No. of ;
Samples
5
6
8
4
Mean
(ug/100 ml)
8.66
10.07
10.28
11.50
                      Analysis of Variance
Source
Farm
Season
Cow within farm
Farm*Season
Season*Cow within farm
Duplicate analysis error
d.f.
1
3
6
3
18
32
Sum of
Squares
0.
0.
1.
0.
1.
1.
196
204
588
578
539
177
2
0
3
2


F
.296
.795
.096
.253



0.
0.
0.
0.


P
1470
5127
0291
1171


**
  Samples below lower detectable limit excluded;   analysis  of
  variance based on maximum values (i.e.  7.0  ug/100 ml)  for
  sample tests that were below lower detectable  limits.
                               71

-------
Table 38.
Summary of Data and Analysis  of Variance for Lead
in Milk
                   Test Farm
                                Control  Farm
Season
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
No. of +J
Samples
4
8
8
7
t Mean
(ug/100 ml)
3.50
20.25
25.00
5.71
No. of **
Samples
8
8
7
0
Mean
(ug/100 ml)
13.00
8.00
6.86

                      Analysis of Variance
Source
Farm
Season
Cow within farm
Farm*Season
Season*Cow within farm
Duplicate analysis error
d.f.
1
3
6
3
18
32
Sum of
Squares
2.662
22.266
1.492
22.630
4.829
5.028
F
9.924
27.666
0.927
28.118


P
0.0055
0.0000
0.4992
0.0000


**
  Samples below lower detectable limit excluded;  analysis  of
  variance based on maximum values  (i.e.  2.0ug/100  ml)  for
  sample tests that were below lower detectable  limit.
                               72

-------
Table 39.
Summary of Data and Analysis of Variance for Zinc
in Milk
                   Test Farm
                                Control Farm
Season
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer

Source
Farm
Season
Cow within farm
Farm*Season
Season*Cow with
Duplicate analy
No. of Mean No. of
Samples (ug/100 ml) Samples
8 193
8 339
8 275
8 313
Analysis
d.f.
1
3
6
3
in farm 18
sis error 32
.38 8
.25 8
.75 8
.75 8
of Variance
Sum of
Squares
0.843 2
2.577 2
3.150 1
0.753 0
5.354
0.391
Mean
(ug/100 ml)
280.00
345.88
375.88
343.75

F p
.835 0.1095
.889 0.0641
.765 0.1633
.844 0.4877


                               73

-------
   100
o

00
8

v
.0
O.
=*» 40
    20
D
                          D

                          D
                      D  Fall

                      •  Winter

                      O  Spring

                      •  Summer
          20   40
  60   80   100

  jjg Pb/g  Hair
120  140   160
 Figure 2.  Relationship Between Lead Concentrations

           in Blood and Hair of Cows on Test  Farm
                               74

-------
   100
TJ
o
o
CD
    80
E
O   60
O
   40
    20-
D
          D
           •     T
                         T    1
                              D Fall
                              • Winter
                              O Spring
                              • Summer
               10       20       30
                   jjg Pb/IOOml Milk
                                    40
 Figure 3.   Relationship Between Lead  Concentrations
            in  Blood and Milk of Cows  on Test Farm
                                75

-------
H.   Cattle Tissues
        Lead was found in higher concentrations  in  the liver,
    kidney cortex, muscle and bone of the project owned test
    cow than in corresponding tissues of the project owned
    control  cow (Table 40).   Cadmium was also higher in liver
    and especially the kidney cortex of the test cow than  the
    control  cow.  Zinc was higher in liver and bone of the  control
    cow than in the liver and bone of the test cow, and copper
    was higher in all  tissues tested from the control  cow.   There
    were no  large differences between levels of  each of the 4
    metals in the muscle samples from the test and  control  cows.
    The highest concentration of Cd was in the kidney  cortex;
    copper was highest in liver; and Pb and Zn were highest  in
    blood.  The test cow had approximately 17 times higher  level
   • of Pb in her liver than  the control cow and  almost 16  times
    more Pb  in her kidney cortex than the control  cow.
I.   Human Consumption  of Meat and Milk from Cows Exposed to
    Production Sources of Heavy Metals
        None of the cows, on either the test or  control farms
    became ill, so they represent heavy metal exposed  cattle
    that would pass routine  inspection and enter meat  and  milk
    supplies.  Schroeder and Tipton estimated that  the lead
    intake averages 100-500  ug/day, assuming a person  consumes
    about 2,000 gm of  food and drink per day.    Questions  that
    might be asked are:  Would substitution of meat and milk from
    high metal exposed cows  for "normal" meat and  milk be  harmful
                               76

-------
Table 40.  Results of Cd, Cu, Pb and Zn Analyses  of Tissues
           Collected at End of Study Period from Genetically
           Related Cows on Test and Control Farms

                                                       *
                                     Mean value (ug/gtn)
Element and tissue
Cadmium
Liver
Kidney cortex
**
Muscle
Bone
Copper
Liver
Kidney cortex
**
Muscle
Bone
Lead
Liver
Kidney cortex
**
Muscle
Bone
Zinc
Liver
Kidney cortex
**
Muscle
Bone
Test Cow

0.90
3.70
0.10*
<0.05

7.25
2.75
1.30
0.58

2.35
3.75
0.19
9.00

33.35
17.55
43.50
70.05
Control Cow

0.24
1.40
0.10*
<0.05

60.00
3.90
1.50
0.74

0.14
0.24
0.06
7.1

51.6
19.6
41.9
88.5
  Mean value of 2 duplicate samples
**
  Diaphragm
 *0ne sample below lower detectable limit (0.10 ug/gra)

                               77

-------
to some persons?  If it is harmful, under what circumstances
will  harm result?  Assuming that a growing boy, 8-10 years of
age,  eats 6 oz of meat and drinks 1 qt of milk per day,  the
consumption of meat and milk from the test cow rather than
the control cow would result in an added 123 ug lead per day.
Before this excess dietary lead could result in toxicity, it
would be necessary for a person to have considerable exposure
to other sources and a resultant high body burden.  Other
human health effects of lead such as neurological  changes,
howevdr, may result from chronic exposure to subtoxic doses.
    A comparison of the meat and milk Pb values with those
for garden crops provides some perspective for evaluation of
the dietary implications.  Kehoe et_ al_.  found lead in practi-
cally all food items tested including samples from a primitive
region far from industrial and mining activities.     Leaf and
root vegetables are usually higher than kernel and other
vegetables.   Because of the variety of food items that  make
up the diet, at the present time food items such as vegetables
probably contribute more lead than the meat and milk components.
It is, however, disturbing that currently the lead content of
some food is considerably higher than in the past.
    Even though meat and milk from exposed cattle  may not
presently constitute a general risk for the consumer, reasonable
tolerances would help to both protect the consumer against
extreme situations and provide an incentive for the affected
businesses to end the mounting lead contamination  of the
environment.  For example, the lead concentration  in soil at
                            78

-------
   the 60 ft site increased  219%,  140  ft site  increased  257%
   and 220 ft site increased 284%  during a  9 month  period  on
   the test farm.  The soil  there  already is approximately 10
   times higher in lead than control  farm soil.   Natural  lead
   removal processes  are grossly inadequate to balance  the
   amount of lead being deposited  on  the soil.  The build  up
   of lead has been fairly rapid because the smelter at  Glover
   first started production  in 1968.   Extensive  trucking  of ore
   from the mines in  Clark National  Forest  started  at that
   same time.
       The only restrictions on lead  in foods  in the United
   States are Food and Drug  Administration  tolerances for  fruit,
   contained in regulations  which  were enacted to protect  against
                                                               1 o
   the effects of improper use of  lead arsenate  orchard  sprays.
   These tolerances range from 1 ppm  for citrus  to  7 ppm  for
   apples, apricots and tomatoes.   Great Britain has adopted lead
                                                                 I rt _ O I
   tolerances in foods and Canada  has  proposed similar  standards.
   Their tolerance for lead  in liver  is 2 ppm  and fish  and edible
   bone meal is 10 ppm.  The British  standard  permits up  to 0.2
   ppm in milk.  Under the British and Canadian  standards, both
   the slaughtered test cow's liver  and kidneys  Pb  concentrations
   would have exceeded the tolerance  limit.   One test  cow's milk
In an earlier progress report,  dated September 19,  1972,  it was
stated that all  specimens were  under British  regulations  for beef
products.   Since that time it has  been determined  that the  Lead
in Food Regulations of 1961  established the  limit  of 2.0  ppm in
liver.  The 5.0  ppm limit in the Regulation  apparently applies
to canned  meat products and  meat extracts.
                              79

-------
    sample collected In January and all  4 test cows' milk
    samples collected in April  exceeded  the British milk standard
    of 0.2 ppm.  All of the other samples from the test farm cows,
    the control cows and a cow located on a farm 7.6 miles west
    from Glover on State Highway 72/21 (thus primarily exposed
    to ore spillage instead of smelter sources of heavy  metal
    contamination) were below the British milk standards.
J.  Garden Crops
        A few samples of garden crops raised in the vicinity of
    the test and control farms were also collected (Table 41).
    The test area samples were collected from a farm approximately
    2 miles north of the test farm.  The available gardens did not
    have lettuce or root vegetables so the samples tested were
    green beans, bell peppers and tomatoes.  The levels of Cd,
    Cu, Pb and Zn were generally low and there were no differences
    between the test and control farms.   Other garden samples
    collected in the Glover area have contained higher than normal
    levels of lead.22
K.  Lead Translocation
        The concentrations of lead at each level of the food chain
    were compared to derive some estimates that might be used in
    evaluating the consequences of increased environmental contami-
    nation on the lead levels in meat and milk produced in an area.
    A translocation model was developed  for the components of the
    ecosystem under study, and corresponding lead concentrations
    were abstracted from the data for the test farm (Figure 4) and

                               80

-------
Table 41.  Results of Cadmium (Cd),  Copper (Cu),  Lead  (Pb),  and
           Zinc (Zn) Analyses of Garden Crop Samples  Collected
           in the Vicinity of the Test and Control  Farms,  July  28,
           1972
Location & Item
                                   Element (ug/gm)
Cd
Cu
Pb
Zn
Test Area
     Green Beans     <.5
     Bell Pepper     <.5
     Tomato           .75
Control  Area
     Green Beans     <.5
     Bell Pepper     <.5
     Tomato          <.5
            10.4
            10.3
             9.2

             9.4
            11.5
             5.8
             5.3
            <5.0
             5.0

            <5.0
            <5.0
            <5.0
            33.5
            30.0
            28.2

            40.5
            28.2
            17.0
                                81

-------
the control farm (Figure 5).   The entire study period (i.e.
4 samplings) was used for determining the lead levels in air,
soil, vegetation, and water that would have contributed to the
cows' body burden and the levels measured in hair, blood,
milk, liver, kidney cortex, muscle and bone of the cows slaugh-
tered at the end of the study period.  The 220 ft samples were
used in these calculations because they represented, better
than the 60 ft and 140 ft samples, the overall levels that
would contribute to the cow's body burden.  Additional  samples
of soil and vegetation were collected on both the test and
control farms in October 1971 and July 1972 at 440 ft from
the highway.  These samples,  from near the centers of the fields,
were very close to the 220 ft values thus indicating that the
220 ft site was far enough from the highway to represent the
general level in the pasture.
    From the data presented in Figures 4 and 5, it can be
seen that a difference between dustfall Pb on test and control
farms of approximately 10 fold, corresponded approximately to
3.2 times higher muscle Pb concentration and a 5 times higher
milk Pb concentration for the slaughtered test cow than for
the slaughtered control cow.   A similar relationship was found
when suspended lead values from the air filter data were used.
                                                  o
The mean of the suspended lead values (2.1671 ug/m ) on the
test farm for the sampling periods was approximately 15 times
higher than the mean of the sampling periods on the control
farm (0.1431 ug/m3).
    Soil samples would be more easily obtained than dustfall
                           82

-------
                             AIR
                          DUSTFALL
                        87,70 MG/M2/MO
                        SUSPENDED LEAD
                        2,1671/uG/M3
                             SOIL
                          75,57 /XG/GM
                         VEGETATION
                             ROOTS
                        197,37/iG/GM
                             TOPS
                        509,43 |iG/GM
                        WATER
                     0,012 MG/L
  BLOOD    MILK    HAIR
   30,5    10,0    63,50
/AG/100ML  /XG/100ML /IG/GM
 COW
LIVER
 2,4
/ifi/GM
KIDNEY   MUSCLE
 3,7      0,19
fxG/GM    ftG/GM
BONE
 9,0
   Figure 4.   Test Farm Lead Translocation Model
                               83

-------
                              AIR
                           DUSTFALL
                         8,95 MG/M2/MO
                        SUSPENDED LEAD
                             SOIL
                         14,94/AG/GM
                          VEGETATION
                             ROOTS
                             TOPS
                          10,85jtG/GM
                         WATER
                      0,006 MG/L
  BLOOD    MILK     HAIR
   8,0      2,0     0,55
JAG/100ML  ^U3/100ML  JiG/GM
  COW
LIVER
 0,11
 jiG/GM
KIDNEY    MUSCLE    BONE
 0,21      0,06       3,6
/AG/GM     /AG/GM     ftG/GM
  Figure 5.   Control  Farm  Lead  Translocation Model
                               84

-------
or air filter samples for predicting the muscle and milk lead
levels of cattle grazing on the soil.   The 5 times higher mean
soil Pb concentration for all  samplings on the test farm than
on the control farm corresponded to the previously described
3.2 times higher muscle Pb and 5 times higher milk Pb on the
test farm than on the control  farm.  On an equivalent basis,
the test cow's blood Pb concentration  was 1/246 the test farm
soil concentration and the control  cow's blood Pb concentration
was 1/187 the control farm soil concentration.  This relation-
ship should not, however, be expected  to be the same in other
situations involving markedly  different Pb contamination
sources.  For example, in the  models developed for the test
and control farm, water appeared to have very little contribu-
tion to the cattle's intake of lead.  The pH of the soil, type
of vegetation, use of fertilizers and  lime, rainfall and other
meteorological conditions would also affect the relationships
between air and soil lead levels and the levels found in animal
food products for human consumption produced in a given area.
    On the control farm, there was  a general dilution in the
lead concentrations at each step in transport between soil  and
biological tissues (Figure 4).  The roots had a lower concen-
tration than soil, unwashed vegetation tops lower than roots,
and all body tissues were lower than the tops.  The bone
concentration of lead was higher than  other body tissues sampled
and milk was less than 1/4 the blood lead level.
    On the test farm, a different pattern was observed.  The
                           85

-------
concentration of lead in roots was 2.6 times  higher than
soil, unwashed vegetation tops were 2.6 times higher than
roots, and finally all  body tissues were less than the
tops.  Milk had between 1/3 and 1/4 the concentration of
lead found in the blood.
    The high lead levels for unwashed vegetation on the
test farm obviously reflected the airborne contamination
because the washed vegetation tops were only  84.5% the
level for unwashed vegetation tops (i.e. the  washings con-
tained 79 ug Pb/gm or accounted for 15.5% of  the unwashed
tops value).  The consistent findings in all  seasons of
higher lead concentrations in roots than in soil on the test
farm, but not on the control farm, indicates  that under these
conditions of relatively high levels of contamination, there
was bio-magnification of lead in the roots.  These observations
also lend support to the view that much of the lead in vege-
tation, foliage and roots, enters the plant by foliar
absorption.
    It is commonly thought that in an area of lead contamination,
that horses are more likely to develop lead poisoning than cattle
                            25-27
grazing on the same pasture.       In fact, that relationship
has been observed in the Glover area as documented horse deaths
due to lead poisoning occurred, but no cattle deaths have been
diagnosed as lead poisoning.  It has been suggested that the
grazing habits of the horse may be a reason for the greater
                           86

-------
    apparent susceptibility of the horse,  versus  the  cow,  to lead
              28
    poisoning.     Horses occasionally pull  forage out by the roots
    and eat the roots and attendant soil  along  with  the  forage.
    The data reported here show that the  soil  and root lead  con-
    centrations are much less than unwashed vegetation tops  so
    a horse would have less intake if the  roots substituted  for
    some of the tops in its diet.   Therefore,  it  seems that  the
    basis for observations of horses being  afflicted  more  than
    cattle by lead poisoning in an area  of  contamination is  for
    other reasons than their grazing habits, probably a  lower
    biological  tolerance on the part of  the horse.
L.   Intake and  Assimilation of Lead by Cattle
        Of the  total lead intake,  only a  portion  is  assimilated
    by the body.  Assimilation occurs in  two ways:   absorption
    from the alimentary tract and  absorption from the respiratory
    tract.  Lead transported via these 2  pathways contribute to
    the body burden, and each pathway will  be  considered separately
    to facilitate the determination of the  total  amount  of lead
    assimi la ted.
    1.  Lead intake from the diet
            An  estimate of the daily ration of  a  cow  can be  arrived
        at by knowing its nutritional needs and the  nutritional
        value of the food available to the  cow  for  consumption.   The
        basis used for determining the daily nutritional require-
        ment was megacalories of digestible energy,  which  in turn
        is dependent on body weight, milk  production, butterfat
                               87

-------
content of the milk and period of gestation.   From the
foodstuffs available and their dates of feeding, a ration
was calculated that was adequate in fulfilling the cow's
daily requirement for energy.
    At the test farm, the ration consisted of ground corn
and hay or pasture forage depending on the season of the
year, i.e. hay in the winter and pasture forage the rest
of the year.  At the control farm, the ration was essen-
tially the same except that corn silage was offered along
with hay in the winter.
    During each sampling period, grain and vegetation
samples were collected.  Hay and silage samples were obtained
during the winter and spring sampling.  Laboratory results
were reported as ug/gm; therefore, by knowing the amounts
of grain, hay, silage, or pasture forage the  cow consumes,
it was possible to calculate the total amount of lead
ingested.  The daily intakes of the project owned cows on
the test farm and on the control farm were calculated from
          \                                            pg
the ration and the nutritive requirements of  each cow.
It was estimated that, depending on the season, the test
cow consumed 18-21 kg feed per day and the control cow
consumes 26-32 kg feed per day.  Assuming a cow drinks 29
gallons of water per day, the  intake of lead  from water on
the test farm (0.012 mg/1) and control farm (<0.006 mg/1)
was negligible.  Based upon feed intake, the  test cow was
consuming 8.65 mg Pb per kg of body weight, or 4762.92 mg Pb

-------
    per day, and the control  cow was  consuming  0.78  mg  Pb
    per kg of body weight,  or 430.54  mg  Pb  per  day,  over  the
    entire year.  The specific values for the 4 seasons are
    shown in Table 42.   Based upon  radioisotope studies,  one
    percent of this dietary intake  was assumed  to  be absorbed
    by the body.30
2.   Lead intake from respiration
        An estimate of  the  amount of  lead inhaled  per day  by
    a cow can be computed if  the average concentration  of
    airborne suspended  lead is known.  Determination of sus-
    pended lead was accomplished by continuous  air sampling
    during 4 to 6 weeks of  the 13 weeks  in  a  sampling period.
    Suspended lead in air on  the test farm  remained  relatively
    constant during the fall, spring  and summer months  (Table
    43).  The winter period,  however, had a level  2  times
    greater than the mean value for all  seasons on the  test
    farm.  At the control farm, the level of  suspended  lead
    declined steadily throughout the  year with  the last period
    being less than 50% of  the first  period.  Overall,  the
    test farm had higher suspended  lead  levels  than  the control
    farm with the test/control ratio  for lead being  16.5.  On
    the control farm, lead  concentration in air was  assumed  to
    be stable at the location of air  sampling approximately  400
    meters from the highway and the levels  found in  the first
    4 weeks of each sampling  period.
        Multiplying the lead  concentrations in  ambient  air by
                           89

-------
Table 42.   Dally Dietary Intake and Respiratory Intake of Lead
           by Project Owned Test Cow and Control  Cow by Season
                       Test Cow
Control  Cow
Season
i
Dietary intake
All seasons
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
mg Pb/kg
body wt/day
k
8.65
7.65
10.05
14.13
2.77
mg Pb/day
4762.92
4205.40
5529.28
7772.73
1524.04
mg Pb/kg
body wt/day
0.78
0.88
0.71
0.95
0.59
mg Pb/day
430.54
486.44
388.59
520.11
327.02
Respiratory intake
All seasons
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
0.00057
0.00045
0.00110
0.00036
0.00037
0.3126
0.2464
0.6050
0.1978
0.2011
0.00004
0.00006
0.00004
0.00003
0.00002
0.0207
0.0320
0.0201
0.0179
0.0127
 Assumption:   550 kg body weight


 Assumption:   156.9942 m /day inhaled air
                                90

-------
 Table 43.  Comparison of Suspended  Cd,  Cu, Pb and Zn on Test and
            Control  Farms
       **
                    Test Farm (ug/m )
                                               Control Farm (ug/m )
Season
Cd
All seasons .0259
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
.03
16
.0420
.01
.01
37
30
Cu
.0282
.0278
.0404
.0274
.0147

2
1
3
1
1
Pb
.1474
.5692
.8536
.5507
.3001
Zn'
.5141
.7261
.7601
.1725
.3446
Cd

.0023
.005
.001
.001
.001
1
4
3
5
Cu
.0068
.0057
.0130
.0041
.0028
Pb
.1304
.2037
.1282
.1068
.0804
Zn
.4111
.5754
.8384
.0141
.1127
**
Gelman Glass Fiber filters


Approximately 4 week sampling period for each season; the season total
is a weighted average of the season-specific values.


Values corrected by subtracting blank value from the sample
measurement.
                                 91

-------
the cows'  total respiratory volume in a day (156.9942 m ;
from Brody  ) would result in the amount of lead inhaled
by cows each day.  For the purposes of estimation, it was
assumed that the cow was similar to man with 30% pulmonary
retention of inhaled lead.  The absolute amount of lead
via the respiratory tract was only 0.19% as great as the
amount of dietary assimilation on the test farm and 0.13%
as great as the amount of dietary assimilation on the
control farm.
Total  lead assimilation
    By combining the amount of lead absorption from food
and water and the amount retained from inhaled air, it was
determined that the test cow was assimilating during the
season of highest exposure (spring), approximately 0.14
mg/kg  body weight and the control cow was receiving
approximately 0.01  mg/kg body weight during the same season.
                   25
Hammond and Aronson   have estimated that the minimum
cumulative lethal dose for a cow is 6-7 mg/kg body weight,
            32
and Allcroft   succeeded in producing a chronic syndrome
and death after 33  months of continuous feeding of 5-6 mg
Pb/kg/day to a steer.  The mean seasonal daily intake
calculated in the present study for the test cow (Table 42)
was above these dosages in all of the seasons except summer,
but the cow was never observed to be ill or exhibit signs
of lead toxicity.  This is not necessarily in conflict with
the earlier observations as this cow was 10 years old.
                       92

-------
    The minimum cumulative lethal  dose would  be expected to
    be higher for older cows, as younger animals are usually
    more sensitive to lead.
4.  Relationship between total  lead assimilation and blood lead
        Based upon data collected  by Kehoe,  the relationship
    between total lead assimilated from both  the gastrointestinal
    tract and lungs of man were compared with the subjects
    blood levels.33  Allcroft32 and Allcroft  and Blaxter34 have
    published results of cattle experiments  in which the blood
    lead concentrations were determined for  various amounts
    of lead fed in the ration.   It was assumed in these studies
    that the contribution of lead  in inhaled  air was negligible.
    The present study provided  an  opportunity to examine under
    natural conditions the relationship between total  lead
    absorption in the cow, from both ingested and inhaled lead,
    and the blood lead levels.
        As shown in Figure 6, there is a peak in assimilated
    lead during the spring period  on both farms with the test
    cow being approximately 15  times higher  than the control
    cow.  The blood lead levels also peaked  at this time with
    the level of the cow on the test farm being almost 5 times
    greater than the level of the  cow on the  control farm.
    The milk lead level of the  test cow also  reflected this
    increase of lead intake by  increasing and peaking  during
    this period, although the lead level in  the control cow's
    milk did not peak and continued to decline.  Overall, the
                             93

-------
        mean blood lead value of the cow on the test farm was 3.8
        times greater than the mean blood lead value of the cow on
        the control  farm, and the mean milk lead value of the cow
        on the test farm was 1.6 times greater than the mean milk
        lead value of the cow on the control  farm.
M.  Meteorological Effects and Sources of Contamination on the
    Test Farm
        Mind data were collected at the test farm for a total of
    331  days over a 366 day period.  Mechanical break-down of
    recorder and occasionaly lack of strip-chart paper accounted
    for  35 days for which no data was collected.  The main 3 wind
    directions and their corresponding mean velocities were South
    (26.59%) at 4.4 mph, Southwest (24.17%) at 2.2  mph and North
    (23.87%) at 5.6 mph.
        Tables 44 and 45 contain seasonal data for  suspended Cd
    and  Pb levels in air, vehicular traffic (for the previous year)
    wind direction and wind velocity at the test farm.  It is
    north of the smelter and north of State Highway 72/21 so wind
    direction and velocity would affect in a similar manner the
    recognized sources of heavy metal contamination, namely vehicu-
    lar  emissions, smelter stack emissions (the stack is 610 ft
    tall), ore truck spillage, and dust from stockpiled ore on the
    smelter premises.  Assuming that the seasonal pattern of ve-
    hicular traffic by the farm during the study period was similar
    to the preceding year, there was a negative relationship with
    the  levels of Cd and Pb in the air.  In the winter and spring
                               94

-------
when the suspended Cd and Pb levels were highest in the air,
the traffic was lowest.   Therefore, it appears that the
contribution by vehicular emissions has a minor role in deter-
mining the airborne Cd and Pb levels.   It is not known if the
ore truck traffic corresponds to the total  vehicular traffic
pattern.  The trucking of ore to the smelter operated inde-
pendently of the smelter operating schedule because the ore
was stockpiled to ensure a constant supply when the smelter
sinter and blast furnaces were operating.  Due to the hilly
terrain and adverse driving conditions in the winter, it is
thought that the amount  of trucking was less in the winter than
in other seasons.  A more important factor is wetting the lead
ore loaded onto the trucks to avoid dust and covering of the
two ore hoppers on each  truck to avoid spillage.  It is not
known if these two procedures were performed more diligently
in some seasons than others; however,  the project investigators
have personally seen uncovered ore trucks on State Highway
72/21 during all 4 seasons.
    The smelter is an obvious major source of airborne lead
in the area.  During 1971, the smelter production was erratic
because of a labor strike.  The strike was ended in Feb., 1971
and the numbers of days  that the sinter and blast furnace were
operated during each of  the previously described sampling
periods in this study were consistent.
    The wind, as determined by the weather station maintained
on the test farm, was from a quadrant  (SE,S,SW) that would blow
                           95

-------
the smelter plume and any dust from the property towards the
test farm more of the time during the winter and summer periods
than other periods.   Conversely, the wind was observed to
blow towards the smelter, away from the farm, much of the time
during the fall and  spring study periods.  Therefore, it
appeared that the southerly wind had a major effect, increasing
the levels of suspended Pb and Cd on the test farm.  The wind
velocity had variable effect on the levels of suspended Pb and
Cd.  The hypothesis  that the main source of the contamination
on the test farm is  the smelter stack emissions, is supported
by the 10 fold higher dustfall Pb at the 220 ft site and 13
fold higher airborne suspended Pb on the test farm as compared
with corresponding measurements on the control farm.  It is
unlikely that the main highway sources (engine emissions and ore
spillage) would contribute much to the 220 ft measurements.
Furthermore, the gradient had leveled off at the 220 ft site to
values that were similar to the general levels found near the
center of the field  at the 440 ft collection location.  The
distance between the test farm and the smelter property,
approximately 800 meters or 0.5 mile, would greatly diminish
the amount of surface wind distribution of stockpiled ore to
the test farm during times when the wind was blowing from a
southern quadrant.
    It was difficult to fully evaluate the contribution of
spillage from ore trucks to the levels of lead in the cattle
on the test farm, so another cow from a farm on the north side
                           96

-------
of State Highway 72/21 approximately 7.6 miles west of
Glover was sampled in the fall, spring and summer (Table 46).
The mean concentrations of lead in both blood and milk of the
cow exposed to ore spillage (plus background due primarily to
vehicular emissions but not smelter emissions) were inter-
mediate between that of the cows exposed to multiple sources
on the test farm and cows exposed to only background on the
control farm.  The milk lead mean concentration of the ore
spillage exposed cow (11.8 ug/100 ml) was almost as large
as the milk concentrations of the cows on the test farm.
                           97

-------
Table 44.  Settleable and Suspended Cadmium (Cd) by Season, Vehicular
           Traffic, and Wind Direction and Velocity.
Samples
Measurement per season
Dustfall Cd1
(mg/mz/mo.)
60' 3
140' 3
220' 3
2
Total Suspended Cd
(ug/m3) 3
Vehicular Traffic3
Season
Fall


0.8716*
0.8680
0.5466

0.0316
76077
Winter


1.8316
1.6824
1.4711

0.0420
58706
Spring


0.5954X
0.5589*
0.4825

0.0106
85107
Summer


1.6082
1.3249
1.2407

0.0209
96196
Percent
Mind Direction
Toward Farm (SE,S,SU)
Not Toward Farm
A
Wind Velocity*
0-5 mph
5-10 mph
10-15 mph
100.00
39.58
60.42
100.00
59.30
40.70
100.00
49.45
50.55
100.00
60.44
39.56
Percent
100.00
66.67
29.88
3.45
100.00
51.52
39.39
9.09
100.00
66.67
30.95
2.38
100.00
72.53
26.38
1.09
*0ne sample value was below lower detectable limit; therefore, the value
 presented is based on two samples.

+0ne sample lost during lab preparation; therefore, the value presented
 is based on two samples.

1Fall=Oct.2,1971-Jan.6,1972; Winter=Jan.6,1972-Apr.1,1972; Spring=Apr.1,1972-
 Jul.1,1972; Summer=Jul.1,1972-Oct.1,1972.
2
 Weighted average based on percent of total  collection period that each
 filter was used.  Fall=0ct.3,1971-0ct.30,1971; Winter=Jan.6,1972-Feb.6,1972;
 Spring=Apr.l,1972-Apr.28,1972 and May 5,1972-May 19,1972; Summer=Jul.1,1972-
 Jul.28,1972 and Aug.4,1972-Aug.20,1972.
3
 Factored average traffic volume for 1970-1971 time periods equivalent to
 footnote 1; from Missouri State Highway Commission data.
4
 Average velocity of daily-prevailing-winds.
                                     98

-------
Table 45.  Settleable and Suspended Lead  (Pb)  by  Season, Vehicular
           Traffic, and Wind Direction  and  Velocity.
Measurement
  Samples
per season
                                                    Season
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Dustfall Pb1
       2
  (mg/m /mo.)
      60'
     140'
     220'
                  /
Total Suspended Pb'
     3      85.9698   170.3140
     3     130.4618   130.9470
     3      76.4983   122.9700
                    100.5931   121.9600
                     87.0318    89.0289
                     72.7931    78.4986
(ug/m°)
Vehicular Traffic
Mind Direction
Toward Farm (SE,S,SW)
Not Toward Farm
Wind Velocity4
0-5 mph
5-10 mph
10-15 mph
3 1.5692
76077
100.00
39.58
60.42
100.00
66.67
29.88
3.45
3.8536 1.2599
58706 85107
Percent
100.00 100.00
59.30 49.45
40.70 50.55
Percent
100.00 100.00
51.52 66.67
39.39 30.95
9.09 2.38
1.2810
96196
100.00
60.44
39.56
100.00
72.53
26.38
1.09
Vall-Oct. 2, 1971-Jan.  6, 1972;  Winter=Jan.  6,  1972-Apr.  1,  1972; Spring=
 Apr. 1, 1972-July 1, 1972;  Summer=July 1,  1972-Oct.  1,  1972.
2
 Weighted average based  on percent of total collection period that each
 filter was used.  Fall=0ct.  3,  1971-Oct. 30, 1971; Winter=Jan. 6, 1972-
 Feb. 6, 1972; Spring=Apr. 1, 1972-Apr.  28, 1972;  and May  5,  1972-
 May 19, 1972; Summer=Ju1y 1, 1972-July 28, 1972 and  Aug.  4,  1972-
 Aug. 20, 1972.
3
 Factored average traffic volume  for 1970-1971 time periods equivalent to
 footnote 1; from Missouri State  Highway Commission data.
4
 Average velocity of daily-prevailing-winds.
                                    99

-------
Table  46.  Comparison of Mean Bovine Blood and Milk Lead Values by
           Season and Location of Farm
                  Test Farm
Farm 7.6 Miles
West of Glover
Control Farm
Specimen
and Season
Blood
All seasons
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Milk
All seasons
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
No. of
Samples

32
8
8
8
8

32
8
8
8
8
uq/100 ml

41.8
34.0
46.5
58.8
28.1

13.0
1.8
20.3
25.0
5.0
No. of
samples

4
2
-
1
1

4
2
-
1
1
uq/100 ml

17.5
22.0
-
8.0
18.0

11.8
16.5
-
14.0
<2.0
No. of
Samples

32
8
8
8
8

32
8
8
8
8
uq/100 ml

11.2
18.9
8.8
10.4
6.6

6.8
13.0
8.0
6.0
<2.0
                                    100

-------
          TEST FARM
o
•o
•o
o
m
O_

D>

E
.16




.14




.12-




.10




.08-




,06
                                                      100 _
                                                          E
                                                          O

                                                      80 2
                                                          60
                                                      40
                                                          20
                                                             CQ
       Oct
                  Jan
                                  Apr
Jul
                                •	• Assimilated Pb

                                a	a Blood Pb


                                A- - -A Milk Pb
         CONTROL FARM
O»
jf.
 ,010-




.008-




.006-




.004-




,002-
      0
                                                         25   g

                                                             o
                                                             o

                                                         20
                                                        -15
                                                        -10
                                                        -  5
                                                         •o
                                                         o
                                                         £

                                                         CD
       Oct
                  Jan
                                  Apr
Jul
 Figure  6.   Total  Assimilated Lead, Blood Lead, and

            Milk  Lead  for Project Owned Test Cow and

            Control  Cow

-------
    VI.
REFERENCES

-------
                         VI.   REFERENCES

1.  Committee on Biological  Effects of Atmospheric Pollutants:
    Airborne Lead in Perspective.  National  Academy of Sciences,
    Wash. D.C., 1972.
2.  Kobayashi, J.:  Relation  between the "Itai-Itai"  disease and
    the pollution of river water by cadmium from a mine.   Proc.
    5th International Water Pollution Research Conference, San
    Francisco, July-August,  1970.
3.  Underwood, E.J.:  Trace elements in human and animal  nutrition.
    Academic Press, New York, 1956.
4.  Chow, T.J. and Patterson, C.C.:  The occurrence and signifi-
    cance of lead isotopes in pelagic sediments.  Geochim. Cosmo-
    chim. Acta 26:263-308, 1962.
5.  Missouri Geological Survey and Water Resources:  The  World's
    No. 1 Lead Producer.  Missouri Mineral  News, Rolla, Mo.
    Vol. 11  , No. 3, 1971.
6.  Gibson,  F.W.:  New Buick  lead  smelter incorporates forty years
    of technical advances.  Engineering and Mining Journal,  1968.
7.  Wixson,  B.G., and Bolter, E.:   Evaluations of stream  pollution
    and trace substances in  the new lead belt of Missouri.  Proc.
    5th Annual Conf. on Trace Substances in Environmental  Health,
    University of Missouri,  Columbia, 1972.
8.  Connor,  J.J., Erdman, J.A., Sim, J.D.,  and Ebens, R.J.:   Roadside
    effects  on trace element  content of some rocks, soils  and plants
    of Missouri.  jhi_ Hemphil 1 , D.D. (ed.) Proc.  4th Annual Conf.
    Trace Subst. in Environ.  Health. Univ.  of Missouri, Columbia, Mo.
    1970.
                               103

-------
 9.   Pierce,  J.O.  and  Cholak,  J.:   Lead,  chromium  and molybdenum  by
     atomic absorption.   Arch.  Environ.  Health  13:208-212,  1966.
10.   Analytical  Methods  for  Atomic  Absorption  Spectrophotometry.
     Perkin-Elmer  Corp.,  Norwalk,  Conn.,  1968.
11.   Pickett, E.E.:   Current capabilities  in analysis of  trace
     substances:  flame photometry  and  atomic absorption.  Proc. 1st
     Annual Conf.  Trace  Substances  in  Environmental  Health.  Univ.
     of Missouri,  Columbia,  1967.
12.   Kirtyohann,  S.R.  and Pickett,  E.E.:   Spectral  interferences  in
     atomic absorption Spectrophotometry.  Anal.  Chem.   38:585-587,
     1966.
13.   Mitchell, R.L.  and  Reith,  J.W.S.:   The  lead content  of  pasture
     herbage.  J.  Sci. Food  Agric.  17:437-440,  1966.
14.   Everett, J.C.,  Day,  C.L.  and  Reynolds,  D.:  Comparative survey
     of lead  at selected  sites  in  the  British  Isles  in  relation to
     air pollution.   Food Cosmet.  Toxicol.   5:29-35,  1967.
15.   Nishujama, K. and Nordberg, G.F.:   Adsorption and  elution of
     cadmium  on hair.   Arch. Environ.  Health 25:92-96,  1972.
16.   Shroeder, H.A.  and  Tipton, I.H.:   The  human body burden of lead.
     Arch.  Environ.  Health 17:965-978,  1968.
17.   Kehoe, R.A.,  Thamann, F.  and  Cholak,  J.:   On  the normal  absorp-
     tion and excretion  of lead.   I.   Lead  absorption and excretion
     in primitive  life.   J.  Ind. Hyg.   15:257-272, 1933.
18.   Food and Drug Administration:   Title  21 Food  and Drugs, Section
     120.194.  Code  of Federal  Regulations,  U.S. Govern.  Printing
     Office.
                                104

-------
19.   Ministry of Agriculture,  Fisheries  and  Food  and  Ministry  of
     Health:   The Lead in Food Regulation,  1961.   Food  and  Drugs
     Composition, England and  Wales,  No.  1931.  Her  Majesty's
     Stationery Office,  1961.
20.   Peden,  J.D.:  A survey of the  arsenic,  copper  and  lead
     contents of pigs and other animal  livers.  J.  Assoc. Public
     Analysts 8:14-19, 1970.
21.   Anonymous:  Lead.  Food  Chemical  News   12:12,  Oct.  5,  1970.
22.   Hemphill, D.:   Personal  communication,  Nov.,  1972.
23.   Chamberlain, A.C.:   Interception  and  retention of  radioactive
     aerosols by vegetation.   Atmos.  Environ.   4:57-78,  1970.
24.   Mueller, P.K.  and Stanley, R.L.:   Origin  of  lead  in  surface
     vegetation.  AIHL Report  No. 87.  State  of  Calif  Dept.  of
     Public  Health, Berkeley,  Calif.
25.   Hammond, P.B.  and Aronson, A.L.:   Lead  poisoning  in  cattle
     and horses in  the vicinity of  a  smelter.   Annals  N.Y.  Acad.
     Sci.   Vol. Ill, Art. 2,  pp.  595-611,  1964.
26.   Schmitt, N., Larsen, A.A., McCausland,  E.D.  and  Seville,  J.M.:
     Lead  poisoning in horses; an environmental health  hazard.
     Arch.  Environ. Health 23:185-195,  1971.
27.   California Air Resources  Board:   A  Joint  Study of  Lead
     Contamination  Relative to Horse  Deaths  in  Southern  Solano
     County.  December, 1972.
28.   Aronson, A.L.:  Lead poisoning  in  cattle  and  horses  following
     long-term exposure  to lead.  Amer.  J.  Vet. Res.   33:627-629, 1972.
29.   National Academy of Science:   Nutrient  Requirements  of Dairy
     Cattle.   National Research Council  Publication No.  1349,  Third
     Revised  Edition, 1966.
                                105

-------
30.  Stanley, R.E.,  Mullen,  A.A.,  and  Bretthauer,  E.W.:   Transfer
     to milk of ingested radiolead.   Health  Physics  21:211-215,  1971
31.  Brody, W.:  Bioenergetics  and Growth.   Missouri  Agriculture
     Experiment Station Publication,  1944.
32.  Allcroft,  R.:   Lead as  a  nutritional  hazard  to  farm  livestock.
     IV.  Distribution of lead  in  the  tissues  of  bovines  after
     ingestion  of various lead  compounds.  J.  Comp.  Path.  60:190-
     208, 1950.
33.  Kehoe, R.A.:  The metabolism  of  lead  in man  in  health and
     disease.  The  Harben Lectures,  1960.  J. Roy.  Inst. Public
     Health Hyg.  24:1-81, 101-120, 129-143,  177-203,  1961.
34.  Allcroft R.  and Blaxter,  K.L.:   Lead  as a  nutritional  hazard  to
     farm livestock.  V.  The  toxicity of  lead  to  cattle  and  sheep
     and an evaluation of the  lead hazard  under farm  conditions.
     J. Comp. Path.   60:209-218, 1950.
                                106

-------
     VII.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

-------
                  VII.  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

    The project investigators wish to thank Dr.  Arthur A.
Case, School of Veterinary Medicine and Dr. Delbert D.
Hemphill, Program Director of the Environmental  Trace
Substances Center, University of Missouri, Columbia, for
many helpful suggestions in conducting this research, and
Dr. David Hutcheson, Sinclair Comparative Medicine Research
Farm for performing nutritive analyses of the cattle
rations.  The assistance and cooperation of the  staffs of
the Missouri Air Conservation Commission, the Missouri
Division of Health, the lead industries, and the University
of Missouri Cooperative Extension Service are gratefully
acknowledged.  Appreciation is also extended to  those
persons who allowed the use of their land and livestock for
sample collection.

-------
    VIII.
APPENDIX TABLES

-------
Table 1.  Results of Cadmium (Cd), Copper (Cu),  Lead (Pb),  and Zinc (Zn)
          Analyses of Samples Collected on Test Farm near  Glover, Missouri
          During October 2, 1971 - January 6, 1972.
Type of Animal
Sample ID No.
2
Blood 1
Blood 2
Blood 3
Blood 4
Milk2 1
Milk 2
Milk 3
Milk 4
Hair3 1
Hair 2
Hair 3
Hair 4
Soil 60 ft.3
Soil 140 ft.
Soil 220 ft.
Roots 60 ft.3
Roots 140 ft.
Roots 220 ft.
3
Vegetation, unwashed
60 ft.
140 ft.
220 ft.
3
Vegetation, washed
60 ft.
140 ft.
220 ft.
Dustfall 60 ft.4 '
Dustfall 140 ft.
Dustfall 220 ft.
No. of
Samples

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3


3
3
3


3
3
3
3
3
3
Mean Value
Cd

1.60
1.50
2.00
1.85
.30*
**
.40*
.20*
1.20
.90
.95
2.10
.58
.53
.56
1.66
1.06
1.90

4.
4.18*
4.40*
2.96


2.93
2.37
2.30
.8716+
.8680
.5466
Cu

74.50
94.00
89.00
86.00
12.00
**
15.00
**
9.10
8.45
8.60
6.90
10.13
9.63
9.80
23.00
23.00
19.67


14.01
11.50
11.98


12.13
10.23
11.03
1.8703
2.8291
1.9466
Pb

35.50
33.50
27.50
39.50
2.50
**
4.50
**
160.00
83.00
83.00
50.50
71.67
43.00
41.33
211.33
115.00
298.33


396.00
296.00
286.00


304.00
251.33
247.33
86.0115
130.4618
76.5575
Zn

408.50
435.00
389.00
326.50
290.50
67.00
324.00
92.00
118.50
126.50
86.00
87.00
26.67
22.00
23.67
105.33
60.67
73.67


66.13
59.40
55.07


58.33
55.00
52.00
1.3546
1.1621
1.8268
 Calculated on a dry weight basis, except for blood and milk values which are
 on a wet weight basis.
 Mean value of blood and milk samples as ug/100 ml; Oct. 2,  1971.
 Mean value of hair, soil, root and vegetation samples as ug/g;  Oct. 2«-9, 1971.
4                  2
 Mean value as mg/m /mo; Oct. 2, 1971 - Jan.  6, 1972.
*0ne sample value was below lower detectable  limit; therefore,  the value
 presented is based on one sample.
**All sample values were below lower detectable limits.
 One sample value was below lower detectable  limit; therefore,  the value
 presented is based on two samples.
 Two sample values were below lower detectable limit;  therefore, the value
 presented is based on one sample.
                                      no

-------
Table 2.  Results of Cadmium  (Cd), Copper  (Cu), Lead (Pb), and Zinc  (Zn)
          Analyses of Samples Collected on Control Farm near Ellington,
          Missouri, During October 2, 1971 - January 4, 1972.
Type of Animal
Sample ID No.
Blood2 1
Blood 2
Blood 3
Blood 4
2
Milk 1
Milk 2
Milk 3
Milk 4
3
Hair 1
Hair 2
Hair 3
Hair 4
Soil 60 ft.3
Soil 140 ft.
Soil 220 ft.
Roots 60 ft.
Roots 140 ft.
Roots 220 ft.
3
Vegetation, unwashed
60 ft.
140 ft.
220 ft.
3
Vegetation, washed
60 ft.
140 ft.
220 ft.
Dustfall 60 ft.4
Dustfall 140 ft.
Dustfall 220 ft.
No. of
Samples
2
2
2
2

2
2
2
2

2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3


3
3
3


3
3
3
3
3
3
Mean value
Cd
.95
4.40
1.15
2.15

**
.30*
.60
.20*

.06
.05
.06
.07
.41
.42
.38
1.22+
.79
.86


**
**
1.07+


.76
.93
.69
.0356*
.3052
.2492
Cu
89.50
94.50
107.00
98.00

9.00
10.00*
7.65
**

7.45
6.50
7.65
7.40
5.43
6.77
4.80
10.63
11.67
11.67


8.95
13.37
10.06


7.97
10.47
7.73
.2373
1.3090
.7342
Pb
17.50
14.00
22.50
21.50

12.50
16.00
9.50
14.00

2.85
1.55
2.40
1.95
13.67
13.00
12.33
15.33
8.20
14.67


21.47
24.97
15.10


17.57
11.70
10.30
1.6204
46.3752
29.7586
Zn
520.00
456.00
481.50
523.50

451.00
205.50
281.50
182.00

90.50
94.00
98.00
92.50
49.67
25.00
17.00
259.33
36.33
78.00


337.37
70.23
65.27


309.33
62.33
52.33
1.5871
2.7328
1.1310
 Calculated on a dry weight basis, except for blood and milk values which are
 on a wet weight basis.
2
 Mean value of all blood and milk samples in ug/100 ml; Oct. 2,  1971.

 Mean value of hair, soil, root and vegetation samples as ug/g;  Oct. 2-3, 1971.
4                  2
 Mean value as mg/m /mo; Oct. 2, 1971 - Jan. 4,  1972.

*0ne sample value was below lower detectable limit; therefore, the value
 presented is based on one sample.

**A11 sample values were below lower detectable  limits.
 One sample value was below lower detectable limit; therefore, the value
 presented is based on two samples.

 Two sample values were below lower detectable limit; therefore, the value
 presented is based on one sample.
                                      Ill

-------
Table 3.  Results of Cadmium (Cd),  Copper (Cu),  Lead (Pb),  and Zinc (Zn)
          Analyses of Samples Collected on Test Farm near Glover,  Missouri,
          During January 6 - March 31, 1972.
Type of Animal
Sample ID No.
Blood2
Blood
Blood
Blood
Milk2
Milk
Milk
Milk
Hair
Hair
Hair
Hair
Soil 60 ft.3
Soil 140 ft.
Soil 220 ft.
Roots 60 ft.
Roots 140 ft
Roots 220 ft
Vegetation,
60 ft.

140 ft.
220 ft.
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4



3
•
•
unwashed




No. of
Samples
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3

3

3
3
Mean Value
Cd








1
1
2
1
1


3
2
2

9

8
6
.40*
.40*
.35
.40
.30
.50
.50*
.40*
.55
.10
.35
.95
.06
.79
.88
.90
.67
.83
+
•72I
4>
.41
.72
Cu
92.
100.
112.
84.
**
**
**
8.
7.
7.
8.
7.
14.
10.
10.
32.
34.
34.

23.

19.
16.
00
00
50
00



90*
25
85
65
30
67
50
87
90
47
27

97

03
00
Pb
56.00
47.
38.
44.
20.
30.
16.
14.
87.
61.
98.
103.
122.
49.
61.
374.
196.
145.

1081.

1012.
845.
50
00
50
00
50
50
00
00
50
50
00
33
73
43
67
00
33

00

33
00
440
361
406
358
331
423
265
337
195
128
109
107
39
22
28
151
84
66

885

58
99
Zn
.50
.50
.00
.00
.50
.00
.00
.50
.00
.00
.50
.00
.20
.60
.93
.33
.67
.33

.33

.37
.63
Vegetation, washed
60 ft.
140 ft.
220 ft.
Dustfall 60
Dustfall 140
Dustfall 220



ft.4
ft.
ft.
3
3
3
3
3
3
7
7
5
1
1
1
.30
.97
.68
.8316
.6824
.4711
15.
15.
12.
3.
2.
2.
33
70
87
3897
5775
2957
756.
860.
698.
170.
130.
122.
67
00
33
3140
9470
9700
48
47
89
18
13
11
.97
.13
.00
.2331
.1568
.8101
 Calculated on a dry weight basis, except for blood and milk values which are
 on a wet weight basis.

 Mean value of all blood and milk samples in ug/100 ml; Jan. 6,  1972

 Mean value of hair, soil, root and vegetation samples as ug/g;  Jan. 6,  1972.
4                  2
 Mean value as mg/m /mo; Jan. 6 - March 31, 1972.
*0ne sample value was below lower detectable limit; therefore,  the value
 presented is based on one sample.
**A11 sample values were below lower detectable limits.

 One sample value was below lower detectable limit; therefore,  the value
 presented is based on two samples.
                                      112

-------
Table 4.  Results of Cadmium (Cd), Copper (Cu), Lead (Pb),  and Zinc (Zn)
          Analyses of Samples Collected on Control Farm near Ellington,
          Missouri, During January 5 - April 2, 1972.
Type of Animal
Sample ID No.
Blood2 1
Blood 2
Blood 3
Blood 4
Milk2 1
Milk 2
Milk 3
Milk 4
Hair3 1
Hair 2
Hair 3
Hair 4
Soil 60 ft.3
Soil 140 ft.
Soil 220 ft.
Roots 60 ft.3
Roots 140 ft.
Roots 220 ft.
3
Vegetation, unwashed
60 ft.
140 ft.
220 ft.
3
Vegetation, washed
60 ft.
140 ft.
220 ft.
Dustfall 60 ft.4
Dustfall 140 ft.
Dustfall 220 ft.
No. of
Samples
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3


3
3
3


3
3
3
3
3
3
Mean Value
Cd
.35
.30*
**
.50*
.55
**
**
.25
.18
.06
.08
.19
.66
.60
.55
.55
.70
.68


**
**
**

i
.90T
**
.55*
.0386*
**
**
Cu
109.00
102.00
121.00
112.00
11.90
7.70
10.60
**
9.70
6.70
7.55
7.40
6.83
8.87
7.03
18.13
20.97
22.97


9.20
10.03
9.03


6.07
7.07
5.60
.1682
.3111
.1156
Pb
13.50
6.00
8.00
7.50
8.50
15.00
5.00
3.50
3.95
1.02
2.70
8.00
15.47
15.23
14.70
9.50
6.80
9.27


**
132.00*
**


21.23
22.67
14.17
2.7708
1.6883
1.9713
Zn
346.50
430.50
325.50
405.00
484.00
178.50
357.00
364.00
115.50
111.00
117.00
120.00
23.47
23.43
19.57
41.53
46.93
48.20


108.07
73.73
53.40


56.33
49.13
38.83
1.6625
1.0660
1.1115
1 . . £ 1_1 J J •-,, , V V
 Calculated on a dry weight basis, except for blood and milk values which are
 on a wet weight basis.
 Mean value of all blood and milk samples in ug/100 ml; Jan. 5,  1972.
 Mean value of hair, soil, root and vegetation samples as ug/g;  Jan 5.  1972.
4                  2
 Mean value as mg/m /mo; Jan. 4 - April 2, 1972.
*One sample value was below lower detectable limit; therefore,  the value
 presented is based on one sample.
**A11 sample values were below lower detectable limits.
 One sample value was below lower detectable limit; therefore,  the value
 presented is based on two samples.
 Two sample values were below lower detectable limit;  therefore, the value
 presented is based on one sample.
                                      113

-------
Table 5.  Results of Cadmium (Cd),  Copper (Cu),  Lead (Pb),  and Zinc (Zn)
          Analyses of Samples Collected on Test Farm near Glover,  Missouri,
          During April 1 - July 1,  1972.
Type of Animal
Sample ID No.
Blood2
Blood
Blood
Blood
Milk2
Milk
Milk
Milk
Hair
Hair
Hair
Hair
Soil 60 ft.3
Soil 140 ft.
Soil 220 ft.
Roots 60 ft.
Roots 140 ft
Roots 220 ft

Vegetation,
60 ft.
140 ft.
220 ft.
Vegetation,
60 ft.
140 ft.
220 ft.
Dustfall 60
Dustfall 140
Dustfall 220
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4



3
.
•
3
unwashed



washed



ft.4
ft.
ft.
No. of
Samples
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3


3
3
3

3
3
3
3
3
3
Mean Value
Cd
**
•
.
•
**
**
•
•
2.
2.
4.
2.

•
.
2.
3.
2.


**
8.
10.

7.
6.
7.

•
•

50
60
70


30*
30*
00
00
50
70
65
63
83
53
60
47



n
55+

33
57
97
5954
5589
4825
Cu
64
64
72
52
8
7
9
7
6
7
8
5
14
13
.25
.25
.50
.90
.90
.90
.40
.70
.20
.50
.45
.60
.57
.23
10.47
22
27
22


21
18
16

16
17
14
2
2
1
.67
.50
.33

+
.35
.37
.10

.50
.00
.83
.4622
.2803
.9644
1

Pb
46
87
43
59
20
20
24
35
84
93
143
66
99
84
82
343
293
290


851
807
810

696
718
720
100
84
72
.00
.00
.00
.00
.50
.50
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.67
.20
.33
.67
.00


.23
.07
.73

.67
.33
.00
.5931
.0318
.7931
428
525
394
353
323
341
134
304
145
133
126
117
41

Zn
.50
.00
.00
.50
.00
.50
.00
.50
.00
.50
.00
.50
.23
30.67
27
86
94
72


103
104
100

84
88
84
.57
.83
.17
.33


.23
.60
.80

.33
.00
.67
12.9044
14
10
.0149
.7524

 Calculated on a dry weight basis,  except for blood and milk values which are
 on a wet weight basis.
 Mean value of all blood and milk samples in ug/100 ml; Apr. 1,  1972.
 Mean value of hair, soil, root and vegetation samples as ug/g;  Apr.  1,  1972.
4                  2
 Mean value as mg/m /mo; April 1 -  July 1,  1972.
*0ne sample value was below lower detectable limit; therefore,  the value
 presented is based on one sample.
**A11 sample values were below lower detectable limits.
 One sample value was below lower detectable limit; therefore,  the value
 presented is based on two samples.
                                      114

-------
Table 6.  Results of Cadmium (Cd),  Copper (Cu),  Lead (Pb),  and Zinc (Zn)
          Analyses of Samples Collected on Control Farm near Ellington,
          Missouri, During April 2  - June 30,  1972.
Type Animal
Sample ID No.
Blood2
Blood
Blood
Blood
Milk2
Milk
Milk
Milk
Hair3
Hair
Hair
Hair
Soil 60 ft.3
Soil 140 ft.
Soil 220 ft.

Roots 60 ft.
Roots 140 ft
Roots 220 ft
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4



3

.
.
No. of
Samples
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3

3
3
3
Mean Value
Cd
.35
1.25
.80*
.80*
.30*
**
**
**
.04
.05
.07
.06
.57*
**
**

.71
.68
.70
Cu
96
103
128
111
10
5
16
8
7
5
6
7
7
8
7

16
15
15
Vegetation, unwashed
60 ft.
140 ft.
220 ft.



3
3
3
**
**
**
7
7
7
.25
.75
.00
.00
.65
.95
.35
.15
.55
.80
.50
.40
.33
.67
.47

.33
.00
.80
i
.06*
•35I
.50*
Pb
9.
9.
10.
13.
7.
4.
7.
9.
2.
2.
00
00
oo'
50
00*
00
50
00
80
00
1.85
1.
19.
19.
18.

17.
28.
20.

59.
**
**
85
20
10
30

67
50
83

30*


Zn
328
431
313
444
470
245
374
414
115
96
100
95
21
22
27

41
34
39

.00
.50
.00
.00
.50
.00
.00
.00
.00
.50
.75
.25
.57
.43
.67

.00
.33
.17

36.77
30
30
.30
.10
Vegetation, washed
60 ft.
140 ft.
220 ft.
Dustfall 60
Dustfall 140
Dustfall 220



ft.4
ft.
ft.
3
3
3
3
3
3
**
**
**
.0594
.0483
.0507
5
6
6



.67
.33
.17
.3464
.3958
.2573
20.
27.
25.
4.
2.
2.
67
33
50
1959
1256
3355
30
24
24
2
2
1
.33
.50
.83
.1217
.0267
.3973
 Calculated on a dry weight basis, except for blood and milk values which are
 on a wet weight basis.
2
 Mean value of all blood and milk samples in ug/100 ml; Apr. 2,  1972.
 Mean value of hair, soil, root and vegetation samples as ug/g;  Apr. 2,  1972.
4                  2
 Mean value as mg/m /mo; April 2 - June 30,  1972.
*0ne sample value was below lower detectable limit; therefore,  the value
 presented is based on one sample.
**A11 sample values were below lower detectable limits.
+One sample value was below lower detectable limit; therefore,  the value
 presented is based on two samples.

 Two sample values were below lower detectable limit;  therefore, the value
 presented is based on one sample.
                                      115

-------
Table 7.  Results of Cadmium (Cd),  Copper (Cu),  Lead (Pb),  and Zinc (Zn)
          Analyses of Samples Collected on Test Farm near  Glover, Missouri,
          July 1 - October 1, 1972
Type of Animal
Sample ID No.
Blood2 1
Blood 2
Blood 3
Blood 4
Milk2 1
Milk 2
Milk 3
Milk 4
Hair 1
Hair 2
Hair 3
Hair 4
Soil 60 ft.3
Soil 140 ft.
Soil 220 ft.
Roots 60 ft.
Roots 140 ft.
Roots 220 ft.
3
Vegetation, unwashed
60 ft.
140 ft.
220 ft.
3
Vegetation, washed
60 ft.
140 ft.
220 ft.
Dustfall 60 ft.4
Dustfall 140 ft.
Dustfall 220 ft.
No. of
Samples
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3


3
3
3


3
3
3
3
3
3
Mean Value
Cd
1.85
.30*
.30
.35
**
**
**
.20*
.47
.84
.58
.79
.89
.73
.87
1.77
1.87
1.17


1.03
.65*
1.34


1.03
.65*
1.34
1.6082
1.3249
1.2407
Cu
73.00
86.00
67.50
78.00
9.00*
**
**
**
6.10
9.30
8.15
8.40
13.80
11.53
11.43
22.73
17.00
12.73


7.27
6.40
5.70


5.93
+
5.90
4.37
2.3932
1.8572
1.6542
Pb
33.50
30.50
30.50
18.00
3.50
3.00
20.00*
3.50
53.00
69.00
63.50
78.50
157.17
110.33
117.33
242.50
98.00
55.83


130.97
132.20
95.97


93.27
+
113.25
64.67
121.9600
89.0289
78.4986
Zn
425.00
455.00
420.00
310.00
390.00
335.00
230.00
300.00
102.75
93.35
84.10
93.00
42.17
27.13
30.43
105.00
35.17
33.50


47.73
32.60
26.83


37.70
29.50
20.93
19.9501
15.2785
13.5171
1 .
 Calculated on a dry weight basis,  except for blood and milk values which are
 on a wet weight basis.
2
 Mean value of all blood and milk samples in ug/100 ml; July 1,  1972.

 Mean value of hair, soil,  root and vegetation samples as ug/g;  July 1,  1972.
4                  2
 Mean value as mg/m /mo; July 1 - Oct.  1, 1972.

*0ne sample value was below lower detectable limit; therefore,  the value
 presented is based on one  sample.

**A11 sample values were below lower detectable limits.

 One sample value was below lower detectable limit; therefore,  the value
 presented is based on two  samples.

 Two sample values were below lower detectable limit;  therefore,  the value
 presented is based on one  sample.
                                      116

-------
Table 8.  Results of Cadmium (Cd), Copper (Cu), Lead (Pb),  and Zinc (Zn)
          Analyses of Samples Collected on Control Farm near Ellington,
          Missouri, July 1 - September 30, 1972.
Type of Animal
Sample ID No.
Blood2 1
Blood 2
Blood 3
Blood 4
2
Milk 1
Milk 2
Milk 3
Milk 4
Hair3 1
Hair 2
Hair 3
Hair 4
Soil 60 ft.3
Soil 140 ft.
Soil 220 ft.
Roots 60 ft.
Roots 140 ft.
Roots 220 ft.
3
Vegetation, unwashed
60 ft.
140 ft.
220 ft.
Vegetation, washed
60 ft.
140 ft.
220 ft.
Dustfall 60 ft.4
Dustfall 140 ft.
Dustfall 220 ft.
No. of
Samples
2
2
2
2

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3


3
3
3

3
3
3
3
3
3
Mean Value
Cd
.30
.40*
.35
.40*

.20
**
.50
.30*
.06
.06
.02*
.02
**
.37*
**
.53+
.87
.69


**
.70*
**

**
.70*
**
.0322*
**
**
Cu
72.00
126.00
93.00
101.50

10.50
**
12.50
**
7.75
5.90
7.60
8.40
6.57
7.20
5.73
9.03
12.67
13.17


5.38
4.40
5.50

4.67
4.40
4.87
.2527
.3102
.1915
Pb
6.00
8.00
5.00
7.50

**
**
**
**
1.25
.55
.57
1.15
17.80
15.57
14.43
8.75*
10.73
11.50


-,.vw
5.40
6.60
i
5.00*
5.40
6.60
2.0869
1.3326
1.7423
Zn
380.00
355.00
350.00
405.00

450.00
230.00
335.00
360.00
83.70
78.25
85.70
82.70
17.87
16.57
12.63
84.57
38.00
41.25


37.80
25.73
29.93

31.67
23.67
21.87
1.9414
1.4283
1.2981
 Calculated on a dry weight basis, except for blood and milk values which are
 on a wet weight basis.
2
 Mean value of all blood and milk samples in ug/100 ml; July 1,  1972.

 Mean value of hair, soil, root and vegetation samples as ug/g;  July 1,  1972.
4                  2
 Mean value as mg/m /mo; July 1 - sept. 30, 1972.

*One sample value was below lower detectable limit; therefore,  the value
 presented is based on one sample.

**A11 sample values were below lower detectable limits.

 One sample value was below lower detectable limit; therefore,  the value
 presented is based on two samples.

 Two sample values were below lower detectable limit;  therefore, the value
 presented is based on one sample.
                                      117

-------